Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment (91 FR 42034)

42034

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE–2025–BT–STD–0001]

RIN 1904–AF72

Energy Conservation Program:

Procedures, Interpretations, and

Policies for Consideration of New or

Revised Energy Conservation

Standards and Test Procedures for

Consumer Products and Certain

Commercial/Industrial Equipment

AGENCY

: Office of Critical Minerals and

Energy Innovation, Department of

Energy.

ACTION

: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and announcement of webinar.

SUMMARY

: The U.S. Department of

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’)

proposes to update the Department’s

current rulemaking methodology titled,

‘‘Procedures, Interpretations, and

Policies for Consideration of New or

Revised Energy Conservation Standards

and Test Procedures for Consumer

Products and Certain Commercial/

Industrial Equipment’’ (‘‘Process Rule’’).

Specifically, DOE proposes to: make

Appendix A binding on DOE for certain

actions; amend objectives and

considerations consistent with recent

Executive orders and Department

policies; add a definition of ‘‘significant

energy savings’’; re-instate the

comparative analysis requirement,

described as a ‘‘walk up’’ approach;

include certain economic thresholds; re-

instate the description of clear and

convincing evidence; and revert to

language from the 2020 Process Rule

text, with minor edits, in several

sections. In addition to requesting

written comments on its proposal, DOE

will also hold a public meeting to

discuss this proposal and obtain

additional input.

DATES

:

Comments: DOE will accept

comments, data, and information

regarding all aspects of this notice of

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) no later

than August 6, 2026.

Meeting: DOE will hold a public

meeting via webinar on Wednesday,

July 15, 2026, from 1 to 4 p.m. ET. See

section VI of this document, ‘‘Public

Participation,’’ for webinar registration

information, participant instructions,

and information about the capabilities

available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES

: Interested persons are

encouraged to submit comments using

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov under docket

number EERE–2025–BT–STD–0001.

Follow the instructions for submitting

comments. Alternatively, interested

persons may submit comments,

identified by docket number EERE–

2025–BT–STD–0001 and/or regulatory

information number (‘‘RIN’’) 1904–

AF72, by any of the following methods:

(1) Email: ProcessRule2025STD0001@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number

EERE–2025–BT–STD–0001 and/or RIN

1904–AF72 in the subject line of the

message. Submit electronic comments

in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF,

or ASCII file format, and avoid the use

of special characters or any form of

encryption.

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and

Equipment Standards Program, U.S.

Department of Energy, Building

Technologies Office, Mailstop CM–5B,

1000 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. If

possible, please submit all items on a

compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is

not necessary to include printed copies.

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.

Department of Energy, Building

Technologies Office, 1000

Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–

1445. If possible, please submit all items

on a CD, in which case it is not

necessary to include printed copies. No

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be

accepted. For detailed instructions on

submitting comments and additional

information on this process, see section

VI (Public Participation) of this

document.

Docket: The docket for this activity,

which includes Federal Register

notices, comments, and other

supporting documents/materials, is

available for review at

www.regulations.gov. All documents in

the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov index. However,

not all documents listed in the index

may be publicly available, such as

information that is exempt from public

disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-

2025-BT-STD-0001. The docket web

page contains instructions on how to

access all documents, including public

comments, in the docket. See section VI

of this document for information on

how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Appliance Standards Program, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Critical

Minerals and Energy Innovation,

Building Technologies Office, CM–5B,

1000 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of the General Counsel,

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC, 20585–0121.

Telephone: (202) 586–4798. Email:

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.

For further information on how to

submit a comment, review other public

comments and the docket, or participate

in the public meeting, contact the

Appliance and Equipment Standards

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. A plain language summary

of the rule is also available on the

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposal

II. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

III. Discussion of General Comments

A. General Support for or Opposition to

Standards

B. General Support for or Opposition to

Changes to the Process Rule

IV. Discussion of Comments and Proposed

Revisions to Individual Sections of the

Process Rule

A. Objectives (Section 1)

B. Scope (Section 2)

C. Application (Section 3)

D. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking

Activity (Section 4)

E. Coverage Determination Rulemakings

(Section 5)

F. Significant Energy Savings

1. Background

2. Proposed Threshold for Significant

Energy Savings

G. Process For Developing Energy

Conservation Standards (Section 6)

1. Early Assessment and Pre-NOPR Stages

2. Comment Periods

3. Factors To Be Considered in Selecting a

Proposed Standard

a. Private Impacts on Consumers

b. Impacts on the Environment

H. Policies on Selection of Standards

(Section 7)

1. Market Competition and Innovational

2. Analytic Approaches To Address

Balancing Factors in EPCA

3. Selection of Standard Level

I. Test Procedures (Section 8)

1. Early Assessment and Pre-NOPR Stage

2. Comment Periods

3. 180-Day Period

4. Industry Standards

5. General

J. ASHRAE Equipment (Section 9)

1. Limited Circumstances and Clear and

Convincing Evidence

2. Timelines and Triggers

K. Direct Final Rules (Section 10) and

Negotiated Rulemaking

L. Principles for Distinguishing Between

Effective and Compliance Dates (Section

11)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:12 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42035

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

M. Other Comments

N. Topics Considered in Other Processes

1. Analytical Methodology

2. Product-Specific Comments

O. Severability

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under Additional Executive

Orders and Presidential Memoranda

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. Review Under the Information Quality

Bulletin for Peer Review

VI. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared

General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Webinar

D. Submission of Comments

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposal

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing

revisions to the Procedures,

Interpretations, and Policies for

Consideration of New or Revised Energy

Conservation Standards and Test

Procedures for Consumer Products and

Certain Commercial/Industrial

Equipment, codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) at 10 CFR

part 430, subpart C, appendix A,

(‘‘Appendix A’’ or the Process Rule),

which DOE generally uses to prescribe

energy conservation standards and test

procedures for both consumer products

and commercial equipment pursuant to

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

of 1975 (EPCA), as amended (42 U.S.C.

6291, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6311, et seq.).

These proposed changes are intended to

provide increased certainty in DOE’s

rulemaking processes for impacted

stakeholders, and to better inform the

Secretary in making his or her

determination under EPCA regarding

both whether to regulate and, when

choosing to regulate, what standard

level to select. In addition, as discussed

further below, the proposed process

changes reflect the best reading of the

statute, consistent with Loper Bright

Enters v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369

(2024), and Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S.

743 (2015).

In this document, DOE proposes to

make appendix A binding on DOE for

certain actions; amend objectives and

considerations consistent with statute

and recent Executive Orders and

Department policies; add a definition of

‘‘significant energy savings’’; re-instate

the comparative analysis requirement,

described as a ‘‘walk up’’ approach;

include certain economic thresholds; re-

instate the description of clear and

convincing evidence; and revert to

language from the 2020 Process Rule

text, with minor edits, in several

sections. These proposed revisions are

summarized in Table I.1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42036

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

In addition, on January 20, 2025, the

President issued Executive Order 14154,

‘‘Unleashing American Energy’’ (E.O.

14154). 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025). That

order stated the policy of the United

States with regard to energy production

and management. Among the stated

elements of this policy, sections 1(f)

through (h) of E.O. 14154 cite the intent

to safeguard the American people’s

freedom to choose from a variety of

goods and appliances, including but not

limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers,

washing machines, gas stoves, water

heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

EP07JY26.148</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42037

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

1

All references to EPCA in this document refer

to the statute as amended through Energy Act of

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

reflects the last statutory amendments that impact

parts A and A–1 of EPCA.

2

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated as Part A.

3

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated as Part A–1.

to promote market competition and

innovation within the manufacturing

and appliance industries; to ensure that

the global effects of a rule, regulation, or

action shall, whenever evaluated, be

reported separately from its domestic

costs and benefits, in order to promote

sound regulatory decision making and

prioritize the interests of the American

people; and to guarantee that all

Executive departments and agencies

(agencies) provide opportunity for

public comment and rigorous, peer-

reviewed scientific analysis. Section 6

of the Executive order also specifies

policies for prioritizing accuracy in

environmental analyses, specifically

instructing that for Federal regulatory

processes, ‘‘all agencies shall adhere to

only the relevant legislated

requirements for environmental

considerations and any considerations

beyond those requirements are

eliminated.’’ Section 6 of the Executive

order also provides instructions

regarding consideration of greenhouse

gas emissions and the ‘‘social cost of

carbon.’’

Consistent with E.O. 14154, the

Department, among other actions, is

evaluating existing policy regarding its

approach for consideration of new or

amended energy conservation standards

and test procedures for consumer

products and certain commercial and

industrial equipment. The Department

has tentatively determined that the

changes proposed herein will provide

certainty in DOE’s rulemaking processes

for impacted stakeholders and will

allow the Secretary to make the best-

informed determinations under EPCA

regarding the regulation of covered

products and equipment.

In addition to the specific issues

discussed in this NOPR, DOE welcomes

comment on all other aspects of the

Process Rule that interested parties

believe could be improved or should be

maintained.

II. Authority and Background

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended

(‘‘EPCA’’),

1

authorizes DOE to regulate

the energy efficiency of a number of

consumer products and certain

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

6317, as codified). Title III, Part B

2

of

EPCA established the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products Other Than Automobiles. (42

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified). Title III,

Part C

3

of EPCA, added by Public Law

95–619, Title IV, section 441(a),

established the Energy Conservation

Program for Certain Industrial

Equipment, which sets forth a variety of

provisions designed to improve energy

efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as

codified). Under EPCA, DOE’s energy

conservation program consists

essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2)

labeling, (3) the establishment of

Federal energy conservation standards,

and (4) certification and enforcement

procedures. Relevant provisions of

EPCA specifically include definitions

(42 U.S.C. 6291; 42 U.S.C. 6311), test

procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C.

6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.

6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy

conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295;

42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to

require information and reports from

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296; 42

U.S.C. 6316).

Subject to certain criteria and

conditions, DOE is required to develop

test procedures to measure the energy

efficiency, energy use, water use (as

applicable), or estimated annual

operating cost of each covered product

and covered equipment during a

representative average use cycle or

period of use, and the statute further

requires that the test procedure not be

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42

U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314).

Manufacturers of covered products must

use the prescribed DOE test procedure

as the basis for certifying to DOE that

their product complies with the

applicable energy conservation

standards and as the basis for any

representations regarding the energy use

or energy efficiency of the product. (42

U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42

U.S.C. 6314(d); and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).

Similarly, DOE must use these test

procedures to determine whether the

products or equipment comply with the

applicable energy conservation

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).

DOE must follow specific statutory

criteria for prescribing new or amended

standards for covered products. EPCA

requires that any new or amended

energy conservation standard for

covered products (and at least certain

types of equipment) must be designed to

achieve the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency that is technologically

feasible and economically justified. (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).

Furthermore, for covered consumer

products and certain covered

equipment, the new or amended

standard must result in a significant

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)). For

other covered equipment subject to

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, the statute

states that if DOE determines that a

standard higher than the ASHRAE level

is appropriate, the Department must

determine that such standard would

result in significant additional

conservation of energy and be supported

by clear and convincing evidence. (42

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)).

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a

standard: (1) for certain products, if no

test procedure has been established for

the product, or (2) if DOE determines by

rule that the standard is not

technologically feasible or economically

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B);

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C); 42 U.S.C.

6316(a)). In determining whether a

proposed standard is economically

justified, DOE must determine whether

the benefits of the standard exceed its

burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i); 42

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii); 42 U.S.C.

6316(a)). DOE must make this

determination after receiving comments

on the proposed standard, and by

considering, to the greatest extent

practicable, the following seven

statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the

standard on the manufacturers and

consumers;

(2) The savings in operating costs,

throughout the estimated average life of

the products (i.e., life-cycle costs),

compared with any increase in the price

of, or in the initial charges for, or

operating and maintaining expenses of,

the products which are likely to result

from the imposition of the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of

energy, or as applicable, water, savings

likely to result directly from the

standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the

performance of the products likely to

result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of

competition, as determined in writing

by the Attorney General, that is likely to

result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and

water conservation; and

(7) Other factors DOE considers

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–

(VII)) Furthermore, the new or amended

standard must result in a significant

conservation of energy (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–

(C); and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) and comply

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42038

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

4

The full text of the current Process Rule is

available at www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-

II/subchapter-D/part-430/subpart-C/appendix-

Appendix%20A%20to%20Subpart

%20C%20of%20Part%20430.

with any other applicable statutory

provisions.

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable

presumption that a standard is

economically justified if the Secretary

finds that the additional cost to the

consumer of purchasing a product

complying with an energy conservation

standard level will be less than three

times the value of the energy savings

during the first year that the consumer

will receive as a result of the standard,

as calculated under the applicable test

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii);

42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).

Additionally, EPCA provides that a

rule prescribing an energy conservation

standard for a type (or class) of covered

products shall 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 the

Secretary determines that covered

products within such group: (A)

consume a different kind of energy from

that consumed by other covered

products within such type (or class); or

(B) have a capacity or other

performance-related feature which other

products within such type (or class) do

not have and such feature justifies a

higher or lower standard from that

which applies (or will apply) to other

products within such type (or class). (42

U.S.C.6295(q)(1)) In making a

determination under this paragraph

concerning whether a performance-

related feature justifies the

establishment of a higher or lower

standard, the Secretary shall consider

such factors as the utility to the

consumer of such a feature, and such

other factors as the Secretary deems

appropriate. (Id.)

In 2020, DOE previously exercised

permissible discretion in amending and

making binding the Department’s

Process Rule. Since then, recent

Supreme Court decisions—notably

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

(603 U.S. 369 (2024))—provide further

guidance on how agencies should

interpret and apply applicable statutes.

The decision in Loper not only bolsters

the discretion exercised by the 2020

final rule but also supports this proposal

as consistent with the ‘‘best read’’ of

EPCA. In addition, other decisions, such

as Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743

(2015), further support DOE’s proposed

application of the balancing factors

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

EPCA expressly requires that DOE

‘‘shall . . . determine whether the

benefits of the standard exceed its

burdens’’ and lists a broad array of

seven balancing factors the Secretary

must consider. Id. The procedures

proposed here, and the proposal to

make them binding on actions that may

result in more stringent standards, will

enhance the Department’s ability to

gather and weigh the relevant evidence

needed to support a reasoned decision

under EPCA’s broad and inherently

consumer-protective balancing factors.

See id. (directing Secretary expressly to

consider, inter alia, the economic

impact on manufacturers and

consumers, the comparative life-time

operating cost savings versus increases

in product purchase and maintenance

costs, and any lessening in utility as a

result of new standards); see also id. 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) (forbidding the

establishment of new standard if it will

not result in ‘‘significant conservation’’

of energy or water); cf. Michigan, 576

U.S. at 752 (noting irrationality of

ignoring costs under even the vague

‘‘appropriate and necessary’’ standard).

B. Background

In July of 1996, DOE published a final

rule in the Federal Register that

codified DOE’s ‘‘Procedures,

Interpretations and Policies for

Consideration of New or Revised Energy

Conservation Standards for Consumer

Products’’ at 10 CFR part 430, subpart

C, appendix A. 61 FR 36974 (July 15,

1996) (‘‘July 1996 Final Rule’’). The goal

of the Process Rule was to increase

transparency by elaborating on the

procedures, interpretations, and policies

that would guide the Department in

establishing new or revised energy

conservation standards for consumer

products.

On February 14, 2020, DOE published

a final rule in the Federal Register

(‘‘February 2020 Final Rule’’) that

significantly revised the Process Rule.

85 FR 8626. This rule made the

specified rulemaking procedures

binding on DOE and revised certain

provisions to ensure consistency with

existing statutory requirements. Other

changes included expanding early

opportunities for public input on the

Appliance Program’s priority setting

and rulemaking activities, setting a

significant energy savings threshold for

updating standards, establishing a 180-

day window between test procedure

final rules and standards proposals,

specifying DOE’s approach to adoption

of industry test standards in its test

procedures, and delineating procedures

for rulemaking under the separate direct

final rule and negotiated rulemaking

authorities. DOE also published a

companion final rule in the Federal

Register on August 19, 2020 (‘‘August

2020 Final Rule’’), that clarified how

DOE would conduct a comparative

analysis across all trial standard levels

when determining whether a particular

trial standard level was economically

justified. 85 FR 50937.

Subsequently, DOE published further

amendments to the Process Rule, some

of which reversed or modified

amendments made in the February 2020

and August 2020 Final Rules. DOE

published the first of these final rules in

the Federal Register on December 13,

2021 (‘‘December 2021 Final Rule’’). 86

FR 70892. DOE published a second final

rule with additional amendments to

certain sections of the Process Rule in

the Federal Register on April 8, 2024

(‘‘April 2024 Final Rule’’). 89 FR 24340.

These amendments, among other things,

reverted the Process Rule back to the

non-binding status of the July 1996

Final Rule to allow DOE to tailor its

rulemaking process to best fit the

unique circumstances of a particular

rulemaking and provide DOE with

flexibility to be able to better meet

statutory review requirements, and

removed the significant energy savings

threshold. 86 FR 70896–70906.

The following paragraphs summarize

the origins and historical amendments

to the individual sections of the Process

Rule.

4

(1) Objectives—This section was

established in the July 1996 Final Rule

and lays out the overall purpose of the

Process Rule and its specific provisions.

The February 2020 Final Rule made

various editorial changes to this section.

(2) Scope—This section was

established in the July 1996 Final Rule

and identifies the types of rulemakings

to which the Process Rule applies. This

section was amended in the February

2020 Final Rule to clarify that the

Process Rule applies to energy

conservation standards and test

procedures for both covered consumer

products and commercial and industrial

equipment.

(3) Application—This section was

added in the February 2020 Final Rule

and specified that the Process Rule

would be binding on DOE. This section

was subsequently amended in the

December 2021 Final Rule to state that

DOE has discretion to depart from the

general guidance in Appendix A when

it deems necessary or appropriate, with

the stipulation that DOE will provide

interested parties with notice of the

deviation and an explanation.

(4) Setting Priorities for Rulemaking

Activity—This section was established

in the July 1996 Final Rule and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42039

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

identifies the factors that DOE applies

when determining its regulatory plans

and formulation of inputs for the

Regulatory Agenda. This section was

amended in the February 2020 Final

Rule to specify that DOE would offer an

opportunity to provide input on

prioritization of rulemakings through a

request for comment as DOE begins

preparation of its Regulatory Agenda

each spring.

(5) Coverage Determination

Rulemakings—This section was

established in the February 2020 Final

Rule and describes the process DOE

would follow to establish coverage for

consumer products and industrial

equipment. Subsequent amendments in

the December 2021 Final Rule and April

2024 Final Rule allow DOE to seek early

stakeholder input through preliminary

rulemaking documents prior to a

proposed coverage determination,

removed a previous requirement that

final coverage determinations be

published prior to the initiation of any

test procedure or energy conservation

standard rulemaking and at least 180

days prior to publication of a test

procedure NOPR, and removed the

previously required 180-day period

between finalization of DOE test

procedures and issuance of a NOPR

proposing new or amended energy

conservation standards.

(6) Process for Developing Energy

Conservation Standards—This section

was established in the July 1996 Final

Rule and describes the process to be

used in developing energy conservation

standards for covered products and

equipment other than those covered

equipment subject to ASHRAE/IES

Standard 90.1. The February 2020 Final

Rule created an ‘‘early assessment’’

process for seeking stakeholder input

prior to commencing a rule and

committed to an initial rulemaking stage

prior to a proposed rule (e.g., a

framework document or preliminary

analysis). This rule also established a

threshold of ‘‘significant energy

savings’’ of 0.3 quads or 10-percent site

savings over 30 years. Subsequent

amendments in the December 2021 and

April 2024 Final Rules removed the

energy savings threshold requirement

and the requirement for a separate early

assessment request for information

(‘‘RFI’’) but clarified that DOE will issue

one or more documents during the pre-

NOPR stage of a rulemaking.

(7) Policies on Selection of

Standards—This section was

established in the July 1996 Final Rule

and describes Department policies

concerning the selection of new or

revised standards. The July 1996 Final

Rule provided that DOE would

implement the statutory mandate that

any new or amended standard is

designed to achieve the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and

economically justified. The February

2020 Final Rule made minor

amendments to align with revisions

elsewhere in in the Process Rule, while

the August 2020 Final Rule added a

clarification that DOE would conduct a

comparative analysis across all trial

standard levels when determining

whether a level was economically

justified. The December 2021 Final Rule

amended this section to remove the

requirement for a comparative analysis.

(8) Test Procedures—This section was

established in the original July 1996

Final Rule and describes the process by

which DOE would establish test

procedures for covered products and

equipment. The February 2020 Final

Rule added an early assessment process

for test procedures and generally

committed that DOE would adopt

consensus industry test procedures

unless not consistent with EPCA.

Consistent with other amendments in

that rule, this section was also amended

to require that DOE finalize a test

procedure 180 days in advance of a

standards proposal. The December 2021

Final Rule clarified that DOE may revise

consensus industry test procedure

standards for compliance, certification,

and enforcement purposes, and revised

application of the 180-day period to

apply to the period between finalization

of a test procedure and close of the

comment period of a standards proposal

(rather than publication of the

proposal).

(9) ASHRAE Equipment—This section

was created by the February 2020 Final

Rule and describes the process DOE will

follow for conducting rulemakings for

equipment subject to the ‘‘ASHRAE

trigger’’ provisions in EPCA that apply

when ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is

amended with respect to standards, test

procedures, or design requirements

applicable to such equipment. The April

2024 Final Rule added provisions to

clarify application of the 6- and 7-year-

lookback provisions for periodic review

of standards and test procedures for

ASHRAE equipment.

(10) Direct Final Rules—This section

was established in the February 2020

Final Rule and describes how DOE

would comply with EPCA requirements

specific to publication of direct final

rules, including the Department’s

interpretation of the term ‘‘fairly

representative of relevant points of

view’’ as it applies to interested

stakeholders. It also stated that a

negotiated rulemaking may not result in

a direct final rule. The December 2021

Final Rule amended this section to

clarify that DOE will implement its

direct final rule authority under EPCA

on a case-by-case basis including its

evaluation of the meaning of ‘‘fairly

representative’’, subject to the

circumstances of a particular

rulemaking. It also removed the

prohibition on a negotiated rulemaking

culminating in a direct final rule.

(11) Principles for Distinguishing

Between Effective and Compliance

Dates—This section was established in

the February 2020 Final Rule and

provides clarification as to the

distinction between the effective and

compliance dates of a final rule. This

section has not been amended since its

original establishment.

(12) Principles for the Conduct of the

Engineering Analysis—This section was

established in the July 1996 Final Rule,

and other than minor editorial changes,

was not substantively amended in

subsequent rulemakings.

(13) Principles for the Analysis of

Impacts on Manufacturers—This

section was established in the July 1996

Final Rule, and other than minor

editorial changes, was not substantively

amended in subsequent rulemakings.

(14) Principles for the Analysis of

Impacts on Consumers—This section

was established in the July 1996 Final

Rule, and other than minor editorial

changes, was not substantively amended

in subsequent rulemakings.

(15) Consideration of Non-Regulatory

Approaches—This section was

established in the July 1996 Final Rule

and identifies how DOE will consider

the effects of non-regulatory efforts by

manufacturers, utilities, and other

interested parties to produce substantial

efficiency improvements. Revisions in

the February 2020 Final Rule removed

a section discussing the Department’s

pursuit of voluntary programs where it

appears that highly efficient products

can obtain a significant market share but

that less efficient products cannot be

eliminated altogether because, for

instance, of unacceptable adverse

impacts on a significant subgroup of

consumers.

(16) Cross-Cutting Analytical

Assumptions—This section was

established in the July 1996 Final Rule

and sets outs the sources and general

principles that DOE expects to continue

relying upon in selecting values for

certain cross-cutting analytical

assumptions. This section was amended

in the February 2020 Final Rule to

specify that DOE would use two time

lengths—30 years and another time

length that is specific to the standard

being considered, such as the useful

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42040

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

lifetime of the product under

consideration, as well as a 9-year

regulatory timeline as a sensitivity case.

That rule also specified that DOE will

endeavor to use robust price forecasting

techniques in projecting future prices of

products.

On April 17, 2025, DOE published in

the Federal Register an RFI seeking

comments and information from

interested parties to assist DOE in

identifying potential modifications to its

Process Rule (‘‘April 2025 RFI’’). 90 FR

16093. DOE received comments in

response to the April 2025 RFI from the

interested parties listed in Table II.1.

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

EP07JY26.149</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42041

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

5

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); Air Movement and

Control Association (AMCA) International;

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

(AHAM); Consumer Technology Association (CTA);

Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA);

Heating, Air-Conditioning, Refrigeration

Distributors International (HARDI); National

Association of Manufacturers (NAM); National

Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA);

North American Association of Food Equipment

Manufacturers (NAFEM); National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA); Plumbing-

Heating-Cooling Contractors Association (PHCC);

Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI); and

Power Tool Institute (PTI).

6

The parenthetical reference provides a reference

for information located in this rulemaking docket,

Docket No. EERE–2025–BT–STD–0001, which is

maintained at: www.regulations.gov. The references

are arranged as follows: (commenter name,

comment docket ID number at page of that

document).

7

(TRG, No. 2 at pp. 1–4).

8

BHI attached previously submitted comments

that were summarized as part of the rulemakings

corresponding to the following dockets: Docket

EERE 2019–BT–STD–0036, EERE–2021–BT–STD–

003, EERE–2018–BT–STD–0018 related to Boilers,

the Process Rule, and Non-Condensing Technology,

respectively.

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C

A parenthetical reference at the end of

a comment quotation or paraphrase

provides the location of the item in the

public record.

6

DOE received one comment

pertaining to issues outside of the scope

of this rulemaking and which, therefore,

are not addressed in this document.

7

III. Discussion of General Comments

A. General Support for or Opposition to

Standards

A number of commenters indicated

general support for existing energy

conservation standards. (Anonymous,

No. 4 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 6 at p.1;

Ceres, No. 22 at p. 6; Lennox, No. 26 at

p. 1; Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 2)

An individual commented that

existing energy conservation standards

still allow for a significant number of

choices for consumers. (Anonymous,

No. 6 at p. 1) Another individual

commented that energy conservation

standards drive engineering innovation,

including for lighting and water-using

products. (Anonymous, No. 3 at p. 1)

Several individuals commented on

operating cost savings associated with

energy conversation standards. An

individual commented that energy

efficient appliances reduce operating

costs for consumers and asked DOE to

continue enforcing standards.

(Anonymous, No. 3 at p. 1) The

individual also suggested DOE review

studies documenting the value of energy

conservation standards. (Anonymous,

No. 3 at p. 1) Another individual

commented that less-efficient

appliances will cost consumers more to

operate regardless of energy source or

price and that DOE should continue to

establish energy conservation standards

to save consumers money. (Anonymous,

No. 9 at p. 1) A third individual

commented that E.O. 14154 is focused

on reducing energy costs and burdens

on consumers and that increasing

energy efficiency is one of the best ways

to reduce energy costs for consumers.

The individual also commented that

regulations should be backed by strong

data and analysis and that research

demonstrates that the energy savings

associated with standards can be worth

it, even if there is a higher up-front cost.

(Anonymous, No. 10 at pp. 1–2).

Lennox commented to support the

goals of DOE’s appliance efficiency

program to maximize improvements in

energy savings for consumers that are

technologically feasible and

economically justified for finished

products at the system level. (Lennox,

No. 26 at p. 1).

Rinnai commented to support

national energy efficiency standards and

the principle of Federal preemption,

which prevents State-level mandates

that would destabilize markets and

erode consumer choice. (Rinnai, No. 11

at p. 2).

An individual expressed opposition

to energy conservation standards,

commenting that efficiency standards

have had a negative impact on

reliability and that it would be

preferable to have greater choice for

lighting and appliances. (Anonymous,

No. 5 at p. 1).

In response, DOE is not making any

proposals with respect to the Appliance

Standards Program itself, but instead,

the Department is proposing certain

revisions to the process by which it

carries out its obligations under EPCA to

adopt new or revised energy

conservation standards and test

procedures, as discussed in section IV of

this document.

B. General Support for or Opposition to

Changes to the Process Rule

This section discusses the comments

in general support for or opposition to

revising the current Process Rule.

Specific comments related to specific

Process Rule revisions are discussed in

section IV of this document.

Several commenters expressed

general support for revising the current

Process Rule, as discussed in the

following paragraphs.

BHI commented that DOE’s existing

rulemaking process is opaque, overly

complex, and subject to agenda-driven

manipulation. The commenter added

that the resulting rules are often

delayed, based on flawed analysis, and

poorly documented, and that they

impose undue regulatory burden and

uncertainty on the industry, while

leaving DOE open to litigation. (BHI,

No. 16 at p. 2) BHI attached comments

submitted to previous rulemakings

8

to

illustrate the need for revisions. (BHI,

No. 16 at pp. 1–2) BHI acknowledged

that implementing the Process Rule

changes as changes recommended in

their comments for periodic reviews of

standards as required under EPCA

would likely result in an increased

frequency with which new standards

cannot be justified for a particular

product. According to the commenter,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

EP07JY26.150</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42042

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

increasing standards for a particular

product over time results in an

appliance’s efficiency approaching its

theoretical limit, thereby suggesting that

previous standards have done what

EPCA intended; any process for

standard setting should account for the

reality that trivial energy gains will

result in cost increases to consumers

that yield little to no real-world payback

by way of decreases in utility bills. (BHI,

No. 16 at p. 6)

The Joint Commenters stated that the

Process Rule should be clear,

transparent, and reflect stakeholder

consensus so that it will not be subject

to policy swings by changing

Administrations. (Joint Commenters,

No. 24 at p. 3).

The Joint Gas Associations

commented that the Process Rule

should be revised to ensure protection

of consumer choice, promote market

competition and innovation, maintain

fuel neutrality, and reduce regulatory

burdens. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 25

at p. 7).

NRECA commented in support of

DOE’s efforts to revise the Process Rule

in ways that would lead to more

common sense outcomes when updating

energy conservation standards. NRECA

added that the Process Rule should be

revised to enhance consumer choice and

affordability. (NRECA, No. 17 at p. 2).

Rinnai commented that the Process

Rule should be revised to ensure

discipline, transparency, and public

accountability. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 3).

DOE also received comments

generally supporting revisions to return,

fully or partially, to the Process Rule as

amended at the beginning of 2020 (i.e.,

the ‘‘2020 Process Rule’’), as further

discussed in the following paragraphs.

BHI, MHI, WM Technologies and Zero

Zone commented that DOE should

return to the 2020 Process Rule. (BHI,

No. 16 at p. 2; MHI, No. 21 at p. 2; WM

Technologies, No. 14 at pp. 1, 3; Zero

Zone, No. 15 at p. 1). MHI noted that

standards for water heaters, gas

furnaces, showerheads, electric spas,

and freezers would have been avoided

with the 2020 Process Rule. (MHI, No.

21 at p. 2).

AHRI, BWC, the Joint Commenters,

and Lennox commented in support of

revising the Process Rule and of any

changes largely consistent with the 2020

Process Rule. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 1;

BWC, No. 34 at p. 1; Joint Commenters,

No. 24 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 26 at p. 2)

Specifically, Lennox stated that they

support re-instituting the five key

Process Rule measures from the 2020

Process Rule: (1) DOE’s compliance

with the Process Rule must be

mandatory and binding on DOE; (2) test

procedures should be finalized by DOE

180 days before proposing new energy

conservation standards; (3) reasonable

and mandatory minimum public

comment periods should be provided;

(4) minimum threshold values for

significant energy savings should be

reinstated; and (5) comparative analysis

across trial standard levels should be

reinstated. (Lennox, No. 26 at p. 2).

BWC added that the 2020 Process Rule

was not a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach

and provided DOE with extensive

regulatory flexibility. (BWC, No. 34 at p.

3).

Several commenters opposed changes

to the current Process Rule and

generally stated that the current Process

Rule is adequate. (Joint Advocates, No.

31 at p. 1; State Agencies, No. 33 at pp.

1–2; Ceres, No. 22 at p. 6; Anonymous,

No. 4 at p. 1).

The Joint Advocates added that the

current Process Rule already provides

detailed rulemaking guidance that

addresses the topics discussed in the

April 2025 RFI. For example, the Joint

Advocates argued that the current

Process Rule already includes consumer

choice and market competition and

innovation protections; it also considers

manufacturer impacts, including

regulatory burden, and it provides

detailed guidance on cost and benefit

analysis and the public comment and

review process. (Joint Advocates, No. 31

at p. 1).

The State Agencies added that the

current Process Rule appropriately

provides guidance and should not be

modified. The State Agencies argued

that repeated changes to the Process

Rule have led to market uncertainty. In

addition, the State Agencies further

argued that any changes to the Process

Rule would increase regulatory burden

and recommended that DOE should not

pursue any further rulemakings related

to Process Rule, including a separate

analytical methodology RFI. (State

Agencies, No. 33 at pp. 1–2).

An individual commented that there

was a lack of evidence to suggest that

there are substantial flaws in existing

rules or the current process to establish

them. (Anonymous, No. 4 at p. 1).

AUX stated that the current Process

Rule is essential to fostering innovation,

ensuring affordable and

environmentally-friendly products, and

balancing regulatory certainty and

flexibility for manufacturers without

overburdening manufacturers. AUX

added that the existing Process Rule has

driven innovation in residential HVAC,

leading to more-efficient products that

often exceed standards and providing

significant cost savings to consumers.

(AUX, No. 7 at pp. 1–2).

The CA IOUs stated that they support

the objectives of the Process Rule and

recommended that any changes should

enhance these goals while aligning with

EPCA’s purpose of achieving cost-

effective energy savings. The CA IOUs

emphasized the importance of

maintaining flexibility to address

appliance-specific issues, complying

with EPCA and the Administrative

Procedure Act, and ensuring equitable

implementation. The commenters

suggested that DOE should evaluate

issues on a case-by-case basis within the

context of each individual rulemaking

rather than being pre-determined by a

set of generalized assumptions. The CA

IOUs further cautioned against frequent

changes to the Process Rule, which

create uncertainty, instead urging DOE

to prioritize consistency and to focus on

improvements grounded either in

established practices or ones widely

supported by stakeholders. (CA IOUs,

No. 32 at pp. 1–2).

