[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62198-62204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27468]



[[Page 62197]]

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

Part III





Department of Energy





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



Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



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



10 CFR Part 430



Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for 
Clothes Washers; Direct Final Rule and Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 62198]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM/TP-03-100]
RIN 1904-AB43


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure 
for Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) today promulgates 
an amendment to the test procedure for measuring the energy consumption 
of clothes washers. The amendment changes one of the spin cycles 
required for testing the cloth used in the extraction phase of the test 
procedure by replacing the lowest spin cycle of 50 gravitation (g) 
force with a spin cycle of 100g. The 50g spin cycle produced 
inconsistent and unreliable test results. This amendment also adds as a 
testing requirement the use of an additional statistical analysis to 
qualify the interactive effect between different lots of the test cloth 
and spin speeds to improve consistency with the baseline data.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on January 1, 2004, the same 
day that new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers become 
effective, unless significant adverse comments are received by December 
1, 2003. If significant adverse comments are received, a timely 
withdrawal of this rule will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: The Department will accept comments, data, and information 
regarding this direct final rule no later than the date provided in the 
DATES section. Please submit comments, data and information 
electronically to the following Internet address: 
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be 
submitted in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) format 
file and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. 
Comments in electronic format should be identified by the docket number 
EE-RM/TP-03-100, and wherever possible carry the electronic signature 
of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted 
electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting the 
signed original paper document. No telefacsimiles (telefaxes) will be 
accepted.
    Written (paper) comments may be submitted to: Ms. Brenda Edwards-
Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 
Mailstop EE-2J, Test Procedures for Clothes Washers, Docket Number: EE-
RM/TP-03-100, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed copy--no 
telefacsimiles.
    You may read copies of the public comments received in the resource 
room of the appliance office of the Building Technologies Program, room 
1J-018 of the Forrestal Building at the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC between the hours of 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call 
Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional 
information regarding visiting the resource room. Please note: The 
Department's Freedom of Information Reading Room (room 1E-190 in the 
Forrestal Building) is no longer servicing rulemakings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Twigg or Bryan Berringer, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 
586-9611, e-mail: [email protected], or 
[email protected], respectively; or Francine Pinto, Esq., or 
Thomas DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
(202) 586-9507, e-mail: [email protected], or 
[email protected], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    II. Discussion
    A. Correction of the Typographical Error in Table 2.6.5 of 
Appendix J1
    B. Determination of Correction Factors for New Lots of Energy 
Test Cloth
    C. Statistical Test to Validate New Lots of Energy Test Cloth
    D. Effect of Changes on Measured Efficiencies
III. Discussion of Direct Final Rulemaking
IV. Procedural Requirements
    A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review'
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'
    F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    L. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act
    M. Approval by the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

A. Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.) The products 
currently subject to this Program (``covered products'') include 
residential clothes washers, the subject of today's direct final rule. 
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
    Under the Act, the Program consists of three parts: Testing, 
labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. The 
Department, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST), may amend or prescribe test procedures as 
appropriate for each of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293) The 
purpose of the test procedures is to measure energy efficiency, energy 
use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use. The test procedures 
must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    If DOE amends a test procedure, EPCA requires DOE to determine 
whether the new test procedure would change the measured energy 
efficiency or measured energy use of any covered product as determined 
under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE 
determines that a change would result, DOE must amend the applicable 
energy conservation standard during the rulemaking that establishes the 
new test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In setting any new energy 
conservation standard, DOE must measure, with the new test procedure, 
the energy efficiency or energy use of a representative sample of 
covered products that minimally comply with the existing standard. The 
average energy efficiency or energy use of these representative samples 
under

[[Page 62199]]

the new test procedure shall constitute the amended energy conservation 
standard for the applicable covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    Effective 180 days after DOE prescribes or establishes an amended 
or new test procedure for a covered product, no manufacturer, 
distributor, retailer, or private labeler may make any representation 
with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or cost of energy consumed 
by the product, unless the product has been tested in accordance with 
such amended or new DOE test procedure and the representation fairly 
discloses the results of that testing. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) This 
restriction on representations will take effect 180 days after the 
January 1, 2004, effective date of this amended test procedure. A 
manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler may begin using 
the new test procedure to make representations with respect to the 
energy use, efficiency, or cost of energy consumed by the product 
beginning with the January 1, 2004, effective date of this rule.

