[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3314-3333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-611]



[[Page 3313]]

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

Part IX





Department of Energy





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



Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



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



10 CFR Part 430



Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer 
Energy Conservation Standards; Final Rule



Finding of No Significant Impact; Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products; Notice

[[Page 3314]]

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM-94-403]
RIN 1904-AA67


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer 
Energy Conservation Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has determined 
that revised energy conservation standards for clothes washers will 
result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically 
feasible, and are economically justified. On this basis, the Department 
today amends the existing energy conservation standards for standard-
size clothes washers as proposed and as recommended by stakeholders. 
The Department also amends the standards for compact clothes washers as 
well as making minor amendments to the test procedure for measuring the 
energy efficiency of clothes washers.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 1, 2004, except that 
the effective date of the amendments to appendix J to subpart B of part 
430 is February 12, 2001.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference as of January 1, 2004, of certain publications listed in this 
rule.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Technical Support Document (TSD) may be read 
at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. 
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Copies 
of the TSD can be obtained from the Codes and Standards Internet site 
at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html or from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-
41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
9127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal 
Building, Mail Station EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-0371, E-mail: 
[email protected], or Eugene Margolis, Deputy Assistant 
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 
Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9526, E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) 
is incorporating by reference, test procedures from the American 
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC). These test 
procedures are set forth in the standards publications listed below:
    1. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists Test 
Method 118--1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test 
(reaffirmed 1997).
    2. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists Test 
Method 79--2000, Absorbency of Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed 2000).
    Copies of these standards publications may be viewed at the Freedom 
of Information Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal 
Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0101, telephone (202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Copies of the above standards incorporated by reference can be 
obtained from the American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists, P.O. Box 1215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, telephone 
(919) 549-8141, telefax (919) 549-8933, or electronic mail: 
[email protected].

I. Introduction
    A. Consumer Overview
    1. Background
    2. Clothes Washer Features
    3. Consumer Benefits
    4. National Benefits
    B. Authority
    C. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Previous Rulemakings
    3. Process Improvement
    4. Test Procedures
II. General Discussion
    A. Test Procedures
    B. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    C. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and on Consumers
    2. Life-Cycle-Costs
    3. Energy Savings
    4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    E. Standards Incorporated by Reference
III. Methodology
IV. Discussion of Comments
    A. Test Procedure
    B. Standard
    C. Two Standards in One Rulemaking
    D. Consumer Information Statement
    E. Consumer Input
    F. Energy and Economic Analyses
    G. Product Classes
    H. Incremental Retail Costs
    I. Water Savings
    J. Detergent Savings
    K. Life-Cycle-Costs and Payback
    L. Cost Effectiveness
V. Analytical Results and Conclusion
    A. Analytical Results
    B. Conclusion
    1. Trial Standard Level 6--MEF 1.63
    2. Trial Standard Level 5--MEF 1.36
    3. Trial Standard Level 4--MEF 1.26
    4. Trial Standard Level 3--MEF 1.04/1.26
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Takings'' Assessment 
Review
    G. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriation Act of 1999.
    J. Review Under the Plain Language Directives
    K. Congressional Notification
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act

I. Introduction

A. Consumer Overview

1. Background
    The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is directed by the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, to consider 
establishing minimum efficiency standards for various consumer 
products, including clothes washers. Today's standards are consistent 
with these requirements of the law. DOE is amending almost ten-year-old 
minimum efficiency standards for new standard-sized residential clothes 
washers. These amended standards take into account a decade of 
technological advancements and will save consumers and the nation 
money, significant amounts of energy and water,

[[Page 3315]]

and have substantial environmental and economic benefits.
    Interested parties involved in this rulemaking, including 
manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates, jointly proposed these 
clothes washer efficiency standards to the Department. The parties 
believe these to be the highest standards which are technologically 
feasible and economically justified as required by law. The standards, 
as proposed by the parties, consist of two stages. The first stage 
begins on January 1, 2004, and requires that all new residential 
clothes washers manufactured after that date be 22 percent more 
efficient than today's minimally compliant clothes washer. The second 
stage begins on January 1, 2007, and requires that all new residential 
clothes washers manufactured after that date be 35 percent more 
efficient than today's minimally compliant clothes washer. Delaying the 
standard implementation date for the higher efficiency level gives 
manufacturers more time to research and develop lower-cost solutions to 
achieve higher standards.
    The Department has reviewed the Joint Proposal and agrees the 
recommended standard is the highest efficiency level that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required by law. 
The Department therefore is amending the energy conservation standard 
for the standard-size residential clothes washers as recommended in the 
Joint Proposal.
2. Clothes Washer Features
    The amended efficiency levels can be met by either top- or front-
loading designs. In fact, there are vertical-axis top-loading and 
horizontal-axis front-loading washers on the market today that already 
meet the higher 2007 standard. Thus, consumers will have the same range 
of clothes washers as they have today. Furthermore, the clothes washer 
energy efficiency standard will not impact clothes washer features 
valued by consumers such as door placement, capacity, water temperature 
and adjustable load sizes. The Department does not expect the cleaning 
ability or the reliability and repair costs of washing machines to be 
changed by the design changes anticipated under the clothes washer 
amended standards and repair parts will continue to be available for 
today's washers.
    The energy and water savings result primarily from a variety of 
innovative designs such as more efficient use of hot and cold water by 
using more accurate sensors that can detect the clothing load and use 
only as much water for washing as is necessary. The new washers also 
use higher spin speeds to remove more water from the clothes so less 
time and energy is needed to dry the clothes.
3. Consumer Benefits
    Table 1 summarizes the ``vital statistics'' of today's typical 
clothes washer. Table 2 presents the implications for the average 
consumer of the 2004 and 2007 clothes washer standards.

      Table 1.--Vital Statistics of Today's Typical Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average price..........................  $421.
Number of washes per year..............  392.
Annual utility bill....................  $115.
Life expectance........................  14.1 years.
Energy consumption.....................  3.23 kWh per wash (1266 kWh per
                                          year).
Water consumption......................  39.2 gallons per wash (15,366
                                          gallons per year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2.--Implications of New Standards for the Average Consumer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year standard comes into      2004 (Stage 1)......  2007 (Stage 2).
 effect.
New clothes washer price....  $474................  $670.
Estimated price increase....  $53.................  $249.
Annual utility bill savings.  $15.................  $48.
Median payback period.......  3.5 years...........  5.0 years.
Average net savings over      $103................  $260.
 appliance life.
Energy savings per wash.....  0.612 kWh...........  1.361 kWh.
Energy savings per year.....  239 kWh.............  533 kWh.
Water savings per wash......  4.0 gallons.........  18.1 gallons.
Water savings per year......  1568 gallons........  7,095 gallons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the typical clothes washer has a price of $421 and costs 
$115 a year in energy and water bills. In order to meet the 2004 
standard, the Department estimates that the price of a washer will be 
$474, an increase of $53. This price increase will be offset by an 
annual savings of about $15 on the utility bills. In order to meet the 
2007 standard, the Department estimates that the price of a washer will 
be $670, an increase of $249. This price increase will be offset by an 
annual savings of about $48. It should be noted that DOE based its 
estimate of the incremental retail cost for the 2007 standards on 
manufacturer cost estimates for horizontal-axis machines submitted to 
the Department in 1997. New cost information derived from vertical-axis 
washers now in the market that meet the 2007 standards indicate that 
the incremental prices could be substantially less. Based on the 
Department's analysis, the incremental price of these high-efficiency 
vertical-axis washers would be approximately $150.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Assumes a $75 incremental manufacturer cost and a total 
mark-up of 1.99 (TSD Chapter 5 section 5.4.1 and Chapter 6 section 
6.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department recognizes that few consumers are actually typical 
in the energy and water prices that they pay and the number of wash 
loads that they do per year. Consequently, the Department has 
investigated the effects of the different energy and water prices 
across the nation and different clothes washer usage patterns. The 
Department estimates that about 90 percent and 81 percent of all 
consumers purchasing a new washer will save money as a result of the 
2004 and 2007 standards, respectively.
    The Department also investigated how these standards might affect 
low income consumers and senior households. The Department estimates 
that about 90 percent and 81 percent of all low income consumers 
purchasing a new washer will save money as a result of the 2004 and 
2007 standards,

[[Page 3316]]

respectively. For senior households, these values are 84 and 72 
percent.
4. National Benefits
    The standards will provide large benefits to the nation. DOE 
estimates the standards will save 5.52 quads of energy over 27 years 
(2004 to 2030). This is equivalent to the total energy consumption of 
all U.S. homes over a period of approximately 3.3 months. By 2020, the 
standards will avoid the construction of four 400 megawatt coal-fired 
plants and eleven 400 megawatt gas-fired plants. These energy savings 
will result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 95.1 
million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, 
or an amount equal to that produced by three million cars in a year. 
Additionally, air pollution will have cumulative reduction by the 
elimination of 253.5 thousand metric tons of nitrous oxides ( 
NOX) and 28.1 thousand metric tons of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) from 2004 to 2030. The cumulative water savings are 
estimated at 11 trillion gallons, enough water to supply the needs of 
6.6 million households for 25 years, meaning less water will be pumped 
from America's aquifers and rivers, and less strain will be placed on 
many of the nation's water and sewer systems. In total, we estimate the 
net economic benefit to the nation of this standard will be $15.3 
billion from 2004 to 2030.
    Please note that you can find additional information about clothes 
washers on the DOE web-site at: www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html.

B. Authority

    Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. 
L. 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 
Pub. L. 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act 
(NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation 
Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
Pub. L. 102-486 \2\ (the Act or EPCA) created the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. The consumer 
products subject to this program (often referred to hereafter as 
``covered products'') include clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the 
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance 
Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, is referred to in this rule as the ``Act.'' Part B of Title 
III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. Part B of Title III of the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National 
Energy Conservation Policy Act only, is referred to in this rule as 
the National Energy Conservation Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Act, the program consists essentially of three parts: 
Testing, labeling, and Federal energy conservation standards. The 
Department, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, amends or establishes new test procedures for each of 
the covered products. Section 323 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6293. Test 
procedures appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.
    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prescribes rules governing the 
labeling of covered products after DOE publishes test procedures. 
Section 324(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6294(a). At the present time, there 
are Federal Trade Commission rules requiring labels for clothes 
washers.
    Any new or amended standard must be designed so as to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A).
    Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 
provides that before DOE determines whether a standard is economically 
justified, it must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After 
reviewing comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the 
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest 
extent practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors:

    ``(I) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers 
and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
    (II) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered 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 covered products which are likely to 
result from the imposition of the standard;
    (III) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to 
result directly from the imposition of the standard;
    (IV) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
covered products likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard;
    (V) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    (VI) The need for national energy conservation; and
    (VII) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.''

C. Background

1. Current Standards
    The existing clothes washer efficiency standards have been in 
effect since 1994. Energy efficiency for a clothes washer is measured 
in terms of an energy factor (EF), which measures overall clothes 
washer efficiency, in terms of cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle, 
and is determined by the DOE test procedure. 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart 
B, Appendix J. The current clothes washer efficiency standards are as 
follows:
     top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity), 
EF = 0.90
     top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater 
capacity), EF = 1.18
     top-loading, semi-automatic, must have an unheated rinse 
option
     front-loading, must have an unheated rinse option
     suds-saving, must have an unheated rinse option
2. History of Previous Rulemakings
    On November 14, 1994, DOE published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANOPR). 59 FR 56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE published a 
Supplemental ANOPR. (Hereafter referred to as the 1998 Supplemental 
ANOPR.) 63 FR 64344. In the 1998 Supplemental ANOPR, DOE provided 
interested persons an opportunity to comment on:
    (1) The product classes that we propose to analyze;
    (2) The analytical framework, models (e.g., the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)), and tools (e.g., a Monte Carlo 
sampling methodology, and life-cycle-cost (LCC) and national energy 
savings (NES) spreadsheets) we used to perform analyses of the impacts 
of standards; and
    (3) The results of preliminary analyses for LCC, payback and 
national energy savings contained in the Preliminary Technical Support 
Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Clothes 
Washers (TSD) dated October 1998 and summarized in the 1998 
Supplemental ANOPR.
    On October 5, 2000, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NOPR or proposed rule) for energy efficiency standards. 65 FR 59550. 
For the NOPR, we analyzed the energy savings, benefits and burdens of 
amended energy conservation standards for clothes washers and shared 
the results of these analyses with all stakeholders. Based on these 
analyses, several of the major stakeholders, including clothes washer 
manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates, submitted to the 
Department a joint proposal for the highest standard level which they 
believed to be technologically feasible and economically justified 
(hereafter referred as the Joint Comment). (Joint Comment, No. 204). 
Based on our review of the Joint Comment, we found the proposed 
standards technologically