NEEA commented that DOE should

maintain a consistent Process Rule to

provide a predictable and accessible

regulatory process and prevent

additional regulatory burden. (NEEA,

No. 36 at p. 1).

In response, DOE has reviewed the

current Process Rule, the 2020 Process

Rule, and the general comments

received in response to the April 2025

RFI. Based on this review and an

evaluation of comments received on

specific Process Rule topics, DOE is

proposing revisions to the current

Process Rule to return largely to the

2020 Process Rule with some

modifications, as discussed in further

detail in section IV of this document.

IV. Discussion of Comments and

Proposed Revisions to Individual

Sections of the Process Rule

The following sections discuss

comments received relating to

individual sections of the Process Rule,

DOE’s responses, and the proposed

revisions to the Process Rule. DOE

requests comments, data, and

information regarding these proposals

and all aspects of this notice of

proposed rulemaking.

A. Objectives (Section 1)

This section was established in the

July 1996 Final Rule and lays out the

overall purpose of the Process Rule and

its specific provisions. The February

2020 Final Rule made various editorial

changes to this section. The December

2021 Final Rule added support for

proposals developed in accordance with

the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C.

561 et seq.).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42043

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

9

See ‘‘Delivering Emergency Price Relief for

American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living

Crisis’’ (Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/

presidential-actions/2025/01/delivering-emergency-

price-relief-for-american-families-and-defeating-

the-cost-of-living-crisis/).

DOE did not receive any comments

specific to the Objectives section of the

Process Rule, other than general

comments related to negotiations, as

discussed in section IV.K of this

document.

As discussed in the April 2025 RFI,

DOE requested information to ensure

consistency with recently issued

Executive orders while continuing to

satisfy the Department’s statutory

obligations. 90 FR 16093 (April 17,

2025). Consistent with this goal, DOE is

proposing to include a new section in

the Objectives section of the Process

Rule to clearly specify the Department’s

goals of preserving availability of any

covered product type (or class) of

performance characteristics (including

reliability), features, sizes, capacities,

and volumes that are substantially the

same as those generally available in the

United States at the time of the

Secretary’s finding as prescribed by

EPCA. Such goals also safeguard the

American people’s freedom to choose

from a variety of goods and appliances

(including but not limited to lightbulbs,

dishwashers, washing machines, gas

stoves, water heaters, toilets, and

shower heads); promote market

competition and innovation within the

manufacturing and appliance industries;

ensure that the global effects of a rule,

regulation, or action shall, whenever

evaluated, be reported separately from

its domestic costs and benefits (energy

savings and efficiency), in order to

promote sound regulatory decision

making and prioritize the interests of

the American people; and guarantee

opportunities for public comment and

rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific

analysis. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)-(p)). These

objectives also support the policies

specified in Executive Order 14154.

Consistent with the statutory

requirements of EPCA, DOE

additionally has the goal of eliminating

counterproductive requirements that

raise the costs of home appliances.

9

DOE is proposing to include this goal

within the objectives section of the

Process Rule.

B. Scope (Section 2)

This section was established in the

July 1996 Final Rule and identifies the

types of rulemakings to which the

Process Rule applies. This section was

amended in the February 2020 Final

Rule to clarify that the Process Rule

applies to both covered consumer

products and commercial and industrial

equipment, except covered ASHRAE

equipment, which is governed

separately under section 9 of the

appendix.

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

a revised process Rule should apply to

both consumer products and industrial

and commercial equipment, except for

ASHRAE equipment. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 30).

In response, DOE notes that the

current Process Rule has this same

scope as recommended by Joint Gas

Associations, with ASHRAE covered

separately in its own section. DOE is not

proposing any revisions to the Scope

section of the Process Rule.

C. Application (Section 3)

This section was added to the Process

Rule by the February 2020 Final Rule

and specified that the Process Rule

would be binding on DOE. This section

was subsequently amended in the

December 2021 Final Rule to provide

DOE with discretion to depart from the

general guidance in Appendix A when

it deems it necessary or appropriate to

do so, with the stipulation that DOE will

provide interested parties with notice of

the deviation and an explanation.

In the April 2025 RFI, DOE requested

comments on whether reintroducing a

provision making the Process Rule

mandatory would better enable the

Department to comply with its

obligations under the statute and

applicable Executive orders. 90 FR

16093, 16100 (April 17, 2025).

In response to the April 2025 RFI,

many commenters supported mandatory

application of the Process Rule,

generally to provide certainty to

stakeholders. (Joint commenters, No. 24

at p. 3; AHRI, No. 28 at p. 13; Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 7, 10–11;

ASHRAE, No. 12 at p. 2; BWC, No. 34

at p. 1; MHI, No. 21 at p. 3; NAHB, No.

19 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 2–3;

NAFEM, No. 13 at p. 7; ONE Gas, No.

37 at p. 2; Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 3, 11–

12; WM Technologies, No. 14 at p. 3;

Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 3; BHI, No. 16

at p. 2) AHRI and BHI noted that

mandatory application should reduce

litigation risk. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 13;

BHI, No. 16 at p. 2).

Several of the commenters supporting

mandatory application also

acknowledged that some changes or

flexibility may need to be included.

PHTA stated that some areas should

have well thought out deviations.

(PHTA, No. 27 at p. 1) The Joint

Commenters stated that any flexibility

needed should be built into the rule.

(Joint Commenters, No. 24 at p. 3)

NAFEM stated that its recommended

revisions should be included if the rule

becomes mandatory. (NAFEM, No. 13 at

p. 7) Lennox stated that if made binding,

the Process Rule should require DOE to

actively explore negotiated rulemakings

for all major new standards. (Lennox,

No. 26 at pp. 11–12).

In addition, Zero Zone emphasized

the value of public comment in making

any changes to the Process Rule. (Zero

Zone, No. 15 at p. 3) BHI suggested that

Congress should cement this rule as law

to avoid the pendulum swinging

between Administrations. (BHI, No. 16

at p. 2).

Two commenters opposed mandatory

application of the Process Rule. The

Joint Advocates stated that an overly

rigid approach could result in missed

energy and water savings opportunities,

delay rulemakings, and increase

potential for procedural litigation. (Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at p. 4) The State

Agencies stated that flexibility is

needed, and that making the Process

Rule mandatory would increase

regulatory burden. They noted that if

the Process Rule is to be made

mandatory, additional opportunities for

public comment should be provided to

make sure all potential provisions are

carefully considered. (State Agencies,

No. 33 at p. 2).

Upon review, DOE has tentatively

determined that there is a reasonable

basis for making the Process Rule

binding for certain actions, while

retaining greater flexibility for other

actions. Any ECS-related action

undertaken by DOE must adhere to the

requirements outlined by EPCA. See 42

U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6311–6313.

When the Secretary must make a

statutory determination (e.g., regarding

whether to regulate; or whether a

proposed standard is technologically

feasible and economically justified; or

whether the benefits of a proposed

standard exceed its burdens), DOE may

offer the public additional transparency

regarding circumstances when the

Department will follow the

requirements under EPCA more

narrowly or will follow additional

procedures. The Secretary has

discretion under EPCA to implement

additional procedures in support of

careful consideration of statutory factors

that weigh heavily in his

determinations.

In the Process Rule, DOE is proposing

that all procedures for regulatory actions

(actions that may increase ECS

stringency relative to existing

requirements) will be binding

requirements for the Department, which

will provide much-needed certainty to

stakeholders and will reflect the

Secretary’s careful consideration and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42044

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

10

See, FR 87903 (Nov. 5,2024), which led to a

final rule publication at 90 FR 5519 (Jan. 17, 2025)

weighing of the balancing factors for

economic justification and other

requirements under EPCA. (See 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)). This approach

recognizes, per EPCA, that regulatory

changes often increase manufacturer

costs and usually result in the need for

design modifications that necessitate

substantial investments of engineering

resources, production line conversions,

and other related manufacturing

alterations or revisions to testing

regimes. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i),

(m)). EPCA acknowledges the time,

detailed analysis, and notice required in

prescribing new or amended standards

by establishing a minimum allowable

period between further regulatory

rulemakings; clearly articulated factors

for a determination of economic

justification; and required procedures

for notice, comment, and transparency

of record. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(l), (m),

(o), (p)). It behooves DOE to proceed

with caution when enacting efficiency

standards that may adversely affect

consumers by pricing them out of the

market for new or replacement

appliances or eliminating useful

characteristics of covered products. (See

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). New

standards are also likely to present more

challenges when evaluating economic

effects, including lack of pertinent data

on consumer response and reliance on

assumptions. When reweighing

evidence in other actions, such as for

certain deregulatory actions, however,

hindsight may provide a wealth of

information. Moreover, DOE must meet

strict evidentiary standards when

issuing rules, including more stringent

energy conservation standards, under 42

U.S.C. 6293, 6294, or 6295. Under 42

U.S.C. 6306(b)(2), when petitioned by

an aggrieved party, a court may not

affirm a ule unless DOE’s rule is

supported by ‘‘substantial evidence.’’

Likewise, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(6)(A)(ii)(II)

requires ‘‘clear and convincing

evidence’’ to support a heightened

standard for certain commercial

equipment. This is true even when the

Department has limited information to

evaluate such complex factors as ‘‘the

economic impact of the standard on the

manufacturers and on the consumers of

the products’’ and a comparison of the

‘‘operating costs throughout the

estimated average life of the covered

product’’ against ‘‘any increase in the

price . . . or maintenance expenses of[]

the covered products’’ with respect to

products that may not be brought to

market until some years after the

regulatory action is finalized. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i); see, e.g., id. 42 U.S.C.

6295(l)(2), (m)(4), (n)(5) (requiring

delays of up to five years before new

standards may be enforced on

manufacturers))

As noted previously and as EPCA

acknowledges, regulatory actions

typically justify the need for early

stakeholder involvement and ample

opportunities for public input. That is

why it is crucial that DOE regulatory

actions provide sufficient opportunity

for public input so that stakeholders

have adequate time to analyze and

provide thoughtful comments, data, and

information to the agency before it

finalizes a proposed regulatory action.

Not only does a properly structured

process provide regulatory certainty and

prevent the imposition of unnecessary

or unjustified costs on manufacturers,

but it also ensures that consumers do

not face excessive costs or the loss of

important performance-related features.

This holds true for both energy

conservation standards and test

procedure rulemakings, because if a test

procedure does not properly measure a

covered product’s energy efficiency or

energy use, energy conservation

standards may be set at an inappropriate

level. And it is important to remember

that EPCA establishes the minimum

requirements to issue new rules. For

example, EPCA requires a comment

period of not less than 60 days for

proposed standards and test procedures.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2), 6293(b)(2)). But

there is no maximum comment period

limit for a proposed standards rule and

the limit for a proposed test procedure

rule is 270 days. Id. Similarly, EPCA

only requires that DOE publish a notice

of proposed rulemaking before issuing a

final rule or final determination not to

amend standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)).

But again, that is the minimum

requirement. And while these

procedural requirements may be

sufficient for revisiting a determination

not to amend standards that was made

less than 3 years ago in a market where

there has been no technological

advances in efficiency, for all the

reasons discussed previously, a more

comprehensive, structured process is

warranted before implementing rules

that impose new obligations and costs

on regulated parties and consumers.

Consequently, the proposed Process

Rule sets forth procedural elements

(including early assessment

opportunities and preliminary

documents), temporal spacing between

key elements, and minimum comment

periods to facilitate rulemakings that are

robust and best meet all applicable

statutory requirements. Making these

procedures binding on DOE would

further safeguard the achievement of

these important objectives. While DOE

acknowledges the concerns raised by

some commenters about an overly rigid

approach, the Department has

tentatively determined that the Process

Rule, as proposed to be amended in this

NOPR, contains sufficient flexibility to

address those stakeholder concerns.

Certain actions, in contrast, may

present a very different set of situations

that may warrant a different approach

and may not necessitate the same level

of advance outreach, lengthened

comment periods, or lead time, as

compared to regulatory actions. In some

circumstances, where DOE determines

that deregulation is appropriate, it may

be that DOE has recognized, with the

benefit of hindsight and additional real-

world information gathered as a new

standard or test procedure is

implemented, or a test procedure later

determined to be unduly burdensome to

conduct (in violation of 42 U.S.C.

6293(b)(3) or 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). In

such instances, consumers may

experience a reduction in product

choice, a loss of valuable features, and/

or an unjustified increase in first costs.

Alternatively, an unanticipated change

in market conditions or error in analysis

may result in hardships or barriers to

compliance for manufactures.

Deregulatory actions are intended to

remedy these suboptimal outcomes, and

in some cases, DOE does not believe

that there is the same need for

procedural protections for deregulatory

actions as there is for regulatory actions,

for the reasons that follow. Over time,

DOE has exercised discretion in

expediting certain deregulatory actions.

For example, DOE has conducted test

procedure rulemakings on an expedited

timeline to address limited-scope issues

(e.g., the rulemaking to amend test cloth

specifications for clothes dryer and

clothes washer testing was initiated

with a NOPR

10

and did not have a pre-

proposal document).

First, deregulatory actions are not

likely to require costly changes to

manufacturing lines or production

facilities, as would be expected to

accompany more stringent standards. In

contrast to regulatory actions,

deregulation may reduce costs, and

potential savings may trickle down to

consumer, especially in highly

competitive markets. A newly

deregulated area frees industry from

associated compliance mandates and

presents more business options, which

will of course entail the independent

weighing of potential costs and benefits

by industry before taking action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42045

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

Second, because deregulatory actions

open up new, less burdensome options

to manufacturers (and indirectly to

consumers), those same procedural

safeguards (e.g., preliminary documents,

required spacing of rulemaking steps,

and extended comment periods) may

not be necessary. With the increased

flexibility that comes from deregulation,

industry and consumers may choose to

maintain course or adjust, but are not

compelled to take any action, unlike

with regulatory actions, which by their

nature limit choice and force action.

Furthermore, DOE believes that there is

also a temporal element to deregulatory

actions, in that there is value in

providing substantive relief to

consumers and manufacturers as soon

as possible. Accordingly, following all

of the procedural steps proposed in the

Process Rule would in certain

circumstances run counter to providing

deregulatory relief as soon as possible.

Finally, DOE may choose to add to the

standards determination process

thresholds rooted in EPCA’s required

considerations for economic

justification. When those thresholds,

which reflect the Secretary’s discretion

in weighing EPCA’s balancing factors,

indicate a determination not to further

regulate, DOE may consider that

analysis sufficient under the

requirements of EPCA and may choose

to forego more detailed analyses. (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)). Though such an action

is not deregulatory, it offers the kind of

certainty and timely notice

contemplated by EPCA, and these

considerations may outweigh the

additional procedural steps merited for

increases in stringency. Consequently,

DOE proposes not to make all Process

Rule provisions binding on the

Department for actions that are not

likely to increase stringency for affected

entities (e.g., certain deregulatory

actions or determinations not to further

regulate). In such instances, the

Department may choose to apply those

provisions as may be appropriate in any

particular action so as to maintain

flexibility and to provide relief without

undue delay in appropriate cases.

Moreover, in contrast to a regulatory

action imposing new standards that will

result in estimated, but uncertain,

impacts on the market, it will often be

the case that DOE has a wealth of

information to rely on in making a

deregulatory decision with respect to a

test procedure or standard under

consideration. Both the Department and

stakeholders will have data and

experience gathered during the

implementation of an existing standard

that will provide greater certainty

without the need for an extended period

of evidence building and development

of estimates and projections.

DOE has not identified any statutory

or other legal impediments to a

bifurcated approach to the binding

nature of the Process Rule that

distinguishes between regulatory and

other actions. DOE has discretion to set

its own procedures for conducting

rulemaking proceedings, as long as such

procedures also incorporate any

relevant statutory requirements set forth

in EPCA (e.g., a minimum 60-day

comment period for NOPRs). In crafting

those procedures, DOE is at liberty to

tailor those procedures to address

identified concerns (as discussed

previously) or to provide a more flexible

and expedited process where the same

concerns are not found to exist.

It is DOE’s view that this approach

would allow DOE to best meet the

statutory requirements of EPCA,

including preventing the unavailability

of performance-related features. (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)). DOE also believe that

this approach is consistent with

numerous comments on the April 2025

RFI which generally supported

mandatory application of the Process

Rule but acknowledged the potential

need for flexibility in certain situations.

Furthermore, this approach is consistent

with the objectives set forth in various

Executive orders and Presidential

memoranda. For example, section 2(f) of

Executive Order (E.O.) 14154,

‘‘Unleashing American Energy,’’ 90 FR

8353 (Jan. 29, 2025), states that it is the

policy of the United States to safeguard

the American people’s freedom to

choose from a variety of goods and

appliances, including but not limited to

lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing

machines, gas stoves, water heaters,

toilets, and shower heads, and to

promote market competition and

innovation within the manufacturing

and appliance industries. In addition,

the Presidential memorandum titled

‘‘Delivering Emergency Price Relief for

American Families and Defeating the

Cost-of-Living Crisis,’’ 90 FR 8245 (Jan.

28, 2025), directs agencies to take

appropriate actions to, among other

things, ‘‘eliminate counterproductive

requirements that raise the cost of home

appliances.’’

In summary, DOE has tentatively

concluded that a bifurcated approach to

the binding nature of the Process Rule

which distinguishes between regulatory

and other actions would be appropriate

for several reasons. DOE believes that it

best suits the Department’s model

outcome for deregulatory situations, in

that it would allow DOE to provide

expedited relief to stakeholders in terms

of cost savings, reduced regulatory

burdens, and protection of performance-

related features. Along these lines, it

would also be consistent with the views

of many commenters and would allow

DOE to implement what it believes is

the best reading of the statutory

provisions of EPCA, including

applicable evidentiary standards, as

well as practical differences between

regulatory and deregulatory actions

such as informational asymmetries. It

would also support the Administration’s

priorities in terms of advancing

appliance affordability and preserving

consumer choice.

As such, DOE proposes to revise

section 3 of the Process Rule to specify

its mandatory application as described

in this section. DOE requests comment

on this proposal and on any alternate

approaches to mandatory application

that best achieve transparency and

opportunities for public comment while

allowing for flexibility for certain

deregulatory actions.

D. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking

Activity (Section 4)

This section was established in the

July 1996 Final Rule and identifies the

factors that DOE applies when

determining its regulatory plans and

formulation of inputs for the Regulatory

Agenda. This section was amended in

the February 2020 Final Rule to specify

that DOE would offer the opportunity to

provide input on prioritization of

rulemakings through a request for

comment as DOE begins preparation of

its Regulatory Agenda each spring.

In the April 2025 RFI, DOE generally

requested comments and information on

whether and how the Process Rule

should be amended to specify

rulemaking prioritization and timelines,

consistent with EPCA’s requirements.

90 FR 16093, 16100 (April 17, 2025).

The Joint Advocates stated that the

current Process Rule already describes

the prioritization process for rulemaking

activity, so no amendment is needed.

(Joint Advocates, No. 31 at p. 4).

The State Agencies stated that EPCA

already establishes timelines for

standards to be revised. The State

Agencies added that the current Process

Rule allows for reasonable timelines,

and that the Process Rule should not be

amended to provide specific rulemaking

prioritization and timelines. They

further stated that any potential changes

must be justified by DOE after thorough

consideration of impacts and burdens.

(State Agencies, No. 33 at p. 2).

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

DOE should focus on the potential

energy savings and the potential

economic benefits as an initial screen

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42046

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

for determining its priorities. The Joint

Gas Associations argued that such focus

is important, because if DOE determines

the proposed regulatory activity does

not provide sufficient energy savings or

is not cost-effective, there is no need to

review the other factors. The Joint Gas

Associations also supported stakeholder

input in the rulemaking process and

with regard to setting priorities, and

they stated that commenting on the

Regulatory Agenda would provide

stakeholders with a chance to weigh in

on these priorities. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 35–36).

Upon review, DOE has tentatively

determined that DOE’s statutory review

requirements and the current Process

Rule adequately describe the

prioritization setting framework as

recommended by commenters.

Specifically, DOE is statutorily required

to review energy conservation standards

and test procedures at intervals

specified by EPCA. Additionally, DOE

acknowledges the benefits of

considering energy savings and

potential economic benefits in

prioritizing rulemakings, as

recommended by the Joint Gas

Associations, which are already

specified in section 4 of the Process

Rule.

As discussed in section IV.A of this

document, DOE is proposing to specify

that the Department’s objectives include

protecting consumer choice in covered

products and equipment and

eliminating counterproductive

requirements that increase the costs of

appliances. DOE is proposing to include

these objectives in the list of factors

DOE will consider when establishing

rulemaking priorities, and requests

comment on their inclusion.

Section 6 of Executive Order 14154

specifies policies for prioritizing

accuracy in environmental analyses,

specifically instructing that for Federal

regulatory processes, ‘‘all agencies shall

adhere to only the relevant legislated

requirements for environmental

considerations and any considerations

beyond those requirements are

eliminated.’’ Consistent with this

direction, DOE is proposing to remove

the consideration of environmental

factors as specified in section 4(a)(2) of

the Process Rule and to instead refer to

potential social and private costs and

benefits.

DOE has also considered the

requirement to request comment as DOE

begins preparation of its Regulatory

Agenda each spring. DOE’s rulemaking

reviews are largely driven by statutory

timelines, with consideration of the

factors outlined in section 4 of the

Process Rule. DOE’s goal is to limit

regulatory burden for stakeholders, and

the Department has tentatively

determined that there is little additional

benefit provided by the current request

for comment specified in section 4 of

the Process Rule. Therefore, DOE is

proposing to clarify in the Process Rule

that DOE will request comment on

rulemaking prioritization only when

circumstances weigh towards doing so.

Such circumstances may include

Executive Orders or other

Administration initiatives or meaningful

shifts in policy on which the

Department would benefit from broad

and early public comment.

Consequently, this would move from

being a prescriptive annual publication

from DOE for stakeholder review to a

discretionary action considered on a

case-by-case basis, thereby limiting the

burden associated with reviewing DOE’s

rulemaking documents while providing

the benefit of public comment when

needed. DOE notes that stakeholders

may contact DOE regarding rulemaking

priorities, independent of a published

request for comment.

E. Coverage Determination Rulemakings

(Section 5)

This section was established in the

February 2020 Final Rule and describes

the process DOE would follow to

establish coverage for new consumer

products and industrial equipment

under the applicable statutory criteria of

EPCA. Subsequent amendments in the

December 2021 Final Rule and April

2024 Final Rule allowed DOE to seek

early stakeholder input through

preliminary rulemaking documents

prior to a proposed coverage

determination, removed a previous

requirement that final coverage

determinations be published prior to the

initiation of any test procedure or

energy conservation standard

rulemaking and at least 180 days prior

to publication of a test procedure NOPR,

and removed the previously required

180-day period between finalization of

DOE test procedures and issuance of a

NOPR proposing new or amended

energy conservation standards.

In the April 2025 RFI, DOE generally

requested comments and information on

whether and how the Process Rule

should be amended to specify

rulemaking prioritization and timelines,

consistent with EPCA’s requirements.

90 FR 16093, 16100 (April 17, 2025).

Timing of coverage determinations falls

within the scope of this request.

Lennox commented that DOE should

require that coverage determinations be

finalized at least 180 days prior to the

publication of a TP NOPR for newly-

covered products/equipment. The

commenter argued that it is a misuse of

DOE, manufacturer, and other

stakeholder resources to attempt to

address substantive regulatory issues

until the products have been clearly and

specifically defined. (Lennox, No. 26 at

p. 11).

Lennox also commented that coverage

determination comment periods should

be at least 60 days. (Lennox, No. 26 at

p. 8–9).

In response, as discussed previously,

DOE is largely proposing to revert to the

language in the 2020 Process Rule,

including for the section on coverage

determinations. As mentioned, the 2020

Process Rule required that final

coverage determinations be published

prior to the initiation of any test

procedure or energy conservation

standard rulemaking and at least 180

days prior to publication of a test

procedure NOPR. DOE understands that

the 180 day-period provides regulated

entities with both regulatory certainty

and time to reallocate capital in

preparation for compliance

requirements. With regard to the

comment period, both the current and

2020 Process Rule include a comment

period of at least 60 days, so DOE is not

proposing any changes specific to this

requirement.

Several commenters discussed the

process that they believe DOE should

follow to establish coverage for

consumer products and industrial

equipment, as described in this section.

On this topic, Strauch commented that

DOE should focus on covered products

required by statute under EPCA and not

expand coverage to other consumer

products and industrial equipment.

(Strauch, No. 18 at p. 1).

The Joint Gas Associations supported

a Process Rule that limits any expansion

of coverage to those narrow

circumstances that satisfy the statutory

requirements and purpose of EPCA.

(The Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p.

33).

Lennox and WM Technologies stated

that standards should apply to only the

finished product/system level, and not

to sub-systems or components. Lennox

and WM Technologies further stated

that component-level regulation

increases burden (e.g., regulatory

complexity, consumer costs) and/or

limits innovation. WM Technologies

added that component-level and

finished-product-level tests are different

from each other and could produce test

results that are not compatible. (Lennox,

No. 26 at pp. 1, 4–5; WM Technologies,

No. 14 at pp. 2–3)

In response, both the current and the

2020 Process Rule state that DOE has

discretion to conduct proceedings to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42047

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

11

For ASHRAE equipment, the baseline for

comparison is the potential energy savings from the

industry standard (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1).

Thus, DOE can only issue a more-stringent standard

if the additional energy savings are significant. (See

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).

determine whether additional products

or equipment should be covered or

whether to reduce the scope of coverage

under EPCA if certain statutory

requirements are met, including if such

coverage is necessary or appropriate to

carry out the purpose of EPCA. Section

5 of appendix A. Furthermore, the

statute includes definitions for the terms

‘‘consumer product’’ and ‘‘industrial

equipment’’ that determine the product

level subject to regulation. Finally, DOE

plans to consider issues related to

component-level regulation on a case-

by-case basis. At this time, DOE does

not believe it is necessary to provide

additional context with respect to the

statutory requirements and is not

proposing any additional changes to the

Coverage Determination Rulemakings

section of the Process Rule.

F. Significant Energy Savings

1. Background

Under EPCA, any new or amended

energy conservation standard must

result in significant conservation of

energy or, in the case of ASHRAE

equipment, significant additional

conservation of energy.

11

(42 U.S.C.

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

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).

However, EPCA does not define

‘‘significant’’ as it relates to the amount

of energy savings projected to result

from an energy conservation standard.

While DOE has generally addressed the

significance of energy savings on a case-

by-case basis in the context of

individual energy conservation

standards rulemakings, DOE has twice

established sets of numerical thresholds

to determine whether energy savings are

significant.

In a final rule published in the

Federal Register on December 22, 1982,

DOE adopted three tests for determining

whether an energy conservations

standard would result in significant

energy savings. 47 FR 57198 (December

1982 Final Rule). The first test deemed

energy savings significant if the

standard would result in the saving of

10,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil or the

saving of natural gas equivalent to

10,000 bpd of oil over the period of the

average life of the product. The second

test deemed energy savings significant if

the standard would result in the saving

of one percent of national electricity use

over the period of the average life of the

product. The third test deemed energy

savings significant if the standard would

reduce product energy consumption by

16.67 percent. Id. at 47 FR 57209. In

Natural Resources Defense Council v.

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir.

1985), the court held that, while

Congress gave DOE considerable

discretion to define significant energy

savings, DOE’s three tests were

inconsistent with the purposes of EPCA.

Id. at 1383.

In 2017, DOE once again initiated

inquiry on the topic of a significant

energy savings threshold in a request for

information (RFI) published in the

Federal Register on December 18, 2017.

82 FR 59992, 59997. Subsequently, in

the February 2019 Process Rule NOPR,

DOE proposed a threshold-based

analysis for determining whether energy

savings are significant. 84 FR 3910, 3923

(Feb. 13, 2019). Subsequent to the

February 2019 NOPR, DOE published in

the Federal Register a notice of data

availability (NODA) on July 26, 2019,

which presented its energy savings data

in terms of site energy usage. 84 FR

36037 (July 2019 NODA).

DOE’s proposal generated significant

comments both in support and in

opposition, with the most salient points

presented in the paragraphs that follow.

(These comments are summarized in the

February 2020 final rule, followed by

DOE’s responses. See 85 FR 8626, 8656–

8676 (Feb. 14, 2020).)

Commenters supporting the

significant energy savings threshold

argued that it would support

consistency across energy conservation

standards rulemakings, alleviate

unnecessary regulatory burdens and

uncertainty on industry, assist the

Department and industry with resource

allocation, and help mitigate consumer

cost impacts. Id. at 85 FR 8656–8658.

Commenters opposing the significant

energy savings threshold argued that it

was inconsistent with the Herrington

decision, that it would sacrifice energy

and cost savings, and that any such

level would be arbitrary. Id. at 85 FR

8658–8662. It was also argued that a

simple threshold does not account for

the importance of saving energy at

different times of day, such as at times

of peak grid demand. Id. at 85 FR 8660.

After considering comments received

and applying a uniform approach with

respect to the energy usage examined,

DOE decided to adopt a significant

energy savings threshold in the

February 2020 Process Rule final rule,

but it adjusted the numerical value of

the threshold to account for concerns

raised by commenters. In that rule, DOE

adopted two tests for determining

whether an energy conservation

standard would result in significant

energy savings. The primary test

deemed energy savings significant if the

standard would result in a 10-percent

reduction in site energy use over a 30-

year period. Id. at 85 FR 8675. The

second test deemed energy savings

significant if the standard would save

0.3 quads of site energy use over a 30-

year period. DOE found that these

thresholds would have significantly

reduced rulemaking burden over the

history of the energy conservation

standards program while retaining over

95 percent of the energy savings. Id.

DOE explained its conclusion that the

adopted approach was consistent with

the court’s holding in Herrington. See

id. at 85 FR 8669. The final rule pointed

to that portion of the court’s decision in

Herrington noting that DOE could

establish a threshold for significant

energy savings as long as the selected

level reasonably accommodates the

policies of EPCA. Id. at 85 FR 8675. This

language in the Herrington opinion is

particularly noteworthy because it

provides a judicial interpretation as to

the best reading of EPCA vis-a

`-vis the

‘‘significant conservation of energy’’

provision. Under Loper Bright

Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369

(2024), it is the province of Article III

courts to determine the best reading of

ambiguous statutory provisions.

Consequently, the Herrington court’s

pronouncement as to the permissibility

of a threshold for significant energy

savings suggests that DOE is on firm

ground in proposing such a threshold as

part of the Process Rule.

However, before these significant

energy savings tests were ever utilized

in a DOE rulemaking, the Department

changed course and eliminated these

tests from its regulations in the

December 2021 Final Rule, thereby

reverting once again to assessing on a

case-by-case basis whether a new or

amended energy conservation standard

would result in significant conservation

of energy. 86 FR 70892, 70893 (Dec. 13,

2021). As discussed in the April 2021

Process Rule NOPR, DOE proposed to

remove the current numerical threshold

for determining whether energy savings

are significant for a number of reasons;

however, DOE did not claim that

establishing a threshold was outside its

authority under EPCA. 86 FR 18901,

18905 (April 12, 2021).

In light of E.O. 14154, ‘‘Unleashing

American Energy,’’ 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29,

2025), and the Presidential

Memorandum of January 20, 2025,

‘‘Delivering Emergency Price Relief for

American Families and Defeating the

Cost-of-Living Crisis,’’ 90 FR 8245 (Jan.

28, 2025), DOE has decided to once

again examine the potential for using

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42048

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

12

The range is based on the standby energy use

for microwave ovens compared to the energy use of

electric motors.

13

See supporting table available in

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE–2025–BT–STD–

0001. This includes final rules published from 1989

to 2025.

14

See, e.g., Energy Conservation Program: Energy

Conservation Standards for Dehumidifiers, 81 FR

38338, 38346 (June 13, 2016)(finding energy savings

to be nontrivial and, therefore, ‘‘significant’’ within

the meaning of section 325 of EPCA).

15

See supporting table available in

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE–2025–BT–STD–

0001.

tests or numerical thresholds in

determining whether energy savings

from a standard would be significant.

Specifically, section 2(f) of E.O. 14154

provides that it is the policy of the

United States ‘‘to safeguard the

American people’s freedom to choose

from a variety of goods and appliances,

including but not limited to lightbulbs,

dishwashers, washing machines, gas

stoves, water heaters, toilets, and

shower heads, and to promote market

competition and innovation within the

manufacturing and appliance

industries.’’ 90 FR 8353, 8353 (Jan. 29,

2025). Furthermore, the Presidential

Memorandum of January 20, 2025, in

relevant part, orders the heads of all

Executive departments and agencies to

‘‘eliminate counterproductive

requirements that raise the cost of home

appliances.’’ 90 FR 8245, 8245 (Jan. 28,

2025).

For these reasons, in the April 2025

RFI, DOE requested comments on ways

to reduce regulatory burden, mentioning

the threshold value for energy savings as

an example of such an opportunity. 90

FR 16093, 16097 (April 17, 2025). DOE

received several comments in response

to the April 2025 RFI related to whether

DOE should establish criteria or

thresholds to define the term

‘‘significant energy savings.’’ Two

commenters opposed adding a

significant energy savings threshold.

(ASHRAE, No. 12 at pp. 2–3; NEEA, No.

36 at pp. 1–2). ASHRAE stated that

there is no widely agreed to definition

and that DOE should focus on achieving

efficiency improvements on an

individual basis, and NEEA stated that

smaller incremental jumps are less

burdensome and suggested assessing

burden on an individual product basis.