B. Background

    The U.S. government established the first federal test procedures 
for clothes washers in 1977. In the 1990's, concurrent with the 
development of new energy conservation standards for clothes washers, 
the Department of Energy began revising the clothes washer test 
procedure. The existing test procedure did not cover a number of 
innovative clothes washer technologies such as high spin speed and 
adaptive water fill control, and DOE published several proposals to 
address those innovations including one on December 22, 1993, (58 FR 
67710) and another on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15330). In its comments on 
the March 23, 1995, proposed rule, the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (AHAM) requested that DOE adopt an additional new test 
procedure that would capture current consumer habits that showed a 
reduction in the use of hot water and energy. AHAM proposed that DOE 
incorporate this test as part of the process of revising the clothes 
washer energy conservation standards, and that the test go into effect 
concurrently with the issuance of new 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 requested comments on whether DOE 
should adopt the AHAM-recommended test procedure with certain changes. 
The test procedure final rule published on August 27, 1997, adopted the 
AHAM recommendation. 62 FR 45484. Appendix J, the current test 
procedure, will expire on December 31, 2003. 66 FR 3313, 3330 (January 
12, 2001).Appendix J1 is now informational but will become mandatory 
and replace appendix J when the energy conservation standards adopted 
on January 12, 2001, take effect on January 1, 2004.
    A key difference between the appendix J and the appendix J1 test 
procedures is the basic energy efficiency descriptor. Appendix J 
specifies an energy efficiency descriptor called the energy factor 
(EF). The appendix J1 test procedure replaces the EF with an energy 
efficiency descriptor called the modified energy factor (MEF). In 
contrast with the previous EF descriptor which only calculated the 
energy use of the clothes washer itself, the MEF descriptor accounts 
for the remaining moisture content (RMC) of clothes leaving the clothes 
washer. In order to calculate the RMC, appendix J1 requires 
manufacturers to use a particular lot of standardized test cloth to 
simulate a washer load of clothes. Other substantive differences 
between the test procedures include using different water temperatures 
for testing and using test cloth loads for all classes of clothes 
washers in appendix J1, but not in appendix J.
    As the Department proceeded with the standards rulemaking for 
clothes washers, DOE conducted tests on a number of clothes washers 
using the appendix J1 test procedure and shared the results with the 
manufacturers of the tested units. The manufacturers then indicated 
that some of the values for the RMC were higher than they would have 
expected from earlier test data. The Department investigated possible 
causes for the new test results being inconsistent with the values 
produced using the original lot of test cloth and summarized its 
findings in the DOE report, Development of a Standardized Energy Test 
Cloth for Measuring Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes 
Washer, May 2000. (Docket No. EE-RM-94-403, DOE, No. 200) To understand 
the effects of operating variables and cloth specifications, DOE 
decided to conduct additional laboratory tests to determine the RMC. To 
insure that the use of a specific manufacturer's product (clothes 
washer) would not influence or bias the test results in any way, the 
Department developed a test using an extractor to remove moisture 
content, instead of using a clothes washer. An extractor is a 
centrifuge--basically a rotating basket that has a controllable speed 
to produce a variety of centrifugal forces. The centrifuge test used a 
variety of speeds to impose different centripetal accelerations on the 
test load. These accelerations are reported in terms of gravitation 
forces (g forces). DOE also soaked the cloth in a tub at a controlled 
temperature to approximate the agitated soak cycle provided by a 
typical washer. Thus, the additional laboratory tests DOE conducted 
closely resembled those specified in the clothes washer test procedure.
    The extractor-based test examined RMC values at different g forces 
so that new batches of test cloth could be compared to the RMC values 
of a standard reference test cloth. This comparison provided the basis 
for developing a correction methodology whereby the test results using 
any new lot of cloth could be ``corrected'' back to the test values of 
the base reference lot of cloth. The Department derived the correction 
factor from measuring the deviation between a new production batch of 
test cloth and a standard reference test cloth. This deviation is 
measured as the root mean square (RMS) between the set of measured RMC 
values and the set of standard RMC values. If this absolute deviation 
is below 2 percent, then correction factors are unnecessary in MEF 
tests using that batch of cloth. If the absolute RMS difference between 
the cloth RMC values and standard RMC values is above 2 percent, then 
correction factors are necessary when using the cloth to test the MEF 
of a clothes washer. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1, section 
2.6.5)
    The correction factors currently are derived by fitting the data 
points into a straight line (a linear least squares fit) based on the 
set of RMC values for the new production lot compared to the baseline 
RMC values for data taken at 50, 200, and 350 spin g's, with warm (100 
[deg]F) and cold (60 [deg]F) rinse water, and with spin times of 4 
minutes and 15 minutes. The fit criteria for an acceptable new lot of 
test cloth is an RMS error term <2%. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix J1, section 2.6.6)
    Using data from clothes washer manufacturers, the Department 
selected the range of test conditions (50-350 g's, warm and cold, 4 and 
15 minutes) to bracket the actual conditions under which manufactured 
residential clothes washers operate and will be tested according to the 
appendix J1 test procedure. The 50-350 g range bounds the lower and 
upper levels of spin speeds in a typical clothes washer. The use of 
both warm and cold water