[[Page 3317]]

feasible and economically justified. Therefore, we proposed to amend 
the energy conservation standard for clothes washers for residential 
applications as recommended in the Joint Comment and announced a public 
hearing, which was held on November 15, 2000.
    Included in the NOPR for energy efficiency standards were revisions 
to the clothes washer test procedure. The test procedure revisions we 
made were necessary due to discrepancies uncovered in the measurement 
of remaining moisture content (RMC). The discrepancies were found to be 
caused by variations in the properties of the energy test cloth. The 
situation has been addressed in the test procedure revisions by adding 
provisions for cloth certification based on the results of extractor 
testing and the derivation of a cloth-specific correction factor. In 
addition, we incorporated minor editorial changes to help clarify both 
Appendices J and J1 of the test procedure based on the joint proposal 
by stakeholders. These changes, as proposed in the NOPR, are included 
in this final rule.
3. Process Improvement
    A moratorium was placed on publication of proposed or final rules 
for appliance efficiency standards as part of the FY 1996 
appropriations legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That moratorium expired on 
September 30, 1996.
    On July 15, 1996, the Department published a Process Improvement 
Rule establishing procedures, interpretations and policies to guide the 
Department in the consideration of new or revised appliance efficiency 
standards (Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy 
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products, 61 FR 36974, July 15, 
1996). DOE has followed the Process Improvement Rule, to the extent 
possible, in developing the clothes washer standard.
    We developed an analytical framework for the clothes washer 
standards rulemaking for our stakeholders. The analytical framework 
described the different analyses (e.g., LCC, payback and manufacturing 
impact analyses (MIA)) to be conducted, the method for conducting them, 
the use of new LCC and national energy savings (NES) spreadsheets, and 
the relationship between the various analyses. We have conducted 
several meetings, workshops and discussions regarding energy efficiency 
standards for clothes washers. These workshops included discussions on 
proposed design options and a preliminary engineering analysis on 
November 15, 1996; development of an analytical framework for appliance 
standards rulemaking on July 23, 1997; and development of two new 
spreadsheet tools for LCC and NES on March 11, 1998. We conducted 
public hearings on December 15, 1998, to receive additional comments on 
the 1998 Supplemental ANOPR and on July 22, 1999, to discuss the 
process, analytical tools and uncertainties with the test procedures. 
We conducted a public hearing on November 15, 2000, to receive comment 
on proposed efficiency standards addressed in the NOPR published on 
October 5, 2000.
    In the NOPR, we also incorporated the recommendations made by the 
Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards on April 
21, 1998. (Advisory Committee, No. 96). These recommendations relate to 
using the full range of consumer marginal energy prices (CMEP) in the 
LCC analysis (replacing the use of national average energy prices), 
defining a range of energy price futures for each fuel used in the 
economic analyses and defining a range of primary energy conversion 
factors and associated emission reductions, based on the generation 
displaced by energy efficiency standards for each rulemaking. Marginal 
energy prices are used in the LCC, payback and the NPV portion of the 
NES analyses. Because the NES results are inputs to the analyses for 
utility, emissions and employment; these analyses are also impacted by 
using marginal rates.
4. Test Procedures
    Federal test procedures for clothes washers were first established 
in 1977. Simultaneous with the NOPR for clothes washer standards, the 
Department was also in the process of revising the clothes washer test 
procedure. The Department needed to address a number of innovative 
technologies for which there were no test procedures. A number of 
proposals were published, including one on December 22, 1993, (58 FR 
67710) and another on March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15330). In its comments to 
the March 1995 proposed rule, the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (AHAM) requested that DOE adopt an additional new test 
procedure, that captures current consumer habits that affect energy 
use, which would be used in considering the revision of the clothes 
washer energy conservation standards, and would go into effect upon 
issuance of standards.
    On April 22, 1996, the Department issued a supplemental Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking proposing such a new test procedure, Appendix J1, 
as well as certain additional revisions to the currently applicable 
test procedure in appendix J to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 61 FR 
17589. The supplemental notice was published to seek comments on 
whether DOE should adopt the AHAM recommended test procedure with 
certain changes. The final rule, published on August 27, 1997, adopted 
this recommendation. 62 FR 45484. Appendix J is the current applicable 
test procedure, and it will expire on December 31, 2003. Appendix J1 is 
informational and will not become mandatory until the energy 
conservation standards of this rule become effective on January 1, 
2004. The appendix J test procedure specifies an energy efficiency 
descriptor called the energy factor (EF). The appendix J1 test 
procedure specifies an energy efficiency descriptor called the modified 
energy factor (MEF) which replaces the EF. Contrasting with the 
previous EF descriptor, the MEF descriptor incorporates clothes dryer 
energy by consideration of the remaining moisture content (RMC) of 
clothes leaving the clothes washer. Other substantive differences 
between the test procedures include using different water temperatures 
for testing and using cloth loads in J1 but not in J. The issuance of 
the test procedure final rule was a major step in accelerating the 
development of clothes washer standards. The test procedure final rule 
provided the basis upon which the energy and water consumption 
calculations could be determined.
    During this standards rulemaking, it was discovered that the test 
cloth to be used for determining the RMC was giving inconsistent 
results. The Department investigated possible causes for the 
inconsistent test results, and results are summarized in the DOE 
report, ``Development of a Standardized Energy Test Cloth for Measuring 
Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes Washer,'' May 2000. 
(DOE, No. 200). As part of our investigation into the cause of these 
discrepancies, we found that various lots of test cloth will yield 
inconsistent RMC results. To understand the effects of operating 
variables and cloth specifications, it was necessary to conduct 
laboratory tests to determine RMC. To insure that test results would 
not be influenced or biased by any manufacturer's product (clothes 
washer), we used an extractor to remove moisture content. An extractor 
is a centrifuge--basically a rotating basket that has a controllable 
speed to produce a variety of centrifugal forces. The speed was varied 
to impose different centripetal accelerations on the test load. These 
accelerations are reported in

[[Page 3318]]

terms of gravitational acceleration (g). We also soaked the cloth in a 
tub at controlled temperature rather than use the agitated soak cycle 
provided by a typical washer. The RMC tests closely resemble those 
specified in the clothes washer test procedure.
    An extractor-based test has been established to examine RMC values 
at different gravitational forces (g-forces). A correction factor is 
derived by which the deviation between a new production batch of test 
cloth and a standard reference test cloth is measured. This deviation 
is measured as the root mean square between the set of measured RMC 
values and the set of standard RMC values. If this absolute deviation 
is below 2 percent, then no correction factors are needed in MEF tests 
using that batch of cloth. If the absolute root-mean-square (RMS) 
difference between the cloth RMC values and standard RMC values is 
above 2 percent, then correction factors must be applied when using the 
cloth to test the MEF of a clothes washer.
    As part of this rulemaking, we included revisions to the test 
procedure based on our proposed language addressed in the May 2000 
report dealing with the energy test cloth, RMC, extractor testing and 
the correction factor and Joint Stakeholders Comment. (Joint Comment, 
No. 204). In addition, we incorporated AHAM's comments and Joint 
Stakeholders Comment requesting minor editorial changes to help clarify 
both appendices J and J1. (AHAM, Nos. 197 and 199, and Joint Comment, 
No. 204). These changes have been included in their entirety in this 
rulemaking pertaining to the test procedure.

II. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

    As addressed in the NOPR for energy efficiency standards, we 
included revisions to the test procedure dealing with the energy test 
cloth, RMC, extractor testing and the correction factor based on our 
May 2000 report, which can be found in appendix C of the TSD. We also 
incorporated changes suggested in AHAM's comments and in the Joint 
Comment requesting minor editorial changes to help clarify both 
appendices J and J1 of the test procedure. (AHAM, Nos. 197 and 199, and 
Joint Comment, No. 204). In addition, during the public hearing held on 
November 15, 2000, and in a written statement, AHAM requested that the 
test procedure be further clarified and enhanced by incorporating 
additional changes. These changes have been included in their entirety 
in this final rule. A more complete discussion of these comments is 
found in section IV of this rule.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    There are top- and front-loading clothes washers in the market at 
all of the efficiency levels prescribed in today's final rule. The 
Department, therefore, believes all of the efficiency levels contained 
in today's final rule for both top- and front-loading clothes washers 
are technologically feasible as required by 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, as 
amended.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    The Act requires the Department, in considering any new or amended 
standards, to consider those that ``shall be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.'' 
(Section 325(o)(2)(A)). Accordingly, for each class of product 
considered in this rulemaking, a maximum technologically feasible (max 
tech) design option was identified and considered as discussed in the 
NOPR. 65 FR 59550, 59555-56 (October 5, 2000). See section V. 
Analytical Results and Conclusions for details of the levels analyzed 
for this rulemaking.
    The Department considers design options technologically feasible if 
they are already in use by the respective industry or research has 
progressed to the development of a working prototype. The Process 
Improvement Rule sets forth a definition of technological feasibility 
as follows: ``Technologies incorporated in commercially available 
products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically 
feasible.'' 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A(4)(a)(4)(I).
    In consultation with interested parties, the Department developed a 
list of design options on all possible energy saving designs for 
consideration. The Department gathered design option information from 
previous clothes washer analyses, trade publications, industry research 
organizations, product brochures from domestic and foreign 
manufacturers, and appliance conferences, including the International 
Appliance Technical Conference (IATC). The ``Draft Report on Design 
Options for Clothes Washers'' and ``Draft Report on the Preliminary 
Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers'' provide details on the 
potential technologies. The following designs were considered: Improved 
fill control, tighter tub tolerance, added insulation, increased motor 
efficiency, thermostatically controlled mixing values, improved water 
extraction, horizontal-axis, horizontal-axis with recirculation, 
advanced control/sensor, suds-saving, direct drive motor, automatic 
fill control, reduced thermal mass, electrolytic disassociation of 
water, ultrasonic washing, bubble action, and ozonated laundering. 
(Clothes Washer Public Workshop, No. 55B and 55C). Based on this 
information the Department determined that a 50 percent reduction in 
the energy use of the baseline model (corresponding to an MEF of 1.634) 
is the maximum technologically feasible level for both the Top-Loading, 
Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or greater capacity) and Front-Loading classes.
    Additionally, under the guidelines in the Process Improvement Rule, 
DOE conducted a screening analysis to eliminate from consideration, 
early in the process, any design option which is not practicable to 
manufacture, install, or service, will eliminate product utility 
features, or for which there are safety concerns that can not be 
resolved. In order to conduct the screening analysis, the Department 
gathered information regarding all current technology options and 
prototype designs. In consultation with interested parties, the 
Department developed a list of design options for consideration in the 
rulemaking. All technologically feasible design options were considered 
in the screening analysis, and none were rejected.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    The Department forecasted energy savings through the use of a 
national energy savings (NES) spreadsheet as discussed in the NOPR. 65 
FR 59550, 59556, 59563-68 (October 5, 2000).
2. Significance of Savings
    Under section 325(o)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department is prohibited 
from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not 
result in ``significant'' energy savings. While the term 
``significant'' has never been defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 
1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), concluded that Congressional intent in 
using the word ``significant'' was to mean ``non-trivial.'' The savings 
to the nation are 5.52 quads of energy over 27 years (2004 to 2030) 
which is equivalent to the total energy consumption of all U.S. homes 
over a period of approximately 3.3 months. We

[[Page 3319]]

consider this to be non-trivial and therefore determine it to be 
significant.

D. Economic Justification

    As noted earlier, Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act provides seven 
factors to be evaluated in determining whether a conservation standard 
is economically justified.
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and on Consumers
    We considered the economic impact on manufacturers and on consumers 
as discussed in the NOPR. 65 FR 59550, 59556 (October 5, 2000). The 
clothes washer industry would experience a cumulative NPV loss of 
between $421.1-528.4 million representing between 29.2 and 36.7 percent 
of base case industry value. The Department estimates that about 89 
percent and 81 percent of all consumers purchasing a new washer will 
save money as a result of the 2004 and 2007 standards, respectively. In 
total, we estimate the benefit to the nation of this standard will be 
$15.3 billion from 2004 to 2030.
2. Life-Cycle-Costs
    We considered life-cycle-costs as discussed in the NOPR. 65 FR 
59550, 59556-57 (October 5, 2000). At the 1.04 MEF level, consumers 
would experience a savings in LCC of $103, while they would experience 
a LCC savings of $260 at the 1.26 MEF level that would go into effect 
in 2007. The payback for the 1.04 MEF level is 3.5 years, and 5.0 years 
for the 1.26 MEF.
3. Energy Savings
    While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, the Act 
requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, 
to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to 
result directly from revised standards. The Department used the NES 
spreadsheet results, discussed earlier, in its consideration of total 
projected savings. The savings to the nation are 5.52 quads of energy 
over 27 years (2004 to 2030).
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    This factor cannot be quantified. In establishing classes of 
products, the Department tries to eliminate any degradation of utility 
or performance in the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
    An issue of utility that was considered in this rule concerns the 
consumer utility of vertical-axis (V-axis) and horizontal-axis (H-axis) 
machines. We conducted consumer focus groups and a conjoint analysis 
study to address this issue. A conjoint analysis is a quantitative 
method to estimate the value consumers place on the clothes washer 
attributes. The focus group and conjoint results indicate that price is 
the most important attribute when consumers are purchasing a new 
clothes washer, although in each case another attribute is virtually 
tied with price in terms of importance. In the focus groups, 83 percent 
of the respondents included price in their top ten list of important 
clothes washer attributes, while 81 percent included wash tub capacity 
in that same list. In the conjoint analysis, price had the highest 
relative importance score (26 percent), followed closely by the 
availability of a wash load size option on the control panel (25 
percent). Of the six attributes included in the conjoint analysis 
survey, door placement was the fifth most important attribute with a 
relative importance score of 11 percent (for further information, see 
Chapter 8 and appendix G of the TSD).
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
    This factor seeks the views of the Attorney General to determine 
the potential impacts on competition resulting from the imposition of 
the proposed energy efficiency standard.
    In order to assist the Attorney General in making such a 
determination, the Department provided the Attorney General with copies 
of the NOPR and the Technical Support Document for review. In a letter 
responding to the NOPR, the Attorney General concluded ``that the 
proposed clothes washer standard would not adversely affect 
competition.'' (Department of Justice, No. 233 at 2). The letter is 
printed at the end of today's rule.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    We reported the environmental effects from today's final rule in 
the NOPR. 65 FR 59550, 59557, 59578-79 (October 5, 2000). The energy 
savings this final rule will result in cumulative greenhouse gas 
emission reductions of 95.1 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide 
(CO2) equivalent, or an amount equal to that produced by 
three million cars every year. Additionally, air pollution will be 
reduced by the elimination of 253.5 thousand metric tons of nitrous 
oxides ( NOX) and 28.1 thousand metric tons of sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) from 2004 to 2030.
7. Other Factors
    This provision allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other 
factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. Section 
325(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI).
    Under this provision, we considered the water savings from each 
standard level. The Department received numerous comments asking for 
the inclusion of a water factor standard in addition to the MEF 
standard. (City of Austin, Nos. 105 at 1 and 187 at 2; City of 
Bellingham, Washington, Department of Public Works, No. 106 at 1; Lower 
Colorado River Authority (LRCA), No. 109 at 1; Amy Vicker and 
Associates, Inc., No. 110 at 1; City of San Diego, No. 123 at 1; City 
of Santa Barbara, Public Works Department, No. 125 at 1; City of 
Seattle, No. 126 at 2; Santa Clara valley Water District, No. 127 at 1; 
American Water Works Association, No. 149 at 1; City of Redmond, Office 
of the Mayor, No. 153 at 1; Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 
No. 152 at 4; State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, No. 
158 at 1). As stated previously, the Department considered water 
savings as a factor in determining the economic justification of the 
clothes washer standard level. The water savings are estimated at 11 
trillion gallons, enough water to supply the needs of 6.6 million 
households for 25 years, meaning less water will be pumped from 
America's aquifers and rivers, and less strain will be placed on many 
of the nation's water and sewer systems. However, the Department does 
not have the authority to prescribe a minimum water factor standard.
    The Secretary has also strongly considered the Joint Comment. This 
proposal adopts a two stage implementation process oriented toward 
mitigating financial impacts on manufacturers and ensuring no loss of 
product utility for consumers. Thus, we are adopting the Joint Comment 
proposal.

E. Standards Incorporated by Reference

    Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA specifies that any new or amended 
energy conservation standard the Department prescribes shall be 
designed to ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * 
* which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified.'' Consistent with the EPCA directive that the 
standard achieve maximum improvement in the energy efficiency, it 
follows that the test procedure to measure efficiency be both valid and 
repeatable, in other words, provide consistent results. During this 
standards rulemaking process it was discovered that the test cloth used 
for determining remaining moisture content (RMC) was

[[Page 3320]]

giving inconsistent results. The effect of RMC on modified energy 
factor and hence energy efficiency can be substantial. This is 
discussed in the proposed rule under section III.A. Test Procedure, 65 
FR 59555 (October 5, 2000). After investigating possible causes for the 
inconsistent test results, we found that various lots of test cloth had 
been treated with a stain or water repellant finish that would affect 
RMC. Consequently, the American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 118-1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon 
Resistence Test (reaffirmed 1997), and Test Method 79-2000, Absorbency 
of Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed 2000), were added to the proposed 
rule, under appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430, to determine whether 
such a finish was present in a test cloth. Also, a procedure was added 
to ``wash out'' that finish, so that any test cloth would be equivalent 
to any other test cloth and therefore produce consistent results. Both 
of the above procedures were accepted by the stakeholders under the 
Joint Comment recommendation submitted to the Department by clothes 
washer manufacturers and energy conservation advocates (Joint Comment, 
No. 204), and are incorporated by reference in today's final rule.

III. Methodology

    As discussed in the NOPR, the Department developed new analytical 
tools for this rulemaking. The first tool was a spreadsheet that 
calculates LCC and payback period. The second calculates national 
energy savings and national net present value (NPV). The Department 
also completely revised the methodology used in assessing manufacturer 
impacts including the adoption of the Government Regulatory Impact 
Model (GRIM). Additionally, DOE developed a new approach using the 
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of clothes 
washers energy efficiency standards on electric utilities and the 
environment. 65 FR 59550, 59557-71 (October 5, 2000).
    In general, when information is based on periodic forecasts and 
surveys such as the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) forecasts of energy 
prices and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), both from 
the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we try to use the latest 
available information. The analysis in support of the NOPR was 
performed using RECS1993 and AEO1999 data. Just prior to publication of 
the NOPR both RECS1997 and AEO2000 data became available. Although we 
did not expect a significant difference in results by updating to 
RECS1997 and AEO2000, we stated our intent to use this updated 
information for the final rule. We have updated the analysis for Trial 
Standard Level 3 using RECS1997 and AEO2000 and have included it in 
appendix R of the TSD.

IV. Discussion of Comments

A. Test Procedure

    During the public hearing held on November 15, 2000 and in a 
written statement, AHAM requested that the test procedure be further 
clarified and enhanced by incorporating the following additional 
changes:
    (1) Specify that the test cloth can be used for up to 60 runs in 
appendix J, as proposed for J1.
    (2) Specify that appendix J1 (currently informational) is the test 
procedure to be used to determine which models meet Energy Star 
requirements prior to implementation of the January 1, 2004 standard 
requirement.
    (3) Require that a permanent marking be applied to future test 
cloth lots.
    (4) Implement a process to publish the correction factors on future 
test cloth lots (i.e., publish in Federal Register, on web-site, or by 
letter). (AHAM, No. 211)
    These changes to the test procedure are proposed by AHAM for 
clarification and consistency purposes only. No objections were raised 
at the public hearing or in written comments to this proposal, and the 
Department believes they would clarify the test procedure without 
changing any test results. Therefore, Item #1 will be included in the 
final rule for consistency in Appendices J and J1. Item #2 will be 
addressed by letter from DOE to the stakeholders specifying that 
Appendix J1 along with the revisions in this final rule will be used to 
determine which models meet Energy Star requirements starting January 
1, 2001. Item #3 will be included in the final rule by adding a 
statement to require that the test cloth have a permanent marking 
identifying the lot. Item #4 will be addressed by DOE notifying 
stakeholders via the Internet site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html with the lot number and 
correction factors along with the accepted laboratories and mills to be 
used.

B. Standard

    Since we started work on this rulemaking following the 1991 
standard final rule, we have had eight public hearings/workshops and 
three public solicitations for comment. As noted above, DOE published 
an ANOPR on November 14, 1994. 59 FR 56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE 
published a Supplemental ANOPR. 63 FR 64344. On October 5, 2000, DOE 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 65 FR 59550. In 
preparation of the NOPR, we conducted several analyses regarding the 
energy savings, benefits, and burdens of amended energy conservation 
standards for clothes washers and have shared the results of these 
analyses with all stakeholders. Based on these analyses, several of the 
major stakeholders, including clothes washer manufacturers and energy 
efficiency advocates, submitted to the Department a joint proposal for 
the highest standard level which they believed to be technologically 
feasible and economically justified. As a result, based on the 
aforementioned, we proposed to amend the energy conservation standard 
for clothes washers for residential applications as recommended in the 
joint proposal. We announced a public hearing, which was held on 
November 15, 2000.
    Today's final rule standards are based on the joint proposal 
submitted to the Department by clothes washer manufacturers and energy 
conservation advocates. (Joint Comment, No. 204). The joint 
stakeholders consist of the following: Alliance Laundry Systems LLC; 
Amana Appliances; Asko Incorporated; Frigidaire Home Products; General 
Electric Appliances (GEA); Maytag Corporation; Miele, Inc.; Fisher & 
Paykel Ltd; Whirlpool Corporation; Alliance to Save Energy; American 
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE); Appliance Standards 
Awareness Project; California Energy Commission (CEC); City of Austin, 
Texas; Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Northwest Power 
Planning Council; and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The proposal as 
submitted in the Joint Comment consists of four parts as follows:
    Clothes Washer Energy Standard. The clothes washer energy standards 
for standard class clothes washers shall be 1.04 modified energy factor 
(MEF) in 1/1/2004 and 1.26 MEF in 1/1/2007. The energy test procedure 
will be revised to ensure that variability between test cloths will not 
significantly affect remaining moisture content (RMC) results. 
Additional clarifications will also be made to test procedure.
    Energy Star Labeling Program. Energy Star levels shall be set as 
follows: Standard Class Clothes Washers--1.26 MEF in 2001; 1.42 MEF in 
2004; Refrigerator/Freezers--10% better than the 2001 standard in 2001; 
change to 15% better than the 2001 in 2004.

[[Page 3321]]

    Tax Credit for the Production of Energy Efficient Clothes Washers 
and Refrigerator-Freezers. The credit shall provide for two energy 
efficiency tiers, each with separately designated funds. There is $30 
million in each designated fund per company per efficiency tier. Cap of 
$60 million per company for the two funds or yearly cap with carry 
forward. Annual total tax credit cannot exceed in any taxable year 2% 
of corporate gross revenues as determined by average of 3 prior years.
    Standard Class Clothes Washers: Two tiers coterminous 2001-2006; 
$50 per unit for products manufactured with a 1.26 MEF and $100 per 
unit for products manufactured with a 1.42 MEF, increasing to 1.5 MEF 
in 2004. Includes residential-style ``coin-operated'' washers.
    Refrigerators: First tier effective in 2001. $50 per unit for 
products manufactured 10% above 2001 minimum efficiency standard. 
Credit runs through 2004. Second tier also effective in 2001 and runs 
through 2006. It is $100 for products manufactured 15% above the 2001 
minimum efficiency standard. Credits apply to automatic defrost 
refrigerator-freezers only, at 16.5 cubic feet internal volume and 
above.
    Voluntary Industry Water Program. Water factor reporting shall be 
part of a voluntary industry sponsored program. AHAM members agree to 
publicly disclose through AHAM, water factors for each model that meets 
Energy Star/Tax Credit MEF levels, starting sometime in calendar year 
2001. In calendar year 2002 and each year thereafter, industry-wide 
shipment weighted average water factors for units shipped in the 
previous year shall be reported by AHAM. Water factor calculations will 
use appendix J water factor through 2003 and will use Appendix J1 
thereafter. Starting in 2007, AHAM members agree to report water factor 
for all models. AHAM will sponsor water conference.'' (Joint Comment, 
No. 204).
    This rulemaking only addresses the clothes washer energy standards 
of this proposal. The above standard, based on this proposal would go 
into effect in stages, with the first stage going into effect on 
January 1, 2004, and the second stage going into effect on January 1, 
2007 (hereafter referred to as the 2004 standard and 2007 standard, 
respectively). The initial standard is a 22 percent reduction in energy 
consumption over the current standard (or a MEF of 1.04). The later, 
more stringent standard, is a 35 percent reduction in energy 
consumption over the current standard (or a MEF of 1.26). Both top-
loading vertical-axis and front-loading horizontal-axis design clothes 
washers are currently available in retail appliance stores at these 
levels.
    In response to the NOPR, we received additional comments supporting 
the proposed energy conservation standard announced from AHAM 
(representing Alliance Laundry Systems LLC; Asko Incorporated; Amana 
Appliances; AB Electrolux (Frigidaire Home Products); GEA, Fisher & 
Paykel Ltd; Maytag Corporation; Miele, Inc.; and Whirlpool 
Corporation), manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, utilities and 
consumers. (AHAM, No. 212 at 1; Amana, No. 223 at 1; Whirlpool, No. 236 
at 2; Maytag, No. 230 at 2; ACEEE, Nos. 214 & 227; NRDC, No. 225 at 2; 
AWWA, No. 234; Comment No. 218). However, Oregon Office of Energy (OOE) 
request a standard level at a 40 percent improvement over the baseline 
washer or a MEF of 1.36. (OOE, No. 219 at 2).
    We also received three comments from Congress. Representative Ralph 
Regula (R-OH) supports this rulemaking and believes it should be 
approved without delay. (Comment No. 220) Representatives Joe 
Knollenberg (R-MI) and Wally Herger (R-CA) are asking for 120- and 90-
day extensions of the comment period, respectively. (Docket No. EE-RM/
STD-98-440, Comment No. 73 at 68 and Comment No. 239). This rulemaking 
process for clothes washers began on November 14, 1994, almost 6 years 
ago with the publication of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
59 FR 56423. Subsequently, there were eight public hearings/workshops 
and three public solicitations for comment. Thus, DOE is adopting the 
proposed rule and does not plan to extend the comment period.

C. Two Standards in One Rulemaking

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Consumer Alert (CA) 
commented that the statute does not specifically allow for the creation 
of two standards in one rulemaking. (CEI & CA, No. 207 at 2; CEI, No. 
228 at 3). More specifically, these comments contended that the 2007 
standard, coming only 3 years after the 2004 standard, violates the 
requirement in section 325 of the Act that an amended standard for 
these products ``shall apply to products manufactured after a date 
which is 5 years after * * * the effective date of the previous 
amendment * * * `` 42 U.S.C. 6395(m).
    DOE disagrees with this comment. In this rulemaking, DOE is 
complying with the mandate in section 325(g)(4)(B) of the Act to 
determine whether to amend the standards in effect for clothes washers. 
Consistent with section 325(m), section 325(g)(4)(C) of the Act 
provides that a second and any subsequent amendments shall apply to 
products manufactured five years after the effective date of the 
previous amendment, except that in no case may the amended standard 
apply to products manufactured within 3 years after publication of the 
standard. Today's amended final rule will have been published 6\1/2\ 
years after the effective date of the previous final rule, in 
conformity with the statute, and applies to products manufactured 3 
years or more after its publication date.
    Nothing in the Act precludes DOE, in carrying out its duty to 
determine whether to amend the existing standards, from promulgating 
amendments that take effect in two stages. In this rulemaking, DOE has 
determined that an interim 2004 standard is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. This less stringent interim standard gives 
industry sufficient lead time to depreciate their current assets and 
plan a more orderly transition of their production facilities. Delaying 
the implementation date for the higher efficiency level gives 
manufacturers more time to research and develop lower cost solutions to 
achieve higher standards. Under the provisions in the Act, DOE may not 
apply subsequent amendments of these standards to products manufactured 
within 5 years after the effective date of the second or final stage of 
this rule (i.e., until 2012).
    AHAM and the NRDC both support DOE's position that there is nothing 
in the statute which prohibits rule amendments that consist of initial 
or interim standards and more stringent or final standards. (Mr. 
Samuels of AHAM, No. 216CC at 23; Mr. Goldstein of NRDC, No. 216CC at 
56).
    Thus, DOE is adopting the rule, as proposed.

D. Consumer Information Statement

    The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) commented that it believes 
that the Consumer Overview section could be improved to include the 
following information: Impact on the ``first cost'' or purchase price, 
impact on LCC (i.e. energy costs and water savings), payback period, 
impact of a rule on affordability of product for the average consumer 
and especially the low and moderate income population, and 
environmental implications/benefits of a rulemaking. (CFA, Nos. 210 & 
232 at 2). In addition, as it was recommended by the Appliance 
Standards Advisory Committee at its October 24, 2000, meeting, the 
consumer information

[[Page 3322]]

statement (Consumer Overview) should be in simplified language so that 
it is understandable to the consumer. (Advisory Committee Meeting 
Transcripts dated October 24, 2000, at 43). These changes have been 
made to the Consumer Overview section of this final rule.

E. Consumer Input

    CEI and CA commented that they believe there was inadequate 
consumer input into the rulemaking process. (CEI & CA, No. 209). 
General Electric (GE) commented that DOE has given adequate time for 
consumer input by holding numerous comment periods and hearings. (Mr. 
Jones of GE, No. 216CC at 74). Since we started work on this rulemaking 
in 1991 we have had eight public hearings/workshops and three public 
solicitations for comment. DOE published an ANOPR on November 14, 1994 
with a 75 day comment period. 59 FR 56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE 
published a Supplemental ANOPR and held a public hearing on December 
15, 1998 with a 75 day comment period. 63 FR 64344. All of the 
technical information pertaining to the Supplemental ANOPR and a copy 
of the Supplemental ANOPR were made available immediately thereafter on 
our Internet site. On October 5, 2000 DOE published a NOPR and held a 
public hearing on November 15, 2000 with a 60 day comment period. 65 FR 
59550. All of the technical information pertaining to the NOPR and a 
copy of the NOPR were made available immediately thereafter on our 
Internet site.
    Since February 1999, the Department received 10 letters from 
consumers opposing the proposed energy efficiency standards and about 
200 comments opposing a ban on top-loading vertical-axis clothes 
washers. (Comment No. 217). In addition, we responded to about 200 e-
mails and phone calls by sending in return a fact-sheet and a copy of 
the rule. On the other hand, the Department received over 600 letters 
from consumers supporting the energy conservation standards at a 40 
percent improvement in efficiency (today's requirement is for a 35 
percent improvement by 2007). (Comment Nos. 191, 192, 193, 196, & 201). 
We have also received comments from consumer advocate groups such as 
the Arizona Consumers Council, Center for Environmental Citizenship, 
Coalition for Consumer Rights, Residential Providers Association of 
Oregon, and others supporting the energy conservation standards at a 40 
percent improvement in efficiency. (Comment No. 191). In addition, in 
selecting today's standards, we considered the results of the consumer 
focus groups and a conjoint analysis study we performed to address the 
consumer utility issue pertaining to top-loading vertical-axis and 
front-loading horizontal-axis machines. Based on the above, DOE 
concludes that many consumers are concerned that a new standard would 
ban, or have the unintended effect of banning, top-loading vertical-
axis clothes washers. The Department notes that the standard adopted 
today mandates a minimum level of energy efficiency and that at least 
three clothes washer manufacturers currently have top-loading clothes 
washers which meet the 2007 standards.
    In conclusion, we believe there has been ample time and opportunity 
for public comment and that consumer input has been received and 
consumer interests represented and considered.

F. Energy and Economic Analyses

    The Department received several comments with respect to various 
elements of the energy and economic analyses. This section addresses 
product classes, incremental retail costs, water savings, detergent 
savings, LCC and payback, and cost effectiveness.

G. Product Classes

    Currently, DOE divides clothes washers into classes based on size 
and features, such as suds-saving. For the existing standards, DOE 
defines residential clothes washers in the following classes:
     Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity);
     Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater 
capacity);
     Top-loading, semi-automatic;
     Front-loading; and
     Suds-saving.
    In the NOPR, the Department indicated it would maintain the current 
product classes.
    The Department received several comments on its proposal to 
maintain separate product classes for top-loading and front-loading 
washers and to establish the same efficiency requirement for both. OOE 
commented that DOE should follow the lead of the Federal Trade 
Commission and establish only two classes of automatic clothes 
washers--standard and compact--as there is no basis for doing otherwise 
and to avoid consumer confusion. (OOE, No. 219 at 8). NRDC commented 
that it made more sense to collapse the V-axis and H-axis classes into 
a single class. (Mr. Goldstein of NRDC, No. 216CC at 57). Whirlpool 
commented that it fully supports the consolidation of the top- and 
front-loading standard capacity classes. (Whirlpool, No. 236). Maytag 
commented that it fully agrees with the Department's conclusion that a 
single efficiency standard for standard class top-and front-loading 
washers is clearly justified. (Maytag, No. 230 at 2). Amana commented 
that it supports the Department's proposal to have the same energy-
efficiency standard for V-axis and H-axis washers while maintaining 
separate classes for these products on the basis of differences in 
technology, cost and utility/performance. It believes, however, that 
the Department should correct the designations from top- and front-
loading to V-axis and H-axis. (Amana, No. 223 at 5).
    The Department agrees that currently both V-axis and H-axis washers 
can achieve the same range of efficiency and that different efficiency 
standards are not warranted based on axis of rotation or orientation of 
loading. For this reason, the Department proposed a single minimum 
efficiency for the existing ``standard'' size top-loading and front-
loading washers. However DOE is concerned that in the future these 
classes may have a different potential for efficiency improvement. 
Therefore, in today's final rule, the Department is maintaining both 
the Standard Top-Loading and Front-Loading product classes but is 
requiring a single efficiency standard level for both the Standard Top-
Loading and Front-Loading classes of washers.
    Additionally, Amana requested that the Department segregate the 
standard size washer class into subclasses on the basis of capacity in 
cubic feet to eliminate the potential of confusion and prevent 
consumers from being misled in comparing washers of different sizes and 
mistakenly purchasing a smaller one that consumes more energy. (Amana, 
No. 223 at 4). The Department understands that the FTC labeling could 
lead to confusion for the consumer. We do not believe, however, that 
this issue can be addressed by defining additional efficiency 
subclasses. The Department will take up this matter with FTC to study 
this issue.
    The Department received several comments on the issue of increasing 
the volume definition of the compact class from 1.6 cubic feet to 2.0 
cubic feet. Maytag commented that it agreed with the Department's 
proposal to maintain the existing 1.6 cubic feet definition of the 
compact product class since it believes increasing the compact class to 
2.0 cubic feet could place manufacturers who have complied with more 
stringent efficiency standards at a competitive disadvantage. (Maytag, 
No. 230 at 2). The OOE commented it was generally

[[Page 3323]]

indifferent to the Department's decision to keep the definition of the 
compact class at less than 1.6 cubic foot capacity. However, OOE 
deplores that the Department has not examined the potential to improve 
the energy efficiency of these products. (OOE, No. 219 at 7). Whirlpool 
commented that it disagrees with the Department's proposal to maintain 
the current less than 1.6 cubic feet definition for compact washers and 
recommends that the Department redefine the ``compact'' class to 
instead be either ``top-loading units less than 2.0 cubic feet in 
capacity with external width not to be in excess of 22.5 inches OR top-
loading units that are less than 1.6 cubic feet in capacity and not 
more than 24 inches in width.'' (Whirlpool, No. 236 at 3).
    The Department appreciates Whirlpool's suggested language to 
redefine the compact class. However, given that this proposed change in 
definition is new and was not subject to public notice and comment, the 
implications are not fully understood. Thus, the Department is 
maintaining the current classification for the compact class.
    Whirlpool commented that it disagrees with the MEF value of 0.65 
for the compact class and suggested that, based on its testing, an MEF 
of 0.57 more accurately reflects the current EF standard of 0.9. 
(Whirlpool, No. 236 at 3). Since the compact class was not analyzed, it 
is the Department's intention that current clothes washers for this 
class qualify under the new MEF minimum energy efficiency requirement. 
The Department has conducted sample calculations and testing on both a 
1.46 cubic feet washer and a 1.93 cubic feet washer. Based on the 
findings, the Department is maintaining the 0.65 MEF value.

H. Incremental Retail Costs

    The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) 
commented that DOE based its estimate of incremental retail cost for 
the proposed standards on manufacturer cost estimates for horizontal-
axis machines. ACEEE adds that manufacturers stated at the NOPR hearing 
that incremental costs may well be less than estimated. ACEEE further 
remarks that this observation is supported by the Department's own 
reverse engineering analysis, which found mid-point incremental 
manufacturer costs for V-axis machines that meet or exceed the 2007 
standard to be approximately $75. Applying the mark-ups used in the DOE 
analysis, ACEEE calculates a $140 incremental retail price which is 
lower than the $249 incremental retail price used by the Department in 
its analysis. Based on its analysis of past rulemakings, ACEEE believes 
that the incremental price will be around $50. To capture the full 
range of possible future prices, ACEEE recommends that DOE state that 
the incremental price will be in the range of $50-$239. ACEEE does not 
believe DOE should revise its analysis using this range since the 
proposed standards clearly meet the NAECA criteria at $239 and would 
certainly meet these criteria if the costs were lower. (ACEEE, No. 227 
at 1).
    The Oregon Office of Energy (OOE) also commented that the 
engineering analysis for washers meeting the proposed standard 
(MEF=1.26) overstates the manufacturing costs of this level. OOE states 
that DOE based its analysis on the assumption that the standard would 
only be met with H-axis clothes washer designs. OOE commented that in 
recent months it has become clear to the Oregon Energy Office that 
manufacturers will meet the proposed new standard with fairly 
traditional top-loading, vertical-axis designs that incorporate 
programmable electronic controls. (OOE, No. 219 at 3).
    As commented by ACEEE and OOE, the engineering cost and performance 
data used in the DOE analysis for the proposed standard level is based 
on H-axis technology. The decision to base the engineering analysis on 
H-axis technology was made in response to AHAM comments in 1996 (AHAM, 
No. 67 at 1) and 1998 (AHAM, No. 84 and 86) that manufacturers could 
not achieve levels of efficiency improvement beyond 25 percent with 
traditional V-axis clothes washers. More recently, two manufacturers 
introduced high-efficiency V-axis clothes washers into the U.S. market 
that meet or exceed the performance requirements of the 2007 standard. 
The Department had efficiency testing performed on three commercially 
available high-efficiency washers and one prototype V-axis washer. 
Additionally, the Department had these washers disassembled and 
analyzed to estimate their manufacturing costs. As commented by ACEEE, 
these washers had a lower estimated cost range then their H-axis 
counterparts. Thus, the Department agrees with ACEEE that the price 
estimates used by the Department in its analysis may be at the high end 
of what may be expected and that lower prices for the proposed 
efficiency would only improve the justification of the standards. The 
Department notes that in this period of rapid technological advances 
and new product introductions, assessing the future cost and 
performance of clothes washers is an uncertain exercise. As with any 
forecast, there is a range of uncertainty in the forecasted results.
    Additionally, ACEEE reasoned that given the downward trend in the 
Producer Price Index, it was likely that clothes washer manufacturers 
would achieve future productivity gains and design improvements that 
would allow them to have lower costs than submitted in 1997. (ACEEE, 
No. 227 at 1). The Department agrees that the recent introduction of 
high efficiency V-axis designs and the reverse-engineering results on 
these designs indicates that the price impact of the standard on 
consumers may be lower than expected. Consideration of a PPI deflator 
however appears to the Department as very speculative. In order to 
comply with NAECA and assure that the standards that are adopted are 
economically justifiable, the Department adopts price and cost 
estimates that can be made with a fairly high degree of certainty. 
While historic price data as indicated in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI) may indicate trends or tendency 
towards real price decreases, the reasons behind these trends are 
unclear. While it is fairly certain that real prices for appliances 
will not increase given the same quality and type of product, the 
possibility of a continuing decrease is far from certain. The 
Department therefore utilizes an analysis that assumes constant real 
prices for the same quality and type of clothes washer.

I. Water Savings

    OOE commented that the 35 percent level of energy reduction can be 
achieved by a V-axis design which may have programmable electronic 
controls and, therefore, the assumed water savings may be less than the 
level stated in the analysis. (OOE, No. 219 at 2, 3 & 4).
    The Department believes that while an H-axis washer typically is a 
design approach that results in water savings, there is no guarantee of 
water savings with any design approach, at any level of energy 
efficiency. Water use may be increased by, for example, adding more 
cold rinses without impacting a minimum MEF level. The Department has 
relied on manufacturer data based on what manufacturers would build at 
each standard level. The water use data presented by manufacturers 
estimates the same water savings at both the 35 percent and 40 percent 
levels using horizontal-axis technology and only a slightly higher 
water usage level at the 25 percent level using vertical-axis 
technology. As we can now observe in the marketplace, similar V-axis 
washer

[[Page 3324]]

technology may be used to achieve a 35 percent level or even a 40 
percent level.

J. Detergent Savings

    OOE commented that DOE should include detergent savings that owners 
of H-axis machines (and any others that reliably deliver equivalent 
water savings) will experience at the 40 percent improvement and above 
(MEF standard levels of 1.36 and above). (OOE, No. 219 at 6 & 7). 
Unilever HPC commented that it is erroneous and arbitrary to state that 
you can save detergent using high efficiency washers because the amount 
of detergent used is a purely discretionary consumer decision. It 
further commented that to include detergent savings is to imply a 
cleaning performance standard which the proposed standard does not 
actually address. (Mr. Linard of Unilever, No. 216CC at 84).
    The Department believes that while some consumers may use less 
detergent even at MEF levels of 1.26 as estimated by the OOE in the 
Pacific Northwest, others may use currently more expensive detergents 
specially manufactured for H-axis washers. OOE also states that there 
is every reason to expect that detergent manufacturers will have a 
difficult time significantly increasing the price of these detergents 
to compensate for reductions in use. No evidence is provided to support 
that statement. There is no conclusive proof of what price consumers 
will pay for detergent in 2007 when the standard takes effect at levels 
equivalent to that achieved by H-axis washers.

K. Life-Cycle-Costs and Payback

    The Regulatory Studies Program at the Mercatus Center at George 
Mason University (Center) commented that the Department used different 
savings estimates at different places in the NOPR and the TSD. (Center, 
No. 224 at 5). The NOPR presented values based both on point estimates 
and also more detailed estimates based on distributions of input 
values. The primary results used in the analysis of Payback Periods and 
life-cycle-costs are based on a distribution of inputs used to create a 
distribution of LCC and Payback Periods. This methodology allows 
consideration of ranges of inputs (e.g. numbers of loads per year, 
energy price) rather than just using typical or average values. Table 3 
presents the results of a simplified point value analysis that uses 
average input values for each variable and calculates a single output 
value. Tables 4 and 5 present the results of a more detailed simulation 
of 10,000 households which has input distributions for each variable 
and output distributions for each result.
    We calculated the distributed results using 10,000 individual 
payback periods and found their average, rather than dividing the 
average retail price increase by the average annual savings. These two 
methods of determining the average payback period are not 
mathematically equivalent. The average retail price increase and the 
average operating cost savings shown are also determined from 
distributions to account for the differences in fuel prices, how often 
households do the wash, etc. (see Chapter 7 of the TSD for details). To 
avoid confusion, for this final rule, the Department has modified the 
Consumer Overview to reflect the more detailed distribution-derived 
values for price and operating cost.

                                          Table 3.--Single Point Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Single point values  (for U.S. mix of fuel types)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Delta retail price
         MEF level/year             Payback period      on most likely      Operating cost
                                        (Years)        based incremental    savings,  (Avg.    Mean LCC savings
                                                      manufacturer costs     Inputs used)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.04/2004.......................                3.2                 $53                 $16                $105
1.26/2007.......................                4.7                 240                  51                 262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          Table 4.--Distribution-Derived Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Distributions
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               MEF level/year                           Payback (years)                   Delta retail price             Annual operating cost savings
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Mean             Median             Mean             Median             Mean             Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.04/2004...................................              4.6               3.5               $53               $47               $15               $13
1.26/2007...................................              6.8               5.0               249               177                48                43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 5.--Distribution-Based LCC Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Distributions
                                   -------------------------------------
          MEF level/year                         LCC savings
                                   -------------------------------------
                                           Mean              Median
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.04/2004.........................               $103                $81
1.26/2007.........................                260                208
------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Cost Effectiveness

    The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) states that at least 90 percent 
of consumers should have lower life-cycle-costs under any new standard. 
EEI then argues that the proposed clothes washer standards are not 
economically justified since only 80-81 percent of consumers will have 
lower life-cycle-costs, and only 72 percent of senior citizens will 
have lower-life-cycle costs. Additionally, EEI believes that a

[[Page 3325]]

payback period of 7 years is too long. (EEI, No. 209 at 1). The 
Department disagrees. First of all, EEI states no reason why 90 percent 
should be an acceptable level. Secondly, EPCA requires the Department 
to consider LCC as just one of the factors in determining economic 
justification of a standard level. In determining economic 
justification, EPCA directs the Secretary to determine whether the 
benefits of a standard exceed the burdens. Consumer LCC and payback, 
the resulting energy savings, the need for national energy conservation 
and the economic impacts on manufacturers and consumers are just a few 
of the factors that the Secretary must consider. There is no 
mathematical formula given or used for weighing the benefits and 
burdens of the various factors.
    Furthermore, because of wide variations in usage rates and energy 
prices across the country, no national standard can be designed to 
minimize, or even reduce, life-cycle-costs for all consumers. The 
Department analyzes the expected impacts of proposed standards on 
consumers taking these differences into account. However, there will 
always be some consumers who will have higher life-cycle-costs under 
any national standard. In making its determination regarding the 
overall benefits and burdens of any standard, the Department considers 
both the magnitude of any adverse effects that are expected on 
consumers, as well as the total number or any groupings of consumers 
that might be adversely affected. However, the Department does not 
recognize any arbitrary mathematical threshold for LCC benefits as 
suggested by EEI, and the ratio of consumers with LCC savings versus 
those with LCC increases will vary from rulemaking to rulemaking 
depending on the various benefits and burdens of each unique 
rulemaking.
    The Mercatus Center stated that the proposed clothes washer 
standards are not economically justified. (Center, No. 224 at 17). The 
Center claimed that the standard will harm the majority of consumers 
and will take away consumer choice by eliminating top-loading, 
vertical-axis clothes washers. The Center recommended that the 
Department not go forward with the proposed standard and stated that 
since the Department believes that consumers pass up energy efficient 
washers because they are misinformed about operating costs, that the 
Department should construct a program to correct this deficiency. The 
Center further stated that consumers do not need to be coerced into 
saving money.
    Much of the Center's comment is a philosophical argument against 
the use of Federal energy efficiency standards as a means of modifying 
consumer product choices or behavior. In its comment, the Center grades 
the Department on issues such as whether the Department has identified 
a significant market failure, has identified an appropriate Federal 
role, has examined alternative approaches, has maximized net benefits 
and has understood individual choice and property impacts. Most of 
these issues had been resolved by the Congress when they enacted the 
statutory requirements which guide and limit the Department's decision-
making process. Furthermore, when tested in the court in Natural 
Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F. 2d 1355, 1406-07 (D.C. 
Cir. 1985), the court stated that ``the entire point of a mandatory 
program was to change consumer behavior.'' As is stated under section 
I.B. Authority at the beginning of this final rulemaking, the Act 
requires the Department to ``establish standards designed to achieve 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified.'' This emphasis on maximizing 
energy savings may or may not lead to standards that also maximize 
economic benefits--although in this case the proposed clothes washer 
standards would produce National and consumer benefits that are very 
close the maximum of the standard levels analyzed.
    Most of the analysis presented by the Center assumes that the 
standards would eliminate top-loading, vertical-axis clothes washers. 
As is discussed in the Energy and Economic Analyses comments, while the 
original manufacturer data submitted assumed that all clothes washers 
at and above a 35 percent improvement would be horizontal-axis 
machines, manufacturers have already begun offering top-loading, 
vertical-axis clothes washers that would meet the 2007 standard. Thus, 
a key assumption made by the Center is incorrect.
    In another part of its analysis, the Center speculated that if 
consumers used their clothes washers less than average, they would 
experience lower benefits. This is true, and as discussed in the 
response to the EEI comment above, and the LCC and Payback discussion, 
the Department analyzed the expected impacts of the proposed standards 
on consumers taking usage and other differences into account. As 
reported in the Conclusion section of today's rule, the Department 
found that 20 percent of consumers would experience higher life-cycle-
costs under the 2007 standard, and that the impact was considered in 
the decision for today's rule.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusion

A. Analytical Results

    We examined six trial standard levels. Table 6 presents the 
baseline and trial standard levels, the associated MEF values and the 
percentage reduction in energy use from the baseline achieved at the 
trial standard level. Trial Standard Level 3 contains two stages of 
standards which were proposed in the Joint Comment. (Joint Comment, No. 
204).

           Table 6.--Trial Standard Levels for Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent  reduction
    Trial standard level               MEF              in energy use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................  0.817...............  0.
1...........................  1.021...............  20.
2...........................  1.089...............  25.
3...........................  1.04 in 2004........  22 in
                              1.26 in 2007........   2004
                                                    35 in
                                                     2007.
4...........................  1.257...............  35.
5...........................  1.362...............  40.
6...........................  1.634...............  50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 3326]]

    The Department presented the results of its analytical analysis in 
the NOPR which are unchanged for today's final rule. 65 FR 59550, 
59571-81 (October 5, 2000).
    We also added, for comparative evaluation purposes, the results of 
Trial Standard Level 3 using the RECS97 and AEO2000 data. These results 
have been included as an Appendix R of the TSD. The rulemaking process 
is such that months to years can take place between the time an 
analysis is completed and a final rule is issued. During that time 
span, conditions or data are likely to change and the Department 
attempts to insure that any such changes will not compromise the 
robustness of the analysis or lead to a different conclusion. For 
example, the NOPR used the AEO1999 forecast of electricity prices and 
electricity generation mix to determine energy savings and net present 
value. Since the analysis was completed, the AEO2000 forecast became 
available. The Department examined the impact of the AEO2000 forecast 
on energy savings and net present value. The energy savings reported in 
the NOPR ranged from 2.12 to 7.53 Quads. Using the data from AEO2000 
shows the energy saving which ranged from 2.09 to 7.44 Quads. The net 
present values reported in the NOPR ranged from 3.66 to 16.88 billion 
dollars. Using the data from AEO2000 shows the NPV which ranged from 
3.76 to 16.89 billion dollars. The Department does not consider these 
changes to be meaningful or a reason to revise the analysis. 
Additionally, it would be incorrect to select only one portion of the 
analysis for revision, such as the electric price, without also 
examining other related inputs, such as equipment prices, which also 
might have slightly changed. While the Department acknowledges that the 
analysis performed for the NOPR does not fully reflect some of the 
changes in the industry and energy markets that have occurred more 
recently, the Department believes that the analysis is still a valid 
basis for today's final rule.

B. Conclusion

    The Act specifies that any new or amended energy conservation 
standard for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed 
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the 
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Section 325(o)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). In 
determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary 
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. 
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The amended 
standard must result in significant conservation of energy. Section 
325(o)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
    We considered the impacts of standards beginning with the most 
efficient level. We have included a summary of the analysis results in 
Table 7 to aid the reader in the discussion of the benefits and burdens 
for the different trial standard levels.

                                                           Table 7.--Summary Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Trial Standard Level                        6                5                4                3                2                1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEF...............................................            1.63             1.36             1.26    1.04 in 2004,             1.09             1.02
                                                                                                         1.26 in 2007
Total Energy Saved (Quads)........................            7.53             6.03             5.99             5.52             4.04             2.12
Water Savings (trillion gallons)..................           10.85            12.94            12.94            11.59             9.09             0.53
NPV (Billion $)...................................           10.79            16.73            16.88             15.3            14.29             3.66
Emissions:
Carbon Equivalent (Mt)............................           134.6            107.3            106.2             95.1             70.9             38.1
Discounted Carbon Equivalent (Mt) \1\.............            35.6             28.6             28.3             24.1             19.0             10.2
NOX (kt)..........................................             364            283.1            280.6            253.5            193.6            115.6
Discounted NOX (kt) \1\...........................           108.3             85.2             84.0             70.8             58.3             33.8
SO2 (kt) \2\......................................           31.41            30.31            30.31            28.11            30.31            31.41
Discounted SO2 (kt) \1\...........................             8.3              8.0              8.1              7.3              8.0              8.3
Manufacturer Impacts:
Cumulative Loss in Industry NPV ($ Million) \3\...     474.5-648.9      453.1-524.9      510.1-612.5      421.1-528.4      409.9-566.2        19.2-90.1
% Change in Industry NPV..........................   (33.0)-(45.2)    (31.7)-(36.5)    (35.4)-(42.5)    (29.2)-(36.7)    (28.5)-(39.3)      (1.3)-(6.3)
Standard Deviation % NPV..........................            27.7             27.7             17.7             15.8             11.4             11.5
Life-Cycle-Cost ($):
Mean Savings ($)..................................             176              243              242          103/260              211               61
Percent Households LCC Less than Baseline.........              69               80               79            81/90               87               84
Median Payback (years)............................             7.0              5.1              5.1          3.5/5.0              4.0             0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department makes no effort to monetize the benefits of the emission reductions, but there may be time related differences in the perceived value
  of the emissions depending on when they occur, as with monetized benefits that accumulate over time. Emission reductions that occur sooner are often
  more desirable than equivalent reductions that occur later. Like monetary benefits, the health, recreational and ecosystem benefits that result from
  emission reductions are often perceived to have a greater value if they occur sooner, rather than later. To the extent that the different trial
  standard levels have slightly different shipment distributions over time, some trial standard levels might have a slightly higher proportion of
  earlier emission reductions than another trial standard level. To show the possible effect of the different timing patterns of the emissions, the
  Department is also presenting discounted emissions. These calculations were done using the same seven percent discount rate as was used for
  discounting monetized benefits.
\2\ Results only include household SO2 emissions reductions because SO2 emissions from power plants are capped by clean air legislation. Thus, SO2
  emissions will only be negligibly affected by possible water heater standards.
\3\ Includes impacts on dryer and repair business.

1. Trial Standard Level 6--MEF 1.63
    First, we considered the most efficient level (max tech), MEF 1.63, 
which saves a total of 7.53 quads of energy through 2030. This is a 
significant amount of energy. The cumulative water savings through 2030 
would be 10.85 trillion gallons. The emissions reductions through 2030 
would total 134.6 Mt of carbon equivalent, 364 kt of NOX, 
and 31.41 kt of SO2. At this level, consumers experience a 
mean savings in LCC of $176, with a median payback of 7.0 years.

[[Page 3327]]

    At Trial Standard Level 6, the clothes washer industry would 
experience a cumulative NPV loss of between $474.5--648.9 million which 
represents between 33.0 and 45.2 percent of the clothes washer industry 
value absent standards ($1,439.1 million--base case). This impact is 
not evenly distributed among the six major manufacturers.\3\ The large 
variability of impacts is attributed to the presence of existing 
product for some manufacturers at this efficiency level which means 
that some firms may gain a competitive advantage. This variability is 
measured by the standard deviation of individual companies' changes in 
NPV.\4\ At this level, the standard deviation in individual companies' 
percentage change in NPV is 27.7 percent. Given the high industry 
impacts and the uneven burden on individual firms, there exists a 
significant risk of industry consolidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, Amana Appliances, Frigidaire 
Home Products, General Electric Appliances (GEA), Maytag 
Corporation, and Whirlpool Corporation.
    \4\ The standard deviation is a measure of how widely individual 
companies' percentage NPV changes are dispersed from the industry 
percentage change in value. Refer to Chapter 11 of the TSD for a 
description of the calculation method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this trial standard level a small company with an assumed market 
share of 2.1 percent would lose 90.7 to 102.8 percent of its value. A 
small company with an assumed market share of 4.2 percent would lose 
166 to 178.1 percent of its value. Based on the major loss in company 
value associated with meeting this standard level, it is likely that 
one or both of the two smaller manufacturers \5\ would cease to produce 
clothes washers covered by the standard and might also cease to market 
commercial clothes washers. These values can be found in Chapter 11 in 
Table 11.39 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana Appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department concludes that the burdens of Trial Standard Level 6 
outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the Department concludes Trial 
Standard Level 6 is not economically justified.
2. Trial Standard Level 5--MEF 1.36
    Next, we considered a 1.36 MEF, which saves a total of 6.03 quads 
of energy through 2030, also a significant amount. The cumulative water 
savings through 2030 for this trial standard level would be 12.94 
trillion gallons. The emissions reductions through 2030 would total 
107.3 Mt of carbon equivalent, 283.1 kt of NOX, and 30.31 kt 
of SO2. At this level, consumers experience a mean savings 
in LCC of $243, with a median 5.1 year payback.
    The clothes washer industry would experience a cumulative NPV loss 
of between $453.1-524.9 million. This represents between 31.7 and 36.5 
percent of industry value absent standards ($1,439.1 million--base 
case). For the same reason in Trial Standard Level 6, this impact is 
not evenly distributed among the six major manufacturers. At this level 
the standard deviation in individual companies' percentage change in 
NPV is 27.7 percent. (Refer to Chapter 11 of the TSD for a description 
of the calculation method for standard deviation.) Given the high 
industry impacts and the uneven burden on individual firms, there 
exists a significant risk of industry consolidation.
    At this trial standard level a small company with an assumed market 
share of 2.1 percent would lose 87.7 to 92.7 percent of its value. A 
small company with an assumed market share of 4.2 percent would lose 
160.3 to 165.3 percent of its value. Based on the major loss in company 
value associated with meeting this standard level, it is likely that 
one or both of the two smaller manufacturers \6\ would cease to produce 
clothes washers covered by the standard and might also cease to market 
commercial clothes washers. These values can be found in Chapter 11 in 
Table 11.39 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana Appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department concludes that the burdens of Trial Standard Level 5 
outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the Department concludes Trial 
Standard Level 5 is not economically justified.
3. Trial Standard Level 4--MEF 1.26
    Next, we considered a 1.26 MEF, which saves a total of 5.99 quads 
of energy through 2030, a significant amount. Just as in the case of 
the 1.36 MEF, the cumulative water savings through 2030 would equal 
12.94 trillion gallons. The cumulative emissions reductions through 
2030, however, are slightly lower for the 1.26 MEF because the 
cumulative energy savings is lower for this standard level than the 
1.36 MEF. The 1.26 MEF level would save 106.2 Mt of carbon equivalent, 
280.6 kt of NOX, and 30.31 kt of SO2. At this 
level, consumers experience a mean savings in LCC of $242 with a median 
payback of 5.1 years.
    Under a 1.26 MEF standard, the clothes washer industry would 
experience a cumulative NPV loss of between $510.1-612.5 million. This 
represents between 35.4 and 42.5 percent of industry value absent 
standards ($1,439.1 million--base case). Compared to Trial Standard 
Levels 5 and 6, this impact is more evenly distributed amongst the six 
major manufacturers as represented by a standard deviation in 
individual companies' NPV of 17.7 percent, and thus there exists less 
risk of industry consolidation. Refer to Chapter 11 of the TSD for a 
description of the calculation method for standard deviation. This 
lower standard deviation reflects the greater diversity of designs, 
approaches and engineering flexibility to meet this efficiency level 
compared to Trial Standard Levels 5 and 6. However, given the high 
level of investment required to meet this efficiency level and an 
inability to spread fixed costs over large volumes, small manufacturers 
are particularly vulnerable. At this trial standard level a small 
company with an assumed market share of 2.1 percent would lose 91.8 to 
98.9 percent of its value. A small company with an assumed market share 
of 4.2 percent would lose 164.4 to 171.6 percent of its value. Based on 
the major loss in company value associated with meeting this standard 
level, it is likely that one or both of the two smaller manufacturers 
\7\ would cease to produce clothes washers covered by the standard and 
might also cease to market commercial clothes washers. These values can 
be found in Chapter 11 in Table 11.39 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana Appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department concludes that the burdens of Trial Standard Level 4 
outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the Department concludes Trial 
Standard Level 4 is not economically justified.
4. Trial Standard Level 3--MEF 1.04/1.26
    Next, we considered the two step 1.04/1.26 MEF efficiency level, 
which was proposed in the Joint Comment. (Joint Comment, No. 204). This 
trial standard level, Trial Standard Level 3, has energy savings of 
5.52 quads through 2030, a significant amount. The cumulative water 
savings through 2030 would equal 11.59 trillion gallons. The emissions 
reductions through 2030 would total 95.1 Mt of carbon equivalent, 253.5 
kt of NOX, and 28.11 kt of SO2.\8\ At the 1.04 
MEF level, consumers would experience a savings in LCC of $103, while 
they would

[[Page 3328]]

experience a mean LCC savings of $260 at the 1.26 MEF level that would 
go into effect in 2007. The median payback for the 1.04 MEF level is 
3.5 years, and 5.0 years for the 1.26 MEF. The clothes washer industry 
would experience a cumulative NPV loss of between $421.1-528.4 million 
representing between 29.2 and 36.7 percent of base case industry value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Department recognizes that the Environmental Protection 
Agency is considering regulations which could affect the amount of 
sulfur in home heating oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compared to a single step standard level of a 1.26 MEF implemented 
in 2004, the Joint Comment proposal reduces the impacts of the 
standards on manufacturers by delaying the effective date three years 
for the 1.26 MEF level. This allows clothes washer manufacturers more 
time to depreciate their current assets and plan a more orderly 
transition of their production facilities. Delaying the standard 
implementation date for the higher efficiency level gives manufacturers 
more time to research and develop lower-cost solutions to achieve 
higher standards.
    Since the MIA shows that small manufacturers suffer the greatest 
impact, the Department takes into consideration that the consensus 
proposal was developed in consultation with, and supported by small 
manufacturers.
    Furthermore, we consider that the Joint Comment specifically states 
that the proposal is not expected to eliminate any competitors. (Joint 
Comment, No. 204).
    Based on the manufacturers' statement in the Joint Comment, we 
believe that these impacts from the proposal are mitigated and conclude 
that, given the benefits, the standards submitted in the Joint Comment 
are economically justified. (Joint Comment, No. 204).
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, directs the 
Department to consider the impact of any lessening of competition that 
is likely to result from the standards, as determined by the Attorney 
General. In a letter responding to the NOPR, the Attorney General 
concluded ``that the proposed clothes washer standard would not 
adversely affect competition.'' (Department of Justice, No. 233 at 2). 
See Department of Justice letter, dated December 4, 2000, which is 
printed as the appendix to this rule.
    After carefully considering the analysis and comments, the 
Department amends the energy conservation standards for clothes washers 
as proposed by the Joint Comment. (Joint Comment, No. 204). The 
Department concludes this standard saves a significant amount of energy 
and is technologically feasible and economically justified. In 
determining economic justification, the Department finds that the 
benefits of energy and water savings, consumer LCC savings, national 
net present value increase, job creation and emission reductions 
resulting from the standard outweigh the burdens of the loss of 
manufacturer net present value, and consumer LCC increases for some 
users of clothes washers covered by today's notice. Therefore, the 
Department today is amending the energy conservation standards for 
clothes washers at Trial Standard Level 3. The clothes washer energy 
efficiency standards for Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or greater 
capacity) and Front-Loading class clothes washers shall be 1.04 MEF on 
January 1, 2004 and 1.26 MEF on January 1, 2007.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-
1344) which is available from: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail 
Station EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, 
(202) 586-0371. We found the environmental effects associated with 
various standard efficiency levels for clothes washers to be not 
significant, and therefore we are publishing, elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental 
Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the Department's regulations for 
compliance with NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021).

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''

    Today's regulatory action has been determined to be an 
``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 
1993). Accordingly, today's action was subject to review under the 
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget.
    The draft submitted to OIRA and other documents submitted to OIRA 
for review have been made a part of the rulemaking record and are 
available for public review in the Department's Freedom of Information 
Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, 
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
telephone (202) 586-3142.
    The proposed rule contained a summary of the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis which focused on the major alternatives considered in arriving 
at the approach to improving the energy efficiency of consumer products 
(65 FR 59582-83). The reader is referred to the complete ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis,'' which is contained in the TSD, available as 
indicated at the beginning of this rulemaking. It consists of: (1) A 
statement of the problem addressed by this regulation, and the mandate 
for government action; (2) a description and analysis of the feasible 
policy alternatives to this regulation; (3) a quantitative comparison 
of the impacts of the alternatives; and (4) the national economic 
impacts of the proposed standard.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an 
assessment of the impact of regulations on small businesses. Small 
businesses are defined as those firms within an industry that are 
privately owned and less dominant in the market.
    To be categorized as a ``small'' clothes washer manufacturer, a 
firm must employ no more than 1,000 employees. The clothes washer 
industry is characterized by six firms accounting for nearly 99 percent 
of sales. By the above definition none of the six major U.S. 
manufacturers of clothes washers are considered ``small.'' The 
Department is aware of one small domestic manufacturer of clothes 
washer, Staber Industries, that produces a top-loading horizontal-axis 
clothes washer. The energy efficiency of this product already exceeds 
the 2007 standard level.
    The Department prepared a manufacturing impact analysis which was 
made public and available to all the clothes washer manufacturers. This 
analysis considered the effects on small manufacturers with a minimum 
annual production of 165,000 units (representing a 2.1 percent market 
share for Alliance Laundry Systems LLC). The Department did not receive 
any information or comments indicating that even smaller manufacturers 
of clothes washers would be impacted differentially from those included 
in the small manufacturer analysis performed. Furthermore, the small 
manufacturer is a signer of the Joint Comment.
    In view of the foregoing, the Department has determined and hereby

[[Page 3329]]

certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
that, for this particular industry, the standard levels in today's 
final rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities,'' and it is not necessary to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by 
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no Office of Management and Budget 
clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review 
required by sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, it 
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 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final 
rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and 
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final regulations 
meet the relevant standards.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Takings'' Assessment Review

    DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights,'' 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation 
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) imposes certain 
requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or 
regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and 
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policy 
making discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for 
such actions. Agencies also must 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. 
DOE published its intergovernmental consultation policy on March 14, 
2000. (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today's final rule and has 
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. State regulations that may have existed 
on the products that are the subject of today's final rule were 
preempted by the Federal standards established in the NAECA Amendments 
of 1987. States can petition the Department for exemption from such 
preemption based on criteria set forth in EPCA, as amended.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    With respect to a proposed regulatory action 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 (adjusted annually for 
inflation), section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting 
costs, benefits and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 
1532(a), (b). UMRA also requires each Federal agency to develop an 
effective process to permit timely input by state, local, and tribal 
governments on a proposed significant intergovernmental mandate. The 
Department's consultation process is described in a notice published in 
the Federal Register on March 18, 1997 (62 FR 12820). Today's final 
rule may impose expenditures of $100 million or more on the private 
sector. It does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an agency to respond to the content 
requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
Supplementary Information section of the Notice of Final Rulemaking and 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for this final rule 
responds to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most 
cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing 
otherwise or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with 
law. As required by section 325(o) of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), today's final rule establishes 
energy conservation standards for clothes washers that are designed to 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has 
determined to be both technologically feasible and economically 
justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is 
presented in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for 
today's final rule.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. No. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may 
affect family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact 
on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. 
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a 
Family Policymaking Assessment.

J. Review Under the Plain Language Directives

    Section 1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 requires that each agency 
draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the 
goal of minimizing

[[Page 3330]]

the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such 
uncertainty. Similarly, the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998 (63 
FR 31883) directs the heads of executive departments and agencies to 
use plain language in all proposed and final rulemaking documents 
published in the Federal Register.
    Today's rule uses the following general techniques to abide by 
Section 1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential 
memorandum of June 1, 1998:
     Organization of the material to serve the needs of the 
readers (stakeholders).
     Use of common, everyday words in short sentences.
     Shorter sentences and sections.

K. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report 
regarding the issuance of today's final rule prior to the effective 
date set forth at the outset of this notice. DOE also will submit the 
supporting analyses to the Comptroller General (GAO) and make them 
available to each House of Congress. The report will state that it has 
been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act

    The test procedure amendments finalized today incorporate the 
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test 
Methods 118--1997, ``Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test'' 
(reaffirmed 1997), and 79--2000, ``Absorbency of Bleached Textiles'' 
(reaffirmed 2000), to determine whether a stain resistant or water 
repellent finish is present in a test cloth used to measure remaining 
moisture content and therefore the energy consumption of a clothes 
washer.
    The findings required of DOE by section 32 of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act serve to alert the public and DOE regarding the use 
and background of commercial standards in the rulemaking process. DOE 
has evaluated the promulgation of AATCC Test Methods 118-1997 
(reaffirmed 1997), and 79-2000 (reaffirmed 2000), in light of the 
public participation criteria of section 32(b). The Department is 
unable to conclude whether development of these standards fully 
complied with section 32(b) regarding the manner of public 
participation.
    As required by section 32(c), DOE has consulted with the Attorney 
General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission concerning the 
impact of these standards on competition, prior to prescribing final 
test procedures.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, 
Household appliances, Incorporation by Reference.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 3, 2001.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 430 of chapter II 
of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations is amended, 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.


Appendix J  [Amended]

    2. Appendix J to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
    a. By adding a new sentence at the beginning of the introductory 
paragraph of this appendix.
    b. In section 2, by adding paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, and by 
revising paragraphs 2.6.1.3, 2.6.2, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.11.1.
    c. In section 3, by revising paragraph 3.3.1.
    d. By adding a new section 8.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for 
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic 
Clothes Washers

    The provisions of this appendix J shall apply to products 
manufactured after February 12, 2001. * * *
* * * * *
    2. * * *
    2.3. * * *
    2.3.1  Supply water requirements for water and energy 
consumption testing. For nonwater-heating clothes washers not 
equipped with thermostatically controlled water valves, the 
temperature of the hot and cold water supply shall be maintained at 
100 deg.  10 deg.F (37.8 deg.C  5.5 deg.C). 
For nonwater-heating clothes washers equipped with thermostatically 
controlled water valves, the temperature of the hot water supply 
shall be maintained at 140 deg.F  5 deg.F (60.0 deg.C 
 2.8  deg.C) and the cold water supply shall be 
maintained at 60 deg.F  5F deg. (15.6 deg.C  
2.8 deg.C). For water-heating clothes washers, the temperature of 
the hot water supply shall be maintained at 140 deg.F  
5 deg.F (60.0 deg.C  2.8 deg.C) and the cold water 
supply shall not exceed 60 deg.F (15.6 deg.C). Water meters shall be 
installed in both the hot and cold water lines to measure water 
consumption.
    2.3.2  Supply water requirements for remaining moisture content 
testing. For nonwater-heating clothes washers not equipped with 
thermostatically controlled water valves, the temperature of the hot 
water supply shall be maintained at 140 deg.F  5 deg.F 
and the cold water supply shall be maintained at 60 deg.F 
 5 deg.F. All other clothes washers shall be connected 
to water supply temperatures as stated in 2.3.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    2.6.1.3  The number of test runs on the same energy test cloth 
shall not exceed 60 test runs. All energy test cloth must be 
permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed 
lots of material shall not be used for testing the clothes washers.
    2.6.2  Energy Stuffer Cloth. The energy stuffer cloths shall be 
made from energy test cloth material and shall consist of pieces of 
material that are 12 inches by 12 inches (30.5 cm by 30.5 cm) and 
have been hemmed to 10 inches by 10 inches (25.4 cm by 25.4 cm) 
before washing. The maximum shrinkage after five washes shall not be 
more than four percent on the length and width. The number of test 
runs on the same energy suffer cloth shall not exceed 60 test runs. 
All energy stuffer cloth must be permanently marked identifying the 
lot number of the material. Mixed lots of material shall not be used 
for testing the clothes washers.
* * * * *
    2.10  Wash time (period of agitation or tumble) setting. If the 
maximum available wash time in the normal cycle is greater than 9.75 
minutes, the wash time shall be not less than 9.75 minutes. If the 
maximum available wash time in the normal cycle is less than 9.75 
minutes, the wash time shall be the maximum available wash time.
    2.11  Agitation speed and spin speed settings. Where controls 
are provided for agitation speed and spin speed selections, set them 
as follows:
    2.11.1  For energy and water consumption tests, set at the 
normal cycle settings. If settings at the normal cycle are not 
offered, set the control settings to the maximum speed permitted on 
the clothes washer.
    3. * * *
    3.3. * * *
    3.3.1  The wash temperature shall be the same as the rinse 
temperature for all testing. Cold rinse is the coldest rinse 
temperature available on the machine. Warm rinse is the hottest 
rinse temperature available on the machine.
* * * * *

8. Sunset

    The provisions of this appendix J expire on December 31, 2003.


Appendix J1  [Amended]

    3. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
    a. By removing the Note after the heading and adding a new 
paragraph.

[[Page 3331]]

    b. In section 1, by adding paragraphs 1.22 and 1.23.
    c. In section 2, by revising paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, and adding 
paragraphs 2.6.3 through 2.6.7.2.
    d. In section 4, by revising the definition of ``ERx, 
ERa, and ERn'' in paragraph 4.1.5.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix J1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

    The provisions of this appendix J1 shall apply to products 
manufactured beginning January 1, 2004.
    1. * * *
    1.22  Cold rinse means the coldest rinse temperature available 
on the machine (and should be the same rinse temperature selection 
tested in 3.7 of this appendix).
    1.23  Warm rinse means the hottest rinse temperature available 
on the machine (and should be the same rinse temperature selection 
tested in 3.7 of this appendix).
    2. * * *
    2.6. * * *
    2.6.1  Energy Test Cloth. The energy test cloth shall be made 
from energy test cloth material, as specified in 2.6.4, that is 24 
inches by 36 inches (61.0 cm by 91.4 cm) and has been hemmed to 22 
inches by 34 inches (55.9 cm by 86.4 cm) before washing. The energy 
test cloth shall be clean and shall not be used for more than 60 
test runs (after preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this 
appendix). All energy test cloth must be permanently marked 
identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed lots of material 
shall not be used for testing the clothes washers.
* * * * *
    2.6.2  Energy Stuffer Cloth. The energy stuffer cloth shall be 
made from energy test cloth material, as specified in 2.6.4, and 
shall consist of pieces of material that are 12 inches by 12 inches 
(30.5 cm by 30.5 cm) and have been hemmed to 10 inches by 10 inches 
(25.4 cm by 25.4 cm) before washing. The energy stuffer cloth shall 
be clean and shall not be used for more than 60 test runs (after 
preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this appendix). All energy 
stuffer cloth must be permanently marked identifying the lot number 
of the material. Mixed lots of material shall not be used for 
testing the clothes washers.
    2.6.3  Preconditioning of Test Cloths. The new test cloths, 
including energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths, shall be 
pre-conditioned in a clothes washer in the following manner:
    2.6.3.1  Perform 5 complete normal wash-rinse-spin cycles, the 
first two with AHAM Standard detergent 2A and the last three without 
detergent. Place the test cloth in a clothes washer set at the 
maximum water level. Wash the load for ten minutes in soft water (17 
ppm hardness or less) using 6.0 grams per gallon of water of AHAM 
Standard detergent 2A. The wash temperature is to be controlled to 
135 deg.F  5 deg.F (57.2 deg.C  2.8 deg.C) 
and the rinse temperature is to be controlled to 60 deg.F 
 5 deg.F (15.6 deg.C  2.8 deg.C). Repeat the 
cycle with detergent and then repeat the cycle three additional 
times without detergent, bone drying the load between cycles (total 
of five wash and rinse cycles).
    2.6.4  Energy test cloth material. The energy test cloths and 
energy stuffer cloths shall be made from fabric meeting the 
following specifications. The material should come from a roll of 
material with a width of approximately 63 inches and approximately 
500 yards per roll, however, other sizes maybe used if they fall 
within the specifications.
    2.6.4.1  Nominal fabric type. Pure finished bleached cloth, made 
with a momie or granite weave, which is nominally 50 percent cotton 
and 50 percent polyester.
    2.6.4.2  The fabric weight shall be 5.60 ounces per square yard 
(190.0 g/m\2\), 5 percent.
    2.6.4.3  The thread count shall be 61  x  54 per inch (warp  x  
fill), 2 percent.
    2.6.4.4  The warp yarn and filling yarn shall each have fiber 
content of 50 percent 4 percent cotton, with the balance 
being polyester, and be open end spun, 15/1 5 percent 
cotton count blended yarn.
    2.6.4.5  Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain 
resistant finishes shall not be applied to the test cloth. The 
absence of such finishes shall be verified by:
    2.6.4.5.1  American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 118--1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon 
Resistance Test (reaffirmed 1997), of each new lot of test cloth 
(when purchased from the mill) to confirm the absence of 
Scotchguard\TM\ or other water repellent finish (required scores of 
``D'' across the board).
    2.6.4.5.2  American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 79-2000, Absorbency of Bleached 
Textiles (reaffirmed 2000), of each new lot of test cloth (when 
purchased from the mill) to confirm the absence of Scotchguard\TM\ 
or other water repellent finish (time to absorb one drop should be 
on the order of 1 second).
    2.6.4.5.3  The standards listed in 2.6.4.5.1 and 2.6.4.5.2 of 
this appendix which are not otherwise set forth in this part 430 are 
incorporated by reference. The material listed in this paragraph has 
been approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 
51. Any subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-setting 
organization will not affect the DOE test procedures unless and 
until amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on the 
date of the approval and notice of any change in the material will 
be published in the Federal Register. The standards incorporated by 
reference are the American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists Test Method 118-1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon 
Resistance Test (reaffirmed 1997) and Test Method 79-2000, 
Absorbency of Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed 2000).
    (a) The above standards incorporated by reference are available 
for inspection at:
    (i) Office of the Federal Register, Information Center, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC;
    (ii) U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Hearings and Dockets, ``Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer Energy Conservation 
Standards,'' Docket No. EE--RM-94-403, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.
    (b) Copies of the above standards incorporated by reference can 
be obtained from the American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists, P.O. Box 1215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 
telephone (919) 549-8141, telefax (919) 549-8933, or electronic 
mail: [email protected]
    2.6.4.6  The moisture absorption and retention shall be 
evaluated for each new lot of test cloth by the Standard Extractor 
Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) Test specified in 2.6.5 of this 
appendix.
    2.6.4.6.1  Repeat the Standard Extractor RMC Test in 2.6.5 of 
this appendix three times.
    2.6.4.6.2  An RMC correction curve shall be calculated as 
specified in 2.6.6 of this appendix.
    2.6.5   Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure. The following 
procedure is used to evaluate the moisture absorption and retention 
characteristics of a lot of test cloth by measuring the RMC in a 
standard extractor at a specified set of conditions. Table 2.6.5 of 
this appendix is the matrix of test conditions. The 500g requirement 
will only be used if a clothes washer design can achieve spin speeds 
in the 500g range. When this matrix is repeated 3 times, a total of 
48 extractor RMC test runs are required. For the purpose of the 
extractor RMC test, the test cloths may be used for up to 60 test 
runs (after preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this appendix).

                              Table 2.6.5.--Matrix of Extractor RMC Test Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Warm soak                               Cold soak
           ``g'' Force           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     15 min. spin         4 min. spin        15 min. spin        14 min. spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50..............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                                                               ............
200.............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                                                               ............
350.............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                                                               ............

[[Page 3332]]

 
500.............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                                                               ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.6.5.1  The standard extractor RMC tests shall be run in a Bock 
Model 215 extractor (having a basket diameter of 19.5 inches, length 
of 12 inches, and volume of 2.1 ft3), with a variable 
speed drive (Bock Engineered Products, P.O. Box 5127, Toledo, OH 
43611) or an equivalent extractor with same basket design (i.e. 
diameter, length, volume, and hole configuration) and variable speed 
drive.
    2.6.5.2 Test Load. Test cloths shall be preconditioned in 
accordance with 2.6.3 of this appendix. The load size shall be 8.4 
lbs., consistent with 3.8.1 of this appendix.
    2.6.5.3  Procedure.
    2.6.5.3.1  Record the ``bone-dry'' weight of the test load (WI).
    2.6.5.3.2  Soak the test load for 20 minutes in 10 gallons of 
soft (17 ppm) water. The entire test load shall be submerged. The 
water temperature shall be 100 deg.F  5 deg.F.
    2.6.5.3.3  Remove the test load and allow water to gravity drain 
off of the test cloths. Then manually place the test cloths in the 
basket of the extractor, distributing them evenly by eye. Spin the 
load at a fixed speed corresponding to the intended centripetal 
acceleration level (measured in units of the acceleration of 
gravity, g) 1 g for the intended time period 
5 seconds.
    2.6.5.3.4  Record the weight of the test load immediately after 
the completion of the extractor spin cycle (WC).
    2.6.5.3.5  Calculate the RMC as (WC-WI)/WI.
    2.6.5.3.6  The RMC of the test load shall be measured at three 
(3) g levels: 50g; 200g; and 350g, using two different spin times at 
each g level: 4 minutes; and 15 minutes. If a clothes washer design 
can achieve spin speeds in the 500g range than the RMC of the test 
load shall be measured at four (4) g levels: 50g; 200g; 350g; and 
500g, using two different spin times at each g level: 4 minutes; and 
15 minutes.
    2.6.5.4  Repeat 2.6.5.3 of this appendix using soft (17 ppm) 
water at 60 deg.F  5 deg.F.
    2.6.6  Calculation of RMC correction curve.
    2.6.6.1  Average the values of 3 test runs and fill in table 
2.6.5 of this appendix. Perform a linear least-squares fit to relate 
the standard RMC (RMCstandard) values (shown in table 
2.6.6.1 of this appendix) to the values measured in 2.6.5 of this 
appendix:
    (RMCcloth): RMCstandard ~ A * 
RMCcloth + B
Where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.

                                Table 2.6.6.1.--Standard RMC Values (RMCstandard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Warm soak                      Cold soak
                                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
               G                     RMC percent
                                                        15 min. spin       4 min. spin        15 min. spin    min.
                                                                                                              spin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------
50.............................  50.4..............  55.7.............  52.8.............  59.0
200............................  35.6..............  40.4.............  37.9.............  43.1
350............................  29.6..............  33.1.............  30.6.............  35.8
500............................  24.2..............  28.7.............  25.5.............  30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.6.6.2  Check accuracy of linear least-squares fit using the 
following method:

The root mean square value of
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.028

shall be less than 2 percent, where a sum is taken over all of the 
different tests, where RMCstandard--i is the RMC standard 
value measured for the I-th test, and RMCcorr--i is the 
corrected RMC value for the I-th cloth test. This equation is valid 
only for the use with three (3) g force values therefore when using 
the 500g requirement; replace the 500g value instead of the 350g 
value.
    2.6.7  Application of RMC correction curve.
    2.6.7.1  Using the coefficients A and B calculated in 2.6.6.1 of 
this appendix:

RMCcorr = A * RMC + B
    2.6.7.2  Substitute RMCcorr values in calculations in 
3.8 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    4. * * *
    4. 1 * * *
    4.1.5 * * *
    ERx, ERa, ERn, are reported 
electrical energy consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
at maximum, average, and minimum test loads, respectively, for the 
warm rinse cycle per definitions in 3.7.2 of this appendix.
* * * * *


Sec. 430.32  [Amended]

    4. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and effective 
dates.

* * * * *
    (g) Clothes washers.
    (1) Clothes washers manufactured before January 1, 2004, shall have 
an energy factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Energy factor  (cu.ft./kWh/
               Product Class                           cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6      0.9.
 ft.\3\ capacity).
ii. Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or    1.18.
 greater capacity).
iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic..........  \1\ Not Applicable.
iv. Front-Loading.........................  \1\ Not Applicable.
v. Suds-saving............................  \1\ Not Applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must have an unheated rinse water option.

    (2) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2004, and 
before January 1, 2007, shall have a modified energy factor no less 
than:

[[Page 3333]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Modified energy  factor
               Product Class                     (cu.ft./kWh/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6      0.65.
 ft.\3\ capacity).
ii. Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or    1.04.
 greater capacity).
iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic..........  \1\ Not Applicable.
iv. Front-Loading.........................  1.04.
v. Suds-saving............................  \1\ Not Applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must have an unheated rinse water option.

    (3) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, shall 
have a modified energy factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Modified energy  factor
               Product Class                     (cu.ft./kWh/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6      0.65.
 ft.\3\ capacity).
ii. Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or    1.26.
 greater capacity).
iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic..........  \1\ Not Applicable.
iv. Front-Loading.........................  1.26.
v. Suds-saving............................  \1\ Not Applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must have an unheated rinse water option.

* * * * *

Appendix

    [The following letter from the Department of Justice will not 
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20530-0001, (202)514-2401/(202) 696-2645 (i), 
[email protected] internet, Http://www.usdoj.gov (World 
Wide Web).
December 4, 2000.
Mary Anne Sullivan, General Counsel, Department of Energy, 
Washington, DC 20585.
Dear General Counsel Sullivan: I am responding to your October 16, 
2000 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the 
potential impact on competition of two proposed energy efficiency 
standards: one for clothes washers and the other for residential 
central air conditioners and heat pumps. Your request was submitted 
pursuant to Section 325 (o)(2)(B)(i) of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291 (``EPCA''), which requires the 
Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any 
lessening of competition that is likely to result from the 
imposition of proposed energy efficiency standards. The Attorney 
General's responsibility for responding to requests from other 
departments about the effect of a program on competition has been 
delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 
Division in 28 CFR 0.40 (g).
    We have reviewed the proposed standards and the supplementary 
information published in the Federal Register notices and submitted 
to the Attorney General, which include information provided to the 
Department of Energy by manufacturers. We have additionally 
conducted interviews with members of the industries.
    We have concluded that the proposed clothes washer standard 
would not adversely affect competition. In reaching this conclusion, 
we note that the proposed standard is based on a joint 
recommendation submitted to the Department of Energy by 
manufacturers and energy conservation advocates. That recommendation 
states that virtually all manufacturers of clothes washers who sell 
in the United States participated in arriving at the recommendation 
through their trade association, that the recommendation was 
developed in consultation with small manufacturers, and that the 
manufacturers believe the new standard would not likely reduce 
competition. We note further that, as the industry recommended, the 
proposed standard will be phased in over six years, which will allow 
companies that do not already have products that meet the proposed 
standard sufficient time to redesign their product lines.
* * * * *
Sincerely,
A. Douglas Melamed,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 01-611 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P