(Id.) Several commenters were

supportive of a threshold. (AHRI, No. 28

at p. 11; BWC, No. 34 at pp. 4–5; BHI,

No. 16 at pp. 2–3; Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 27; Lennox,

No. 26 at pp. 2–4; MHI, No. 21 at p. 3;

Strauch, No. 18 at p. 1; NAHB, No. 19

at p. 4; NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 4–5;

NRECA, No. 17 at p. 2; ONE Gas, No.

37 at p. 5; Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 9;

Strauch, No. 18 at p. 1; Zero Zone, No.

15 at p. 3) BWC, MHI, NAHB, and

NEMA supported the thresholds from

the February 2020 Process Rule. (BWC,

No. 34 at pp. 4–5; MHI, No. 21 at p. 3;

NAHB, No. 19 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 23 at

pp. 4–5) Lennox supported a threshold

of 0.3 quads or a 5-percent improvement

in site energy savings. (Lennox, No. 26

at pp. 2–4) The Joint Gas Associations

recommended that DOE utilize source

energy when evaluating critical energy

policy decisions and include the

anticipated reduction of source energy

consumption and impact of overall

source energy consumption in the

market sector, noting that gas products

are at a disadvantage when using site

savings due to differing site-to-source

factors. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 25

at p. 19–21, 27) In addition, the Joint

Gas Associations stated that any energy

savings associated with fuel switching

should not be permitted to be used to

justify a standard. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 21).

Energy conservation standards that

reduce consumer choice and raise costs

while delivering minimal energy

savings to the consumer and the Nation

are counterproductive as contrary to the

statutory considerations outlined in

EPCA. Establishing a reasonable,

consistent methodology for determining

significant energy savings ensures

compliance with both the requirements

of EPCA, as well as the policies and

objectives set forth in these additional

Executive Actions, and is responsive to

the majority of stakeholder comments.

2. Proposed Threshold for Significant

Energy Savings

One of the complicating factors in

establishing tests or thresholds for

determining significant energy savings

has always been the vast difference in

energy use amongst covered products

and equipment. For example, the

regulated site energy use of covered

products and equipment ranges from

less than 1 quad over a 30-year period

to over 500 quads.

12

In Herrington, the

court acknowledged that DOE may

reasonably regard energy savings as not

significant for a high-consumption

appliance, even if the same amount

would be significant for a low-

consumption appliance. Natural

Resources Defense Council v.

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1376 (D.C.

Cir. 1985). As a result, the court held

that EPCA does not forbid DOE from

setting a significant energy savings

threshold as a percentage of the energy

consumed by a covered product or

equipment, provided that the selected

level reasonably accommodates the

policies of EPCA. Id. Keeping in mind

these important considerations, DOE

has tentatively concluded that a

percentage-based threshold is the best

way to reduce regulatory burdens while

meeting the policy objectives of EPCA.

As for the specific percentage, DOE

agrees with the court in Herrington that

a significant energy savings threshold

must show some awareness of the range

of energy savings Congress thought

worth pursuing. Id. at 1377. Since the

inception of the program, DOE has

issued 86 rules establishing energy

conservation standards for covered

products and equipment with a total site

energy savings of 83.5 quads.

13

Without

a significant energy savings threshold in

place, DOE has generally adopted

standards unless the energy savings

would be genuinely trivial.

14

For

example, DOE has adopted standards

that would result in 0.016 (Ceiling Fan

light Kits), 0.02 (Microwave Ovens), and

0.044 (Beverage Vending Machines)

quads of site energy savings over a 30-

year period.

15

Because the criterion for

significant energy savings has, therefore,

been almost without meaning (other

than that trivial energy savings are not

significant), DOE has essentially

established standards based solely on

what is economically justified and

technologically feasible under EPCA. As

a result, the energy savings from these

standards are already close to the upper

range of energy savings that is even

achievable under EPCA, let alone the

amount of energy savings that Congress

thought was worth pursuing as

‘‘significant.’’

Knowing that a reasonable threshold

for significant energy savings can help

achieve the energy conservation

objective of EPCA while reducing

regulatory burden, DOE evaluated

potential energy savings percentage

thresholds based on what percentage of

energy savings from past standards

rulemakings would have been retained

under a new, proposed threshold. In

conducting this evaluation, however, it

rapidly became apparent that it would

be difficult to accommodate the policies

of EPCA solely using a percentage

threshold. For example, on January 17,

2001, DOE published standards for

consumer water heaters that were

projected to result in 4.6 quads of source

energy savings. 66 FR 4474, 4475.

However, those energy savings only

represented a 4-percent reduction in

energy use of consumer water heaters

over the analysis period. As a result,

similar to the February 2020 Final Rule,

DOE is proposing a second threshold

that would be based on the cumulative

amount of energy saved over the 30-year

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42049

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

16

National Research Council (2009), Review of

Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle

Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building

Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards: Letter

Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press (Available at: www.nationalacademies.org/

publications/12670).

17

This evaluation is based on the FFC energy

savings as presented in the final rules published

from 1989 through 2025. The conversion of site to

FFC energy use and energy savings varies by

rulemaking based on both the energy source

considered for the product or equipment at issue

and on the site-to-FFC multipliers current at the

time of that analysis.

18

This final rule was subsequently withdrawn by

DOE on May 20, 2025, after the President signed a

resolution of disapproval under the Congressional

Review Act. 90 FR 21391.

19

See supporting table available in

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE–2025–BT–STD–

0001.

analysis period. The second threshold

would account for situations where

standards result in significant energy

savings in absolute terms that may be

achieved through small percentage

reductions in energy use for covered

products and equipment that use more

energy (e.g., water heaters and central

air conditioners and heat pumps).

In proposing these thresholds, DOE

notes that the choice of site energy vs.

source (or primary) energy is important.

Site energy consumption refers to

energy use at the site of the relevant

equipment. For electricity from the grid,

source (or primary) energy consumption

is equal to the heat content of the fuels

used to generate that electricity (which

accounts for losses associated with the

generation, transmission, and

distribution of electricity).

For natural gas, oil, and propane,

source energy is equivalent to site

energy. Full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy

includes source energy and all energy

consumed in extracting, processing, and

transporting or distributing primary

fuels, which are referred to as upstream

activities. For natural gas, FFC energy

includes leakage in upstream activities.

This distinction is important, as some

covered products and equipment may

only use a single type of fuel (e.g.,

central air conditioners and heat pumps

(electricity)), while others may use

multiple types of fuel (e.g., water

heaters (gas, oil, and electricity)). As the

National Academies report

16

noted, for

products that use multiple fuel types or

when more than one fuel can be used

for the same application, comparison of

just the site energy will lead to incorrect

inferences about the potential for energy

conservation. The report stated that for

these products, measuring full-fuel-

cycle energy consumption would

provide a more complete picture of

energy used, allowing comparison

across many different products. Based

on ensuring an equitable treatment of

different energy sources, DOE has

tentatively determined that a significant

energy savings threshold based on FFC

rather than site energy use is

appropriate. DOE also notes that a

threshold based on FFC energy savings

is consistent with DOE’s historic

practice of presenting projected energy

savings from a rule in terms of FFC

savings.

Similar to the approach taken in the

February 2020 Process Rule final rule,

DOE has evaluated how various

potential significant energy savings

thresholds would have impacted DOE’s

past rulemakings. 85 FR 8626, 8675

(Feb. 14, 2020). Based on this

evaluation, DOE notes that a threshold

based on a 10-percent reduction in FFC

energy use over a 30-year period or a 2

quad reduction in FFC energy use over

a 30-year period would retain 91.5

percent of the energy savings from the

program while eliminating 35 percent of

the rulemakings (30 of 86

rulemakings).

17

This is a clear

indication that establishing a threshold

for significant energy savings can yield

enormous benefits and reduce burdens

without frustrating the energy

conservation purposes of EPCA.

Manufacturers typically incur

significant conversion costs to redesign

models for compliance with new or

amended standards, and higher

production costs associated with

amended standards are passed on to

consumers as higher up-front purchase

costs. As discussed earlier in this

paragraph, DOE estimates that without a

threshold, 35 percent of DOE’s

rulemakings have imposed those costs

on the market, while contributing to less

than 9 percent of the total energy

savings from the program.

Further, DOE notes that failure to

meet the threshold in a rulemaking for

a covered product or equipment does

not foreclose the possibility of a future

rulemaking for that same product/

equipment achieving significant energy

savings. One of the purposes of a

threshold for significant energy savings

is to prevent a process where DOE

amends an energy conservation

standard every time there is an

incremental improvement in energy

efficiency for a covered product or

equipment which does not rise to a

‘‘significant’’ level. For example, the

2017 final rule for walk-in coolers and

freezers was estimated to save 0.85

quads FFC over 30 years, representing

an 8-percent reduction in FFC energy

use. 82 FR 31808 (July 10, 2017). These

energy savings would not meet the

threshold of significant energy savings

proposed in this NOPR. However, DOE’s

next walk-in coolers and freezers final

rule published in 2024 was estimated to

save 1.6 quads FFC over 30 years,

representing a 6-percent reduction in

FFC energy use. 89 FR 104616 (Dec. 23,

2024).

18

These values also would not

meet the proposed thresholds for

significant energy savings, but the

combined energy use reduction of the

two final rules would represent over 2

quads of FFC energy savings. This

example indicates how the proposed

energy savings thresholds would allow

DOE to continue establishing amended

energy conservation standards, when

appropriate, while avoiding the

burdensome process of the market

complying with frequent incremental

changes to DOE’s standards. DOE has

tentatively determined that this balance

of achieving significant energy savings

while limiting the burden of

rulemakings with lower energy savings,

either on a percentage or quads basis,

ensures that DOE’s actions are

consistent with EPCA while providing

certainty as to how DOE will apply

statutory requirements.

Based upon this analysis, DOE

proposes to amend the current Process

Rule to include the provisions regarding

significant energy savings from the 2020

Process rule, but to consider ‘‘significant

energy savings’’ as at least a 10-percent

reduction in FFC energy use over a 30-

year period or a 2 quad reduction in

FFC energy use over a 30-year period.

DOE also proposes to add this language

specific to ASHRAE equipment and

‘‘significant additional conservation of

energy’’ in section 9. DOE requests

comment on these proposed thresholds

and may also consider alternative

thresholds ranging from 5 to 15 percent

or from 0.5 quads to 5 quads FFC energy

reduction over a 30-year period. These

other thresholds and an analysis of their

application to past DOE rulemakings

can be found in the rulemaking

docket.

19

As discussed earlier in this

section, DOE has tentatively determined

that these proposed thresholds best

balance the energy savings associated

with the program while limiting the

burden associated with rulemakings

projected to save less energy, either on

a percentage or quads basis. DOE also

requests comment on its tentative

determination that thresholds should be

based on FFC energy use.

As discussed, DOE plans to review its

analytical methods for evaluating

potential new or amended standards as

part of a separate process. To the extent

that DOE’s analytical methods may

change in a way that would impact any

eventual energy savings threshold (e.g.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42050

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

20

42 U.S.C. 6291–6309 and 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317,

respectively.

21

See supporting table available in

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE–2025–BT–STD–

0001.

22

See also section IV.J.1 of this document with

regard to early assessments for test procedures.

analyzing energy savings over a time

period other than 30 years), DOE would

consider any corresponding adjustments

needed to the energy savings thresholds

in a subsequent proceeding. DOE

requests comment and information on

any such alternative analysis and

corresponding adjustments, either as

part of this proceeding or the separate

proceeding focusing on analytical

methodologies.

DOE also recognizes that EPCA

established separate sections for

consumer products and for certain

industrial equipment,

20

recognizing the

distinct uses and markets for these

categories of equipment and products.

Additionally, the model redesign cycles

and product and equipment lifetimes

also may be distinct between these

categories, impacting the tradeoff of

energy savings and burden associated

with amended standards. DOE may

consider an alternate approach under

which it establishes different thresholds

for covered products and equipment. To

illustrate that approach, for example,

DOE could alternatively specify that

‘‘significant energy savings’’ for covered

products means at least a 10-percent

reduction in energy use over a 30-year

period or a 1 quad reduction in FFC

energy use over a 30-year period;

whereas for covered equipment

significant energy savings may mean at

least a 10-percent reduction in energy

use over a 30-year period or a 2 quad

reduction in FFC energy use over a 30-

year period. DOE requests comment on

whether such an alternative approach

may be appropriate, as well as the

specific thresholds that should be

applied, for example thresholds in the

range from 5 to 15 percent or from 0.5

quads to 5 quads FFC energy reduction

over a 30-year period.

21

DOE also requests comment on

further alternative approaches, such as

setting distinct thresholds, in terms of

percentage and total FFC energy use

reduction over a 30-year period (or as

noted earlier over alternative analysis

periods), according to the type of

covered products and equipment in

residential, commercial, and industrial

sectors. For example, would there be a

benefit to establishing separate

thresholds for consumer heating and

cooling equipment as compared to

consumer appliances (e.g., refrigerators,

dishwashers, and clothes washers and

dryers)? DOE specifically requests

comments on whether specific

thresholds should be applied to: (1)

consumer heating and cooling products;

(2) consumer appliances (such as

refrigerators, dishwashers, and washers

and dryers); (3) consumer water heating

products; (4) consumer electronics; (5)

other covered products; (6) commercial

heating and cooling equipment; (7)

commercial water heating equipment;

(8) commercial refrigeration equipment;

and (9) other covered equipment. DOE

requests comment on this further

disaggregated threshold approach, and

on whether the 10-percent and 2 quads

FFC energy use reduction over a 30-year

period, or higher or lower alternatives,

may be appropriate for each product or

equipment grouping. DOE also

acknowledges that implementation of

such an approach may require further

clarification regarding specific product

classifications. DOE requests comment

on whether further implementation

guidance would be helpful and any

recommendations from affected

stakeholders on how to best implement

such an alternate approach.

G. Process For Developing Energy

Conservation Standards (Section 6)

This section was first established in

the July 1996 Final Rule and describes

the process DOE follows in developing

energy conservation standards for

covered products and equipment other

than those covered equipment subject to

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1. The

February 2020 Final Rule created an

‘‘early assessment’’ process for seeking

stakeholder input prior to commencing

a rule and committed to an initial

rulemaking stage prior to a proposed

rule (e.g., an advanced notice of

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANOPR’’) or a

framework document and preliminary

analysis). This rule also established a

threshold for ‘‘significant energy

savings’’ of 0.3 quads or 10 percent site

savings over 30 years. Subsequent

amendments in the December 2021 and

April 2024 Final Rules removed the

energy savings threshold requirement

and the requirement for a separate early

assessment RFI but clarified that DOE

will issue one or more documents

during the pre-NOPR stage of a

rulemaking, which could include a

framework document, RFI, notice of

data availability (‘‘NODA’’), preliminary

analysis, or ANOPR.

1. Early Assessment and Pre-NOPR

Stages

Several commenters supported

reinstating an early assessment stage in

the process for developing energy

conservation standards or in general

support of a formal early assessment

process for both energy conservation

standards and test procedure

rulemakings.

22

AHRI expressed support for an early

assessment process for the amendment

of existing standards. (AHRI, No. 28 at

p. 8). NAHB recommended that DOE

reinstate the early assessment process

for soliciting stakeholder feedback well

in advance of commencing an energy

conservation standards rulemaking, as

this reduces regulatory burden. (NAHB,

No. 19 at p. 3). The Joint Gas

Associations stated that a formal early

assessment process can increase the

efficiency of DOE’s rulemaking process,

as it could lead to a prompt, early

decision in favor of more productive use

of rulemaking resources. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 25). NEMA

stated that the scope of coverage for a

rulemaking should be thoroughly

researched and addressed in a robust

RFI phase to ensure clarity and

consideration of all relevant data and

stakeholder input before the NOPR is

issued. NEMA also stated that this

would reduce the likelihood of a rule

that is inconsistent with the statute and,

thus, vulnerable to legal challenge.

NEMA recommended re-adoption of the

approach in the 2020 Process Rule to

mandate use of an early assessment RFI

and either an ANOPR or a framework

document with a preliminary analysis.

(NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 7–8).

Several commenters also expressed

support for requiring a pre-NOPR stage

in the process for developing energy

conservation standards; however, there

was no consistency in recommending

what that stage should be. Commenters

stated that this requirement can be

fulfilled with either an ANOPR or

framework document with a

preliminary analysis (AHRI, No. 28 at p.

8), an ANOPR or a preliminary analysis

(APPA, No. 20 at p. 4; EEI, No. 35 at p.

4), or an ANOPR or a framework

document or a preliminary analysis

(NAHB, No. 19 at pp. 3–4). The Joint

Gas Associations stated that the Process

Rule should include multiple avenues

such as an ANOPR, NODA, RFI, or

NOPR/SNOPR and that DOE should

explain why it determined which

publication was appropriate (e.g.,

NODA instead of ANOPR). (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 26).

In response, DOE agrees with

commenters that a formal early

assessment provides an important

opportunity for public input and

provides regulatory certainty to

stakeholders. As such, DOE is proposing

to return to the language in the 2020

Process Rule regarding early assessment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42051

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

While commenters did not all agree on

what stages of a rulemaking should

follow an early assessment, DOE has

tentatively decided that specifying

limited pathways as opposed to

numerous options provides more

regulatory certainty to stakeholders. As

such, DOE also proposes to return to the

language in the 2020 Process Rule

regarding publishing either a

Framework Document and Preliminary

Analysis, or an ANOPR. DOE requests

comment on these proposals.

DOE notes that the procedural

requirements of section 6 of Appendix

A do not apply to direct final rules. The

procedural requirements for direct final

rules are specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.

6295(p)(4)).

2. Comment Periods

When developing energy conservation

standards, the current Process Rule

specifies that the length of the public

comment period for pre-NOPR

rulemaking documents may vary

depending on the circumstances of the

particular rulemaking and will be

determined on a case-by-case basis. At

the NOPR stage, the current Process

Rule specifies that there will be no less

than 60 days for public comment on the

NOPR, with at least one public hearing

or workshop, consistent with EPCA

requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2); 42

U.S.C. 6306; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)-(b)). See

Sections 6(a)(6) and 6(b)(2) of appendix

A. In contrast, the February 2020

Process rule had included a minimum

comment period of 75 calendar days for

pre-NOPR and NOPR rulemaking

documents. 85 FR 8626, 8705–8706

(Feb. 14, 2020).

The April 2025 RFI requested

comments on whether and how the

Process Rule should be amended to

modify public comment and review

procedures for rulemakings, consistent

with EPCA’s requirements. 90 FR 16093,

16098 (April 17, 2025).

In response to the April 2025 RFI,

several commenters expressed support

for mandatory minimum comment

periods in the Process Rule. AHRI stated

that taking the time to allow for

meaningful input is more likely to result

in a streamlined process and better

outcomes, and it may also reduce the

likelihood of litigation. (AHRI, No. 28 at

p. 9). BWC stated that a mandatory

minimum comment period is ultimately

beneficial to DOE, as it will allow

stakeholders the full amount of time to

potentially identify inaccuracies, issues,

or errors that can then be adjusted and

make both test procedures and energy

conservation standards for covered

products more robust. (BWC, No. 34 at

p. 3). The Joint Gas Associations stated

that the minimum statutorily specified

opportunities for public input are

generally inadequate and that longer

comment periods should be the norm

and specified in the Process Rule. (Joint

Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 24–25).

Several commenters recommended

specific comment period lengths. BWC

recommended that DOE re-adopt the

February 2020 Process Rule provisions,

which would extend the mandatory

length of comment periods to 75 days

for both NOPR and pre-NOPR notices.

(BWC, No. 34 at p. 2). AHRI stated that

75 days is an appropriate length of time

to gather comments in early phases of a

rulemaking, but 60 days should be the

minimum. AHRI further stated that if

DOE believes a particular step dictates

a shorter or longer comment period, it

can deviate from the Process Rule and

provide an explanation in the notice.

(AHRI, No. 28 at pp. 9–10). AHRI also

stated that if DOE shortens the comment

period to 60 days, DOE should continue

to freely grant reasonable requests for

extension. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 10)

Rinnai recommended minimum public

comment periods of 60 days for initial

notices and 45 days for supplemental

notices. (Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 3, 5, 10)

Lennox stated that the comment periods

specified in the Process Rule should be

binding so as to allow for a reasonable

minimum comment period in order for

stakeholders to properly review and

respond to the document in question.

(Lennox, No. 26 at p. 2). Lennox

recommended that NOPRs have

comment periods of at least 60 days

from the date of publication in the

Federal Register. Lennox also

recommended that pre-NOPR

documents have comment periods of at

least 60 days (for the first pre-NOPR

notice in a docket) or 30 days (for

subsequent notices if those subsequent

notices do not raise material new issues

that require engineering or technical

analysis). Lennox also recommended

that SNOPRs and other post-NOPR

documents have comment periods of at

least 30 days. (Lennox, No. 26 at pp. 8–

9).

Other commenters stated that public

comment periods specified in the

existing Process Rule are sufficient. The

State Agencies stated that the current

public comment and review process is

robust, accessible, transparent, and has

resulted in thousands of comments from

across the Nation to inform DOE

proceedings. The State Agencies also

requested that if DOE does propose

changing the public comment periods,

that it also provide justification and an

opportunity for additional public

comment on how the proposed changes

to the Process Rule would result in an

improved public comment and review

process. (State Agencies, No. 33 at p. 2).

NEEA recommended that DOE should

maintain the current public comment

and review process as codified in the

Process Rule that allows for early and

meaningful public engagement. The

commenter stated that the current rule

embeds EPCA’s statutory comment

requirements and provides structured

opportunities for stakeholder input

throughout the rulemaking process,

including at the proposal stage and, in

some cases, earlier through pre-

rulemaking notices or stakeholder

meetings. NEEA expressed opposition to

any changes that would diminish the

structure, duration, or significance of

public comment periods. (NEEA, No. 36

at p. 2).

ACCA stated that minimum public

comment periods alone are not

sufficient if the procedures themselves

remain opaque or are overly reliant on

technical modeling that is inaccessible

to small businesses. (ACCA, No. 38 at p.

3).

In response, DOE has reviewed the

comments received regarding the

appropriate comment periods for

various documents. DOE has tentatively

determined that a minimum 75-day

comment period best addresses the

public comments received, as it ensures

stakeholders will be provided with a

meaningful opportunity for public

comment on every rulemaking

document. Though several public

comments indicate that a 60-day

comment period is typically sufficient

for a NOPR, commenters representative

of a wide swath of affected entities also

support reinstatement of the 75-day

comment period. Therefore, DOE

proposes to reinstate the comment

periods from the 2020 Process Rule.

Additionally, DOE already makes

available its analytical models and

technical documentation, with at least

one public hearing or workshop, for all

stakeholders to review during the

comment period. DOE has tentatively

determined that this approach is

sufficiently accessible to all interested

parties. Further consideration of

analytical methodologies will be

addressed in a separate process, as

discussed in section IV.N.1 of this

document.

3. Factors To Be Considered in Selecting

a Proposed Standard

Section 6 of the Process Rule includes

a list of factors to be considered in

selecting a proposed standard. This list

is largely the same in the current

Process Rule as in the 2020 Process

Rule, but DOE is proposing to re-instate

the language in the 2020 Process Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42052

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

23

M. E. Porter & C. van der Linde, ‘‘Toward a

New Conception of the Environment-

Competitiveness Relationship,’’ Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 1995, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 97–

118 (Available at: www.aeaweb.org/

articles?id=10.1257/jep.9.4.97) (Last accessed July

31, 2025).

24

A. Brucal & M.J. Roberts, ‘‘Do energy efficiency

standards hurt consumers? Evidence from

household appliance sales,’’ Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management, 2019,

Vol. 96, pp. 88–107 (Available at:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0095069617307647) (Last accessed July 31, 2025).

for consistency. In addition, DOE is

proposing minor wording changes to

certain of the factors, including those

discussed in the subsequent paragraphs,

consistent with statutory requirements

and best practices.

a. Private Impacts on Consumers

Section 6(a)(5)(iv)(B) of the Process

Rule specifies that at the pre-NOPR

stage, DOE will consider various factors

when selecting a proposed standard,

including an analysis of private impacts

on consumers, including estimates of

energy savings, consideration of

subgroups, and other assessments of the

range of impacts. As discussed,

Executive Order 14154 states that it is

the policy of the Department to

safeguard the American people’s

freedom to choose from a variety of

goods and appliances, including but not

limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers,

washing machines, gas stoves, water

heaters, toilets, and shower heads.

Consistent with this Executive order,

DOE is proposing to add protection of

consumer choice to the list of factors

DOE will assess in considering the

private impacts on consumer of any

potential standards level. As discussed

in section IV. H of this document, DOE

is also proposing to add consideration of

certain private economic impacts to the

existing paragraph.

b. Impacts on the Environment

Section 6(a)(5)(iv)(F) of the Process

Rule specifies that at the pre-NOPR

stage, DOE will consider various factors

when selecting a proposed standard,

including an analysis of environmental

impacts and estimated impacts on

emissions of carbon and relevant criteria

pollutants. Under EPCA, the Secretary

has discretion to weigh ‘‘other factors

the Secretary considers relevant.’’ (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)). Previously,

the Secretary made a determination this

consideration of environmental and

emissions impacts was relevant.

Currently, however, given other

considerations germane to 42 U.S.C.

6295(o), the Secretary has tentatively

determined that the specifics of section

6(a)(5)(iv)(F) of the Process Rule as

written are no longer relevant as an

additional factor for his consideration,

and instead, DOE is proposing that this

factor simply refer to ‘‘Other factors the

Secretary considers relevant.’’ This

proposal is also consistent with the

policies specified in the Executive

order. More specifically, section 6 of

Executive Order 14154 specifies policies

for prioritizing accuracy in

environmental analyses, specifically

instructing that for Federal regulatory

processes, all agencies shall adhere to

only the relevant legislated

requirements for environmental

considerations, and any considerations

beyond those requirements are

eliminated.

H. Policies on Selection of Standards

(Section 7)

This section was established in the

July 1996 Final Rule and describes the

Department policies concerning the

selection of new or revised standards.

The February 2020 Final Rule made

minor amendments to align with

revisions elsewhere in in the Process

Rule, while the August 2020 Final Rule

added a clarification that DOE would

conduct a comparative analysis across

all trial standard levels when

determining whether a level was

economically justified. The December

2021 Final Rule amended this section to

remove the requirement for a

comparative analysis and to remove a

section related to considerations in

assessing economic justification.

1. Market Competition and Innovation

The April 2025 RFI requested

comment on whether and how the

Process Rule should be updated to

provide additional detail on how DOE’s

rulemaking process can promote market

competition and innovation within the

manufacturing and appliance industries

and on DOE’s historical analysis of

potential impacts of any lessening of

competition under 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V). 90 FR 16093, 16098

(April 17, 2025).

DOE received several comments in

support of using standards to promote

market competition.

Lennox commented that DOE should

support domestic manufacturers by

promulgating reasonable standards and

enforcing compliance to prevent the

entry of low-cost, non-compliant

imports. (Lennox, No. 26 at p. 5)

NEMA commented that competition

benefits from reasonable and consistent

efficiency rules that provide a stable and

level playing field. NEMA further stated

that predictability and consistency in

the Appliance Standards Program are

essential to reduce regulatory burden. In

addition, the commenter argued that

sudden changes can jeopardize

investments made and inventory

already created, which rely on current

standards and test procedures. NEMA

added that the testing of products and

certification is highly beneficial in

protecting manufacturers and

consumers against misrepresentations of

performance. (NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 3–

4, 6)

Ceres commented that Federal

appliance standards are critical for

regulatory clarity, market consistency,

and innovation incentives and provide

a reduction in complexity and cost

associated with meeting a patchwork of

State-level regulations. Ceres added that

for manufacturers, this consistency

simplifies product design, production

planning, and distribution logistics,

thereby enabling more efficient

economies of scale and streamlining

compliance processes compared to

having to meet different local energy

efficiency rules. (Ceres, No. 22 at p. 1)

The Joint Advocates commented that

efficiency standards promote market

competition and innovation and cited a

study

23

showing that regulations can

enhance competition by creating market

pressure that motivates innovation,

leveling the playing field during

transitions, and providing certainty that

investments in efficiency improvements

will be valued in the future. The Joint

Advocates also pointed to another

study

24

which concluded that as

standards take effect, the price of older,

but still-compliant products drops, and

manufacturers are then incentivized to

innovate so they can introduce new

premium models with novel features

and higher efficiency, resulting in better

products that benefit all consumers.

(Joint Advocates, No. 31 at p. 3)

DOE also received several comments

indicating that changes to the Process

Rule are not needed to promote

competition and innovation.

Ceres, the Joint Advocates, Lennox,

and the State Agencies commented that

the existing Process Rule and/or current

statute is sufficient to protect

competition and innovation. (Ceres, No.

22 at p. 1; Joint Advocates, No. 31 at p.

2; Lennox, No. 26 at p. 5; State

Agencies, No. 33 at p. 2)

Specifically, Ceres stated that the

current statute already promotes market

competition and innovation by directing

DOE not to consider new standards or

amendments that cannot be scaled to

meet the market and energy

conservation needs. Ceres added that

completely changing the current Process

Rule would ultimately reduce market

competition and product availability

across the Nation and put U.S.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42053

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

manufacturers at a disadvantage in the

global marketplace. (Ceres, No. 22 at pp.

1–2)

The Joint Advocates commented that

the Process Rule already includes

market competition and innovation

protections, including the requirement

to consult with both the U.S. Attorney

General and the Department of Justice in

evaluating any lessening of market

competition, as well as the requirement

to consider the practicability to

manufacture, install, and service a given

technology before giving it further

consideration in a rulemaking. The Joint

Advocates added that the Process Rule

further states that DOE will not consider

technology options that cannot be

scaled to meet the market need or that

are proprietary. (Joint Advocates, No. 31

at pp. 2–3)

The State Agencies commented that

any potential changes to the Process

Rule must be analyzed across the full

range of technologies covered by the

Appliance Standards Program and must

consider manufacturer innovation. The

State Agencies stated that consideration

of market competition and innovation

needs no further elaboration within the

Process Rule and is only appropriate at

the individual rulemaking level. (State

Agencies, No. 33 at pp. 1–2)

DOE received several comments

recommending specific changes to the

Process Rule to promote competition

and innovation.

ACCA commented that recent policies

have favored electrification, ignoring the

energy resilience benefits of dual-fuel

systems and significant barrier to full

electrification. The commenter stated

that such policies risk increasing market

concentration, as fewer manufacturers

are capable of producing compliant

units and fewer contractors are

equipped to install them correctly.

ACCA added that pursuing full

electrification could also raise costs,

reduce service availability, and

unintentionally burden grid

infrastructure with additional seasonal

loads. (ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2)

APPA stated that standards can create

market distortions that negatively

impact competition and innovation.

APPA commented that as smart and

artificial intelligence technologies

become more prevalent, DOE should

ensure that regulations do not eliminate

innovative technologies or worsen

supply chain issues. Specifically, with

rising demand and existing challenges

for distribution transformers such as

higher costs and longer procurement

times, the commenter urged DOE to

avoid adopting standards that worsen

these issues for minimal efficiency

gains. APPA further stated that

standards should not create situations

where only one U.S. manufacturer has

patents to make the product or key

components of a product. (APPA, No. 20

at pp. 2–3)

Similarly, EEI commented that

regulations should not eliminate

innovative technologies. As an example,

EEI stated that DOE should use annual

energy metrics, where possible, instead

of separate standby, off, and active-

mode metrics. EEI explained that annual

energy metrics support innovation by

allowing manufacturers to consider

trading off higher standby energy use for

a ‘‘smart appliance’’ with lower overall

annual energy use. (EEI, No. 35 at pp.

3–4)

NEMA commented that the Process

Rule should explicitly require DOE to

consider how a rule will affect

investment and whether it will harm

U.S. industry, innovation, and

ultimately consumers. NEMA added

that DOE should consider the impact its

decisions have on investment by

American companies related to

innovation. (NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 3–4,

6)

After reviewing the comments

received, DOE has tentatively

determined that the current Process

Rule Objectives should be amended to

include additional provisions stating

that it is DOE’s policy to promote

market competition and innovation

consistent with the requirements of

EPCA. See section IV.A of this

document for further discussion. DOE

remains cognizant of these issues and

notes that the current statute and

Process Rule already include

mechanisms to consider the potential

impacts from industry concentration,

manufacturing capacity, employment,

and other relevant issues. In response to

ACCA, DOE notes that potential

standards for products using different

fuels are evaluated separately with their

own economic justification. In response

to APPA, DOE notes that the screening

analysis already considers impacts

related to proprietary technologies. In

response to EEI, DOE notes that it will

consider the appropriate metric in

individual rulemakings, keeping in

mind the requirements in EPCA related

to standby mode and off mode energy

use at 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg). In response to

NEMA, DOE notes that it has received

more specific comments related to how

DOE should analyze manufacturer

impacts, as discussed in section IV.N.2

of this document; the Department will

analyze these issues in a separate

proceeding.

2. Analytic Approaches To Address

Balancing Factors in EPCA

The April 2025 RFI requested

comments on whether and how the

Process Rule should be updated to

provide additional detail on how DOE’s

rulemaking process satisfies the

statutory requirements for establishing

new or amended energy conservation

standards. 90 FR 16093, 16099 (April

17, 2025). DOE received comments

related to how the Process Rule should

approach analyzing the potential effects

of efficiency levels, including

incorporation of the statutory factors,

which inform the agency’s choice of a

standard level.

Several commenters supported the

provisions in the current Process Rule.

