[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22703-22710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08201]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 22703]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 429
[EERE-2025-BT-STD-0010]
RIN 1904-AF80
Energy Conservation Program: Exempt Power Supplies Under the EPS
Service Parts Act of 2014
AGENCY: Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Department
of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'') is
revising its existing regulations to remove certain reporting
requirements imposed on exempt consumer external power supplies
(``EPSs'') adopted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 28, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents and 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-0010. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket, as
well as a summary of the rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 994-8232. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, 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: [email protected].
For further information on how to review other public comments and
the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Reporting Requirements for Exempted EPSs
2. History of Reporting Requirements Rulemakings for Exempted
EPSs
II. General Discussion and Rationale for Action
A. Legal Issues
B. Consumer Impacts
C. Manufacturer Impacts
D. Infrastructure and Environmental Impacts
E. Conclusion
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential
Memoranda
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final rule, as well as the historical background
related to the establishment of reporting requirements for EPSs.
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). These products
include EPSs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, on codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts:
1. Testing
2. Labeling
3. Establishing Federal energy conservation standards
4. Certifying and enforcing procedures
Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42
U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy conservation requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy use or efficiency of covered products. (42 U.S.C.
6297(b)-(c)). DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in
limited circumstances for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
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 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. 6295(o)(3)(A),
and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)). Manufacturers of covered products must use the
[[Page 22704]]
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) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(s)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
evaluate whether a basic model of the product complies with the
applicable energy conservation standard(s) adopted according to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). The DOE test procedures for EPSs appear in the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') at 10 CFR 430.23(bb) and 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix Z.
DOE notes that on December 19, 2007, Congress amended EPCA by
enacting the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA
2007''; Pub. L. 110-140). Section 301 of EISA 2007 established minimum
energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs manufactured on or after
July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A); see also 42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)(i)-(ii)). EISA 2007 exempts Class A EPSs from meeting these
statutorily prescribed standards if the devices were manufactured
before July 1, 2015, and made available by the manufacturer as service
parts or spare parts for end-use consumer products that were
manufactured prior to July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(B)). Congress
created this limited (and temporary) exemption as part of a broad range
of amendments to EPCA under EISA 2007. The provision did not grant DOE
with the authority to expand or extend the length of this exemption,
and Congress did not grant DOE with the general authority to exempt any
already covered product from the requirements set by Congress.
Subsequently, on December 18, 2014, Congress further amended EPCA
by enacting the EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 (``Service Parts Act'';
Pub. L. 113-263). That law amended section 325(u) of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)) to create a time-limited exemption from the amended energy
conservation standards for certain EPSs made available exclusively as
service or spare parts. To be exempt under the Service Parts Act, an
EPS must meet four separate criteria (codified at 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(5)(A)(i)). Specifically, the EPS must:
Be manufactured during the four-year period beginning on
February 10, 2016, and ending on February 10, 2020.
Be marked in accordance with the External Power Supply
International Efficiency Marking Protocol, as in effect on February 10,
2016.
Meet, where applicable, the standards under 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)(A) (i.e., the standards for Class A EPSs) and be certified
to DOE as meeting at least International Efficiency Level IV or higher
of the External Power Supply International Efficiency Marking Protocol,
as in effect on February 10, 2016.
Be made available by the manufacturer as a service part or
spare part for an end-use product that constitutes the primary load and
was manufactured before February 10, 2016.
Additionally, the Service Parts Act allowed DOE to limit the
applicability of the exemption if the Secretary determines that the
exemption is resulting in a significant reduction in the energy savings
that would result in the absence of the exemption. (See 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(5)(A)(iii)). The statute also authorized DOE to provide a
similar exemption for EPSs from future energy conservation standards.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(B)). Finally and most relevant here, the
Service Parts Act granted DOE discretionary authority to require
manufacturers of exempted EPSs to report to DOE the total number of
such EPS units that are shipped annually as service and spare parts and
that do not meet those standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii)).
Congress, therefore, authorized--but did not require--DOE to impose a
reporting obligation for exempt EPSs.
DOE is publishing this final rule pursuant to the authority granted
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii).
