Energy Conservation Program: Establishment of New Product Classes for Residential Clothes Washers and Consumer Clothes Dryers; Correction, 4883-4885 [2021-00842]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
support the information provided on
their application if requested by FSA.
■ 8. Amend newly redesignated § 9.203
as follows:
■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(3);
■ b. Add paragraph (a)(4);
■ c. In paragraph (c), remove the words
‘‘producer multiplied’’ and add the
words ‘‘producer, multiplied’’ in their
place;
■ d. Revise paragraph (i)(1);
■ e. In paragraph (i)(2), remove the
words ‘‘sales as’’ and add the words
‘‘sales, without crop insurance
indemnities and NAP and WHIP+
payments, as’’ in their place;
■ f. In the heading of the first column
of Table 2 to paragraph (j), add
‘‘(including crop insurance indemnities
and NAP and WHIP+ payments)’’
immediately after ‘‘2019 Sales range’’;
and
■ g. Add paragraph (l).
The additions and revision read as
follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
§ 9.203
Calculation of payments.
(a) * * *
(3) Under paragraph (a) of this
section, eligible acres include the
producer’s share of the determined
acres, or reported acres if determined
acres are not present, of the crop
planted for the 2020 crop year,
excluding prevented planted and
experimental acres. For producers who
insured acres of the crop under a policy
or plan of insurance under the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–
1524), the yield will be the average of
the producer’s 2020 actual production
history (APH) approved yield from all of
the producer’s insured acres
nationwide. For producers for whom
FSA is unable to obtain a 2020 APH
approved yield, the yield will be:
(i) The 2019 Agriculture Risk
Coverage-County Option (ARC–CO)
benchmark yield if the applicant:
(A) Has coverage for the crop under
an Area Risk Protection Insurance Plan,
Margin Protection Plan, Stacked Income
Protection Plan, Supplemental Coverage
Option, or Whole-Farm Revenue
Protection Plan under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act;
(B) Is a landlord of the applicable
acreage and their share is insured by the
tenant under a policy or plan of
insurance under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act;
(C) Is a tenant of the applicable
acreage and their share is insured by the
landlord under a policy or plan of
insurance under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act; or
(D) Is a joint venture and the crop is
insured by one of the members under a
policy or plan of insurance under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act; or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jan 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
(ii) The 2019 Agriculture Risk
Coverage-County Option (ARC–CO)
benchmark yield multiplied by 85
percent for all other applicants.
(4) ARC–CO yields in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section for producers growing a
crop in multiple counties will be
weighted based on the producer’s crop
acreage physically located in each
county.
*
*
*
*
*
(i)(1) Payments for sales commodities
will be equal to the sum of the results
for the following calculation for each
2019 sales range in Table 2 of paragraph
(j) of this section: The sum of the
amount of the producer’s eligible sales
for the sales commodities in calendar
year 2019 and the producer’s crop
insurance indemnities and NAP and
WHIP+ payments for the sales
commodities for the 2019 crop year
within the specified range, multiplied
by the payment rate for that range in
Table 2 of paragraph (j) of this section.
Eligible sales only includes sales of raw
commodities grown by the producer; the
portion of sales derived from adding
value to the commodity, such as
processing and packaging, and from
sales of products purchased for resale is
not included in the payment calculation
unless determined eligible by the
Secretary.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) For eligible contract producers of
broilers, pullets, layers, chicken eggs,
turkeys, hogs, or pigs, if eligible revenue
for the period from January 1, 2020,
through December 27, 2020, decreased
compared to eligible revenue for the
period from January 1, 2019, through
December 27, 2019, then payments will
be equal to:
(1) Eligible revenue received from
January 1, 2019, through December 27,
2019, minus eligible revenue received
from January 1, 2020, through December
27, 2020; multiplied by
(2) 80 percent.
(3) This calculation is subject to the
availability of funds and will be
factored, if needed.
William Northey,
Under Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2021–01077 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4883
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0001]
RIN 1904–AE86
Energy Conservation Program:
Establishment of New Product Classes
for Residential Clothes Washers and
Consumer Clothes Dryers; Correction
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
On December 16, 2020, the
U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’)
published a final rule establishing
separate product classes for top-loading
consumer clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers that offer cycle
times for a normal cycle of less than 30
minutes, and for front-loading
residential clothes washers that offer
cycle times for a normal cycle of less
than 45 minutes. This correction
responds to specific comments
submitted by the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego
Gas and Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’), and
Southern California Edison (‘‘SCE’’) in
response to DOE’s notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), which were
inadvertently omitted from the final
rule. DOE has considered the comments
and determined that in most instances,
these comments raise issues
substantially similar to those raised by
other commenters that DOE previously
considered and addressed in the final
rule. To the extent these comments raise
issues not explicitly addressed in the
preamble of the final rule, DOE
determined that the comments
submitted by PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE do
not alter any of the conclusions reached
in support of the final rule and would
not have resulted in an outcome
different than as set forth in the final
rule.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective January 15, 2021.
Ms.
Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202) 586–2002. Email:
Kathryn.McIntosh@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
published a final rule in the Federal
Register on December 16, 2020 (the
‘‘December 2020 final rule’’),
establishing separate product classes for
top-loading consumer clothes washers
and consumer clothes dryers that offer
cycle times for a normal cycle of less
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM
19JAR1
4884
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
than 30 minutes, and for front-loading
residential clothes washers that offer
cycle times for a normal cycle of less
than 45 minutes. 85 FR 81359. This
document responds to comments
unintentionally omitted from the final
rule.
Correction
DOE received a submission from the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego Gas and Electric
(‘‘SDG&E’’), and Southern California
Edison (‘‘SCE’’) (collectively referred to
as the ‘‘CA IOUs’’) in response to the
notice of proposed rulemaking to
establish separate product classes for
consumer clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers, 85 FR 49297
(Aug. 13, 2020). Through an
unintentional oversight, DOE did not
make specific reference to the CA IOUs
comments submitted in response to the
notice of proposed rulemaking in the
final rule. DOE considered the
comments and determined that many of
the substantive issues the CA IOUs
comment brought to DOE’s attention
were also raised by the other
commenters and addressed by DOE in
the final rule.
Like other commenters, CA IOUs
opposed the rulemaking and expressed
various arguments regarding DOE’s
determination that cycle time was a
performance related feature under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(‘‘EPCA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), that
justified the creation of the new product
classes. Like other commenters, the CA
IOUs also argued that, if finalized, the
product classes would result in illegal
backsliding of the applicable energy
conservation standards under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1). (No. 0036, pp. 6–8)
Commenters, including the CA IOUs,
stated that the notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), 85 FR 68724
(Oct. 30, 2020), failed to provide
evidence that the current energy and
water conservation standards were
precluding the shorter normal cycle
products from being made available.
(No. 0036, p. 1) Like other commenters,
CA IOUs also noted that DOE’s data
implied that multiple clothes washers
on the market already met the proposed
requirements for the new product
classes while also meeting the current
energy and water conservation
standards. (No. 0036, at p. 3; see also
NEEA, No. 0044, pp. 2–5) Commenters,
including the CA IOUs, also challenged
DOE’s determination regarding the
environmental impact of the new
product classes and urged DOE to
conduct and publicly release the
analysis to confirm that the proposed
product classes should be granted an A5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jan 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
Categorical Exclusion under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(‘‘NEPA’’) of 1969. (No. 0036, p. 11) Like
other commenters, CA IOUs also
opposed establishing the new product
classes without accompanying test
procedures and standards, explaining
that the new product classes introduce
potential market uncertainties and
distortions. They continue that because
cycle time is not a factor recorded in the
current test procedure for either product
and the NOPR lacked reference to
reporting requirements, DOE should
delay finalizing the rule until greater
clarity is provided. (No. 0036, p. 5)
DOE responded to these concerns in
the December 2020 final rule,
concluding that cycle time was a
performance related feature and that the
establishment of the new product
classes would not result in a violation
of EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision,
see 85 FR 81359, 81362–81368, 81368–
81370. DOE maintains that the concerns
raised by commenters regarding the
overall applicability of EPCA’s antibacksliding provision to clothes washers
is too broad and ignores the limitations
that EPCA itself places on the scope of
the anti-backsliding provision, 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1). 85 FR 81369–81370.
DOE responded to those comments
discussing the necessity of the new
product classes in the final rule. 85 FR
81359, 81365–81366. DOE concluded
that even if products with comparable
cycle times were already on the market,
products under the new product classes
would be distinguishable because they
are specifically characterized as offering
short normal cycles and would be
subject to manufacturer testing.
Additionally, DOE stated in the
December 2020 final rule that the
rulemaking, once finalized, would only
establish new product classes, and
would not cause adverse environmental
impacts, therefore, leaving the
rulemaking within the scope of the A5
Categorical Exclusion. 85 FR 81359,
81370.
DOE explained in the final rule that
the product class provision under
EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B), does not
require the Department to
simultaneously establish energy
conservation standards in the same
rulemaking as the determination of a
new product class. The establishment of
a new product class is functionally
equivalent to the finalization of a
coverage determination where a covered
product would then exist without an
applicable standard until the
Department completes a test procedure
rulemaking for that product. 42 U.S.C.
6292(b); 85 FR 81359, 81367.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Here, DOE is not acting inconsistently
with past practices by establishing the
new product classes without
accompanying test procedures or
standards. Commenters can look to the
Department’s 2009 beverage vending
machines energy conservations standard
rulemaking and the 2007 distribution
transformer energy conservation
standards rulemaking as examples of
prior instances where DOE established a
new product class without
simultaneously prescribing an
associated conservation standard. 81 FR
44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009); 72 FR
58190, 58197 (Oct. 12, 2007). See 85 FR
81359, 81367–81368. DOE intends, as
these commenters requested, to conduct
the necessary rulemakings to consider
and evaluate the energy and water
consumption limits for the new product
classes and determine the applicable
standards that provide the maximum
energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
will result in a significant conservation
of energy, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). DOE
will conduct these rulemakings
following EPCA’s requirements and the
procedures set out in the Process Rule,1
which will provide the clarity these
commenters requested regarding the
implementation of this rulemaking. 85
FR 81359, 81368, 81372.
In addition to these shared concerns,
the CA IOUs also raised unique
comments that DOE addresses in the
following paragraphs.
The CA IOUs, in challenging the
validity of the short cycle thresholds,
noted that DOE tested the 14 consumer
clothes dryers for which data was
presented according to the Appendix D2
test procedure, which is the optional
test procedure for those products. The
CA IOUs argued that Appendix D1,
which is available for product
certification, allows for shorter cycle
times while maintaining compliance
with the energy efficiency standard
according to data produced through
DOE-sponsored research at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. To support
their assertion of the unreasonableness
of cycle thresholds proposed, CA IOUs
continued that this research
demonstrated that five products tested
under Appendix D1 already offered a
cycle time of less than 30 minutes (high
temperature setting) while meeting the
1 Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment (‘‘Process Rule’’), 85 FR 8626 (Feb. 14,
2020); Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430—
Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/
Industrial Equipment.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM
19JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
current standard, in addition to the one
product that also had a cycle time of 30
minutes (high temperature setting) and
met the standard when tested under
Appendix D2. The CA IOUs also
conducted independent testing, using
Appendix D1, that showed there were
multiple clothes dryers on the market
offering a 30 minute or less cycle time
(high temperature setting) that also met
the current energy conservation
standard. (No. 0036, pp. 3–4) These
commenters concluded that based on
this data, short cycle time was not a
feature justifying a different a standard
and the proposed product classes were
not warranted for clothes washers and
clothes dryers. (No. 0036, p. 5)
DOE testing presented in the NOPR
was conducted according to the
Appendix D2 methodology because,
unlike Appendix D1, it produces a cycle
time that is representative of an average
use cycle (even though cycle time is not
currently recorded in either test
procedure). The methodology in
Appendix D1 will not allow for the
measurement of a cycle time that is
representative of average use, because
the cycle is interrupted before
completion. While cycle time measured
using Appendix D1 would be shorter
than the cycle time measured under
Appendix D2, DOE maintains that this
is not an accurate representation of how
consumers would use these products.
As DOE explained in the December
2020 final rule, even if clothes washers
and clothes dryers with short normal
cycle times for were available, the
product class provision, 42 U.S.C.
6295(q), would still be appropriately
applied in this rulemaking. While there
are some products on the market that
may complete a cycle within the time
thresholds, DOE is establishing these
short cycle product classes to facilitate
the development of products design to
complete a normal cycle within the
threshold times and be subject to testing
by the manufacturer. DOE notes that the
impact of this rulemaking is to establish
product classes based on short normal
wash or dry cycles, therefore
incentivizing manufacturers to develop
such products that can meet consumer
needs. 85 FR 81359, 81367.
The CA IOUs reliance on the Oak
Ridge study, and the CA IOUs own data,
are also out of place in the context of
this rulemaking because these data were
generated using the test method set forth
in Appendix D1. As DOE explained in
the NOPR, Appendix D1 does not
provide data that can be used to
determine a ‘‘cycle time’’ as experienced
by the consumer. This is because
Appendix D1 requires manually
stopping operation at a specified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jan 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
moisture content, normalizing, and
applying a field use factor, therefore, the
length of time that a clothes dryer is
operated during an Appendix D1 test
does not necessarily correspond to the
length of time that a consumer would
operate the clothes dryers (in contrast to
the calculated energy use, which is
representative of the energy use
experienced by the consumer). 85 FR
49297, 49303. This means that while
testing under Appendix D1 may identify
products on the market that could dry
clothes in 30 minutes, it is not an
accurate representation of how
consumers would use these products
because the cycle is manually stopped
at the target remaining moisture content.
DOE established these short cycle
product classes so that consumers
would have access to products that
accomplish normal washing or drying
within the specified cycle time, not just
in control room settings.
The CA IOUs also present their
review of 111 products in the Consumer
Reports database that showed ‘‘no clear
relationship between normal cycle time
and consumer satisfaction’’ and
requested DOE provide evidence of
consumer demand. (No. 0036, p. 7)
Comments submitted by the
Competitive Enterprise Institute (‘‘CEI’’)
and the 60 Plus Association
demonstrated that consumers want and
desire these faster products. CEI shared
feedback it received from consumers
that expressed a need for faster
appliances and identified growing
consumer dissatisfaction with the
current length of cycles. 85 FR 81359,
81366 referencing No. 0031, pp. 2–3.
The 60 Plus Association submitted
comments, arguing on behalf of its
senior citizen members, that the
rulemaking offers a significant benefit to
individuals looking to make the most of
their time. This commenter noted that
the time saved by utilizing future, short
normal cycle products would make a
noticeable difference in the lives of its
underrepresented members. 85 FR
81363, referencing No. 0043, p. 1.
The CA IOUs also worried that some
manufacturers may easily modify their
current products to meet the
requirements of the new product classes
at the expense of the consumer. (No.
0036, p. 5) While DOE acknowledges
these concerns, DOE has no information
to support the contention, and does not
anticipate that manufacturers would
reengineer products already on the
market in response to this rulemaking.
Further, it remains the consumer’s
choice ultimately to decide which
product on the market that they will
choose to purchase. The creation of the
new product classes does not set a
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4885
mandate that consumers must purchase
products from these product classes.
DOE thanks the CA IOUs for their
comments and directs them to the
responses provided in the December
2020 final rule for the shared issues they
raised. After considering the unique
comments provided by the CA IOUs,
DOE affirms the conclusions reached in
the December 2020 final rule.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on January 11, 2021,
by Daniel R. Simmons, Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 12,
2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–00842 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0008]
RIN 1904–AD29
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Small
Electric Motors
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including small electric motors
(‘‘SEMs’’). EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to
periodically determine whether morestringent standards would be
technologically feasible and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM
19JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4883-4885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00842]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001]
RIN 1904-AE86
Energy Conservation Program: Establishment of New Product Classes
for Residential Clothes Washers and Consumer Clothes Dryers; Correction
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
published a final rule establishing separate product classes for top-
loading consumer clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers that offer
cycle times for a normal cycle of less than 30 minutes, and for front-
loading residential clothes washers that offer cycle times for a normal
cycle of less than 45 minutes. This correction responds to specific
comments submitted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (``PG&E''),
San Diego Gas and Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern California Edison
(``SCE'') in response to DOE's notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR''), which were inadvertently omitted from the final rule. DOE
has considered the comments and determined that in most instances,
these comments raise issues substantially similar to those raised by
other commenters that DOE previously considered and addressed in the
final rule. To the extent these comments raise issues not explicitly
addressed in the preamble of the final rule, DOE determined that the
comments submitted by PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE do not alter any of the
conclusions reached in support of the final rule and would not have
resulted in an outcome different than as set forth in the final rule.
DATES: Effective January 15, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE published a final rule in the Federal
Register on December 16, 2020 (the ``December 2020 final rule''),
establishing separate product classes for top-loading consumer clothes
washers and consumer clothes dryers that offer cycle times for a normal
cycle of less
[[Page 4884]]
than 30 minutes, and for front-loading residential clothes washers that
offer cycle times for a normal cycle of less than 45 minutes. 85 FR
81359. This document responds to comments unintentionally omitted from
the final rule.
Correction
DOE received a submission from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(``PG&E''), San Diego Gas and Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern
California Edison (``SCE'') (collectively referred to as the ``CA
IOUs'') in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking to establish
separate product classes for consumer clothes washers and consumer
clothes dryers, 85 FR 49297 (Aug. 13, 2020). Through an unintentional
oversight, DOE did not make specific reference to the CA IOUs comments
submitted in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking in the final
rule. DOE considered the comments and determined that many of the
substantive issues the CA IOUs comment brought to DOE's attention were
also raised by the other commenters and addressed by DOE in the final
rule.
Like other commenters, CA IOUs opposed the rulemaking and expressed
various arguments regarding DOE's determination that cycle time was a
performance related feature under the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (``EPCA''), 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), that justified the creation of the
new product classes. Like other commenters, the CA IOUs also argued
that, if finalized, the product classes would result in illegal
backsliding of the applicable energy conservation standards under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (No. 0036, pp. 6-8) Commenters, including the CA
IOUs, stated that the notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), 85 FR
68724 (Oct. 30, 2020), failed to provide evidence that the current
energy and water conservation standards were precluding the shorter
normal cycle products from being made available. (No. 0036, p. 1) Like
other commenters, CA IOUs also noted that DOE's data implied that
multiple clothes washers on the market already met the proposed
requirements for the new product classes while also meeting the current
energy and water conservation standards. (No. 0036, at p. 3; see also
NEEA, No. 0044, pp. 2-5) Commenters, including the CA IOUs, also
challenged DOE's determination regarding the environmental impact of
the new product classes and urged DOE to conduct and publicly release
the analysis to confirm that the proposed product classes should be
granted an A5 Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act (``NEPA'') of 1969. (No. 0036, p. 11) Like other commenters,
CA IOUs also opposed establishing the new product classes without
accompanying test procedures and standards, explaining that the new
product classes introduce potential market uncertainties and
distortions. They continue that because cycle time is not a factor
recorded in the current test procedure for either product and the NOPR
lacked reference to reporting requirements, DOE should delay finalizing
the rule until greater clarity is provided. (No. 0036, p. 5)
DOE responded to these concerns in the December 2020 final rule,
concluding that cycle time was a performance related feature and that
the establishment of the new product classes would not result in a
violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision, see 85 FR 81359, 81362-
81368, 81368-81370. DOE maintains that the concerns raised by
commenters regarding the overall applicability of EPCA's anti-
backsliding provision to clothes washers is too broad and ignores the
limitations that EPCA itself places on the scope of the anti-
backsliding provision, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 85 FR 81369-81370.
DOE responded to those comments discussing the necessity of the new
product classes in the final rule. 85 FR 81359, 81365-81366. DOE
concluded that even if products with comparable cycle times were
already on the market, products under the new product classes would be
distinguishable because they are specifically characterized as offering
short normal cycles and would be subject to manufacturer testing.
Additionally, DOE stated in the December 2020 final rule that the
rulemaking, once finalized, would only establish new product classes,
and would not cause adverse environmental impacts, therefore, leaving
the rulemaking within the scope of the A5 Categorical Exclusion. 85 FR
81359, 81370.
DOE explained in the final rule that the product class provision
under EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B), does not require the Department to
simultaneously establish energy conservation standards in the same
rulemaking as the determination of a new product class. The
establishment of a new product class is functionally equivalent to the
finalization of a coverage determination where a covered product would
then exist without an applicable standard until the Department
completes a test procedure rulemaking for that product. 42 U.S.C.
6292(b); 85 FR 81359, 81367.
Here, DOE is not acting inconsistently with past practices by
establishing the new product classes without accompanying test
procedures or standards. Commenters can look to the Department's 2009
beverage vending machines energy conservations standard rulemaking and
the 2007 distribution transformer energy conservation standards
rulemaking as examples of prior instances where DOE established a new
product class without simultaneously prescribing an associated
conservation standard. 81 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009); 72 FR 58190,
58197 (Oct. 12, 2007). See 85 FR 81359, 81367-81368. DOE intends, as
these commenters requested, to conduct the necessary rulemakings to
consider and evaluate the energy and water consumption limits for the
new product classes and determine the applicable standards that provide
the maximum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified, and will result in a significant conservation
of energy, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). DOE will conduct these rulemakings
following EPCA's requirements and the procedures set out in the Process
Rule,\1\ which will provide the clarity these commenters requested
regarding the implementation of this rulemaking. 85 FR 81359, 81368,
81372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy Conservation
Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/
Industrial Equipment (``Process Rule''), 85 FR 8626 (Feb. 14, 2020);
Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430-- Procedures, Interpretations
and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation
Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain
Commercial/Industrial Equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these shared concerns, the CA IOUs also raised
unique comments that DOE addresses in the following paragraphs.
The CA IOUs, in challenging the validity of the short cycle
thresholds, noted that DOE tested the 14 consumer clothes dryers for
which data was presented according to the Appendix D2 test procedure,
which is the optional test procedure for those products. The CA IOUs
argued that Appendix D1, which is available for product certification,
allows for shorter cycle times while maintaining compliance with the
energy efficiency standard according to data produced through DOE-
sponsored research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. To support
their assertion of the unreasonableness of cycle thresholds proposed,
CA IOUs continued that this research demonstrated that five products
tested under Appendix D1 already offered a cycle time of less than 30
minutes (high temperature setting) while meeting the
[[Page 4885]]
current standard, in addition to the one product that also had a cycle
time of 30 minutes (high temperature setting) and met the standard when
tested under Appendix D2. The CA IOUs also conducted independent
testing, using Appendix D1, that showed there were multiple clothes
dryers on the market offering a 30 minute or less cycle time (high
temperature setting) that also met the current energy conservation
standard. (No. 0036, pp. 3-4) These commenters concluded that based on
this data, short cycle time was not a feature justifying a different a
standard and the proposed product classes were not warranted for
clothes washers and clothes dryers. (No. 0036, p. 5)
DOE testing presented in the NOPR was conducted according to the
Appendix D2 methodology because, unlike Appendix D1, it produces a
cycle time that is representative of an average use cycle (even though
cycle time is not currently recorded in either test procedure). The
methodology in Appendix D1 will not allow for the measurement of a
cycle time that is representative of average use, because the cycle is
interrupted before completion. While cycle time measured using Appendix
D1 would be shorter than the cycle time measured under Appendix D2, DOE
maintains that this is not an accurate representation of how consumers
would use these products.
As DOE explained in the December 2020 final rule, even if clothes
washers and clothes dryers with short normal cycle times for were
available, the product class provision, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), would still
be appropriately applied in this rulemaking. While there are some
products on the market that may complete a cycle within the time
thresholds, DOE is establishing these short cycle product classes to
facilitate the development of products design to complete a normal
cycle within the threshold times and be subject to testing by the
manufacturer. DOE notes that the impact of this rulemaking is to
establish product classes based on short normal wash or dry cycles,
therefore incentivizing manufacturers to develop such products that can
meet consumer needs. 85 FR 81359, 81367.
The CA IOUs reliance on the Oak Ridge study, and the CA IOUs own
data, are also out of place in the context of this rulemaking because
these data were generated using the test method set forth in Appendix
D1. As DOE explained in the NOPR, Appendix D1 does not provide data
that can be used to determine a ``cycle time'' as experienced by the
consumer. This is because Appendix D1 requires manually stopping
operation at a specified moisture content, normalizing, and applying a
field use factor, therefore, the length of time that a clothes dryer is
operated during an Appendix D1 test does not necessarily correspond to
the length of time that a consumer would operate the clothes dryers (in
contrast to the calculated energy use, which is representative of the
energy use experienced by the consumer). 85 FR 49297, 49303. This means
that while testing under Appendix D1 may identify products on the
market that could dry clothes in 30 minutes, it is not an accurate
representation of how consumers would use these products because the
cycle is manually stopped at the target remaining moisture content. DOE
established these short cycle product classes so that consumers would
have access to products that accomplish normal washing or drying within
the specified cycle time, not just in control room settings.
The CA IOUs also present their review of 111 products in the
Consumer Reports database that showed ``no clear relationship between
normal cycle time and consumer satisfaction'' and requested DOE provide
evidence of consumer demand. (No. 0036, p. 7) Comments submitted by the
Competitive Enterprise Institute (``CEI'') and the 60 Plus Association
demonstrated that consumers want and desire these faster products. CEI
shared feedback it received from consumers that expressed a need for
faster appliances and identified growing consumer dissatisfaction with
the current length of cycles. 85 FR 81359, 81366 referencing No. 0031,
pp. 2-3. The 60 Plus Association submitted comments, arguing on behalf
of its senior citizen members, that the rulemaking offers a significant
benefit to individuals looking to make the most of their time. This
commenter noted that the time saved by utilizing future, short normal
cycle products would make a noticeable difference in the lives of its
underrepresented members. 85 FR 81363, referencing No. 0043, p. 1.
The CA IOUs also worried that some manufacturers may easily modify
their current products to meet the requirements of the new product
classes at the expense of the consumer. (No. 0036, p. 5) While DOE
acknowledges these concerns, DOE has no information to support the
contention, and does not anticipate that manufacturers would reengineer
products already on the market in response to this rulemaking. Further,
it remains the consumer's choice ultimately to decide which product on
the market that they will choose to purchase. The creation of the new
product classes does not set a mandate that consumers must purchase
products from these product classes.
DOE thanks the CA IOUs for their comments and directs them to the
responses provided in the December 2020 final rule for the shared
issues they raised. After considering the unique comments provided by
the CA IOUs, DOE affirms the conclusions reached in the December 2020
final rule.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 11,
2021, by Daniel R. Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00842 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