The Joint Advocates and the State

Agencies stated that the current Process

Rule and EPCA already outline the

detailed statutory criteria that DOE must

follow in each rulemaking. (Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at p. 1; State

Agencies, No. 33 at p. 2) NEEA

recommended that DOE should

maintain its current approach in the

Process Rule to assess economic

viability. Specifically, the commenter

encouraged DOE to maintain a

comprehensive assessment of economic

impacts that considers life-cycle cost

savings, avoided energy system costs,

macroeconomic impacts, and economic

impacts to consumers. NEEA further

recommended against redefining

‘‘economically justified’’ to have a

narrow focus on short payback periods

or ‘‘first cost analysis,’’ which would

undervalue long-term economic

benefits. NEEA added that overlooking

broader energy system costs and

macroeconomic impacts will limit the

ability to accelerate production of

energy-intensive industries and limit

economic growth potential. (NEEA, No.

36 at p. 3)

Several other commenters made

specific recommendations regarding

additional thresholds or evaluations

DOE should make when assessing

potential standards.

The Joint Gas Associations generally

support an approach where DOE

evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a

standard versus its possible level of

enhanced efficiency and added that any

process of evaluation must include

balancing potential energy savings with

the cost of implementation. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 26)

When selecting a standard level, in

addition to including a definition for

‘‘significant energy savings’’ (See

section IV.F of this document for

additional discussion on this issue),

AHRI commented that the Process rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42054

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

25

DOE understands the reference to a ‘‘minimum

three-year payback period’’ in this comment to

mean that DOE should only establish standards

with estimated payback periods of three years or

less.

26

‘‘or in the case of showerheads, faucets, water

closets, or urinals, water efficiency’’ 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2).

should also incorporate other factors

including: (1) a cost-benefit analysis for

consumers and manufacturers into the

definition of ‘‘significant energy

savings’’; (2) thresholds or benchmarks

that explain how DOE evaluates

marginal energy savings in relation to

consumer burden, product costs, and

feature trade-offs; and (3) a methodology

for comparing energy savings as it

relates to the cost of compliance,

particularly for products where existing

efficiency levels are already high or

marginal gains in energy savings require

a steep expense. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 11)

NAFEM commented that the Process

Rule should specify a clear rule

regarding payback period (‘‘PBP’’) that

can satisfy EPCA’s requirement that

standards be economically justified. The

commenter argued that lengthy PBPs

(sometimes exceeding the product’s

average lifetime) are impractical and not

economically justified for small

businesses that often operate on short

planning horizons and may never

recoup the cost of higher-efficiency

equipment. NAFEM added that lengthy

PBPs would lead small businesses to

repair old equipment or purchase less-

efficient refurbished units, thereby

undermining EPCA’s energy efficiency

goals. (NAFEM, No. 13 at pp. 5–6)

NAHB commented that standards

should be set strictly based on cost-

effectiveness to the consumer. NAHB

added that greater weight should be

given to the 7-percent discount rate, as

a 3-percent is not realistic in the real

estate development context. (NAHB, No.

19 at p. 5)

ONE Gas commented that DOE should

implement a de minimis threshold for

consumer savings at both the individual

covered product and national levels.

ONE Gas added that the de minimis test

should be applied in the Framework

Document phase and resolved at the

Preliminary Analysis phase. (ONE Gas,

No. 37 at p. 5)

Rinnai commented that the Process

Rule should include provisions

requiring DOE to conduct an

affordability analysis and not set

standards if some populations, such as

low- or middle-income households, face

net costs or excessive payback periods.

(Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 12, 13) In addition,

Rinnai stated that the Process Rule

should require a quantitative assessment

of impacts on low-income and senior

households, with explicit criteria that

flag when negative outcomes exceed

defined thresholds. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p.

8) Further, Rinnai commented that the

Process Rule should require that a

standard not be set if analysis shows

marginal or negative life-cycle cost

outcomes, payback periods close to the

product lifespan, or disproportionate

burdens on low-income or senior

consumers. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 9)

The Joint Gas Associations

commented that DOE’s rules should not

harm any customers and should not

increase costs for low-income and

senior households. The Joint Gas

Associations added that the Process

Rule should include some criteria for

fully evaluating the cost impacts on

customers, in particular low-income and

senior households. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 17–18) The

Joint Gas Associations further

commented that the Process Rule

should require a minimum

25

three-year

payback period threshold for DOE to

propose a new or revised standard.

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p. 27)

The Joint Gas Associations

recommended that the Process Rule

should state that DOE will utilize source

energy when evaluating critical energy

policy decisions and that it will seek

comments on the best method to use

when evaluating energy efficiency

measures, which may not always be the

existing site-to-source conversion. (Joint

Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 19–21)

In addition, the Joint Gas Associations

stated that any energy savings

associated with fuel switching should

not be permitted to be used to justify a

standard. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 25

at p. 21)

APPA commented that DOE should

ensure that standards do not result in

significantly higher upfront costs or

greater total system energy losses.

(APPA, No. 20 at p. 2)

ACCA recommended that the Process

Rule should incorporate field-based

efficiency data and installation quality

metrics in the Department’s cost-benefit

analysis and determination of

significant conservation of energy.

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2) In response, DOE

anticipates further additions and

refinements to the Department’s life-

cycle cost analysis and payback period

methodology, as well as all energy

conservation standards rulemaking

analytical methodologies, will be

addressed in the forthcoming Analytic

Framework update. Further public input

will be invited on suggestions to update

and improve the agency’s subgroup and

distributional impact analyses, such as

those involving low-income senior

citizens and small entities. Further

public comment is also solicited in

response to this proposal.

Statutory Factors and Analysis

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or

amended energy conservation standard

for covered products (and at least

certain types of equipment) must be

designed to achieve the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and

economically justified. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)). In

determining whether a standard is

economically justified, EPCA requires

DOE, to the greatest extent practicable,

to consider the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard

on the manufacturers and consumers;

(2) the savings in operating costs,

throughout the estimated average life of

the products (i.e., life-cycle costs),

compared with any increase in the price

of, or in the initial charges for, or

operating and maintaining expenses of,

the products which are likely to result

from the imposition of the standard; (3)

the total projected amount of energy, or

as applicable, water, savings likely to

result directly from the standard; (4) any

lessening of the utility or the

performance of the products likely to

result from the standard; (5) the impact

of any lessening of competition, as

determined in writing by the Attorney

General, that is likely to result from the

standard; (6) the need for national

energy and water conservation; and (7)

other factors DOE finds relevant. (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i); (p)). As part of

its consideration of these seven factors,

DOE conducts and publishes an analysis

in a technical support document (also

known as a regulatory impact analysis

(RIA)). This analysis accompanies the

proposed and final rules in fulfillment

of the agency’s statutorily required

responsibilities to provide the public

with the opportunity to comment on

DOE’s consideration of the factors for

economic justification, technological

feasibility, and other factors required by

EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)).

Furthermore, the new or amended

standard must result in a significant

conservation of energy (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6); and

42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) and comply with any

other applicable statutory provisions.

The Secretary determines whether a

standard achieves the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency

26

given that the standard must be both

technologically feasible and

economically justified. This

determination is made after conducting

analysis required by EPCA and

considering views and comments

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42055

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

27

See, for example, DOE’s previous consideration

of potential negative impacts on clothes washer

performance that could alter consumers’ usage

patterns at certain higher efficiency levels

considered for the analysis. (89 FR 19026, 19117;

March 15, 2024).

28

In the most recent energy conservation

standards rulemaking for microwave ovens, DOE

‘‘screened out’’ from its analysis any consideration

of automatic power-down of the clock display as a

technology option for reducing the standby power

of microwave ovens due to its impact on consumer

utility. DOE found that while it is uncertain the

extent to which consumers value the function of a

continuous display clock, the loss of such function

may result in significant loss of consumer utility.

78 FR 36316, 36362 (June 20, 2023).

29

In the most recent energy conservation

standards rulemaking for conventional cooking

products, DOE screened out from its analysis any

consideration of energy savings that could be

achieved through removal of the glass window in

the oven door, in part due to the loss of consumer

utility, possible adverse impacts on cooking certain

types of delicate food items, and potential safety

concerns. See section 4.2.1.3 of the Technical

Support Document accompanying the February 14,

2024, direct final rule (89 FR 11434), available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-

STD-0005-12819.

30

In the most recent energy conservation

standards rulemaking for miscellaneous

refrigeration products, DOE screened out from its

analysis any consideration of energy savings that

could be achieved through the replacement of glass

doors with solid doors, finding that solid doors

would be much less desirable to consumers and the

loss of the glass doors would have an adverse

impact on consumer utility. See section 4.2.1.1 of

the Technical Support Document accompanying the

May 7, 2024, direct final rule (89 FR 38762),

available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-

2020-BT-STD-0039-0037.

furnished with respect to a proposed

standard. To best inform this

determination, DOE proposes a ‘‘walk

up’’ approach to evaluating prospective

standards. By taking a ‘‘walk up’’

approach, DOE can compare each

progressively more stringent standard

(each increase in energy efficiency and

each incremental increase in costs) to

both the status quo and the standard just

below it. This allows the agency and

interested public to assess at each

possible standard level the incremental

increases in energy or water savings

relative to the incremental increases in

costs, including those arising out of

changes in consumer choice and

satisfaction. The 2020 Process Rule

referred to this framework as the

‘‘comparative’’ approach. To reflect the

general framework of that comparative

approach, as well forthcoming analytic

updates consistent with 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B), this proposal refers to this

concept as a ‘‘walk up.’’

As part of the EPCA analysis, DOE

must estimate benefits of possible

higher efficiency standards, including

those the statute directs DOE to consider

estimated energy savings and potential

operating cost savings over the average

life of a covered product. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)–(III), (VII)). In

estimating these anticipated benefits,

DOE must also anticipate consumer

behavioral changes that may temper or

increase energy or cost savings, such as

increased product usage (often referred

to as the ‘‘rebound effect’’), refurbishing

of old products or purchase of used

products, or substitution effects like

using more energy- or water-intensive

settings more frequently in response to

negative impacts on product

performance, or reduced costs to

controlling HVAC systems due to

Apps.

27

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)). In

addition, under EPCA, DOE must

estimate the costs of possible higher

efficiency standards, including those the

statute directs DOE to consider:

increases in price, initial installation

and maintenance costs; lessening of the

utility or performance (such as potential

negative impacts on product cleaning

performance or differences in the

brightness (lumens), hue or colors of

light bulbs); lessening of market

competition, such as increases in market

consolidation or other changes in price-

setting power, and other economic

impacts to manufacturers and

consumers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I–

II), (IV–VII)). In estimating these

anticipated costs, DOE would be

analyzing consumer welfare impacts

and losses to consumers and producers

from foregone consumption of good the

market would otherwise offer (also

known as dead weight loss in economic

terms), and the behavioral changes that

are likely to result from possible

standards. Consumer welfare in

economic terms refers to the general

satisfaction and well-being consumers

derive from their purchases and use of

products. In other words, DOE’s

statutory considerations regarding

impacts to consumers and

manufacturers, increases in prices,

maintenance costs, changes in utility

and performance all translate to

consumer welfare impacts and related

changes in consumer behavior. Under

EPCA, DOE further considers losses to

society when producers are willing to

offer a product at a particular price and

consumers are willing to purchase that

product at that particular price and that

exchange will no longer occur as a

result of a proposed standard. In

particular, under EPCA, DOE may not

prescribe new standards where the

standard would likely result in domestic

unavailability ‘‘in any covered product

(or class) of performance characteristics

(including reliability), features, sizes,

capacities, and volumes that are

substantially the same as those generally

available in the United States at the time

of the Secretary’s finding.’’ (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(4)). The unavailability of any of

these characteristics translates once

again to consumer welfare impacts and

potential losses to society when the

market is willing to make an exchange

but for the standard. In other words, the

loss of features such as consistently

illuminated clocks in microwaves,

28

the

window in an oven door,

29

or glass

doors on beverage coolers,

30

changes to

the layout of residential refrigerators

and clothes washers and dryers, and

dishwashers would limit consumer

choices and impact consumer

satisfaction and well-being. The agency

‘‘screened out’’ these feature losses from

consideration in prior analyses, and

requests comment on how such

screening can be improved. DOE’s

forthcoming analytic framework RFI and

update will also offer the public an

opportunity to suggest methodological

and data changes the better capture

these consumer impacts.

The main difference between the

‘‘walk down approach’’ and the ‘‘walk

up approach’’ is that the walk down

approach starts at the most stringent

possible standard and ‘‘walks down’’ to

different levels of stringency,

presumptively stopping at the most-

stringent standard that DOE determines

is economically justified. This approach

favors technological feasibility over

economic justification, resulting in more

stringent standards than may be

appropriate under EPCA’s balancing

factors. In other words, under the walk

down approach, DOE does not interpret

the statute as requiring a netting of the

benefits and costs in moving to a more

progressively stringent standard.

Meanwhile, the proposed approach

‘‘walks up’’ from the status quo to

increasing levels of stringency. This

approach allows both DOE and the

public to compare easily a proposed

standard’s proposed energy and

operating savings and economic impacts

to the status quo and to the standard just

below. For example, if the installation

costs of a proposed water heater

standard would increase by 106 percent

relative to the status quo, the walk up

approach would ensure that this impact

is shown clearly on the cost side of the

ledger. Also, other behavioral impacts

that would temper estimated energy

savings would be included, such as

when consumers choose to repair or

move to secondary markets when faced

with such up-front costs. In other

words, the walk up approach allows for

balancing technological feasibility and

economic justification with parity. At

each increment of increased stringency,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42056

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

the agency must consider costs. In

addition, with the agency’s forthcoming

analytic update, the agency’s cost and

benefits estimates are expected expand

beyond engineering concepts to further

capture economic concepts such as

consumer welfare and behavioral

change impacts. When technology is not

feasible, then incremental cost can be

very high or even infinite. While DOE

conducts an engineering-based

technological feasibility check as part of

its existing process the agency

acknowledges that feasibility in

economic terms is also related to costs.

Given this, the economic justification

analysis also has some collinearity to

technological feasibility. For instance, it

may be that at higher TSLs, from an

engineering perspective, the required

technologically has been determined

‘feasible’ but that from an economic

perspective the production costs are so

high as to prevent widespread

availability or consumption. Such

technology would clearly not be found

to be economically justified and from a

lay person’s market perspective might

not be considered feasible. When

technology is feasible, it may still fail at

economic justification, and EPCA

requires both conditions to be satisfied.

The seven EPCA factors lay out different

aspects of potential economic impacts to

affected parties. DOE’s analytic

framework RFI will delve further into

methodological and conceptual tools

aimed at a more complete and updated

analysis of these factors:

1. The economic impact of the

standard on the manufacturers and

consumers: this factor broadly lays out

economic impacts to manufacturers and

consumers should be taken into

consideration in setting conservation

standards regardless of whether those

impacts may by readily quantifiable or

not. Readily quantifiable effects include

potential energy and water savings

assuming that consumers’ distribution

of consumption of energy and water do

not change over time appreciably.

Currently, DOE folds some of these

impacts into the agency’s life-cycle and

payback period analysis. Manufacturers’

compliance costs are also readily

quantifiable using information collected

through government data collections,

public comment, DOE’s tear-down and

other engineering efforts, purchase of

proprietary information and others.

There are other economic effects that are

more difficult to capture on both

consumer and manufacturer sides.

Estimating changes in consumers’

consumption of substitute (e.g., used

and refurbished appliances) and

complimentary goods (e.g., dryers if

purchasing washers; detergent choices)

as a result of a conservation standard is

more difficult. For example, if a clothes

washer energy and water conservation

standard were to adversely impact

cleaning or rinsing performance,

consumers that experience any such

negative impacts on product

performance could potentially alter

their usage patterns, for example by

using more energy-intensive settings

more frequently (e.g., Extra-Hot

temperature setting); using more water-

intensive cycle options (e.g., Deep Fill

option; extra rinse cycles); using non-

regulated cycles (e.g., Heavy Duty

cycle); or re-washing clothing that has

not been cleaned sufficiently. Such

changes to consumer usage patterns may

counteract the energy and water savings

that DOE has estimated would be

achieved at the higher efficiency level

(89 FR 19026, 19117; March 15, 2024).

Similarly, if the same standard also

affects how clothing is washed, then

consumers may buy more powerful and

expensive detergent (complimentary

good) in reaction. Alternatively, if a new

clothes washer standard materially

increases purchase and installation

costs for that appliance, consumers may

choose not to purchase a clothes dryer

when those purchases are very often

bundled as complimentary goods. This

change could result in losses to society

from foregone market exchanges and

losses in consumer satisfaction where

preferences would typically lean

towards a bundled purchase. In

addition, new standards may cause

manufacturers to divert resources away

from improving features that consumers

want. While not exhaustive, the above

examples illustrate that quantitative

estimates of potential energy and water

savings and compliance costs may not

capture important effects readily.

2. The savings in operating costs,

throughout the estimated average life of

the products (i.e., life-cycle costs),

compared with any increase in the price

of, or in the initial charges for, or

operating and maintaining expenses of,

the products which are likely to result

from the imposition of the standard:

DOE is already explicitly taking this

factor into consideration in the agency’s

life-cycle cost analysis and payback

period analysis and recognizes there are

elements of consumer behavior and

welfare, as well as considerations of the

useful life of the appliance, that are not

currently captured in this analysis.

3. The total projected amount of

energy, or as applicable, water savings

likely to result directly from the

standard: DOE already explicitly takes

this factor into consideration in the

agency’s lifecycle analysis and national

impact analysis and recognizes there are

elements of consumer behavior and

welfare, such as in earlier stated

examples, that may affect these

estimates that are not currently captured

in this analysis.

4. Any lessening of the utility or the

performance of the products likely to

result from the standard: consumers

value different attributes of products

differently. Some may value the energy

and/or water efficiency savings more

than the cycle time in clothes washers.

Others may value cycle time more than

the energy and/or water efficiency

savings. Others may place value in how

effectively any residual detergent is

rinsed from the clothing, or how much

moisture is removed from the clothing

during the final spin portion of the wash

cycle. If changes in energy and/or water

conservation standards were to lead to

a reduction in certain aspects of

cleaning or rinsing performance, then

consumers may be less satisfied with

their clothes washers. These types of

effects may be more difficult to assess

quantitatively than potential energy

and/or water savings and compliance

costs and nonetheless should be

addressed. On the other hand, consumer

purchases often reveal preferences for

such functions, and by statute, DOE

must consider these changes in utility

and performance relative to products in

existence at the time a regulation being

contemplated.

5. The impact of any lessening of

competition, as determined in writing

by the Attorney General, that is likely to

result from the standard: lessening of

competition is a concern that DOE takes

seriously. Increases in market power or

significant market consolidation would

likely further reduce consumer choices

and lead to material increases in the

prices of covered products. DOE

currently applies a market concentration

index (HHI) in evaluating the lessening

of market competition. While this index

is a helpful indicator, DOE is

considering other indicators of lessening

competition. Market competition can

decline when fewer manufacturers

participate in the market or fewer

manufacturers choose to produce some

product categories. When consumer

purchases do not decrease by much as

prices rise (in economic terms: demand

is relatively inelastic) and competition

decreases, manufacturers are able to set

prices higher without sharply reducing

the number of units sold. For example,

consumers often replace large

appliances such as water heaters, heat

pumps, air conditioners, or refrigerators

when they break down, which may

result in less price flexibility for the

consumer. The result is greater benefits

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42057

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

31

These additional up-front costs include more

than just the cost of the technology necessary to

improve energy economy; because consumers have

a scarcity of resources, it also includes the

opportunity cost of any other desirable features that

consumers give up when they choose the more

energy-efficient appliances and other covered

products.

32

Office of Management and Budget. (2003).

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis: https://

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4.

for manufacturers (who sell fewer units

at a higher price), reduced benefits for

consumers (who buy fewer units at a

higher price), and some loss to society

(units that could have been produced

and sold at lower prices are not

produced and benefit no one). To

account for the impacts of reduced

competition, DOE is considering

analysis that more formally incorporates

consumer responsiveness to changes in

price (price-elasticity of demand) and

the likely price impacts in markets

where high consolidation already exists.

6. The need for national energy and

water conservation: enhanced energy

efficiency, where economically justified,

improves the Nation’s energy security

and strengthens the economy. Reduced

electricity demand due to energy

conservation standards is also likely to

reduce the cost of maintaining the

reliability of the electricity system,

particularly during peak-load periods.

DOE conducts a utility impact analysis

to estimate how standards may affect

the Nation’s needed power generation

capacity.

7. Other factors DOE finds relevant: In

the past, the Secretary has exercised

discretion under factor seven for

considerations such as impacts of

standards to certain subgroups such as

small manufacturers or low-income

senior citizens. DOE’s comparative

analysis can be applied to such

distributional outcomes as well, and

DOE continues to explore other

discretionary considerations. One such

consideration may be to explicitly state

that the Secretary has determined that

any proposed standard for which costs

(including consumer welfare losses and

losses to society from lost market

exchanges) exceed benefits (including

energy and operating cost savings) will

presumptively be considered as not

economically justified. More generally,

the Secretary has sufficient discretion to

apply a ‘‘walk up approach’’ under

EPCA.

Energy Conservation and the Energy

Paradox

The potential for appliance and other

covered product buyers to voluntarily

forego improvements in energy

efficiency that seemingly offer savings

exceeding their initial costs is one

example of what is often termed the

‘‘energy efficiency gap’’ or ‘‘energy

efficiency paradox.’’ Economic theory

predicts that, holding all else equal,

individuals will purchase more

expensive energy-efficient appliances

and other covered products if they

expect future savings on energy

expenditures to offset the higher upfront

purchase costs.

31

If buyers fully

internalize the expected energy savings

that result from higher efficiency in

their appliances and other covered

products purchase decisions,

manufacturers will presumably supply

any improvements that buyers demand,

and appliances and other covered

products prices will fully reflect future

energy cost savings that consumers

would realize from owning—and

potentially reselling—more energy-

efficient models if secondary markets

exist. In this case, a regulation that

induces increased energy efficiency of

appliances and other covered products

will impose net private costs on

appliance and other covered product

owners and can only result in social

benefits through correcting other market

failures (e.g., imperfect information or

internalizing other negative spillover

effects). If instead, regulations are issued

based on the premise that consumers

systematically ‘‘undervalue’’ cost

savings generated by improvements in

energy efficiency when choosing among

competing models, then more stringent

energy efficiency standards may lead

manufacturers to adopt improvements

in energy efficiency that buyers would

not choose despite the cost savings they

offer.

Whether the value of the resulting

realized energy savings will improve

consumer welfare depends on if and

why consumers appear to undervalue

future energy expenditures. If the

apparent ‘‘undervaluation’’ is due to

factors that are missing from the

analysis—e.g., tradeoffs with product

functions and attributes such as

cleaning performance, increased cycle

times when in energy saver mode or

changes in the starkness, warmth, or

hue of light bulbs—these hidden or

missing costs may be offsetting some or

all of the value of energy savings and

may not result in additional social

benefits. The appearance of such a gap,

between the level of energy efficiency

that would minimize consumers’ overall

expenses and what they actually

purchase, is typically based on

engineering calculations that compare

the initial cost of providing higher

energy efficiency to the discounted

present value of the resulting savings in

future energy costs, and such analyses

will not typically capture the above

variables. If instead undervaluation is

due to consumer or manufacturer

inattention to future energy costs

resulting from a market failure such as

an information asymmetry, then the

value of energy savings is a social

benefit of the regulation. How potential

buyers value improvements in the

energy efficiency of new appliances and

other covered products is therefore an

important issue when assessing the

beneÉts and costs of government

regulation. There is a large empirical

literature examining this issue that

comes to varying conclusions about the

extent that consumers value these future

energy expenditures. As noted in the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–4 (2003),

32

‘‘individual preferences of the affected

population should be a guiding

principle in the regulatory analysis.’’

This literature and its implications for

DOE’s analysis will be explored further

in DOE’s analytic framework update

effort.

Walk Up Analysis

A ‘‘walk up’’ analysis takes a step-

wise approach to estimating increasing

levels of energy conservation and the

related impacts on consumers and

manufacturers. Starting at the status quo

(baseline), the agency would analyze the

increases in benefits (including energy

savings) and costs (including

manufacturer costs) associated with

progressively more stringent TSLs. DOE

would use these estimates to identify a

preferred option that is technically

feasible and economically justified. For

the ‘‘walk up’’ analysis the Secretary

could determine economic justification

by relying on either incremental effects

or by relying on net benefits. Both

methods examine economic justification

by comparing the monetized benefits

and costs at different TSLs. Once these

analyses are complete, the Secretary

may consider these estimates along with

additional factors as noted above in

determining whether to set a standard

and if so, what level of stringency to

propose. DOE requests comment on all

aspects of the proposed walk up

approach.

Illustrative Example

In the following illustrative example,

DOE presents an incremental walk up

approach under three scenarios: (1)

where DOE is not accounting for

consumer welfare and market loss (dead

weight loss) impacts; (2) where DOE

captures some but not all consumer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42058

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

welfare and market lost impacts or such

impacts are relatively small; (3) where

DOE robustly estimates consumer

welfare and market loss impacts and

those impacts are substantial. In

addition, DOE presents a simple net

benefits scenario.

The numbers used in the tables are for

illustration only and do not reflect

estimates for any particular policy.

Table 1 shown below compares

monetized energy savings with

monetized cost increases associated

with tighter energy efficiency levels but

does not include all the economic

impacts envisioned by the statute (e.g.,

consumer welfare and dead weight

loss). For example, in going from the

world without a standard (the baseline)

to a proposed TSL 1, assume benefits of

$100 (i.e., estimated energy and

operating cost savings), and costs of $75

(i.e., cost increase and lost consumer

satisfaction from reduced choices). The

incremental net benefit of moving to

TSL 1 equals $25. It follows that going

from TSL 1 to TSL 2 has incremental

benefits of $50 while the cost is $25 for

an incremental net benefit of $25.

Similarly, TSL 3 has an incremental net

benefit of $0 and TSL 4 an incremental

net benefit of ¥$25 (see table 1 of this

document). In this scenario DOE might

choose TSL 3 without considering

certain impacts to consumer welfare and

losses from foregone market exchanges.

In the second scenario, if consumer

welfare effects such as more

handwashing of dishes, dislike of

lightbulb colors and behavioral changes

in response to cost increases, are

relatively small in comparison to the

energy savings, then including these

effects may not change incremental net

benefits substantially (See Table 2 of

this document). Even in this scenario,

TSL 3 is no longer desirable.

On the other hand, in the third

scenario if consumer effects are

substantial enough to cause consumers

to delay the purchase of covered

products, or buy used or refurbished

covered products, or engage in other

major behavioral changes (see example

in Table 3 of this document where the

costs double when taking into account

consumer effects), then this could

significantly change the preferred TSL.

In the illustrative example in Table 3,

the agency’s preferred alternative may

be to not regulate.

This illustrative example

demonstrates how important the

appropriate analytic framework is for

analyzing DOE’s EPCA factors as part of

either the standard selection process or

in informing the determination of

whether to amend an existing

regulation. In cases where consumer

and market impacts prove difficult to

quantify, DOE may need to rely on a

strong qualitative record and/or public

comment to inform the Secretary’s

determination. Regardless of

quantification or monetization, such

impacts should be DOE’s analysis and

should carry weight in the consideration

of what constitutes economic

justification. The forthcoming analytic

framework RFI will solicit comment on

methodology and data efforts that may

better capture these impacts.

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Agency may choose a higher

standard.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

EP07JY26.151</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42059

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

Agency may choose a lower standard.

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C

Agency may choose not to regulate.

Net Benefits

Under this approach, the preferred

TSL would be the standard level that

maximizes the benefit of increasing the

efficiency standard stringency when

considering the costs of that increase. In

other words, when the net benefit is

maximized, the Secretary can

presumptively make the determination

that a proposed standard is both

technologically feasible and

economically justified. Under this

option, TSL 1 would be the agency’s

preferred TSL. DOE request comment on

whether the net benefit approach should

be the presumptive application of the

‘‘walk up’’ framework.

Following public comment and peer

review, DOE plans to issue analytic

guidance that will aid the agency in

quantifying potentially important

consumer and manufacturer effects that

are not currently quantified and offer

transparency to the public on the details

of the agency’s updated EPCA analytic

approach.

3. Selection of Standard Level

In addition to addressing ‘‘balancing

the factors in EPCA’’ as described in the

previous section, DOE also considered

how to evaluate EPCA’s statutory

requirements when constructing

standard levels for consideration. Many

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

EP07JY26.152</GPH> EP07JY26.153</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42060

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

33

DOE understands the reference to a ‘‘minimum

three-year payback period’’ in this comment to

mean that DOE should only establish standards

with estimated payback periods of three years or

less.

of the comments received in response to

the April 2025 RFI discussed in section

IV.H.2 of this NOPR are also relevant in

evaluating how to construct candidate

standard levels. DOE has included those

comments again in the paragraphs that

follow for consideration in this section.

Several commenters supported the

provisions in the current Process Rule.

The Joint Advocates and the State

Agencies stated that the current Process

Rule and EPCA already outline the

detailed statutory criteria that DOE must

follow in each rulemaking. (Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at p. 1; State

Agencies, No. 33 at p. 2) NEEA

recommended that DOE should

maintain its current approach in the

Process Rule to assess economic

viability. Specifically, the commenter

encouraged DOE to maintain a

comprehensive assessment of economic

impacts that considers life-cycle cost

savings, avoided energy system costs,

macroeconomic impacts, and economic

impacts to consumers. NEEA further

recommended against redefining

‘‘economically justified’’ to have a

narrow focus on short payback periods

or first-cost analysis, which would

undervalue long-term economic

benefits. NEEA added that overlooking

broader energy system costs and

macroeconomic impacts will limit the

ability to accelerate production of

energy-intensive industries and limit

economic growth potential. (NEEA, No.

36 at p. 3)

Several other commenters made

specific recommendations regarding

additional thresholds or evaluations

DOE should make when assessing

potential standards.

The Joint Gas Associations generally

support an approach where DOE

evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a

standard versus its possible level of

enhanced efficiency and added that any

process of evaluation must include

balancing potential energy savings with

the cost of implementation. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 26)

When selecting a standard level, in

addition to including a definition for

‘‘significant energy savings’’ (See

section IV.F of this document for

additional discussion on this issue),

AHRI commented that the Process rule

should also incorporate other factors

including: (1) a cost-benefit analysis for

consumers and manufacturers into the

definition of ‘‘significant energy

savings’’; (2) thresholds or benchmarks

that explain how DOE evaluates

marginal energy savings in relation to

consumer burden, product costs, and

feature trade-offs; and (3) a methodology

for comparing energy savings as it

relates to the cost of compliance,

particularly for products where existing

efficiency levels are already high or

marginal gains in energy savings require

a steep expense. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 11)

NAFEM commented that the Process

Rule should specify a clear rule

regarding payback period (‘‘PBP’’) that

can satisfy EPCA’s requirement that

standards be economically justified. The

commenter argued that lengthy PBPs

(sometimes exceeding the product’s

average lifetime) are impractical and not

economically justified for small

businesses that often operate on short

planning horizons and may never

recoup the cost of higher-efficiency

equipment. NAFEM added that lengthy

PBPs would lead small businesses to

repair old equipment or purchase less-

efficient refurbished units, thereby

undermining EPCA’s energy efficiency

goals. (NAFEM, No. 13 at pp. 5–6)

NAHB commented that standards

should be set strictly based on cost-

effectiveness to the consumer. NAHB

added that greater weight should be

given to the 7-percent discount rate, as

3-percent is not realistic in the real

estate development context. (NAHB, No.

19 at p. 5)

ONE Gas commented that DOE should

implement a de minimis threshold for

consumer savings at both the individual

covered product and national levels.

ONE Gas added that the de minimis test

should be applied in the Framework

Document phase and resolved at the

Preliminary Analysis phase. (ONE Gas,

No. 37 at p. 5)

Rinnai commented that the Process

Rule should include provisions

requiring DOE to conduct an

affordability analysis and not set

standards if some populations, such as

low- or middle-income households, face

net costs or excessive payback periods.

(Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 12, 13) In addition,

Rinnai stated that the Process Rule

should require a quantitative assessment

of impacts on low-income and senior

households, with explicit criteria that

flag when negative outcomes exceed

defined thresholds. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p.

8) Further, Rinnai commented that the

Process Rule should require that a

standard not be set if analysis shows

marginal or negative life-cycle cost

outcomes, payback periods close to the

product lifespan, or disproportionate

burdens on low-income or senior

consumers. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 9) DOE

notes that suggestions of this nature can

also be offered in response to the

Department’s forthcoming Analytic

Framework update RFI.

The Joint Gas Associations

commented that DOE’s rules should not

harm any customers and should not

increase costs for low-income and

senior households. The Joint Gas

Associations added that the Process

Rule should include some criteria for

fully evaluating the cost impacts on

customers, in particular low-income and

senior households. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 17–18) The

Joint Gas Associations further

commented that the Process Rule

should require a minimum

33

three-year

payback period threshold for DOE to

propose a new or revised standard. Joint

Gas Associations, No. 25 at p. 27)

APPA commented that DOE should

ensure that standards do not result in

significantly higher upfront costs or

greater total system energy losses.

(APPA, No. 20 at p. 2)

Upon review of the comments, DOE

notes that it is addressing procedural

aspects of the Process Rule in this

notice. DOE further notes that with the

current Process Rule and statutory

criteria, rulemaking analyses apply a

primarily engineering-based approach

to: (a) balance the potential energy

savings against the cost of

implementation; (b) perform a cost-

benefit analysis for both consumers and

manufacturers, including marginal

energy benefits and a comparison of

those benefits against the cost of

compliance; (c) consider payback

periods in addition to other factors such

as total life-cycle cost; (d) consider

discount rates determined from actual

asset and debt holdings for both

consumers and businesses (in addition

to discount rates specified by the Office

of Management and Budget); and (e)

consider the potential impacts to certain

consumer subgroups such as low-

income or senior households.