B. Background
1. Current Reporting Requirements for Exempted EPSs
The current certification reporting requirements for EPSs are set
forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 429.37(b). Reporting requirements
directly addressing exempted EPSs are set forth in DOE's regulations at
10 CFR 429.37(b)(3) and (c). More specifically, 10 CFR 429.37(b)(3)
provides that (according to 10 CFR 429.12(b)(13)) a certification
report for EPSs that are exempt from the energy conservation standards
at 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii) according to 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2) of this
chapter must include the total number of units of exempt EPSs sold
during the most recent 12-calendar-month period ending on July 31,
starting with the annual report due on September 1, 2017, if, in
aggregate, the total number of exempt EPSs sold as spare and service
parts by the certifier exceeds 1,000 units across all models.
Furthermore, 10 CFR 429.37(c) provides that for external power
supplies that are exempt from energy conservation standards according
to 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2) of this chapter and are not required to be
certified according to 10 CFR 429.12(a) as compliant with an applicable
standard, the importer or domestic manufacturer must, no later than
September 1, 2017, and annually by each September 1 thereafter, submit
a report if, in aggregate, the total number of exempt EPSs sold as
spare and service parts by the importer or manufacturer exceeds 1,000
units across all models. This report must include:
The importer or domestic manufacturer's name and address
The brand name
The number of units sold during the most recent 12-calendar-
month period ending on July 31
The report must be submitted to DOE in accordance with the
submission procedures set forth in 10 CFR 429.12(h).
2. History of Reporting Requirements Rulemakings for Exempted EPSs
DOE exercised its discretionary authority to require exempted EPS
reporting in 2015. On November 18, 2015, DOE published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') in the Federal Register proposing to
codify the provisions of the EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 within the
CFR and solicited comment from the public. (80 FR 71984). As part of
that NOPR, DOE sought comment on a number of specific issues, including
how manufacturers produce spare or service parts as compared with how
manufacturers produce EPS units provided with a new product, the
specific language that should be codified regarding the exemption of
certain EPSs sold as service or spare parts, and the reporting
timeframe for importers and domestic manufacturers to report the total
number of units sold in the prior year. DOE analyzed and addressed all
of the public comments received in response to the 2015 NOPR when
preparing the final rule.
On May 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register
(``May 2016 Final Rule''), which incorporated the statutory provisions
into its regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2)(i), as well as provided
some clarification on the circumstances under which EPSs would be
considered spare or service parts. More specifically, DOE clarified
that although exempt EPSs are not required to meet the amended Level VI
standards, they remain subject, as applicable, to the existing Class A
EPS standards at International Efficiency Level IV and must be
certified in accordance with 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2)(iii). Most relevant
here,
[[Page 22705]]
DOE's final rule also required manufacturers who manufacture 1,000 or
more exempt EPSs to annually report to DOE the total number of units of
exempt EPSs shipped as service and spare parts that do not meet the
2016 standards. (81 FR 30157, 30163). As noted previously, these annual
reporting requirements are currently codified in DOE's regulations at
10 CFR 429.37(b)(3) and (c).
Most recently, on May 16, 2025, DOE published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (``May 2025 NOPR''), proposing
to rescind, in part, the reporting requirements for exempt EPSs adopted
by DOE in the May 2016 Final Rule. In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE stated
that it was proposing a new policy to reduce regulatory burden wherever
possible and that, unless a reporting requirement is required by
statute, the Secretary would propose eliminating that requirement. (90
FR 20831, 20832). Therefore, in the May 2025 NOPR, DOE proposed to
rescind the reporting requirements for exempted EPS specified in the
EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 in their entirety and sought comment on
all aspects of that proposal, including but not limited to the prior
rule's consistency with statutory authority and the Constitution, the
prior rule's costs and benefits, and the prior rule's effect on
innovation, development, and private enterprise. (Id).
DOE received comments in response to the May 2025 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2025 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No.
Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule in the Commenter type
docket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Home Appliance AHAM et al................... 12 Trade Associations.
Manufacturers, Consumer
Technology Association,
Information Technology
Industry Council, National
Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Power Tool
Institute.
Center for Biological Diversity CBD.......................... 9 Advocacy Organization.
District of Columbia Department DOEE et al................... 10 State Agencies.
of Energy and Environment,
Maine Governor's Energy
Office, Maryland Energy
Administration, Massachusetts
Department of Energy
Resources, Minnesota
Department of Commerce, New
York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, and
Washington State Department of
Commerce.
Anonymous...................... Anonymous.................... 2 Individual.