[[Page 62200]]

temperatures serves to identify any changes in test results of the test 
cloth due to water temperature variation. The use of 4 and 15 minute 
spin times bounds the various spin cycle times in a typical clothes 
washer. Thus, by requiring the averaging of this combination of test 
cycles, the test procedure created a representative profile of the spin 
and extraction behavior of the test cloth. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix J1, sections 2.6.5.3.6 and 2.6.6.1)
    When the Department published the energy conservation standards 
final rule for clothes washers on January 12, 2001, the rule included 
revisions to the 1997 test procedure based on DOE's May 2000 report 
dealing with the energy test cloth, RMC, extractor testing, and the 
correction factors. The Department believed that the system of using 
the correction factors would enable those conducting future tests to 
use new lots of test cloth in a manner consistent with the base test 
cloth, and produce reliable RMC values. In addition, the Department 
incorporated in their entirety AHAM's comments and the Joint 
Stakeholders Comment requesting minor editorial changes to help clarify 
both appendices J and J1. (Docket No. EE-RM-94-403, AHAM, Nos. 197 and 
199, and Joint Comment, No. 204)
    Although the revised appendix J1 was published as part of the 2001 
final rule for clothes washers, appendix J1 was available for 
informational use only until the new clothes washer standards would 
take effect on January 1, 2004. Initial experimental tests using the 
new procedure to certify lots of test cloth using the correction 
factors worked well until several new lots again appeared to have 
unusually high RMC at the 50g test level. Correction factors 
notwithstanding, several manufacturers noticed that the corrected RMC 
values for these newer lots of test cloth were still significantly 
different from the RMC values determined from earlier lots of test 
cloth that had been tested in the same clothes washer. When the 
Department learned that these later lots of test cloth were producing 
10 percent higher RMC values than the test cloth reference base, DOE 
conducted tests to explore the new inconsistency issue which the 
correction factor system in appendix J1 did not seem to have fixed. 
Test results confirmed that the RMC value at 50g shifted the correction 
curve so that the corrected RMC values at 100g, the typical spin g 
level of many vertical axis washers, were inconsistent with corrected 
RMC results using earlier lots of test cloth. Retests of both early and 
later lots of test cloth confirmed a basic lack of repeatability of 50g 
spin tests.
    Ongoing RMC tests in the extractor, however, indicated that spin g 
levels of 100g's or more continued to produce repeatable results with 
good lot-to-lot consistency of the RMC compared to the g-curve shape. 
Only the 50g spin tests were producing the inconsistency and 
repeatability problems.
    The Department had originally selected the 50g spin level as the 
lower end with which to bracket the spin speeds of clothes washers for 
computing the average RMC value. The other spin levels were 200g, 350g, 
and 500g, if a washer could achieve that high a spin speed. In 
discussions with clothes washer manufacturers regarding the 
repeatability problems with the 50g spin level, the Department learned 
that clothes washers use 50g spins only in delicate cycles and as an 
optional slow spin that is available in a limited number of models. 
Because it was not a commonly used spin cycle, DOE, AHAM and the 
clothes washer manufacturers agreed that it would be better to use the 
more dependable 100g spin speed as the lower end of the range of spin 
speeds. A linear least squares fit test cloth correction procedure 
based on 100g and greater RMC test data will result in more reliable 
correction factors for the vast majority of clothes washer models in 
production.
    In a letter to DOE dated April 2, 2003, AHAM requested that the 
Department implement this change in the test procedure. (AHAM No. 1 at 
1) Because the 50g anomalies discussed above were unexpected, AHAM also 
recommended in the letter that a statistical procedure be adopted to 
recognize any other unexpected anomaly that might occur in future lots 
of energy test cloths. This statistical test will identify deviations 
in RMC as compared with g-curve shape beyond the magnitude where the 
linear least squares fit correction factor is appropriate. In 
statistical terms, these anomalies are referred to as a ``lot-to-lot 
interactive effect''--a lot-to-lot difference in characteristics that 
produces a different relationship of RMC to g, spin time, and/or final 
rinse temperature.
    A ``lot-to-lot interactive effect'' statistical test that could be 
used to screen out lots whose RMC as compared with g-behavior is 
inconsistent with the baseline lot is a standard statistical procedure 
called ``analysis of variance'' or ``ANOVA.'' As applied to new lots of 
energy test cloth, the ANOVA statistical test will detect the extent of 
the deviation of the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve of a 
given lot from the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve of the 
baseline lot. It would have detected the peculiarity of the RMC values 
at 50g in the later lots running very high relative to the RMC values 
at 100, 200, or 350g, compared to the baseline lot. Tests of new lots 
of cloth using the100g (instead of 50g), 200g, and 350g extractor test 
points have thus far all satisfied the ANOVA test criteria for an 
acceptable lot. The Department expects that the ANOVA test will detect 
any unanticipated RMC compared to g-curve shape deviation in future 
lots.

II. Discussion

    In this direct final rule, the Department is correcting the 
typographical error in Table 2.6.5 of appendix J1 (10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix J1, section 2.6.5), modifying the procedure for 
developing the correction factors for new production lots of energy 
test cloth used in the test procedure for clothes washers, and 
introducing a second statistical test to validate new lots of energy 
test cloth.

A. Correction of the Typographical Error in Table 2.6.5 of Appendix J1

    In this direct final rule, the Department is correcting the 
typographical error in Table 2.6.5 of appendix J1, by changing 14 
minutes to 4 minutes. (66 FR at 3331-33; 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix J1, section 2.6.5) Section 2.6.5.3.6 of appendix J1 specifies 
spin times of 4 and 15 minutes (66 FR at 3332) and the May 2000 report 
documents that these are the intended spin times selected to bracket 
the range of spin times commonly used in production clothes washers. 
All extractor testing to derive correction factors has been carried out 
with 15 minute and 4 minute spin times at both cold and warm soak 
temperatures.

B. Determination of Correction Factors for New Lots of Energy Test 
Cloth

    In this direct final rule, the Department is modifying the 
procedure for developing the correction factors for new production lots 
of energy test cloth by replacing the extractor test points at 50g with 
100g test points. The linear least squares fit to the baseline set of 
RMC's is otherwise unchanged. The Department has confirmed through 
tests of new lots of test cloth in the extractor and analysis of 
previous data that RMC, g forces, spin time, and temperature at spin g 
levels at 100g's or more, continue to produce repeatable results with 
good lot-to-lot consistency of the RMC compared to g-curve shape. The 
50g test point, which DOE had selected to provide an all-inclusive 
range of spin g levels, can be deleted with minimal

[[Page 62201]]

effect because spin g levels below 100g are used only in delicate 
cycles (not tested in the appendix J1 test procedure) and as an 
optional slow spin that is available in a limited number of models. The 
Department agrees that a linear least squares fit test cloth correction 
procedure based on 100g and greater RMC test data would result in a 
more reliable correction curve for the vast majority of clothes washer 
models in production. Using 100, 200, 350, and 500g as test points 
would still bracket the range of spin speeds in most clothes washers 
and provide a comprehensive and representative test for establishing 
the correction curves for new batches of test cloth. In light of these 
circumstances and the problems with use of the 50g test points, 
discussed above, the Department believes it is appropriate to modify 
the clothes washer test procedure in appendix J1 by replacing these 
test points with 100g test points.

C. Statistical Test To Validate New Lots of Energy Test Cloth

    In this direct final rule, the Department is adopting a standard 
statistical procedure called ``analysis of variance'' or ``ANOVA'' as 
the lot-to-lot interactive-effect statistical test for screening out 
lots of test cloth whose RMC compared to g behavior is inconsistent 
with the baseline lot. The ANOVA statistical test detects the extent of 
the deviation of the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve of a 
given lot of the test cloth from the shape of the RMC compared to the 
g-curve of the baseline lot. It would have detected the peculiarity of 
the 50g RMC values in the later lots running very high relative to the 
100g, 200g, or 350g RMC values, compared to the baseline lot. With the 
100g (instead of 50g), 200g, and 350g extractor test points, all of the 
lots that DOE has tested so far satisfy the ANOVA test criteria for an 
acceptable lot. The Department believes that the test will catch any 
unanticipated RMC compared to g-curve shape deviation in future lots.
    The ANOVA test adds a second method for determining the 
``acceptability'' of a new lot of test cloth that a manufacturer will 
use in conjunction with the criterion currently prescribed in appendix 
J1 for making this determination. That criterion is that the RMS error 
term (of the least squares fit used to determine the correction factors 
for a new lot of test cloth) must be <2%. The RMS error term measures 
the ``goodness of fit'' of the derived linear relationship between the 
baseline set of RMC values and corresponding RMC values for the new lot 
obtained at each test condition. That is, it is intended to 
characterize the ``closeness'' or ``lack of scatter'' of the 12 data 
points to the ``best-fit'' (least squares) line that is subsequently 
used to calibrate (``correct'') the new-lot RMC value to the RMC value 
of the baseline lot.
    Although the later lots discussed above met the criterion of an RMS 
of <2%, other difficulties subsequently emerged when using these lots 
for actual machine testing. Most notably, RMC measurements behaved 
erratically at the low (50g) spin speed conditions. Although linearly 
related to corresponding baseline RMC measurements, the RMC 
measurements of later lots (over an observed range of 30% to 70%) were 
inconsistent with baseline values in a more subtle way. Additional 
testing of the later lots (and other test lots as well) strongly 
supports the assertion that RMC values--recently obtained when 
conducting extractor tests at 50g spin speed conditions with any lot--
are inconsistent with RMC results that were obtained at 50g of the 
original baseline lot.
    Whatever the reason(s), recent extractor tests have yielded higher 
RMC measurements at all test conditions than those previously obtained 
for the baseline. If the measurements for a new lot of test cloth are 
consistently higher over the entire range of test conditions, the 
correction curve (as originally configured) and the test criterion (RMS 
<2%) would be sufficient to establish the acceptance--or rejection--of 
a new test lot. However, with the benefit of hindsight, the Department 
now knows that the difference between recent extractor tests and the 
baseline is not the same at all test conditions; in fact, the 
difference is most pronounced in the four time/temperature tests 
conducted at the 50g spin speed. In statistical terms, this inherent 
inconsistency is referred to as an ``interactive effect'' between test 
lots and spin speeds. The ANOVA is a commonly used statistical 
procedure for detecting interactive effects, if and when they exist. As 
applied to new lots of energy test cloths, this statistical test will 
detect the extent of the deviation of the RMC compared to the g-curve 
shape of a given lot from the RMC compared to the g-curve shape of the 
baseline lot. This could be either a gross difference in the overall 
slope or the peculiarity that has been observed in the later lots of 
the RMC values at 50g running very high relative to the RMC values at 
100g, 200g, or 350g, compared to the baseline lot. The ``P-value'' (a 
theoretically-based probability) that ANOVA produces is interpreted as 
evidence of a real, repeatable interactive effect between lots and spin 
speeds. The lower the P-value, the stronger the evidence of an 
interaction. A value less than 0.10 is sufficient to conclude that 
there is a problematic interaction, and the lot of test cloth being 
tested should not be used to measure RMC.
    The Department evaluated an analysis of all cloth lot samples 
tested thus far. Analytical results and conclusions support the use of 
100g test data rather than 50g data. It is interesting to note that 
there is no evidence of an interactive effect for earlier lots of test 
cloth, justifying the use of the correction curves based on the 50g to 
350g range for those lots. Starting with later lots, interactive 
effects attributable to 50g test data are clearly evident. However, 
over the 100g-to-350g range, there is no evidence of an interactive 
effect with any of these lots. The Department believes that the P-value 
from the ANOVA test is an appropriate test for acceptance of new lots 
of test cloth.

D. Effect of Changes on Measured Efficiencies

    In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, section 323(e) of EPCA 
requires the Department to determine whether the amended test procedure 
would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(e)) If the amendment does alter measured efficiency, the 
Secretary must amend the applicable energy conservation standard so 
that products that minimally comply with the standard prior to the test 
procedure amendment will continue to comply. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 
These provisions prevent changes in a test procedure that would cause a 
product that complied with applicable Federal energy conservation 
standards using the previous test procedure from being forced into non-
compliance as a result of using the new test procedure.
    Today's rule amends the test procedure for clothes washers, 
appendix J1, which is designed to measure performance under new energy 
conservation standards that will take effect on January 1, 2004. 
Appendix J1 is not mandatory until then. Today's rule will produce 
insignificant changes in the measured efficiency of a limited number of 
models of clothes washers. These changes are important, however, 
because they will assure that measured efficiencies conform more 
closely to the results that would occur if a reference test cloth were 
used in every test. Use of the reference test cloth produces results 
that most accurately measure a clothes washer's performance under the 
energy conservation standards that will go into effect on January 1, 
2004.

[[Page 62202]]

    The Department has no information to indicate that there are 
clothes washers that ``minimally comply'' with existing energy 
conservation standards using the existing test procedure, and that 
would fall out of compliance with the standard once the newly modified 
test procedure is used. Therefore, DOE is not required by EPCA section 
323(e)(2) to make any changes to energy conservation standards. The 
Department has therefore determined that although today's amended test 
procedure will alter the measured efficiency or measured energy use of 
some clothes washer models, it is not necessary to test models with the 
new test procedure to consider or make any modifications to energy 
conservation standards.
    The Department also notes that even if today's amendments do change 
the energy efficiency rating of any model and would cause it not to 
comply with the current energy conservation standards, the standard for 
that model is becoming more stringent on January 1, 2004, in any event. 
As a result, the new energy conservation standards, which already have 
been finalized through notice and comment rulemaking, will supersede 
the current standards and render irrelevant the model's ability or 
inability to comply with the current standard. Thus, a change resulting 
from today's amendments to the test procedure would simply mean that 
the product in question does not meet the new efficiency standard that 
will become effective on January 1. The Department has no information 
to indicate that there are clothes washers that will fail to comply 
with the new standards solely as a result of today's amendments to the 
test procedure.

III. Discussion of Direct Final Rulemaking

    The Department is publishing this direct final rule without having 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking because DOE views this 
amendment as noncontroversial and anticipates no significant adverse 
comments. However, in the event that the Department receives 
significant adverse comments, DOE has prepared a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing the same amendment. The Department is 
publishing this NOPR as a separate document in this issue of today's 
Federal Register. The direct final rule will be effective January 1, 
2004, unless DOE receives significant adverse comments by December 1, 
2003. If DOE receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw 
the revisions before their effective date. In case of the withdrawal of 
this direct final rule, DOE will announce the withdrawal in the Federal 
Register. DOE will then address all public comments in a separate final 
rule based on the proposed rule that DOE is publishing today. DOE will 
not implement a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time.

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this rule, the Department promulgates a minor change to the test 
procedure for measuring the energy consumption of clothes washers. The 
Department has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) The 
rule is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that 
interpret or amend an existing rule without changing the environmental 
effect, as set forth in the Department's NEPA regulations in appendix A 
to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. This rule will not affect the quality 
or distribution of energy usage and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental impact 
statement nor an environmental assessment is required.

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

    Today's rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993) Accordingly, today's action is not subject to 
review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory 
flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities 
and considers alternative ways of reducing negative impacts. 5 U.S.C. 
605. As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of 
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), 
DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure 
that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's 
Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    Today's rule prescribes minor amendments to the test procedures 
that will be used to test compliance with energy conservation standards 
and labeling. Because the rule affects only test procedures and not the 
minimum energy efficiency standard levels for clothes washer models, 
the Department believes that it will not have a significant economic 
impact. Instead, it will provide common testing methods for all clothes 
washer manufacturers or private labelers, and will improve the accuracy 
of information provided to consumers. Because this rule makes only 
minor revisions to the new test procedure scheduled to go into effect 
with the new clothes washer standard on January 1, 2004, it is not 
expected that this rule will have a significant (if any) economic 
impact on manufacturers performing the test procedure.
    The overall size of the clothes washer manufacturing industry also 
negates the necessity for a regulatory flexibility analysis. The Small 
Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a small 
business if, together with its affiliates, it employs fewer than a 
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121 according to 
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. The 
threshold number for NAICS classification 335224 for household laundry 
equipment manufacturers, which includes clothes washers, is 1000 
employees. Of the five firms in the clothes washer industry that 
account for nearly 99 percent of clothes washer sales, the Department 
has determined that none would be considered ``small'' by the above 
definition. Using this SBA size standard, the Department is aware of 
only one small entity among clothes washer manufacturers or private 
labelers. Because the clothes washer models of that manufacturer 
already exceed the new standard which takes effect on January 1, 2004, 
it is not expected that the test procedure revision in this rule will 
have any adverse impact. Therefore, DOE certifies that today's rule 
will not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not warranted.

[[Page 62203]]

D. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights,'' (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) that this regulation 
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, August 4, 
1999) requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other 
policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on 
States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
States, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
various levels of Government. If there are substantial direct effects, 
then this Executive Order requires preparation of a Federalism 
assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and 
implementing a policy action.
    The rule published today would not regulate or otherwise affect the 
States. Accordingly, DOE has determined that preparation of a 
Federalism assessment is unnecessary.

F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by 
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB clearance is required under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

G. 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 rule 
under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed regulations meet the 
relevant standards.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded 
Mandates Act'') requires that the Department prepare a budgetary impact 
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in 
any one year. The budgetary impact statement must include: (i) 
Identification of the Federal law under which the rule is promulgated; 
(ii) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and 
benefits of the Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which 
such costs to state, local, and tribal governments may be paid with 
Federal financial assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the 
future compliance costs and of any disproportionate budgetary effects 
the mandate has on particular regions, communities, non-Federal units 
of government, or sectors of the economy; (iv) if feasible, estimates 
of the effect on the national economy; and (v) a description of the 
Department's prior consultation with elected representatives of state, 
local, and tribal governments and a summary and evaluation of the 
comments and concerns presented.
    The Department has determined that the action today does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to State, local or to tribal governments in the 
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of 
Sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this 
action.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
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 rule would not have any impact on the 
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE 
has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001, requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 
Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed 
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined 
as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to 
the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; 
and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the 
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's rule will not have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or the use of energy, and, therefore, is not a 
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects.

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

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations 
of information to the public under guidelines established by each 
agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines 
were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines 
were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has

[[Page 62204]]

reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

L. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

M. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's direct 
final rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, 
Household appliances.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 2003.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends Part 
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as 
follows:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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


0
2. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430, as amended at 66 FR 3330 to 
become effective January 1, 2004, is further amended in section 2 by 
revising:
0
a. Table 2.6.5.
0
b. Section 2.6.5.3.6.
0
c. Table 2.6.6.1.
0
d. Section 2.6.6.2.
    The 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.
* * * * *
    2. * * *
    2.6. * * *
    2.6.5. * * *

          Table 2.6.5.--Matrix of Extractor RMC Test Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Warm soak       Cold soak
                                         -------------------------------
               ``g Force''                  15              15
                                           min.   4 min.   min.   4 min.
                                           spin    spin    spin    spin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100.....................................  ......  ......  ......  ......
200.....................................  ......  ......  ......  ......
350.....................................  ......  ......  ......  ......
500.....................................  ......  ......  ......  ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    2.6.5.3.6 The RMC of the test load shall be measured at three (3) g 
levels: 100g; 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 then the RMC of the test load 
shall be measured at four (4) g levels: 100g; 200g; 350g; and 500g, 
using two different spin times at each g level: 4 minutes; and 15 
minutes.
* * * * *
    2.6.6. * * *
    2.6.6.1. * * *

                               Table 2.6.6.1.--Standard RMC Values (RMC Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     RMC %
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Warm soak                 Cold soak
                         ``g Force''                         ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                15 min.                   15 min.
                                                                  spin     4 min. spin      spin     4 min. spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100.........................................................         45.9         49.9         49.7         52.8
200.........................................................         35.7         40.4         37.9         43.1
350.........................................................         29.6         33.1         30.7         35.8
500.........................................................         24.2         28.7         25.5         30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.6.6.2. Perform an analysis of variance test using two factors, 
spin speed and lot, to check the interaction of speed and lot. Use the 
values from Table 2.6.5 and Table 2.6.6.1 in the calculation. The ``P'' 
value in the variance analysis shall be greater than or equal to 0.1. 
If the ``P'' value is less than 0.1 the test cloth is unacceptable. 
``P'' is a theoretically based probability of interaction based on an 
analysis of variance.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-27468 Filed 10-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P