In addition, DOE has tentatively

proposed implementing presumptive

thresholds on certain consumer

economic-related metrics. However, the

Secretary retains discretion under EPCA

to weigh the seven factors and make a

determination that a rule that meets

these thresholds (e.g., lower percent net

cost, lower percent increase in total

installed cost, and lower simple

payback period as a percentage of

average lifetime) would not be

considered economically justified. The

proposed thresholds provide clarity and

certainty to stakeholders regarding how

the Secretary proposes to weigh EPCA

criteria at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) related to

economic justification.

Specifically, DOE reviewed key

analytical metrics assessed during an

energy conservation standards

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42061

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

34

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p. 25) and

(NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 7–8).

rulemaking and has tentatively

determined that the following three

factors, consistent with EPCA, best

reflect protecting consumer choice and

affordability, and are applicable across

rulemakings:

•Maximum increase in installed cost

relative to the baseline total installed

cost (%).

•Maximum percentage of consumers

for whom the standard level is projected

to result in net costs (%).

•Maximum simple payback period

relative to average product lifetime (%).

These factors are already analyzed in

each rulemaking as part of the life-cycle

cost and payback period analysis, and

relate to one or two of the factors EPCA

prescribed for determining whether a

standard is economically justified:

1. The economic impact of the

standard on the manufacturers and on

the consumers of the products subject to

the standard; and

2. The savings in operating costs

throughout the estimated average life of

the product in the type (or class)

compared to any increase in the price

of, or in the initial charges for, or

maintenance expenses of, the products

that are likely to result from the

imposition of the standard.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(II)).

Given that these economic thresholds

are factors that DOE already considers

as required by EPCA, and that the

Secretary weighs in determining

economic justification, DOE has

tentatively determined that adopting

presumptive thresholds relating to

economic justification is justified under

EPCA, just as setting a threshold for

significant energy savings is allowable.

DOE is proposing the following

thresholds as a basis for determining

whether a potential standard level is not

economically justified (i.e., a potential

standard exceeding the threshold would

not be justified) consistent EPCA:

•Up to 10% increase in installed cost

relative to the baseline.

•Up to 20% of consumers projected

to incur net costs as a result of a new

or amended standard.

•Maximum simple payback period as

a percentage of average useful lifetime

of a covered product of up to 50%.

DOE welcomes comments and

feedback on these proposed thresholds,

including whether higher or lower

thresholds would be appropriate in

support of the Secretary’s determination

regarding economic justification.

Regarding payback period, DOE requests

comment on alternative threshold

approaches, including whether a

specific duration, such as five years,

would be more appropriate, or a

combination threshold that applies both

payback period as a percentage of

average lifetime and a duration of five

years, whichever duration is less. Based

on comments, DOE may adopt a value

that is higher or lower than the value

proposed for each of these metrics, or

DOE may adopt a similar metric that

would also or better achieve the goals of

consumer choice or affordability. DOE

notes that, at any adopted level, these

thresholds would each represent a point

in the analysis for identifying a

potential standard level as not being

economically justified. As noted earlier,

the Secretary retains discretion under

EPCA to weigh the seven factors.

Additionally, DOE is separately

conducting an analytic update to

address methodological approaches in

energy conservation standards

rulemakings. To the extent that any

methodological changes would impact

the proposed metrics to be considered

for economic justification, DOE would

evaluate whether the numerical

thresholds proposed in this NOPR

require adjustment.

DOE proposes that these metrics be

applied after the completion of an LCC

analysis in order to inform the

Secretary’s determination regarding

whether to regulate in consideration of

whether EPCA’s requirement for

economic justification can be met. The

threshold determination can also inform

DOE’s assessment of which efficiency

levels in each product class could

become part of a trial standard level.

DOE welcomes feedback on how such

thresholds could best be implemented.

DOE notes that the proposed threshold

approach is also consistent with E.O.

14154, ‘‘Unleashing American Energy,’’

90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025), and the

Presidential Memorandum of January

20, 2025, ‘‘Delivering Emergency Price

Relief for American Families and

Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis,’’ 90

FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025).

In conjunction with the proposed

threshold approach, the proposed walk-

up approach described earlier in this

section builds on both DOE’s

engineering analysis and the prior

comparative framework. DOE

anticipates this proposed framework

will allow the agency to estimate a

wider array of impacts resulting from

candidate trial standard levels and is a

better read of the balancing factors

required to determine economic

justification under EPCA. In particular,

the walk up approach, paired with

DOE’s forthcoming analytic update, will

address methodological approaches to

modeling behavior changes driven by

changes in energy conservation

standards. Ultimately, DOE anticipates

the Secretary will be able to utilize

estimates that better reflect EPCA’s

balancing factors for economic

justification, as well as the incremental

impacts of each candidate standard in

making determinations regarding

whether and what to regulate and at

what level.

As stated previously, the December

2021 Final Rule removed a section

related to considerations in assessing

economic justification. 86 FR 70892,

70908. DOE did not receive any

comments directly related to this

section, but is also proposing to amend

the Process Rule to add back in this

section as it appeared in the 2020

Process Rule in order to provide

additional clarity to stakeholders in

terms of how the Secretary makes

decisions regarding economic

justification, beyond the proposed

threshold approach described in this

section.

I. Test Procedures (Section 8)

This section was established in the

original July 1996 Final Rule and

describes the process by which DOE

would establish test procedures for

covered products and equipment. The

February 2020 Final Rule added an

early assessment process for test

procedures and generally committed

that DOE would adopt consensus

industry test procedures unless not

consistent with EPCA. Consistent with

other amendments in that rule, this

section of the Process Rule was also

amended to require that DOE finalize a

test procedure 180 days in advance of a

standards proposal. The December 2021

Final Rule clarified that DOE may revise

consensus industry test procedure

standards for compliance, certification,

and enforcement purposes, and

modified application of the 180-day

period between finalization of a test

procedure and issuance of a standards

proposal by instead specifying a 180-

day period between finalization of a test

procedure and the close of the standards

proposal comment period. The April

2024 Final Rule removed the

requirement for an early assessment

stage, instead specifying that DOE

would publish one or more preliminary

documents (e.g., an RFI or a NODA)

related to the test procedure.

1. Early Assessment and Pre-NOPR

Stage

In response to the April 2025 RFI,

DOE received two comments

34

in

general support of a formal early

assessment process for both energy

conservation standards and test

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42062

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

procedure rulemakings, which were

summarized in section IV.G.1 of this

document.

As DOE discussed in section IV.G.1 of

this document, DOE has tentatively

determined to amend the current

Process Rule provisions to revert to the

2020 Process Rule requirement of an

early assessment stage, and for test

procedures where the early assessment

indicates that DOE should proceed with

a rulemaking, the 2020 Process Rule

language also provides additional

opportunities for early public input,

such as an RFI or NODA.

2. Comment Periods

When developing test procedures, the

current Process Rule specifies that the

length of the public comment period for

pre-NOPR rulemaking documents may

vary depending on the circumstances of

the particular rulemaking and will be

determined on a case-by-case basis. At

the NOPR stage, the current Process

Rule specifies that there will be no less

than 60 days for public comment on the

NOPR, with at least one public hearing

or workshop. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)

and 42 U.S.C. 6306). See sections 8(a)(6)

and 8(b)(2) of appendix A. The February

2020 Process rule did not include

provisions specific to comment period

lengths for test procedure rulemakings.

In commenting on the April 2025 RFI,

AHRI stated that DOE should provide at

least 30 days for comment on a pre-

NOPR test procedure document and

urged DOE to provide a 75-day

comment period on the NOPR to allow

interested parties time to evaluate

proposed test procedure changes

including collecting and analyzing test

data, as lab time is hard to come by.

(AHRI, No. 28 at pp. 9–10)

DOE has tentatively determined that

reinstating language regarding test

procedures from the 2020 Process Rule

will allow for sufficient opportunities

for early input, as discussed in the

previous section. DOE also notes that

guardrails are provided by the statutory

requirement to provide a minimum 60-

day comment period on test procedure

NOPRs, while allowing DOE the ability

to offer longer comment periods should

there be extenuating circumstances,

such as the need for additional

laboratory time mentioned by AHRI. As

such, DOE is not proposing changes to

the 2020 Process Rule language to more

directly address comment periods.

3. 180-Day Period

The February 2020 Process Rule

specified that test procedure

rulemakings establishing methodologies

used to evaluate proposed energy

conservation standards will be finalized

at least 180 days prior to publication of

a NOPR proposing new or amended

energy conservation standards. 85 FR

8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020). The

December 2021 Final Rule modified the

calculation of the 180-day period. 86 FR

70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021).

Accordingly, the current Process Rule

provides that except as provided in

paragraph (e)(2) of section 8 of

Appendix A, new test procedures and

amended test procedures that impact

measured energy use or efficiency will

be finalized at least 180 days prior to the

close of the comment period for a NOPR

or a notice of proposed determination

(‘‘NOPD’’). See section 8(e)(1) of

appendix A. The exceptions are for test

procedures developed by consensus or

test procedures limited to calculation

changes. See section 8(e)(2) of appendix

A.

On this topic, the Joint Advocates

stated that the current Process Rule

already specifies the timing between the

finalization of a test procedure and the

end of the comment period for an ECS

NOPR, which allows stakeholders to

gain familiarity with new test

procedures prior to providing comments

on proposed standards. (Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at p. 4)

In contrast, AHRI, the Joint Gas

Associations, BWC, Lennox, NEMA,

Rinnai, and Zero Zone generally

supported a return to prior language in

the Process Rule and expansion of the

spacing between test procedure and

standards rulemakings to 180 days

between the issuance or publication of

a test procedure final rule and the

issuance or publication of an energy

conservation standards NOPR. (AHRI,

No. 28 at p. 12; BWC, No. 34 at pp. 2–

3; Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p.

29; Lennox, No. 26 at pp. 2, 10–11;

NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 8–9; Rinnai, No.

11 at pp. 3–5; Zero Zone, No. 15 at p.

3) Lennox stated that this full 180-day

period is necessary because

manufacturers’ assessment of test

procedures can involve extensive

equipment testing, with significant lab

set-up and evaluation time. (Lennox,

No. 26 at pp. 2, 10–11) The Joint Gas

Associations stated that adopting this

proposal will ensure that the test

procedures are technically correct, that

they can be repeated, and that the new

or amended standards can be

meaningfully reviewed. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 29) AHRI

specified that this spacing requirement

would apply to test procedures that

impact energy use or efficiency. (AHRI,

No. 28 at p. 12)

EEI and BHI generally stated that DOE

should finalize test procedures well

before a proposed change to the

corresponding standard. (EEI, No. 35 at

p. 4; BHI, No. 16 at p. 3) EEI stated that

changes to the test procedure after that

point should be limited to issues that do

not impact estimated energy use, cost,

or design, thereby allowing stakeholders

to clearly understand potential impacts

and comment appropriately. (EEI, No.

35 at p. 4) BHI stated that DOE has a

record of poor judgment in deciding

what constitutes minor changes. (BHI,

No. 16 at p. 3)

APPA stated generally that DOE

should finalize test procedures for

products well before it issues an

ANOPR or proposal for those products.

(APPA, No. 20 at p. 4) Similarly, NAHB

stated that DOE should finalize test

procedures prior to issuing an ANOPR

or proposal for new standards—both for

existing and new test procedures,

because significant changes to test

procedures can significantly impact the

analyses performed for standards.

(NAHB, No. 19 at p. 4) NAHB also

supported DOE finalizing all new or

amended test procedures that impact

measured energy use or efficiency 180

days prior to close of a comment period,

so that stakeholders can clearly

understand potential impacts and

comment appropriately. (NAHB, No. 19

at p. 5)

In response, DOE has tentatively

determined to amend the language in

the current Process Rule to match the

2020 Process Rule language that

provides 180 days between a test

procedure final rule and issuance of a

standards NOPR. DOE requests

comments on this issue.

As discussed, section 8(e)(2) of

appendix A provides exceptions to the

180-day period for test procedures

developed by consensus (See section

8(e)(2)(i) of appendix A) or test

procedures limited to calculation

changes (See section 8(e)(2)(ii) of

appendix A). The current regulatory text

in this section of Appendix A contains

a formatting error whereby one of the

provisions relevant to test procedures

developed by consensus is printed in

section 8(e)(2)(ii) of appendix A, which

pertains to test procedures limited to

calculation changes. In this NOPR, DOE

proposes to correct this formatting error.

As proposed, revised section 8(e)(2)(i) of

appendix A would contain the

provisions specific to test procedure

amendments limited to calculation

changes; and section 8(e)(2)(ii) of

appendix A would contain the

provisions specific to test procedures

developed by consensus. These

proposed changes are technical in

nature only.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42063

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

35

DOE’s current test procedure waiver process

includes a provision which directs DOE to publish

a NOPR to amend its test procedures so as to

eliminate any need for the continuation of such

waiver, as soon as practicable after the granting of

any waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE

will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10

CFR 430.27(l).

4. Industry Standards

The February 2020 Final Rule stated

that DOE will adopt industry test

standards as DOE test procedures for

covered products and equipment, unless

such methodology would be unduly

burdensome to conduct or would not

produce test results that reflect the

energy efficiency, energy use, water use

(as specified in EPCA), or estimated

operating costs of that equipment during

a representative average use cycle. 85

FR 8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020). The

December 2021 Final Rule modified that

provision. 86 FR 70892, 70928 (Dec. 13,

2021). Specifically, the current Process

Rule provides that DOE will adopt

industry test procedure standards as

DOE test procedures for covered

products and equipment, but only if

DOE determines that such procedures

would not be unduly burdensome to

conduct and would produce test results

that reflect the energy efficiency, energy

use, water use (as specified in EPCA), or

estimated operating costs of that

equipment during a representative

average use cycle. DOE may also adopt

industry test procedure standards with

modifications or craft its own

procedures as necessary to ensure

compatibility with the relevant statutory

requirements, as well as DOE’s

compliance, certification, and

enforcement requirements. See section

8(d) of appendix A.

Several commenters indicated full

support for DOE adopting industry

standards. (AHRI, No. 28 at pp. 5–6;

BHI, No. 16 at p. 3; BWC, No. 34 at p.

3; NEMA, No. 23 at p. 9) BWC strongly

supported harmonization of DOE test

procedures with industry standards to

avoid redundant testing and reduce

burdens on manufacturers. BWC

encouraged DOE participation in

industry working groups to raise

concerns during the development of test

procedures, thereby minimizing future

conflicts. (BWC, No. 34 at p. 3) BHI

stated that the 2020 Process Rule

required DOE to use consensus test

procedures with minimum

modification; BHI added that this would

streamline the rulemaking process,

increase regulatory certainty, and

reduce potential introduction of errors.

(BHI, No. 16 at p. 3) NEMA

recommended DOE return to the

approach to industry standards reflected

in the 2020 Final Rule and adopt

consensus industry test standards

without modification unless

inconsistent with the law or

impracticable. (NEMA, No. 23 at p. 9)

AHRI supported adopting consensus

and proven test procedures already in

use by industry and others as methods

of test for all applicable products and

equipment. The commenter stated that

the 2020 Process Rule deferred only to

those consensus procedures that are

fully consistent with applicable law,

thereby streamlining rulemaking and

regulatory burden. AHRI added that this

policy promotes innovation, accelerates

market adoption, fosters competition,

and reduces burden. (AHRI, No. 28 at

pp. 5–6) However, AHRI stated that the

Process Rule should clarify how

reliance on consensus standards

interacts with DOE’s test-procedure-

waiver process.

35

The commenter stated

that when an existing procedure fails to

address a specific product

configuration, manufacturers may

request a waiver, prompting DOE to

amend its procedure. AHRI added that

if DOE principally relies on consensus

standards, those standards are not

subject to the same waiver prompt.

AHRI stated that DOE should, therefore,

establish a mechanism to ensure that

products granted waivers are

subsequently incorporated into updated

procedures—either through the

consensus standards body or, if

necessary, via DOE action. (AHRI, No.

28 at p. 6) AHRI also recommended that

DOE consider including an opportunity

for DOE to adjust and address test

procedure amendments on an expedited

basis, such as a petition from

stakeholders. The commenter stated that

an expedited process would not be

intended to address sweeping changes

to the method of test but could fix errors

or address burdensome practical

challenges in execution of the test that

had not been anticipated during the

rulemaking stage. (AHRI, No. 28 at pp.

8–9)

Other commenters indicated that DOE

should consider industry standards but

could make changes. (CA IOUs, No. 32

at p. 2; Joint Gas Associations, No. 25

at p. 32; Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 13–14)

The Joint Gas Associations stated they

are wary of a revised Process Rule

mandating that industry standards must

be used in test procedures in instances

not already addressed in the statute. The

Joint Gas Associations recommended

that when making a determination on

test procedures, the Department should

give consideration to the applicable

industry standard and work with

stakeholders before automatically

mandating the use of a particular

industry standard. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 32) Rinnai

supported use of industry standards

when developing test methods, but the

commenter stated that DOE should

modify or decline to adopt an industry

standard if doing so is necessary to

ensure accuracy, consumer

transparency, or alignment with EPCA.

Rinnai stated that the Process Rule

should provide flexibility to consider

such standards, solicit stakeholder

input, and adopt them only when

supported by clear and convincing

evidence. (Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 13–14)

The CA IOUs stated that adopting

industry test procedures is widely

regarded as best practice, but the

commenters acknowledged that these

may not fully align with EPCA

requirements and may need to be

modified or enhanced to ensure they

comply with law and are enforceable by

being repeatable, reproducible,

representative, and reasonable. (CA

IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2)

DOE has a long history of monitoring

the committees developing consensus

standards, which allows DOE to

evaluate whether the standards meet

both industry’s needs to minimize

burden and provide representations to

consumers and DOE’s needs to comply

with EPCA requirements and support

repeatability and reproducibility to

ensure a level playing field for

manufacturers. This participation can

also allow industry standards to

incorporate the substance of waivers

and address calculation changes. For

this reason, upon review of comments,

DOE is proposing to reinstate much of

the language from the 2020 Process

Rule, which limits changes to industry

standards to those required for

compliance with EPCA.

5. General

The April 2025 RFI requested

comments on whether and how the

Process Rule should be updated to

provide additional detail on how DOE’s

rulemaking process satisfies the

statutory requirements for establishing

new or amended test procedures. 90 FR

16093, 16099 (April 17, 2025).

DOE received several comments

related to general requirements for test

procedures. AHRI stated that the

Process Rule should clarify EPCA

requirements that test procedures are to

be representative of average use, not

unduly burdensome, and repeatable and

that the Process Rule should require

DOE to demonstrate that test procedures

do not result in indirect performance

mandates. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 3)

NAFEM stated that the Process Rule

should take into account real world

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42064

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

36

The February 2020 Final Rule stated that with

respect to DOE’s consideration of standards more-

stringent than the ASHRAE levels or changes to the

industry test procedure, DOE will do so only if it

can meet a very high bar to demonstrate the ‘‘clear

and convincing evidence’’ threshold. Clear and

convincing evidence would exist only where the

specific facts and data made available to DOE

regarding a particular ASHRAE amendment

demonstrates that there is no substantial doubt that

a standard more stringent than that contained in the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted

because it would result in a significant additional

amount of energy savings, is technologically

feasible and economically justified, or, in the case

of test procedures, that the industry test procedure

does not meet the EPCA requirements. DOE will

make this determination only after seeking data and

information from interested parties and the public

to help inform the Agency’s views. DOE will seek

from interested stakeholders and the public data

and information to assist in making this

determination, prior to publishing a proposed rule

to adopt more-stringent standards or a different test

procedure. 85 FR 8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020).

operating conditions and requirements,

particularly related to food safety.

(NAFEM, No. 13 at pp. 4–5) Heidi King

Consulting stated that any test

procedure must appropriately reflect the

purpose of the product and its features,

and that DOE should carefully consider

when it is appropriate to assess energy

performance at the product level versus

the component level. (Heidi King

Consulting, No. 30 at p. 4)

Upon review and in consideration of

comments received, DOE has tentatively

determined to reinstate the 2020 Process

Rule language.

J. ASHRAE Equipment (Section 9)

Section 9 of the Process Rule was

created by the February 2020 Final Rule

and describes the process DOE will

follow for conducting rulemakings for

equipment subject to the ‘‘ASHRAE

trigger’’ provisions in EPCA that apply

when ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is

amended with respect to standards, test

procedures, or design requirements

applicable to such equipment. The April

2024 Final Rule added provisions to

clarify application of the 6- and 7-year

lookback provisions for periodic review

of standards and test procedures in the

context of ASHRAE equipment.

1. Limited Circumstances and Clear and

Convincing Evidence

The circumstances under which DOE

will adopt a more-stringent standard

than the ASHRAE standard or a

different test procedure are laid out in

the statute. DOE will issue a more-

stringent standard than the ASHRAE

Standard 90.1 level if DOE determines,

supported by clear and convincing

evidence, that the more-stringent

standard would result in significant

additional conservation of energy and is

technologically feasible and

economically justified. (42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). DOE will adopt an

updated test procedure for covered

ASHRAE equipment so as to be

consistent with related amendments to

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless such

test standard would not meet the

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(3)

(i.e., a test procedure reasonably

designed to reflect energy efficiency,

energy use, and estimated operating cost

of a type of industrial equipment (or

class thereof) during a representative

average use cycle and is not unduly

burdensome to conduct). (42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(4)(B)). If DOE makes such

finding, by rule and supported by clear

and convincing evidence, the

Department may establish an amended

test procedure that does meet these

statutory requirements. (42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(4)(C)).

To reflect these statutory

requirements, the February 2020 Process

included the statement that DOE will

adopt the revised ASHRAE levels or the

industry test procedure, except in very

limited circumstances. The February

2020 Process Rule also included a

description of what qualifies as clear

and convincing evidence.

36

85 FR 8626,

8708 (Feb. 14, 2020). Both the statement

and the clear and convincing

description were subsequently removed

from the Process Rule in the April 2024

Final Rule, deferring instead to the

statutory language. 89 FR 24340, 24354

(April 8, 2024). See section 9(a) and (b)

of appendix A.

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

a revised Process Rule should define the

process used to adopt ASHRAE

Standard 90.1 equipment standards and

define a mechanism for when a more-

stringent equipment efficiency standard

over the ASHRAE level may be pursued.

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp.

31–32)

ASHRAE and the Joint Gas

Associations commented that DOE

should adopt language explaining that

DOE will adopt the revised ASHRAE

levels or industry test procedure, except

in very limited circumstances. The Joint

Gas Associations argued that this was

the intent contemplated by EPCA.

(ASHRAE, No. 12 at p.2; Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 31–32)

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

for consideration of standards more

stringent than the ASHRAE levels, DOE

should be required to meet a very high

bar to meet the ‘‘clear and convincing

evidence’’ threshold and should seek

public comment to assist it in making

that determination. The commenters

stated that to meet the ‘‘clear and

convincing evidence’’ threshold, DOE

should be required to determine that

there is no substantial doubt that the

more-stringent standard would result in

significant additional conservation of

energy, is technologically feasible and

economically justified, or that the

industry test procedures do not meet

EPCA requirements. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 31–32)

In response, DOE agrees that the

intention of EPCA was for the

Department to only adopt standard

levels more stringent than those in

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 in very limited

circumstances. As such, for clarity, DOE

is proposing to add that language back

into the Process Rule and to largely

reinstate the 2020 Process Rule language

related to ASHRAE, in combination

with the previous description of clear

and convincing evidence. Specifically,

DOE proposes to add the following

language in section 9(e) of the Process

Rule:

For ASHRAE equipment, DOE will

adopt the revised standard levels or the

industry test procedure contained or

referenced in the latest version of

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as

contemplated by EPCA, except in very

limited circumstances.

With respect to DOE’s consideration

of standards more-stringent than the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels or

changes to the industry test procedure,

DOE will do so only if it can meet a very

high bar to demonstrate that it has met

a ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’

threshold. Clear and convincing

evidence would exist only where the

specific facts and data available to DOE

regarding a particular ASHRAE

amendment demonstrates that there is

no substantial doubt that a standard

more stringent than that contained in

the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment

is permitted because it would result in

a significant additional amount of

energy savings and is technologically

feasible and economically justified, or,

in the case of test procedures, that the

industry test procedure does not meet

the EPCA requirements. DOE will make

this determination only after seeking

data and information from interested

parties and the public to help inform the

Agency’s views, and DOE will take this

step prior to publishing a proposed rule

to adopt more-stringent standards or a

different test procedure.

DOE has tentatively determined that

this language reflects the intent of EPCA

while providing additional clarity to

stakeholders and ensuring the

appropriate level of deference to the

ASHRAE process. DOE emphasizes that

in discussing the need for ‘‘clear and

convincing evidence’’ in the context of

more-stringent standard levels for

ASHRAE equipment, the Department is

simply explaining the existing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42065

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

37

Federal District Courts in circuits around the

country have provided similar definitions of ‘‘clear

and convincing evidence’’ in the civil context. See

Mandel v. Boston Phoenix, Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 26,

29 (D. Mass. 2007) (‘‘The meaning of the term ‘clear

and convincing evidence’—evidence so clear as to

leave no substantial doubt.’’),—is equally familiar

and well-defined.’’), Jersey Const., Inc. v. Pennoni

Assoc., Inc., Civ. A. No. 91–7331, 1993 WL 2999

(E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 1993) (citing Joseph’s v. Pizza Hut

of Am. Inc., 733 F. Supp. 222, 223–24 (W.D.

Pa.1989), aff’d, 899 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1990) (‘‘Clear

and convincing evidence is evidence that leaves no

substantial doubt . . . establishes not only that the

proposition at issue is probable, but also that it is

highly probable.’’); Hanna Coal Co., Inc. v. I.R.S.,

218 B.R. 825, 829 n.2 (W.D. Va. 1997) (‘‘Clear and

convincing evidence leaves no substantial doubt in

your mind. It is proof that establishes in your mind,

not only [that] the proposition at issue is probable,

but also that it is highly probable.’’); Gentry v.

Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711, 724 (M.D. Tenn.

2010) (‘‘Evidence is clear and convincing when it

leaves no serious or substantial doubt about the

correctness of the conclusions drawn.’’); Sala v.

United States, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1162 (D. Colo.

2007) (‘‘Clear and convincing evidence leaves no

substantial doubt in your mind. It is proof that

establishes in your mind, not only [that] the

proposition at issue is probable, but also that it is

highly probable.’’), Tobinick v. Novella, 108 F.

Supp. 3d 1299, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (‘‘The burden

of proof by clear and convincing evidence requires

a finding of high probability. The evidence must be

so clear as to leave no substantial doubt. It must be

sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating

assent of every reasonable mind.’’).

requirements of the statute, rather than

seeking to change or reinterpret those

requirements.

Rather than changing the definition in

question, DOE has found this language

consistent with how that term has

historically been interpreted and

defined in the civil context in Federal

Circuit and District Courts throughout

the United States. Recently, the term

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ was

addressed in a pair of cases involving

DOE. In American Public Gas Ass’n v.

United States Department of Energy, the

D.C. Circuit stated, ‘‘The requirement of

‘clear and convincing evidence’ as a

prerequisite to informal rulemaking is

unusual, perhaps unique; we are aware

of no other authorization for rulemaking

subject to this heightened evidentiary

standard. The standard is familiar,

however, from other areas of the law:

clear and convincing evidence requires

a factfinder (in this case the Secretary)

to have an ‘abiding conviction’ that her

findings (in this case that a more

stringent standard would result in

significant additional conservation of

energy, would be technologically

feasible, and is economically justified)

are ‘highly probable’ to be true.

Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310,

316, 104 S.Ct. 2433, 81 L.Ed.2d 247

(1984).’’ 22 F.4th 1018, 1025 (D.C. Cir.

2022); see also Am. Pub. Gas Ass’n v.

U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 72 F.4th 1324,

1336 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals has defined the ‘‘clear and

convincing’’ standard as requiring the

evidence ‘‘to be so clear as to leave no

substantial doubt [and] sufficiently

strong to command the unhesitating

assent of every reasonable mind.’’ Ittella

Foods, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 98 F.

App’x 689, 691 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal

citations omitted). Similarly, the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals has defined,

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ as

‘‘leav[ing] no substantial doubt,’’ Hunt

v. Pan Am. Energy, 540 F.2d 894, 901

(8th Cir. 1976), and the Second Circuit

Court of Appeals stated, ’’ [c]lear and

convincing proof is highly probable and

leaves no substantial doubt,’’ Dongguk

Univ. v. Yale Univ., 734 F.3d 113, 123

(2d Cir. 2013) (internal citations

omitted).

37

Further, the Handbook of

Federal Evidence, which consists of

materials designed to aid in

understanding Federal evidentiary

rules, also defines ‘‘clear and

convincing evidence’’ in civil cases as

requiring that ‘‘evidence be so clear as

to leave no substantial doubt’’ and

describes this standard of proof to only

be sustained if the evidence induces a

reasonable belief that the facts asserted

are highly probably true. (Handbook of

Federal Evidence, section 301:5 Burden

of Persuasion, Incidence and Measure in

Civil Cases (8th ed. 2018)).

Regarding any argument that the

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’

standard is a term of legal art, of which

Congress was aware when they adopted

the language, and that DOE does not

have the power to redefine ‘‘clear and

convincing evidence’’ to make it closer

to ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’’ as

exhibited in the above paragraph, DOE

is not redefining the standard, and

DOE’s provision for ‘‘clear and

convincing evidence’’ is consistent with

how it has been regularly defined in

Federal Courts for many years.

Accordingly, DOE agrees with NRDC

that Congress was cognizant of the

common law and accepted definition of

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ when

implementing 42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); the definition of

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ as

evidence that is so clear as to leave ‘‘no

substantial doubt’’ can be traced to a

1899 California Supreme Court

decision, decided far before 42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) was enacted.

Sheehan v. Sullivan, 126 Cal. 189, 193

(1899) (defining clear and convincing

evidence as clear, explicit, and

unequivocal; so clear as to leave no

substantial doubt). Again, this language

has been reiterated by Federal Courts in

the many years since.

DOE requests comment on this

proposal.

2. Timelines and Triggers

In the February 2020 Final Rule, the

2020 Process Rule expounded upon the

timelines in EPCA for amending

standards for ASHRAE equipment,

combining timelines for standards and

test procedures. 85 FR 8626, 8708 (Feb.

14, 2020). The April 2024 Final Rule

added provisions to separately address

standards and test procedures and to

clarify application of EPCA’s 6- and 7-

year lookback provisions for periodic

review of standards and test procedures

for ASHRAE equipment. 86 FR 70892,

70928–70929 (Dec. 13, 2021).

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

the Department should continue to

follow the statutory timelines and

procedural requirements in EPCA for

ASHRAE equipment when adopting the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels, rather

than those set forth in any Process Rule.

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp.

31–32) The Joint Advocates noted that

for ASHRAE equipment, the Process

Rule separately defines the timelines for

ASHRAE trigger rulemakings. (Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at p. 4) ASHRAE

stated that faster adoption by DOE of

amended energy conservation standards

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would lead

to lower energy costs for consumers and

businesses, and the commenter added

that such approach is in alignment with

both OMB Circular A–119 and the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public

Law 104–113 (which directs Federal

agencies to adopt voluntary industry

consensus standards unless inconsistent

with the law or impractical). (ASHRAE,

No. 12 at p. 2)

In response and in consideration of

the comments received, DOE has

tentatively determined to largely

reinstate the 2020 Process Rule

language.

The Scope section of the current

Process Rule (section 2) states that

ASHRAE equipment is governed

separately under section 9; as such, the

other provisions in the Process Rule do

not apply.

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

in the event that DOE conducts a

rulemaking to establish more-stringent

standards for covered ASHRAE

equipment, DOE should follow the

procedures established in a revised

Process Rule, while still complying with

EPCA’s ASHRAE-specific deadlines.

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp.

31–32) ASHRAE stated that DOE should

strictly adhere to the ‘‘7 Factor Test’’ if

promulgating energy conservation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42066

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

standards levels beyond ASHRAE

Standard 90.1. (ASHRAE, No. 12 at p. 2)

In response, DOE notes that although

the full Process Rule does not currently

apply to ASHRAE equipment, ASHRAE

equipment have express rulemaking

timelines specified in EPCA, as well as

EPCA provisions related to the 7 Factor

Test for economic justification.

Additionally, the clear and convincing

evidence threshold for rulemakings

regarding ASHRAE equipment that

would go beyond the levels set forth in

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 may require

additional consideration throughout the

rulemaking process as compared to a

rulemaking for non-ASHRAE

equipment. As such, DOE has

tentatively determined that additional

language in the Process Rule may be

needed. DOE is requesting information

and comments on possible

improvements or considerations for

ASHRAE equipment.

The April 2024 Final Rule clarified in

section 9(a)(3) of the Process Rule that

publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is

the ‘‘trigger’’ for DOE reviewing

standards. 89 FR 24340, 24362 (April 8,

2024).

ASHRAE stated that the trigger for

when DOE must consider updating

energy conservation standards for

covered ASHRAE equipment is when

the full version of ASHRAE Standard

90.1 is updated and published.

(ASHRAE, No. 12 at p. 2)

In response, DOE agrees that this is

consistent with DOE’s historical

interpretation of what constitutes a

trigger.

The February 2020 Final Rule

specified that DOE’s review in

considering amended standards based

on action by ASHRAE to amend

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was strictly

limited to the specific equipment class

for which ASHRAE made a change. 85

FR 8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020). The

current Process Rule does not include

such statement. Instead, the April 2024

Final Rule amended section 9(a)(3) of

the Process Rule to state that DOE

considers an amendment of standard

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to be

only those changes resulting in an

increase in stringency of standard levels

relative to the current Federal standards

or the adoption of a design requirement.

89 FR 24340, 24362 (April 8, 2024).

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

DOE’s review in adopting amendments

based on action by ASHRAE should be

strictly limited to the specific standards

for the specific equipment for which

ASHRAE has made a change. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 31–32)

DOE agrees that this is historically the

way that DOE has proceeded; therefore,

DOE has tentatively determined that it

will largely revert to this language as

established in the 2020 Process Rule.