Daniel Simpson................. Simpson...................... 7 Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record and
page number of that document.\3\ To the extent that interested parties
have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with
any oral comments provided during the May 29, 2025, public meeting, DOE
cites the written comments throughout this final rule. DOE did not
identify any oral comments provided during the May 29, 2025, public
meeting that are not also substantively addressed by written
comments.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to rescind
reporting requirements for exempted EPSs. (Docket No. EERE-2025-BT-
STD-0010, which is maintained at: www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number at page of that document).
\4\ DOE also received one comment extension request from the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). (AHAM, No. 8 at
pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. General Discussion and Rationale for Action
DOE has determined that it has a good reason to consider rescission
of the existing reporting requirements for exempted EPSs. The scope of
the exemption was inherently limited by the fixed manufacturing window
ending February 10, 2020, and by the requirement that exempt EPSs be
used only to support end-use products manufactured before February 10,
2016. With time, the number of EPSs eligible for the exemption has
naturally declined because no EPSs manufactured after February 10,
2020, can qualify and because the population of end-use products
manufactured before February 10, 2016, has continued to decrease as
they age and are retired from use. Correspondingly, DOE has observed
that the number of exempt EPSs reported under 10 CFR 429.37 has
diminished significantly in recent years. As of November 2025, DOE's
research revealed that 17 exempt EPSs are certified by five different
manufacturers out of approximately 13,000 EPS basic models by 750
different manufacturers in DOE's Compliance Certification Database.
Given these conditions, the exemption and more so the reporting
requirements established by the EPS Service Parts Act currently have
limited practical effect. Moreover, because the Act did not provide any
exemption for EPSs manufactured after February 10, 2020, all EPSs
manufactured today are required to meet the current Level VI energy
conservation standards and must be certified accordingly.
In response to the May 2025 NOPR, CBD and DOEE et al. generally
opposed the proposal to rescind the reporting requirements for exempted
EPSs, while AHAM et al. generally supported the proposal. (CBD, No. 9
at p. 1; DOEE et al., No. 10 at p. 1; AHAM et al., No. 12 at p. 1). Two
individuals also expressed opposition, although their concerns focused
on rescission of EPS standards, an action not proposed in the subject
May 16, 2025, NOPR. (Anonymous, No. 2 at p. 1; Simpson, No. 7 at p. 1).
Specific comments are discussed in detail in the following sections.
A. Legal Issues
In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received several comments on
the legal impacts of the proposed changes. CBD commented that DOE's
proposed rulemaking to rescind EPS reporting requirements ignores
congressional mandates. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). In particular, CBD
commented that DOE's action violates EPCA's anti-backsliding provision
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) because it weakens existing standards. (CBD,
No. 9 at p. 2).
In response, DOE believes that CBD miscomprehends the nature and
purpose of DOE's proposal, as well as the related provisions of EPCA
that gave rise to the existing reporting requirements. As EPCA makes
clear at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii), Congress provided the Secretary
of Energy with discretion to require manufacturers of exempted EPSs to
report annual total units shipped as service and spare parts that fall
below International Efficiency
[[Page 22706]]
Level VI. However, the statute does not require DOE to impose such
reporting requirement, so it is incorrect to suggest that DOE's action
to rescind such reporting requirements would ignore any congressional
mandate. It is likewise incorrect that DOE's action would weaken
existing standards in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision
because this rulemaking would not affect the energy conservation
standards for EPSs. Instead, this rule simply acknowledges changed
circumstances regarding a time-limited exemption whose period of
relevance has largely waned. The number of EPSs that continue to
qualify for exemption has decreased significantly since 2020, and DOE
has received declining reports of exempt EPS shipments in recent years.
Because the reporting requirement concerns a category of products that
are no longer being manufactured and that are diminishing in market
relevance, DOE has determined that continued reporting will not result
in any additional meaningful insight. Accordingly, DOE is removing this
regulatory reporting burden, which no longer provides an appreciable
benefit.
CBD also argued that the May 2025 NOPR is procedurally flawed,
commenting that while DOE provided justification for these regulations
when they were established, it has not provided justification for the
proposed change to rescind them. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). Further, CBD
stated that DOE's proposal violates the Administrative Procedure Act's
(``APA'') requirement that agencies implement statutory objectives in
line with the language and purpose of the statute (see Loper Bright
Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)). (Id.). Additionally, CBD
commented that DOE's proposed rule violates the APA because it states
that an agency action must not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law (see 5 U.S.C.