DOE requests comment on this

approach, and also on whether

additional language regarding this topic

would be appropriate in the Process

Rule.

K. Direct Final Rules (Section 10) and

Negotiated Rulemaking

The Direct Final Rule section was

established in the February 2020 Final

Rule and describes how DOE would

comply with EPCA requirements

specific to publication of direct final

rules, including the Department’s

interpretation of the term ‘‘fairly

representative of relevant points of

view’’ as it applies to interested

stakeholders. 85 FR 8626, 8708 (Feb. 14,

2020). The December 2021 Final Rule

amended this section to clarify that DOE

will implement its direct final rule

authority under EPCA on a case-by-case

basis including its evaluation of the

meaning of ‘‘fairly representative,’’

subject to the circumstances of a

particular rulemaking. 86 FR 70892,

70929 (Dec. 13, 2021). See section 10 of

appendix A.

The February 2020 Final Rule also

included a separate section related to

negotiated rulemakings, which specified

that they could not result in a direct

final rule. 85 FR 8626, 8708–8709 (Feb.

14, 2020). The December 2021 Final

Rule removed that section, instead

inserting in the Objectives section of the

Process Rule (section 1) a statement that

the Department encouraged consensus

proposals, including those developed in

accordance with the Negotiated

Rulemaking Act (‘‘NRA’’), Public Law

104–320 (5 U.S.C. 561, et seq.). It also

clarified in section 10 of the Process

Rule that consensus recommendations

developed in accordance with the NRA

may result in a direct final rule. 86 FR

70892, 70925, 70929 (Dec. 13, 2021).

See sections 1(g) and 10 of appendix A.

Several commenters expressed

support for negotiated rulemakings and

urged that the Process Rule should

maintain procedures for their use.

Lennox stated that negotiated

rulemakings should be a preferred route

for energy efficiency rulemaking by

DOE. (Lennox, No. 26 at p. 3) Lennox

further stated that the Process Rule

should require DOE to actively explore

negotiated rulemakings for all major

new standards. (Lennox, No. 26 at p.

11–12) BWC stated that DOE should be

allowed to use a negotiated rulemaking

process during the early stages,

involving stakeholders who represent

relevant viewpoints. (BWC, No. 34 at p.

4) The Joint Gas Associations supported

including procedures for negotiated

rulemakings in the Process Rule that

provide for a convener and promote full

stakeholder participation throughout the

rulemaking process. The Joint Gas

Associations stated that if used

appropriately, negotiated rulemakings

can be an effective and efficient means

of promulgating new energy

conservation standards. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at p. 35) Rinnai

supported the use of a negotiated

process that allows DOE to identify and

address technical, economic, and

practical concerns early in the process.

Rinnai further stated that participation

should include regional utilities,

national and small manufacturers,

consumer representatives, and State/

local energy officials. (Rinnai, No. 11 at

pp. 13–14)

Several commenters recommended

that negotiated rulemakings utilize a

neutral convener. The Joint Gas

Associations recommended that a

revised Process Rule should make clear

that, prior to initiating a negotiated

rulemaking, DOE will appoint a

convener to: (i) identify persons who

will be significantly affected by a

proposed rule; and (ii) conduct

discussions with such persons to

identify their issues of concern and to

ascertain whether the establishment of a

negotiated rulemaking committee is

feasible and appropriate in the

particular rulemaking. The Joint Gas

Associations also supported DOE

incorporating provisions to ensure there

is opportunity for public comment

before the negotiated rulemaking

committee. The Joint Gas Associations

stated that the use of a facilitator and

the opportunity for comprehensive

public input will ensure the

participation of all relevant interests in

the process. (Joint Gas Associations, No.

25 at p. 35) Rinnai stated that for

negotiated rulemakings to be effective,

there should be a neutral convener to

assess the feasibility of a negotiated

rulemaking and to identify all parties

significantly affected by the rule. Rinnai

further stated that all stakeholders

should be able to provide public

comment on committee drafts and

deliberations before consensus is

finalized into regulation. (Rinnai, No. 11

at p. 13)

Several commenters supported the

use of direct final rules (‘‘DFR’’) after a

consensus is reached during a

negotiated rulemaking. BWC stated that

if consensus is reached, DOE can issue

a DFR, bypassing many administrative

steps and saving time and resources.

(BWC, No. 34 at p. 4) Rinnai

recommended codifying in the Process

Rule that DFRs are only appropriate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42067

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

where a representative cross-section of

stakeholders—including utilities,

consumers, small businesses, and small

manufacturers—have actively

participated in developing the proposed

standard and affirmatively support its

adoption without further comment.

(Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 13) Rinnai also

stated that negotiations should be

required to represent a consensus

inclusive across various constituencies

and be subject to public scrutiny. Rinnai

further stated that negotiations should

include robust engagement with the full

diversity of impacted stakeholders,

particularly small and mid-sized

manufacturers, distributors, professional

installers, and end users. (Rinnai, No. 11

at p. 14) The Joint Gas Associations

stated that at a minimum, the DFR

process should include larger concerns

and small businesses in the regulated

industry/manufacturer community,

energy advocates, energy utilities,

consumers, and States. The Joint Gas

Associations stated that a representative

group, with respect to all proposed

standards applicable to appliances that

use natural gas, must include gas

distribution utilities and their

customers. Furthermore, the Joint Gas

Associations stated that any rules

established through a DFR or a

negotiated rulemaking process must still

adhere to the other principles in EPCA,

such as being economically justified,

technologically feasible, and

demonstrate significant conservation of

energy. The Joint Gas Associations

recommended that a revised Process

Rule should reflect and formalize this

inclusive approach. (Joint Gas

Associations, No. 25 at pp. 33–34)

Rinnai stated that no stakeholder

recommendation should be used as the

primary basis for a proposed rule unless

it includes participants that represent

all segments of the affected industry

(including small manufacturers and

utilities) and includes a mechanism for

dissenting views to be formally

submitted. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 14)

Rinnai stated that analysis supporting

negotiations should be required to

include a competitive impact

assessment (i.e., examining how any

stakeholder recommendation may

benefit one or more participating

entities). The commenter stated that this

review should examine whether the

proposal would create market

distortions, impose barriers to entry, or

provide disproportionate advantages to

specific market participants or

technologies. Rinnai recommended that

findings should be publicly disclosed to

ensure transparency and guard against

regulatory capture. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p.

14)

Upon review, DOE has tentatively

determined that largely returning to the

language in the 2020 Process Rule

regarding Direct Final Rules and the

Negotiated Rulemaking Process will

provide more clarity to stakeholders on

how DOE will implement these

mechanisms. DOE has also tentatively

determined, based on review of

stakeholder comments, that the text in

the Objectives section of the Process

Rule encouraging the development of

consensus proposals, including—in

certain circumstances and after careful

consideration of fair representation—

negotiated proposals, is appropriate,

and is further proposing to add language

noting that these proposals may proceed

to a direct final rule in appropriate

cases.

DOE is requesting information and

comments on possible improvements or

considerations for the process of

negotiated rulemaking under EPCA.

DOE is also requesting comments on

considerations for direct final rules.

L. Principles for Distinguishing Between

Effective and Compliance Dates (Section

11)

This section was established in the

February 2020 Final Rule and provides

clarification as to the distinction

between the effective and compliance

dates of a final rule. 85 FR 8626, 8709

(Feb. 14, 2020). This section has not

been amended since its original

establishment.

While DOE did not receive any

comments related to this section, DOE

has tentatively determined that it would

also be beneficial to clarify the

prescribed date of a rule as compared to

the effective and compliance dates. As

noted in the current Process Rule, the

effective date is the date a rule is legally

operative after being published in the

Federal Register. Under the

Administrative Procedure Act, the

effective date must be at least 30 days

after the date of publication in the

Federal Register. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). For

some rules, a longer period is required

(e.g., 60 days for a major rule under the

Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.

801(a)(3)) and 120 days for a direct final

rule issued under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)).

The compliance date, on the other hand,

is the specific date when manufacturers

are required to use a new test procedure

to make energy efficiency

representations or to meet a new energy

conservation standard. For test

procedures, the compliance date is

typically 180 days after publication in

the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.

6293(c)(2)). For standards, the

compliance date is typically three or

five years after publication in the

Federal Register for covered products

but can vary under certain

circumstances. (42 U.SC. 6295(m)(4)).

In addition to effective and

compliance dates, the date a rule is

prescribed is also a significant date in

EPCA. For instance, under EPCA,

petitions for review of a rule are

required to be filed ‘‘within 60 days

after the date on which such rule is

prescribed.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6306(b)(1)).

DOE’s longstanding interpretation has

been that the prescribed date of a rule

is the date the rule is published in the

Federal Register. This view is

consistent with the court’s

determination in Natural Resources

Defense Council v. Abraham that

‘‘publish’’ and ‘‘prescribe’’ are

‘‘interchangeable’’ terms in EPCA. 355

F.3d 179, 196 (2d Cir. 2004). DOE

proposes to add language clarifying that

the prescribed date for a rule issued

under EPCA, including direct final

rules, is the date the rule is published

in the Federal Register.

M. Other Comments

DOE received several other comments

not directly linked to any specific

section of the Process Rule. The

Department summarizes and addresses

these comments in the paragraphs that

follow. However, DOE is not proposing

any revisions in relation to these

comments for the reasons explained.

In the April 2025 RFI, DOE requested

comments and information on whether

any changes to the Process Rule should

be made, consistent with statutory

requirements, to reduce the regulatory

burden associated with test procedure

and/or energy conservation standards

rulemakings. 90 FR 16093, 16097 (April

17, 2025).

DOE received two comments related

to changing timelines of rulemakings in

response to regulatory burden. BWC

stated that DOE should evaluate the

cumulative regulatory burden on

manufacturers early in the rulemaking

process, because manufacturers

producing multiple covered products

can be overwhelmed by simultaneous

rulemakings. BWC stated that DOE

should accept comments from

manufacturers facing cumulative

regulatory burdens and consider

delaying rulemakings if manufacturers

are overstretched by other ongoing DOE

efforts. (BWC, No. 34 at p. 4) NAFEM

commented that the Process Rule

should require DOE to align regulatory

schedules across Federal agencies and

State regulations to reduce uncertainty

and manufacturer burden in terms of re-

tooling product lines and costs for

agency re-approvals, costs for re-testing

equipment and products, and costs to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42068

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

38

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 28 at pp. 2–

3; APPA, No. 20 at p. 5; BHI, No. 16 at pp. 2–5;

Heidi King Consulting, No. 30 at p. 4; Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at p. 2; Joint Gas Associations,

No. 25 at pp. 14–16; NAFEM, No. 13 at pp. 7–8;

NEMA, No. 23 at pp. 5–6; NRECA, No. 17 at p. 2;

Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 3, 6–7, 11–12; Strauch, No.

18 at pp. 1–2; ONE Gas, No. 37 at pp. 3–4; WM

Technologies, No. 14 at p. 2).

modify sales and marketing literature.

NAFEM argued that overlapping and

conflicting timelines create economic

hardship, especially for small

manufacturers. (NAFEM, No. 13 at pp.

3–4)

In response, DOE notes that it must

comply with statutory requirements for

the timing of rulemakings, and any

adjustments to rulemaking timelines to

address regulatory burden must be done

in compliance with the statutory

deadline for a given product. As such,

DOE is unable to address these

requested changes to regulatory

timelines generally as part of the

Process Rule.

Several other commenters discussed

how to analyze cumulative regulatory

burden; these comments will be

summarized and addressed in a separate

proceeding focused on the analytical

methodologies used in DOE’s

rulemaking process.

The April 2025 RFI asked whether

and how the Process Rule should be

updated to provide additional detail on

how DOE’s rulemaking process ensures

protection of consumer choice in

prescribing regulations for covered

consumer products and commercial/

industrial equipment as directed by

EPCA. 90 FR 16093, 16097 (April 17,

2025)

Several commenters stated that EPCA

and/or the current Process Rule already

prioritize the interests of American

consumers and consumer choice and

that no changes to the Process Rule are

needed. (NEEA, No. 36 at p. 3; Ceres,

No. 22 at pp. 2–4; Lennox, No. 26 at p.

3; State Agencies, No. 33 at p. 1; Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at p. 2) Ceres added

that the current Process Rule provides

market certainty critical for

manufacturers to determine appliance

costs for consumers. Ceres stated that

without national standards,

manufacturers would have to navigate

individual State requirements to offer

their products across the country, and

that this may prevent some

manufacturers from selling products in

individual States, thereby creating

serious variances in costs and products

available from State to State. (Ceres, No.

22 at pp. 2–4)

NAHB expressed support for

standards that reduce energy

consumption and allow markets to offer

a robust range of products that meet

consumer preferences for functionality,

cost, efficiency, and aesthetics. NAHB

stated that EPCA requires DOE to

consider this exact impact, but that the

recent residential furnaces and

consumer water heaters rulemakings

will adversely impact consumer choice.

Accordingly, the commenter

recommended that compliance with

these standards should be postponed.

(NAHB, No. 19 at pp. 2–3)

DOE agrees that its role in

implementing EPCA should include

thorough assessment of the interests of

American consumers and domestic

manufacturers, but DOE is open to

comments regarding additional ways

DOE can address these interests. DOE

notes that many other commenters

discussed consumer choice specifically

in relation to adding more clarification

of how DOE interprets the EPCA

provisions related to features, product

classes, and unavailability.

38

These

comments may be considered in a

separate proceeding related to that

topic, if appropriate. In response to

NAHB, DOE notes that the referenced

rulemakings have already been

completed and any change to the

compliance date is outside the scope of

this Process Rule proceeding.

Rinnai recommended requiring

identification and documentation of

lessons learned for any rule that is

withdrawn under the Congressional

Review Act (‘‘CRA’’) or judicial

invalidation. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p.11)

In response, DOE notes that its actions

addressing rules being withdrawn as a

result of CRA or judicial invalidation

are based on the requirements of the

CRA or the specific judicial decision. As

such, DOE is not proposing additional

language in the Process Rule.

PHTA recommended that any

amendments to the certification,

compliance, enforcement sections of

Part 429 (which require a change to the

reporting requirements for

manufacturers to demonstrate

compliance) be completed within the

test procedure or energy conservation

standard rulemaking, and not a separate

certification rulemaking. (PHTA, No. 27

at p. 2)

DOE notes that information collected

in certification reports is subject to

approval from Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’), consistent

with the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). DOE establishes

reporting requirements consistent with

the PRA and OIRA requirements for the

entire range of covered products. DOE is

considering how to best limit regulatory

burden associated with its appliance

standards program, including

approaches to limit the paperwork and

reporting burden associated with

compliance certification reporting

requirements. DOE will propose any

such action as part of a separate

proceeding related to certification

requirements.

Zero Zone recommended that DOE

review how it applies uncertainty levels

to analysis, test reporting and

certification, and standard levels. (Zero

Zone, No. 15 at pp. 1–2)

In response, DOE notes that

uncertainty levels are assessed on a

case-by-case basis in individual energy

conservation standards and test

procedure rulemakings, as needed.

Given the fact-specific nature of such

inquiry, DOE does not believe that a

generalized statement in the Process

Rule would add significant value.

APPA and EEI stated that DOE should

work with Congress to reform the 3-

year-lookback provision for ‘‘no new

standards’’ determinations, perhaps by

providing that a new analysis should

only be required if there is a significant

shipments increase. (APPA, No. 20 at p.

3; EEI, No. 35 at p. 3) APPA commented

that DOE should also work with

Congress to revise the ‘‘six-year-

lookback’’ (for energy conservation

standards) and ‘‘seven-year-lookback’’

(for test procedures) requirements

contained in the Energy Independence

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’)

amendments to EPCA and consider

changing it to six or seven years after

the compliance date of a new standard.

APPA argued that this would provide

more time to evaluate the real-world

effects of new standards before

considering any amendments. (APPA,

No. 20 at pp. 3, 5)

DOE acknowledges receipt of these

comments and will consider further

updates to the Process Rule to reflect

any future amendments to EPCA, if

adopted by Congress.

Lennox stated that the Process Rule

should acknowledge DOE’s ‘‘error

correction’’ provisions and that these

error correction provisions should be

strengthened. (Lennox, No. 26 at p. 11)

In response, DOE’s error correction

provisions are not part of the Process

Rule and DOE has tentatively decided to

continue addressing them separately.

See 10 CFR 430.5. The error correction

provisions describe an optional process

that the Secretary may choose to follow

for a final rule that establishes or

amends energy conservation standards,

prior to publication of such rule in the

Federal Register. Because this is an

optional procedure and because DOE is

proposing in this notice that the Process

Rule would be binding on DOE, DOE

has tentatively determined that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42069

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

39

(BHI, No. 16 at pp. 5–6; BWC, No. 34 at p. 5;

Joint Commenters, No. 24 at pp. 3–4; AHRI, No. 28

at pp. 2, 7–8,11–12; Joint Gas Associations, No. 25

at pp. 23–24, 37–38; APPA, No. 20 at p. 1; Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at pp. 2–3; EEI, No. 35 at p. 2;

State Agencies, No. 33 at p. 2; Heidi King

Consulting, No. 30 at pp. 1–3; Lennox, No. 26 at pp.

6–7)

40

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p. 22;

Strauch, No. 18 at p. 1; NAFEM, No. 13 at p. 8)

41

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p. 22;

Lennox, No. 26 at p. 7)

42

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 28 at pp. 4,

7; EEI, No. 35 at p. 2; Joint Gas Associations, No.

Continued

addressing error correction provisions

separately is appropriate. However, DOE

is requesting additional comments on

whether the Process Rule should

reference the optional separate error

correction provisions.

Several commenters discussed

stakeholder engagement and

transparency.

ACCA stated that DOE should provide

plain-language summaries of proposed

standards and technical analyses. The

commenter added that DOE should

expand opportunities for contractors,

installers, and service professionals—

those closest to real-world

performance—to contribute data and

recommendations during rulemakings.

ACCA suggested that DOE should

establish a small business review panel

within the program, modeled on the

Small Business Administration’s Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (‘‘SBREFA’’) panels, to

evaluate impacts early in the

rulemaking process. (ACCA, No. 38 at p.

3)

APPA recommended that DOE

increase its use of internet platforms

and hybrid meetings to maximize

stakeholder input and reduce the cost of

rulemaking processes. (APPA, No. 20 at

pp. 4–5) EEI recommended that DOE

should increase its use of internet

platforms including hosting hybrid or

internet-only webinars during comment

periods. (EEI, No. 35 at p. 4) NAHB

encouraged DOE to focus on publicizing

and justifying its rationale for decision

making throughout the rulemaking

process; NAHB noted that webinars and

other public forums to solicit input can

increase confidence in the fairness and

transparency of the rulemaking process.

(NAHB, No. 19 at p. 5) Rinnai

recommended requiring disclosure of all

modeling assumptions, engagement

with stakeholders through technical

workshops, and publishing intermediate

results. Rinnai also recommended

requiring stakeholder webinars within

10 days of releasing major data sets or

modeling changes. (Rinnai, No. 11 at p.

10)

NRECA commented that DOE should

account for key issues raised by

stakeholders and incorporate the

information provided in its

rulemakings. (NRECA, No. 17 at p. 2)

APPA commented that DOE should

ensure that it carefully evaluates

information and analyses submitted by

stakeholders. (APPA, No. 20 at pp. 4–5)

NAFEM commented that DOE should

participate in increased dialogue with

industry. (NAFEM, No. 13 at p. 8)

Rinnai recommended requiring public

availability of all life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’)

model files and key assumptions.

(Rinnai, No. 11 at p. 10) Zero Zone

stated that DOE should be required to

share its models and allow stakeholder

review. (Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 4)

NEMA recommended that DOE

consider soliciting pre-NOPR

information at the earliest possible time,

in order to guide the way forward, help

avoid wasting resources later, and

reduce the likelihood of a rule that is

inconsistent with the statutory scheme

and, thus, vulnerable to legal challenge.

(NEMA, No. 23 at p. 8)

The Joint Gas Associations stated that

the Department should use updated

qualitative and quantitative analytical

methods that fully document for the

public that its decisions are sound.

These commenters added that any

results should be fully explained and

capable of being reproduced by

stakeholders. (Joint Gas Associations,

No. 25 at p. 18)

AHRI, NAFEM, and Zero Zone

suggested that DOE should be required

to provide masked test data to all

stakeholders, and AHRI and NAFEM

suggested that unmasked test data

should be provided to the relevant

manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 28 at pp. 2, 7;

NAFEM, No. 13 at pp. 6–7; Zero Zone,

No. 15 at pp. 2, 4) Zero Zone added that

a Professional Engineer should be

required to review and approve the

results. (Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 4)

The Joint Advocates stated that the

Process Rule currently specifies

opportunity for public comment, and

DOE makes supporting materials

publicly available, including technical

support documents, government

regulatory impact models, and the

national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’) and

LCC spreadsheets. Accordingly, the

Joint Advocates concluded that there is

no need to amend these sections of the

Process Rule. (Joint Advocates, No. 31 at

pp. 3–4) NEEA stated that DOE should

continue to publish its analyses and

field formal comment periods and

stakeholder input opportunities across

key rulemaking stages. Additionally,

NEEA recommended DOE continue to

prioritize transparency, accessibility,

and consistency in how it solicits and

incorporates public feedback, and the

commenter opposed any changes that

would diminish the structure, duration,

or significance of public comment

windows. (NEEA, No. 36 at p. 2) NEEA

recommended DOE maintain its current

commitment to transparent, peer-

reviewed cost-benefit analysis,

including the publication of

assumptions, data, and modeling tools.

(NEEA, No. 36 at p. 3)

Upon review, DOE agrees that the

current Process Rule already specifies

appropriate opportunities for public

comment and stakeholder engagement.

While DOE makes all spreadsheet

models and technical support

documents publicly available for

stakeholder review, the Department

welcomes the opportunity to further

increase transparency and

reproducibility as part of the rulemaking

record. DOE recognizes that in isolation

such documents may be difficult to

navigate without clear documentation

manuals and access to underlying

methodology and data. DOE will

explore opportunities to increase

transparency further through the

Analytic Framework update. DOE

already engages with stakeholders via

public hearings (including hybrid

meetings) and provides opportunities

for stakeholders to submit relevant real-

world performance data and

information and provide

recommendations. DOE responds to key

issues raised by stakeholders and

incorporates information provided in its

rulemakings, where appropriate. DOE

also has the ability to make additional

materials available or to conduct

additional stakeholder engagement as

necessary. To the extent that

commenters raised topics related to

analytical methodologies, DOE further

discusses such comments in section

IV.N.1 of this document, and the

Department will address these

methodologies in a separate process. As

such, DOE is not proposing any

revisions in response to these comments

at this time.

N. Topics Considered in Other Processes

1. Analytical Methodology

DOE received several comments in

response to the April 2025 RFI

pertaining to the analysis conducted in

support of the development of energy

conservation standards, including

comments on the methodology and

development of input values related to

the general approach,

39

as well as

comments pertaining to specific

analyses, including: (1) the engineering

analysis;

40

(2) the markups analysis;

41

(3) the energy use and life-cycle cost

analysis;

42

(4) the environmental

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42070

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

25 at pp. 22–24; Joint Advocates, No. 31 at p. 3;

Lennox, No. 26 at p. 7; NAHB, No. 19 at p. 4;

NMHC and NAA, No. 29 at pp. 2–5; ONE Gas, No.

37 at pp. 2–3; ONE Gas, No. 37 at pp. 2–3; Rinnai,

No. 11 at pp. 3, 6–8)

43

(APPA, No. 20 at p. 5; Ceres, No. 22 at p. 5;

NEEA, No. 36 at p. 3; EEI, No. 35 at p. 5)

44

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 18–19;

ONE Gas, No. 37 at pp. 4–5; Rinnai, No. 11 at pp.

3, 7–8)

45

(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 10; BWC, No. 34 at p. 5;

Ceres, No. 22 at p. 4; State Agencies, No. 33 at p.

2; Strauch, No. 18 at p. 2; NAHB, No. 19 at p. 5;

NAFEM, No. 13 at p. 7; Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 5)

46

(ONE Gas, No. 37 at p. 4)

47

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 13 at pp.

2–3; Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 3, 6)

48

(Heidi King Consulting, No. 30 at p. 5; Lennox,

No. 26 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 23 at p. 6–7; NRECA,

No. 17 at p. 2)

49

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 21, 22;

Heidi King Consulting, No. 30 at p. 3; Rinnai, No.

11 at p. 9)

50

(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 26 at p. 6;

PHTA, No. 27 at pp. 1–2)

51

(APPA, No. 20 at pp. 2–3; EEI, No. 35 at pp.

2–3)

52

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 11–15, 17;

Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 9, 12)

53

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2; Joint Gas Associations,

No. 25 at pp. 26–28; NAHB, No. 19 at p. 4; Rinnai,

No. 11 at p. 10)

54

The National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine completed the peer

review and transmitted to DOE its report, ‘‘Review

of Methods Used by the U.S. Department of Energy

in Setting Appliance and Equipment Standards,’’

(‘‘NAS Report’’) on January 7, 2022. The report is

available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25992/

review-of-methods-used-by-the-us-department-of-

energy-in-setting-appliance-and-equipment-

standards.

analysis

43

and full-fuel-cycle energy

metrics;

44

(5) the monetization of

emissions analysis;

45

(6) the utility

impact analysis;

46

and (7) the

manufacturer impact analysis.

47

DOE further received additional

comments specific to the following

topics: (1) the approach to evaluate

hard-to-quantify effects

48

and evaluate

market failures;

49

(2) the cumulative

regulatory burden analysis;

50

(3)

considerations of any potential supply

chain constraints;

51

(4) fuel neutrality

and analysis of fuel switching;

52

and (5)

the need for retrospective review and

validation of existing standards prior to

initiating new rulemakings.

53

Given the significant volume and

range of comments which require

careful consideration, DOE has

tentatively determined that the most

appropriate path forward is to propose

minor amendments to these

methodology sections (e.g., sections 12

through 16) of the Process Rule, but to

address the detailed topics raised in

these comments as part of a separate

process. DOE intends to separately

undertake an analytic framework RFI in

which DOE will conduct a review of its

analytical methods, with the goal of

ensuring that rulemaking analyses

incorporate best practices and address

topics raised during peer review

54

of

DOE’s rulemaking process.

2. Product-Specific Comments

Solaray commented that DOE should

consider including solar thermal water

heating systems within the scope of its

prioritization process for energy

conservation standards and consider

solar water heaters alongside

conventional and hybrid technologies in

future water heating rulemakings, or as

a standalone or primary heating source

for water. (Solaray, No. 8 at pp. 2–4)

In response, DOE plans to address the

appropriate scope for water heaters as

part of any future rulemakings on water

heaters.

O. Severability

These procedures, interpretations,

and policies for consideration of new or

revised energy conservation standards

and test procedures are separate and

severable from one another and capable

of operating independently. If any

section or portion therein is stayed or

determined to be invalid, or the

applicability of any section to any

person or entity is held invalid, it is

DOE’s intention that the validity of the

remainder of these procedures will not

be affected and will continue in effect,

along with all applications thereof.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory

Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Section 6(a) of Executive Order

(‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4,

1993), requires agencies to submit

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for

review. OIRA has determined that this

proposed regulatory action constitutes a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,

this proposed regulatory action was

submitted to OIRA for review under

E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under Additional Executive

Orders and Presidential Memoranda

DOE has examined this proposed rule

and has tentatively determined that it is

consistent with the policies and

directives outlined in E.O. 14154,

‘‘Unleashing American Energy,’’ 90 FR

8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192,

‘‘Unleashing Prosperity Through

Deregulation,’’ 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6,

2025); and Presidential Memorandum,

‘‘Delivering Emergency Price Relief for

American Families and Defeating the

Cost-of-Living Crisis,’’ 90 FR 8245 (Jan.

28, 2025).

Preliminarily, this proposed

rulemaking has also been determined to

be an ‘‘E.O. 14192 deregulatory action’’

because, within the requirements of

EPCA, it intends to reduce unnecessary

burdens to society by streamlining the

regulatory framework and improving

efficiency for regulated entities and the

interested public. The primary impacts

are from the proposal to make the

Process Rule binding for actions that

would increase stringency, so that

manufacturers and other stakeholders

have more certainty with respect to how

individual rulemakings will proceed in

the future, within laid out boundaries.

In addition, the proposal re-instates a

threshold for significant conservation of

energy, again giving manufactures and

other stakeholders more certainty with

respect to how rulemakings will

proceed in the future in terms of new or

amended standards while continuing to

meet DOE’s responsibilities under

EPCA. The proposal to re-instate a

comparative analysis among all

analyzed TSLs would also allow DOE to

best determine economic justification,

consistent with statutory requirements,

while promoting consumer choice and

lowering first cost of appliances. In

addition, the proposal related to

ASHRAE equipment gives more

certainty to manufacturers that DOE will

only adopt standard levels above

ASHRAE in very specific circumstances,

allowing them to focus resources on

adjusting to any revisions in ASHRAE.

These benefits are difficult to quantify

due to the breadth of products, and that

most benefits will accrue in individual

future rulemakings. Nevertheless, DOE

believes these benefits would be

substantial.

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996) requires

preparation of an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule

that by law must be proposed for public

comment, unless the agency certifies

that the rule, if promulgated, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper

Consideration of Small Entities in

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461

(August 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 DOE

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42071

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

has made its procedures and policies

available on the Office of the General

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/

office-general-counsel).

This proposed rule would impose no

regulatory obligations on the public,

including small entities, and it would

not affect the ability of any interested

person, including small entities, to

participate in DOE’s rulemaking

process. Because this proposed rule to

revise DOE’s Process Rule instead

would only impose procedural

requirements on the Department itself,

DOE certifies that this proposed rule

would not have a ‘‘significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities,’’ and, therefore, the preparation

of an IRFA is not warranted.

Accordingly, DOE will transmit the

certification and supporting statement

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) for review

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

D. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995

DOE is not amending its existing

information collections through this

proposed rule. Under existing

provisions, manufacturers of covered

products/equipment must certify to

DOE that their products comply with

any applicable energy conservation

standards. In certifying compliance,

manufacturers must test their products

according to the DOE test procedures for

such products/equipment, including

any amendments adopted for those test

procedures, on the date that compliance

is required. DOE has established

regulations for the certification and

recordkeeping requirements for all

covered consumer products and

commercial equipment (see generally 10

CFR part 429). The collection-of-

information requirement for

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.

Specifically, this proposed rule,

addressing clarifications to the Process

Rule itself, does not contain any

collection of information requirement

that would trigger the PRA.

E. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), DOE has

analyzed this action in accordance with

NEPA, as amended, DOE’s NEPA

implementing regulations (set forth in

10 CFR part 1021), and DOE’s NEPA

implementing procedures (published

outside the Code of Federal Regulations

on June 30, 2025 (Available at:

www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/doe-

nepa-implementing-procedures-june-

2025)). The actions formally identified

in appendix A of subpart D to part 1021

represent administrative and routine

actions that are excepted from NEPA

based on the definition of ‘‘major

Federal action’’ in section 111(10) of

NEPA. DOE has tentatively determined

that the proposed amendments to the

Process rule are administrative and

routine. DOE has tentatively determined

that as an administrative and routine

action, this proposal is not a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment

within the meaning of NEPA and no

further environmental review is needed.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR

43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes

certain requirements on Federal

agencies formulating and implementing

policies or regulations that preempt

State law or that have federalism

implications. The Executive order

requires agencies to examine the

constitutional and statutory authority

supporting any action that would limit

the policymaking discretion of the

States and to carefully assess the

necessity for such actions. The

Executive order also requires agencies to

have an accountable process to ensure

meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE

published a statement of policy

describing the intergovernmental

consultation process it will follow in the

development of such regulations. 65 FR

13735.

DOE has examined this proposed rule

and has tentatively determined that it

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. It will

primarily affect the procedures by

which DOE develops proposed rules to

revise energy conservation standards

and test procedures for covered

consumer products and commercial/

industrial equipment. EPCA governs

and prescribes Federal preemption of

State regulations as to energy

conservation for the products that are

the subject of this proposed 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(d)) 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 E.O.

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR

4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal

agencies the general duty to adhere to

the following requirements: (1)

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;

(2) write regulations to minimize

litigation; (3) provide a clear legal

standard for affected conduct rather

than a general standard, and (4) promote

simplification and burden reduction.

Regarding the review required by

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988

specifically requires that Executive

agencies make every reasonable effort to

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly

specifies the preemptive effect, if any;

(2) clearly specifies any effect on

existing Federal law or regulation; (3)

provides a clear legal standard for

affected conduct while promoting

simplification and burden reduction; (4)

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)

adequately defines key terms; and (6)

addresses other important issues

affecting clarity and general

draftsmanship under any guidelines

issued by the Attorney General. Section

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires

Executive agencies to review regulations

in light of applicable standards in

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to

determine whether they are met or it is

unreasonable to meet one or more of

them. DOE has completed the required

review and tentatively determined that,

to the extent permitted by law, this

proposed rule meets the relevant

standards of E.O. 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,

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42072

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

55

The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at

www.energy.gov/cmei/articles/building-

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

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.

DOE examined this proposed rule

according to UMRA and its statement of

policy and has tentatively determined

that the rule contains neither an

intergovernmental mandate, nor a

mandate that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any year. Accordingly, no further

assessment or analysis is required under

UMRA.

I. Review Under the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires

Federal agencies to issue a Family

Policymaking Assessment for any rule

or policy that may affect family well-

being. When developing a Family

Policymaking Assessment, agencies

must assess whether: (1) the action

strengthens or erodes the stability or

safety of the family and, particularly,

the marital commitment; (2) the action

strengthens or erodes the authority and

rights of parents in the education,

nurture, and supervision of their

children; (3) the action helps the family

perform its functions, or substitutes

governmental activity for the function;

(4) the action increases or decreases

disposable income or poverty of families

and children; (5) the proposed benefits

of the action justify the financial impact

on the family; (6) the action may be

carried out by State or local government

or by the family; and whether (7) the

action establishes an implicit or explicit

policy concerning the relationship

between the behavior and personal

responsibility of youth, and the norms

of society.

This proposed rule, which would

amend the procedures DOE will follow

in conducting rulemakings for new or

amended energy conservation standards

and test procedures, 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

Pursuant to E.O. 12630,

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),

DOE has determined that this proposed

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). Pursuant to

OMB Memorandum M–19–15,

Improving Implementation of the

Information Quality Act (April 24,

2019), DOE published updated

guidelines which are available at

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

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%

20Dec%202019.pdf.

DOE has reviewed this proposed 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

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires

Federal agencies to prepare and submit

to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy

Effects for any significant energy action.

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined

as any action by an agency that

promulgates or is expected to lead to

promulgation of a final rule, and that:

(1) is a significant regulatory action

under Executive Order 12866, or any

successor order, and 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 significant energy action, the agency

must give a detailed statement of any

adverse effects on energy supply,

distribution, or use should the

regulation be implemented, and of

reasonable alternatives to the action and

their expected benefits on energy

supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has tentatively concluded that

the regulatory action in this document,

which proposes clarifications to the

Process Rule that guides the Department

in establishing and amending energy

conservation standards and test

procedures, is not a significant energy

action because it would not have a

significant adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it

been designated as such by the

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,

DOE has not prepared a Statement of

Energy Effects for this proposed rule.

M. Review Under the Information

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in

consultation with the Office of Science

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’),

issued its Final Information Quality

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).

The Bulletin establishes that certain

scientific information shall be peer

reviewed by qualified specialists before

it is disseminated by the Federal

Government, including influential

scientific information related to agency

regulatory actions. The purpose of the

bulletin is to enhance the quality and

credibility of the Government’s

scientific information. Under the

Bulletin, the energy conservation

standards rulemaking analyses are

‘‘influential scientific information,’’

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific

information the agency reasonably can

determine will have, or does have, a

clear and substantial impact on

important public policies or private

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667.

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE

conducted formal peer reviews of the

energy conservation standards

development process and the analyses

that are typically used and has prepared

a Peer Review report pertaining to the

energy conservation standards

rulemaking analyses.

55

Generation of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42073

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

technologies-office-bto-peer-review-2007 (Last

accessed May 11, 2026).

56

The report is available at

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-

methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-

performance-standards (Last accessed Oct. 6, 2025).

this report involved a rigorous, formal,

and documented evaluation using

objective criteria and qualified and

independent reviewers to make a

judgment as to the technical/scientific/

business merit, the actual or anticipated

results, and the productivity and

management effectiveness of programs

and/or projects. Because available data,

models, and technological

understanding have changed since 2007,

DOE has engaged with the National

Academy of Sciences to review DOE’s

analytical methodologies to ascertain

whether modifications are needed to

improve DOE’s analyses. DOE is in the

process of evaluating the resulting

report

56

and plans to consider any

corresponding updates needed to its

analytical framework in a separate

proceeding, as discussed earlier in this

document. Specifically, DOE plans to

publish a separate analytic framework

RFI to seek public input and peer

review on any necessary updates to its

rulemaking analytical methodologies.

VI. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

The time and date of the webinar

meeting are listed in the

DATES

section

at the beginning of this document.

Webinar registration information,

participant instructions, and

information about the capabilities

available to webinar participants will be

published on DOE’s website at:

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-

meetings-and-comment-deadlines.

Participants are responsible for ensuring

their systems are compatible with the

webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared

General Statements for Distribution

Any person who has an interest in the

topics addressed in this document, or

who is representative of a group or class

of persons that has an interest in these

issues, may request an opportunity to

make an oral presentation at the

webinar. Such persons may submit such

request to make a prepared general

statement to Appliance

StandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Persons who wish to speak should

include with their request a computer

file in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word,

PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that

briefly describes the nature of their

interest in this proposed rule and the

topics they wish to discuss. Such

persons should also provide a daytime

telephone number where they can be

reached to enable DOE staff to make

follow-up contact, if needed.

DOE requests persons seeking to make

an oral presentation to submit an

advance copy of their statements at least

one week before the webinar. At its

discretion, DOE may permit persons

who cannot supply an advance copy of

their statement to participate, if those

persons have made advance alternative

arrangements with the Building

Technologies Office. As necessary,

requests to give an oral presentation

should ask for such alternative

arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

DOE will designate a DOE official to

preside at the webinar and may also use

a professional facilitator to aid

discussion. The meeting will not be a

judicial or evidentiary-type public

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in

accordance with section 336 of EPCA

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will

be present to record the proceedings and

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the

right to schedule the order of

presentations and to establish the

procedures governing the conduct of the

webinar. There shall not be discussion

of proprietary information, costs or

prices, market share, or other

commercial matters regulated by U.S.

anti-trust laws. After the webinar,

interested parties may submit further

comments on the proceedings, as well

as on any aspect of the proposed

rulemaking, until the end of the

comment period.

The webinar will be conducted in an

informal, conference style. DOE will

present a general overview of the topics

addressed in this proposed rule, allow

time for prepared general statements by

participants, and encourage all

interested parties to share their views on

issues affecting this proposed rule. Each

participant will be allowed to make a

general statement (within time limits

determined by DOE), before the

discussion of specific topics. DOE will

permit, as time permits, other

participants to comment briefly on any

general statements.

At the end of all prepared statements

on a topic, DOE will permit participants

to clarify their statements briefly.

Participants should be prepared to

answer questions by DOE and by other

participants concerning these issues.

DOE representatives may also ask

questions of participants concerning

other matters relevant to this proposed

rule. The official conducting the

webinar will accept additional

comments or questions from those

attending, as time permits. The

presiding official will announce any

further procedural rules or modification

of the above procedures that may be

needed for the proper conduct of the

webinar.

A transcript of the webinar will be

included in the docket, which can be

viewed as described in the Docket

section at the beginning of this

document and will be accessible on the

DOE website. In addition, any person

may buy a copy of the transcript from

the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and

information regarding this proposed

rule before or after the webinar, but no

later than the date provided in the

DATES

section at the beginning of this

document. Interested parties may

submit comments, data, and other

information using any of the methods

described in the

ADDRESSES

section at

the beginning of this document.

Submitting comments via

www.regulations.gov. The

www.regulations.gov web page will

require you to provide your name and

contact information. Your contact

information will be viewable to DOE

Building Technologies staff only. Your

contact information will not be publicly

viewable except for your first and last

names, organization name (if any), and

submitter representative name (if any).

If your comment is not processed

properly because of technical

difficulties, DOE will use this

information to contact you. If DOE

cannot read your comment due to

technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, DOE may not be

able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information

will be publicly viewable if you include

it in the comment itself or in any

documents attached to your comment.

Any information that you do not want

to be publicly viewable should not be

included in your comment, nor in any

document attached to your comment.

Otherwise, persons viewing comments

will see only first and last names,

organization names, correspondence

containing comments, and any

documents submitted with the

comments.

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov

information for which disclosure is

restricted by statute, such as trade

secrets and commercial or financial

information (hereinafter referred to as

Confidential Business Information

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed

as CBI. Comments received through the

website will waive any CBI claims for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42074

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

the information submitted. For

information on submitting CBI, see the

Confidential Business Information

section.

DOE processes submissions made

through www.regulations.gov before

posting. Normally, comments will be

posted within a few days of being

submitted. However, if large volumes of

comments are being processed

simultaneously, your comment may not

be viewable for up to several weeks.

Please keep the comment tracking

number that www.regulations.gov

provides after you have successfully

uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand

delivery/courier, or postal mail.

Comments and documents submitted

via email, hand delivery/courier, or

postal mail also will be posted to

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want

your personal contact information to be

publicly viewable, do not include it in

your comments or any accompanying

documents. Instead, provide your

contact information in a cover letter.

Include your first and last names, email

address, telephone number, and

optional mailing address. The cover

letter will not be publicly viewable as

long as it does not include any

comments.

Include contact information each time

you submit comments, data, documents,

and other information to DOE. If you

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not

necessary to submit printed copies. No

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be

accepted.

Comments, data, and other

information submitted to DOE

electronically should be provided in

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file

format. Provide documents that are not

secured, that are written in English, and

that are free of any defects or viruses.

Documents should not contain special

characters or any form of encryption

and, if possible, they should carry the

electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit

campaign form letters by the originating

organization in batches of between 50 to

500 form letters per PDF or as one form

letter with a list of supporters’ names

compiled into one or more PDFs. This

reduces comment processing and

posting time.

Confidential Business Information.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person

submitting information that he or she

believes to be confidential and exempt

by law from public disclosure should

submit via email, postal mail, or hand

delivery/courier two well-marked

copies: one copy of the document

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the

information believed to be confidential,

and one copy of the document marked

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE

will make its own determination about

the confidential status of the

information and treat it according to its

determination.

It is DOE’s policy that all comments

may be included in the public docket,

without change and as received,

including any personal information

provided in the comments (except

information deemed to be exempt from

public disclosure).

VII. Approval of the Office of the

Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved

publication of this notice of proposed

rulemaking and announcement of

webinar.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Energy conservation,

Household appliances, Imports,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Small

businesses.

Signing Authority

This document of the Department of

Energy was signed on June 30, 2026, by

Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary

(EERE) for Critical Minerals and Energy

Innovation, 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 July 2, 2026.

Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.

Department of Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend

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

■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.

■2. Appendix A to subpart C of part

430 is revised to read as follows:

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

1. Objectives

2. Scope

3. Mandatory Application of the Process Rule

4. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity

5. Coverage Determination Rulemakings

6. Process for Developing Energy

Conservation Standards

7. Policies on Selection of Standards

8. Test Procedures

9. ASHRAE Equipment

10. Direct Final Rules

11. Negotiated Rulemaking Process

12. Principles for Distinguishing Between

Effective and Compliance Dates

13. Principles for the Conduct of the

Engineering Analysis

14. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on

Manufacturers

15. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on

Consumers

16. Consideration of Non-Regulatory

Approaches

17. Cross-cutting Analytical Assumptions

1. Objectives

This appendix establishes procedures,

interpretations, and policies that DOE will

follow in the consideration and promulgation

of new or revised appliance energy

conservation standards and test procedures

under the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act (EPCA). This appendix applies to both

covered consumer products and covered

commercial/industrial equipment. The

Department’s objectives in establishing these

procedures include:

(a) Provide for early input from

stakeholders. The Department seeks to

provide opportunities for public input early

in the rulemaking process so that the

initiation and direction of rulemakings is

informed by comment from interested

parties. Under the procedures established by

this appendix, DOE will seek early input

from interested parties in determining

whether establishing new or amending

existing energy conservation standards will

result in significant savings of energy and is

economically justified and technologically

feasible. In the context of test procedure

rulemakings, DOE will seek early input from

interested parties in determining whether—

(1) Establishing a new or amending an

existing test procedure will better measure

the energy efficiency, energy use, water use

(as specified in EPCA), or estimated annual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42075

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

operating cost of a covered product/

equipment during a representative average

use cycle or period of use (for consumer

products); and

(2) Will not be unduly burdensome to

conduct.

(b) Increase predictability of the

rulemaking timetable. The Department seeks

to make informed, strategic decisions about

how to deploy its resources on the range of

possible standards and test procedure

development activities, and to announce

these prioritization decisions so that all

interested parties have a common

expectation about the timing of different

rulemaking activities. Further, when

circumstances weigh towards doing so, DOE

will offer the opportunity to provide input on

the prioritization of rulemakings through a

request for comment as DOE begins

preparation of its Regulatory Agenda each

spring.

(c) Eliminate problematic design options

early in the process. The Department seeks to

eliminate from consideration, early in the

process, any design options that present

unacceptable problems with respect to

manufacturability, consumer utility, or

safety, so that the detailed analysis can focus

only on viable design options. Under the

procedures in this appendix, DOE will

eliminate from consideration design options

if it concludes that manufacture, installation,

or service of the design will be impractical,

or that the design option will have a material

adverse impact on the utility of the product,

or if the design option will have a material

adverse impact on safety or health. DOE will

also eliminate from consideration proprietary

design options that represent a unique

pathway to achieving a given efficiency level.

This screening will be done at the outset of

a rulemaking.

(d) Fully consider non-regulatory

approaches. The Department seeks to

understand the effects of market forces and

voluntary programs on encouraging the

purchase of energy efficient products so that

the incremental impacts of a new or revised

standard can be accurately assessed and the

Department can make informed decisions

about where standards and voluntary

programs can be used most effectively. DOE

will continue to support voluntary efforts by

manufacturers, retailers, utilities, and others

to increase product/equipment efficiency.

(e) Conduct thorough analysis of impacts.

In addition to understanding the aggregate

social and private costs and benefits of

standards, the Department seeks to

understand the distribution of those costs

and benefits among consumers,

manufacturers, and others, as well as the

uncertainty associated with these analyses of

costs and benefits, so that any adverse

impacts on subgroups and uncertainty

concerning any adverse impacts can be fully

considered in selecting a standard. Pursuant

to this appendix, the analyses will consider

the variability of impacts on significant

groups of manufacturers and consumers in

addition to aggregate social and private costs

and benefits, report the range of uncertainty

associated with these impacts, and take into

account cumulative impacts of regulation on

manufacturers. The Department will also

conduct appropriate analyses to assess the

impact that new or amended test procedures

will have on manufacturers and consumers.

(f) Use transparent and robust analytical

methods. The Department seeks to use

qualitative and quantitative analytical

methods that are fully documented for the

public and that produce results that can be

explained and reproduced, so that the

analytical underpinnings for policy decisions

on standards are as sound and well-accepted

as possible.

(g) Support efforts to build consensus on

standards. The Department seeks to

encourage development of consensus

proposals. In certain circumstances proposals

may also be developed in accordance with

the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 561

et seq.) and as outlined in section 11 of this

appendix, for new or revised standards

because standards with representative, broad-

based support are likely to balance effectively

the various interests affected by such

standards. These proposals may result in a

direct final rule in appropriate cases. DOE

notes that the procedural requirements of

section 6 of this appendix do not apply to

direct final rules. The procedural

requirements for direct final rules are

specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)).

(h) Department policies. In accordance

with EPCA, it is the goal of the Department

to preserve the availability in any covered

product type (or class) of performance

characteristics (including reliability),

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that

are substantially the same as those generally

available in the United States at the time of

the Secretary’s finding, and in doing so to

safeguard the American people’s freedom to

choose from a variety of goods and

appliances (including but not limited to

lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines,

gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower

heads); to promote market competition and

innovation within the manufacturing and

appliance industries; to ensure that the global

effects of a rule, regulation, or action shall,

whenever evaluated, be reported separately

from its domestic costs and benefits (energy

savings and efficiency), in order to promote

sound regulatory decision making and

prioritize the interests of the American

people; and to guarantee opportunities for

public comment and rigorous, peer-reviewed

scientific analysis. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)–(p)).

The Department additionally has the goal of

eliminating counterproductive requirements

that raise the costs of home appliances in a

manner consistent with the requirements of

EPCA, which includes the consideration of

energy savings relative to costs to consumers

and manufacturers and impacts to markets

for covered products. Id.

2. Scope

The procedures, interpretations, and

policies described in this appendix apply to

rulemakings concerning new or revised

Federal energy conservation standards and

test procedures, and related rule documents

(i.e., coverage determinations) for consumer

products in Part A and commercial and

industrial equipment under Part A–1 of the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),

as amended, except covered ASHRAE

equipment in Part A–1 are governed

separately under section 9 of this appendix.

3. Mandatory Application of the Process

Rule

The rulemaking procedures established in

this appendix are binding on DOE for actions

that are anticipated to increase the stringency

of a standard or increase the scope of

products subject to compliance with a

standard. With respect to other actions, DOE

will satisfy the requirements in EPCA and

may choose to apply additional provisions in

this appendix as may be appropriate so as to

maintain flexibility and to provide relief

without undue delay in appropriate cases.

Certain actions as indicated may be exempt

from the rulemaking procedures established

by this appendix and may follow such

expedited process as DOE may specify.

4. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity

(a) In establishing its priorities for

undertaking energy conservation standards

and test procedure rulemakings, DOE will

consider the following factors, consistent

with applicable legal obligations:

(1) Potential energy savings;

(2) Potential social and private costs and

benefits;

(3) Applicable deadlines for rulemakings;

(4) Incremental DOE resources required to

complete the rulemaking process;

(5) Other relevant regulatory actions

affecting the products/equipment;

(6) Stakeholder recommendations;

(7) Evidence of energy efficiency gains in

the market absent new or revised standards;

(8) Status of required changes to test

procedures;

(9) Potential to protect consumer choice in

covered products and equipment;

(10) Potential to eliminate

counterproductive requirements that increase

the costs of appliances; and

(11) Other relevant factors.

(b) When circumstances weigh towards

doing so, DOE will offer the opportunity to

provide input on prioritization of

rulemakings through a request for comment

as DOE begins preparation of its Regulatory

Agenda each spring.

5. Coverage Determination Rulemakings

(a) DOE has discretion to conduct

proceedings to determine whether additional

consumer products and commercial/

industrial equipment should be covered

under EPCA if certain statutory criteria are

met. (42 U.S.C. 6292 and 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) for

consumer products; 42 U.S.C. 6312 for

commercial/industrial equipment)

(b) If DOE determines to initiate the

coverage determination process, it will first

publish a notice of proposed determination,

providing an opportunity for public comment

of not less than 60 days, in which DOE will

explain how such products/equipment that it

seeks to designate as ‘‘covered’’ meet the

statutory criteria for coverage and why such

coverage is ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to

carry out the purposes of EPCA. In the case

of commercial equipment, DOE will follow

the same process, except that the Department

must demonstrate that coverage of the

equipment type is ‘‘necessary’’ to carry out

the purposes of EPCA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42076

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

(c) DOE will publish its final decision on

coverage as a separate notice, an action that

will be completed prior to the initiation of

any test procedure or energy conservation

standards rulemaking (i.e., DOE will not

issue any Requests for Information (RFIs),

Notices of Data Availability (NODAs), or any

other mechanism to gather information for

the purpose of initiating a rulemaking to

establish a test procedure or energy

conservation standard for the proposed

covered product/equipment prior to

finalization of the coverage determination). If

DOE determines that coverage is warranted,

DOE will proceed with its typical rulemaking

process for both test procedures and

standards. Specifically, DOE will finalize

coverage for a product/equipment

presumptively at least 180 days prior to

publication of a proposed rule to establish a

test procedure, such as where an increase of

stringency is contemplated and to provide

notice as contemplated under EPCA. And,

DOE will complete the test procedure

rulemaking at least 180 days prior to

publication of a proposed energy

conservation standard.

(d) If, during the substantive rulemaking

proceedings to establish test procedures or

energy conservation standards after

completing a coverage determination, DOE

finds it necessary and appropriate to expand

or reduce the scope of coverage, a new

coverage determination process will be

initiated and finalized prior to moving

forward with the test procedure or standards

rulemaking.

6. Process for Developing Energy

Conservation Standards

This section describes the process to be

used in developing energy conservation

standards for covered products and

equipment other than those covered

equipment subject to ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1.

(a) Early assessment. (1) As the first step

in any proceeding to consider establishing or

amending any energy conservation standard,

DOE will publish a document in the Federal

Register announcing that DOE is considering

initiating a rulemaking proceeding. As part of

that document, DOE will solicit submission

of related comments, including data and

information on whether DOE should proceed

with the rulemaking, including whether any

new or amended rule would be cost-effective,

economically justified, technologically

feasible, or would result in a significant

savings of energy. Based on the information

received in response to the notice and its

own analysis, DOE will determine whether to

proceed with a rulemaking for a new or

amended energy conservation standard or an

amended test procedure.

(i) If DOE determines that a new or

amended standard would not satisfy

applicable statutory criteria, DOE would

engage in notice and comment rulemaking to

issue a determination that a new or amended

standard is not warranted.

(ii) If DOE receives sufficient information

suggesting it could justify a new or amended

standard or the information received is

inconclusive with regard to the statutory

criteria, DOE would undertake the

preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or

amend an energy conservation standard, as

discussed further in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section.

(2) If the Department determines it is

appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking,

the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to

issue or amend an energy conservation

standard that DOE will undertake will be a

Framework Document and Preliminary

Analysis, or an Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANOPR). Requests for

Information (RFI) and Notices of Data

Availability (NODA) could be issued, as

appropriate, in addition to these preliminary-

stage documents.

(3) In those instances where the early

assessment either suggested that a new or

amended energy conservation standard might

be justified or in which the information was

inconclusive on this point, and DOE

undertakes the preliminary stages of a

rulemaking to establish or amend an energy

conservation standard, DOE may still

ultimately determine that such a standard is

not economically justified, technologically

feasible or would not result in a significant

savings of energy. Therefore, DOE will

examine the potential costs and benefits and

energy savings potential of a new or amended

energy conservation standard at the

preliminary stage of the rulemaking. DOE

notes that it will, consistent with its statutory

obligations, consider both cost-effectiveness

and economic justification when issuing a

determination not to amend a standard.

(b) Significant savings of energy. (1) In

evaluating the prospects of proposing a new

or amended standard—or in determining that

no new or amended standard is needed—

DOE will first look to the projected energy

savings that are likely to result. DOE will

determine as a preliminary matter whether

the rulemaking has the potential to result in

‘‘significant energy savings.’’ If the

rulemaking passes the significant energy

savings threshold, DOE will then compare

these projected savings against the

technological feasibility of and likely costs

necessary to meet the new or amended

standards needed to achieve these energy

savings.

(2) Under its significant energy savings

analysis, DOE will examine both the total

amount of projected energy savings and the

relative percentage decrease in energy usage

that could be obtained from establishing or

amending energy conservation standards for

a given covered product or equipment. This

examination will be based on the applicable

product or equipment type as appropriate

and will not be used to selectively examine

classes or sub-classes of products and

equipment solely for the purposes of

projecting whether potential energy savings

would satisfy (or not satisfy) the applicable

thresholds detailed in this rule. Under the

first step of this approach, the projected

energy savings from a potential maximum

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)

standard will be evaluated against a

threshold of 2.0 quads of FFC energy saved

over a 30-year period.

(3) If the projected max-tech energy savings

does not meet or exceed this threshold, those

max-tech savings would then be compared to

the total energy usage of the covered product

or equipment to calculate a potential

percentage reduction in energy usage.

(4) If this comparison does not yield a

reduction in FFC energy use of at least 10

percent over a 30-year period, the analysis

will end, and DOE will propose to determine

that no significant energy savings would

likely result from setting new or amended

standards.

(5) If either one of the thresholds described

in paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(4) of this section

is reached, DOE will conduct analyses to

ascertain whether a standard can be

prescribed that produces the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is both

technologically feasible and economically

justified and still constitutes significant

energy savings (using the same criteria of

either 2.0 quad of aggregate FFC energy

savings or a 10-percent decrease in FFC

energy use, as measured in quads—both over

a 30-year period) at the level determined to

be economically justified.

(6) In the case of ASHRAE equipment, DOE

will examine the potential energy savings

involved across the equipment category at

issue.

(c) Design options—(1) General. Once the

Department has initiated a rulemaking for a

specific product/equipment but before

publishing a proposed rule to establish or

amend standards, DOE will identify the

product/equipment categories and design

options to be analyzed in detail, as well as

those design options to be eliminated from

further consideration. During the pre-

proposal stages of the rulemaking, interested

parties may be consulted to provide

information on key issues through a variety

of rulemaking documents. The preliminary

stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an

energy conservation standard that DOE will

undertake will be a framework document and

preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANOPR). Requests for

Information (RFI) and Notice of Data

Availability (NODA) could also be issued, as

appropriate.

(2) Identification and screening of design

options. During the pre-NOPR phase of the

rulemaking process, the Department will

develop a list of design options for

consideration. Initially, the candidate design

options will encompass all those

technologies considered to be technologically

feasible. Following the development of this

initial list of design options, DOE will review

each design option based on the factors

described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section

and the policies stated in section 7 of this

appendix (i.e., ‘‘Policies on Selection of

Standards’’). The reasons for eliminating or

retaining any design option at this stage of

the process will be fully documented and

published as part of the NOPR and as

appropriate for a given rule, in the pre-NOPR

documents. The technologically feasible

design options that are not eliminated in this

screening will be considered further in the

Engineering Analysis described in paragraph

(d) of this section.

(3) Factors for screening of design options.

The factors for screening design options

include:

(i) Technological feasibility. Technologies

incorporated in commercial products or in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42077

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

working prototypes will be considered

technologically feasible.

(ii) Practicability to manufacture, install

and service. If mass production of a

technology under consideration for use in

commercially-available products (or

equipment) and reliable installation and

servicing of the technology could be achieved

on the scale necessary to serve the relevant

market at the time of the compliance date of

the standard, then that technology will be

considered practicable to manufacture,

install and service.

(iii) Adverse impacts on product utility or

product availability.

(iv) Adverse impacts on health or safety.

(v) Unique-pathway proprietary

technologies. If a design option utilizes

proprietary technology that represents a

unique pathway to achieving a given

efficiency level, that technology will not be

considered further.

(d) Engineering analysis of design options

and selection of candidate standard levels.

After design options are identified and

screened, DOE will perform the engineering

analysis and the benefit/cost analysis and

select the candidate standard levels based on

these analyses. The results of the analyses

will be published in a Technical Support

Document (TSD) to accompany the

appropriate rulemaking documents.

(1) Identification of engineering analytical

methods and tools. DOE will select the

specific engineering analysis tools (or

multiple tools, if necessary to address

uncertainty) to be used in the analysis of the

design options identified as a result of the

screening analysis.

(2) Engineering and life-cycle cost analysis

of design options. DOE and its contractor will

perform engineering and initial life-cycle cost

analyses of the design options.

(3) Review by stakeholders. Interested

parties will have the opportunity to review

the results of the engineering and life-cycle

cost analyses. If appropriate, a public

workshop will be conducted to review these

results. The analyses will be revised as

appropriate on the basis of this input.

(4) New information relating to the factors

used for screening design options. If further

information or analysis leads to a

determination that a design option, or a

combination of design options, has

unacceptable impacts, that design option or

combination of design options will not be

included in a candidate standard level.

(5) Selection of candidate standard levels.

Based on the results of the engineering and

initial life-cycle cost analysis of design

options and the policies stated in paragraph

(c) of this section, DOE will select the

candidate standard levels for further analysis.

(e) Pre-NOPR stage—(1) Documentation of

decisions on candidate standard selection.

(i) If the early assessment and screening

analysis indicates that continued

development of a standard is appropriate, the

Department will publish either:

(A) A notice accompanying a framework

document and, subsequently, a preliminary

analysis or;

(B) An ANOPR.

The notice document will be published in

the Federal Register, with accompanying

documents referenced and posted in the

appropriate docket.

(ii) If DOE determines at any point in the

pre-NOPR stage that no candidate standard

level is likely to produce the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is both

technologically feasible and economically

justified or constitute significant energy

savings, that conclusion will be announced

in the Federal Register with an opportunity

for public comment provided to stakeholders.

In such cases, the Department will proceed

with a rulemaking that proposes not to adopt

new or amended standards.

(2) Public comment and hearing. The

length of the public comment period for pre-

NOPR rulemaking documents will vary

depending upon the circumstances of the

particular rulemaking but will not be less

than 75 calendar days. For such documents,

DOE will determine whether a public hearing

is appropriate. (Where DOE does publish a

pre-NOPR document for a deregulatory

action, it may reduce the comment period

from the presumptive 75 days or required 60

days to something less.)

(3) Revisions based on comments. Based on

consideration of the comments received, any

necessary changes to the engineering analysis

or the candidate standard levels will be

made.

(f) Analysis of impacts and selection of

proposed standard level. After the pre-NOPR

stage, if DOE has determined preliminarily

that a candidate standard level is likely to

produce the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency that is both technologically

feasible and economically justified or

constitute significant energy savings, further

economic analyses of the impacts of the

candidate standard levels will be conducted.

The Department will propose new or

amended standards based on the results of

the impact analysis.

(1) Identification of issues for analysis. The

Department, in consideration of comments

received, will identify issues that will be

examined in the impacts analysis.

(2) Identification of analytical methods and

tools. DOE will select the specific economic

analysis tools (or multiple tools if necessary

to address uncertainty) to be used in the

analysis of the candidate standard levels.

(3) Analysis of impacts. DOE will conduct

the analysis of the impacts of candidate

standard levels.

(4) Factors to be considered in selecting a

proposed standard. The factors to be

considered in selection of a proposed

standard include:

(i) Impacts on manufacturers. The analysis

of private manufacturer impacts will include:

estimated impacts on cash flow, production,

and inventory; assessment of impacts on

manufacturers of specific categories of

products/equipment and small

manufacturers; assessment of impacts on

manufacturers of multiple product-specific

Federal regulatory requirements, including

efficiency standards for other products and

regulations of other agencies; and impacts on

manufacturing capacity, plant closures, and

loss of capital investment.

(ii) Private impacts on consumers. The

analysis of consumer impacts will include:

estimated private energy savings impacts on

consumers based on national average energy

prices and energy usage; assessments of

impacts on subgroups of consumers based on

major regional differences in usage or energy

prices and significant variations in

installation costs or performance; sensitivity

analyses using high and low discount rates

reflecting both private transactions and social

discount rates and high and low energy price

forecasts; behavioral changes in response to

changes in product utility, changes in

covered product price, utility, performance,

feature, and product availability, such as

changes to purchase rate of products,

substitution of other products, increases or

decreases in usage, and other impacts of

likely concern to all or some consumers,

based to the extent practicable on direct

input from consumers; economically based

estimates of life-cycle costs or savings with

sensitivity analysis; consideration of the

increased initial and operating costs to

consumers and the time required for energy

cost savings to pay back these costs; and loss

of utility and consumer welfare. Specifically,

DOE will consider: the incremental installed

cost as a percentage of the baseline total

installed cost, the simple payback period as

a percentage of the average lifetime, and the

percentage of consumers for whom a

standard level is expected to result in net

cost. DOE will also consider the protection of

consumer choice when analyzing the private

impacts on consumers.

(iii) Impacts on competition, including

industry concentration analysis.

(iv) Impacts on utilities. The analysis of

utility impacts will include estimated

marginal impacts on electric and gas utility

costs and revenues.

(v) National energy, economic, and

employment impacts. The analysis of

national energy, economic, and employment

impacts will include: estimated energy

savings by fuel type; estimated net present

value of benefits to all consumers; and

estimates of the direct and indirect impacts

on employment by appliance manufacturers,

relevant service industries, energy suppliers,

suppliers of complementary and substitution

products, and the economy in general.

(vi) Other factors the Secretary considers

relevant.

(vii) Impacts of non-regulatory approaches.

The analysis of energy savings and consumer

impacts will incorporate an assessment of the

impacts of market forces and existing

voluntary programs in promoting product/

equipment efficiency, usage, and related

characteristics in the absence of updated

efficiency standards.

(viii) New information relating to the

factors used for screening design options.

(g) Notice of proposed rulemaking—(1)

Documentation of decisions on proposed

standard selection. The Department will

publish a NOPR in the Federal Register that

proposes standard levels and explains the

basis for the selection of those proposed

levels and will post on its website a draft

TSD documenting the analysis of impacts.

The draft TSD will also be posted in the

appropriate docket on www.regulations.gov.

As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) of EPCA,

the NOPR also will describe the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42078

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

maximum reduction in energy use that is

technologically feasible and, if the proposed

standards would not achieve these levels, the

reasons for proposing different standards.

(2) Public comment and hearing. There

will be not less than 75 days for public

comment on the NOPR, with at least one

public hearing or workshop. (42 U.S.C.

6295(p)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6306).

(3) Revisions to impact analyses and

selection of final standard. Based on the

public comments received, DOE will review

the proposed standard and impact analyses

and make modifications as necessary. If

major changes to the analyses are required at

this stage, DOE will publish a Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR),

when required. DOE may also publish a

NODA or RFI, where appropriate.

(h) Final rule. The Department will publish

a Final Rule in the Federal Register that

promulgates standard levels, responds to

public comments received on the NOPR, and

explains how the selection of those standards

meets the statutory requirement that any new

or amended energy conservation standard

produces the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency that is both technologically

feasible and economically justified and

constitutes significant energy savings,

accompanied by a final TSD.

7. Policies on Selection of Standards

(a) Purpose. (1) Section 6 of this appendix

describes the process that will be used to

consider new or revised energy efficiency

standards and lists a number of factors and

analyses that will be considered at specified

points in the process. The Department

policies concerning the selection of new or

revised standards, and decisions preliminary

thereto, are described in this section. These

policies are intended to elaborate on the

statutory criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295

of EPCA.

(2) The procedures described in this

section are intended to assist the Department

in making the determinations required by

EPCA and do not preclude DOE’s

consideration of any other information

consistent with the relevant statutory criteria.

The Department will consider pertinent

information in determining whether a new or

revised standard is consistent with the

statutory criteria.

(b) Screening design options. These factors

will be considered as follows in determining

whether a design option will receive any

further consideration:

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies

that are not incorporated in commercial

products or in commercially-viable, existing

prototypes will not be considered further.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install

and service. If it is determined that mass

production of a technology in commercial

products and reliable installation and

servicing of the technology could not be

achieved on the scale necessary to serve the

relevant market at the time of the compliance

date of the standard, then that technology

will not be considered further.

(3) Impacts on product utility. If a

technology is determined to have significant

adverse impact on the utility of the product/

equipment to subgroups of consumers, or

result in the unavailability of any covered

product type with performance

characteristics (including reliability),

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that

are substantially the same as products

generally available in the U.S. at the time, it

will not be considered further.