706(2)(A)). (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). CBD stated that when agencies take
action or rescind a standard, they must examine relevant data and
articulate a rational connection between facts and the policy choice
made (see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29 (1983)), and the commenter asserted that in the present
case, DOE did not provide any reasoned explanation or evidence for
rescinding the EPS reporting requirements. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). CBD
also stated DOE has not followed the legal requirement that a policy
reversal must be based on factual findings and account for reliance
interests. (Id.). CBD commented that, at a minimum, DOE should issue a
new proposed rulemaking and allow public comments before moving
forward. (Id.).
In response, DOE disagrees with CBD's contention that it has not
articulated a rationale to justify its proposal to rescind the subject
reporting requirements for exempted EPSs. In the May 16, 2025, NOPR,
DOE clearly stated its new policy to reduce regulatory burden wherever
possible, including reporting requirements not required by statute. (90
FR 20831, 20832). As noted previously, under the relevant provision of
EPCA, Congress permitted but did not require DOE to report annual
shipments of EPSs, so removal of those reporting provisions cannot run
counter to the language and purpose of the statute, given that DOE was
never required to adopt such provisions in the first place. DOE
reasoned that the time-limited nature of the exemption and the passage
of significant time offer a prima facie case demonstrating why the
reporting requirement is no longer needed. What was once a useful
source of information now represents an administrative burden that no
longer provides an appreciable benefit. Furthermore, given rapidly
dwindling shipments of the exempted EPSs, DOE has found no significant
reliance interest in continued reporting of shipment of the subject
exempted EPSs. For these reasons, DOE has concluded that it is legally
permissible and appropriate to promulgate this final rule without the
need for further proceedings.
CBD further commented that DOE must comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') when carrying out the proposed
deregulatory action, and the commenter asserted that contrary to DOE's
claims, none of the NEPA's categorical exclusions are applicable in
this case. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2).
Contrary to CBD's view, in the May 2025 NOPR, DOE analyzed the
proposed rule in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021) in effect at the time of the May 2025
NOPR's publication. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the May
2025 NOPR proposed to relieve manufacturers of an administrative
reporting requirement. As an administrative action, it is unlikely to
affect the environment. In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE anticipated that the
proposal would qualify for a categorical exclusion under appendices A
or B to subpart D of part 1021 because the NOPR was an interpretation
or ruling with respect to an existing regulation and otherwise met the
requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. (90 FR 20831,
20832 (May 16, 2025)). In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE specifically
referenced consideration of categorical exclusion B5.1 (Actions to
conserve energy or water), although the agency also was open to
considering other potential categorical exclusions (e.g., A5
(Interpretive rulemakings with no change in environmental effect) or A6
(Procedural rulemakings)).
In July 2025, DOE amended part 1021 to contain only administrative
and routine actions excepted from NEPA review in appendix A (formerly
categorical exclusions) based on the definition of ``major Federal
action'' in section 111(10) of NEPA (see 90 FR 29676 (July 3, 2025)),
and, concurrently, DOE issued Implementing Procedures.\5\ DOE has
determined that this final rule to revise the reporting requirements
for exempt EPSs is not a rulemaking to establish energy conservation
standards for consumer products and industrial equipment and
categorical exclusion B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy or water) is not
applicable, and it is an administrative and routine action. Therefore,
it 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025-06-30-DOE-NEPA-Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consumer Impacts
In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received comments regarding
the impacts for consumers due to the proposed changes. DOEE et al.
commented that rescinding EPS reporting requirements would end a
valuable data reporting program that helps provide a better
understanding of the market for exempt EPSs. (DOEE et al., No. 10 at
pp. 1-2).
DOE acknowledges the interest expressed by DOEE et al. in continued
access to market data; however, the statutory exemption underlying the
reporting requirement applied only to EPSs manufactured between
February 10, 2016, and February 10, 2020. The number of EPSs that
continue to qualify for exemption has decreased significantly since
2020, and DOE has received declining reports of exempt EPS shipments in
recent years. As noted previously, as of November 2025, DOE's research
revealed that there are 17 exempt EPSs certified by five different
manufacturers out of a total of approximately 13,000 EPS basic models
by 750 different manufacturers in DOE's Compliance Certification
Database. Because the reporting requirement
[[Page 22707]]
concerns a category of products that are no longer being manufactured
and that are diminishing in market relevance, DOE has determined that
continued reporting will not result in any additional meaningful
insight.
CBD commented that the proposed recission would increase energy
consumption and costs for consumers. (CBD, No. 9 at pp. 1-2). An
individual, stating opposition to the proposed recission, commented
that sound regulations that promote conservation help fight inflation
and tariffs, keeping products inexpensive. (Anonymous, No. 2 at p. 1).
In response, DOE does not agree with these comments, because they
appear to misconstrue the purpose and effect of the May 2016 proposal.
This final rule does not alter any energy conservation standard
applicable to EPSs, nor does it expand the statutory exemption created
by the EPS Service Parts Act. EPSs manufactured after February 10,
2020, must continue to meet the applicable Level VI standards and be
certified accordingly. As the rescission solely impacts a reporting
obligation without changing any product efficiency requirements, DOE
does not expect this final rule to result in increased energy use or
consumer costs nor to have any bearing on inflation, tariffs, or
product prices.
C. Manufacturer Impacts
In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received comments on the
impacts for manufacturers due to the proposed changes. DOEE et al.
opposed the proposal to rescind the EPS reporting requirements, arguing
that it would negatively impact businesses in their States. (DOEE et
al., No. 10 at p. 1). DOEE et al. stated that manufacturers have
already invested time and money into complying with these requirements.
(Id.). An individual stated that the time, cost, and research to
develop a standard that benefits consumers, industry, and the national
economy have already been invested, and regressing the standard
disregards the resources and efforts put into developing it. (Simpson,
No. 7 at p. 1). An individual additionally stated that the current
regulations ensure the U.S. remains competitive with global markets,
and rescinding standards would diminish both U.S. standing in the
international market and the potential for addressing the ``trade
imbalance.'' (Simpson, No. 7 at p. 1).
In response, DOE once again notes that this final rule does not
modify any existing energy conservation standard for EPSs. Instead, it
addresses a reporting requirement that applied only to EPSs
manufactured between 2016 and 2020 that qualified for a statutory
exemption, one which is no longer available today. Manufacturers of
current EPS models are subject to the same requirements before and
after this final rule and, therefore, will not experience regulatory
changes affecting competitiveness or product development. DOE has
concluded that this final rule will benefit manufacturers and their
competitiveness by eliminating the regulatory burden associated with a
largely outdated reporting requirement.
AHAM et al. supported DOE's proposal to eliminate the reporting
requirement for exempted EPSs. (AHAM et al., No. 12 at p. 1). AHAM et
al. stated that these data are not necessary to demonstrate compliance
with energy conservation standards and the collection places an undue
burden on manufacturers. (Id.). AHAM et al. stated that this proposal
is a meaningful step towards reducing regulatory burden without
affecting clarity regarding which EPSs are exempt. (Id.).
DOE acknowledges the support of AHAM et al. As explained, DOE
determined that continued reporting of exempt EPS shipments is no
longer necessary due to the expiration of the manufacturing window in
2020 and the diminishing population of EPSs that qualify for the
exemption. Eliminating the reporting requirement reduces burden while
having no effect on any existing efficiency standards for EPSs.
D. Infrastructure and Environmental Impacts
In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received comments on the
infrastructure and environmental impacts due to the proposed changes.
CBD commented that the proposed recission would increase pollution that
is harmful to communities across the country and exacerbate the climate
emergency. (CBD, No. 9 at pp. 1-2). An individual commented that fossil
fuel consumption has contributed to increased frequency and intensity
of natural disasters. (Anonymous, No. 2 at p. 1).
As noted previously, the action of this final rule does not modify
any energy conservation standards for EPSs. Because this rule affects
only reporting requirements and has no impact on product efficiency or
performance, it does not alter emissions or energy consumption, so it
should not have any environmental or infrastructure impacts.
E. Conclusion
After carefully considering public comments and for the reasons
explained in this document, DOE has decided to finalize its proposal to
rescind the reporting requirements for exempt EPSs as originally
proposed.
III. 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 final rule does not
constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of
E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for
review under E.O. 12866.
B. 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'') and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (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 rulemaking process. (68 FR 7990). DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003. This final rule is limited in effect to rescinding an
administrative reporting requirement. Therefore, on the basis of the
foregoing, DOE concludes that the impacts of its burden-reducing
proposal would not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and, therefore, the preparation
of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE has transmitted this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business
[[Page 22708]]
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule would impose no new information or record-keeping
requirements. 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 must 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 final rule would remove a reporting requirement
for exempted EPSs, so accordingly, it does not add any collection of
information requirement that would trigger the PRA. Accordingly, OMB
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE analyzed the proposed rule in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's
NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021) in effect at the time
of the May 2025 NOPR's publication. As discussed elsewhere in this
document, the May 2025 NOPR proposed to relieve manufacturers of an
administrative reporting requirement; as an administrative action, it
is unlikely to have any impact on the environment. In the May 2025
NOPR, DOE anticipated that the proposal would qualify for a categorical
exclusion under appendices A or B to subpart D of part 1021 because the
NOPR was an interpretation or ruling with respect to an existing
regulation and otherwise met the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. (90 FR 20831, 20832 (May 16, 2025)). In the May
2025 NOPR, DOE specifically referenced consideration of categorical
exclusion B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy or water), although the
agency also was open to considering other potential categorical
exclusions (e.g., A5 (Interpretive rulemakings with no change in
environmental effect) or A6 (Procedural rulemakings).
In July 2025, DOE amended part 1021, in relevant part, by revising
appendix A (formerly categorical exclusions) (see 90 FR 29676 (July 3,
2025)), and, concurrently, DOE issued Implementing Procedures.\6\ The
actions formally identified in appendix A to part 1021 now 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 determined that this final rule to revise the reporting
requirements for exempt EPSs is not a rulemaking to establish energy
conservation standards for consumer products and industrial equipment,
and so categorical exclusion B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy or water)
is not applicable. This final rule is an administrative and routine
action. Therefore, it 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025-06-30-DOE-NEPA-Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. 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 examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption based
on criteria set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). No further action
is required by E.O. 13132.
F. 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:
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity
Write regulations to minimize litigation
Provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard
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:
Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any
Clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or
regulation
Provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while
promoting simplification and burden reduction
Specifies the retroactive effect, if any
Adequately defines key terms
Addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General
Section 3(c) of E.O. 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 if it is unreasonable
to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule
[[Page 22709]]
meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and it 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 final rule according to UMRA and DOE's statement
of policy and has determined that the rule, which reduces regulatory
burdens, does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate nor is it
expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one
year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector. As a result, no further assessment or analysis is
required under UMRA.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any policy or regulation that may
affect family well-being. When developing a Family Policymaking
Assessment, agencies must assess whether:
The action strengthens or erodes the stability or safety
of the family and, particularly, the marital commitment.
The action strengthens or erodes the authority and rights
of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children.
The action helps the family perform its functions or
substitutes governmental activity for the function.
The action increases or decreases disposable income or
poverty of families and children.
The proposed benefits of the action justify the financial
impact on the family.
The action may be carried out by State or local government
or by the family.
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 final rule, which eliminates an administrative reporting
requirement for exempted EPSs, would not have any financial impact on
families nor any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it does not need to
prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final rule would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency according 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). According 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/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines.
DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any 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:
Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or
any successor E.O., and is likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action.
For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
should the regulation be implemented and of reasonable alternatives to
the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution,
and use.
DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which removes an
administrative reporting requirement for exempted EPSs, is not a
significant energy action because it is not significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, 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 final rule.
L. 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
must 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
rulemaking analyses for energy conservation standards 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).
[[Page 22710]]
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 prepared a Peer Review report pertaining to
the rulemaking analyses for energy conservation standards.\7\
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to judge 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 the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of
evaluating the resulting report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (Last
accessed Dec. 9, 2025).
\8\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards (Last accessed Dec. 9, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
DOE has examined this final rule and has 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).
This final rule has been determined to be an ``E.O. 14192
deregulatory action'' because it intends to reduce the burden to
society by streamlining the regulatory framework and improving
efficiency for regulated entities. The primary impact from the final
rule is to eliminate the regulatory burden associated with a largely
outdated administrative reporting requirement for exempted EPSs. This
final rule allows manufacturers to focus their resources on matters of
importance to them. These benefits are difficult to quantify, although
DOE believes them to be positive. Even small positive changes, when
aggregated, can result in meaningful burden reduction for industry.
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 429
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 March 27,
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 April 24, 2026.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE is amending part 429
of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 429.37 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 429.37 by removing paragraphs (b)(3) and (c).
[FR Doc. 2026-08201 Filed 4-27-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P