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is

determined that a technology will have

significant adverse impacts on health or

safety, it will not be considered further.

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary

technologies. If a technology has proprietary

protection and represents a unique pathway

to achieving a given efficiency level, it will

not be considered further, due to the

potential for monopolistic concerns.

(c) Identification of candidate standard

levels. Based on the results of the engineering

and cost/benefit analyses of design options,

DOE will identify the candidate standard

levels for further analysis. Candidate

standard levels will be selected as follows:

(1) Costs and savings of design options.

Design options will not be used as the basis

for candidate standard levels if the design

options result in:

(i) Life-cycle cost increases relative to the

base case, using typical fuel costs, usage, and

private discount rates;

(ii) More than a 10 percent increase in

installed cost relative to the baseline total

installed cost;

(iii) More than 20 percent of consumers

projected to incur net costs; or

(iv) A simple payback period as a

percentage of average lifetime of more than

50 percent.

(2) Further information on factors used for

screening design options. If further

information or analysis leads to a

determination that a design option, or a

combination of design options, has

unacceptable impacts under the policies

stated in this appendix, that design option or

combination of design options will not be

included in a candidate standard level.

(3) Selection of candidate standard levels.

Candidate standard levels, which will be

identified in the pre-NOPR documents and

on which impact analyses will be conducted,

will be based on the remaining design

options.

(i) The range of candidate standard levels

will typically include:

(A) The most energy-efficient combination

of design options;

(B) The combination of design options with

the lowest initial life-cycle cost estimate; and

(C) A combination of design options with

an initial payback period of not more than

three years.

(ii) Candidate standard levels that

incorporate noteworthy technologies or fill in

large gaps between efficiency levels of other

candidate standard levels also may be

selected.

(d) Pre-NOPR stage. New information

provided in public comments on any pre-

NOPR documents will be considered to

determine whether any changes to the

candidate standard levels are needed before

proceeding to the analysis of impacts.

(e) Selection of proposed standard. Based

on the results of the analysis of impacts, DOE

will select a standard level to be proposed for

public comment in the NOPR. As required

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A), any new or

revised standard must be designed to achieve

the maximum improvement in energy

efficiency that is determined to be both

technologically feasible and economically

justified.

(1) Statutory policies. The fundamental

policies concerning the selection of standards

include:

(i) A trial standard level will not be

proposed or promulgated if the Department

determines that it is not both technologically

feasible and economically justified. (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(3)(B)). For a trial standard level to be

economically justified, the Secretary must

determine that the benefits of the standard

exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent

practicable, considering the factors listed in

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). In making such a

determination, the Secretary shall compare

the benefits and burdens of the standard

against the benefits and burdens of the

baseline case (‘‘no new standards’’ case) and

in incremental progression for all other trial

standard levels under consideration. This

comparative (‘‘walk up’’) analysis includes

assessing the incremental changes in costs

and benefits for each TSL’s benefits and

burdens relative to other TSLs and as part of

a holistic analysis across all TSLs. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)). The Secretary will also

consider, consistent with the statute, other

economic measures such as the life-cycle cost

analysis, manufacturer impact analysis, and

other relevant measures.

(ii) If the Department determines that

interested persons have established by a

preponderance of the evidence that a

standard level is likely to result in the

unavailability in the United States of any

covered product/equipment type (or class)

with performance characteristics (including

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and

volumes that are substantially the same as

products generally available in the U.S. at the

time of the determination, then that standard

level will not be proposed. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(4)).

(iii) If the Department determines that a

standard level would not result in significant

conservation of energy, that standard level

will not be proposed. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(3)(B)).

(2) Considerations in assessing economic

justification.

(i) The following considerations will guide

the application of the economic justification

criterion in selecting a proposed standard:

(A) If the Department determines that a

candidate/trial standard level would result in

a negative return on investment for the

industry, would significantly reduce the

value of the industry, or would cause

significant adverse impacts to a significant

subgroup of manufacturers (including small

manufacturing businesses), that standard

level will be presumed not to be

economically justified unless the Department

determines that specifically identified

expected benefits of the standard would

outweigh this and any other expected

adverse effects.

(B) If the Department determines that a

candidate/trial standard level would be the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42079

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

direct cause of plant closures, significant

losses in domestic manufacturer

employment, or significant losses of capital

investment by domestic manufacturers, that

standard level will be presumed not to be

economically justified unless the Department

determines that specifically identified

expected benefits of the standard would

outweigh this and any other expected

adverse effects.

(C) If the Department determines that a

candidate/trial standard level would not

result in significant energy conservation, that

standard level will be presumed not to be

economically justified.

(D) If the Department determines that a

candidate/trial standard level is not

practicable to manufacture or has a negative

impact on consumer utility or safety, that

standard level will be presumed not to be

economically justified unless the Department

determines that specifically identified

expected benefits of the standard would

outweigh this and any other expected

adverse effects.

(E) If the Department determines that a

candidate/trial standard level is not

consistent with the policies relating to

consumer costs in paragraph (c)(1) of this

section, that standard level will be presumed

not to be economically justified unless the

Department determines that specifically

identified expected benefits of the standard

would outweigh this and any other expected

adverse effects.

(F) If the Department determines that a

candidate/trial standard level will have

significant adverse impacts on a significant

subgroup of consumers (including low-

income consumers), that standard level will

be presumed not to be economically justified

unless the Department determines that

specifically identified expected benefits of

the standard would outweigh this and any

other expected adverse effects.

(G) If the Department of Energy and the

Department of Justice determine that a

candidate/trial standard level would have

significant anticompetitive effects, that

standard level will be presumed not to be

economically justified unless the Department

of Energy determines that specifically

identified expected benefits of the standard

would outweigh this and any other expected

adverse effects.

(ii) DOE will, consistent with paragraph (f)

of this section, account for the views

expressed by the Department of Justice

regarding a given proposal’s effects on

competition.

(iii) The basis for a determination that

triggers any presumption in paragraph

(e)(2)(i) of this section and the basis for a

determination that an applicable

presumption has been rebutted will be

supported by substantial evidence in the

record and the evidence and rationale for

making these determinations will be

explained in the NOPR.

(iv) If none of the policies in paragraph

(e)(2)(i) of this section is found to be

dispositive, the Department will determine

whether the benefits of a candidate standard

level exceed the burdens considering all the

pertinent information in the record.

(f) Selection of a final standard. New

information provided in the public

comments on the NOPR and any analysis by

the Department of Justice concerning impacts

on competition of the proposed standard will

be considered to determine whether issuance

of a new or amended energy conservation

standard produces the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is both

technologically feasible and economically

justified and still constitutes significant

energy savings or whether any change to the

proposed standard level is needed before

proceeding to the final rule. The same

policies used to select the proposed standard

level, as described in this section, will be

used to guide the selection of the final

standard level or a determination that no new

or amended standard is justified.

8. Test Procedures

(a) General. As with the early assessment

process for energy conservation standards,

DOE believes that early stakeholder input is

also very important during test procedure

rulemakings. DOE will follow an early

assessment process similar to that described

in the preceding sections discussing DOE’s

consideration of amended energy

conservation standards. (An early assessment

stage may not be warranted for deregulatory

actions.) Consequently, DOE will publish a

notice in the Federal Register whenever DOE

is considering initiation of a rulemaking to

amend a test procedure. In that notice, DOE

will request submission of comments,

including data and information on whether

an amended test procedure rule would:

(1) More accurately measure energy

efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified

in EPCA), or estimated annual operating cost

of a covered product during a representative

average use cycle or period of use without

being unduly burdensome to conduct; or

(2) Reduce testing burden. DOE will review

comments submitted and, subject to statutory

obligations, determine whether it agrees with

the submitted information. If DOE

determines that an amended test procedure is

not justified at that time, it will not pursue

the rulemaking and will publish a notice in

the Federal Register to that effect. If DOE

receives sufficient information suggesting an

amended test procedure could more

accurately measure energy efficiency, energy

use, water use (as specified in EPCA), or

estimated annual operating cost of a covered

product during a representative average use

cycle or period of use and not be unduly

burdensome to conduct, reduce testing

burden, or the information received is

inconclusive with regard to these points,

DOE would undertake the preliminary stages

of a rulemaking to amend the test procedure,

as discussed further in the paragraphs that

follow in this section.

(b) Identifying the need to modify test

procedures. DOE will identify any necessary

modifications to established test procedures

prior to initiating the standards development

process. It will consider all stakeholder

comments with respect to needed test

procedure modifications. If DOE determines

that it is appropriate to continue the test

procedure rulemaking after the early

assessment process, it would provide further

opportunities for early public input through

Federal Register documents, including

NODAs and/or RFIs.

(c) Adoption of industry test methods. DOE

will adopt industry test standards as DOE test

procedures for covered products and

equipment, unless such methodology would

be unduly burdensome to conduct or would

not produce test results that reflect the

energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as

specified in EPCA) or estimated operating

costs of that equipment during a

representative average use cycle.

(d) Issuing final test procedure

modification. Test procedure rulemakings

establishing methodologies used to evaluate

proposed energy conservation standards will

be finalized at least 180 days prior to

publication of a NOPR proposing new or

amended energy conservation standards,

with the following exceptions:

(1) Test procedure amendments limited to

calculation changes (e.g., use factor or adder);

or

(2) Test procedures developed in

accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking

Act or by interested persons that are fairly

representative of relevant points of view

(including representatives of manufacturers

of covered products, States, and efficiency

advocates), as determined by the Secretary.

Parties submitting a consensus

recommendation may specify a time period

between finalization of the test procedure

and publication of a NOPR proposing new or

amended energy conservation standards or a

notice of proposed determination that

standards do not need to be amended.

(e) Compliance date of test procedures. If

required only for the evaluation and issuance

of updated efficiency standards, use of the

modified test procedures typically will not be

required until the implementation date of

updated standards.

9. ASHRAE Equipment

(a) EPCA provides that ASHRAE

equipment is subject to unique statutory

requirements and their own set of timelines.

More specifically, pursuant to EPCA’s

statutory scheme for covered ASHRAE

equipment, DOE is required to consider

amending the existing Federal energy

conservation standards and test procedures

for certain enumerated types of commercial

and industrial equipment (generally,

commercial water heaters, commercial

packaged boilers, commercial air-

conditioning and heating equipment, and

packaged terminal air conditioners and heat

pumps) when ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is

amended with respect to standards and test

procedures applicable to such equipment.

Not later than 180 days after the amendment

of the Standard, the Secretary will publish in

the Federal Register for public comment an

analysis of the energy savings potential of

amended energy efficiency standards. For

each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, not later

than 18 months after the date of publication

of the amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1,

DOE must adopt amended energy

conservation standards at the new efficiency

level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as the

uniform national standard for such

equipment, or amend the test procedure

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the

equipment at issue to be consistent with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42080

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

applicable industry test procedure,

respectively, unless DOE determines by rule,

and supported by clear and convincing

evidence, that—

(1) A more-stringent standard would result

in significant additional conservation of

energy and is technologically feasible and

economically justified; or (2) The test

procedure would not meet the requirements

for such test procedures specified in EPCA.

In such standards case, DOE must adopt the

more stringent standard not later than 30

months after the date of publication of the

amendment to ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1

for the affected equipment.

(b) For ASHRAE equipment, DOE will

adopt the revised ASHRAE levels or the

industry test procedure, as contemplated by

EPCA, except in very limited circumstances.

With respect to DOE’s consideration of

standards more stringent than the ASHRAE

levels or changes to the industry test

procedure, DOE will do so only if it can meet

a very high bar to demonstrate the ‘‘clear and

convincing evidence’’ threshold. Clear and

convincing evidence would exist only where

the specific facts and data made available to

DOE regarding a particular ASHRAE

amendment demonstrates that there is no

substantial doubt that a standard more

stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE

Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted

because it would result in a significant

additional amount of energy savings, is

technologically feasible and economically

justified, or, in the case of test procedures,

that the industry test procedure does not

meet the EPCA requirements. DOE will make

this determination only after seeking data

and information from interested parties and

the public to help inform the Agency’s views.

DOE will seek from interested stakeholders

and the public data and information to assist

in making this determination, prior to

publishing a proposed rule to adopt more-

stringent standards or a different test

procedure.

(c) DOE’s review in adopting amendments

based on an action by ASHRAE to amend

Standard 90.1 is strictly limited to the

specific standards or test procedure

amendment for the specific equipment for

which ASHRAE has made a change (i.e.,

determined down to the equipment class

level). DOE believes that ASHRAE not acting

to amend Standard 90.1 is tantamount to a

decision that the existing standard remains in

place. Thus, when undertaking a review as

required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE

would need to find clear and convincing

evidence, as defined in this section, to issue

a standard more stringent than the existing

standard for the equipment at issue.

(d) For ASHRAE equipment, when

determining whether a more stringent

standard for the equipment category at issue

would result in significant additional

conservation of energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C), DOE will follow the

process and thresholds described in section

6(b) of this appendix, ‘‘Significant Savings of

Energy.’’

10. Direct Final Rules

(a) A direct final rule (DFR), as

contemplated in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), is a

procedural mechanism separate from the

negotiated rulemaking process outlined

under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5

U.S.C. 563). DOE may issue a DFR adopting

energy conservation standards for a covered

product provided that:

(1) DOE receives a joint proposal from a

group of ‘‘interested persons that are fairly

representative of relevant points of view,’’

including a consensus recommendation

developed in accordance with the Negotiated

Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.). At a

minimum, to be ‘‘fairly representative of

relevant points of view’’ the group submitting

a joint statement must include larger

concerns and small businesses in the

regulated industry/manufacturer community,

energy advocates, energy utilities, as

appropriate, consumers, and States.

However, it will be necessary to evaluate the

meaning of ‘‘fairly representative’’ on a case-

by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of

a particular rulemaking, to determine

whether additional parties must be part of a

joint statement in order to be ‘‘fairly

representative of relevant points of view.’’

(2) This paragraph (a)(2) describes the steps

DOE will follow with respect to a DFR.

(i) DOE must determine whether the energy

conservation standard recommended in the

joint proposal is in accordance with the

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B) as applicable. Because

the DFR provision is procedural, and not a

separate grant of rulemaking authority, any

standard issued under the DFR process must

comply fully with the provisions of the EPCA

subsection under which the rule is

authorized. DOE will not accept or issue as

a DFR a submitted joint proposal that does

not comply with all applicable EPCA

requirements.

(ii) Upon receipt of a joint statement

recommending energy conservation

standards, DOE will publish in the Federal

Register that statement, as submitted to DOE,

in order to obtain feedback as to whether the

joint statement was submitted by a group that

is fairly representative of relevant points of

view. If DOE determines that the DFR was

not submitted by a group that is fairly

representative of relevant points of view,

DOE will not move forward with a DFR and

will consider whether any further rulemaking

activity is appropriate. If the Secretary

determines that a DFR cannot be issued

based on the statement, the Secretary shall

publish a notice of the determination,

together with an explanation of the reasons

for the determination.

(iii) Simultaneous with the issuance of a

DFR, DOE must also publish a NOPR

containing the same energy conservation

standards as in the DFR. When publishing

the DFR, DOE must solicit public comment

for a period of at least 110 days; then, not

later than 120 days after issuance of the DFR,

the Secretary must determine whether any

adverse comments ‘‘may provide a

reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct

final rule,’’ based on the rulemaking record.

If DOE determines that one or more

substantive comments objecting to the DFR

provides a sufficient reason to withdraw the

DFR, DOE will do so and will instead

proceed with the published NOPR (unless

the information provided suggests that

withdrawal of that NOPR would likewise be

appropriate). In making this determination,

DOE may consider comments as adverse,

even if the issue was brought up previously

during DOE-initiated discussions (e.g.,

publication of a framework or RFI

document), if the Department concludes that

the comments merit further consideration.

11. Negotiated Rulemaking Process

(a)(1) In those instances where negotiated

rulemaking is determined to be appropriate,

DOE will comply with the requirements of

the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) (5

U.S.C. 561–570) and the requirements of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5

U.S.C. App. 2). To facilitate potential

negotiated rulemakings, and to comply with

the requirements of the NRA and the FACA,

DOE established the Appliance Standards

and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee

(ASRAC). Working groups can be established

as subcommittees of ASRAC, from time to

time, and for specific products/equipment,

with one member representative from the

ASRAC committee attending and

participating in the meetings of a specific

working group. (Consistent with 5 U.S.C.

565(b), committee membership is limited to

25 members, unless the agency determines

that more members are necessary for the

functioning of the committee or to achieve

balanced membership.) Ultimately, the

working group reports to ASRAC, and

ASRAC itself votes on whether to make a

recommendation to DOE to adopt a

consensus agreement developed through the

negotiated rulemaking.

(2) DOE will use the negotiated rulemaking

process on a case-by-case basis and, in

appropriate circumstances, in an attempt to

develop a consensus proposal before issuing

a proposed rule. When approached by one or

more stakeholders or on its own initiative,

DOE will use a convener to ascertain, in

consultation with relevant stakeholders,

whether the development of the subject

matter of a potential rulemaking proceeding

would be conducive to negotiated

rulemaking, with the agency evaluating the

convener’s recommendation before reaching

a decision on such matter. A neutral,

independent convenor will identify issues

that any negotiation would need to address,

assess the full breadth of interested parties

who should be included in any negotiated

rulemaking to address those issues, and make

a judgment as to whether there is the

potential for a group of individuals

negotiating in good faith to reach a consensus

agreement given the issues presented. DOE

will have a neutral and independent

facilitator, who is not a DOE employee or

consultant, present at all ASRAC working

group meetings.

(3) DOE will base its decision to proceed

with a potential negotiated rulemaking on the

report of the convenor. The following

additional factors militate in favor of a

negotiated rulemaking:

(i) Stakeholders commented in favor of

negotiated rulemaking in response to the

initial rulemaking notice;

(ii) The rulemaking analysis or underlying

technologies in question are complex, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:12 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42081

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

DOE can benefit from external expertise and/

or real-time changes to the analysis based on

stakeholder feedback, information, and data;

(iii) The current standards have already

been amended one or more times;

(iv) Stakeholders from differing points of

view are willing to participate; and

(v) DOE determines that the parties may be

able to reach an agreement.

(4) DOE will provide notice in the Federal

Register of its intent to form an ASRAC

working group (including a request for

nominations to serve on the committee),

announcement of the selection of working

group members (including their affiliation),

and announcement of public meetings and

the subject matter to be addressed.

(b) DOE’s role in the negotiated rulemaking

process is to participate as a member of a

group attempting to develop a consensus

proposal for energy conservation standards

for a particular product/equipment and to

provide technical/analytical advice to the

negotiating parties and legal input where

needed to support the development of a

potential consensus recommendation in the

form of a term sheet.

(c) A negotiated rulemaking may be used

to develop energy conservation standards,

test procedures, product coverage, and other

categories of rulemaking activities.

(d) A dedicated portion of each ASRAC

working group meeting will be set aside to

receive input and data from non-members of

the ASRAC working group. This additional

opportunity for input does nothing to

diminish stakeholders’ ability to provide

comments and ask relevant questions during

the course of the working group’s ongoing

deliberations at the public meeting.

(e) If DOE determines to proceed with a

rulemaking at the conclusion of negotiations,

DOE will publish a proposed rule or a Direct

Final Rule. DOE will consider the approved

term sheet in developing such proposed rule

or Direct Final Rule. Further, any potential

term sheet upon which an ASRAC working

group reaches consensus must comply with

all of the provisions of EPCA under which

the rule is authorized. DOE cannot accept

recommendations or issue a NOPR based

upon a negotiated rulemaking that does not

comply with all applicable EPCA

requirements, including those product- or

equipment-specific requirements included in

the provision that authorizes issuance of the

standard.

12. Principles for Distinguishing Between

Prescribed, Effective, and Compliance Dates

(a) Dates, generally. The prescribed,

effective, and compliance dates for either

DOE test procedures or DOE energy

conservation standards are typically not

identical, and these terms should not be used

interchangeably.

(b) Prescribed date. The prescribed date is

the date a rule, including a direct final rule,

is published in the Federal Register.

(c) Effective date. The effective date is the

date a rule is legally operative after being

published in the Federal Register.

(d) Compliance date. (1) For test

procedures, the compliance date is the

specific date when manufacturers are

required to use the new or amended test

procedure requirements to make

representations concerning the energy

efficiency or use of a product, including

certification that the covered product/

equipment meets an applicable energy

conservation standard.

(2) For energy conservation standards, the

compliance date is the specific date upon

which manufacturers are required to meet the

new or amended standards for applicable

covered products/equipment that are

distributed in interstate commerce.

13. Principles for the Conduct of the

Engineering Analysis

(a) The purpose of the engineering analysis

is to develop the relationship between

efficiency and cost of the subject product/

equipment. The Department will use the

most appropriate means available to

determine the efficiency/cost relationship,

including an overall system approach or

engineering modeling to predict the

reduction in energy use or improvement in

energy efficiency that can be expected from

individual design options as discussed in

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. From

this efficiency/cost relationship, measures

such as payback, life-cycle cost, and energy

savings can be developed and further

expanded to consider economic concepts and

impacts. The Department will identify issues

that will be examined in the engineering

analysis and the types of specialized

expertise that may be required. DOE will

select appropriate contractors,

subcontractors, and expert consultants, as

necessary, to perform the engineering

analysis and the impact analysis. Also, the

Department will consider data, information,

and analyses received from interested parties

for use in the analysis wherever feasible.

(b) The engineering analysis begins with

the list of design options developed in

consultation with the interested parties as a

result of the screening process. The

Department will establish the likely cost and

performance improvement of each design

option. Ranges and uncertainties of cost and

performance will be established, although

efforts will be made to minimize

uncertainties by using measures such as test

data or component or material supplier

information where available. Estimated

uncertainties will be carried forward in

subsequent analyses. The use of quantitative

models will be supplemented by qualitative

assessments as appropriate.

(c) The next step includes identifying,

modifying, or developing any engineering

models necessary to predict the efficiency

impact of any one or combination of design

options on the product/equipment. A base

case configuration or starting point will be

established, as well as the order and

combination/blending of the design options

to be evaluated. DOE will then perform the

engineering analysis and develop the cost-

efficiency curve for the product/equipment.

The cost-efficiency curve and any necessary

models will be available to stakeholders

during the pre-NOPR stage of the rulemaking.

14. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on

Manufacturers

(a) Purpose. The purpose of the

manufacturer analysis is to identify the likely

private impacts of efficiency standards on

manufacturers. The Department will analyze

the impact of standards on manufacturers

with substantial input from manufacturers

and other interested parties. This section

describes the principles that will be used in

conducting future manufacturing impact

analyses.

(b) Issue identification. In the impact

analysis stage (section 6(f) of this appendix),

the Department will identify issues that will

require greater consideration in the detailed

manufacturer impact analysis. Possible issues

may include identification of specific types

or groups of manufacturers and concerns

over access to technology. Specialized

contractor expertise, empirical data

requirements, and analytical tools required to

perform the manufacturer impact analysis

also would be identified at this stage.

(c) Industry characterization. Prior to

initiating detailed impact studies, the

Department will seek input on the present

and past industry structure and market

characteristics. Input on the following issues

will be sought:

(1) Manufacturers and their current and

historical relative market shares;

(2) Manufacturer characteristics, such as

whether manufacturers make a full line of

models or serve a niche market;

(3) Trends in the number of manufacturers;

(4) Financial situation of manufacturers;

(5) Trends in product/equipment

characteristics and retail markets including

manufacturer market shares and market

concentration; and

(6) Identification of other relevant

regulatory actions and a description of the

nature and timing of any likely impacts.

(d) Cost impacts on manufacturers. The

costs of labor, material, engineering, tooling,

and capital are difficult to estimate,

manufacturer-specific, and usually

proprietary. The Department will seek input

from interested parties on the treatment of

cost issues. Manufacturers will be

encouraged to offer suggestions as to possible

sources of data and appropriate data

collection methodologies. Costing issues to

be addressed include:

(1) Estimates of total private cost impacts,

including product/equipment-specific costs

(based on cost impacts estimated for the

engineering analysis) and front-end

investment/conversion costs for the full

range of product/equipment models.

(2) Range of uncertainties in estimates of

average cost, considering alternative designs

and technologies which may vary cost

impacts and changes in costs of material,

labor, and other inputs which may vary costs.

(3) Variable cost impacts on particular

types of manufacturers, considering factors

such as atypical sunk costs or characteristics

of specific models which may increase or

decrease costs.

(e) Impacts on product/equipment sales,

features, prices, and cost recovery. In order

to make manufacturer cash-flow calculations,

it is necessary to predict the number of

products/equipment sold and their sale price.

This requires an assessment of the likely

impacts of price changes on the number of

products/equipment sold and on typical

features of models sold. Past analyses have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42082

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

relied on price and shipment data generated

by economic models. The Department will

develop additional estimates of prices and

shipments by drawing on multiple sources of

data and experience including: actual

shipment and pricing experience; data from

manufacturers, retailers, and other market

experts; financial models, and sensitivity

analyses. The possible impacts of candidate/

trial standard levels on consumer choices

among competing fuels will be explicitly

considered where relevant.

(f) Measures of impact. The manufacturer

impact analysis will estimate the impacts of

candidate/trial standard levels on the net

cash flow of manufacturers and model

anticipated manufacturer behavior in

response to such standards, such as modeling

considerations of cost in compliance choices.

Computations will be performed for the

industry as a whole and for typical and

atypical manufacturers. The exact nature and

the process by which the analysis will be

conducted will be determined by DOE, with

input from interested parties, as appropriate.

Impacts to be analyzed include:

(1) Industry net present value, with

sensitivity analyses based on uncertainty of

costs, sales prices, and sales volumes;

(2) Cash flows, by year; and

(3) Other measures of impact, such as

revenue, net income, and return on equity, as

appropriate. DOE also notes that the

characteristics of a typical manufacturers

worthy of special consideration will be

determined in consultation with

manufacturers and other interested parties

and may include: manufacturers incurring

higher or lower than average costs; and

manufacturers experiencing greater or fewer

adverse impacts on sales. Alternative

scenarios based on other methods of

estimating cost or sales impacts also will be

performed, as needed.

(g) Cumulative impacts of other federal

regulatory actions. (1) The Department will

recognize and seek to mitigate the

overlapping effects on manufacturers of new

or revised DOE standards and other

regulatory actions affecting the same

products or equipment. DOE will analyze

and consider the impact on manufacturers of

multiple product/equipment-specific

regulatory actions. These factors will be

considered in setting rulemaking priorities,

conducting the early assessment as to

whether DOE should proceed with a

standards rulemaking, assessing

manufacturer impacts of a particular

standard, and establishing compliance dates

for a new or revised standard that, consistent

with any statutory requirements, are

appropriately coordinated with other

regulatory actions to mitigate any cumulative

burden.

(2) If the Department determines that a

proposed standard would impose a

significant impact on product or equipment

manufacturers within approximately three

years of the compliance date of another DOE

standard that imposes significant impacts on

the same manufacturers (or divisions thereof,

as appropriate), the Department will, in

addition to evaluating the impact on

manufacturers of the proposed standard,

assess the joint impacts of both standards on

manufacturers.

(3) If the Department is directed to

establish or revise standards for products/

equipment that are components of other

products/equipment subject to standards, the

Department will consider the interaction

between such standards in setting

rulemaking priorities and assessing

manufacturer impacts of a particular

standard. The Department will assess, as part

of the engineering and impact analyses, the

cost of components subject to efficiency

standards.

(h) Summary of quantitative and

qualitative assessments. The summary of

quantitative and qualitative assessments will

contain a description and discussion of

uncertainties. Alternative estimates of

impacts, resulting from the different potential

scenarios developed throughout the analysis,

will be explicitly presented in the final

analysis results.

(1) Key modeling and analytical tools. In

its assessment of the likely impacts of

standards on manufacturers, the Department

will use models that are clear and

understandable, feature accessible

calculations, and have clearly explained

assumptions. The Department will also

support the development of economic

models for price and volume forecasting.

Research required to update key economic

data will be considered.

(2) [Reserved]

15. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on

Consumers

(a) Early consideration of impacts on

consumer utility. The Department will

consider at the earliest stages of the

development of a standard whether

particular design options will lessen the

utility of the covered products/equipment to

the consumer. In analyzing the impacts of

candidate/proposed trial standard levels, the

Department will model consumer behavior

and welfare impacts arising out of these trial

standard levels. See also paragraph (c) of

section 6 of this appendix.

(b) Impacts on product/equipment

availability. The Department will determine,

based on consideration of information

submitted during the standard development

process, whether a proposed standard is

likely to result in the unavailability of any

covered product/equipment type with

performance characteristics (including

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and

volumes that are substantially the same as

products/equipment generally available in

the U.S. at the time. DOE will not promulgate

a standard if it concludes that it would result

in such unavailability. In conjunction with

the modeling of manufacturer and consumer

behavior as a result of proposed standard

levels, the Department will endeavor to

estimate losses to society as a result of

foregone production or unavailability.

(c) Department of Justice review. As

required by law, the Department will solicit

the views of the Department of Justice on any

lessening of competition likely to result from

the imposition of a proposed standard and

will give the views provided full

consideration in assessing economic

justification of a proposed standard. In

addition, DOE may consult with the

Department of Justice at earlier stages in the

standards development process to seek its

preliminary views on competitive impacts.

(d) Variation in consumer impacts. The

Department will use regional analysis and

sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to

evaluate the potential distribution of impacts

of candidate/trial standard levels among

different subgroups of consumers. The

Department will consider impacts on

significant segments of consumers in

determining standards levels. Where there

are significant negative impacts on

identifiable subgroups, DOE will consider the

efficacy of voluntary approaches as a means

to achieve potential energy savings.

(e) Payback period and first cost. (1) In the

assessment of consumer impacts of

standards, the Department will consider life-

cycle cost, payback period, and cost of

conserved energy among other variables to

evaluate the savings in operating expenses

relative to increases in purchase price. The

Department also performs sensitivity and

scenario analyses when appropriate. The

results of these analyses will be carried

throughout the analysis and the ensuing

uncertainty described.

(2) If, in the analysis of consumer impacts,

the Department determines that a candidate/

trial standard level would result in a

substantial increase in product/equipment

first costs to consumers or would not pay

back such additional first costs through

energy cost savings in less than three years,

the Department will assess the likely impacts

of such a standard on low-income

households, product/equipment sales and

fuel switching, as appropriate.

16. Consideration of Non-Regulatory

Approaches

The Department recognizes that non-

regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities,

and other interested parties can result in

substantial efficiency improvements. The

Department intends to consider the likely

effects of non-regulatory initiatives on

product/equipment energy use, consumer

utility and life-cycle costs, manufacturers,

competition, and utilities, as well as the

distribution of these impacts among different

regions, consumers, manufacturers, and

utilities. DOE will attempt to base its

assessment on the actual impacts of such

initiatives to date, but also will consider

information presented regarding the impacts

that any existing initiative might have in the

future. Such information is likely to include

a demonstration of the strong commitment of

manufacturers, distribution channels,

utilities, or others to such non-regulatory

efficiency improvements. This information

will be used in assessing the likely

incremental impacts of establishing or

revising standards, in assessing—where

possible—appropriate compliance dates for

new or revised standards, and in considering

DOE support of non-regulatory initiatives.

17. Cross-Cutting Analytical Assumptions

In selecting values for certain cross-cutting

analytical assumptions, DOE expects to

continue relying upon the following sources

and general principles:

(a) Underlying economic assumptions. The

appliance standards analyses will generally

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

42083

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

use the same economic growth and

development assumptions that underlie the

most current Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

published by the Energy Information

Administration (EIA).

(b) Analytic time length. The appliance

standards analyses will use two time

lengths—30 years and another time length

that is specific to the standard being

considered such as the useful lifetime of the

product under consideration. As a sensitivity

case, the analyses will also use a 9-year

regulatory timeline in analyzing the effects of

the standard.

(c) Energy price and demand trends.

Analyses of the likely impact of appliance

standards on typical users will generally

adopt the mid-range energy price and

demand scenario of the EIA’s most current

AEO. The sensitivity of such estimated

impacts to possible variations in future

energy prices are likely to be examined using

the EIA’s high and low energy price

scenarios.

(d) Product/equipment-specific energy-

efficiency trends, without updated standards.

DOE will model product/equipment-specific

energy-efficiency trends under no standard

scenarios.

(e) Price forecasting. DOE will endeavor to

use robust price forecasting techniques in

projecting future prices of products.

(f) Private discount rates. For residential

and commercial consumers, ranges of three

different real discount rates will be used. For

residential consumers, the mid-range

discount rate will represent DOE’s

approximation of the average financing cost

(or opportunity costs of reduced savings)

experienced by typical consumers.

Sensitivity analyses will be performed using

discount rates reflecting the costs more likely

to be experienced by residential consumers

with little or no savings and credit card

financing and consumers with substantial

savings. For commercial users, a mid-range

discount rate reflecting DOE’s approximation

of the average real rate of return on

commercial investment will be used, with

sensitivity analyses being performed using

values indicative of the range of real rates of

return likely to be experienced by typical

commercial businesses. For national net

present value calculations, DOE would use

the Administration’s approximation of the

average real rate of return on private

investment in the U.S. economy. For

manufacturer impacts, DOE typically uses a

range of real discount rates which are

representative of the real rates of return

experienced by typical U.S. manufacturers

affected by the program.

(g) Social discount rates. Social discount

rates as specified in OMB Circular A–4 will

be used in assessing social effects such as

costs and benefits.

(h) Direct and indirect impacts. DOE will

endeavor to model and estimate both direct

and indirect costs and impacts resulting from

candidate and proposed trial standard levels.

[FR Doc. 2026–13674 Filed 7–6–26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\07JYP3.SGM 07JYP3

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS3

Citation	91 FR 42034
Published date	07 July 2026
FR Document	2026-13674
Pages	42034-42083
Section	Proposed rules
Issuer	Energy Department

Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting