[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33316-33405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10715]
[[Page 33315]]
Vol. 87
Wednesday,
No. 105
June 1, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429, 430 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 33316]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429, 430 and 431
[EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011]
RIN 1904-AD95
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Energy's
(``DOE'') test procedures for residential and commercial clothes
washers to further specify test conditions, instrument specifications,
and test settings; address large clothes container capacities; add
product-specific enforcement provisions; delete obsolete provisions;
and consolidate all test cloth-related provisions and codify additional
test cloth material verification procedures used by industry. This
final rule also establishes a new test procedure for residential and
commercial clothes washers with additional modifications for certain
test conditions, measurement of average cycle time, required test
cycles, tested load sizes, semi-automatic clothes washer provisions,
new performance metrics, and updated usage factors. The new test
procedure will be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated
efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the
updated standards, should such standards be established.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 1, 2022. The amendments
will be mandatory for product testing starting November 28, 2022.
Manufacturers will be required to use the amended test procedure until
the compliance date of any final rule establishing amended energy
conservation standards based on the newly established test procedure.
At such time, manufacturers will be required to begin using the newly
established test procedure.
The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in this
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 1,
2022.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not
be publicly available.
A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2016-BT-TP-0011. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC,
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
standards into part 430.
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (``AATCC'')
Test Method 79-2010, ``Absorbency of Textiles,'' Revised 2010.
AATCC Test Method 118-2007, ``Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon
Resistance Test,'' Revised 2007.
AATCC Test Method 135-2010, ``Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after
Home Laundering,'' Revised 2010.
Copies of AATCC test methods can be obtained from AATCC, P.O. Box
12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or by going to
www.aatcc.org.
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 62301,
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,''
(Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
Copies of IEC 62301 are available from the American National
Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036,
(212) 642-4900, or by going to webstore.ansi.org.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Applicability
C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
1. Water Meter Resolution
2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines
3. Water Supply Temperatures
4. Extra-Hot Wash Determination
5. Wash Water Temperature Measurement
6. Pre-Conditioning Requirements
D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct
1. Tested Load Sizes
2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the Proposed Load Sizes
3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested Settings
4. Remaining Moisture Content
5. Cycle Time
6. Capacity Measurement
7. Identifying and Addressing Anomalous Cycles
8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
9. Optional Cycle Modifiers
10. Clothes Washers With Connected Functionality
E. Metrics
1. Replacing Capacity with Weighted-Average Load Size
2. Inverting the Water Metric
3. Representation Requirements
F. Cleaning Performance
G. Consumer Usage Assumptions
1. Annual Number of Wash Cycles
2. Drying Energy Assumptions
3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions
4. Temperature Usage Factors
5. Load Usage Factors
6. Water Heater Assumptions
7. Commercial Clothes Washer Usage
H. Clarifications
1. Water Inlet Hose Length
2. Water Fill Selection Availability
3. Water Fill Control Systems
4. Energy Test Cycle Flowcharts
5. Wash Time Setting
6. Annual Operating Cost Calculation
7. Structure of the New Appendix J
8. Proposed Deletions and Simplifications
9. Typographical Errors
10. Symbology
I. Test Cloth Provisions
1. Test Cloth Specification
2. Consolidation to Appendix J3
J. Product-Specific RMC Enforcement Provisions
K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
L. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
[[Page 33317]]
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Consumer (residential) clothes washers (``RCWs'') are included in
the list of ``covered products'' for which DOE is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) DOE's test procedures for RCWs are currently
prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
part 430 Section 23(j), and subpart B appendices J1 (``appendix J1'')
and J2 (``appendix J2''). DOE also prescribes a test method for
measuring the moisture absorption and retention characteristics of new
lots of energy test cloth, which is used in testing clothes washers, at
appendix J3 to subpart B (``appendix J3''). Commercial clothes washers
(``CCWs'') are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which
DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards
and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) The test procedures for
CCWs must be the same as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(8)) The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish
test procedures for RCWs and CCWs and relevant background information
regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for these products and
equipment.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These
products include RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) Title III, Part C \3\ of
EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established
the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. This
equipment includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) Both RCWs and CCWs are
the subject of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42
U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of
those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE
must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply
with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s);
42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products and
equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)) DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the
criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products and equipment, respectively. EPCA
requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this
section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which
measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating
cost of a covered product or equipment during a representative average
use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) \4\ If an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and
off mode energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a
separate test is technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii))
Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \5\
and IEC Standard 62087 \6\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPCA does not contain an analogous provision for commercial
equipment.
\5\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\6\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including RCWs, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE determines
that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures.
[[Page 33318]]
EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the same as the
test procedures established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with
the test procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires that DOE evaluate, at least
once every 7 years, the test procedures for CCWs to determine whether
amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to
conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 7-year
review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
B. Background
As discussed, DOE's existing test procedures for clothes washers
appear in appendix J1, appendix J2, and appendix J3.
DOE originally established its clothes washer test procedure,
codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J''), in
a final rule published Sept. 28, 1977. 42 FR 49802 (``September 1977
Final Rule''). Since that time, the test procedure has undergone
several amendments that are relevant to this rulemaking, summarized as
follows and described in additional detail in a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NOPR'') that DOE published on September 1, 2021. 86 FR
49140 (``September 2021 NOPR'').
DOE amended appendix J in August 1997 (62 FR 45484 (Aug. 27, 1997);
(``August 1997 Final Rule'') and January 2001 (66 FR 3313 (Jan. 12,
2001); ``January 2001 Final Rule''). The August 1997 Final Rule also
established an appendix J1. 62 FR 45484. DOE amended appendix J1 in the
January 2001 Final Rule (66 FR 3313) and in March 2012. 77 FR 13888
(Mar. 7, 2012) (``March 2012 Final Rule''). The March 2012 Final Rule
also established a new test procedure at appendix J2 and removed the
obsolete appendix J.\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In that rulemaking, DOE also adopted procedures to measure
standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the energy
efficiency metrics in the then-newly created appendix J2.
Manufacturers were not required to incorporate those changes until
the compliance date of an amended standard. 77 FR 13888, 13932.
Amended standards were then adopted through a direct final rule that
required the use of appendix J2 for RCWs manufactured on or after
the 2015 compliance date. 77 FR 32308, 32313 (May 31, 2012). The
appendix J follows a similar approach because manufacturers would
not be required to incorporate the amendments proposed in appendix J
until the compliance date of an amended standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE most recently amended both appendix J1 and appendix J2 in a
final rule published on August 5, 2015. 80 FR 46729 (``August 2015
Final Rule''). The August 2015 Final Rule also moved the test cloth
qualification procedures from appendix J1 and appendix J2 to the newly
created appendix J3. 80 FR 46729, 46735. The current version of the
test procedure at appendix J2 includes provisions for determining
modified energy factor (``MEFJ2'') \8\ and integrated
modified energy factor (``IMEF'') in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per
cycle (``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''); and water factor (``WF'') and integrated
water factor (``IWF'') in gallons per cycle per cubic feet (``gal/
cycle/ft\3\''). RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2018, must
meet current energy conservation standards, which are based on IMEF and
IWF, determined using appendix J2. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4); 10 CFR
430.23(j)(2)(ii) and (4)(ii). CCWs manufactured on or after January 1,
2018, must meet current energy conservation standards, which are based
on MEFJ2 and IWF, determined using appendix J2. 10 CFR
431.154 and 10 CFR 431.156(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The current appendix J2 test procedure defines modified
energy factor as ``MEF'' (i.e., without the ``J2'' subscript). In
the CCW test procedure regulations at 10 CFR 431.152, DOE defines
the term ``MEFJ2'' to mean modified energy factor as
determined in section 4.5 of appendix J2. As discussed in a CCW test
procedure final rule published December 3, 2014, since the
calculated value of modified energy factor in appendix J2 is not
equivalent to the calculated value of modified energy factor in
appendix J1, DOE added the ``J2'' subscript to the appendix J2 MEF
descriptor to avoid any potential ambiguity that would result from
using the same energy descriptor for both test procedures. 79 FR
71624, 71626. To maintain consistency with this approach, this final
rule adds the ``J2'' subscript to the MEF metric defined in section
4.5 of appendix J2. See section III.H.10 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 22, 2020, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
(``May 2020 RFI'') to initiate an effort to determine whether to amend
the current test procedures for clothes washers. 85 FR 31065. In the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE responded to stakeholders' comments on the May
2020 RFI, and proposed amendments to appendix J2 and appendix J3 as
well as to establish a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix J (``appendix J'') that would establish new energy
efficiency metrics: The energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') as the energy
efficiency metric for RCWs (replacing IMEF); active-mode energy
efficiency ratio (``AEER'') as the energy efficiency metric for CCWs
(replacing MEFJ2); and the water efficiency ratio (``WER'')
as the water efficiency metric for both RCWs and CCWs (replacing IWF);
as well as incorporate a number of revisions to improve test procedure
representativeness and reduce test burden. 86 FR 49140.
On December 16, 2020, DOE established separate product classes for
top-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes and for
front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes. 85 FR
81359 (``December 2020 Final Rule''). DOE re-evaluated the new short-
cycle product classes in response to Executive Order 13900,
``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). In addition,
stakeholders and interested parties filed multiple lawsuits challenging
the December 2020 Final Rule, and DOE received several petitions for
reconsideration of the December 2020 Final Rule. Following the re-
evaluation of the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE published a NOPR on
August 11, 2021, that proposed to repeal the short-cycle product
classes. 86 FR 43970. DOE repealed the short-cycle product classes in a
final rule published on January 19, 2022. 87 FR 2673.
The comment period of the September 2021 NOPR was initially set to
close on November 1, 2021. 86 FR 49140. In response to a stakeholder
request,\9\ on October 28, 2021, DOE published a notice (``October 2021
Notice'') extending the comment period until November 29, 2021. 86 FR
59652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Request from Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020) available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to
September 2021 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) final rule Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous....................... Anonymous......... Individual.
John Oeisratnas................. Oeisratnas........ Individual.
Kenneth Warren.................. Warren............ Individual.
[[Page 33319]]
Micah Mutrux.................... Mutrux............ Individual.
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Efficiency Efficiency
Project, American Council for Advocates. Organizations.
an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of America,
and Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Ameren, ComEd, and Northwest Joint Commenters.. Efficiency
Energy Efficiency Alliance. Organization &
Utilities.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
GE Appliances................... GEA............... Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Company, Sempra Energy,
Southern California Edison
(collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities).
People's Republic of China...... P.R. China........ Nation.
Samsung Electronics America..... Samsung........... Manufacturer.
Whirlpool Corporation........... Whirlpool......... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool commented that it supports AHAM's comments on the
September 2021 NOPR. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2) GEA also commented
that it supports AHAM's comments on the September 2021 NOPR, and
incorporated AHAM's comments by reference. (GEA, No. 32 at p. 2)
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for RCWs and CCWs. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are
arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page
of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends appendix J2 as follows:
(1) Further specify supply water temperature test conditions and
water meter resolution requirements;
(2) Add specifications for measuring wash water temperature using
submersible data loggers;
(3) Expand the load size table to accommodate clothes container
capacities up to 8.0 cubic feet (``ft\3\'');
(4) Define ``user-adjustable adaptive water fill control;''
(5) Specify the applicability of the wash time setting for clothes
washers with a range of wash time settings;
(6) Specify how the energy test cycle flow charts apply to clothes
washers that internally generate hot water;
(7) Specify that the energy test cycle flow charts are to be
evaluated using the Maximum load size;
(8) Specify that testing is to be conducted with any network
settings disabled if instructions are available to the user to disable
these functions;
(9) Further specify the conditions under which data from a test
cycle would be discarded;
(10) Add product-specific enforcement provisions to accommodate the
potential for test cloth lot-to-lot variation in remaining moisture
content (``RMC'');
(11) Delete or correct obsolete definitions, metrics, and the
clothes washer-specific waiver section; and
(12) Move additional test cloth related specifications to appendix
J3.
In this final rule, DOE also updates 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix J3, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Moisture
Absorption and Retention Characteristics,'' as follows:
(1) Consolidate all test cloth-related provisions, including those
moved from appendix J2;
(2) Reorganize sections for improved readability; and
(3) Codify the test cloth material verification procedure as used
by industry.
In this final rule, DOE also adds appendix J to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption
of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers,'' which will be used
for the evaluation and issuance of any updated efficiency standards, as
well as to determine compliance with the updated standards, should DOE
determine that amended standards are warranted based on the criteria
established by EPCA.\11\ The new appendix J will include the following
additional provisions beyond the amendments to appendix J2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Information regarding the ongoing RCW and CCW energy
conservation standards rulemakings can be found at docket numbers
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 and EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Modify the hot water supply temperature range;
(2) Modify the clothes washer pre-conditioning requirements;
(3) Modify the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature;
(4) Add measurement and calculation of average cycle time;
(5) Reduce the number of required test cycles by requiring the use
of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more than two
Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles;
(6) Reduce the number of required test cycles by removing the need
for one or more cycles used for measuring RMC;
(7) Reduce the number of load sizes from three to two for units
currently tested with three load sizes;
(8) Modify the load size definitions consistent with two, rather
than three, load sizes;
(9) Update the water fill levels to be used for testing to reflect
the modified load size definitions;
(10) Specify the installation of single-inlet clothes washers, and
simplify the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers;
(11) Define new performance metrics that are based on the weighted-
average load size rather than clothes container capacity: ``energy
efficiency ratio,'' ``active-mode energy efficiency ratio,'' and
``water efficiency ratio;''
(12) Update the final moisture content assumption in the drying
energy formula;
(13) Update the number of annual clothes washer cycles from 295 to
234; and
(14) Update the number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be
based on the clothes washer's measured cycle time rather than an
assumed fixed value.
Finally, in this final rule, DOE is removing appendix J1 and
updating the relevant sections of 10 CFR parts 429, 430 and 431 in
accordance with the edits discussed previously, and modifying the
product-specific enforcement provisions regarding the determination of
RMC.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
test procedure provision prior to the
[[Page 33320]]
amendment, as well as the reason for the adopted change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Appendix J2 Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Appendix J2 test Amended Appendix
procedure J2 test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies a water meter Requires a water Improve
resolution of no larger than meter with a representativenes
0.1 gallons. resolution no s of test
larger than 0.01 results.
gallons if the
hot water use is
less than 0.1
gallons.
Specifies a target water supply Specifies the Reduce test
temperature at the high end of midpoint of the burden.
the water supply temperature allowable range
range. as the target
water temperature.
Specifically allows the use of Adds specification Reduce test
temperature indicating labels for using a burden.
for measuring wash water submersible
temperature. temperature
logger to measure
wash water
temperature.
Specifies the test load sizes Specifies the test Response to
for clothes container load sizes for waiver.
capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. clothes container
capacities up to
8.0 ft\3\.
Provides product-specific Provides Accommodate
enforcement provisions to additional potential source
address anomalous RMC results product-specific of variation in
that are not representative of enforcement enforcement
a basic model's performance. provisions to testing.
accommodate
differences in
RMC values that
may result from
DOE using a
different test
cloth lot than
was used by the
manufacturer for
testing and
certifying the
basic model.
Specifies discarding data from a Specifies Response to test
wash cycle that provides a discarding the laboratory
visual or audio indicator to test data if question.
alert the user that an out-of- during a wash
balance condition has been cycle the clothes
detected, or that terminates washer signals
prematurely if an out-of- the user by means
balance condition is detected. of a visual or
audio alert that
an out-of-balance
condition has
been detected or
terminates
prematurely.
Does not explicitly address the Specifies that Improve
required configuration for clothes washers reproducibility
network-connected functionality. with connected of test results.
functionality
shall be tested
with the network-
connected
functions
disabled if such
settings can be
disabled by the
end-user, and the
product's user
manual provides
instructions on
how to do so.
Does not provide an explicit Provides a Improve
definition for ``user- definition for readability.
adjustable adaptive water fill ``user-adjustable
controls'' or ``wash time''. adaptive water
fill controls''
and for ``wash
time''.
Specifies that user-adjustable Changes the Response to test
automatic clothes washers must wording to laboratory
be tested with the water fill specify selecting question.
setting in the most or least the setting based
energy-intensive setting on the most, or
without defining energy- least, amount of
intensive. water used.
Does not specify on which load Specifies Response to test
size to evaluate the energy evaluating the laboratory
test cycle flow charts. flow charts using question, improve
the maximum load reproducibility
size. of test results.
Does not explicitly address how Explicitly Response to test
to evaluate the Cold/Cold addresses clothes laboratory
energy test cycle flow chart washers that question.
for clothes washers that internally
internally generate hot water. generate hot
water.
Does not provide direction for Clarifies how to Improve
all control panel styles on test cycles with readability.
clothes washers that offer a a range of wash
range of wash time settings. time settings.
Includes test cloth verification Moves all test Improve
specifications in appendix J2. cloth related readability.
provisions to
appendix J3.
Contains obsolete provisions.... Updates or deletes Improve
obsolete readability.
provisions,
including
appendix J1 in
its entirety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2--Summary of Changes in Appendix J Test Procedure in
Comparison to Appendix J2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Appendix J2 test New Appendix J
procedure test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies a water meter Requires a water Improve
resolution of no larger than meter with a representativenes
0.1 gallons. resolution no s of test
larger than 0.01 results.
gallons if the
hot water use is
less than 0.1
gallons.
Does not specify how to install Specifies Provide further
clothes washers with a single installing direction for
inlet. clothes washers unaddressed
with a single feature.
inlet to the cold
water inlet.
Specifies a hot water supply Specifies a hot Improve
temperature of 130-135 [deg]F. water supply representativenes
temperature of s of test
120-125 [deg]F. results.
Defines the Extra-Hot Wash Specifies an Extra- Improve
threshold as 135 [deg]F. Hot Wash representativenes
threshold of 140 s of test results
[deg]F. and reduce test
burden.
Specifies a target water supply Specifies the Reduce test
temperature at the high end of midpoint of the burden.
the water supply temperature allowable range
range. as the target
water temperature.
Specifically allows the use of Adds specification Reduce test
temperature indicating labels for using a burden.
for measuring wash water submersible
temperature. temperature
logger to measure
wash water
temperature.
Specifies different pre- Requires the same Improve
conditioning requirements for pre-conditioning reproducibility
water-heating and non-water- requirements for of test results.
heating clothes washers. all clothes
washers.
Specifies the test load sizes Specifies the test Response to
for clothes container load sizes for waiver.
capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. clothes container
capacities up to
8.0 ft\3\.
Requires 3 tested load sizes on Reduces the number Reduce test
clothes washers with automatic of load sizes to burden.
water fill control systems. test to 2, and
specifies new
load sizes.
[[Page 33321]]
Defines load sizes for each 0.1 Redefines load Maintain
ft\3\ increment in clothes sizes for each representativenes
container capacity. increment in s.
clothes container
capacity,
consistent with
reduction from 3
to 2 load sizes.
Defines water fill levels to use Changes the water Maintain
with each tested load sizes on fill levels representativenes
clothes washers with manual consistent with s.
water fill control systems. the updated load
sizes.
Requires testing up to 3 Warm Requires testing a Reduce test
Wash temperature selections. maximum of 2 Warm burden.
Wash temperature
selections.
Specifies that the RMC is to be Specifies that the Reduce test
measured on separate cycle(s) RMC is to be burden, improve
from the energy test cycle. measured on all representativenes
energy test s of test
cycles. results.
Provides product-specific Provides Accommodate
enforcement provisions to additional potential source
address anomalous RMC results product-specific of variation in
that are not representative of enforcement enforcement
a basic model's performance. provisions to testing.
accommodate
differences in
RMC values that
may result from
DOE using a
different test
cloth lot than
was used by the
manufacturer for
testing and
certifying the
basic model.
Does not specify a measure of Specifies Improve
cycle time. provisions for representativenes
measuring cycle s of test
time. results.
Specifies discarding data from a Specifies Response to test
wash cycle that provides a discarding the laboratory
visual or audio indicator to test data if question.
alert the user that an out-of- during a wash
balance condition has been cycle the clothes
detected, or that terminates washer signals
prematurely if an out-of- the user by means
balance condition is detected. of a visual or
audio alert that
an out-of-balance
condition has
been detected or
terminates
prematurely.
Does not explicitly state how to Provides explicit Provide further
test semi-automatic clothes test provisions direction for
washers. for testing semi- unaddressed
automatic clothes feature.
washers.
Does not explicitly address the Specifies that Improve
required configuration for clothes washers reproducibility
network-connected functionality. with connected of test results.
functionality
shall be tested
with the network-
connected
functions
disabled if such
settings can be
disabled by the
end-user, and the
product's user
manual provides
instructions on
how to do so.
Defines metrics that are based Specifies new Improve
on clothes container capacity metrics that are representativenes
(IMEF, MEFJ2, IWF). based on the s of test
weighted-average results.
load size (EER,
AEER, WER).
Calculates the energy required Updates the Improve
for a clothes dryer to remove assumed final representativenes
the remaining moisture of the moisture content s of test
test load assuming a final to 2 percent. results.
moisture content of 4 percent.
Estimates the number of annual Updates the Update with more
use cycles for clothes washers estimate to 234 recent consumer
as 295, based on the 2005 cycles per year, usage data.
Residential Energy Consumption based on the
Survey (``RECS'') data. latest available
2015 RECS data.
Estimates the number of hours Calculates the Improve
spent in low-power mode as number of hours representativenes
8,465, based on 295 cycles per spent in low- s of test
year and an assumed 1-hour power mode for results.
cycle time. each clothes
washer based on
234 cycles per
year and measured
cycle time.
Does not specify how to test a Specifies using a Response to test
clothes washer that does not water inlet hose laboratory
provide water inlet hoses. length of no more question.
than 72 inches.
Does not provide an explicit Provides a Improve
definition for ``user- definition for readability.
adjustable adaptive water fill ``user-adjustable
controls'' or ``wash time''. adaptive water
fill controls''
and for ``wash
time''.
Categorizes water fill control Categorizes water Improve
systems into automatic fill or fill control readability.
manual fill categories. systems based on
how the user
interacts with
the controls and
whether the water
fill level is
based on the size
or weight of the
clothing load.
Specifies that user-adjustable Changes the Response to test
automatic clothes washers must wording to laboratory
be tested with the water fill specify selecting question.
setting in the most or least the setting based
energy-intensive setting on the most, or
without defining energy- least, amount of
intensive. water used.
Does not specify on which load Specifies Response to test
size to evaluate the energy evaluating the laboratory
test cycle flow charts. flow charts using question, improve
the large load reproducibility
size. of test results.
Does not explicitly address how Explicitly Response to test
to evaluate the Cold/Cold addresses clothes laboratory
energy test cycle flow chart washers that question.
for clothes washers that internally
internally generate hot water. generate hot
water.
Does not provide direction for Clarifies how to Improve
all control panel styles on test cycles with readability.
clothes washers that offer a a range of wash
range of wash time settings. time settings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3--Summary of Changes in Appendix J3 Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Appendix J3 test Amended Appendix
procedure J3 test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Includes test cloth verification Moves all test Improve
specifications in appendix J2. cloth related readability.
provisions to
appendix J3.
[[Page 33322]]
Does not include all aspects of Codifies Codify industry
test cloth verification additional test practice.
procedures performed by cloth
industry. verification
procedures
performed by
industry, in
appendix J3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix J2 and appendix
J3 described in section III of this document and adopted in this
document will not alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers or
require retesting or recertification solely as a result of DOE's
adoption of the amendments to the test procedures, and that the
proposed test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
DOE has determined that the amendments in the new appendix J would
alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers, in part because the
amended test procedure adopts a different energy efficiency metric and
water efficiency metric than in the current test procedures. However,
use of new appendix J is not required until the compliance date of any
standards amended based on the test procedure in appendix J, should
such amendments be adopted. Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed
in detail in section III of this document.
The effective date for the amendments adopted in this final rule is
30 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be based on
testing in accordance with the amended appendix J2 test procedures
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule.
Manufacturers will be required to certify compliance using the new
appendix J test procedure beginning on the compliance date of any final
rule establishing amended energy conservation standards for clothes
washers that are published after the effective date of this final rule.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE describes the amendments made to the
test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers.
A. General Comments
DOE received a number of general comments from stakeholders, as
summarized below.
Oeiratnas, Warren, and an anonymous commenter expressed general
support of the September 2021 NOPR. (Oeisratnas, No. 24 at p. 1;
Warren, No. 15 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 23 at p. 1) Another anonymous
commenter expressed general support of improving efficiency in clothes
washers. (Anonymous, No. 21 at p. 1)
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE publishing the RCW energy
conservation standards preliminary analysis on September 29, 2021
(``September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis''; 86 FR 53886)
before finalizing a test procedure, or before the comment period on the
September 2021 NOPR closed. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3) AHAM stated that
although DOE provided some additional time for comment on both the test
procedure and the preliminary analysis for standards, having both rules
open for comment at the same time and before commenters have had
sufficient time to evaluate and conduct the proposed test procedure
does not allow commenters to meaningfully comment on either the
proposed test procedure or the preliminary analysis. (Id.) AHAM also
commented that, while it recognizes and supports DOE's interest in
moving the clothes washer energy conservation standards and test
procedure rulemakings forward, DOE should have released its test
procedure proposal before conducting its RCW Standards Preliminary
Analysis so that DOE could receive feedback on the test procedure
proposal before proceeding with its analysis. (Id.) AHAM concluded that
it is likely that DOE will need to conduct additional analyses based on
the finalized test procedure before proposing a new energy conservation
standard. (Id.)
GEA expressed concern with the development of an energy
conservation standard for a product without a set test procedure. (GEA,
No. 32 at p. 2) GEA stated that without a finalized test procedure, it
is difficult to effectively comment on the September 2021 RCW Standards
Preliminary Analysis, particularly due to complexities of comparing
data between new appendix J and appendix J2 test procedures. (Id.) GEA
recommended that DOE accept and consider feedback generated by the
testing program coordinated by AHAM, and that DOE complete the ongoing
test procedure rulemaking before moving forward with the RCW standards
rulemaking. (Id.)
In response to AHAM and GEA's comments regarding the publication of
the September 2021 NOPR and the September 2021 RCW Standards
Preliminary Analysis, neither the prior version nor the current version
of DOE's ``Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment'' found
in appendix A (``appendix A'') specify that a final amended test
procedure will be issued prior to issuing standards pre-NOPR rulemaking
documents (e.g., a standards preliminary analysis). See 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A (Jan. 1, 2020 edition); 86 FR 70892, 70928
(Dec. 13, 2021). Rather, the prior version of the Process Rule provided
that test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to
evaluate proposed energy conservation standards would be finalized at
least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended
energy conservation standards. Section 8(d) of appendix A of 10 CFR
part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2020 edition). The current version of the
Process Rule generally provides that new test procedures and amended
test procedures that impact measured energy use or efficiency will be
finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period
for a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. 86
FR 70892, 70928. DOE will continue to conduct additional analyses based
on this finalized test procedure before proposing any new energy
conservation standards, and stakeholders will be provided an
opportunity to comment on any updated analysis as part of any proposal
published regarding amended standards.
AHAM commented that DOE should not proceed with its determination
on a clothes washer energy conservation standard until there is
adequate data showing the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility
of new appendix J and changes to appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 2-3)
AHAM added that it is currently unable to provide detailed comment on
the accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, and test burden
associated with the new test procedure. (Id.) In particular, AHAM
stated that it cannot provide detailed comment on the following topics:
Pre-conditioning requirements (see section III.C.6 of this document),
defining new test load sizes
[[Page 33323]]
and their associated load usage factors (see section III.D.1.b of this
document), water fill setting selections for the proposed load sizes
(see section III.D.2 of this document), the revised calculation of RMC
(see section III.D.4.a of this document), semi-automatic clothes
washers \12\ (see section III.D.8 of this document), replacing capacity
with weighted-average load sizes in the efficiency metrics (see section
III.E.1 of this document), and inverting the water efficiency metric
(see section III.E.2 of this document). (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 4-8) AHAM
stated that it and its members have developed a robust testing plan to
evaluate the proposed test procedure changes, but will not have the
testing completed until the end of 2021, and will need much of January
2022 to aggregate and present the results to DOE. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp.
2-3) AHAM commented that, while AHAM appreciates DOE's consideration of
AHAM's October 11, 2021 comment extension request,\13\ the 28-day
comment period extension DOE provided as part of the October 2021
Notice is still not sufficient for AHAM and its members to provide a
full set of meaningful comments. (Id.) AHAM stated that it plans to
continue testing and, when it is complete, will provide an additional
comment to DOE based on the test results. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ AHAM's comments on semi-automatic clothes washers include
comments on temperature selection, temperature usage factors, cycles
required for test, and the general implementation of the proposed
test provisions for semi-automatic clothes washers. All of these
aspects are discussed in section III.D.8 of this document.
\13\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool commented that industry testing regarding proposed new
appendix J is ongoing. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 2-3) Whirlpool
commented that, given the magnitude of changes proposed for the new
appendix J test procedure, Whirlpool did not have adequate time to
complete and analyze all desired testing during the comment period for
the September 2021 NOPR. (Id.) Whirlpool also commented that it is
taking appropriate steps in its test laboratory to ensure proper
testing to new appendix J. (Id.) Whirlpool added that its comments on
the September 2021 NOPR are preliminary, and that its comments may need
to be supplemented or corrected once investigative testing is
completed. (Id.) In particular, Whirlpool stated that it cannot provide
detailed comments on the following topics: Tested load sizes (see
section III.D.1 of this document), the efficiency metrics (see section
III.E of this document), and consumer usage assumptions (see section
III.G of this document). (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 7-11)
GEA commented that it is participating in testing organized by AHAM
to test 26 models across seven test laboratories to evaluate the
proposed changes to the clothes washer test procedure. (GEA, No. 32 at
p. 2) GEA expressed concern that GEA and other AHAM members are
devoting substantial financial resources to this testing, and that DOE
is not accommodating this test plan by failing to provide the February
1, 2021 comment deadline extension originally proposed by AHAM. (Id.)
GEA added that it is particularly concerned about the impact of the
proposed new metrics, which are based on weighted-average load size
instead of capacity, and the impact of DOE's proposed changes to the
load usage factors. (Id.)
DOE appreciates the efforts described by AHAM and manufacturers in
conducting testing to evaluate the proposed changes to the clothes
washer test procedure. DOE welcomes and encourages interested parties
to submit test data in support of the RCW standards rulemaking. DOE
notes that much of the reservation expressed by AHAM and manufacturers
was with regard to the impact on measured energy as a result of the
proposed amendments to the test procedure. Impacts on measured energy
use between the then-current appendix J2 and the proposed appendix J
test procedures were factored into the September 2021 RCW Standards
Preliminary Analysis and presented in the accompanying Technical
Support Document (``TSD'').\14\ Specifically, testing and modeling of
results between the two test procedures were used to generate
preliminary translations (i.e., ``crosswalks'') between the appendix J2
and appendix J metrics for each defined efficiency level. To the extent
that provisions of appendix J result in higher measured energy compared
to appendix J2, such impacts were factored into the crosswalk of
baseline \15\ and higher efficiency levels. As stated in chapter 5,
section 5.3.3.3 of the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE plans to continue
testing additional units to appendix J as finalized in this document
and will continue to refine its approach for determining appropriate
crosswalk translations in future stages of the standards rulemaking.
Details regarding the expected impacts on measured energy are discussed
in greater detail throughout sections III.C, III.D, and III.E of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, for example, Table 5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the RCW
preliminary analysis TSD describes the impact of each proposed test
procedure revision on each individual component of the efficiency
metrics. The Residential Clothes Washers Energy Conservation
Standards Preliminary Technical Support Document is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0030.
\15\ DOE uses the term ``baseline'' to refer to performance that
is minimally compliant with the applicable standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed introductory text to both
appendix J2 and the proposed new appendix J that provides the timeline
for use of appendix J2 and appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49146, 49205,
49218.
P.R. China recommended that DOE clarify the relationship between
new appendix J and appendix J2, and the implementation timeline of new
appendix J and appendix J2. (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3)
As discussed, DOE is establishing a new test procedure at a new
appendix J at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, which DOE would use for the
evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards. Use of new
appendix J is not required until the compliance date of any new or
amended standards that are based on new appendix J. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(C)).
This final rule maintains the introductory notes in appendix J and
appendix J2 as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR, while updating the
reference date from January 1, 2021, to January 1, 2022. Specifically:
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under
appendix J2 to determine compliance with the relevant standards for
clothes washers from Sec. 430.32(g)(4) and from Sec. 431.156(b) as
they appeared in the January 1, 2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499.
Before the date 180 days following publication of this
final rule, representations must be based upon results generated either
under appendix J2 as amended in this final rule or under appendix J2 as
it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition revised as of January
1, 2022.
On or after 180 days following publication of this final
rule, but before the compliance date of any amended standards for
clothes washers, any representations must be made based upon results
generated using appendix J2 as amended in this final rule.
On or after the compliance date of any future amended
standards provided in Sec. 430.32(g) or in Sec. 431.156 that are
published after January 1, 2022, any representations must be based upon
results generated using appendix J.
DOE further notes that any representations related to energy or
water consumption of RCWs or CCWs must be made in accordance with the
[[Page 33324]]
appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., appendix J or appendix J2)
when determining compliance with the relevant standard and that
manufacturers may also use appendix J to certify compliance with any
amended standards prior to the applicable compliance date for those
standards.
Warren suggested that DOE be more specific in how the proposed
regulations would be enforced, including who would be responsible to
verify regulation requirements, the necessary amount of funding to
support this rule, and the expected process by which clothes washers
are to be inspected. (Warren, No. 15 at p. 1)
DOE specifies certification, compliance, and enforcement
regulations for consumer products and commercial and industry equipment
covered by DOE's energy conservation standards program at 10 CFR part
429. Subpart A to part 429 specifies general provisions; subpart B to
part 429 (``Certification'') sets forth the procedures for
manufacturers to certify that their covered products and covered
equipment comply with the applicable energy conservation standards; and
subpart C to part 429 (``Enforcement'') describes the enforcement
authority of DOE to ensure compliance with the conservation standards
and regulations.
B. Scope of Applicability
This final rule covers those consumer products that meet the
definition of ``clothes washer,'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA does not define the term ``clothes washer.'' DOE has defined a
``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to clean clothes,
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes:
Automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other
clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2.
An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature,
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer that is
not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
This final rule also covers commercial equipment that meets the
definition of ``commercial clothes washer.'' ``Commercial clothes
washer'' is defined as a soft-mount front-loading or soft-mount top-
loading clothes washer that--
(A) Has a clothes container compartment that--
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic
feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic
feet; and
(B) Is designed for use in--
(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one household
will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common
areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452)
DOE is not changing the scope of products and equipment covered by
its clothes washer test procedures, or the relevant definitions, in
this final rule.
C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
1. Water Meter Resolution
Section 2.5.5 of the previous appendix J2 required the use of water
meters (in both the hot and cold water lines) with a resolution no
larger than 0.1 gallons and a maximum error no greater than 2 percent
of the measured flow rate. As discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE
has observed that some clothes washers use very small amounts of hot
water on some temperature selections, on the order of 0.1 gallons or
less. 86 FR 49140, 49146. For example, some clothes washers have both
Cold and Tap Cold temperature selections, and the Cold selection may
use a fraction of a gallon of hot water. Id.
In DOE's experience with such clothes washers, the maximum load
size typically uses more than 0.1 gallons of hot water on each of the
available temperature selections (providing indication of which
temperature selections use hot water), whereas the average and minimum
load sizes may use a quantity less than 0.1 gallons. Id. For these
clothes washers, a water meter resolution of 0.1 gallons would be
insufficient to provide an accurate measurement of hot water
consumption because the volume of hot water measured would be less than
the resolution of the water meter. Id. As discussed in the September
2021 NOPR, DOE's testing suggests that clothes washers that use such
low volumes of heated water represent a minority of units on the
market. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that requiring greater water
meter precision for all clothes washers would represent an undue burden
for those clothes washer models for which water meters with the
currently required level of precision provide representative results.
Id. DOE therefore proposed the use of a hot water meter with more
precise resolution only for clothes washers with hot water usage less
than 0.1 gallons in any of the individual cycles within the energy test
cycle.
Specifically, DOE proposed to specify in section 2.5.5 of both
appendix J2 and new appendix J that if the volume of hot water for any
individual cycle within the energy test cycle is less than 0.1 gallons
(0.4 liters), the hot water meter must have a resolution no larger than
0.01 gallons (0.04 liters). 86 FR 49140, 49147. DOE requested comment
on this proposal, and on the extent to which manufacturers and test
laboratories already use water meters with this greater resolution. Id.
DOE also requested comment on whether this proposal would require
manufacturers to retest any basic models that have already been
certified under the existing water meter resolution requirements. Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that they support DOE's
proposal to require higher water meter resolution for hot water use
measurements. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 3-4) However,
the Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended that instead of requiring a
water meter resolution of 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use
less than 0.1 gallons of water, DOE should require a water meter
resolution of 0.01 gallons for all hot water use measurements. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates added that requiring a resolution no
larger than 0.01 gallons if hot water use is less than 0.1 gallons
suggests that hot water usage is known prior to testing. (Id.) The
Joint Efficiency Advocates concluded that requiring a 0.01-gallon
resolution would more accurately reflect hot water and energy usage.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that they support DOE's proposal to require a
water meter resolution of 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use
less than 0.1 gallons of water. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 6) However, the
CA IOUs stated
[[Page 33325]]
that it is difficult to discern whether the higher resolution provision
would be required, since the test laboratory would need previous
knowledge that there is a low-level use of hot water prior to the test.
(Id.) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to consider requiring the 0.01-gallon
resolution for all products tested under appendix J2 and new appendix
J, or alternatively provide clarification for how a testing laboratory
would know prior to testing that it would need to use 0.01-gallon-
resolution water meters. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE's proposal to require a water meter
resolution of 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use less than 0.1
gallons of hot water could provide a benefit by increasing the accuracy
of the measurements, but could increase test burden due to the cost of
obtaining higher-resolution meters. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 8) AHAM
additionally commented that DOE's water meter resolution proposal may
not be practical, since laboratories outside of those operated by
manufacturers may not have insight into which cycles use less than 0.1
gallons of hot water. (Id.)
In response to comments that the volume of hot water would need to
be known prior to testing in order to use a water meter with the
correct resolution, DOE notes that this concern would likely apply only
to third-party laboratories, since manufacturers would have advance
knowledge of the expected water usage of their own products. DOE
acknowledges that it may not be possible for a third-party test
laboratory to know in advance the expected water usage of a clothes
washer. In DOE's experience, in practice, an examination of test
results during testing can yield insights as to whether a clothes
washer is using less than 0.1 gallons of hot water. As one example, as
described earlier in this section, if the maximum load size uses close
to 0.1 gallons of hot water on a particular temperature setting, the
average and minimum load sizes are likely to use a quantity less than
0.1 gallons. As another example, laboratories may be aware of trends
among models from the same product lines, such as models containing
both ``Tap Cold'' and ``Cold'' settings that use very little hot water
on the ``Cold'' setting. As yet another example, other measured
parameters such as water pressure can indicate when a water valve is
opened on the clothes washer; e.g., a test cycle that indicates no hot
water use (in the case where a water meter with 0.1 gallon resolution
is used), but for which the water pressure data indicated a brief
opening of the hot water valve, would suggest that a smaller quantity
of hot water may have been used and that a more precise water meter
resolution is required.
DOE tentatively concluded in the September 2021 NOPR that most, if
not all, third-party laboratories already have water meters with the
more precise resolution. DOE also estimated the cost of a water meter
that provides the proposed resolution, including associated hardware,
to be around $600 for each device. 86 FR 49140, 49191. DOE reiterates
these cost estimates in section III.K.1 of this document. DOE received
no comments in response to the September 2021 NOPR regarding DOE's
estimated cost of a water meter.
DOE determines in this final rule that for clothes washers that use
less than 0.1 gallons of hot water on certain temperature selections
required for testing, the use of the more precise water meters would
improve the reproducibility of testing and the representativeness of
the results without being unduly burdensome. DOE also determines that
requiring greater water meter precision for all clothes washers (i.e.,
as opposed to only those that use less than 0.1 gallons of hot water on
certain temperature selections) would represent an undue burden for
those clothes washer models for which water meters with the currently
required level of precision provide representative results. For these
reasons and those discussed above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, by amending section 2.5.5 of
both appendix J2 and new appendix J to specify that if the volume of
hot water for any individual cycle within the energy test cycle is less
than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot water meter must have a
resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters).
2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines
Section 2.10 of appendix J2 provides specifications for installing
a clothes washer, referencing both the hot water and cold water inlets.
Additionally, section 2.5.5 of appendix J2 specifies that a water meter
must be installed in both the hot and cold water lines. DOE is aware of
RCWs on the market that have a single water inlet rather than separate
hot and cold water inlets. 86 FR 49140, 49147. DOE has observed two
types of single-inlet RCWs: (1) Semi-automatic clothes washers, which
are generally intended to be connected to a kitchen or bathroom faucet
and which require user intervention to regulate the water temperature
by adjusting the external water faucet valves; and (2) automatic
clothes washers intended to be connected only to a cold water inlet,
and which regulate the water temperature through the use of an internal
heating element to generate any hot water used during the cycle. Id.
For single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE has observed
that these clothes washers are most often designed to be connected to a
kitchen or bathroom faucet, with a single hose connecting the faucet to
the single inlet on the clothes washer (i.e., both cold and hot water
are supplied to the clothes washer through a single hose).\16\ The user
regulates the water temperature externally by adjusting the faucet(s)
to provide cold, warm, or hot water temperatures for the wash and rinse
portions of the cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As noted, some models may provide or accommodate a Y-shaped
hose to connect the separate cold and hot water faucets or supply
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that additional direction in
the test procedure is warranted to produce test results that reflect
representative consumer usage of cold, warm, and hot wash/rinse
temperatures. Id. DOE therefore proposed for testing of semi-automatic
RCWs to require connection to only the cold water supply in new
appendix J, enabling testing of only the Cold/Cold wash/rinse
temperature, and proposed to calculate the energy and water performance
at other wash/rinse temperatures formulaically from the Cold Wash/Cold
Rinse (``Cold/Cold'') cycle data. 86 FR 49140, 49148. DOE asserted that
the energy and water performance at temperatures other than Cold/Cold
could be calculated numerically using test data from the Cold/Cold
cycle, because the measured characteristics \17\ of a semi-automatic
clothes washer cycle do not depend on the inlet water temperature. 86
FR 49140, 49148. DOE proposed to make this change only in the new
appendix J because connecting to only the cold water inlet may differ
from how such units are currently being tested by manufacturers and
laboratories under appendix J2. Id. DOE requested information about
implementing this change to appendix J2 as well, specifically regarding
how single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers are being tested and
any potential impact on the measured energy use of these clothes
washers on the market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Measured characteristics of a semi-automatic clothes washer
cycle include total water consumption, electrical energy
consumption, cycle time, and bone-dry and cycle complete load
weights. See section III.D.8 of this document for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For single-inlet automatic clothes washers, in the September 2021
NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that all single-inlet automatic clothes
washers be
[[Page 33326]]
installed to the cold water supply only, based on a review of user
manuals. 86 FR 49140, 49148. DOE proposed to include this provision in
the new appendix J only. Id. The proposed edit to section 2.10.1 of the
new appendix J is that if the clothes washer has only one water inlet,
the inlet would be connected to the cold water supply in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions. Id. DOE requested comment on this
proposal, and on whether this requirement should be included in only
the new appendix J, or whether, if adopted, it should be included as an
amendment to appendix J2. Id.
P.R. China commented in support of requiring single-inlet clothes
washers to be installed to the cold water supply only. (P.R. China, No.
25 at p. 3) P.R. China also recommended that DOE add test methods that
would evaluate single-inlet clothes washers' heating functions using
different programs where the water is heated to different temperatures.
(Id.) DOE received no comments regarding how single-inlet clothes
washers are being tested currently to appendix J2 or whether the
proposed amendments should also be adopted in appendix J2.
In response to P.R. China's recommendation, DOE notes that a
single-inlet clothes washer with a heating function would be classified
as an automatic single-inlet clothes washer and as such would be tested
using the temperature selections determined to be part of the energy
test cycle using the flowcharts provided in section 2.12 of appendix J2
or new appendix J.
For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing its proposal to
require in section 2.10.1 of the new appendix J that a clothes washer
with only one water inlet be connected to the cold water supply in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. DOE is unable to
determine whether these amendments would change how such units are
currently being tested by manufacturers and laboratories under appendix
J2 and therefore is not adopting these amendments in appendix J2. As
described further in section III.D.8 of this document, DOE is also
finalizing its proposal for semi-automatic clothes washers in new
appendix J to require testing of only the Cold/Cold wash/rinse
temperature and to calculate the energy and water performance at other
wash/rinse temperatures formulaically from the Cold/Cold cycle data.
3. Water Supply Temperatures
a. Hot Water Supply Temperature
Section 2.2 of appendix J2 requires maintaining the hot water
supply temperature between 130 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') (54.4
degrees Celsius (``[deg]C'')) and 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), using 135
[deg]F as the target temperature.
DOE has revised the hot water supply temperature requirements
several times throughout the history of the clothes washer test
procedures to remain representative of household water temperatures at
the time of each analysis. When establishing the original clothes
washer test procedure at appendix J in 1977, DOE specified a hot water
supply temperature of 140 [deg]F 5 [deg]F for clothes
washers equipped with thermostatically controlled inlet water valves.
42 FR 49802, 49808. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE specified in
appendix J1 that for clothes washers in which electrical energy
consumption or water energy consumption is affected by the inlet water
temperatures,\18\ the hot water supply temperature cannot exceed 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C); and for other clothes washers, the hot water
supply temperature is to be maintained at 135 [deg]F 5
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C 2.8 [deg]C). 62 FR 45484, 45497. DOE
maintained these same requirements in the original version of appendix
J2. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE adjusted the allowable tolerance
of the hot water supply temperature in section 2.2 of appendix J2 to
between 130 [deg]F (54.4 [deg]C) and 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C) for all
clothes washers, but maintained 135 [deg]F as the target temperature.
80 FR 46729, 46734-46735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For example, water-heating clothes washers or clothes
washers with thermostatically controlled water valves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed household water
temperatures as part of the test procedure final rule for residential
and commercial water heaters published July 11, 2014. 79 FR 40541
(``July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule''). In the July 2014 Water Heater
Final Rule, DOE revised the hot water delivery temperature from 135
[deg]F to 125 [deg]F based on an analysis of data showing that the
average set point temperature for consumer water heaters in the field
is 124.2 [deg]F (51.2 [deg]C), which was rounded to the nearest 5
[deg]F, resulting in a test set point temperature of 125 [deg]F. 79 FR
40541, 40554. Additionally, a 2011 compilation of field data across the
United States and southern Ontario by Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (``LBNL'') \19\ found a median daily outlet water
temperature of 122.7 [deg]F (50.4 [deg]C). Id. Further, DOE noted in
the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule that water heaters are commonly
set with temperatures in the range of 120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Lutz, JD, Renaldi, Lekov A, Qin Y, and Melody M, ``Hot
Water Draw Patterns in Single Family Houses: Findings from Field
Studies,'' LBNL Report number LBNL-4830E (May 2011). Available at
www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, section 2.3.2. of DOE's consumer dishwasher test
procedure, codified at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix C1
(``appendix C1''), specifies a hot water supply temperature of 120
[deg]F 2 [deg]F for water-heating dishwashers designed for
heating water with a nominal inlet temperature of 120 [deg]F, which
includes nearly all consumer dishwashers currently on the U.S. market.
This water supply temperature is intended to be representative of
household hot water temperatures.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the hot water
supply temperature in the new appendix J from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-125
[deg]F. Id. Additionally, DOE proposed to change the value of ``T,''
the temperature rise that represents the nominal difference between the
hot and cold water inlet temperatures, from 75 [deg]F to 65 [deg]F,
consistent with the differential between the nominal values for the
proposed hot water supply temperature (120-125 [deg]F) and the cold
water supply temperature (55-60 [deg]F). 86 FR 49140, 49149-49150. DOE
requested comment on any potential impact to testing costs that may
occur by harmonizing temperatures between the clothes washer and
dishwasher test procedures, and the impacts on manufacturer burden
associated with any changes to the hot water supply temperature. 86 FR
49140, 49150.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented in support of DOE
specifying a hot water supply temperature of 120-125 [deg]F and
decreasing the temperature rise from 75 [deg]F to 65 [deg]F
accordingly. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 3) Referencing
DOE's discussion in the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule and the
September 2021 NOPR, the Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that a hot
water supply temperature of 120-125 [deg]F would better reflect current
clothes washer usage conditions than the 135 [deg]F temperature
specified in the current test procedure. (Id.) The comment also noted
that the proposed reduction of the hot water temperature rise for
appendix J was reasonable. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
specify the clothes washer hot water supply temperature range from 120
to 125 [deg]F,
[[Page 33327]]
stating that it is a reasonable representation of real-world supply
temperatures. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10)
AHAM commented that if DOE proceeds with adjusting the hot water
temperature to 125 [deg]F, all provisions within the test procedure
relating to maximum water temperature should be adjusted to 125 [deg]F
as well, including the flow charts within the test procedure. (AHAM,
No. 27 at p. 9) AHAM added that the flow charts have been helpful to
manufacturers and test laboratories, and that it is therefore critical
that they be properly adjusted to account for the temperature change.
(Id.) AHAM also commented that this change could limit customer choice
with respect to temperature controls, asserting that since the proposed
temperature requirement for the Extra-hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle would
be 140 [deg]F, but the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle would not be able to
get above 125 [deg]F without the use of an internal water heater, a
clothes washer with a temperature setting between 125 [deg]F and 140
[deg]F would experience a negative impact to its energy use. (Id.) AHAM
added that this change would mean that manufacturers would no longer
realistically be able to offer consumers temperatures between 125
[deg]F and 140 [deg]F, and that product redesign would be required.
(Id.) AHAM added that additional testing may illuminate this concern
and, if so, AHAM would provide DOE with more information. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's comment that decreasing the hot inlet supply
temperature to a range of 120 to 125 [deg]F would result in greater
measured energy for a clothes washer with a temperature setting between
125 [deg]F and 140 [deg]F due to the need to use an internal water
heater, DOE expects that the overall measured energy use of a
temperature setting between 125 [deg]F and 140 [deg]F would remain
roughly the same even with the reduced hot water inlet temperature. The
total measured energy for each cycle includes both the machine
electrical energy (which includes any energy expended for internal
water heating) as well as the energy used to heat the water externally
in a water heater (i.e., the water heating energy). As discussed
further in section III.G.6 of this document, the calculation of water
heating energy assumes a 100 percent efficient external electric water
heater. DOE would expect an internal water heater within a clothes
washer to operate similarly at a thermal efficiency of roughly 100
percent. Accordingly, for a given wash temperature, the amount of
thermal energy measured by the test procedure is roughly the same
regardless of whether the heated water is supplied by an external water
heater or an internal water heating element within the clothes washer,
or a combination of both.
As an example, consider a clothes washer with a hot wash
temperature of 135 [deg]F and a test cycle that uses 20 gallons of
water. Under the appendix J2 test procedure with a nominal hot water
supply temperature of 135 [deg]F, all 20 gallons would be hot water,
externally heated with an associated water heating energy of 3.6
kWh.\20\ Using instead a nominal hot water supply temperature of 125
[deg]F, the same test cycle would similarly use 20 gallons of
externally-heated water (heated to 125 [deg]F rather than 135 [deg]F),
plus additional internal water heating to increase the temperature by
an additional 10 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F. In this scenario, the external
water heating energy would be calculated as 3.12 kWh,\21\ and the
internal water heater would be expected to use around 0.48 kWh,\22\ for
a total of 3.6 kWh (matching the first scenario).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Calculated as 20 gallons (gal) x 75 [deg]F temperature rise
x 0.0024 kWh/gal/[deg]F specific heat of water, per section 4.1.2 of
appendix J2.
\21\ Calculated as 20 gal x 65 [deg]F temperature rise x 0.0024
kWh/gal/[deg]F.
\22\ Calculated as 20 gal x 10 [deg]F temperature rise x 0.0024
kWh/gal/[deg]F x 100% assumed efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As exemplified, DOE concludes that any change in the balance
between externally heated water and internally heated water as a result
of changing the inlet supply temperature would have negligible, if any,
impact on overall energy use and therefore would not limit a
manufacturer's ability to continue to offer wash temperatures between
125 [deg]F and 140 [deg]F. As discussed previously, any impacts to
measured energy, however minor, as a result of changes to the hot water
supply inlet temperature were accounted for in the crosswalk between
the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed for the September 2021
RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis. DOE will continue to consider any
such impacts in future stages of the standards rulemaking. Furthermore,
given DOE's determination that a hot water supply temperature range of
120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F is more representative of household hot water
temperatures, any change in measured energy as a result of changing the
hot water supply inlet temperature would be more representative of
consumer use.
For the reasons discussed previously, DOE is finalizing its
proposal to update the hot water supply temperature in the new appendix
J from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-125 [deg]F, and to update the value of
``T'' to 65 [deg]F accordingly, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR. DOE reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a result of
changes to the hot water inlet supply temperature will be accounted for
in the crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part
of the ongoing standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the
changes implemented in this final rule to require significant product
redesign.
b. Target Water Supply Temperatures
Section 2.2 of appendix J2 specified that the hot water supply
temperature must be maintained between 130 [deg]F (54.4 [deg]C) and 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), using 135 [deg]F as the target temperature.
Section 2.2 of appendix J2 specified maintaining a cold water
temperature between 55 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F, using 60 [deg]F as the
target temperature.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to remove the ``target''
temperature associated with each water supply temperature range, and to
instead define only the allowable temperature range. 86 FR 49140,
49151. Based on experience working with third-party test laboratories,
as well as its own testing experience, DOE recognizes that maintaining
a target temperature for the water supply that represents one edge of
the allowable temperature range, rather than the midpoint, may be
difficult. Id. On electronic temperature-mixing valves commonly used by
test laboratories, the output water temperature is maintained within an
approximately 2-degree tolerance above or below a target temperature
programmed by the user (e.g., if the target temperature is set at 135
[deg]F, the controller may provide water temperatures ranging from 133
[deg]F to 137 [deg]F). Id. To ensure that the water inlet temperature
remains within the allowable range, such a temperature controller would
need to be set to around the midpoint of the range, which conflicts
with the test procedure requirement. Id.
Specifically, DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR that the cold
water supply temperature range be defined as 55 [deg]F to 60 [deg]F in
both appendix J2 and the new appendix J; the hot water supply
temperature range in appendix J2 be defined as 130 [deg]F to 135
[deg]F; and the hot water supply temperature range in the new appendix
J be defined as 120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to remove the target
temperatures and instead specify water supply temperature ranges as 55
[deg]F to 60 [deg]F for cold water in both appendix J2 and the new
appendix J, 130 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F for hot water in appendix J2, and
120 [deg]F
[[Page 33328]]
to 125 [deg]F for hot water in the new appendix J. Id.
Whirlpool stated that it opposes DOE's proposal to remove the
target temperatures from the proposed hot or cold water supply
temperature requirements, stating that DOE provided no strong rationale
to remove them. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 5-6) Whirlpool further
commented that removing the target condition could reduce
reproducibility by increasing the chances that test laboratories will
conduct testing throughout the entire allowable range, rather than test
at or near a single target temperature. (Id.) For example, as stated by
Whirlpool, the absence of a target temperature may force manufacturers
to be extremely conservative in the testing and certification of
products and always test at the part of the range that produces the
least energy efficient results. (Id.) Whirlpool expressed concern that
removing the target temperature could increase the overall variation
between laboratory test results. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it opposes DOE's proposal to specify a target
temperature range instead of a target temperature. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp.
9-10) AHAM recommended that DOE align its proposed test procedure with
other DOE test procedures in which the target temperature has a
tolerance and nominal target, rather than any temperature within a
specified range (e.g., X Y with nominal X as the target),
in order to increase reproducibility. (Id.) AHAM commented that while
it recognizes that any value within a temperature range would be a
valid test, a target nominal temperature would discourage test
laboratories from testing at one end of the range or the other. (Id.)
AHAM further commented that a need for a repeatable, reproducible test
is increasing since manufacturers' ability to conservatively rate and
ensure continued compliance with standards decreases as energy
conservation standards get more stringent. (Id.) AHAM also added that
removing the target temperature would have an impact on calculating the
water heating energy, since the temperature rise between the cold and
hot water supply temperatures would be less certain. (Id.)
Considering comments received, DOE recognizes that specifying a
target temperature for the supply water may be helpful in ensuring
reproducible test results. DOE also recognizes, as discussed, that best
practice by laboratories is to configure the water temperature
controller setpoint to the midpoint of the temperature range in order
to accommodate fluctuations both above and below the setpoint, thus
ensuring that the water inlet temperature remains within the allowable
range throughout the duration of testing. For these reasons, in this
final rule, DOE is amending the temperature supply specifications to
specify targeting the midpoint of each range. DOE reiterates that
specifying a target temperature setpoint is intended to promote
reproducibility of results and does not invalidate test data that is
not centered around the target temperature but remains within the
specified allowable range.
DOE further notes that by targeting the midpoint of both the hot
water temperature range and the cold water temperature range, the value
of ``T'' used in the water heating energy formula (as discussed in
section III.C.3.a of this document) represents the difference between
the targeted values for both appendix J2 and new appendix J.
4. Extra-Hot Wash Determination
Clothes washers are tested using an energy test cycle determined by
taking into consideration all cycle settings available to the end user.
Section 2.12 of appendix J2. Figure 2.12.5 of appendix J2 specifies
that for the energy test cycle to include an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse,
the clothes washer must have an internal heater and the Normal cycle
\23\ must, in part, contain a wash/rinse temperature selection that has
a wash temperature greater than 135 [deg]F. The 135 [deg]F threshold
matches the high end of the hot water inlet temperature range specified
in section 2.2 of appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Section 1.25 of appendix J2 defines the Normal cycle as the
cycle recommended by the manufacturer (considering manufacturer
instructions, control panel labeling, and other markings on the
clothes washer) for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up
to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing. For machines
where multiple cycle settings are recommended by the manufacturer
for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of
normally soiled cotton clothing, then the Normal cycle is the cycle
selection that results in the lowest IMEF or MEFJ2 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has revised the Extra-Hot wash temperature parameters
previously. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE revised the threshold
temperature for Extra-Hot Wash from 140 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F in
conjunction with changing the minimum hot water supply temperature in
appendix J from 140 [deg]F in appendix J to 135 [deg]F. 62 FR 45484,
45497. As noted, appendix J2 retains this threshold temperature of 135
[deg]F for Extra-Hot Wash.
As described in the September 2021 NOPR, the proposal to update the
hot water inlet temperature from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-125 [deg]F in
new appendix J prompted DOE to reassess the threshold temperature for
the Extra-Hot wash temperature in new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49150.
Because the inclusion of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse in the energy
test cycle requires the clothes washer to have an internal heater, the
threshold temperature is not limited to the input temperature. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE indicated that based on test data
from a broad range of clothes washers, over 70 percent of Extra-Hot
cycles have a wash water temperature that exceeds 140 [deg]F. 86 FR
49140, 49150. Furthermore, DOE research indicated that 140 [deg]F is
widely cited as a threshold for achieving sanitization. Id. DOE
therefore proposed specifying in new appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash
threshold be 140 [deg]F. Id. DOE preliminarily concluded that a
temperature threshold of 140 [deg]F would align with 140 [deg]F as an
accepted temperature threshold for sanitization, and therefore may be
more representative of consumer expectations and usage of an Extra-Hot
Wash cycle, than the current 135 [deg]F threshold. Id.
In addition to improving representativeness, DOE noted in the
September 2021 NOPR that changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature
threshold to 140 [deg]F could potentially reduce test burden. Id. As
discussed more fully in section III.C.5 of this document, a threshold
of 140 [deg]F would enable easier confirmation that an Extra-Hot
temperature has been achieved when measuring wash temperature with non-
reversible temperature indicator labels, as permitted by section 3.3 of
appendix J2.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to specify in the new appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse
designation would apply to a wash temperature greater than or equal to
140 [deg]F. 86 FR 49140, 49151. DOE also requested any additional data
on the wash temperature of cycles that meet the appendix J2 definition
of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. Id. DOE also expressed interest in data
and information on any potential impact to testing costs that may occur
by changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold, and the impacts
on manufacturer burden associated with any changes to the Extra-Hot
Wash/Cold Rinse definition. Id.
Whirlpool commented that it supports DOE's proposal to change the
Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold to 140 [deg]F because that is the
minimum threshold temperature for various international clothes
sanitization standards, including the standards published by the World
[[Page 33329]]
Health Organization. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 5) Whirlpool additionally
suggested that there should be consideration of some tolerance on top
of this threshold temperature at 140 [deg]F (e.g., 2 [deg]F). (Id.)
Whirlpool further explained that without including a tolerance, a
manufacturer using this Extra-Hot temperature setting for sanitization
may be penalized for conservatively setting higher Extra-Hot
temperature settings beyond 140 [deg]F to account for temperature
variation during a sanitization period. (Id.) Whirlpool added that,
using submersible temperature loggers to measure water temperatures, as
proposed in the September 2021 NOPR,\24\ there should be no issue
identifying when such an Extra-Hot water temperature threshold (e.g.,
142 [deg]F or 143 [deg]F) is reached. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See discussion of wash temperature measurements in section
III.C.4 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the Extra-Hot Wash temperature is a threshold
temperature, rather than a target temperature; as such, defining a
tolerance on the 140 [deg]F threshold, as suggested by Whirlpool, would
not be appropriate. Adding a tolerance to the threshold value would
effectively result in raising the threshold value by the tolerance
amount. DOE notes that the current Extra-Hot Wash threshold of 135
[deg]F does not have a defined tolerance. Any wash temperature that
meets or exceeds the threshold temperature would be considered an
Extra-Hot Wash. For these reasons, DOE is not adding a tolerance to the
threshold value for the Extra-Hot Wash water temperature in this final
rule.
As discussed previously, any impacts to measured energy as a result
of changes to the definition of Extra-Hot Wash were accounted for in
the crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed
for the September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis. DOE will
continue to consider any such impacts in future stages of the standards
rulemaking.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to specify in the new appendix
J that the minimum temperature threshold for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold
Rinse is 140 [deg]F. This change is reflected in the Extra-Hot Wash/
Cold Rinse flowchart and the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart in section
2.12.1 of the new appendix J, as well as any references to this
temperature threshold elsewhere throughout the new appendix J. DOE
reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a result of changes
to the definition of Extra-Hot Wash will be accounted for in the
crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the
ongoing standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the changes
implemented in this final rule to require significant product redesign.
5. Wash Water Temperature Measurement
Section 3.3 of appendix J2 allows the use of non-reversible
temperature indicator labels to confirm that a wash temperature greater
than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature of 135 [deg]F has been
achieved. As discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is aware that
none of the temperature indicator labels on the market provide an
indicator at 135 [deg]F, the current Extra-Hot Wash water temperature
threshold. 86 FR 49140, 49152. Because of this, temperature indicator
labels can be used to confirm that the water temperature reached 135
[deg]F only if the water temperature exceeds 140 [deg]F. Id. Such
temperature indicator labels are unable to identify an Extra-Hot Wash/
Cold Rinse cycle if the temperature of the cycle is greater than 135
[deg]F but less than 140 [deg]F. Id. DOE recognizes the potential
benefit of other methods of measurement to supplement or replace the
temperature indicator labels. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger as an additional temperature measurement
option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than 135
[deg]F has been achieved during the wash cycle for appendix J2, and
greater than 140 [deg]F for new appendix J. Id. DOE proposed that the
submersible temperature logger must have a time resolution of at least
one data point every 5 seconds and a temperature measurement accuracy
of 1 [deg]F. Id. As described currently for temperature
indicator labels, the proposed amendment included a note that failure
to measure a temperature of 135 [deg]F would not necessarily indicate
of the lack of an Extra-Hot Wash temperature. Id. However, such a
result would not be conclusive due to the lack of verification of that
the required water temperature was achieved, in which case an
alternative method must be used to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash
temperature greater than 135 [deg]F has been achieved during the wash
cycle. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger in appendix J2 and new appendix J as an
option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than the
Extra-Hot Wash threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. Id.
DOE also requested data and information confirming (or disputing) DOE's
discussion of the benefits and limitations of using a submersible
temperature logger, including DOE's determination that a submersible
logger's failure to measure a temperature greater than the Extra-Hot
Wash threshold does not necessarily indicate that the cycle under test
does not meet the definition of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger, but noted that the shift in the Extra-
Hot Wash temperature threshold makes this change less necessary than it
may have been in the past. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 10)
Whirlpool commented in support of DOE's proposal to allow for the
use of a submersible temperature logger as an additional temperature
measurement option to confirm that the Extra-Hot Wash temperature
threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 26
at p. 6)
DOE also proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to move the
description of allowable temperature measuring devices from section 3.3
of appendix J2 to section 2.5.4 of both appendix J2 and the proposed
new appendix J (``Water and air temperature measuring devices''),
specifying the use of non-reversible temperature indicator labels in
new section 2.5.4.1, and adding specifications for the use of
submersible temperature loggers to new section 2.5.4.2 of both appendix
J2 and the proposed new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49152.
DOE received no comments in response to its proposal to move the
description of allowable temperature measuring devices.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger in appendix J2 and new appendix J as an
option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than the
Extra-Hot Wash threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. DOE
also finalizes its proposal, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR,
to restructure section 2.5.4 of appendix J2 and new appendix J as
described.
6. Pre-Conditioning Requirements
Section 2.11 of appendix J2 specifies the procedure for clothes
washer pre-conditioning. The current preconditioning procedure requires
that any clothes washer that has not been
[[Page 33330]]
filled with water in the preceding 96 hours, or any water-heating
clothes washer that has not been in the test room at the specified
ambient conditions for 8 hours, must be preconditioned by running it
through a Cold Rinse cycle and then draining it to ensure that the
hose, pump, and sump are filled with water. The purpose of pre-
conditioning is to promote repeatability and reproducibility of test
results by ensuring a consistent starting state for each test, as well
as to promote the representativeness of test results by ensuring that
the clothes washer is operated consistent with the defined ambient
conditions. In particular, the additional specification for water-
heating clothes washers was first suggested in a supplemental NOPR
published on April 22, 1996, (``April 1996 SNOPR''), in which DOE
expressed concern about the testing of water-heating clothes washers
that may have been stored at a temperature outside of the specified
ambient temperature range (75 [deg]F 5 [deg]F) prior to
testing. 61 FR 17589, 17594-17595. DOE stated that the energy consumed
in a water-heating clothes washer may be affected by the ambient
temperature. Id. Thus, if the ambient temperature prior to and during
testing is relatively hot, then less energy will be consumed than under
typical operating conditions, i.e., the test would understate the
clothes washer's energy consumption. Id. Conversely, if the ambient
temperature prior to and during the test is relatively cold, then the
test would overstate the clothes washer's energy consumption. Id. In
the subsequent August 1997 Final Rule, DOE added the pre-conditioning
requirement for water-heating clothes washers, which requires water-
heating units to be pre-conditioned if they had not been in the test
room at ambient conditions for 8 hours. 62 FR 45484, 45002, 45009,
45010.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE expressed concern that the energy
use of non-water-heating clothes washers could also be affected by the
starting temperature of the clothes washer, particularly those that
implement temperature control by measuring internal water temperatures
during the wash cycle. 86 FR 49140, 49153. For example, if the ambient
temperature prior to testing is relatively hot, causing the internal
components of the clothes washer to be at a higher temperature than the
specified ambient temperature range, less hot water may be consumed
during the test than otherwise would be if the starting temperature of
the clothes washer is within the specified ambient temperature range.
Id. Noting that third-party test laboratories cannot necessarily
identify whether a unit is a water-heating clothes washer or not, DOE
proposed to require pre-conditioning for all clothes washers that have
not been in the test room at the specified ambient condition for 8
hours, regardless of whether the clothes washer is water-heating or
non-water-heating. 86 FR 49140, 49153. DOE proposed to make this change
only in new appendix J, due to the potential impact on the measured
energy use. Id.
DOE requested comment on this proposal and requested information
regarding whether test laboratories typically pre-condition water-
heating and non-water-heating clothes washers using the same procedure.
Id.
DOE also proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to remove the
definitions of ``water-heating clothes washer'' and ``non-water-heating
clothes washer'' from section 1 of the proposed new appendix J, since
the differentiation between these terms would no longer be needed.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
specify preconditioning of all clothes washers before measurement in
order to ensure reproducibility. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10)
Whirlpool commented that, pending results from investigative
testing, Whirlpool tentatively agrees with DOE's proposal to require
the pre-conditioning procedure for all clothes washers because it would
reduce overall variation, and would remove any possible small advantage
from leftover warm water or warmer components from the previous
cycle(s). (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 6)
For the reasons discussed above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to require pre-conditioning
for all clothes washers that have not been in the test room at the
specified ambient condition for 8 hours, regardless of whether the
clothes washer is water-heating or non-water-heating, in new appendix
J. DOE also finalizes its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to remove the definitions of ``water-heating clothes washer'' and
``non-water-heating clothes washer'' from section 1 of new appendix J.
D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct
1. Tested Load Sizes
Table 5.1 of appendix J2 provides the minimum, average, and maximum
load sizes to be used for testing based on the measured capacity of the
clothes washer. The table defines capacity ``bins'' in 0.1 ft\3\
increments. The load sizes for each capacity bin are determined as
follows:
Minimum load is 3 pounds (``lb'') for all capacity bins;
Maximum load (in lb) is equal to 4.1 times the mean
clothes washer capacity of each capacity bin (in ft\3\); and
Average load is the arithmetic mean of the minimum load
and maximum load.
These three load sizes are used for testing clothes washers with
automatic water fill control systems (``WFCS''). Clothes washers with
manual WFCS are tested with only the minimum and maximum load sizes.
a. Expanding the Load Size Table
Table 5.1 of appendix J2 previously accommodated clothes washers
with capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. On May 2, 2016 and April 10, 2017, DOE
granted waivers to Whirlpool and Samsung, respectively, for testing
RCWs \25\ with capacities between 6.0 and 8.0 ft\3\, by further
extrapolating Table 5.1 using the same equations to define the maximum
and average load sizes as described above. 81 FR 26215; 82 FR 17229.
DOE's regulations in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions allowing any
interested person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements
if certain conditions are met. A waiver requires manufacturers to use
an alternate test procedure in situations where the DOE test procedure
cannot be used to test the product or equipment, or where use of the
DOE test procedure would generate unrepresentative results. 10 CFR
430.27(a)(1). DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.27(l) require that as
soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish
in the Federal Register a NOPR to amend its regulations so as to
eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon
thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a
final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As noted, CCWs are limited under the statutory definition
to a maximum capacity of 3.5 cubic feet for horizontal-axis CCWs and
4.0 cubic feet for vertical-axis CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(21))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand Table 5.1 in
both appendix J2 and the new appendix J to accommodate clothes washers
with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. 86 FR 49140, 49153. In appendix J2,
DOE proposed to expand Table 5.1 using the same equations as the
current table, as described above, and consistent with the load size
tables provided in the two granted waivers. Id. For the new appendix J,
DOE proposed to expand Table 5.1 based on a revised
[[Page 33331]]
methodology for defining the load sizes, as further discussed in
section III.D.1.b of this document. Id. DOE requested comment on its
proposal to expand the load size table in both appendix J2 and the new
appendix J to accommodate RCWs with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to expand the load size
table in appendix J2 and new appendix J to accommodate clothes washers
with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 10)
For the reasons stated above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to expand Table 5.1 in both
appendix J2 and the new appendix J to accommodate clothes washers with
capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. DOE further discusses the termination of
the subject waivers in section III.L of this document.
b. Defining New Load Sizes
As discussed in the previous section, appendix J2 currently defines
three load sizes for automatic clothes washers (minimum, average, and
maximum) for each capacity bin in Table 5.1 of the appendix. The
current load size definitions (i.e., the defining of three load sizes,
and the equations used to determine each of the three load sizes) are
based on consumer usage data analyzed during the test procedure
rulemaking that culminated in the August 1997 Final Rule. As part of
that rulemaking, AHAM presented to DOE data from the Procter & Gamble
Company (``P&G'') showing the distribution of consumer load sizes for
2.4 ft\3\ and 2.8 ft\3\ clothes washers, which represented typical
clothes washer capacities at the time (``1995 P&G data'').\26\ The 1995
P&G data indicated that the distribution of consumer load sizes
followed an approximate normal distribution slightly skewed towards the
lower end of the size range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The full data set presented by AHAM is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the May 2020 RFI, the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (``NEEA'') submitted a comment that cited data from a 2014
Field Study published on November 10, 2014 (``2014 NEEA Field
Study'').\27\ 86 FR 49140, 49156. The 2014 NEEA Field Study found an
average clothes washer load size of 7.6 lb, which NEEA characterized as
being close to the average load size of 8.5 lb that corresponds with
the 2010 market-weighted average capacity of 3.5 ft\3\. Id. NEEA
stated, however, that the market-weighted average capacity as of 2019
has increased to 4.4 ft\3\, for which appendix J2 defines an average
load size of 10.4 lb.\28\ Id. NEEA asserted that using a fixed average
load size of 7.6 lb would increase representativeness, stating that the
growing inconsistency between field-measured average load size and
appendix J2-calculated average load size indicates that average load
size is independent of clothes washer capacity and is relatively small.
Id. NEEA also stated that using a fixed average load size would reduce
test burden, since less work would be required by the laboratory to
build an inventory of custom appendix J2-defined average loads for each
clothes washer capacity. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Hannas, Benjamin; Gilman, Lucinda. 2014. Dryer Field Study
(Report#E14 287). Portland, OR. Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance. Available online at: neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study.
\28\ NEEA's estimate of 4.4 ft\3\ average capacity in 2019 is
based on NEEA's 2019 ENERGY STAR Retail Products Platform data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE did not agree with NEEA's
conclusion that the 2014 NEEA field study confirms that the field
average load size is independent of clothes container size and is
relatively small. Id. In particular, NEEA did not present any field
data demonstrating average consumer load sizes for a sample of clothes
washers with an average capacity of 4.4 ft\3\. Id. Therefore, DOE
stated in the September 2021 NOPR that no conclusions could be drawn
from the 2014 NEEA Field Study regarding how consumer load sizes may
have changed as average clothes washer capacity has increased from
around 3.5 ft\3\ in 2010 to 4.4 ft\3\ in 2019. Id. While DOE agreed
that using a fixed average load size could decrease test burden by
avoiding the need to inventory different average load sizes for each
possible capacity, for the reasons described above, DOE preliminarily
concluded that the data provided by NEEA do not justify using a fixed
average load size across all clothes container capacities. Id. DOE
stated in the September 2021 NOPR that it is not aware of any more
recent, nationally representative field data indicating that the
consumer load size distribution in relation to clothes washer capacity
has changed since the introduction of the three load sizes in the
August 1997 Final Rule. 86 FR 49140, 49158.
Given the increasing prevalence of more feature-rich clothes washer
models that require a higher number of test cycles under appendix J2,
DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to reduce test burden by
reducing the number of defined load sizes for the proposed new appendix
J from three to two for clothes washers with automatic WFCS.
Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the minimum, maximum, and average
load sizes for automatic clothes washers with two new load sizes in the
new appendix J, designated as ``small'' and ``large.'' 86 FR 49140,
49157. The new proposed small and large load sizes would continue to
represent the same roughly normal distribution presented in the 1995
P&G data described previously. The weighted-average load size using the
proposed small and large load sizes would match the weighted-average
load size using the current minimum, average, and maximum load sizes.
The small and large load sizes would represent approximately the 25th
and 75th percentiles of the normal distribution, respectively. As
proposed, the small and large load sizes would have equal load usage
factors (``LUFs'') \29\ of 0.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ LUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage of
wash cycles that consumers run with a given load size and are
discussed further in section III.G.5 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, DOE proposed to calculate the ``small'' and ``large''
load sizes using Equation III.1 and Equation III.2, respectively. 86 FR
49140, 49158.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.014
[[Page 33332]]
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the new
small and large load sizes would substantially reduce test burden while
maintaining or improving representativeness. 86 FR 49140, 49153. DOE's
proposal would reduce test burden under the new appendix J by requiring
only two load sizes to be tested instead of three for clothes washers
with automatic WFCS. Id. 86 FR at 49158. Specifically, the number of
cycles tested would be reduced by 33 percent for clothes washers with
automatic WFCS, which represent a large majority of clothes washers on
the market. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that this proposal would
maintain representativeness because the new proposed small and large
load sizes would continue to represent the same roughly normal
distribution presented in the 1995 P&G data described previously. Id.
at 86 FR 49157. The weighted-average load size using the proposed small
and large load sizes would match the weighted-average load size using
the current minimum, average, and maximum load sizes, and thus would
produce test results with equivalent representativeness. 86 FR 49140,
49158. Further, defining the small and large loads to represent
approximately the 25th and 75th percentiles of the normal distribution
could improve representativeness by balancing the goal of capturing as
large of a load size range as possible while remaining representative
of the ``peak'' of the load distribution curve, which represents the
most frequently used load sizes. Id.
As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, clothes washers with manual
WFCS are tested only with the minimum and maximum load sizes, in
contrast to clothes washers with automatic WFCS, which are tested with
all three load sizes in appendix J2. 86 FR 49140, 49158. Given DOE's
proposal to define only two load sizes in the proposed new appendix J,
DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR that the same two load sizes be
used for all clothes washers, regardless of whether a clothes washer's
WFCS is automatic or manual. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to replace the minimum,
maximum, and average load sizes with the small and large load sizes in
the new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49158-49159. DOE sought comment on how
reducing the number of load sizes tested would impact the
representativeness of test results. Id. DOE also requested data and
information to quantify the reduction in test burden that would result
from reducing the number of load sizes from three to two for clothes
washers with automatic WFCS. Id.
The Joint Commenters, CA IOUs, and Joint Efficiency Advocates
expressed concern that the 1995 P&G data used to determine the
representative load sizes for new appendix J are out of date. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5; Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-5) The Joint Commenters and Joint
Efficiency Advocates further commented that capacities represented in
the P&G study (2.4 and 2.8 ft\3\) are much smaller than the current
market average of 4.4 ft\3\, and asserted that extrapolation of the P&G
data may not be appropriate, especially as DOE proposes to extend its
test procedure to include basket sizes from 6.0 to 8.0 ft\3\. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at
pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs noted that, at the time of the 1995 P&G Study, the
``regular'' 2.4 ft\3\ and ``large'' 2.8 ft\3\ clothes washers had
average load sizes of 5.7 lb and 6.7 lb, respectively; but as the
average tub volume has since increased to almost 4.0 ft\3\, the average
clothes washer on the market today uses a weighted-average test load
size of 9.7 lb. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5) The Joint Commenters also
commented that clothes washers in 1995, when the P&G study was
published, were much less feature rich than today, and that the P&G
study may not represent consumer choice about load size on modern
clothes washers. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9) The Joint
Commenters stated as an example that consumers may separate a single
load into multiple smaller loads to tailor the available washing cycles
to the textiles. (Id.)
The CA IOUs presented data from a forthcoming paper titled ``PG&E
Home Energy Use Study--Laundry Weight Report,'' (``2021 PG&E data''),
which surveyed 97 California households and which the CA IOUs
characterized as finding no significant relationship between clothes
washer capacity and load size. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5) The CA IOUs
commented that these findings from the PG&E study align with comments
made by NEEA and the Joint Efficiency Advocates \30\ in response to the
May 2020 RFI, which the CA IOUs characterized as also finding no
correlation between clothes washer capacity and load size. (Id.) The CA
IOUs further commented that the findings from the 2021 PG&E data do not
reflect what is represented in Table 5.1 of appendix J2 and new
appendix J. (Id.) In their comment on the September 2021 NOPR, the CA
IOUs categorized the 2021 PG&E data by capacity: Clothes washers with
capacities less than 4.0 ft\3\, clothes washers with capacities between
4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, and clothes washers with capacities greater than 5.0
ft\3\. (Id.) Each capacity category showed a roughly normal
distribution in load size, but the average load size was roughly the
same for all three categories: 8.01 lb for clothes washers smaller than
4.0 ft\3\, 8.34 lb for clothes washers between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, and
7.17 for clothes washers larger than 5.0 ft\3\. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that, in contrast, Table 5.1 in new appendix J would define
load sizes of 8.25 lb for clothes washers smaller than 4.0 ft\3\, 10.28
lb for clothes washers between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, and 12.28 for clothes
washers larger than 5.0 ft\3\. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In the September 2021 NOPR, the set of joint commenters
including Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, and
Natural Resources Defense Council was abbreviated as the ``Joint
Commenters'' and this is how the CA IOUs refer to them in their
comment. In this document, that same set of commenters is
abbreviated as the ``Joint Efficiency Advocates,'' and are therefore
referred to as such here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Efficiency Advocates also commented that using the
proposed large and small load sizes continues to result in test loads
for large-capacity washers being significantly greater than those for
smaller clothes washers. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-
5) For example, the small and large loads for a 6.0 ft\3\ clothes
washer are 7.74 and 19.44 lb, respectively, compared to load sizes of
5.49 and 11.64 lb, respectively, for a 3.5 ft\3\ clothes washer. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that a large difference in
load sizes between capacities is not consistent with the 2014 NEEA
Field Study or with the 2021 PG&E data presented by the CA IOUs in
response to the September 2021 NOPR. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency
Advocates expressed concern that larger capacity clothes washers may be
less efficient than smaller capacity clothes washers when washing a
load of 7 to 8 lb, which they asserted is a load size more
representative of real-world conditions. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency
Advocates also referenced a 2020 report published by NEEA titled
``Coming Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency of Clothes Washers''
\31\ (``2020 NEEA Report''), which presented test results from 12 RCWs
and suggested that an efficiency rank order change was observed when
testing the appendix J2-specified maximum load versus a
[[Page 33333]]
constant load of 8.45 lb. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates
summarized an example from the 2020 NEEA Report showing that among
front-loading RCWs, the largest unit in the sample demonstrated the
most efficient performance at the maximum load, but the least efficient
performance using the constant 8.45 lb load. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Foster Porter, Suzanne; Denkenberger, Dave. 2020. Coming
Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency of Clothes Washers. Portland,
OR. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at:
neea.org/resources/coming-clean-revealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Commenters commented that they understand DOE's reasons
for rejecting the data from the 2014 NEEA Field Study on the grounds
that they are regional and seasonal in nature, and that they represent
a limited sample size. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9) The CA
IOUs expressed a similar sentiment, and stated that they acknowledge
DOE's concerns regarding the potential limitations of regional studies
such as the ones presented by the CA IOUs' in response to the May 2020
RFI. (CA IOUs, NO. 29 at pp. 3-5)
The Joint Commenters, CA IOUs, and Joint Efficiency Advocates
recommended that DOE conduct further investigation regarding load
sizes. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-
5; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-5) The Joint Commenters
and CA IOUs recommended that, before the next clothes washer test
procedure update, DOE should commission a nationally representative
field laundry study to improve representativeness of modern load sizes.
(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5) The
Joint Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to investigate the
relationship between clothes washer capacity and energy/water use at a
constant load size and to consider specifying constant load sizes
across all capacities. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-5)
Additionally, the Joint Commenters commented that there was no
information available on the 1995 P&G study to confirm whether the
study was nationally, annually, and statistically representative of
households in the U.S. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9) The Joint
Commenters expressed concern that the P&G study may not be more
geographically and seasonally relevant than the more recent NEEA
laundry study. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also added that NEEA is
planning to update its regional laundry study and would welcome a
conversation with DOE to determine how its regional data could be made
more relevant or complementary to DOE's own study. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it appreciates DOE's proposal to reduce the
number of load sizes tested from three to two, stating that at a first
glance, it appears that DOE's proposed new load sizes will reduce test
burden. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4) AHAM commented, however, that it must
complete its testing in order to more holistically evaluate DOE's
proposal and provide feedback to DOE on the reduction in test burden
and the representativeness of test results. (Id.) AHAM added that the
proposed new load sizes could lead to a need for significant product
redesign, and could potentially impact RMC. (Id.)
Samsung recommended that DOE continue to use three test load sizes.
(Samsung, No. 30 at pp. 2-3) Samsung explained that while reducing the
number of load sizes would reduce test burden and represent the same
statistical load usage distribution as in appendix J2, automatic WFCSs
have been generally designed to detect three to four discrete load
levels (e.g., minimum, average, maximum, and full). (Id.) Samsung
expressed concern that reducing the test load to two sizes could result
in manufacturers changing the load detection algorithm designs to
detect a lower number of discrete load levels, which could increase the
amount of water and energy use by consumers. (Id.) Samsung further
explained that changing from three to two load sizes could result in
clothes washers using a larger amount of water than necessary for loads
smaller than the ``small'' load, and more water for loads larger than
the ``large'' load. (Id.)
P.R. China recommended that DOE increase the proposed large load
size. (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3) P.R. China commented that, since the
proposed small and large load sizes are relatively smaller than the
current average and maximum load sizes, they only evaluate the energy
consumption of a clothes washer that is loaded with half or less of the
full capacity. (Id.) P.R. China expressed concern that using the
proposed small and large load sizes would not be reflective of energy
consumption for a clothes washer that is heavily or fully loaded, which
P.R. China asserted is more common in normal use. (Id.)
DOE greatly appreciates the additional consumer usage data provided
by commenters and submitted to the docket for DOE's consideration. The
2021 PG&E data suggests that a roughly normal distribution of load
sizes remains applicable across the range of clothes washer capacities
represented in the report (roughly 3.3 to 5.3 ft\3\), consistent with
the trend from the 1995 P&G data. DOE also acknowledges that the
results of the 2021 PG&E data are suggestive that consumers may not be
consistently loading larger capacity machines with proportionately
larger load sizes (on average), as is implied by the relationship
between load sizes and capacity defined in Table 5.1 of appendix J2.
DOE remains concerned, however, that the 2021 PG&E data is not
nationally representative. DOE would expect clothing load composition
to vary significantly among regions of the United States (e.g., warmer
and colder climates, urban and rural households), which could coincide
with different load size patterns in clothes washer usage. DOE is also
mindful that population demographics (e.g., household size, age of
household members, etc.) could also affect laundry usage patterns. DOE
also notes that the results from the 2021 PG&E data conflict with 2016
PG&E data presented previously by the CA IOUs in response to the May
2020 RFI, which suggested that consumer average load sizes for clothes
washers in the range of 2 to 5 ft\3\ capacity are larger than the
appendix J2 load sizes. 86 FR 49140, 49157. The conflicting conclusions
between the submitted reports as well as their limited geographic
representation do not provide sufficient justification for DOE to
change the relationship of load size with capacity at this time.
DOE continues to welcome additional data that could be used to
inform future changes to the test load sizes. DOE potentially would
consider a collection of diverse regional studies as a proxy for a
single nationally representative data set. As suggested by the Joint
Commenters, DOE welcomes further dialogue to determine how additional
regional data could be made more relevant or complementary to DOE's
consideration of potential further amendments to the test procedure.
DOE also appreciates AHAM's intention to provide test data for DOE
to consider when it becomes available. DOE reiterates that any impacts
to measured energy, however minor, as a result of changes to the load
size definitions were accounted for in the crosswalk between the
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed for the September 2021 RCW
Standards Preliminary Analysis. DOE will continue to consider any such
impacts in future stages of the standards rulemaking.
In response to Samsung's concern that reducing the number of load
sizes to two could result in manufacturers changing the load detection
algorithms in way that could increase water and energy use, DOE
acknowledges that the small and large load sizes proposed for appendix
J represent a narrower range than the range represented by the
[[Page 33334]]
minimum and maximum load sizes specified in appendix J2.\32\ DOE
expects that any changes that manufacturers would make to the load
detection algorithms to optimize performance when tested to appendix J
(which Samsung asserted could result in fewer discrete water fill
levels) would be balanced against consumer expectation that when using
an adaptive fill setting, the quantity of water determined by the
clothes washer appropriately matches the size of the load. Changing the
test procedure load size definitions does not preclude clothes washer
manufacturers from designing load sensing algorithms from detecting any
number of discrete load levels. DOE further notes that the historical
data and more recent data discussed in this section indicate that
consumer load size distribution follows a roughly normal distribution.
Any impacts due to the type of load detection changes described by
Samsung would be expected to affect the ``tail ends'' of the normal
distribution, which by definition represent relatively low consumer
usage; i.e., the very small and very large load sizes that could be
impacted are not as representative of average consumer use as the range
of load sizes represented by the small and large load sizes as
proposed. Weighing all of these factors, DOE has determined that the
use of two load sizes as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR provides a
reasonable balance between considerations of representativeness and
test burden as required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ As discussed, the small and load sizes proposed for
appendix J are defined at approximately the 25th and 75th
percentiles of the normal distribution, respectively; whereas the
minimum and maximum load sizes under appendix J2 are defined at
approximately the 14th and 88th percentiles of the normal
distribution, respectively, as described in the September 2021 NOPR.
86 FR 49140, 49154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to P.R. China's comment on the distribution of load
sizes, DOE does not agree with the assertion that small and large load
sizes as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR represent half or less
than half of the full capacity. As proposed, the large load size in
appendix J represents roughly 80 percent of the maximum load size
defined in appendix J2; i.e., roughly 80 percent of the full capacity
of a clothes washer.\33\ As discussed, historical and recent data
indicate that U.S. consumer load size distribution follows a roughly
normal distribution, such that the maximum load size is much less
commonly used than the load sizes proposed for appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ DOE assumes that the maximum load size defined in appendix
J2 represents 100 percent full capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking into consideration the discussion presented in the September
2021 NOPR, comments submitted by interested parties in response to
DOE's proposals, and DOE's analysis and response to comments, DOE
finalizes its proposal, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to
replace the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes with the small and
large load sizes in new appendix J. As discussed, DOE welcomes any
opportunities to continue working with interested parties to collect
nationally representative data on the relationship between load size
and capacity. DOE reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a
result of changes to the tested load sizes will be accounted for in the
crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the
ongoing standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the changes
implemented in this final rule to require significant product redesign.
2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the Proposed Load Sizes
Section 3.2.6 of appendix J2 prescribes the water fill setting
selections to use with each load size based on the type of WFCS on the
clothes washer. As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document,
consistent with the proposal in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is
defining new small and large load sizes in appendix J, in contrast to
the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes defined in appendix J2. 86
FR 49140, 49159-49160. To test clothes washers using these new small
and large load sizes, the appropriate water fill setting selections
also needs to be provided in the new appendix J for each load size for
each type of WFCS.
Appendix J2 defines two main types of WFCS: Manual WFCS, which
``requires the user to determine or select the water fill level,'' and
automatic WFCS, which ``does not allow or require the user to determine
or select the water fill level, and includes adaptive WFCS and fixed
WFCS.'' Sections 1.22 and 1.5 of appendix J2, respectively. Section
3.2.6.2 of appendix J2 further distinguishes between user-adjustable
and not-user-adjustable automatic WFCS. Additionally, section 3.2.6.3
of appendix J2 accommodates clothes washers that have both an automatic
WFCS and an alternate manual WFCS. Amendments to the definitions of
fixed WFCS and user-adjustable WFCS are further discussed in section
III.H.3.a of this document.
Section 3.2.6.1 of appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers with
a manual WFCS are set to the maximum water level available for the wash
cycle under test for the maximum test load size and the minimum water
level available for the wash cycle under test for the minimum test load
size.
Section 3.2.6.2.1 of appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers
with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS are tested using the specified
maximum, minimum, and average test load sizes, and that the maximum,
minimum, and average water levels are selected by the control system
when the respective test loads are used (i.e., no selection of water
fill level is required by the user).
Section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers
with user-adjustable automatic WFCS undergo four tests. The first test
is conducted using the maximum test load and with the automatic WFCS
set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result. The
second test is conducted with the minimum test load and with the
automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy
intensive result. The third test is conducted with the average test
load and with the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the
most energy intensive result for the given test load. The fourth test
is conducted with the average test load and with the automatic WFCS set
in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result for the
given test load. The energy and water consumption for the average test
load and water level are calculated as the average of the third and
fourth tests.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify the use of the
second-lowest water fill level setting for the proposed small load
size, and the maximum water fill level setting for the proposed large
load size for clothes washers with manual WFCS. 86 FR 49140, 49159. DOE
proposed to use the second-lowest water fill level setting for the
proposed small size because the proposed small load is larger than the
current minimum load, and using the minimum water fill setting for the
larger-sized ``small'' load may not be representative of consumer use,
particularly because consumers tend to select more water than is
minimally necessary for the size of the load being washed. Id. Although
DOE was not aware of any clothes washers with manual WFCS currently on
the market with only two water fill level settings available, DOE also
proposed to accommodate such a design by specifying that if the water
fill level selector has two settings available for the wash cycle under
test, the minimum
[[Page 33335]]
water fill level setting would be selected for the small load size,
consistent with the current specification in appendix J2. Id.
To accommodate the proposed ``small'' and ``large'' load sizes in
the new appendix J, DOE proposed to require testing clothes washers
with user-adjustable WFCS using the small test load size at the setting
that provides the least energy-intensive \34\ result, and the large
test load size at the setting that provides the most energy-intensive
result. Id. This proposal captures the same range of water fill
performance as the current test procedure (i.e., capturing the range of
least-intensive to most-intensive results). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ As described in section III.H.3.b of this document, DOE is
updating the phrase ``the setting that will give the most energy-
intensive result'' to ``the setting that uses the most water'' (and
likewise for the setting that will give the least energy-intensive
result) to reflect the original intent of this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For clothes washers with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS, no
changes are required because the water fill levels are determined
automatically by the WFCS.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to change the water fill
level selections in the new appendix J for clothes washers with manual
and user-adjustable automatic WFCS to reflect the proposed small and
large test load sizes. 86 FR 49140, 49160.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposed water
fill level selections for manual WFCSs in new appendix J. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10). The Joint Commenters commented that DOE's
proposal establishes a reasonable representation of normal consumer use
given the load sizes proposed in new appendix J. (Id.)
Although AHAM did not comment specifically on the proposed changes
to the water fill level selections, AHAM did comment on DOE's proposed
definitions for certain types of WFCSs. DOE summarizes and addresses
these comments in section III.H.3.a of this document.
For the reasons stated above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to change the water fill level
selections in the new appendix J for clothes washers with manual and
user-adjustable automatic WFCS to reflect the proposed small and large
test load sizes.
3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested Settings
Section 3.5 of appendix J2 states that if a clothes washer has four
or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse (``Warm/Cold'') temperature selections,
either all discrete selections shall be tested, or the clothes washer
shall be tested at the 25-percent, 50- percent, and 75-percent
positions of the temperature selection device between the hottest hot
(<=135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C)) wash and the coldest cold wash. If a
selection is not available at the 25-, 50- or 75-percent position, in
place of each such unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature
selection shall be used. DOE refers to the latter provision as the
``25/50/75 test.'' Section 3.6 of appendix J2 states that the 25/50/75
test provision also applies to the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse (``Warm/Warm'')
temperature selection.
DOE first established the 25/50/75 test in appendix J1 as part of
the August 1997 Final Rule to address the test burden for clothes
washers that offer a large number of warm wash temperature selections,
if the test procedure were to require testing all warm temperature
selections. 62 FR 45484, 45497. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE
considered clothes washers with more than three warm wash temperatures
to be clothes washers with infinite warm wash temperature selections,
therefore allowing them to also use the 25/50/75 test. 62 FR 45484,
45498. DOE concluded at that time that testing at the various test
points of the temperature range, with a requirement to test to the next
higher selection if a temperature selection is not available at a
specified test point, would provide data representative of the warm
wash temperature selection offerings. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that the 25/50/75 test was
adopted before the widespread use of electronic controls, which now
allow for the assignment of wash water temperatures that may not
reflect the physical spacing between temperature selections on the
control panel. 86 FR 49140, 49160. For example, with electronic
controls, the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions on the
dial may not necessarily correspond to 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-
percent temperature differences between the hottest and coldest
selections. Id. DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market with four
or more warm wash temperature selections, in which the temperature
selections located at the 25-, 50-, and 75- percent positions are low-
temperature cycles that have wash temperatures only a few degrees
higher than the coldest wash temperature; whereas the temperature
selection labeled ``Warm'' is located beyond the 75-percent position on
the temperature selection dial and is therefore not included for
testing under the 25/50/75 test. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require testing of both
the hottest Warm/Cold setting and the coldest Warm/Cold setting for all
clothes washers in the new appendix J instead of the current provisions
to either test all warm wash selections or conduct the 25/50/75 test.
86 FR 49140, 49161. Water consumption, electrical energy consumption,
and all other measured values \35\ would be averaged between the two
tested cycles to represent the Warm/Cold cycle. Id. DOE proposed to
make the same changes to the Warm/Warm cycle in the new appendix J. Id.
DOE's proposal would decrease the test burden under the new appendix J
for clothes washers that offer more than two Warm/Cold or Warm/Warm
temperature settings, which DOE estimates represent around half of the
market, by reducing the number of Warm/Cold and Warm/Warm tested cycles
from three to two. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ As discussed in sections III.D.4.a and III.D.5 of this
document, DOE is requiring measurements of wet weight, and cycle
time for each tested cycle under new appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this proposed approach may change the measured energy use
of clothes washers that offer more than two Warm/Cold or Warm/Warm
settings, the proposed edits were not proposed for appendix J2 and
therefore would not affect the measured efficiency of existing clothes
washers. Id. As discussed previously, any impacts to measured energy as
a result of changes to the required warm wash settings were accounted
for in the crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics
developed for the September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis.
DOE will continue to consider any such impacts in future stages of the
standards rulemaking.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the
proposed approach in the new appendix J would maintain
representativeness by continuing to capture the complete range of Warm
Wash temperatures available for selection (i.e., by relying on an
average of the hottest Warm/Cold setting and the coldest Warm/Cold
setting). Id. For models that are currently tested using the 25/50/75
test and for which certain ``Warm'' settings are located beyond the 75-
percent position on the temperature selection dial and therefore not
included for testing, DOE's proposal would capture entire range of
available Warm Wash temperatures available to the consumer, and
therefore would improve representativeness. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the proposal
to
[[Page 33336]]
require in the new appendix J testing only the hottest and the coldest
Warm/Cold settings. Id. DOE also requested data and information on how
this proposed change to the Warm Wash temperature settings required for
testing would impact representativeness, testing costs, and
manufacturer burden. Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposal to
require testing on the hottest Warm/Cold and coldest Warm/Cold settings
for all clothes washers instead of the ``25/50/75'' test will more
accurately reflect energy usage of Warm Wash settings while decreasing
burden. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 2-3)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to test
and average the hottest and coldest Warm/Cold temperatures and
encouraged DOE to apply an identical approach to clothes washers with
Warm/Warm settings. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 3-4) The Joint
Commenters further agreed with DOE's tentative determination that DOE's
proposal concerning Warm/Cold testing would reduce test burden by
eliminating test runs for clothes washers with more than two Warm/Cold
settings, and increase representation of typical hot water use of
clothes washer by testing temperature selections that would not have
been tested using the 25/50/75 rule. (Id.)
AHAM commented that, while it appreciates DOE's attempt to ease
testing burden in its proposal by only requiring testing on the hottest
and coldest Warm/Cold settings for all clothes washers, using only
coldest and hottest of the warm cycles could increase the measured
water heating energy in the IMEF calculation. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 10-
11) AHAM asserted that in order to offset this increase in water
heating energy, the hottest warm setting would need to be redesigned
with a reduced temperature, resulting in the hottest warm setting being
cooler than what consumers expect for a warm setting. (Id.) AHAM also
commented that additional testing is required to determine whether
detergents, especially laundry pods, will dissolve as well at lower
temperatures. (Id.) Lastly, AHAM stated that this change will impact
measured energy and commented that this impact needs to be accounted
for in any energy conservation standard that DOE develops. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that DOE's proposal to require testing on the
hottest and coldest Warm/Cold temperatures may eliminate the ability of
manufacturers to offer a warm and/or hot wash setting for consumers
that meets the temperature level(s) and performance that they expect on
their clothes washer, especially from Warm/Cold temperature settings.
(Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 7-8) Whirlpool added that these impacts could
also become compounded by any amendment to clothes washer standards.
(Id.) Whirlpool also expressed concern that lower warm and/or hot wash
temperatures could impact cleaning performance since most detergents,
especially lower cost detergents and laundry pods, are designed to be
most effective at current wash temperatures. (Id.)
DOE notes that the reservations expressed by AHAM and Whirlpool are
related to the impact on measured energy as a result of this proposed
amendment to the test procedure. As discussed previously, impacts on
measured energy use between the then-current appendix J2 and the
proposed appendix J test procedures were factored into the crosswalk
relating the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed for the
September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis, such that DOE does
not expect the changes implemented in this final rule to require any
significant changes to wash water temperatures. In particular, any
increase in measured energy as a result of this amendment would be
factored into the crosswalk (i.e., manufacturers would not necessarily
be required to decrease wash temperatures to ``offset'' any increase in
measured energy under appendix J).
Specifically, as presented in Table 5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the
preliminary TSD, DOE determined through testing that this amendment
would result in a 17 percent increase, on average, in the water heating
energy use for clothes washers with 3 or more Warm/Cold temperature
settings, in which the two coldest Warm/Cold temperatures use much less
hot water than the hottest Warm/Cold temperature. This increase was
factored into the metric translations.
In response to the Joint Commenters' request that DOE consider
applying an identical approach to clothes washers with Warm/Warm
settings, DOE's proposal in the September 2021 NOPR applied to both
Warm/Cold and Warm/Warm settings.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the September 2021 NOPR, to require in the new appendix J testing
only the hottest and the coldest Warm/Cold and Warm/Warm settings. DOE
reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a result of changes
to the tested warm wash settings will be accounted for in the crosswalk
between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the ongoing
standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the changes
implemented in this final rule to require any significant changes to
wash water temperatures.
4. Remaining Moisture Content
Section 3.8.4 of appendix J2 requires that for clothes washers that
have multiple spin settings \36\ available within the energy test cycle
that result in different RMC values, the maximum and minimum extremes
of the available spin settings must be tested with the maximum load
size on the Cold/Cold temperature selection.\37\ The final RMC is the
weighted average of the maximum and minimum spin settings, with the
maximum spin setting weighted at 75 percent and the minimum spin
setting weighted at 25 percent. The RMC measurement is used to
calculate the drying energy component of IMEF. On most clothes washers,
the drying energy component represents the largest portion of energy
captured in the MEFJ2 and IMEF metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The term ``spin settings'' refers to spin times or spin
speeds. The maximum spin setting results in a lower (better) RMC.
\37\ On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse option,
appendix J2 requires that RMC be measured on both Cold Rinse and
Warm Rinse, with the final RMC calculated as a weighted average
using TUFs of 73 percent for Cold Rinse and 27 percent for Warm
Rinse. DOE has observed very few clothes washer models on the market
that offer Warm Rinse. For simplicity throughout this discussion,
DOE references the testing requirements for clothes washers that
offer Cold Rinse only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Revised Calculation
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the
current method of measuring RMC may no longer produce test results that
measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle
or period of use, particularly as the prevalence of clothes washers
with complex electronic controls continues to increase in the market.
86 FR 49140, 49162. On a clothes washer with basic controls (e.g., in
which the available spin settings are the same regardless of what wash/
rinse temperature is selected), measuring RMC using only the Cold/Cold
cycle would be expected to provide RMC results that are equally
representative of the other available wash/rinse temperatures, which as
noted comprise the majority of consumer cycle selections. Id. However,
on a clothes washer in which the selection of wash/rinse temperature
affects which spin settings are available to be selected, measuring RMC
using
[[Page 33337]]
only the Cold/Cold cycle may not necessarily provide results that
measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle
or period of use (i.e., across the range of wash/rinse temperature
options selected by consumers, as represented by the temperature use
factors). Id. For example, data presented by NEEA in response to the
May 2020 RFI suggested that the specific cycle configuration from which
RMC is measured is programed with a longer spin time than other
temperature settings available to the consumer, resulting in a
significantly better RMC measurement than would be experienced by the
consumer on the majority of wash cycles performed. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an amended method for
measuring RMC in the new appendix J that would require measuring RMC on
each of the energy test cycles using the default spin settings, and
determining the final RMC by weighting the individual RMC measurements
using the same Temperature Usage Factors (``TUFs'') \38\ and LUFs that
apply to the water and energy measurements. Id. DOE asserted that the
proposed update to the RMC measurement would provide a more
representative measure of RMC than the current test procedures because
RMC would be measured on all of the energy test cycles rather than only
the Cold/Cold cycles, which represent only 37 percent of consumer
cycles and may not share the same RMC performance as the other 63
percent of consumer cycles.\39\ Id. DOE also tentatively concluded that
this proposal would reduce overall test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49163. The
proposal would require weighing the cloth before and after each test
cycle, but would avoid the need to perform extra cycles for capturing
both the maximum and minimum spin settings available on the clothes
washer if such spin settings are not activated by default as part of
the energy test cycle. Id. To DOE's knowledge, many laboratories
already measure and record the test load weight after each test cycle
as a means for identifying potential cycle anomalies or to provide
additional data that can be used to verify quality control
retrospectively. Id. In cases where a laboratory currently does not
measure the weight after completion of the cycle, DOE's proposal would
incur a de minimis amount of additional time to weigh the load after
the cycle, which can be performed using the same scale used to weigh
the load at the beginning of the cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As described in more detail in section III.G.4 of this
document, TUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage
of time that consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature
selection for the wash cycle.
\39\ 37 percent is the TUF for the Cold/Cold temperature
selection as specified in Table 4.1.1 of appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledged that its proposal would likely impact the measured
RMC value and thus would impact a clothes washer's IMEF value. 86 FR
49140, 49163. Therefore, DOE proposed the revised RMC procedure only in
the proposed new appendix J and not in appendix J2. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to revise the RMC procedure so that RMC would be measured at the
default spin setting for each temperature selection and load size, and
the individual RMC values would be averaged using TUFs and LUFs to
calculate the final RMC. Id. DOE sought data and information regarding
how this change to the RMC calculation would impact testing costs and
manufacturer test burden. Id. DOE further requested comment on whether
DOE should implement any changes to the RMC calculation in appendix J2
to address clothes washers with spin settings that are available only
on certain temperature selections. Id.
Samsung commented in support of DOE's proposed changes to the RMC
measurement, stating that the changes would make the metric more
representative of real-world usage. (Samsung, No. 30 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's proposal to measure RMC
as a part of all energy test cycles, stating that it would improve the
representativeness of the drying energy measurement, which is the
largest component of energy use. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposed
amendment to measure RMC for all cycles tested rather than on a single
cold-cold test cycle would more accurately estimate drying energy usage
than the current method. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 2)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted that, using appendix J2, clothes
washers that only offer the maximum spin speed on the Cold/Cold cycle
have lower spin settings at other temperature settings that are not
being factored into the RMC calculation, even though these cycles
represent the majority of cycles used by consumers, according to the
TUFs. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates also cited data from the
2020 NEEA Report that showed significant IMEF rank order changes
between washers when comparing RMC values measured on Cold/Cold cycles
and RMC values measured on Warm/Cold cycles for the same test loads.
(Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates concluded that DOE's proposal to
measure RMC for each energy test cycle at the default spin setting and
calculate an overall RMC using TUF- and LUF-weighted averages would
make drying energy usage calculations more consistent with the other
energy and water usage calculations, and that the proposed amendment
would improve representativeness and provide more accurate relative
rankings of clothes washers by better capturing real-world RMC and
drying energy usage. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
measure RMC at the default spin setting for each test cycle. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 2-3) The Joint Commenters added that
measuring RMC at the default setting would reduce test burden, increase
representativeness, and could potentially result in an estimated 1.0
quad of energy savings for clothes dryers.\40\ (Id.) The Joint
Commenters further commented that DOE's proposed RMC measurement
changes would be one of the best opportunities to improve the test
procedure for three reasons: drying energy use is the largest and most
important contributor to IMEF, and would remain the most significant
contributor to the proposed EER and AEER metrics; according to the
Joint Commenters, default spin settings are more representative of
real-world use instead of the ``best case'' scenario; and testing RMC
under different temperature settings and load sizes revealed
substantial rank order changes. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The Joint Commenters referenced NEEA's comment on the May
2020 RFI in which NEEA estimated the potential savings over a 30-
year period, assuming the change in the RMC measurement would lead
to clothes washer manufacturers changing their machines to make the
spin portion of all temperature settings match the current spin
portion of the Cold/Cold setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool commented that DOE's proposed change to the RMC
measurement would likely have significant implications on Whirlpool's
product design, cost, performance, and customer satisfaction.
(Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 8-9) Whirlpool also noted that RMC accounts
for over 70 to 75 percent of energy measured by the IMEF. (Id.)
Whirlpool further commented that, since today's clothes washers are
designed and tested for appendix J2, product redesign would be
necessary because, without modifying clothes washer spinning strategies
for the proposed RMC measurement method in new appendix J, Whirlpool
expects the measured RMC of its clothes washer models under the
proposed amendments to increase significantly. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p.
9) Specifically,
[[Page 33338]]
Whirlpool explained that measuring RMC on smaller loads leads to a
higher RMC because smaller loads do not experience as much compression
against the drum during spinning as larger loads. (Id.) Whirlpool also
commented that their concern about RMC measurement is especially
pronounced for baseline top-loading clothes washers, which do not spin
as fast as front-loading clothes washers for a variety of technical
reasons. (Id.) Whirlpool explained that in order to address DOE's
proposed RMC change, Whirlpool would need to increase spin speeds and
have longer high-spin plateau times. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that these
changes would ultimately lead to enormous stress placed on the clothes
washers and would degrade their overall reliability. (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that they would need to make changes to the motor, tub
composition, and other structural changes to the washer, all of which
would add product cost. (Id.) Whirlpool also expressed concerns related
to consumers' perception of these changes, including increased cost and
performance concerns such as increased vibration and noise from faster
and longer spins, in addition to longer cycle times from longer high-
spin plateaus. (Id.) Whirlpool also stated that consumers may also
notice that the overall electrical energy of the clothes washer
increases as clothes washers spin longer and faster. (Id.) Whirlpool
also commented that an increase in measured mechanical energy could
lead to the annual energy consumption reported on the Federal Trade
Commission (``FTC'') EnergyGuide label showing that a new model uses
more energy (i.e., appears less efficient) than a model currently owned
by a consumer. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it opposes changing the RMC calculation in
appendix J2, stating that the proposed changes would impact measured
energy. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 11)
DOE also received comments from interested parties suggesting that
DOE add an RMC adjustment factor to account for test cloth material
composition. These comments are discussed in section III.I.1 of this
document.
DOE notes that the reservations expressed by AHAM and Whirlpool,
particularly with regard to implications for product design and
performance, stem from the impact on measured energy as a result of
this proposed amendment to the test procedure. As discussed previously,
impacts on measured energy use between the then-current appendix J2 and
the proposed appendix J test procedures were factored into the
crosswalk relating to the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed
for the September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis.
Specifically, as presented in Table 5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the
preliminary TSD, DOE determined through testing that this amendment
would result in a 3.8 percent increase in drying energy for units in
which the spin cycle is consistent across temperature selections and
thus the primary factor affecting measured RMC is the smaller load
sizes; a 27 percent increase in drying energy for units in which the
spin cycle is significantly faster or longer on the Cold/Cold setting
(which would be tested under appendix J2) than on the other temperature
settings (which would all be tested under appendix J); and a 21 percent
increase in drying energy for units in which the default spin speed
setting on the Normal cycle (which would be tested under appendix J) is
not the maximum spin speed setting (which would be tested under
appendix J2). These increases in RMC under appendix J were factored
into the metric translations. As stated in the September 2021 RCW
Standards Preliminary Analysis, DOE plans to continue testing
additional units to appendix J and will continue to refine its approach
for determining appropriate crosswalk translations in future stages of
the standards rulemaking.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the September 2021 NOPR, to require measuring RMC on each of the
energy test cycles in appendix J using the default spin settings, and
determining the final RMC by weighting the individual RMC measurements
using the same TUFs and LUFs that apply to the water and energy
measurements. DOE has determined that the amendment to the RMC
measurement provides a more representative measure of RMC because RMC
is measured on all of the energy test cycles. DOE also concludes that
this amendment reduces overall test burden. DOE reiterates that any
impacts to measured energy as a result of changes to the RMC
calculation will be accounted for in the crosswalk between the appendix
J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the ongoing standards analysis,
such that DOE does not expect the changes implemented in this final
rule to require significant product redesign.
b. Definition of Bone-Dry
In section 1.6 of appendix J2, the term ``bone-dry'' is defined as
a condition of a load of test cloth that has been dried in a dryer at
maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, removed and weighed
before cool down, and then dried again for 10-minute periods until the
final weight change of the load is 1 percent or less.
In the absence of data or information indicating any problems with
the current procedure, DOE did not propose any changes to the bone-dry
definition or associated dryer temperature measurement method in the
September 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 49140, 49163. DOE requested comment on its
tentative conclusion not to propose changes to the bone-dry definition
and associated dryer temperature measurement method. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal not to change the bone-
dry definition and associated dryer temperature measurement method,
stating that changes would be unnecessary. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 11)
For the reasons discussed, this final rule does not make any
changes to the bone-dry definition or associated dryer temperature
measurement method.
c. Starting Moisture Content
Section 2.9.1 of appendix J2 requires the test load for energy and
water consumption measurements to be bone-dry prior to the first cycle
of the test, and allows the test load to be dried to a maximum of 104
percent of the bone-dry weight for subsequent testing. In the September
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that this allowance effectively allows for an
increase to the starting moisture content of the load from 1 percent
moisture (as implied in the definition of ``bone-dry'' in section 1 of
appendix J2) to 4 percent moisture, which creates two concerns. 86 FR
49140, 49163.
First, for the largest clothes washers on the market, which use the
largest test load sizes, a 4 percent tolerance can represent up to 1 lb
of additional water weight in a starting test load. Id. DOE expressed
concern that the range of starting water weights that this provision
allows could reduce the repeatability and reproducibility of test
results, particularly for larger clothes washers. Id.
Second, as described in section III.D.4.a of this document, DOE is
requiring the measurement of RMC for all tested cycles in the new
appendix J. Id. The RMC of each tested cycle is calculated based on the
bone-dry weight at the start of the cycle. Id. Allowing the bone-dry
weight to vary within a range of 1 percent to 4 percent moisture at the
beginning of each tested cycle would introduce variability into the RMC
calculation. Id.
[[Page 33339]]
Therefore, to improve repeatability and reproducibility of test
results, DOE proposed in new appendix J to remove the provision that
allows for a starting test load weight of 104 percent of the bone-dry
weight, and instead require that each test cycle use a bone-dry test
load. Id. In DOE's experience, most test laboratories use the bone-dry
weight as the starting weight of each test load rather than a starting
weight up to 104 percent of bone-dry, as allowed by section 2.9.1 of
appendix J2. Id. DOE estimated that if a test laboratory does make use
of this provision in section 2.9.1 of appendix J2, the requirement to
use the bone-dry weight would add no more than 10 minutes of drying
time per cycle to ensure that the test load has reached the bone-dry
requirement. Id. DOE did not anticipate that this proposal would
increase test burden because, in DOE's experience, most test
laboratories dry the load from the previous test cycle while the next
cycle is being tested on the clothes washer, such that a minor increase
in drying time would not affect the overall time required to conduct
the test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require that each test
cycle use a bone-dry test load in the new appendix J. Id. DOE requested
comment on whether test laboratories start test cycles with the test
load at bone-dry or at up to 104 percent of the bone-dry weight. 86 FR
49140, 49163-49164. DOE further requested feedback on its assessment
that this change would not affect test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49164.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
require bone-drying of textile loads before the start of each test run.
(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10) The Joint Commenters further
asserted that bone-drying the test load before each run would improve
repeatability and reproducibility, given that RMC would be measured for
each test run. (Id.) The Joint Commenters concluded that, since test
laboratories must dry the test load before using it, DOE's proposal
represents minimal to no additional test burden. (Id.)
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE's proposal to require each test
cycle to use a bone-dry test load. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM
commented that while it understands the theoretical reason for this
proposal, it may not be practically possible because as soon as the
load cools, it starts to collect humidity. Therefore, AHAM asserted
that it would not be possible for test laboratories to meet this
requirement. (Id.)
P.R. China recommended that if each test cycle uses a bone-dry test
load, DOE should add requirements to the temperature of the test load
to make sure the test cloth is at ambient temperature prior to testing.
(P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3)
In response to AHAM's comments, DOE acknowledges that the concerns
DOE expressed regarding the potential for over 1 lb of moisture in the
starting ``dry'' load would apply only to the largest load sizes, and
that for the large majority of tested loads, the potential amount of
moisture in the starting dry load would be a smaller weight. DOE notes
that the ``large'' test load sizes in appendix J implemented in this
final rule are smaller than the ``maximum'' test load sizes defined in
appendix J2 (as discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document), which
partially alleviates this concern. DOE's testing experience also
confirms AHAM's statement that a test cloth load begins to collect
moisture as soon as the drying cycle is complete. DOE therefore
concludes that logistical constraints during testing could create
challenges for test laboratories to meet a bone-dry requirement for
each individual test cycle.
In response to P.R. China's comment on adding a requirement that
the load be at ambient temperature prior to testing, DOE does not
expect that the temperature of the load prior to the start of the test
cycle would have a significant impact on energy use for two reasons.
First, DOE's teardowns of clothes washers conducted for the standards
preliminary analysis indicate that most clothes washers measure wash
water temperature either as the water enters the clothes washer through
the inlet valves or within the detergent mixing chamber, such that the
temperature of the test load would not affect the relative amounts of
hot and cold water usage. Second, even for clothes washers that may
measure the water temperature near the bottom of the wash tub in
proximity to the load, the thermal mass of the test cloth fabric is
significantly less than thermal mass of the amount of water used during
the wash portion of the cycle, such that any residual heat contained
within the test cloth would have a negligible impact on the temperature
of the water.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ For example, DOE testing indicates that a typical clothes
washer may use a gallon or more of water (i.e., over 8.3 lb of
water) per lb of test cloth load. Furthermore, the specific heat of
cotton and polyester fiber is around one-third of the specific heat
of water. Based on these parameters, each 1 [deg]F of elevated
temperature in a given test load would result in no more than a 0.04
[deg]F temperature rise in the wash water used for that cycle.
(Calculated as 1 / 8.3 / 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, DOE is not adopting the proposal from the
September 2021 NOPR and is including in appendix J the provision from
section 2.9.1 of appendix J2 to allow the test load to be dried to a
maximum of 104 percent of the bone-dry weight for subsequent testing.
Because each subsequent test load may not always start at the bone-dry
weight, DOE is also not adopting the proposal from the September 2021
NOPR to require recording the bone-dry weight of the test load weight
prior to each cycle. DOE notes that it is continuing to require that
the bone-dry weight of each test load (which would be measured once at
the start of testing) be used in calculating the RMC for each test
cycle.
5. Cycle Time
a. Inclusion of a Cycle Time Measurement
The current test procedure does not specify a measurement for
average cycle time. In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is proposed to base
the allocation of annual combined low-power mode hours on the measured
average cycle time rather than a fixed value of 8,465 hours, for the
new appendix J (see section III.G.3 of this document). 86 FR 49140,
49164. DOE therefore also proposed to require the measurement of
average cycle time for the new appendix J. Id. Calculating the annual
standby mode and off mode hours using the measured average cycle time
would provide a more representative basis for determining the energy
consumption in the combined low-power modes for the specific clothes
washer under test. Id.
DOE proposed to define the overall average cycle time of a clothes
washer model in new appendix J as the weighted average of the
individual cycle times for each wash cycle configuration conducted as
part of the test procedure, using the TUFs and LUFs for the weighting.
Id. Using the weighted-average approach would align the average cycle
time calculation with the calculations for determining weighted-average
energy and water use. Id.
DOE noted that it does not expect the measurement of cycle time to
increase test burden. Id. To DOE's knowledge, test laboratories are
either already measuring cycle time for all tested cycles or using data
acquisition systems to record electronic logs of each cycle, from which
determining the cycle time would require minimal additional work. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to add cycle time
measurements and to calculate average cycle time using the weighted-
average
[[Page 33340]]
method in the new appendix J. Id. DOE also requested comment on its
assertion that adding cycle time measurements and a calculation of a
weighted-average cycle time would not increase testing costs or overall
test burden. Id.
Samsung commented in support of DOE's proposal to require reporting
of weighted-average cycle time, stating that it would provide useful
information for consumers comparing average cycle time differences
between clothes washer models. (Samsung, No. 30 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's proposal to measure cycle
time on all test cycles and to include an average cycle time
calculation, stating that there are significant consumer benefits in
this information being disclosed. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2) The CA IOUs
also recommended that DOE report average cycle time in the Compliance
Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database, and that DOE work
with the FTC to incorporate average cycle time into product labeling.
(Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
measure the cycle time of each test cycle and to calculate a weighted-
average cycle time. (Joint Commenters, No 31 at p. 5) The Joint
Commenters further agreed with DOE's tentative determination that DOE's
cycle time measurement proposal would create no additional test burden
since most test laboratories use time series data acquisition systems
that obtain cycle time measurements automatically. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters also commented that DOE's cycle time proposal would increase
the representativeness of the low-power-mode energy usage, and would
standardize cycle time marketing claims by establishing a standardized
approach for measuring cycle times. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also
encouraged DOE to require the reporting of average cycle time as part
of clothes washer certification, stating that it would increase
consumers' access to relevant information on cycle time, which the
Joint Commenters asserted is an important aspect of clothes washer
performance; increase transparency of reported energy efficiency
metrics by clarifying how the energy efficiency metric is derived for a
given clothes washer; and lead to continuous improvement of the test
procedure over time since having access to additional data on cycle
time would enable DOE and other stakeholders to continually evaluate
the value of cycle time measurement in future rulemakings. (Id.)
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE's proposal to include a
measurement of cycle time and a calculation of weighted-average cycle
time. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM commented that while cycle time is a
key consideration for consumer utility, DOE properly accounts for cycle
time in its evaluation of possible amended standards. (Id.)
For the reasons stated above, DOE determines that requiring test
laboratories to include cycle time measurement would not increase test
burden. DOE also determines that defining the annual standby mode and
off mode hours using the measured average cycle time would provide a
more representative basis for determining the energy consumption in the
combined low-power modes for the specific clothes washer under test.
With regard to AHAM's comment opposing the proposed cycle time
measurement on the basis that DOE accounts for cycle time in its
evaluation of possible amended standards, DOE notes that the purpose of
implementing a measurement of cycle time in the test procedure would
differ from the purpose of evaluating cycle time as part of an energy
conservation standards analysis. In an energy conservation standards
analysis, cycle time could be evaluated, for example, to determine
whether higher efficiency levels under consideration would require
longer cycle times. Whereas, the purpose of the cycle time measurement
as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR is to provide a more
representative allocation of standby and off mode hours for a unit
under test. Evaluating cycle time as part of an energy conservation
standards analysis would not contribute to providing more
representative test results when testing to the DOE test procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the September 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to require cycle time measurement in new
appendix J. As discussed in section III.G.3 of this document, also
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes its proposal to
base the allocation of annual combined low-power mode hours on the
measured average cycle time rather than a fixed value of 8,465 hours,
for the new appendix J.
DOE notes it is not amending the certification or reporting
requirements for clothes washers in this final rule to require
reporting of cycle time measurements. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to amend the certification requirements and reporting for
RCWs and CCWs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification.
b. Definition of Cycle Time
Section 3.2.8 of appendix J2 specifies that for each wash cycle
tested, include the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay
start or cycle finished modes. ``Active washing mode'' is defined in
section 1.2 of appendix J2 as ``a mode in which the clothes washer is
performing any of the operations included in a complete cycle intended
for washing a clothing load, including the main functions of washing,
soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing water from the
clothing.'' ``Delay start mode'' is defined in section 1.12 of appendix
J2 as ``an active mode in which activation of washing mode is
facilitated by a timer.'' ``Cycle finished mode'' is defined in section
1.11 of appendix J2 as ``an active mode that provides continuous status
display, intermittent tumbling, or air circulation following operation
in active washing mode.''
The Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE further clarify
the definition of a clothes washer cycle. (Joint Efficiency Advocates,
No. 28 at p. 6) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that some
clothes washers may enter a new mode between the completion of the main
cycle and subsequent standby mode. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates
asserted that it is not clear whether energy usage in these scenarios
is being captured by either the active mode or standby mode testing.
(Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates also noted that, while the DOE
test procedure for clothes dryers codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D2 (``appendix D2'') specifies when the cycle shall be
considered complete, there is no clear definition of what constitutes
the beginning and end of a clothes washer cycle in the new appendix J.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE provide additional details in new
appendix J to better define cycle time, stating that on some clothes
washers the end of the cycle is unclear. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2) For
example, the CA IOUs noted that some clothes washers have wrinkle-free
settings in which the clothes washer tumbles the clothes once every 15
minutes for up to 12 hours after the cycle has finished. (Id.) The CA
IOUs suggested that, similar to the way appendix D2 treats clothes
dryers with similar wrinkle-free settings, DOE should include these
types of extended cycle operations in the test procedure if they are
activated by default or instructed by the manufacturer for normal use.
(Id.)
[[Page 33341]]
In response to the Joint Efficiency Advocates and the CA IOUs'
requests to clarify the cycle time definition, DOE reiterates that the
requirement of section 3.2.8 in appendix J2 (and section 3.2.5 of
appendix J as proposed) states explicitly that each wash cycle must
include the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay start or
cycle finished modes. A mode between completion of the main cycle and
subsequent standby mode (including, for example, a wrinkle-free setting
described by the CA IOUs), would be considered a cycle finished mode.
DOE determines that the specification in section 3.2.8 of appendix J2
and section 3.2.5 of new appendix J to include only active washing
mode, and to exclude delay start and cycle finish modes, provides
sufficient specification regarding the wash cycle operations that
comprise a complete cycle, and on which the measurement of cycle time
is to be based.
For these reasons, DOE is not adding a definition of cycle time to
either appendix J2 or new appendix J.
Regarding the suggestion by CA IOUs that DOE include extended cycle
operations in the test procedure if they are activated by default or
instructed by the manufacturer for normal use, DOE addressed the
exclusion of cycle finished mode in the March 2012 Final Rule. Upon
consideration of data and estimates provided in the NOPR published
September 21, 2010 (75 FR 57556), additional energy consumption
estimates provided in the supplemental NOPR published August 9, 2011
(76 FR 49238), the uncertainty regarding consumer usage patterns, and
the additional test burden that would be required, DOE determined in
the March 2012 Final Rule to adopt an ``alternate approach'' to account
for the energy use in cycle finished mode. 77 FR 13888, 13896. Under
this approach, all low-power mode hours are allocated to the inactive
and off modes, and the low-power mode power is then measured in the
inactive and off modes, depending on which of these modes is present.
Id. None of the information provided in comments in response to the
September 2021 NOPR would lead DOE to a different conclusion regarding
the exclusion of cycle finished mode.
For these reasons, DOE is not amending in appendix J2 or
implementing in new appendix J any provisions for measuring operation
in cycle finished mode.
6. Capacity Measurement
Section 3.1 of appendix J2 provides the procedure for measuring the
clothes container capacity, which represents the maximum usable volume
for washing clothes. The clothes container capacity is measured by
filling the clothes container with water and using the weight of the
water to determine the volume of the clothes container. For front-
loading clothes washers, this procedure requires positioning the
clothes washer on its back surface such that the door opening of the
clothes container faces upwards and is leveled horizontally. For all
clothes washers, any volume that cannot be occupied by clothing load
during operation is excluded.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE revised the clothes container
capacity measurement to better reflect the actual usable capacity
compared to the previous measurement procedures. 77 FR 13888, 13917. In
the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE further added to the capacity
measurement procedure a revised description of the maximum fill volume
for front-loading clothes washers, as well as illustrations of the
boundaries defining the uppermost edge of the clothes container for
top-loading vertical-axis clothes washers and the maximum fill volume
for horizontal-axis clothes washers. 80 FR 46729, 46733.
For top-loading vertical-axis clothes washers, DOE defined the
uppermost edge of the clothes container as the uppermost edge of the
rotating portion of the wash basket. 77 FR 13888, 13917-13918. DOE also
concluded that the uppermost edge is the highest horizontal plane that
a dry clothes load could occupy in a top-loading vertical-axis clothes
washer that would allow clothing to interact with the water and
detergent properly. Id.
As discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is not aware of any
changes to product designs since the March 2012 Final Rule that would
cause DOE to reevaluate its conclusions about the most appropriate
capacity fill level. 86 FR 49140, 49165. In DOE's experience, since the
March 2012 Final Rule, the existing capacity fill definition is
implemented consistently by test laboratories and results in repeatable
and reproducible measurements of capacity. Id. DOE therefore did not
propose any changes to the existing capacity measurement method. Id.
DOE requested comment on its tentative determination to maintain
the current capacity measurement method. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to not specify any
alternatives to the current capacity measurement procedure, stating
that it is accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. (AHAM, No. 27 at p.
12)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
retain the current capacity measurement test procedure, stating that it
ensures reproducibility and enables third-party verification. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11)
P.R. China recommended that DOE emphasize in the capacity
measurement procedure that the groove on the rubber door seal of front-
loading clothes washers should not be included in the capacity
calculation. (P.R. China, No. 25 at pp. 3-4)
In response to P.R. China's recommendation, DOE notes that the
groove on the rubber door seal of front-loading clothes washers cannot
be occupied by the clothing load during operation, and therefore is
already excluded from the capacity measurement. In practice, during the
measurement of a front-loading clothes washer's capacity, the groove on
the rubber door seal would be covered by the plastic bag specified in
section 3.1.2 of appendix J2 for lining the inside of the clothes
container for the purpose of the capacity measurement, and therefore
would not be included in the capacity measurement.
For the reasons stated previously, DOE makes no changes to the
capacity measurement method in this final rule.
7. Identifying and Addressing Anomalous Cycles
Section 3.2.9 of appendix J2 previously specified discarding the
data from a wash cycle that ``provides a visual or audio indicator to
alert the user that an out-of-balance condition has been detected, or
that terminates prematurely if an out-of-balance condition is detected,
and thus does not include the agitation/tumble operation, spin
speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to the wash cycle
under test.''
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE discussed that as clothes washer
technology has improved, certain clothes washers are designed to self-
correct out-of-balance loads or make other adjustments to the operation
of the unit to complete the cycle without alerting the consumer or
requiring user intervention. 86 FR 49140, 49166. DOE also recognized
the benefit of objective and observable criteria to determine when an
anomalous cycle has occurred, based on a single test, such that the
data from that anomalous cycle should be discarded. Id.
To provide more objective and observable criteria, DOE proposed
that data from a wash cycle would be discarded if either: The washing
machine signals to the user by means of
[[Page 33342]]
an audio or visual alert that an off-balance condition has occurred; or
the wash cycle terminates prematurely and thus does not include the
agitation/tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times
applicable to the wash cycle under test. Id. The proposed reference to
an audio or visual alert refers to a warning sound initiated by the
clothes washer, or visual cue such as a flashing light or persistent
error code, that is provided to the user to actively inform the user
that a problem has occurred; as opposed to a more passive indication
such as the drum hitting the side of the cabinet or a change in the
projected cycle duration, which could go unnoticed by the user or which
itself may not be an indication of an out-of-balance load that warrants
discarding the data for a test cycle. Id. To emphasize this intent, DOE
proposed to change the current phrase ``provides a visual or audio
indicator to alert the user'' to ``signals to the user by means of a
visual or audio alert'' in both section 3.2.9 of appendix J2 and
section 3.2.6 of the new appendix J. Id.
DOE also proposed to change the current phrase ``terminates
prematurely if an out-of-balance condition is detected'' to simply
``terminates prematurely,'' in recognition that other factors beyond an
out-of-balance condition could also cause a wash cycle to terminate
prematurely (e.g., a clogged filter, mechanical malfunction, etc.), and
that for any such reason, the data from that wash cycle would be
discarded. Id.
DOE further proposed non-substantive wording changes to section
3.2.9 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 of the new appendix J to make
explicit that if data are discarded for the reasons described in these
sections, the wash cycle is repeated. Id.
DOE requested comment on the proposed criteria for determining
whether test data are to be discarded. Id. Specifically, DOE requested
comment on the proposal that test data are discarded if a washing
machine either signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert
that an out-of-balance condition has occurred or terminates
prematurely. Id. DOE requested comment on whether additional or
alternate criteria would provide objective and observable indication
during a single test that test data are to be discarded. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposed definition for
anomalous test cycles, but with one suggested change to replace ``. .
.b) terminates prematurely and thus does not include the agitation/
tumble operation . . .'' with ``. . . b) terminates prematurely; or c)
does not include the agitation/tumble operation . . .'' (AHAM, No. 27
at pp. 12-13) AHAM commented that an anomalous cycle may not always
terminate prematurely, but may instead only be apparent from the
objective and observable criteria such as agitation/tumble operation,
spin speeds, wash times, and rinse times applicable to the cycle under
test. (Id.) AHAM further commented that a cycle may not terminate
prematurely due to anomalous behavior because, in order to benefit the
consumer, the clothes washer will address the anomalous behavior and
finish the cycle without alerting the consumer or requiring consumer
interaction. (Id.) AHAM noted that, in addition to benefitting the
consumer, addressing anomalous behavior often saves energy and water by
finishing the cycle with some incrementally increased water or energy
usage instead of requiring a cycle to be canceled and completely re-
run. (Id.) AHAM recommended that test cycles exhibiting signs of
anomalous behavior without alerting the consumer should be considered
invalid because they will likely impact test results if they occur
during a test cycle by increasing energy and/or water consumption for
that particular test, and it is unlikely that anomalous conditions
happen frequently when consumers use the clothes washer. (Id.) While
AHAM recognizes that third-party test laboratories may not know when a
clothes washer changes its operation due to anomalous behavior without
an audio/visual indicator, a proposal to require such an indicator
would necessitate product changes that add unnecessary product cost.
(Id.) AHAM further asserted that consumers may be dissatisfied if their
clothes washer presents an audio/visual alert instead of fixing
anomalous behavior automatically for the user because the user may have
to fix the issue themselves, or make a service call. (Id.) GEA provided
specific support of AHAM's comments regarding this proposed amendment.
(GEA, No. 32 at p. 3)
Whirlpool commented in agreement with DOE's proposal on anomalous
cycles to recognize that there may be other factors beyond an out-of-
balance condition that could cause a wash cycle to terminate
prematurely. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 10) Whirlpool suggested, however,
that DOE adopt AHAM's recommendation presented in its comments from the
May 2020 RFI to determine anomalous cycles even when there are no
visual or audio alerts to the user to indicate that something anomalous
has occurred during the cycle. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that not
alerting the user to anomalous clothes washer behavior is beneficial to
the consumer, since alerting the consumer to anomalous behavior may
result in the consumer incorrectly believing something is seriously
wrong with the unit, which could lead to a service call or visit from
the manufacturer. (Id.) Since consumer intervention may not be needed
to fix anomalous behavior, Whirlpool suggested that DOE should not
require that the clothes washer signal the user by means of a visual or
audio alert. (Id.) Whirlpool also commented that adding a visual or
audio alert adds unnecessary costs. (Id.)
GEA commented that it appreciates DOE's evaluation of the issue of
anomalous cycles during testing. (GEA, No. 32 at pp. 2-3) GEA specified
that the high spin speeds required by current energy conservation
standards combined with increasing clothes washer capacity can lead to
the need for clothes washers to adjust their normal cycle to ensure
safe and effective cycles. (Id.) GEA also commented that handling of
anomalous cycles without notifying the user is an important consumer
feature that saves energy and consumers' time. (Id.) GEA further
explained that requiring a consumer notification for an anomalous cycle
that otherwise successfully washes and spins the load may lead to
unnecessary rewash of cleaned clothing, which could lead to a waste of
energy. (Id.)
DOE did not intend its proposal to be a design requirement. Rather,
the intent of the proposal was to specify objective and observable
criteria that--if observed on a particular unit under test--would
indicate that the test data are to be discarded. The proposal would not
require all clothes washers to provide audio or visual alerts if
anomalies are detected. As stated above, DOE acknowledges the consumer
benefit and potential energy savings benefit of clothes washers that
are able to address anomalous behavior and finish the cycle without
requiring consumer interaction. DOE expects that such anomalous cycles
would occur infrequently and only under limited circumstances; more
frequent occurrence would potentially indicate that such cycle behavior
may be representative of what a consumer of that model would
experience.
For the purpose of specifying criteria by which test data must be
discarded, DOE reiterates the importance of specifying objective and
observable criteria that could be used by an independent laboratory to
determine when an anomalous cycle has occurred,
[[Page 33343]]
based on a single test, such that the data from that anomalous cycle
would be discarded.
For these reasons, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the
September 2021 NOPR, to further specify objective and observable
criteria that, if were to occur during testing, require the test data
to be discarded, and the test cycle repeated. This amendment applies to
both appendix J2 and appendix J.
8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
Section III.C.2 of this document discussed the installation of
semi-automatic clothes washers for testing. This section discusses the
wash/rinse temperature selections and TUFs applicable to semi-automatic
clothes washers. As noted, semi-automatic clothes washers are defined
at 10 CFR 430.2 as a class of clothes washer that is the same as an
automatic clothes washer except that user intervention is required to
regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet
valves. DOE's test procedure requirements at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(2)(ii)
state that the use of appendix J2 is required to determine IMEF for
both automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers.
Semi-automatic clothes washers inherently do not provide wash/rinse
temperature selections on the control panel, as any combination of
cold, warm, and hot wash temperatures and rinse temperatures are
provided by the user's adjustment of the external water faucet valves.
As discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, inherently, testing the Hot/
Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/Cold wash/rinse temperature combinations
require no changes to the water faucet valve positions between the wash
and rinse portions of the cycle. However, testing the Hot/Warm, Hot/
Cold, and Warm/Cold temperature combinations requires the test
administrator to manually adjust the external water faucet valves
between the wash and rinse portions of the cycle by. As reflected in
DOE's definition of semi-automatic clothes washer, user intervention is
required to regulate the water temperature of all semi-automatic
clothes washers (i.e., user regulation of water temperature is the
distinguishing characteristic of a semi-automatic clothes washer). See
10 CFR 430.2.
Table 4.1.1 in appendix J2 contains columns that list TUFs based on
the temperature selections available in the energy test cycle. Table
4.1.1 does not state which column(s) of the table are applicable to
semi-automatic clothes washers. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE
stated that it was not aware of any semi-automatic clothes washers on
the market. 77 FR 32307, 32317. However, DOE is currently aware of
several semi-automatic clothes washer models available in the U.S.
market.
a. Temperature Selections and Usage Factors
Appendix J as established in the September 1977 Final Rule required
testing six wash/rinse temperature combinations: Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm,
Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm, Warm/Cold and Cold/Cold. The TUFs in Table 6.1 of
the 1977 version of appendix J used the same general usage factors for
semi-automatic clothes washers as for automatic clothes washers. 42 FR
49802, 49810. For example, the Cold/Cold TUF of 0.15 was the same for
both types, and the sum of Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm and Hot/Cold (with a total
TUF of 0.30) for semi-automatic clothes washers was the same as the TUF
for Hot/Cold on an automatic clothes washer with only three temperature
selections.
DOE updated the TUFs in the August 1997 Final Rule, based on P&G
data provided by AHAM. 62 FR 45484, 45491. Currently, Table 4.1.1 of
appendix J2 does not include TUFs for all six of the temperatures
required for testing in the 1977 version of appendix J.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE considered requiring that semi-
automatic clothes washers be tested with the same six temperature
settings as in the 1977 version of appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49167.
By including all six possible temperature combinations, Table 6.1
of the 1977 version of appendix J included wash/rinse temperature
settings that require the water temperature to be changed between the
wash portion and the rinse portion of the cycle (i.e., Hot/Warm, Hot/
Cold, and Warm/Cold), and wash/rinse temperature settings that do not
require any water temperature change (i.e., Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and
Cold/Cold). 86 FR 49140, 49167-49168. In Table 6.1 of the 1977 version
of appendix J, temperature settings that do not require a water
temperature change had higher usage factors than temperatures settings
that do require a water temperature change, reflecting that consumers
are more likely to use a single temperature for the entire duration of
the cycle than to change the temperature between the wash and rinse
portions of the cycle. 86 FR 49140, 49168.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require testing only
those temperature settings that do not require a water temperature
change (i.e., Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/Cold) for semi-automatic
clothes washers in new appendix J. As indicated by the TUFs from the
1977 version of appendix J, consumers are more likely to use a single
temperature for the entire duration of the cycle than to change the
temperature between the wash and rinse portions of the cycle. Id.
Changing the temperature between the wash and rinse portions of the
cycle would require the consumer to monitor the operation of the
clothes washer and adjust the temperature at the appropriate time. Id.
DOE expects that consumers are more likely not to interact with the
operation of the clothes washer during operation of the unit, once it
has been started. Id. Not requiring testing of temperature combinations
that would require the user to change the temperature between wash and
rinse would reduce test burden significantly, while producing results
that are representative of consumer usage. Id. DOE tentatively
concluded that requiring testing all six possible temperature
combinations would present undue burden compared to testing only those
temperature combinations that do not require a water temperature
change. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
for testing semi-automatic clothes washers in the proposed new appendix
J that would require testing only the wash/rinse temperature
combinations that do not require a wash temperature change between the
wash and rinse portions of the cycle (i.e., Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and
Cold/Cold). Id.
To define the TUFs for these three temperature combinations, DOE
proposed to use the TUFs from the existing column of Table 4.1.1 of
appendix J2 specified for testing clothes washers with Hot/Cold, Warm/
Cold, and Cold/Cold temperature selections, and presented in Table
III.1. To further simplify the test procedure, since DOE proposed to
require testing only those temperature selections that do not require a
change in the water temperature, DOE proposed to label these selections
``Hot,'' ``Warm,'' and ``Cold,'' respectively (as opposed to ``Hot/
Hot'', ``Warm/Warm'', and ``Cold/Cold'').
Table III.1--Temperature Usage Factors for Semi-Automatic Clothes
Washers Reflecting Three Required Temperature Combinations Proposed in
the September 2021 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed TUF
Wash/rinse temperature selection Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot..................................................... 0.14
Warm.................................................... 0.49
[[Page 33344]]
Cold.................................................... 0.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested feedback on its proposal to test semi-automatic
clothes washers using TUF values of 0.14 for Hot, 0.49 for Warm, and
0.37 for Cold. Id. DOE further requested comment on whether the
temperature selections and TUFs that DOE proposed for semi-automatic
clothes washers would be representative of consumer use; and if not,
which temperature selections and TUF values would better reflect
consumer use. Id.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal
regarding temperature selection for semi-automatic clothes washers.
(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11) The Joint Commenters further
commented that consumers are unlikely to monitor the progress of a
semi-automatic clothes washer cycle to change inlet water temperature
mid-cycle. (Id.)
P.R. China recommended that DOE use different TUFs for automatic
and semi-automatic clothes washers, and that DOE investigate more
consumer usage data before determining TUF values for semi-automatic
clothes washers. (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 4) P.R. China commented
that, as far as it knows, hot water is rarely used in semi-automatic
clothes washers. (Id.)
AHAM commented that if AHAM's test data supports DOE's proposal,
the proposal should apply only to products plumbed to both hot and cold
water supplies to avoid penalizing products designed to be plumbed with
only cold water. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 7)
In response to P.R. China's comment that DOE should use different
TUFs for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers, the history of
DOE's test specifications for semi-automatic clothes washers reflects
DOE's historical understanding that consumers of semi-automatic clothes
washers select among cold, warm, and hot wash temperatures with similar
frequencies as consumers of automatic clothes washer. As discussed
above, in the 1977 version of appendix J, the TUFs for automatic and
semi-automatic clothes washers were aligned. DOE maintained this
general alignment in appendix J through subsequent revisions of the
test procedure in the August 1997 Final Rule and January 2001 Final
Rule. In the initial version of appendix J1 established in the August
1997 Final Rule, DOE further maintained this alignment in combining the
TUFs for both automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers into a
single table of TUFs applicable to all types of clothes washers. DOE
maintained this single table in subsequent versions of appendix J1 as
amended by the January 2001 Final Rule, March 2012 Final Rule, and
August 2015 Final Rule; as well as appendix J2 as established in the
March 2012 Final Rule and subsequently amended in the August 2015 Final
Rule. P.R. China presented no data to support its assertion that the
TUFs for semi-automatic clothes washers should be different than for
automatic clothes washers. Lacking any more recent data or information
to suggest that DOE's historical understanding of consumer usage of
semi-automatic clothes washers has changed in this regard, DOE
maintains the alignment of the TUFs between semi-automatic and
automatic clothes washers, as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR.
In response to AHAM's comment that the proposed TUFs should apply
to only products plumbed to both hot and cold water supplies, DOE is
not aware of any semi-automatic clothes washers that are plumbed to
both hot and cold water supplies. In DOE's review of products on the
market, all semi-automatic clothes washers are designed with a single
water inlet that consumers connect to a water faucet, such as a kitchen
faucet, that has the ability to provide water at a range of
temperatures. Therefore, DOE does not make a distinction between semi-
automatic clothes washers plumbed to both hot and cold water supplies--
were such products to be brought to the market--and those plumbed with
only cold water. To the extent that provisions of appendix J for semi-
automatic clothes washers result in higher measured energy compared to
appendix J2, impacts on measured energy use between the then-current
appendix J2 and the proposed appendix J test procedures would be
factored into the crosswalk relating the appendix J2 and appendix J
metrics as part of the ongoing standards analysis.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to test semi-automatic clothes
washers under appendix J using only the wash/rinse temperature
combinations that do not require a temperature change between the wash
and rinse portions of the cycle (i.e., Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/
Cold). Also consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes its
proposal to define TUF values of 0.14 for Hot, 0.49 for Warm, and 0.37
for Cold in appendix J for semi-automatic clothes washers.
b. Cycles Required for Test
Inherent to semi-automatic clothes washer operation is that the
clothes washer provides the same cycle operation for a given load size
and cycle setting, regardless of the water temperature that the user
provides. 86 FR 49140, 49168. As a result, when testing a semi-
automatic clothes washer, machine energy consumption, total water
consumption, bone-dry weight, cycle-completion weight, and cycle time
for a given load size are unaffected by wash/rinse temperature. Id.
When testing a given load size, only the relative amount of cold and
hot water consumption is based on the water temperature provided by the
user. Id. For the Cold cycle as proposed, all of the water used is
cold; for the Hot cycle as proposed, all of the water used is hot; and
for the Warm cycle as proposed, half of the water used is cold and half
is hot.\42\ Based on these relationships, for a given load size, once
one of the test cycles has been performed and the total water
consumption determined, the relative amounts of cold and hot water for
the other required cycles can be determined formulaically rather than
needing to be determined through testing. Id. Therefore, DOE
tentatively determined that testing all three of the proposed
temperature selections would be unnecessary, and that only a single
test cycle is required for a given load size. Id. In the September 2021
NOPR, DOE proposed in new appendix J to require testing only the Cold
cycle, and to determine the representative values for the Hot and Warm
cycles formulaically based on the values measured for the Cold cycle.
Id. This approach would reduce the test burden for semi-automatic
clothes washers by requiring only two test cycles to be conducted
(using the small and large test loads with the Cold cycle) as opposed
to six cycles (using the small and large test loads with the Cold,
Warm, and Hot cycles) and obtaining the other required values through
calculation. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ These water use determinations are based on the water
faucet positions specified in section 3.2.3.2 of appendix J2, which
specifies that to obtain a hot inlet water temperature, open the hot
water faucet completely and close the cold water faucet; for a warm
inlet water temperature, open both hot and cold water faucets
completely; and for a cold inlet water temperature, close the hot
water faucet and open the cold water faucet completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33345]]
DOE also noted that if it were to require measuring six temperature
selections (Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm, Warm/Cold, and
Cold/Cold), the determination of hot and cold water use would be more
complicated for temperature selections that require a water temperature
change. 86 FR 49140, 49168-49169. The tester would first need to
determine the proportion of wash water to rinse water, in order to be
able to apportion the total volume of cold and hot water used between
wash and rinse for each of the temperature selections determined
formulaically. 86 FR 49140, 49169.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to require semi-automatic clothes washers to be tested using only the
Cold cycle, and to determine the representative values for the Warm and
Hot cycles formulaically, for the proposed new appendix J. 86 FR 49140,
49168.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposal to require
semi-automatic clothes washers to test only the Cold cycle, and to
determine the representative values for the Warm and Hot cycles
formulaically, for the proposed new appendix J.
For the reasons stated above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to require semi-automatic
clothes washers to be tested using only the Cold cycle, and to
determine the representative values for the Warm and Hot cycles
formulaically, for the proposed new appendix J.
c. Implementation
To implement the changes described above for semi-automatic clothes
washers, DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to create a section
3.4 in the new appendix J (see discussion in section III.H.7 of this
document for an explanation of how section 3 of the new appendix J was
proposed to be structured) specifying the cycles required for testing
semi-automatic clothes washers. 86 FR 49140, 49169. DOE proposed a new
section 3.4.1 that would specify the required test measurements for the
Cold cycle and would define variables for each measured value and a new
section 3.4.2 that would specify the formulas used to calculate the
representative values for the Warm and Hot cycles, based on the
measured values from the Cold cycle. Id.
DOE also proposed to create a section 2.12.2 in the new appendix J
to state that the energy test cycle for semi-automatic clothes washers
includes only the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse (``Cold'') test cycle. Id. DOE
also proposed to create a section 2.12.1, which would parallel the
current section 2.12 in appendix J2 and would be identified as applying
to automatic clothes washers. Id. DOE further proposed to specify that
section 3.2.1 of the new appendix J (which would mirror section 3.2.4
of appendix J2) would apply only to automatic clothes washers. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on whether to
include explicit instructions for how to test semi-automatic clothes
washers in appendix J2, and if so, whether DOE should implement the
same procedures being proposed for the proposed new appendix J. 86 FR
49140, 49168. DOE also requested feedback on how manufacturers of semi-
automatic clothes washers are currently testing their products using
appendix J2. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed
implementation details for including explicit instructions on how to
test semi-automatic clothes washers in appendix J. DOE also did not
receive any comments on how manufacturers of semi-automatic clothes
washers are currently testing their products using appendix J2 or
whether to include explicit instructions for how to test semi-automatic
clothes washers in appendix J2.
For the reasons stated above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to create a section 3.4 in the
new appendix J specifying the cycles required for testing semi-
automatic clothes washers, including a new section 3.4.1 that specifies
the required test measurements for the Cold cycle and defines variables
for each measured value; and a new section 3.4.2 that specifies the
formulas used to calculate the representative values for the Warm and
Hot cycles, based on the measured values from the Cold cycle. DOE also
finalizes its proposal, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to
create a section 2.12.2 in the new appendix J to state that the energy
test cycle for semi-automatic clothes washers includes only the Cold
test cycle.
9. Optional Cycle Modifiers
Section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 previously stated that for clothes
washers with electronic control systems, the manufacturer default
settings must be used for any cycle selections, except for (1) the
temperature selection, (2) the wash water fill levels, or (3) if
necessary, the spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine RMC.
Specifically, the manufacturer default settings must be used for wash
conditions such as agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin speed
on wash cycles used to determine energy and water consumption, wash
times, rinse times, optional rinse settings, water heating time for
water-heating clothes washers, and all other wash parameters or
optional features applicable to that wash cycle. Any optional wash
cycle feature or setting (other than wash/rinse temperature, water fill
level selection, or spin speed on wash cycles used to determine RMC)
that is activated by default on the wash cycle under test must be
included for testing unless the manufacturer instructions recommend not
selecting this option, or recommend selecting a different option, for
washing normally soiled cotton clothing.
DOE has observed a trend towards increased availability of optional
cycle modifiers. 86 FR 49140, 49169. These optional settings may
significantly impact the water and/or energy consumption of the clothes
washer when activated. Id. DOE has observed that the default setting of
these optional settings on the Normal cycle is most often in the off
position; i.e., the least energy- and water-intensive setting. Id. DOE
suggested that the growing presence of such features may, however, be
indicative of an increase in consumer demand and/or usage of these
features. Id.
As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is not aware of any
consumer usage data concerning the use of optional cycle modifiers, nor
did interested parties provide any such data. 86 FR 49140, 49170.
Although DOE maintains that the growing presence of such features may
be indicative of an increase in consumer usage of these features, DOE
lacks consumer usage data that would be required to incorporate the
testing of such features in the test procedure. Id. Therefore, DOE did
not propose to change the current requirement to use the manufacturer
default settings for optional cycle modifiers. Id.
As discussed in section III.D.4 of this document, new appendix J
requires measuring RMC on each tested cycle using the default spin
settings for each cycle. Id. Consistent with this change from appendix
J2, DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to remove ``spin speeds on
wash cycles used to determine RMC'' from the list of cycle settings
that are excluded from the requirement to use the manufacturer default
settings in section 3.2.4 (Manufacturer default settings) of the new
appendix J. Id.
DOE requested comment on maintaining the current requirement to use
the manufacturer default settings for optional cycle modifiers. Id.
[[Page 33346]]
The Joint Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to investigate the
usage of cycle modifiers and consumer spin cycle selection behaviors,
and their impact on energy and water use. (Joint Efficiency Advocates,
No. 28 at p. 7) The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that they agree
with DOE's statement in the September 2021 NOPR that cycle modifiers
have a growing presence, as evidenced by the fact that ``deep fill'' is
a clothes washer selection filter on certain appliance vendors'
websites. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates asserted that cycle
modifiers such as ``deep fill'' are being captured by the test
procedure only in certain cases. (e.g., user-adjustable automatic
clothes washers that have the ``deep fill'' setting on the water level
control, which would be captured by the provision in section 3.2.6.2.2
of appendix J2, versus clothes washers that have a separate ``deep
fill'' button that would be considered a cycle modifier and would not
be tested under the proposed amended test procedure). (Id.) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates also restated their comments in response to the
May 2020 RFI, that if the test procedure requires testing of optional
cycle modifiers only in their default position, and the default
settings for optional modifiers are most often in the ``off'' position,
the test procedure effectively assigns a value of zero to the energy
and water use of those features, which the Joint Efficiency Advocates
asserted is not representative of consumer use. (Id.) Additionally, the
Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that while DOE's proposal to
measure RMC on each energy test cycle using the default spin setting is
an improvement upon the current RMC testing method, consumers may still
select spin settings that are not the default setting, and that the
proposed amended test procedure may not accurately reflect real-world
energy usage. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates therefore concluded
that DOE should pursue data regarding consumer behavior for spin
setting selection at different temperature cycles. (Id.)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE conduct exploratory research
testing on cycle modifiers and consider future amendments to the test
procedure to ensure that the energy conservation standards are
representative of actual field energy and water use. (CA IOUs, No. 29
at p. 6) The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE invest in a national
study to determine how consumers use additional cycle modifiers on a
national scale. (Id.)
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to maintain the current
requirement to use the manufacturer default settings for optional cycle
modifiers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 14) AHAM also commented that it agrees
with DOE's proposal to remove ``spin speeds on wash cycles used to
determine RMC'' from the list of cycle settings that are excluded from
the requirement to use the manufacturer default settings. (Id.)
Regarding the Joint Efficiency Advocates' assertion that certain
implementations of ``deep fill'' would be captured by the test
procedure but that a separate deep fill button would be considered a
cycle modifier and not be tested, the language of section 3.2.7
regarding use of default settings during testing does not apply to wash
water fill levels.\43\ Irrespective of how a deep fill feature is
implemented on the control panel (e.g., whether as a setting on the
water level control or as separate ``deep fill'' button), the ``deep
fill'' option would be tested if the feature meets the definition of a
user-adjustable adaptive WFCS (see further discussion of this
definition in section III.H.3.a of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 states that for clothes
washers with electronic control systems, use the manufacturer
default settings for any cycle selections, except for (1) the
temperature selection, (2) the wash water fill levels, or (3) if
necessary, the spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine
remaining moisture content. (emphasis added)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes, as discussed, that clothes washer control panels
continue to become more complex. The plethora of cycle modifiers
available--implemented differently by each manufacturer--creates a
significant challenge in collecting data on consumer usage and in
considering test procedures for these features that would be
representative of an average use cycle or period of use without being
unduly burdensome to conduct, as required by EPCA. DOE lacks data and
information that could provide insights into average consumer use of
cycle modifiers.
For the reasons stated above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to specify in section 3.2.4 of
new appendix J the use of manufacturer default settings for optional
cycle modifiers other than temperature selections and wash water fill
levels, and to remove ``spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine
RMC'' from the list of cycle settings that are excluded from the
requirement to use the manufacturer default settings.
10. Clothes Washers With Connected Functionality
DOE is aware of several ``connected'' RCW models currently on the
market, from at least six major manufacturers. As discussed in the
September 2021 NOPR, these products offer optional wireless network
connectivity to enable features such as remote monitoring and control
via smartphone, as well as certain demand response features \44\
available through partnerships with a small number of local electric
utilities. 86 FR 49140, 49170. In addition, connected features are
available via certain external communication modules for CCWs. Id.
However, DOE is not aware of any CCW models currently on the market
that incorporate connected features directly into the unit. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ ``Demand response features'' refers to product
functionality that can be controlled by the ``smart grid'' to
improve the overall operation of the electrical grid, for example by
reducing energy consumption during peak periods and/or shifting
power consumption to off-peak periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 previously
specified using the manufacturer default settings for any cycle
selections except temperature selection, wash water fill level, or spin
speed. Furthermore, section 3.9.1 of appendix J2 specifies performing
the combined low-power mode testing without changing any control panel
settings used for the active mode wash cycle.
As discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, if connected features on a
clothes washer affect its inactive mode power consumption in the as-
shipped configuration (e.g., by energizing a wireless communication
chip on the circuit board by default), such impact would be measured by
the current test procedure provisions in section 3.9 of appendix J2 for
measuring combined low-power mode power. Id. Whereas, if the inactive
mode power consumption is not affected unless the consumer actively
enables the connected functionality on the unit, any incremental
inactive mode power consumption resulting from the connected features
would not be measured by the current test procedure, because the test
procedure does not include instructions for activating any such
features before performing the low-power mode measurement. Id.
Similarly, any incremental energy consumption in active mode, or any
other modes of operation impacted by the product's connected features,
would not be measured as part of the current DOE test procedure,
because the test cycle requirements in section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 do
not include instructions for activating any such features before
performing the active mode test cycles. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE recognized the potential benefits
that could be provided by connected
[[Page 33347]]
capability, such as providing energy saving benefits to consumers,
enabling peak load shifting on the electrical grid, and other consumer-
related benefits. 86 FR 49140, 49171. While a number of connected
clothes washers are currently on the market with varying
implementations of connected features, DOE is not aware of any data
available regarding the consumer use of connected features. Id.
DOE also noted that while the current test procedure does not
specifically consider energy use of network features, the test
procedure may result in the measurement of the energy use of connected
features in inactive mode. 86 FR 49140, 49171. Specifically, as
discussed, any energy use of connected features would be measured in
section 3.9 of appendix J2 for measuring combined low-power mode power
if the connected features are enabled in the ``as-shipped''
configuration. Id. If the consumer is required to actively enable the
connected functionality, however, such energy consumption would not be
measured. Id. Similarly, any incremental energy consumption in active
mode, or any other modes of operation impacted by the product's
connected features, would not be measured because the test cycle
requirements in section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 do not include
instructions for activating any such features before performing the
active mode test cycles. Id.
Given the lack of data to establish a test configuration that would
be representative of consumer use of connected features on clothes
washers, DOE proposed to amend section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 and section
3.2.4 of the new appendix J to specify that network settings (on
clothes washers with network capabilities) must be disabled during
testing if such settings can be disabled by the end-user, and the
product's user manual provides instructions on how to do so. Id.
If, however, connected functionality cannot be disabled by the end-
user or the product's user manual does not provide instruction for
disabling connected functionality that is enabled by default, DOE
proposed that the unit must be tested with the network capability in
the factory default setting as specified in the current test procedure.
Id. DOE preliminarily determined that if connected functionality cannot
be disabled, or the product's user manual does not provide instruction
for disabling the function, it is more representative to include the
energy consumption of the clothes washer in the default condition,
including the enabled connected function, than to exclude the energy
consumption associated with the connected feature. Id. As such, the
energy consumption of a connected function that cannot be disabled
would continue to be measured, as in the current test procedure. Id.
This approach is consistent with the microwave ovens supplemental NOPR
published on August 3, 2021, and with the consumer clothes dryer final
rule published on October 8, 2021. 86 FR 41759 and 86 FR 56608.
DOE requested comment on its proposed amendment to appendix J2 and
the proposed new appendix J to specify that network settings (on
clothes washers with network capabilities) must be disabled during
testing if such settings can be disabled by the end-user, and the
product's user manual provides instructions on how to do so. 86 FR
49140, 49171. DOE also requested information and data regarding
connected clothes washers that could inform future test procedure
considerations. Id.
Whirlpool stated that it supports DOE's proposal to specify that
network settings on clothes washers with connected functionality should
be disabled during testing if such settings can be disabled by the end
user, and if the product's user manual provides instructions on how to
do so. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 11)
AHAM commented that it does not oppose the intent behind DOE's
proposal regarding network-connected clothes washers, but recommended
that DOE refrain from using the term ``disabled'' and instead adopt
terminology consistent with IEC Standard 62301, ``Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Edition 2.0, 2011-01.
(AHAM, No. 27 at p. 14) Specifically, AHAM noted that the definition of
``low power mode'' in IEC 62301 has three conditions: Off, standby, and
network. (Id.) AHAM added that the power consumption in standby and
network modes are often negligible, but are not always zero. (Id.) AHAM
expressed concern that DOE's use of the term ``disable'' could mean
that power consumption must be zero, which may lead to confusion and
inaccurate testing. (Id.) AHAM recommended that instead of calling for
connected functionality to be disabled, DOE should adopt the use of
``low power mode'' as defined in IEC 62301 as a setting in which the
testing of connected products may occur. (Id.) AHAM added that the
approach in IEC 62301 is desirable because connected functionalities
are still evolving, as are the use cases that connected devices employ,
and the low power definition in IEC 62301 allows for more flexibility
while offering the clarity DOE seeks when it comes to connected
functionality testing for clothes washers. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE test clothes
washers with network-connected functionality in their as-shipped
setting for both the active cycle and low-power modes. (Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 4) The Joint Efficiency Advocates
commented that while they support clarifying the instructions for
network-connected functionality testing, they are concerned that DOE's
proposal to test clothes washers with the network-connected functions
disabled if such settings can be disabled by the end-user via user
manual instructions would allow many clothes washers to be tested with
connected functionality disabled even though those functions may not be
disabled in the field. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates asserted
that if a clothes washer with connected functionality is shipped with
those features enabled, it is unlikely that most consumers will take
the necessary steps to disable those features. (Id.) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates therefore concluded that DOE's proposal for
testing network-connected functionality would not be representative of
the model's standby power consumption. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that they support testing all products with
connected functionality in their as-shipped configuration. (CA IOUs,
No. 29 at p. 7) The CA IOUs added that there is existing precedent for
testing network-connected functions in their as-shipped configurations
that was established under the October 12, 2021 test procedure final
rule for refrigeration products.\45\ (Id.) The CA IOUs also commented
that for clothes washers that have directions to disable network-
connected functionality, there is no information available to confirm
whether consumers disable these functions and at what rate they do so.
(Id.) The CA IOUs further asserted that without specific consumer use
information, it is reasonable to assume consumers will operate network-
connected clothes washers in their as-shipped condition, and that
anything to the contrary would imply a direct action by the consumer
for which no supporting data exists. (Id.) The CA IOUs requested that
if such data does exist, DOE should publish this
[[Page 33348]]
information for all stakeholders to view. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The October 12, 2021 test procedure final rule for
refrigeration products is available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Commenters commented that they disagree with DOE's
proposal to disable connected functionality during testing. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 5-6) The Joint Commenters instead recommended
that DOE require testing connected functionality for all clothes
washers in the as-shipped configuration. (Id.) The Joint Commenters
commented that their technical research shows that clothes washers with
connected functionality may use varying amounts of energy on low power
mode, and that data trends predict that connected functionality will
likely be present in 25 percent of RCWs by 2023. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters further commented that testing connected functionality for
all clothes washers in the as-shipped condition would reduce test
burden since the test technician would not need to disable connected
functionality before low power mode testing. (Id.) The Joint Commenters
also stated that testing connected functionality in the as-shipped
configuration would be more representative of typical use, asserting
that consumers are more likely to use the clothes washer as shipped,
instead of making extra efforts to disable connected functionality,
even if they choose not to use it. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also
added that DOE's general approach in clothes washers and in other
product categories is to use the default position for most features.
(Id.)
Mutrux recommended that DOE implement a more nuanced tracking of
the standby states of connected appliances since, according to the
Electronics Device & Networks Annex (``EDNA''), network-connected
clothes washers are expected to see a ``high rate of proliferation.''
(Mutrux, No. 19 at pp. 1-2) Mutrux cited EDNA data showing that smart
appliances draw an average of 0.4 watts on standby mode, and that the
worldwide energy consumption of standby power by smart appliances is
predicted to be 7 terawatt-hours in 2025. (Id.) Mutrux recommended that
DOE test the three standby configurations proposed by the Edison
Electric Institute to amend energy conservation standards for
appliances: Standby non-connected (for traditional clothes washers that
do not have ``smart'' features and cannot connect to any external
network or device); standby connected (for ``smart'' clothes washers
that connect to smart home networks or smart devices); and standby
disconnected (for ``smart'' clothes washers that have the ability to
disconnect from smart home networks and smart devices based on user
command or as a default mode if it detects problems with the
communication network). (Id.) Mutrux suggested test procedure
provisions that would address the configuration for network-connected
functionality. (Id.) Mutrux's proposal specified that clothes washers
should be tested either (1) without any connectivity if the washing
machine does not have ``smart'' features and cannot connect to any
external network or device, or (2) both (a) with network-connected
settings disabled (if connected settings can be disabled by the end-
user and the product's user manual provides instructions on how to do
so) or on their ``default mode'' if the clothes washer detects problems
with the communication network and (b) with their network-connected
functions enabled. (Id.)
As discussed, DOE is aware of a number of clothes washers on the
market with varying implementations of connected functionality. On such
products, DOE has observed inconsistent implementations of these
connected features across different brands, and that the design and
operation of these features is continuously evolving as the nascent
market continues to grow for these products.
DOE remains unaware of any data available, nor did interested
parties provide any such data, regarding the consumer use of connected
features. Therefore, DOE is unable to establish a representative test
configuration for assessing the energy consumption of connected
functionality for clothes washers during an average period of use.
Furthermore, as noted, while DOE's prior test procedure did not
explicitly require the measurement of energy use associated with any
connected features, the previous test procedure, in its required
measurement of standby mode and off mode power, may have captured the
energy used by features that provide connected functionality.
Specifically, any energy use of such connected features may have been
measured in section 3.9 of previous appendix J2 if manufacturers'
instructions specify that the features be turned on, or if the
connected functionality is enabled by default when the unit is powered
on. If, however, a manufacturer does not provide such an instruction,
and the product ships with connected features disabled, then such
energy consumption would not have been measured under the prior test
procedure because the test cycle requirements in section 3.2.7 of
appendix J2 did not include instructions for activating any such
features before performing the active mode test cycles.
Therefore, to ensure the repeatability and comparability of test
results between models, especially those with connected functionality,
DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to specify in section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.4 of
the new appendix J that network settings (on clothes washers with
network capabilities) must be disabled during testing if such settings
can be disabled by the end-user, and the product's user manual provides
instructions on how to do so.
DOE has determined that if network functionality cannot be disabled
by the consumer, or if the manufacturer's user manual does not provide
instruction for disabling the function, including the energy
consumption of the enabled network function is more representative than
excluding the energy consumption associated with the network function.
For such products, the energy consumption of a connected function that
cannot be disabled will continue to be measured, as in the previous
test procedure.
Regarding AHAM's comment on use of the term ``disabled,'' DOE does
not agree that the term ``disable'' implies that the power consumption
must be zero. The wording implemented in this final rule specifies that
``. . . the network settings must be disabled throughout testing if
such settings can be disabled by the end-user . . .'' No implication
regarding the resulting power consumption is intended by this
instruction. DOE also notes that this wording maintains consistency
with the clothes dryer test procedures as amended by the final rule
published October 8, 2021 (``October 2021 clothes dryer Final
Rule'').\46\ 86 FR 56608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The October 2021 consumer clothes dryers test procedure
final rule is available online at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-TP-0034-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding consideration of alternate methodologies for categorizing
and testing low power modes (e.g., through further reference to IEC
62301 or to procedures developed by Edison Electric Institute, as
suggested by commenters), DOE developed its low-power mode definitions
and test provisions in the March 2012 Final Rule consistent with the
requirements of EPCA to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, while considering the most
current version of IEC 62301; (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) while also
considering EPCA requirements that any test procedures shall be
reasonably designed
[[Page 33349]]
to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product or equipment
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2))
E. Metrics
1. Replacing Capacity With Weighted-Average Load Size
As discussed, the current energy efficiency standards for RCWs are
based on the IMEF metric, measured in ft\3\/kWh/cycle, as calculated in
section 4.6 of appendix J2. IMEF is calculated as the capacity of the
clothes container (in ft\3\) divided by the total clothes washer energy
consumption (in kWh) per cycle. The total clothes washer energy
consumption per cycle is the sum of: (a) The machine electrical energy
consumption; (b) the water heating energy consumption; (c) the energy
required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load; and
(d) the combined low-power mode energy consumption.
The current energy efficiency standards for CCWs are based on the
MEFJ2 metric, measured in ft\3\/kWh/cycle, as determined in
section 4.5 of appendix J2. The MEFJ2 metric differs from
the IMEF metric by not including the combined low-power mode energy
consumption in the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle.
The current water efficiency standards for both RCWs and CCWs are
based on the IWF metric, measured in gal/cycle/ft\3\, as calculated in
section 4.2.13 of appendix J2. IWF is calculated as the total weighted
per-cycle water consumption (in gallons) for all wash cycles divided by
the capacity of the clothes container (in ft\3\).
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that energy use (the
denominator of the IMEF and MEFJ2 equations) scales with
weighted-average load size, whereas capacity (the numerator of the IMEF
and MEFJ2 equations) scales with maximum load size. 86 FR
49140, 49172. This provides an inherent numerical advantage to large-
capacity clothes washers that is disproportionate to the efficiency
advantage that can be achieved through ``economies of scale''
associated with washing larger loads. Id. This advantage means that a
larger-capacity clothes washer consumes more energy to wash a pound of
clothes than a smaller-capacity clothes washer with the same IMEF
rating. Id. This relationship applies similarly to water efficiency
through the IWF equation. Id. As noted in the comments summarized in
the September 2021 NOPR, this disproportionate benefit increases as
average clothes washer capacity increases over time. Id. To avoid
providing bias for large-capacity clothes washers, DOE proposed to
change the energy and water efficiency metrics in the new appendix J by
replacing the capacity term with the weighted-average load size, in
pounds. Id. Under this proposed change, energy and water use would
scale proportionally with weighted-average load size in the IMEF,
MEFJ2, and IWF formulas and thus eliminate the efficiency
bias currently provided to large-capacity clothes washers. Id.
EPCA defines energy efficiency as ``the ratio of the useful output
of services from a consumer product to the energy use of such
product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(5); 42 U.S.C. 6311(3)) In the current
efficiency metrics, clothes washer capacity is used to represent the
measure of useful output. In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively
determined that clothing load size (i.e., the weight of clothes
cleaned), expressed as the weighted-average load size, may better
represent the ``useful output'' of a clothes washer. 86 FR 49140,
49172.
DOE clarified that were DOE to finalize the proposed metric change,
changes to the energy conservation standards would be addressed in an
energy conservation standards rulemaking. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to replace the capacity term with weighted-average load size in the
energy efficiency metrics and the water efficiency metric in the new
appendix J. Id.
Samsung commented that it supports DOE's proposal to base the
efficiency metrics on load size instead of clothes washer capacity.
(Samsung, No. 30 at p. 3) Samsung added that this proposed change will
be better understood by consumers and will result in only a numerical
change since the clothes washer volume and weighted-average load size
relationship is linear. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's proposal to define the
efficiency metrics based on the weighted-average load size instead of
clothes washer capacity, stating that it would help eliminate part of
the inherent bias toward larger-capacity clothes washers. (CA IOUs, No.
29 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 16)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
replace the capacity term in the efficiency metrics with a weighted-
average load size term in new appendix J. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at
p. 4) The Joint Commenters further commented that as the average basket
volume has increased from 2.7 ft\3\ when the test procedure was first
developed to 4.4 ft\3\ in 2019, aspects of the current test procedure
and efficiency metrics created unintended advantages for larger
capacity clothes washers. (Id.) The Joint Commenters specifically noted
that larger capacity clothes washers could use more energy and water
per pound of textile washed than smaller capacity clothes washers with
the same IMEF ratings, without necessarily being more efficient than
smaller clothes washers. (Id.) The Joint Commenters additionally
commented in support of DOE's proposed new efficiency metrics due to
the EER and WER metrics being similar to the appendix D2 efficiency
metrics for clothes dryers, which also express efficiency in pounds of
textile per kWh. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposal to
base efficiency metrics on load size instead of capacity is an
important step towards eliminating the current bias towards large-
capacity washers and that it will alter the relative efficiency
rankings of machines, will provide a more accurate representation of
real-world efficiency across models, and will help consumers make more
informed purchasing decisions. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at
p. 1)
AHAM commented that DOE does not need to change the efficiency
metrics. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 7-8) AHAM also commented that in order to
provide fully formed comments to DOE on its proposal to introduce new
efficiency metrics, AHAM needs to understand the impact of the proposed
changes on products as well as on consumer understanding of the
metrics. (Id.) Additionally, AHAM commented that since DOE will not be
able to easily ``crosswalk'' current standards to account for the
changes in measured efficiency use, DOE's proposals will require
significant testing and data gathering, which AHAM is just beginning.
(Id.) AHAM emphasized that the main reason AHAM opposes DOE's process
of issuing the proposed test procedure and standards preliminary
analysis concurrently is because it needs more time to understand the
new metrics' impact on products, consumers and manufacturers. (Id.)
As discussed previously, the impacts to measured energy as a result
of changing the metrics were accounted for in the crosswalk between the
then-current appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed for the
September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary
[[Page 33350]]
Analysis. As stated in the preliminary analysis, DOE plans to continue
testing additional units to appendix J and will continue to refine its
approach for determining appropriate crosswalk translations in future
stages of the standards rulemaking. DOE also welcomes any additional
data submitted by interested parties as part of the ongoing standards
rulemaking process.
Considering the discussion presented in the September 2021 NOPR and
comments received from interested parties, DOE has determined that
clothing load size (i.e., the weight of clothes cleaned), expressed as
the weighted-average load size, better represent the ``useful output''
of a clothes washer. As stated, the current metrics provide an inherent
numerical advantage to large-capacity clothes washers that is
disproportionate to the efficiency advantage that can be achieved
through ``economies of scale'' associated with washing larger loads.
Also as stated, under the new metrics adopted in new appendix J, energy
and water use scale proportionally with weighted-average load size in
the EER, AEER, and WER formulas and thus eliminate the efficiency bias
currently provided to large-capacity clothes washers.
For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to change the energy and water
efficiency metrics in the new appendix J by replacing the capacity term
with the weighted-average load size, in pounds.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to rename the efficiency
metrics in the new appendix J to avoid any confusion between the
proposed new metrics and the existing metrics. Id. DOE proposed to
designate EER as the energy efficiency metric for RCWs (replacing
IMEF); AEER as the energy efficiency metric for CCWs (replacing
MEFJ2) and WER as the water efficiency metric for both RCWs
and CCWs (replacing IWF). As proposed, EER would be calculated as the
quotient of the weighted-average load size (in lb) divided by the total
clothes washer energy consumption (in kWh) per cycle; and AEER would be
calculated as the quotient of the weighted-average load size (in lb)
divided by the total clothes washer energy consumption (in kWh) per
cycle not including the combined low-power mode energy consumption. Id.
Section III.E.2 of this document describes how WER would be calculated.
DOE also proposed to establish provisions in 10 CFR 430.23(j) to
specify the procedure for determining EER and WER for RCWs, and in 10
CFR 431.154 to specify the procedure for determining AEER and WER for
CCWs. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed names for the proposed new
efficiency metrics in new appendix J: Energy efficiency ratio (EER),
active-mode energy efficiency ratio (AEER), and water efficiency ratio
(WER).
The CA IOUs and the Joint Commenters supported DOE renaming the
efficiency metrics to EER and WER. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2; Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at p. 4) No other comments were received with regard
to the name changes for the metrics.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE is finalizing its proposals,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to rename the efficiency
metrics in new appendix J and to establish provisions in 10 CFR
430.23(j) to specify the procedure for determining EER and WER for
RCWs, and in 10 CFR 431.154 to specify the procedure for determining
AEER and WER for CCWs.
2. Inverting the Water Metric
As described previously, IWF is calculated in section 4.2.13 of
appendix J2 as the total weighted per-cycle water consumption (in
gallons) for all wash cycles divided by the capacity of the clothes
container (in ft\3\). Unlike the IMEF metric, in which a higher number
indicates more efficient performance, a lower IWF value indicates more
efficient performance.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to invert the water
metric, in conjunction with replacing the capacity term with weighted-
average load size, as described in the previous section. 86 FR 49140,
49173. By inverting the metric, a higher value would represent more
efficient performance, consistent with the energy efficiency metrics.
In addition, by inverting the metric, the proposed WER metric would
represent the ratio of the useful output of services to the water use
of the product, consistent with EPCA's definition of energy efficiency
as described. Id.
DOE proposed to define WER in the new appendix J as the quotient of
the weighted-average load size (in lb) divided by the total weighted
per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles (in gallons). Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to invert the water
efficiency metric in new appendix J and calculate the newly defined WER
metric as the quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the
total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles. Id.
AHAM commented that upon initial review, inversion makes sense from
a theoretical standpoint given the other proposed changes to the test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 8)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's proposal to invert the
water metric so that it is aligns with the energy metric, for which
higher values will equate to more efficient products. (CA IOUs, No. 29
at p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that they believe this will provide better
clarity to consumer seeking efficient products. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
invert the water efficiency metric so that a higher number signifies
increased efficiency, stating that it is more intuitive to pair higher
numbers with higher efficiency. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11) The
Joint Commenters also added that there is value in aligning the
appendix J2 metrics so that higher is better for both metrics. (Id.)
For the reasons stated above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to invert the water metric in
the new appendix J and thereby define WER as the quotient of the
weighted-average load size (in lb) divided by the total weighted per-
cycle water consumption for all wash cycles (in gallons).
DOE considered whether to invert to the IWF metric in appendix J2
to align with the MEFJ2 and IMEF metrics such that a higher
value would indicate higher efficiency. While doing so would provide
the same benefits described previously as justification for inverting
the water metric in new appendix J, changing the metric would require
manufacturers to recertify every model, would require DOE to amend its
standards according to the new metric, and would not provide
information to the consumer that is any more representative than the
current metric. Accordingly, DOE has determined that the burdens
imposed by inverting the water metric in appendix J2 would outweigh the
benefits; i.e., such a change would be unduly burdensome. This final
rule makes no change to the IWF water metric in appendix J2.
3. Representation Requirements
Representation requirements for RCWs and CCWs are codified at 10
CFR 429.20(a) and 10 CFR 429.46(a), respectively.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that the
sampling requirements for RCWs specified at 10 CFR 429.20(a)(2)(ii)
would also apply to the new proposed EER and WER metrics when using the
new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49174. DOE also proposed to clarify that
the capacity specified in 10 CFR 429.20(a)(3) is the clothes container
capacity (emphasis added). Id.
[[Page 33351]]
DOE further proposed to specify that the sampling requirements
specified for CCWs at 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(ii) would also apply to the
new proposed AEER and WER metrics when using the new appendix J. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed representation and sampling
requirements for RCWs and CCWs when tested according to new appendix J
and the proposed clarification. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding is proposal regarding
representation and sampling requirements for RCWs and CCWs.
DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to specify that the sampling requirements for RCWs specified at
10 CFR 429.20(a)(2)(ii) also apply to the new EER and WER metrics when
using the new appendix J; to clarify that the capacity specified in 10
CFR 429.20(a)(3) is the clothes container capacity; and to specify that
the sampling requirements specified for CCWs at 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(ii)
also apply to the new AEER and WER metrics when using the new appendix
J.
F. Cleaning Performance
EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products (and certain commercial equipment,
including CCWs) likely to result from the imposition of potential new
or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a)) EPCA prohibits DOE from prescribing an amended or new standard
if the Secretary finds that interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States at the time of
the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The unavailability provision is applicable to CCWs under 42
U.S.C. 6316(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets,
water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE regulates only the energy and water
efficiency of clothes washers, and DOE's clothes washer test procedures
do not prescribe a method for testing clothes washer cleaning
performance.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that, as indicated by
stakeholder comments, multiple test procedures from industry and
international organizations are available for measuring clothes washer
cleaning performance (among other attributes). 86 FR 49140, 49175. DOE
stated that it may conduct research and testing that uses these or
other established test methods as part of an energy conservation
standards rulemaking to evaluate any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products likely to result from the
imposition of potential new or amended standards, as required by EPCA.
Id. For example, in the most recent energy conservation standards final
rule for CCWs, published on December 15, 2014 (``December 2014 Final
Rule''), DOE conducted performance testing using AHAM's HLW-1-2010 test
procedure to quantitatively evaluate potential impacts on cleaning
performance, rinsing performance, and solid particle removal as a
result of higher standard levels. 79 FR 74492, 74506.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to add a cleaning
performance test procedure to new appendix J or to appendix J2. 86 FR
49140, 49175.
Samsung suggested that DOE's test procedure should ensure a product
performs its basic function. (Samsung, No. 30 at p. 2) Samsung
commented that DOE has already established such a test procedure for
ENERGY STAR called the ``Test Method for Determining Residential
Clothes Washer Cleaning Performance'' \48\ (``the ENERGY STAR cleaning
performance test''). (Id.) Samsung added that the ENERGY STAR test
method uses similar conditions to appendix J2 and could serve as a
uniform test procedure for DOE, manufacturers, and other stakeholders
to ensure that products perform their basic functionality while
reaching new minimum efficiency thresholds. (Id.) Samsung suggested
that DOE add the ENERGY STAR test method as an informative appendix to
the clothes washer test procedure. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The ENERGY STAR ``Test Method for Determining Residential
Clothes Washer Cleaning Performance'' is available online at:
www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/Test%20Method%20for%20Determining%20Residential%20Clothes%20Washer%20Cleaning%20Performance%20-%20July%202018_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool commented in support of DOE's preliminary determination
not to propose a cleaning performance test procedure to the proposed
appendix J or updated appendix J2 test procedures. (Whirlpool, No. 26
at p. 11) Whirlpool recommended that DOE consider the performance
impacts of any new or amended standards and test procedures, but
specified that a cleaning performance test method does not need to be
developed. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it agrees with DOE's proposal not to add a
cleaning performance test procedure to appendix J2 and new appendix J,
asserting that it is not within DOE's authority under EPCA to include a
performance metric or test. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 15) AHAM commented,
however, that cleaning performance is a critical consideration in the
development of energy conservation standards because, under EPCA, DOE
must consider the impact of potential new or amended efficiency
standards on performance and consumer utility. (Id.) AHAM therefore
commented that it supports a robust analysis of the potential impact of
proposed new or amended standards on product performance and utility.
(Id.) AHAM specifically recommended test procedures, such as AHAM HLW-
2-2020: ``Performance Evaluation Procedures for Household Clothes
Washers'' \49\ to evaluate cleaning performance, and recommended that
DOE consider testing that would evaluate other performance concerns,
consumer feedback, and other input. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ AHAM HLW-2-2020: ``Performance Evaluation Procedures for
Household Clothes Washers'' is available for purchase online at:
www.aham.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=20002&Category=MADSTD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed, EPCA requires DOE to establish test procedures that
are reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (for certain products), or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary, and
shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE's
test procedure for clothes washers identifies the ``normal cycle'' as
the cycle representative of consumer use, defines the term ``normal
cycle,'' requires testing using the ``normal cycle,'' and compliance
with the applicable standards is determined based on the measured
energy and water use of the ``normal cycle.'' 10 CFR 430.23(j) and 10
CFR 430 subpart B appendix J2. The ``normal cycle'' is defined as the
cycle recommended by the manufacturer (considering manufacturer
instructions, control panel labeling, and other markings on the clothes
washer) for normal, regular, or
[[Page 33352]]
typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton
clothing.\50\ Section 1.25 of appendix J2. As such, the existing test
procedure does not define what constitutes ``washing'' up to a full
load of normally soiled cotton clothing (i.e., the cleaning
performance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The definition of ``normal cycle'' also specifies that for
machines where multiple cycle settings are recommended by the
manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a
full load of normally soiled cotton clothing, then the normal cycle
is the cycle selection that results in the lowest IMEF or
MEFJ2 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For clothes washers, the cleaning performance at the completion of
a cycle influences how a consumer uses the product. If the cleanliness
of the clothing after completion of a wash cycle does not meet consumer
expectations, consumers may alter their use of the clothes washer. For
example, consumers may alter the use of the product by choosing cycle
modifiers to enhance the performance of the selected cycle; selecting
an alternate cycle that consumes more energy and water to provide a
higher level of cleaning; operating the selected cycle multiple times;
or pre-treating (e.g., pre-soaking in water) clothing items before
loading into the clothes washer to achieve an acceptable level of
cleaning. As summarized in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE received
comment from Samsung in response to the May 2020 RFI expressing concern
that unless clothes washers perform at a minimum level of acceptable
functionality on the Normal cycle, consumers may use other energy- or
water-intensive modes and unknowingly sacrifice energy efficiency.
(Samsung, No. 6 at p. 2) 86 FR 49140, 49174.
In general, a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning performance
(i.e., a representative average use cycle) can be easier to achieve
through the use of higher amounts of energy and water use during the
clothes washer cycle.\51\ Conversely, maintaining acceptable cleaning
performance can be more difficult as energy and water levels are
reduced. Improving one aspect of clothes performance, such as reducing
energy and/or water use as a result of energy conservation standards,
may require a trade-off with one or more other aspects of performance,
such as cleaning performance. DOE expects, however, that consumers
maintain the same expectations of cleaning performance regardless of
the efficiency of the clothes washer. As the clothes washer market
continuously evolves to higher levels of efficiency--either as a result
of mandatory minimum standards or in response to voluntary programs
such as ENERGY STAR--it becomes increasingly more important that DOE
ensures that its test procedure continues to reflect representative
use. As such, the normal cycle that is used to test the clothes washer
for energy and water performance must be one that provides a consumer-
acceptable level of cleaning performance, even as efficiency increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Higher energy use may provide increased thermal and
mechanical action for removing soils. Similarly, higher water use
may provide better rinsing performance by reducing the amount of
soil re-deposition on the clothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE considered, in order to ensure that DOE's clothes washer test
procedure accurately and fully tests clothes washers during a
representative average use cycle, whether to propose amendments to the
test procedure to define what constitutes ``washing up to a full load
of normally soiled cotton clothing'' (i.e., the cleaning performance)
to better represent consumer use of the product. DOE notes that it
proposed amendments in this regard to its dishwasher test procedure in
a NOPR published December 21, 2021 (``December 2021 dishwasher NOPR'').
86 FR 72738. Specifically, in the December 2021 dishwasher NOPR, DOE
proposed to include a methodology for calculating a per-cycle cleaning
index metric--using a methodology defined in the relevant industry
standard--and to establish a minimum cleaning index threshold as a
condition for a test cycle to be valid. Id.
The ENERGY STAR cleaning performance test has been developed by DOE
in partnership with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') to
determine cleaning performance for clothes washers that meet the ENERGY
STAR Most Efficient criteria. Cleaning performance is determined on the
same test units immediately following the energy and water consumption
tests for ENERGY STAR qualification.
The ENERGY STAR cleaning performance test is based largely on the
procedures specified in AHAM HLW-1-2013, but using DOE test cloth
rather than the 100 percent cotton materials specified in AHAM HLW-1-
2013. The test uses standardized soil/stain removal test strips
specified in AHAM HLW-1-2013, which are attached to individual pieces
of test cloth within the load. Testing is performed using the specific
detergent formulation specified in AHAM HLW-1-2013. The test is
performed three times on the hottest Warm/Cold temperature selection
with the maximum load size. After each test, the test strips are
separated from the cloth, allowed to dry, and the post-wash reflectance
of each strip is measured to determine how much of each stain was
removed. A total cleaning score is calculated based on the post-wash
reflectance values. In order to qualify for ENERGY STAR Most Efficient,
clothes washers must achieve a minimum total cleaning score of 85.0.
Since the ENERGY STAR cleaning performance test requires a separate
set of tests conducted after the DOE energy and water consumption
tests, it introduces additional test burden beyond the testing required
to determine compliance with minimum standards. The use of soil/stain
strips and detergent, and the instrumentation required to measure post-
wash reflectance, also introduce additional material and equipment
requirements beyond the requirements of the DOE test procedure.
As discussed, the AHAM HLW-2-2020 test procedure specifies use of a
100-percent cotton load for testing, which is inconsistent with the
test load prescribed by the DOE test procedure. Requiring different
load materials would increase test burden, and given the prevalence of
adaptive water fill clothes washers (particularly among ENERGY STAR-
qualified clothes washers), the energy and water use associated with
the AHAM cleaning performance measurement would not be consistent with
the energy and water use associated with the DOE test procedure. Test
load composition is further discussed in section III.I.1 of this
document.
As stated previously, EPCA requires DOE to establish test
procedures that are reasonably designed to produce test results that
measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE is unable to make a determination at this time
as to whether the ENERGY STAR test procedure for determining cleaning
performance or the AHAM HLW-2-2020 test procedure would produce results
for DOE's purposes that are representative of an average use cycle, as
required by EPCA. Furthermore, both test procedures would introduce
additional test burden, and DOE is unable to assess whether the
additional burden would be outweighed by the benefits of incorporating
either test.
For these reasons, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to not include a measure of cleaning
performance in the new appendix J or appendix J2 at this time.
[[Page 33353]]
G. Consumer Usage Assumptions
Discussion and consideration of consumer usage assumptions are
provided in the following paragraphs.
1. Annual Number of Wash Cycles
Section 4.4 of appendix J2 provides the representative average
number of annual clothes washer cycles to translate the annualized
inactive and off mode energy consumption measurements into a per-cycle
value applied to each active mode wash cycle. Separately, the number of
annual wash cycles is also referenced in DOE's test procedure
provisions at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i)(A) and (B), (j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B),
and (j)(3)(i) and (ii) to calculate annual operating cost and annual
water consumption of a clothes washer. This value was most recently
updated in the March 2012 Final Rule, to 295 wash cycles per year based
on an analysis of the 2005 RECS data. 77 FR 13888, 13909.
Based on the data from the 2015 RECS survey (the most recent data
available), DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to update the
number of annual wash cycles to 234 in the new appendix J. 86 FR 49140,
49154. In proposing this update, DOE considered comments received from
AHAM and NEEA in response to the May 2020 RFI. Id. The proposed updated
value would impact the per-cycle low-power mode energy consumption
value included in the calculation of IMEF and EER. Id. The per-cycle
low-power mode energy consumption would be divided by a smaller number
(i.e., 234 instead of 295), and would therefore increase by around 25
percent. Id. See further discussion of the proposed changes to the
calculation of low-power mode energy in section III.G.3 of this
document.
In addition to other changes discussed in section III.H.6 of this
document, DOE proposed to update 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) and (j)(3)(i)
such that the annual operating cost and annual water consumption
calculation would reflect the new proposed number of annual wash cycles
when a clothes washer is tested using the new appendix J, if finalized.
Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to update the number of
annual wash cycles to 234 in the new appendix J and 10 CFR
430.23(j)(1)(i) and (j)(3)(i).
DOE did not receive any further comments in response to the
September 2021 NOPR regarding its proposal to update the number of
annual wash cycles.
For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to update the number of annual
wash cycles to 234 in the low-power mode formula in section 4.6.2 of
the new appendix J, in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), and in 10 CFR
430.23(j)(3)(i).
2. Drying Energy Assumptions
Section 4.3 of appendix J2 provides an equation for calculating
total per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the
clothes washer test load in a clothes dryer, i.e., the ``drying
energy.'' DOE first introduced the drying energy equation in appendix
J1 as part of the August 1997 Final Rule. The drying energy calculation
is based on the following three assumed values: (1) A clothes dryer
final moisture content of 4 percent; (2) the nominal energy required
for a clothes dryer to remove moisture from a pound of clothes
(``DEF'') of 0.5 kWh/lb; and (3) a clothes dryer usage factor (``DUF'')
of 0.91, representing the percentage of clothes washer loads dried in a
clothes dryer.
DOE did not propose to make any changes to the values of DEF or DUF
and received no comments in response to the September 2021 NOPR on its
preliminary determination to maintain those values. DOE is maintaining
these values in this final rule.
Regarding the dryer final moisture content, DOE's test procedure
for clothes dryers, codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1
(``appendix D1''), prescribes a final moisture content between 2.5 and
5.0 percent, which is consistent with the 4-percent final moisture
content value in the clothes washer test procedure for determining the
drying energy.
However, DOE's alternate clothes dryer test procedure at appendix
D2, prescribes a final moisture content between 1 and 2.5 percent for
timer dryers, which are clothes dryers that can be preset to carry out
at least one operation that is terminated by a timer, but may also be
manually controlled without including any automatic termination
function. For automatic termination control dryers, which can be preset
to carry out at least one sequence of operations to be terminated by
means of a system assessing, directly or indirectly, the moisture
content of the load, the test cycle is deemed invalid if the clothes
dryer terminates the cycle at a final moisture content greater than 2
percent. Section 3.3.2 of appendix D2. In the October 2021 clothes
dryer Final Rile, DOE stated that the current 2-percent final moisture
content requirement using the DOE test cloth was adopted as
representative of approximately 5-percent final moisture content for
``real-world'' clothing, based on data submitted in a joint petition
for rulemaking.\52\ DOE determined that the specified 2-percent final
moisture content using the DOE test load was representative of consumer
expectations for dryness of clothing in field use. 86 FR 56608, 56626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The petition was submitted by AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation,
General Electric Company, Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH,
Alliance Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/
C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA
Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik,
Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon,
DeLonghi, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency,
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America and the
National Consumer Law Center. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054,
No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In both appendix D1 and appendix D2, timer dryers are allowed a
range of final moisture contents during the test because DOE concluded
that it would be unduly burdensome to require the tester to dry the
test load to an exact final moisture content; however, the measured
test cycle energy consumption for timer dryers is normalized to
calculate the energy consumption required to dry the test load to a
final moisture content of 4 percent in appendix D1 and 2-percent in
appendix D2.
Manufacturers may elect to use appendix D2 to demonstrate
compliance with the January 1, 2015, energy conservation standards;
however, the procedures in appendix D2 need not be performed to
determine compliance with energy conservation standards for clothes
dryers at this time. See introductory paragraph to appendix D1. Use of
appendix D2 is, however, required for ENERGY STAR certification.\53\
Although clothes dryer manufacturers may optionally use appendix D2 to
demonstrate compliance with the current energy conservation standards,
appendix D1 provides the basis for the current clothes dryer energy
conservation standard levels and is the test procedure used as the
basis for certification for the majority of models on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The ENERGY STAR Specification of Clothes Dryer Requirements
Version 1.1 requires the use of appendix D2 for clothes dryers to
obtain ENERGY STAR certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to change the
assumed final moisture content of 4 percent in the drying energy
calculation. 86 FR 49140, 49176.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE amend the final
RMC value in the drying energy
[[Page 33354]]
calculation to align with the clothes dryer test procedure in appendix
D2, asserting that this would improve the representativeness of the
test procedure. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 5-6)
The CA IOUs commented that they recommend reducing the current
final remaining moisture content from 4 percent to 2 percent to align
with the clothes dryer final remaining moisture content specified in
the appendix D2 test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 8-9; CA IOUs,
No. 18 at pp. 28-29) The CA IOUs also commented that, as stated in the
October 2021 clothes dryer Final Rule, a final remaining moisture
content of 2 percent is representative of the ``consumer-acceptable''
dryness level for real-life clothing loads with varying weights,
composition, and load size. (Id.)
On April 19, 2021, DOE published an energy conservation standards
preliminary analysis for consumer clothes dryers (``April 2021 clothes
dryer standards preliminary analysis'') and an accompanying TSD.\54\ 86
FR 20327. In the April 2021 clothes dryer preliminary analysis, DOE
relied on test data using appendix D2 to establish efficiency levels,
indicating use of appendix D2 to define future amended standards for
clothes dryers. Id. at 20333; see also chapter 5 of the accompanying
TSD. Updating the final moisture content assumption in the drying
energy formula in appendix J to 2 percent would ensure consistency
between the clothes washer and clothes dryer test procedures to be used
as the basis for future standards for clothes washers and clothes
dryers, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The TSD for the April 2021 clothes dryer standards
preliminary analysis is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, in this final rule DOE is defining the final
moisture content in section 4.4 of the new appendix J as 2 percent.
3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions
Section 4.4 of appendix J2 allocates 8,465 combined annual hours
for inactive and off modes. The allocation of 8,465 hours to combined
inactive and off modes is based on assumptions of 1 hour per cycle and
295 cycles per year, resulting in 295 active mode hours (for a total of
8,760 hours per year for all operating modes). As described in the
September 2010 NOPR and confirmed in the March 2012 Final Rule, the
estimate of 1 hour per cycle was based on a 2005 report from the EPA
\55\ that summarized test data from three issues of the Consumer
Reports magazine, which showed top-loading clothes washers with
``normal'' cycle times of 37-55 minutes and frontloading clothes
washers with ``normal'' cycle times of 51-105 minutes.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ C. Wilkes et al. 2005. ``Quantification of Exposure-Related
Water Uses for Various U.S. Subpopulations.'' U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Report No.
EPA/600/R-06/003. Washington, DC. December 2005. Available at
www.wilkestech.com/205edrb06_Final_Water_Use_Report.pdf.
\56\ These studies appeared in the July 1998, July 1999, and
August 2000 issues of Consumer Reports, as cited by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the new appendix J, DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to
update the number of hours spent in low-power mode from a fixed 8,465
total hours to a formula based on the clothes washer's measured cycle
time, as discussed in section III.D.5 of this document, and the updated
number of annual cycles, as discussed in section III.G.1 of this
document. 86 FR 49140, 49177. This proposal would provide for a more
representative allocation of hours between active mode and low-power
mode. Id. DOE did not propose to make these changes to appendix J2
because doing so would likely change the measured efficiency, and DOE
proposed to make such changes only in the new appendix J, which would
be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency
standards, and for determining compliance with those standards. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to update the number of hours
spent in low-power mode in the new appendix J from a fixed 8,465 total
hours to a formula based on measured cycle time and an assumed number
of annual cycles. Id.
AHAM commented that there is little or no benefit to consumers or
energy savings associated with including the cycle time measurement in
the test procedure since standby energy use is such a small component
of overall measured efficiency. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM also noted
that the European Union does not calculate standby power for its energy
label. (Id.)
DOE acknowledges that for most clothes washer models, the low-power
mode energy consumption is the smallest of the four energy components
that comprise the EER equation.\57\ However, at higher efficiency
levels, the low-power mode energy consumption represents a larger
portion of the total energy consumption than at lower efficiency
levels. Depending on the low-power mode energy use and its relation to
the other three energy components, a difference in average cycle time
of, for example, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, or 90 minutes can have a
measurable impact on the calculated value of EER, which this final rule
requires to be rounded to the nearest 0.01 pound per kilowatt-hour per
cycle (as discussed in section III.E.3 of this document). Further, as
discussed in section III.D.5.a of this document, DOE has determined
that requiring test laboratories to measure cycle time will not
increase test burden. As discussed previously in this section, basing
the number of hours spent in low-power mode in part on cycle time would
provide a more representative allocation of hours between active mode
and low-power mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See, for example, Tables 7.2.1 through 7.2.4 in chapter 7
of the RCW preliminary analysis TSD, which present the breakdown in
energy consumption among the four energy components at each analyzed
efficiency level. Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to update the number of hours spent in low-
power mode in the new appendix J from a fixed 8,465 total hours to a
formula based on measured cycle time and an assumed number of annual
cycles.
4. Temperature Usage Factors
TUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage of wash
cycles for which consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature
selection. The TUFs in Table 4.1.1 of appendix J2 are based on the TUFs
established in appendix J1 as part of the August 1997 Final Rule. As
described in the April 1996 SNOPR, DOE established the TUFs in appendix
J1 based on an analysis of consumer usage data provided by P&G, AHAM,
General Electric Company, and Whirlpool, as well as linear regression
analyses performed by P&G and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (``NIST''). 61 FR 17589, 17593.
As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is not aware of any
nationally representative consumer usage data that demonstrate a change
in temperature setting usage; therefore, DOE did not propose any
changes to the TUF values. 86 FR 49140, 49178.
DOE requested comment on maintaining the current TUF values. Id.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
maintain the current TUF values, stating that the current TUF values
are similar to the TUF values found in the 2014 NEEA Field Study.
(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11)
The CA IOUs commented that new appendix J does not adequately
account for the impact of control panel designs and optional cycle
modifiers that may
[[Page 33355]]
result in more energy-intensive wash settings. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p.
6) The CA IOUs asserted that in cases where a clothes washer's cycle
settings are continually reset when turned to the on position (e.g., if
a product always reverts to the default temperatures of Warm/Cold), it
is likely that the existing TUFs are less representative since users
are more likely to use the default settings. (Id.) The CA IOUs
expressed concern that the prevalence of clothes washers with default
settings today may be considerably different from the initial studies
used to develop the TUFs in the August 1997 Final Rule, which was
created when clothes washers more commonly used electromechanical
controls for water temperature settings instead of using electronic
controls that revert to defaults. (Id.) The CA IOUs additionally
commented that, despite the increasing proliferation of additional
cycle modifiers, DOE proposed not to require testing of any settings
that are left ``off'' under the default as-shipped settings in new
appendix J. (Id.)
DOE notes that the CA IOUs did not provide any data to support the
assertion that consumers are more likely to use the default wash/rinse
temperature setting in cases where a clothes washer's cycle settings
are continually reset when turned to the on position. DOE's general
understanding of consumer laundry habits, based on decades of
conversations with manufacturers and evaluating consumer usage studies,
is that cycle time (e.g., Normal, Heavy Duty, etc.) and wash/rinse
temperature are the two foundational decisions that consumers make for
each wash cycle based on the composition of the load being washed. DOE
notes, for example, that clothing items often include labels indicating
the appropriate wash temperature to use. DOE further notes that as
summarized by the Joint Commenters, the TUF values found in the 2014
NEEA Field Study are similar to the TUF values in appendix J2. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11)
For these reasons, in this final rule DOE does not make any changes
to the TUF values, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR.
5. Load Usage Factors
As described previously, LUFs are weighting factors that represent
the percentage of wash cycles that consumers run with a given load
size. Table 4.1.3 of appendix J2 provides two sets of LUFs based on
whether the clothes washer has a manual WFCS or automatic WFCS.
For a clothes washer with a manual WFCS, the two LUFs represent the
percentage of wash cycles for which consumers choose the maximum water
fill level and minimum water fill level in conjunction with the maximum
and minimum load sizes, respectively. For a clothes washer with an
automatic WFCS, the three LUFs represent the percentage of cycles for
which the consumer washes a minimum-size, average-size, and maximum-
size load (for which the clothes washer determines the water fill
level). As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, the values
of these LUFs are intended to approximate a normal distribution that is
slightly skewed towards the minimum load size.
As previously discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, DOE
proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to replace the minimum, maximum,
and average load sizes with the small and large load sizes in the new
appendix J. DOE has defined the small and large load sizes such that
the small and large load sizes each have an equal (50-50) weighting. As
such, DOE proposed to update the LUFs in the new appendix J to 0.5 for
both the small and the large load size. 86 FR 49140, 49178. Because
this proposal simplified the LUF definitions by using the same LUFs
regardless of clothes washer WFCS, a separate LUF table would no longer
be needed. Id. DOE therefore proposed to remove the LUF Table 4.1.3 and
to define the LUFs as 0.5 in the equations where the LUFs are first
used in section 4.1.3 of the new appendix J. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to update the LUFs for the
small and large load sizes to be equal to 0.5, consistent with the
proposed load size definitions in the new appendix J. Id.
DOE received no comments on the updated LUFs for the new appendix
J.
For the reasons stated above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to update the LUFs for the
small and large load sizes to be equal to 0.5 in the new appendix J and
to remove the LUF table and instead define the LUFs as 0.5 in the
equations where the LUFs are first used.
6. Water Heater Assumptions
Section 4.1.2 of appendix J2 provides equations for calculating
total per-cycle water heating energy consumption for all water fill
levels tested. The water heating energy consumption is calculated by
multiplying the measured volume of hot water by a constant fixed
temperature rise of 75 [deg]F and by the specific heat of water,
defined as 0.00240 kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree Fahrenheit
(``kWh/gal-[deg]F''). No efficiency or loss factor is included in this
calculation, which implies an electric water heater efficiency of 100
percent. Similarly, section 4.1.4 of appendix J2 provides an equation
for calculating total per-cycle water heating energy consumption using
gas-heated or oil-heated water, for product labeling requirements.\58\
This equation includes a multiplication factor ``e,'' representing the
nominal gas or oil water heater efficiency, defined as 0.75. These
water-heating energy equations estimate the energy required by the
household water heater to heat the hot water used by the clothes
washer. Per-cycle water heating energy consumption is one of the four
energy components in the IMEF metric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Federal Trade Commission's EnergyGuide label for RCWs
includes the estimated annual operating cost using natural gas water
heating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is unaware of any
nationally representative data regarding heat losses in residential
water distribution systems. 86 FR 49140, 49179. In the absence of such
data, DOE did not propose any changes to the assumed water heater
efficiency factors in the clothes washer test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on maintaining the current water heater
efficiency assumptions. Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE use what they
described as more realistic assumptions about water heater
efficiencies. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 3) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates commented that while the current test procedure
uses a 100 percent efficiency for electric heaters and a 75 percent
efficiency for gas water heaters, the Joint Efficiency Advocates
estimated that, based on shipment data from the last water heaters
rulemaking and current models in the CCMS database,\59\ the shipment-
weighted efficiencies for new water heaters are about 92 percent for
electric water heaters and 64 percent for gas water heaters. (Id.) The
Joint Efficiency Advocates asserted that making this change would
improve representativeness and would more accurately reflect the
relative contribution of water heating energy use to total clothes
washer energy use. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted that their analysis
excluded tankless and heat pump water heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the values presented, DOE interprets the Joint Efficiency
Advocates' comments as referring to a value of uniform energy factor
(``UEF''). DOE notes that the UEF is a measure of efficiency based in
part on a 24-hour simulated use test that measures both energy use
associated with recovery periods (i.e., the energy embedded
[[Page 33356]]
within each water draw) and energy losses during the time in which
water is not being withdrawn from the water heater (i.e., standby
energy losses), and incorporates simulated household water draw
patterns. In a residential household, numerous appliances draw hot
water from the water heater, including showers, faucets, and
dishwashers, in addition to clothes washers. Given the number of
factors not directly related to clothes washer usage that factor into
the current UEF metric, DOE has determined that it would not be
appropriate to use UEF as the basis for determining an estimate of
water heating energy in the clothes washer test procedure.
Instead, the appropriate efficiency value to use in the clothes
washer test procedure would be the recovery efficiency, which
represents the ratio of energy delivered to the water to the energy
content of the fuel consumed by the water heater. DOE is not aware of
any data regarding the efficiency distribution of installed water
heaters on the basis of recovery efficiency. Recover efficiency is,
however, a reported value in DOE's CCMS database. DOE assessed the
representativeness of the currently defined efficiency values
qualitatively as follows. For electric water heaters, the majority of
the market has a recovery efficiency of 98 percent. Heat pump models
have recovery efficiencies greater than 100 percent; however, these
products represent a small market share and an even smaller share of
the installed stock of water heaters. For gas water heaters, CCMS lists
a range of recovery efficiencies from 72 to 92 percent, with the vast
majority within the range of 72 to 80 percent. Given these ranges, DOE
determines that the current clothes washer test procedure assumptions
of 100 percent efficiency for electric water heaters and 75 percent
efficiency for gas water heaters are representative of the current
water heater market. This final rule maintains the currently specified
values.
For these reasons, in this final rule DOE does not make any changes
to the water heater efficiency assumptions, consistent with the
September 2021 NOPR.
7. Commercial Clothes Washer Usage
As mentioned in section I of this document, CCWs are included in
the list of ``covered equipment'' for which DOE is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be
the same as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8))
In response to the May 2020 RFI, several stakeholders requested
that DOE develop separate usage factors for CCWs, and that DOE require
standby/low power mode testing for CCWs and that low-power mode energy
consumption should be incorporated into the energy efficiency metric
for CCWs. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 8-14; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 18; Joint
Commenters, No. 10 at p. 2)
As part of its market assessment and engineering analysis for the
December 2014 Final Rule, DOE performed an in-depth evaluation of the
standby and off mode power characteristics of a representative sample
of CCWs spanning a wide range of display types, payment systems, and
communication features. 79 FR 74492, 74501. DOE observed that
manufacturers offer a variety of display and payment functionalities
that can be selected independently from the basic model. The standby
power associated with these different display and payment
functionalities varies from 0.88 to 11.77 watts.
In the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined not to include low-
power mode energy in the CCW energy efficiency metric. Id. DOE
determined that promulgating an amended standard that included low-
power mode energy could enable backsliding and that the IMEF metric
would not provide a useful means for differentiating the active mode
characteristics of different CCW models. Id. Because of the wide
variations in standby power, CCWs with significantly different active
mode ratings could have similar IMEF ratings depending on their control
panel functionalities, and vice versa. This would diminish the
usefulness of the IMEF metric as a means for differentiating the active
mode characteristics of different CCW models. Id.
Moreover, as noted, EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to
be the same as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8))
Creating load, temperature, or dryer usage factors specific to CCWs
within the RCW test procedure would effectively create a separate test
procedure for CCWs because the LUF, TUF, DUF, and DEF values are
integral to the calculations of per-cycle energy and water use, on
which the regulated metrics for RCWs and CCWs are based.
DOE did not propose any changes to CCW usage factors or to the CCW
energy efficiency metric in the September 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 49140,
49180.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates, the CA IOUs, and the Joint
Commenters recommended that DOE consider capturing low-power energy
consumption in the energy efficiency metric for CCWs. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 28 at p. 6; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 7-8; Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at p. 6) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented
that they understand that no further change to the test procedure would
be necessary to include low-power energy use in the efficiency
standards for CCWs. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 6) The
Joint Commenters commented that they understand that DOE will determine
whether low power mode should be measured on CCWs in the CCW energy
conservation standards rulemaking. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 6)
The Joint Commenters added that, according to EPCA, test procedures for
CCWs must be the same as those established for RCWs and therefore
encouraged DOE to also make the low power mode energy use approach
identical for CCWs and RCWs. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates and the CA IOUs commented that they
understand DOE's stated concerns in the December 2014 Final Rule
regarding the potential for backsliding that could result from
incorporating standby mode power consumption into the overall
efficiency metric for CCWs. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p.
6; CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 8) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented
that strengthening the existing standards for CCWs would likely
alleviate the backsliding concern. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28
at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented that the incorporation of a minimum
standard level for discrete system functions, such as previously
established for consumer refrigerated products with automatic icemakers
or for varying payment mechanisms in refrigerated vending machines,
would limit the risk of backsliding. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 8) The CA
IOUs commented that they would strongly prefer to have these functions
measured as part of a standby power test, rather than with default
adders, to encourage cost-effective designs to reduce energy
consumption. (Id.)
DOE reiterates that any decision regarding the inclusion or
exclusion of low-power mode energy consumption in the CCW energy
metric--including reconsideration whether promulgating an amended
standard that includes low-power mode energy could enable backsliding,
and whether an integrated metric would provide a useful means for
differentiating the active mode characteristics of different CCW
[[Page 33357]]
models--would be made as part of an energy conservation standards
rulemaking for CCWs. 86 FR 49140, 49180. This final rule does not
implement any changes specific to CCWs in either appendix J2 or the new
appendix J in this regard.
H. Clarifications
1. Water Inlet Hose Length
As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE has observed an increasing
trend of water inlet hoses not being included with the purchase of a
new clothes washer. 86 FR 49140, 49180. DOE has received questions from
test laboratories asking how to install a clothes washer that does not
include water inlet hoses among the installation hardware. Id.
Multiple styles of water inlet hoses (different materials, lengths,
durability, etc.) are commercially available from appliance and
hardware retailers. Id. While most such products intended for consumer
use would be appropriate for installing a clothes washer, DOE seeks to
provide additional direction to avoid the use of a hose designed for
niche purposes (i.e., to ensure representativeness) as well as to
ensure reproducible results among different laboratories. Id.
Specifically, DOE observes a wide range of hose lengths available on
the market, and recognizes that using an excessively long hose could
result in the water temperature or pressure at the clothes washer inlet
deviating significantly from the temperature and pressure at the test
fixture. Id. Based on a review of water inlet hoses available at major
retailers, the most common lengths for clothes washer hoses range from
3-6 feet (``ft''). In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify
the use of hoses that do not exceed 72 inches in length (6 ft) in
section 2.10.1 of the new appendix J. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to specify the use of hoses
not to exceed 72 inches in length in the new appendix J. Id. DOE also
requested comment on the length of inlet hose typically used for
testing. Id.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
standardize water inlet hose length, stating that it would increase
reproducibility of the test procedure. (Joint Commenters, No 31 at p.
11)
AHAM recommended that DOE specify that its water hose length
proposal is intended for third-party testing only. (AHAM, No. 27 at p.
15) AHAM also recommended a more reasonable hose length of 48 inches,
stating that a 72-inch long hose would still retain a significant
amount of water. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's suggestion to shorten the proposed maximum
hose length from 72 to 48 inches, DOE notes that the difference in
retained water between a 72-inch hose and a 48-inch hose is around 0.01
gal, which would have a negligible, if any impact on measured
results.\60\ As discussed above, representative consumer clothes washer
hoses range from 36 to 72 inches in length. Any length longer than this
would not be representative of a consumer clothes washer hose; and any
length shorter than this would not be practical for installing a
clothes washer to the inlet water supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Calculated as the internal volume of 24 inches of hose with
an inner diameter of 0.375 inches, which based on DOE research is a
typical inner diameter for a clothes washer hose. 24 x [pi] x (0.375
/ 2)\2\ = 2.65 cubic inches = 0.01 gal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding AHAM's recommendation that DOE specify hose length only
for third-party testing only, DOE reiterates that the hose
specifications would only apply in instances in which a clothes washer
is shipped without inlet hoses. In such instances, the justification
for specifying a hose length is applicable regardless of whether a
clothes washer is tested at a third-party laboratory or a manufacturer
laboratory.
For these reasons, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to specify the use of hoses not to exceed 72
inches in length in the new appendix J.
2. Water Fill Selection Availability
Table 2.8 within section 2.8 of appendix J2 requires that, for
clothes washers with manual WFCS, each temperature selection that is
part of the energy test cycle be tested using both the minimum and
maximum water fill levels, using the minimum and maximum load sizes,
respectively. Section 3.2.6 of appendix J2 describes these water fill
levels as the minimum and maximum water levels available for the wash
cycle under test. DOE has observed one RCW model with electronic
controls in which the maximum water fill level on the unit cannot be
selected with all of the temperature selections required for testing.;
i.e., on at least one temperature setting, the maximum water fill that
can be selected is one of the intermediate fill levels on the unit. In
such cases generally, the ``reduced maximum'' water fill level for a
particular temperature setting may not be appropriate for use with the
maximum load size required for that particular cycle under test. Using
a maximum load size with a reduced maximum water fill level may not
provide results that measure energy efficiency and water use during a
representative average use cycle or period of use, since the
unavailability of the ``full maximum'' water fill level for that
particular cycle under test would suggest that the particular
temperature selection is not intended to be used with a maximum load
size.
The RCW model with this characteristic is no longer available on
the market, and DOE is not aware of any other clothes washer models
currently on the market with this characteristic. DOE did not propose,
in the September 2021 NOPR, any amendments to address the potential for
the maximum load size required by the test procedure to conflict with
the maximum load size intended or able to be washed on such a cycle. 86
FR 49140, 49181.
DOE requested comment on whether it should amend the test procedure
to accommodate potential future clothes washer models for which the
maximum load size required by the test procedure conflicts with the
maximum load size intended or able to be washed with the cycle required
for testing. Id. If so, DOE sought additional comment on the approaches
it has considered, or on any other approaches that could be considered,
that would address this issue in the test procedure. Id.
AHAM commented that it is not necessary to amend the test procedure
to include directions for testing clothes washers with water fill
levels that are only available at certain temperature settings. (AHAM,
No. 27 at pp. 15-16) AHAM added that while consumers have options
available for other needs, the Normal cycle remains the most
representative of consumer use, and there have not been any data to
prove otherwise. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE specify in new appendix J
that for possible future clothes washer models where the maximum load
size conflicts with the cycle required for testing, DOE should not
allow an alternate test load size. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10)
The Joint Commenters commented that an alternate, smaller test load
would lower the clothes washer's measured water and drying energy use
to the extent that test results would no longer be comparable to test
results from other clothes washers of the same load size. (Id.)
Instead, the Joint Commenters recommended that DOE specify that such a
clothes washer should be tested with the next most similar program that
enables the required load size. (Id.)
As noted, the RCW model for which the maximum water fill level
cannot be
[[Page 33358]]
selected with all of the temperature selections required for testing is
no longer available on the market, and DOE is not aware of any other
clothes washer models currently on the market with this characteristic.
To the extent that models with this characteristic were to be
reintroduced the market, more research would be needed to address any
potential concerns regarding representative use. DOE also notes that
the amended load sizes defined for new appendix J (in which the
``large'' load size is smaller than the ``maximum'' load size currently
defined by appendix J2) would obviate the need for any changes to the
test procedure for the one RCW model of concern.
For these reasons, DOE makes no changes to the test procedure to
accommodate this potential characteristic, consistent with the
September 2021 NOPR.
3. Water Fill Control Systems
a. Definitions
Section 1.5 of appendix J2 previously defined ``automatic water
fill control system'' as a clothes washer WFCS that does not allow or
require the user to determine or select the water fill level, and
includes adaptive WFCS and fixed WFCS. Section 1.4 of appendix J2
previously defined ``adaptive water fill control system'' as a clothes
washer automatic WFCS that is capable of automatically adjusting the
water fill level based on the size or weight of the clothes load placed
in the clothes container. Section 1.14 of appendix J2 previously
defined ``fixed water fill control system'' as a clothes washer
automatic WFCS that automatically terminates the fill when the water
reaches an appropriate level in the clothes container. Section
3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 previously provided testing instructions for a
``user-adjustable'' automatic WFCS, which were described in that
section as an automatic water fill control that affects the relative
wash water levels.
To provide additional specificity to both appendix J2 and the new
appendix J, in the September 2021 NOPR DOE proposed revisions to some
of the WFCS definitions, as follows. 86 FR 49140, 49181.
DOE proposed to amend the definition of ``fixed water fill control
system'' to mean ``a clothes washer automatic water fill control system
that automatically terminates the fill when the water reaches a pre-
defined level that is not based on the size or weight of the clothes
load placed in the clothes container, without allowing or requiring the
user to determine or select the water fill level.'' Id. This proposed
amendment to the definition would specify that the water fill level for
this type of WFCS is pre-defined (i.e., fixed) and does not vary based
on the size or weight of the load. Id. The proposal would incorporate
the same terminology used in the other WFCS definitions so as to more
clearly articulate how a fixed WFCS relates to the other defined WFCS.
Id. This amended definition was proposed for inclusion in the new
appendix J as well. Id.
To provide greater specificity regarding user-adjustable automatic
WFCS, DOE proposed to add a definition of a ``user-adjustable automatic
water fill control system'' to section 1 of both appendix J2 and the
new appendix J. Id. DOE proposed to define a user-adjustable automatic
WFCS as ``an automatic clothes washer fill control system that allows
the user to adjust the amount of water that the machine provides, which
is based on the size or weight of the clothes load placed in the
clothes container.'' Id. Given DOE's proposal to create a definition of
user-adjustable automatic WFCS, DOE proposed to simplify the wording of
section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 from ``[c]onduct four tests on clothes
washers with user adjustable automatic water fill controls that affect
the relative wash water levels'' to ``[c]onduct four tests on clothes
washers with user-adjustable automatic water fill controls.'' Id. For
the new appendix J, section 3.2.3.2.2 would state ``For the large test
load size, set the water fill selector to the setting that uses the
most water. Id. For the small test load size, set the water fill
selector to the setting that uses the least water.'' Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed changes to the definition of
``fixed water fill control system'' and on its proposal to add a
definition for ``user-adjustable automatic water fill control system.''
Id.
AHAM commented that it agrees that a better definition for a
``user-adjustable automatic water fill control system'' is needed since
there is no specific definition for it in appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 27 at
pp. 5-6) However, AHAM opposed DOE's proposed definition for ``user-
adjustable automatic water fill control system.'' (Id.) AHAM commented
that the wording used in DOE's proposed definition uses the language in
the current definition of an ``adaptive water fill control system.''
(Id.) AHAM stated that a definition that implies that a ``user-
adjustable adaptive water fill control system'' represents all ``user-
adjustable automatic water fill control systems'' would narrow the
current scope so that they no longer include ``user-adjustable fixed
water fill control systems.'' (Id.) AHAM added that DOE's proposed
definition would also leave a ``user-adjustable fixed water fill
control system'' undefined. (Id.) AHAM therefore proposed the following
definition for ``user-adjustable automatic water fill control system'':
``User-adjustable automatic water fill control system means an
automatic clothes washer fill control system that allows the user to
adjust the relative amount of water that the machine provides.'' (Id.)
AHAM stated that its proposed definition would reduce redundancy by
removing the last clause of DOE's proposed definition, which duplicates
the definition of ``adaptive water fill control system,'' and would add
the word ``relative.'' (Id.) AHAM commentated that it believes that its
proposed definition is consistent with DOE's intent and urged DOE to
adopt it. (Id.)
DOE notes that at the creation of the user-adjustable distinction
in the August 1997 Final Rule, section 3.2.3.2.2 of appendix J2 \61\
referred to clothes washers with ``adaptive'' WFCS that were user-
adjustable. 62 FR 45484, 45510. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE
added a new definition for ``automatic water fill control system,''
which included both fixed WFCS and adaptive WFCS, both of which do not
require user action to determine the water fill level. In creating the
new definition for automatic WFCS, DOE replaced all instances of
``adaptive'' WFCS with ``automatic'' WFCS to indicate that such testing
provisions apply to both adaptive water fill control systems and fixed
water fill control systems. 80 FR 46730, 46749. As part of these
changes, reference to ``user adjustable adaptive water fill controls
that affect the relative wash water level'' in section 3.2.6.2.2 of
appendix J2 (``User adjustable'') was amended to refer instead to
``user adjustable automatic water fill controls that affect the
relative wash water level'' (emphasis added). AHAM's comment has
prompted DOE to re-evaluate this wording change. Id. Reference to user-
adjustable automatic WFCS implies that the term encompasses both user-
adjustable adaptive and user-adjustable fixed WFCS. However, DOE
asserts that a WFCS that provides user-adjustable fixed fill water
levels is essentially a manual WFCS, in the sense that a manual fill
WFCS automatically terminates the fill when the water reaches the level
in the clothes container corresponding to the level select by the user
(i.e., a ``fixed'' water
[[Page 33359]]
level that is not automatically determined based on the size or weight
of the clothes load and is selectable (i.e., adjustable) by the user).
Furthermore, DOE notes that the phrase ``controls that affect the
relative wash water levels'' (emphasis added) in section 3.2.6.2.2 of
appendix J2 necessarily applies only to a clothes washer with relative
wash water levels (i.e., wash water levels that are determined based on
the size or weight of the clothes load). A fixed WFCS does not provide
relative wash water levels. For these reasons, DOE asserts that the
word ``automatic'' was incorrectly applied in section 3.2.6.2.2, and
that section 3.2.6.2.2 pertaining to user-adjustable WFCSs applies only
to clothes washer with user-adjustable adaptive WFCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Which has since been renumbered as 3.2.6.2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, DOE corrects this error and amends section
3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 to revert each instance of ``automatic'' to
``adaptive.'' Accordingly, in both appendix J2 and new appendix J, DOE
finalizes the definition of the term ``user-adjustable adaptive water
fill control system'' consistent with the definition DOE had proposed
for ``user-adjustable automatic water fill control system'' in the
September 2021 NOPR, except to replace the word ``automatic'' with
``adaptive.''
In reviewing this matter, DOE has further determined that the
grouping of fixed WFCS and adaptive WFCS into the single term
``automatic'' WFCS for the sake of simplicity has potentially created
ambiguity with certain WFCS types, as evidence by the previous example
in this discussion. In order to provide greater clarity regarding the
identification of WFCS type and the corresponding test provisions that
apply, DOE is removing the ``automatic WFCS'' distinction from appendix
J and creating a new table that distinguishes WFCS based on how the
user interacts with the controls (i.e., whether the settings are
adjustable by the user) and whether the size or weight of the clothing
load affects the water level, as shown in Table III.2 (implemented as
Table 3.2.3 in new appendix J).
Table III.2--Water Fill Control Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settings are user- Settings are not
adjustable user-adjustable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water fill level unaffected by Manual water fill. Fixed water fill.
the size or weight of the
clothing load.
Water fill level is determined User-adjustable Non-user-
automatically by the clothes adaptive water adjustable
washer based on the size and fill. adaptive water
weight of the clothing load. fill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these clarifications, DOE is not changing how any WFCS is
classified or tested in appendix J in comparison to the proposed
version of appendix J presented in the September 2021 NOPR. Rather, DOE
expects that these changes will help more easily distinguish the
different types of WFCSs and thus better ensure reproducibility of test
results.
As part of this clarification, DOE is removing the definition for
automatic water fill control system from appendix J, and is removing
the term ``automatic'' from the definitions for adaptive water fill
control system, fixed water fill control system, and user-adjustable
adaptive water fill control system. DOE is also relabeling the
definition of adaptive water fill control system as non-user-adjustable
adaptive water fill control system to match how this WFCS is presented
in new table 3.2.3 of appendix J.
Further, DOE is establishing subsections within section 3.2.3 of
appendix J to provide water fill level instructions that align more
directly with the terminology presented in new table 3.2.3 of appendix
J, as follows:
Section 3.2.3.1 ``Clothes washers with a manual water fill
control system'' (consistent with the September 2021 NOPR);
Section 3.2.3.2 ``Clothes washers with a fixed water fill
control system'' (as compared to the proposed section 3.2.3.2.1 from
the September 2021 NOPR titled ``Not user-adjustable'' within section
3.2.3.2 titled ``Clothes washers with automatic water fill control
system'');
Section 3.2.3.3 ``Clothes washers with a user-adjustable
adaptive water fill control system'' (as compared to the proposed
section 3.2.3.2.2 from the September 2021 NOPR titled ``User-
adjustable'' within section 3.2.3.2 titled ``Clothes washers with
automatic water fill control system'');
Section 3.2.3.4 ``Clothes washers with a non-user-
adjustable adaptive water fill control system'' (as compared to the
proposed section 3.2.3.2.1 from the September 2021 NOPR titled ``Not
user-adjustable'' within section 3.2.3.2 titled ``Clothes washers with
automatic water fill control system''); and
Section 3.2.3.5 ``Clothes washers with multiple water fill
control systems'' (as compared to the proposed section 3.2.3.3 from the
September 2021 NOPR titled ``Clothes washers with automatic water fill
controls system and alternate manual water fill control system''). DOE
is further establishing new section 3.2.3.5 to read ``If a clothes
washer allows user selection among multiple water fill control systems,
test all water fill control systems and, for each one, calculate the
energy consumption (HET, MET, and DET)
and water consumption (QT) values as set forth in section 4
of this appendix. Then, calculate the average of the tested values (one
from each water fill control system) for each variable (HET,
MET, DET, and QT) and use the average
value for each variable in the final calculations in section 4 of this
appendix.''
b. ``Most Energy Intensive'' Wording for User-Adjustable Automatic
Water Fill Control Systems.
As discussed, section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 previously specified
how to test clothes washers with user-adjustable automatic WFCS. Four
tests were required:
A test using the maximum test load size and with the WFCS
set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result;
a test using the minimum test load size and with the WFCS
set in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result;
a test using the average test load size and with the WFCS
set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result; and
a test using the average test load size and with the WFCS
set in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result.
The provisions requiring testing the most and least energy
intensive settings were initially adopted in the August 1997 Final
Rule. 62 FR 45484, 45487. As evident throughout the discussions in the
August 1997 Final Rule, absent the consideration of drying energy and
water efficiency,\62\ DOE used the terms
[[Page 33360]]
``most energy intensive'' and ``least energy intensive'' synonymously
with discussing the water fill amounts.\63\ The terms ``most energy
intensive'' and ``least energy intensive'' were originally employed to
provide direction of the water fill amounts required for testing of the
adaptive WFCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ At the time of the August 1997 Final Rule, the applicable
energy efficiency metric did not include the drying energy
component, and the energy conservation standards at the time did not
regulate the water efficiency of clothes washers.
\63\ For example, in an interim waiver granted to GEA on April
24, 1996, DOE stated the following: However, the ``sensitivity'' or
relative fill amounts of the automatic water fill mode can be
reprogrammed in the secondary programming mode, thus resulting in an
increase in energy consumption above the manual mode result. 61 FR
18125, 18127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the test procedures and energy conservation standards have been
amended, the measured energy use accounts for more than just that which
correlates to the water fill level. However, use of the energy
intensity terminology remained in the user-adjustable automatic WFCS
provisions. Given the evolution of clothes washer control systems and
operation since the August 1997 Final Rule, more precise language is
needed to avoid an unnecessary determination of whether the highest (or
lowest) water fill amount on a user-adjustable automatic WFCS
corresponds to the most (or least) energy intensive setting. Therefore,
in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to change the wording in
section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 to update the phrase ``the setting
that will give the most energy intensive result'' to ``the setting that
uses the most water'' to reflect the original intent of this provision
and to use the same updated language in section 3.2.3.2.2 of the new
appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49182. Similarly, DOE proposed to update the
phrase ``the setting that will give the least energy intensive result''
to ``the setting that uses the least water.''
DOE requested comment on its proposal to update the wording of
section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.3.2.2 of the new
appendix J from ``the setting that will give the most energy intensive
result'' to ``the setting that uses the most water;'' and from ``the
setting that will give the least energy intensive result'' to ``the
setting that uses the least water.'' Id.
AHAM commented that it supports DOE's proposal to update the
wording in section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.3.2.2 of
new appendix J from ``the setting that will give the most energy
intensive result'' to ``the setting that uses the most water,'' and
from ``the setting that will give the least energy intensive result''
to ``the setting that uses the least water,'' stating that using the
most and least ``energy-intensive result'' conflates an energy metric
with a water use metric, which may lead to confusion. (AHAM, No. 27 at
p. 5)
Based on the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is
finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to
update the wording of section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 and section
3.2.3.2.2 of the new appendix J from ``the setting that will give the
most energy intensive result'' to ``the setting that uses the most
water;'' and from ``the setting that will give the least energy
intensive result'' to ``the setting that uses the least water.''
4. Energy Test Cycle Flowcharts
In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE implemented a series of
flowcharts to determine the wash/rinse temperature selections required
for testing in section 2.12 of appendix J2. 80 FR 46730, 46744.
a. Clarification of Load Size To Be Used for Temperature Comparisons
Figure 2.12.5 of appendix J2, which is the flow chart used for the
determination of the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection,
asks if the wash/rinse temperature selection has a wash temperature
greater than 135 [deg]F. DOE is aware that for some clothes washers on
the market, the answer to that question could differ depending on what
load size is used, i.e., the wash temperature may exceed 135 [deg]F
only on certain load sizes, meaning that the determination of whether
the temperature selection is classified as Hot Wash/Cold Rinse or
Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse would depend on the load size used for making
the determination. More generally, all of the flowcharts in section
2.12 require comparing wash and rinse water temperatures across
different temperature selections, without specifying a load size to be
used for making these comparisons.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify using the
maximum load size to evaluate the flow chart for clothes washers tested
to appendix J2, and the large load size for the new appendix J.\64\ 86
FR 49140, 49182. The maximum/large load size is the load size expected
to use the most water (compared to the other load sizes) under each
appendix, and in DOE's experience, larger quantities of water
(particularly hot water) provide a more reliable determination of the
relative differences in water temperature among the various temperature
settings. Id. Therefore, the maximum/large load size is likely to
provide the most repeatable and reproducible end result for each
flowchart. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See section III.D.1.b of this document for a discussion of
the definition of the new ``large'' test load size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that Figure 2.12.1 of appendix J2, which is the flow
chart used for the determination of the Cold/Cold temperature
selection, provides direction for cases where multiple wash temperature
selections in the Normal cycle do not use any hot water for any of the
water fill levels or test load sizes required for testing. Id. For
appendix J2, DOE proposed that the new clarifying language would not
apply to the Cold/Cold temperature settings in order to avoid the
potential need for retesting under appendix J2 if a clothes washer was
tested in a manner inconsistent with this proposed change. Id. For the
new appendix J, DOE proposed to delete from the Cold/Cold flowchart
(Figure 2.12.1) the clause applying it to all tested load sizes, and to
instead require the use of the large size, consistent with all the
other wash/rinse temperature selection flowcharts. 86 FR 49140, 49182-
49183.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require that the energy
test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the large load size for all
wash/rinse temperature settings in the new appendix J. 86 FR 49140,
49183. DOE also requested comment on its proposal to require that the
energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the maximum load size,
except for the Cold/Cold flow chart, in appendix J2. Id.
DOE received no comments on its proposal to require that the energy
test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the large load size for all
wash/rinse temperature settings in the new appendix J and using the
maximum load size, except for the Cold/Cold flow chart, in appendix J2.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to require that the energy test cycle flow
charts be evaluated using the large load size for all wash/rinse
temperature settings in the new appendix J and using the maximum load
size, except for the Cold/Cold flow chart, in appendix J2.
P.R. China noted an inconsistency between section 2.12.1 of the
proposed new appendix J (which P.R. China characterized as prescribing
that test evaluations be completed using only a large load) and Table
3.3 of the proposed new appendix J (which prescribes the use of both a
large and small load), and recommended that DOE fix the inconsistency.
(P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3)
[[Page 33361]]
With regard to the comment from P.R. China that the proposed test
procedure contains an inconsistency, DOE further explains here the
intended difference between evaluating the flow charts and conducting
testing of each wash-rinse temperature selection determined to be
available on the unit under test. Section 2.12.1 of new appendix J
specifies that the large load is to be used to evaluate each flow chart
(i.e., to answer the questions presented in each flow chart) to
determine which wash/rinse temperatures are present on the unit under
test. Although only the large load size is used to evaluate the flow
charts, both the small and large load sizes must be used to test each
wash/rinse temperature selection. For example, in Figure 2.12.1.5
(Determination of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse), the question ``Does the
Normal cycle contain any wash/rinse temperature selections that [have
a] wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 [deg]F?'' must be
evaluated. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the answer to that
question could differ for each load size (e.g., using the small load
size could yield an answer of ``No'', whereas using the large load size
could yield an answer if ``Yes.'') By specifying that the flow charts
are evaluated using the large load size, in this example, the answer to
the question would be the answer ``Yes'' associated with the large load
size (i.e., the unit under test has an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse).
Having made this determination, both the small and large load sizes
would be tested to the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection.
b. Clothes Washers That Generate All Hot Water Internally
As described in section III.C.2 of this document, DOE is aware of
single-inlet clothes washers on the market that intake only cold water
and internally generate all hot water required for a cycle by means of
an internal heating element. As observed on the market, these clothes
washers offer Cold, Warm, Hot, and/or Extra-Hot temperature selections.
As part of determining the Cold/Cold temperature selection, the
instruction box in the flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of appendix J2
referred to ``. . . multiple wash temperature selections in the Normal
cycle [that] do not use any hot water for any of the water fill levels
or test load sizes required for testing[.]''
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed the text in Figure 2.12.1
of both appendix J2 and the new appendix J to state ``. . . use or
internally generate any heated water . . .'' (emphasis added) so that
the wording of the Cold/Cold flowchart in both appendices explicitly
addresses clothes washers that internally generate hot water. 85 FR
31065, 31074. This change would be consistent with DOE's interpretation
of the current Cold/Cold flowchart and subsequent flowcharts for the
Warm Wash and Hot Wash temperature selections for this type of clothes
washer. Id. DOE further proposed to phrase the description of Warm/Warm
in Figure 2.12.4 of both appendix J2 and the new appendix J to state
``. . . rinse temperature selections that add or internally generate
hot water . . .'' (emphasis added), for the same reasons. 86 FR 49140,
49183.
DOE requested comments on its proposal to update the flowcharts for
Cold/Cold and Warm/Warm in both appendix J2 and the new appendix J to
explicitly address clothes washers that internally generate hot water.
Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE summarized comments from
Underwriters Laboratories (``UL'') and AHAM supporting this change. DOE
received no additional comments in response to the September 2021 NOPR
on its proposal to update the flowcharts to explicitly address clothes
washers that internally generate hot water. Id.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to update the flowcharts to explicitly address
clothes washers that internally generate hot water.
5. Wash Time Setting
Section 3.2.5 of appendix J2 defines how to select the wash time
setting on a clothes washer. If no one wash time is prescribed for the
wash cycle under test, the wash time setting is the higher of either
the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available,
regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. Hereafter in
this document, DOE refers to this provision as the ``70-percent test.''
a. Electronic vs. Electromechanical Dials
DOE has observed on the market clothes washers that have an
electronic cycle selection dial designed to visually simulate a
conventional electromechanical dial.\65\ Id. Although the electronic
dial simulates the visual appearance of an electromechanical dial, the
electronic dial is programmed with a pre-established set of wash cycle
parameters, including wash time, for each of the discrete cycle
selections presented on the machine. Id. For this type of cycle
selection dial, each of the discrete cycle selection options represents
a selectable ``wash cycle'' as referred to in section 3.2.5 of appendix
J2, and a wash time is prescribed for each available wash cycle. Id.
Therefore, for clothes washers with this type of electronic dial, the
wash cycle selected for testing must correspond to the wash cycle that
meets the definition of Normal cycle in section 1.25 of appendix J2.
The wash time setting thus would be the prescribed wash time for the
selected wash cycle; i.e., the 70- percent test would not apply to this
type of dial. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ On most electromechanical dials, the rotational position of
the dial corresponds to the desired wash time. The user rotates the
dial from the initial ``off'' position to the desired wash time
position, and after starting the wash cycle, the dial rotates
throughout the progression of the wash cycle until it reaches the
``off'' position at the end of the cycle. In contrast, an electronic
dial contains a fixed number of selectable positions, and the dial
remains in the selected position for the duration of the wash cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include in section
3.2.5.3 of both appendix J2 and the new appendix J the words ``or
timer'' after the words ``electromechanical dial'' in order to clarify
the application of the instructions to electronic cycle selection
dials. Id.
DOE further proposed in section 3.2.5 of appendix J2 and section
3.2.2 of the new appendix J \66\ that the first sentence of the section
would read, ``If the cycle under test offers a range of wash time
settings, the wash time setting shall be the higher of either the
minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available for the wash
cycle under test, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial
locations'' (emphasis added). 86 FR 49140, 49183-49184. DOE also
proposed to separate section 3.2.5 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of
the new appendix J into two subsections: section 3.2.5.1 (in appendix
J2) and section 3.2.2.1 (in the new appendix J), which specifies the
wash time setting for a clothes washer cycle with a range of wash time
settings; and section 3.2.5.2 (in appendix J2) and 3.2.2.2 (in the new
appendix J), which specifies the dial rotation procedure for a clothes
washer equipped with an electromechanical dial or timer that rotates in
both directions. 86 FR 49140, 49184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See section III.H.7 of this document for a discussion of
the structure of section 3 of the new appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested comment on its proposal to clarify the wording of the
wash time setting specifications in section 3.2.5 of appendix J2 and
section 3.2.2 of the new appendix J. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposed changes concerning
[[Page 33362]]
electromechanical dials. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 16)
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to include in section 3.2.5.3 of both appendix
J2 and the new appendix J the words ``or timer'' after the words
``electromechanical dial'' in order to clarify the application of the
instructions to electronic cycle selection dials. DOE is also
finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, that
in section 3.2.5 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the new appendix J
the first sentence of the section reads, ``If the cycle under test
offers a range of wash time settings, the wash time setting shall be
the higher of either the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time
available for the wash cycle under test, regardless of the labeling of
suggested dial locations.'' DOE is also finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to separate section 3.2.5 of
appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the new appendix J into two
subsections each.
b. Direction of Dial Rotation
Section 3.2.5 of appendix J2 states that, for clothes washers with
electromechanical dials controlling wash time, the dial must be turned
in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the appropriate wash
time setting. DOE is aware that not all electromechanical dials
currently on the market can be turned in the direction of increasing
wash time. 86 FR 49140, 49184. On such models, the dial can only be
turned in the direction of decreasing wash time. Accordingly, DOE
asserted that the direction of rotation need only be prescribed on a
clothes washer with an electromechanical dial that can rotate in both
directions. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add in section 3.2.5.2
of appendix J2 and include in section 3.2.2.2 of the new appendix J a
clause that would specify that the requirement to rotate the dial in
the direction of increasing wash time would only apply to dials that
can rotate in both directions. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to include a clause in
section 3.2.5.2 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.2.2 of the new appendix
J stating that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of
increasing wash time would apply only to dials that can rotate in both
directions. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE summarized comments from UL and
AHAM supporting this change. DOE received no additional comments in
response to the September 2021 NOPR on its proposal to state that the
requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time
would apply only to dials that can rotate in both directions.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to include a clause in section 3.2.5.2 of
appendix J2 and section 3.2.2.2 of the new appendix J that specifies
that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing
wash time applies only to dials that can rotate in both directions.
c. ``Wash Time'' Definition
The 70-percent test described above does not explicitly define how
to calculate ``wash time.'' In the May 2020 RFI, DOE considered whether
to state that the phrase ``wash time'' in section 3.2.5 of appendix J2
refers to the period of agitation or tumble. 85 FR 31065, 31975. This
clarification would be consistent with the historical context of this
section of the test procedure. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE
specified that section 2.10 of appendix J Clothes washer setting refers
to ``actual wash time'' as the ``period of agitation.'' In the 2001
Final Rule, DOE renamed section 2.10 of appendix J Wash time (period of
agitation or tumble) setting.\67\ 66 FR 3313, 3330. When establishing
appendix J1 in the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE did not include
reference to ``period of agitation or tumble'' in section 2.10 of
appendix J1. 62 FR 45484, 45510. DOE did not address this difference
from the 1977 version of appendix J in the preamble of the August 1997
Final Rule or the NOPRs that preceded that final rule, but given the
continued reference to ``wash time'' in appendix J1, did not intend to
change the general understanding that wash time refers to the wash
portion of the cycle, which includes agitation or tumble time. 86 FR
49140, 49184. DOE has since further amended section 2.10 of both
appendix J1 and appendix J2 as part of the March 2012 Final Rule and
August 2015 Final Rule (in which section 2.10 was renumbered as section
3.2.5), with no discussion in these final rules of the statement that
remained in the 2001 version of appendix J, where wash time was
referred to in the title of section 2.10 as the period of agitation or
tumble time. Id. DOE further noted in the September 2021 NOPR that in
current RCW models on the market, agitation or tumble may be periodic
or continuous during the wash portion of the cycle. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ In this context, ``agitation'' refers to the wash action of
a top-loading clothes washer, whereas ``tumble'' refers to the wash
action of a front-loading clothes washer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to provide further clarity in evaluating the wash time
setting requirements of section 3.2.5 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.2
of the new appendix J, DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to
define the term ``wash time'' in section 1 of both appendix J2 and the
new appendix J as ``the wash portion of the cycle, which begins when
the cycle is initiated and includes the agitation or tumble time, which
may be periodic or continuous during the wash portion of the cycle.''
86 FR 49140, 49184.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to add a definition of ``wash
time'' to section 1 of both appendix J2 and the new appendix J. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposed definition of ``wash
time.'' (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 16)
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal to add a definition
of ``wash time'' to section 1 of both appendix J2 and the new appendix
J in order to add more clarity in evaluating the wash time setting
requirements. To provide greater specificity by referencing other
defined terms, this final rule changes the wording ``wash portion of
the cycle'' as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to ``wash portion of
active washing mode.'' This change does not affect the substance of the
September 2021 NOPR proposal.
6. Annual Operating Cost Calculation
DOE provides in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii) the method for calculating
the estimated annual operating cost for automatic and semiautomatic
clothes washers, when using appendix J2. In the March 2012 Final Rule,
DOE assigned the symbol ``ETLP'' to represent combined low-
power mode energy consumption. However, in that rule, DOE used a
different symbol (``ETSO'') in updating section 10 CFR
430.23(j)(1)(ii) to represent the same value. 77 FR 12888, 13937-13948.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the symbol
nomenclature in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii) to match the symbol
nomenclature in appendix J2. 86 FR 49140, 49184.
In addition, to differentiate between values determined using
appendix J2 from values determined using the new appendix J throughout
10 CFR 430.23(j), DOE proposed to add a number ``2'' to
[[Page 33363]]
each of the symbols representing values derived from appendix J2 (e.g.,
ETLP2) that are not already designated accordingly. Id.
DOE further noted that the formula for calculating the estimated
annual operating cost for automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers
when gas-heated or oil-heated water is used, provided in 10 CFR
430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B), was missing a pair of parentheses. 86 FR 49140,
49185. The ``N2'' multiplier is intended to apply to all of
the other factors in the equation, but the lack of parentheses around
the ``MET2'' through ``CBTU'' terms erroneously
applied it to only the first term of the sum. DOE proposed to correct
this error in the September 2021 NOPR. Id.
Since DOE proposed to remove appendix J1 as part of the September
2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed to update 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), which
specified the formulas for calculating the estimated annual operating
cost for automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers when using
appendix J1, with the formulas for calculating the estimated annual
operating cost for automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers when
using the new appendix J. Id. These proposed formulas were analogous to
the formulas in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii). Id. As discussed further in
section III.H.7 of this document, the new appendix J does not include a
separate calculation for ``ETE'' (the sum of machine
electrical energy (``MET'') and water heating energy
(``HET''), as defined in section 4.1.7 of appendix J2).
Therefore, DOE's proposed revisions to 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) would
replace ETE with the individual components MET +
HET. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed updates to the annual
operating cost calculations in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1). Id.
DOE received no comments on its proposal to update the annual
operating cost.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to update the annual operating cost
calculations in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1).
7. Structure of the New Appendix J
DOE proposed a number of changes to the structure of the test
procedure as part of the creation of the new appendix J to improve
readability. 86 FR 49140, 49185.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to better organize section
2.8 of the proposed new appendix J, as compared to the parallel section
in appendix J2. Id. Section 2.8 of appendix J2 cross-references the
load size table to determine the three load sizes, specifies the
allowable composition of energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths
in each load,\68\ and provides a table showing required test load sizes
and water fill settings for each type of WFCS. Id. DOE proposed that,
in new appendix J, section 2.8.1 would contain the specifications for
determining the load sizes; section 2.8.2 would contain the
specifications describing the allowable composition of energy test
cloths and energy stuffer cloths in each load; and the table specifying
the required test load sizes and water fill settings for each type of
WFCS would not be included. Id. This table would be no longer needed in
new appendix J because the same two load sizes (small and large) would
be used for all WFCS types. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Test loads must consist of energy test cloths and no more
than five energy stuffer clothes per load to achieve the proper
weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2.9 of appendix J2 is named ``Use of test loads'' and
provides specifications for drying each load to bone-dry prior to use
and instructions for loading the test cloth into the clothes washer. In
the 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to title section 2.9 of the proposed new
appendix J ``Preparation and loading of test loads'' and to include a
statement that the procedures described in section 2.9 to prepare and
load each test load are applicable when performing the testing
procedures in section 3 of the appendix. Id.
Section 3.2 of appendix J2 is titled ``Procedure for measuring
water and energy consumption values on all automatic and semi-automatic
washers'' and specifies conducting testing under the energy test cycle
(3.2.1); provides a table that cross-references to each relevant test
section in section 3 of the appendix (3.2.2); and provides
specifications for: Configuring the hot and cold water faucets (3.2.3);
selecting the wash/rinse temperature selection (3.2.4); selecting the
wash time setting (3.2.5); selecting water fill levels for each type of
WFCS (3.2.6); using manufacturer default settings (3.2.7); testing
active washing mode only (3.2.8); and discarding anomalous data
(3.2.9).
In the 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to title section 3.2 of the new
appendix J as simply ``Cycle settings'' and to organize the section as
follows: The contents in section 3.2.1 of appendix J2 would be instead
included within the instructions of a new section 3.3 (as described
below); the contents of section 3.2 of appendix J2, including the
table, would not be included as the contents would be redundant with
the proposed sections 3.3 and 3.4; the contents of section 3.2.3 of
appendix J2 would not be included, as the hot and cold water faucet
instructions would no longer be necessary given the proposed changes
described in section III.C.2 of this document regarding the
installation of single-inlet clothes washers; and sections 3.2.4
through 3.2.9 of appendix J2 would be included as sections 3.2.1
through 3.2.6, respectively, and include any relevant edits as
discussed throughout this document. Id.
Sections 3.3 through 3.7 of appendix J2 contain detailed
instructions for testing each wash/rinse temperature available in the
energy test cycle: Extra-Hot/Cold (3.3); Hot/Cold (3.4); Warm/Cold
(3.5); Warm/Warm (3.6); and Cold/Cold (3.7). The content and structure
of each of these sections is nearly identical, except for two caveats:
(1) Describing the use of temperature indicator labels in section 3.3
of appendix J2 to verify the presence of an Extra-Hot wash; and (2)
describing the 25/50/75 test, described in section III.D.3 of this
document, for clothes washers that offer four or more Warm/Cold or
Warm/Warm selections. To significantly simplify this part of test
procedure, and because the use of temperature indicator labels would be
moved to section 2.5.4 of the proposed new appendix J and the 25/50/75
test would no longer be applicable under the proposals outlined in
section III.D.3 of this document, DOE proposed to combine the common
language from sections 3.3 through 3.7 in appendix J2 into a single
section 3.3 in the new appendix J for automatic clothes washers and an
analogous section 3.4 in the new appendix J for semi-automatic clothes
washers. Id. Section 3.3 of the proposed new appendix J would also
provide a table designating the symbol definitions of each required
measured value for each wash/rinse temperature selection and load size.
Id. As discussed in section III.D.8.c of this document, section 3.4 of
the proposed new appendix J would provide the same information for
semi-automatic clothes washers. Id.
Section 3.8 of appendix J2 specifies the procedure for measuring
and calculating RMC. As described in section III.D.4 of this document,
DOE proposed in the new appendix J to require measuring the RMC of each
tested cycle within the energy test cycle, and to calculate final RMC
using TUFs and LUFs, consistent with how water heating energy,
electrical energy, and water usage are calculated. Id. Under this
proposed change, the RMC values would be calculated in section 4
[[Page 33364]]
(``Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements'') of the
proposed new appendix J. Id. Given these proposed changes, the current
specifications in section 3.8 of appendix J2 would not apply to the
proposed new appendix J. Id. In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE therefore
proposed not to include the RMC provisions from section 3 in appendix
J2 in the new appendix J. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include sections 3.9
and 3.10 of appendix J2 in the proposed new appendix J as sections 3.5
and 3.6, respectively, and to provide the appropriate cross-references.
Id.
Section 3.10 of appendix J2 (section 3.6 in the proposed new
appendix J) is titled ``Energy consumption for the purpose of
determining the cycle selection(s) to be included in the energy test
cycle'' and specifies the following: Establishing the test conditions
and setting the cycle selections (3.10.1); using the maximum test load
size (3.10.2); using the maximum water fill level available (3.10.3);
including only the active washing mode (3.10.4); and calculating
``total energy consumption'' using a defined equation (3.10.5). In the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to simplify section 3.6 in the
proposed new appendix J by condensing the specifications of sections
3.10.1 through 3.10.4 in appendix J2 into a single statement in section
3.6.1 of the new appendix J to use the cycle settings as described in
section 3.2 of the proposed new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49186. Section
3.10.5 of appendix J2 would be included in the proposed new appendix J
as section 3.6.2. Id.
Sections 3 and 4 of appendix J2 assign various different subscripts
to each symbol definition to denote load size and wash/rinse
temperature selection, among other attributes. Appendix J2 uses the
subscript ``x'' to denote the maximum load size and the subscript ``m''
to denote the Extra-Hot/Cold temperature selection. In the September
2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use new subscripts to represent the large
load size (``L'') and the small load size (``S'') in the new appendix
J. Id. Because the maximum load size would no longer apply in the
proposed new appendix J, DOE proposed to update the subscript for
Extra-Hot/Cold temperature selection from ``m'' to ``x'' (since ``x''
is more intuitive in representing ``Extra''). Id. These changes would
apply to sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.6 and 4 in the proposed new appendix J.
Id. Additionally, throughout section 4 of appendix J2, the symbol ``F''
is used to refer to load usage factors. For greater clarity in the new
appendix J, DOE proposed to use the symbol ``LUF'' throughout section 4
to represent the load usage factors, rather than the symbol ``F.''
Section 4.1.7 of appendix J2 specifies calculating ``Total per-
cycle energy consumption when electrically heated water is used,''
assigned as symbol ``ETE,'' as the sum of machine electrical
energy and water heating energy. Id. ETE was originally
defined in the 1977 Final Rule in section 4.6 of appendix J and at the
time represented the total measured energy consumption, since the
drying energy (``DE'') and ETLP were not yet
included as part of the clothes washer test procedure. Currently,
however, the total measured energy consumption would be more accurately
represented by the sum of HET, MET,
DE, and ETLP. Because the calculation of
ETE as an intermediate step is now obsolete, DOE proposed to
not include the definition of ETE from section 4.1.7 of new
appendix J, as well as to edit all cross-references to ETE
(within sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the proposed new appendix J and 10 CFR
430.23(j)(1)(i)(A) as proposed). Id. In these instances, DOE proposed
to replace ETE with its component parts: HET and
MET. Id.
Section 4.2 of appendix J2 provides the calculation of water
consumption and is structured with multiple subsections. Sections 4.2.1
through 4.2.5 of appendix J2 provide for the calculation of total water
consumption for each load size within each wash/rinse temperature
selection by summing the measured values of hot water and cold water:
Extra-Hot/Cold (4.2.1); Hot/Cold (4.2.2); Warm/Cold (4.2.3); Warm/Warm
(4.2.4); and Cold/Cold (4.2.5). In sections 4.2.6 through 4.2.10 of
appendix J2, the total weighted water consumption for each wash/rinse
temperature selection is calculated by combining the water consumption
values for each load size as calculated in sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.5
using the LUFs. In section 4.2.11 of appendix J2, the total weighted
water consumption for all wash cycles is calculated by combining the
values calculated in sections 4.2.6 through 4.2.10 (representing each
wash/rinse temperature) using the TUFs. In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE
noted that this order of calculations (which combines the measured
values from the individual cycles first using LUFs, then combines the
resulting values using TUFs) is the reverse order used for the machine
electrical and water heating energy calculations in section 4.1 of
appendix J2 (which combines the measured values from the individual
cycles first using TUFs, then combines the resulting values using
LUFs). Id. In the new appendix J, DOE proposed to organize section 4.2
to simplify the calculations and to provide consistency between the
water consumption calculations and the energy calculations (i.e., to
combine the measured values from the individual cycles first using
TUFs, then combine the resulting values using LUFs). Id. Accordingly,
section 4.2.1 of the proposed new appendix J would define the per-cycle
total water consumption for each large load size tested (summing the
hot and cold water consumption for each load size and temperature
setting), and section 4.2.2 would similarly define the per-cycle total
water consumption for each large and small size tested. Id. Section
4.2.3 of the proposed new appendix J would provide for the calculation
of the per-cycle total water consumption for all load sizes, using the
TUFs to calculate the weighted average of all temperature settings for
each load size. Id. Finally, section 4.2.4 of the proposed new appendix
J would calculate the total weighted per-cycle water consumption, using
the LUFs to calculate the weighted average over the two load sizes. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposed
structure of the new appendix J to simplify and improve readability as
compared to appendix J2. Id.
DOE received no comments on its proposed structure for the new
appendix J.
DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to restructure the new appendix J to simplify and improve
readability as compared to appendix J2.
8. Proposed Deletions and Simplifications
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to remove appendix J1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with all references to appendix J1
in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. 86 FR 49140, 49186. Appendix J1
applied only to RCWs manufactured before March 7, 2015, and CCWs
manufactured before January 1, 2018, and is therefore not applicable to
models manufactured on or after those dates. Id. Use of appendix J2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 is currently required for any
representations of energy or water consumption of both RCWs and CCWs,
including demonstrating compliance with the currently applicable energy
conservation standards. Id. As discussed, DOE proposed to maintain the
current naming of appendix J2, and to establish a new test procedure at
appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of
updated
[[Page 33365]]
efficiency standards, and for determining compliance with those
standards. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to remove appendix J1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with all references to appendix J1
in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. Id.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of deleting appendix J1
and all references to it in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11)
DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to remove appendix J1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with
all references to appendix J1 in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431.
Given DOE's proposal to update the energy and water metrics in the
new appendix J, as described in section III.E of this document, DOE
proposed to include references to the proposed new metrics EER, AEER,
and WER in place of references to the WF, IWF, MEFJ2, and
IMEF metrics, as appropriate, in the new appendix J. 86 FR 49140,
49186. Given that the WF metric is no longer the basis for energy
conservation standards for either RCWs or CCWs, DOE proposed to remove
the calculation of WF from section 4.2.12 of appendix J2, as well as
any references to WF in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. Id. Similarly,
given that MEFJ2 is no longer the basis for energy
conservation standards for RCWs, DOE proposed to remove references to
``MEF'' from 10 CFR 429.20 and 10 CFR 430.23. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to remove obsolete metric
definitions. 86 FR 49140, 49187.
DOE received no comments in response to its proposal to remove
obsolete metric definitions.
DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to remove obsolete metric definitions.
DOE proposed to delete the following definitions from section 1 of
appendix J2 because they were either no longer used within the then-
current appendix, or would no longer be used given DOE's proposed
amendments in the September 2021 NOPR: ``adaptive control system,''
``compact,'' ``manual control system,'' ``standard,'' and
``thermostatically controlled water valves.'' 86 FR 49140, 49187.
Section 1.13 of appendix J2 defined the energy test cycle as
follows: energy test cycle means the complete set of wash/rinse
temperature selections required for testing, as determined according to
section 2.12 [of appendix J2]. Within the energy test cycle, the
following definitions applied:
(a) Cold Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection
determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of this
appendix.
(b) Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection
determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.2 of this
appendix.
(c) Warm Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection
determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.3 of this
appendix.
(d) Warm Wash/Warm Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection
determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.4 of this
appendix.
(e) Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature
selection determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.5 of
this appendix.
Parts (a) through (e) of this definition were redundant with the
flowchart definitions provided in section 2.12 of appendix J2.
Therefore, DOE proposed to simplify the definition of energy test cycle
in both appendix J2 and the new appendix J by keeping only the first
sentence of the current definition: energy test cycle means the
complete set of wash/rinse temperature selections required for testing,
as determined according to section 2.12. Id.
DOE also proposed to remove section 1.30 of appendix J2, ``Symbol
usage,'' to rename section 1 of appendix J2 (previously ``Definitions
and Symbols'') ``Definitions,'' and name section 1 of the new appendix
J ``Definitions'' accordingly. Id. Throughout the appendices, each
symbol is defined at each usage, making this section unnecessary for
executing the test procedure. DOE noted that most other test procedures
in subpart B to part 430 do not include a symbol usage section. Id.
DOE also proposed to remove the numbering of all definitions in
section 1 of appendix J2, and in section 2 of appendix J3, and instead
list the definitions in alphabetical order, to simplify cross-
references to defined terms and allow for easier editing in the future
by avoiding the need to renumber all the definitions (and associated
cross-references) any time a definition is added or deleted. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to delete the following
definitions from section 1 of appendix J2: ``adaptive control system,''
``compact,'' ``manual control system,'' ``standard,'' and
``thermostatically controlled water valves.'' Id. DOE also requested
comment on its proposal to simplify the definition of ``energy test
cycle.'' Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal to remove
section 1.30 ``Symbol usage'' from appendix J2. Id. Lastly, DOE
requested comment on its proposal to remove the numbering of all
definitions in section 1 of appendix J2 and section 2 of appendix J3,
and to instead list the definitions in alphabetical order. Id.
P.R. China commented that DOE should not delete the definitions of
``compact'' and ``standard.'' (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 4) P.R. China
specifically requested that DOE re-define the ``compact'' product class
to include units with capacity less than 45 liters, and re-define the
``standard'' product class to include clothes washers with a capacity
above 45 liters. (Id.) P.R. China further stated that large-capacity
machines have inherent advantages in energy efficiency performance over
smaller-capacity machines. (Id.) P.R. China concluded that it is
therefore unfair to compare compact and standard clothes washers using
the same criteria. (Id.)
In response to P.R. China, DOE notes that its deletion of the
``compact'' and ``standard'' product class definitions from appendix J2
does not affect the definition of RCW product classes, which are
defined in 10 CFR 430.32(g) and include: top-loading compact, top-
loading standard, front-loading compact, and front-loading standard.
The product class definitions in 10 CFR 430.32(g) include capacity
thresholds at 1.6 ft\3\, or 45 liters, and are not being amended in
this final rule.\69\ In this final rule, DOE is removing the
definitions of the terms ``compact'' and ``standard'' only from
appendix J2 because they are no longer used within the appendix itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ In the RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed an
updated capacity threshold of 3.0 ft\3\ (85 liters) between the
front-loading compact and front-loading standard product classes.
Any new definitions of product classes would be finalized in the
standards rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to delete the following definitions from
section 1 of appendix J2: ``adaptive control system,'' ``compact,''
``manual control system,'' ``standard,'' and ``thermostatically
controlled water valves.'' DOE is also finalizing its proposals,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to simplify the definition of
``energy test cycle,'' and remove section 1.30 ``Symbol usage'' from
appendix J2. DOE is further finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR to remove the numbering of all definitions in
section 1 of appendix J2 and section 2 of appendix J3, and to instead
list the definitions in alphabetical order.
DOE further proposed to remove section 6, Waivers and Field
Testing,
[[Page 33366]]
from appendix J2 and not include a parallel section in the new appendix
J. 86 FR 49140, 49187. The language of section 6 of appendix J2 was
first introduced as section 7 in the 1997 version of appendix J and has
been maintained through successive amendments of the test procedures.
DOE noted in the September 2021 NOPR, however, that none of the waivers
sought by manufacturers to date have made use of these provisions. Id.
Instead, the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27 (Petitions for waiver and
interim waiver) provide comprehensive instructions regarding DOE's
waiver process. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that the information
presented in section 6 of appendix J2 was unnecessary given the
regulatory language of 10 CFR 430.27. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to remove section 6, Waivers
and Field Testing, of appendix J2 and proposal not to include a
parallel section in the new appendix J. Id.
DOE received no comments on its proposal to remove section 6,
Waivers and Field Testing, of appendix J2.
DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to remove section 6, Waivers and Field Testing, of appendix J2
and to not include a parallel section in the new appendix J.
9. Typographical Errors
In an effort to improve the readability of the text in certain
sections of 10 CFR 430.23 and appendix J2, DOE proposed to make minor
typographical corrections and formatting modifications as follows. 86
FR 49140, 49187. These minor proposed modifications were not intended
to change the substance of the test methods or descriptions provided in
these sections. Id. The language of the proposed new appendix J
reflects these corrections. Id.
The test procedure provisions at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B) contain
a definition for ``CKWH,'' which is duplicative with the
same definition provided in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(A). In the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to remove the duplicate definition of
CKWH from 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B). Id.
DOE proposed to correct two misspellings in section 2.8 of appendix
J2 referring to energy stuffer cloths (previously ``clothes'') and test
load sizes (previously ``siszes''). Id. DOE also proposed to correct
the spelling of ``discrete'' in section 3.2.5 of appendix J2
(previously ``discreet'') and of ``test cycle'' in section 3.6 of
appendix J2 (previously ``testy cycle''). Id. DOE also proposed to
spell out the word ``percent'' in the paragraph in section 3.2.5 of
appendix J2. Id.
Currently in appendix J2, the drying energy abbreviation is
DE. This notation is inconsistent with the notation used for
machine electrical energy and water heating energy (MET and
HET, respectively). DOE proposed to standardize the notation
used for drying energy throughout sections 3 and 4 of new appendix J,
such that it is listed as DET. Id. DOE stated in the
September 2021 NOPR that it could consider also making this change in
appendix J2, but that it understood that changing the symbol definition
could require test laboratories to update test templates that use the
DE symbol as currently defined in appendix J2. Id.
DOE also proposed to rename section 2 in appendix J2 from ``Testing
Conditions'' to ``Testing Conditions and Instrumentation'' to more
fully reflect the contents of this section. Id.
In several instances throughout appendix J2, the qualifier ``of
this appendix'' was missing in section cross-references. DOE proposed
to rectify these omissions. Id. DOE also proposed to clarify references
to appendix J3 in appendix J2, and vice-versa, by using ``to this
subpart.'' Id. Finally, DOE proposed to update all cross-references as
needed, following the edits proposed in the September 2021 NOPR. Id.
DOE received no comments in response to its proposed corrections.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to make the minor typographical corrections
and formatting modifications described previously to improve the
readability of the text in certain sections of 10 CFR 430.23 and
appendix J2.
10. Symbology
As discussed in section I.B of this document, in the CCW test
procedure regulations at 10 CFR 431.152, DOE defines the term
``MEFJ2'' to mean modified energy factor as determined in
section 4.5 of appendix J2. Since the calculated value of modified
energy factor in appendix J2 is not equivalent to the calculated value
of modified energy factor in appendix J1, DOE added the ``J2''
subscript to the appendix J2 MEF descriptor to avoid any potential
ambiguity that would result from using the same energy descriptor for
both test procedures. 79 FR 71624, 71626. To maintain consistency with
this approach, this final rule adds the ``J2'' subscript to the MEF
metric defined in section 4.5 of appendix J2.
I. Test Cloth Provisions
Appendix J2 requires using specialized test cloth as the material
comprising each tested load. The final specifications for the energy
test cloth were developed to be representative of the range of fabrics
comprising consumer wash loads: a 50-percent cotton/50-percent
polyester blended material was specified to approximate the typical mix
of cotton, cotton/polyester blend, and synthetic articles that are
machine-washed by consumers. In developing the test cloth
specifications, DOE also considered:
Manufacturability: A 50/50 cotton-polyester momie weave
was specified because at the time, such cloth was produced in high
volume, had been produced to a consistent specification for many years,
and was expected to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable
future. 66 FR 3314, 3331.
Consistency in test cloth production: The cloth material
properties were specified in detail, including fiber content, thread
count, and fabric weight; as well as requirements to verify that water
repellent finishes are not applied to the cloth. Id.
Consistency of the RMC measurement among different lots: A
procedure was developed to generate correction factors for each new
``lot'' (i.e., batch) of test cloth to normalize test results and
ensure consistent RMC measurements regardless of which lot is used for
testing. Id.
1. Test Cloth Specification
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose any changes to the
test cloth specification.
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE mathematically adjust
clothes washer RMC in the proposed new appendix J to more realistically
account for drying energy use associated with 100-percent cotton loads.
(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 7-8) The Joint Commenters referenced
the 2020 NEEA Report, which developed a linear mathematical
relationship between the RMCs of two different types of textiles: The
50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester DOE test cloth defined in
appendix J2, and the 100-percent cotton textiles defined in AHAM HLW-1-
2013 and IEC 60456 (2010). The 2020 NEEA Report analyzed the RMC values
of both types of textiles across a broad range of clothes washer
efficiency levels and technology types. (Id.) The Joint Commenters
commented that NEEA's study found what the Joint Commenters
characterized as excellent R-squared values that could be used to
adjust the
[[Page 33367]]
RMC of DOE test cloth to the RMC that would be expected by using AHAM-
specified 100-percent cotton textiles. (Id.) The Joint Commenters
commented that adjusting RMC to account for drying energy use
associated with 100-percent cotton loads would more realistically
account for RCW and CCW impacts on drying energy use because, according
to the Joint Commenters, most typical laundry loads have a cotton
content higher than 50 percent. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also
commented that adjusting RMC would increase alignment between the
proposed new appendix J clothes washer procedure and the appendix D2
clothes dryer test procedure, asserting that the drying energy
currently calculated in appendix J2 is much lower than the energy
consumed by a typical clothes dryer. (Id.) The Joint Commenters further
explained that using NEEA's mathematical adjustment to increase RMC
before calculating drying energy would make the drying energy estimated
in the clothes washer test procedure more similar to the measured
drying energy in the clothes dryer test procedure, since the RMC
calculated in new appendix J would be closer to the initial moisture
content of 57.5 percent specified in appendix D2. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters also added that their proposed RMC adjustment calculation
would not add any test burden since the calculation would only affect
the post-processing of the data, which could be automated. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates similarly recommended that DOE
include RMC adjustment factors to account for the difference in RMCs
between DOE test cloth load and ``real-world'' clothing. (Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 5) The Joint Efficiency Advocates
cited findings from the 2020 NEEA Report that clothes washers removed
substantially more water from the DOE test cloth loads (36 percent RMC,
on average) than the AHAM cotton test loads (65 percent RMC, on
average). (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates therefore concluded that
RMC and the resulting drying energy are likely being underestimated in
the current test procedure. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates
commented that it is important for each of the components of clothes
washer energy use (drying energy, water heating energy, etc.) to be
correctly weighted. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates further
explained that if two clothes washers have the same efficiency rating,
but one optimizes hot water usage and the other optimizes spin speed or
duration to lower the RMC, then the models that optimize spin speed/
duration may have different real-world efficiencies if RMC is
underestimated. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended
implementing an RMC adjustment factor similar to the one presented in
the 2020 NEEA Report. (Id.)
In response to the Joint Commenters' and Joint Efficiency
Advocates' recommendations that DOE include RMC adjustment factors to
account for the difference in RMC values between DOE test cloth load
and what the commenters described as ``real-world'' clothing, DOE
reiterates that the current test cloth was developed to be
representative of the range of fabrics comprising consumer wash loads,
including 100-percent cotton, cotton/polyester blend, and 100-percent
synthetic articles. As such, DOE intends for the specified test load to
be nationally and seasonally representative of clothing used across all
regions of the United States. DOE recognizes that consumer clothing
(including fabric composition) likely differs between warmer and colder
climates, between urban and rural households, between regions that do
and do not experience seasonal changes, and among population
demographics (e.g., household size, age of household members, etc.).
While DOE acknowledges that 100-percent cotton clothing may be more
common among certain regions or demographics, the commenters have not
presented any data--nor is DOE aware of any data--indicating that 100-
percent cotton clothing is nationally, seasonally, or demographically
representative across the United States. DOE asserts that the 50-
percent cotton/50-percent polyester material currently specified
represents the middle of the spectrum between 100-percent cotton and
100-percent synthetic fabric types and therefore is representative of
an average use cycle or period of use.
For these reasons, DOE is not implementing an RMC adjustment factor
to account for the difference in RMC between the DOE test cloth and a
100-percent cotton load. However, in light of the feedback received
regarding test cloth specifications, DOE will continue to evaluate the
representativeness of test results obtained through the use of the
current test cloth requirements in the DOE test procedures. DOE will
also continue to monitor the development of industry standards and
other efforts related to test cloth and test load composition.
2. Consolidation to Appendix J3
Appendix J3 specifies a qualification procedure that must be
conducted on all new lots of energy test cloth prior to the use of such
test cloths in any clothes washer test procedure. This qualification
procedure provides a set of correction factors that correlate the
measured RMC values of the new test cloth lot with a set of standard
RMC values established as the historical reference point. These
correction factors are applied to the RMC test results in section
3.8.2.6 of appendix J2 to ensure the repeatability and reproducibility
of test results performed using different lots of test cloth. The
measured RMC of each clothes washer has a significant impact on the
final IMEF value.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed several structural changes
to appendix J3 to consolidate all of the test cloth specifications and
procedures (some of which were previously located in appendix J2) that
must be evaluated on each new lot of test cloth. 86 FR 49140, 49188.
Consolidating into a single test procedure would improve the overall
logical flow of both test procedures and clarify that the test cloth
procedures need not be conducted for each clothes washer under test.
Id. As described further, the proposed changes would remove from
appendix J2 those specifications and procedures that were not intended
to be completed for every clothes washer test. Id. The proposed edits
also would formally codify additional qualification procedures that are
currently conducted for every new lot of test cloth. Id.
a. Test Cloth Requirements in Appendix J2
Section 2.7 of appendix J2 (``Test cloths'') previously contained
specifications and procedures regarding the test cloth. Sections 2.7.1
and 2.7.2 specified the unfinished and finished dimensions, maximum
lifetime, and marking requirements for energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloths, respectively. These sections also specified that mixed
lots of material must not be used for testing. Section 2.7.3 specified
a procedure for preconditioning new test cloth, which requires
performing a series of five wash cycles on all new (unused) test cloths
before the cloth can be used for clothes washer tests. Section 2.7.4
provided the material specifications (fabric type, fabric weight,
thread count, and fiber content) for the energy test cloths and energy
stuffer cloths, as well as three industry test methods that must be
performed to confirm the absence of any water-repellent finishes and to
measure
[[Page 33368]]
the cloth shrinkage after preconditioning. Section 2.7.5 referenced
appendix J3 for performing the standard extractor procedure to measure
the moisture absorption and retention characteristic of each new lot of
cloth.
Several of these provisions previously contained within section 2.7
of appendix J2 are not intended to be conducted as part of each
individual clothes washer test performed under appendix J2. Based on
discussions with the AHAM Test Cloth Task Force, DOE is aware that some
of the test cloth provisions previously in section 2.7 of appendix J2
are performed by a third-party laboratory on each new lot of test
cloth, avoiding the need for manufacturers and test laboratories to
perform the same procedures for each individual clothes washer test. 85
FR 31065, 31071.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to move most of the
specifications from section 2.7 of appendix J2 to appendix J3. 86 FR
49140, 49188. Section 2.7 of appendix J2 would retain the following
specifications, which are relevant to the conduct of individual clothes
washer tests: The maximum lifetime specification, marking requirements,
and the requirement that mixed lots of material must not be used for
testing. 86 FR 49140, 49188-49189. All other specifications from
section 2.7 of appendix J2 would be moved to appendix J3. 86 FR 49140,
49189. DOE proposed to add a general statement in section 2.7 of
appendix J2 that the test cloth material and dimensions must conform to
the specifications in appendix J3. Id. These proposed changes would
also be reflected in the proposed new appendix J. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to consolidate into appendix J3 the test cloth specifications and
procedures from section 2.7 of appendix J2 that are not intended to be
conducted as part of each individual clothes washer test performed
under appendix J2. Id.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of consolidating test
cloth instructions into appendix J3, stating that it would increase
clarity of the test procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11)
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to consolidate into appendix J3 the test cloth
specifications and procedures from section 2.7 of appendix J2 that are
not intended to be conducted as part of each individual clothes washer
test performed under appendix J2.
b. Test Cloth Requirements in Appendix J3
Industry has developed a process by which the qualification
procedure described above is performed by a third-party laboratory, and
the results are reviewed and approved by the AHAM Test Cloth Task
Force, after which the new lot of test cloth is made available for
purchase by manufacturers and test laboratories. 85 FR 31065, 31071.
As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE received a request from
members of the AHAM Test Cloth Task Force to add to appendix J3
additional steps to the qualification procedure that have historically
been performed on each new lot of test cloth to ensure uniformity of
RMC test results on test cloths from the beginning, middle, and end of
each new lot. Id. Industry practice is to perform this ``uniformity
check'' before conducting the procedure to develop the RMC correction
factors currently specified in the DOE test procedure, as described
previously. Id. Specifically, the uniformity check involves performing
an RMC measurement on nine bundles of sample cloth representing the
beginning, middle, and end locations of the first, middle, and last
rolls of cloth in a new lot. Id. The coefficient of variation across
the nine RMC values must be less than or equal to 1 percent for the
test cloth lot to be considered acceptable for use. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to codify in appendix J3
this ``uniformity check'' and to restructure appendix J3 to improve the
overall logical flow of the procedure. 86 FR 49140, 49189.
The sections of appendix J3 were previously structured as follows:
(1) Objective; (2) Definitions; (3) Testing Conditions; (4) Test Loads;
(5) Test Measurements; (6) Calculation of RMC Correction Curve; and (7)
Application of the RMC Correction Curve.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the objectives
included in section 1 to specify that appendix J3 now includes: (1)
Specifications for the energy test cloth to be used for testing clothes
washers; (2) procedures for verifying that new lots of energy test
cloth meet the defined material specifications; and (3) procedures for
developing the RMC correction coefficients. Id.
In section 2 of appendix J3, DOE proposed to add a definition for
the term ``roll,'' which refers to a subset of a lot, and to remove the
definition of roll from appendix J2. Id.
DOE proposed to create a new section 3, ``Energy Test Cloth
Specifications,'' that would specify the test cloth material,
dimensions, and use requirements as previously specified in section 2.7
of appendix J2. Id.
DOE proposed to change the title of previous section 3 of appendix
J3, newly renumbered as section 4, from ``Testing Conditions'' to
``Equipment Specifications.'' Id. This section would contain the
specifications for the extractor (previously specified in section 3.2)
and the bone-dryer (previously specified in section 3.3). Id. DOE
proposed to merge the previous specification in section 3.1 of appendix
J3 (which specified the extractor spin conditions to be used) with the
proposed edits to newly renumbered section 8 (``RMC Correction Curve
Procedure''), as described below. Id.
DOE proposed to create a new section 5, ``Pre-Conditioning
Instructions,'' in appendix J3 that would specify the instructions for
preconditioning test cloth, as previously specified in section 4.1 of
appendix J3, with a clarifying wording change. Id. The second paragraph
of section 4.1 in appendix J3 previously specified ``Perform five
complete wash-rinse-spin cycles, the first two with current AHAM
Standard detergent Formula 3 and the last three without detergent.''
The last sentence of that paragraph specified: ``Repeat the cycle with
detergent and then repeat the cycle three additional times without
detergent, bone drying the load between cycles (for a total of five
complete wash-rinse-spin cycles).'' In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE
expressed concern that the wording of the last sentence could be
misconstrued as requiring the repeating of the entire sequence of five
wash-rinse-spin cycles specified in the first sentence. Id. To avoid
this potential misinterpretation, DOE proposed to replace the last
sentence with the following: ``Dry the load to bone-dry between each of
the five wash/rinse-spin cycles.'' Id.
DOE proposed to create a new section 6, ``Extractor Run
Instructions,'' in appendix J3 that would specify the instructions for
testing test cloth in the extractor at specific spin speed and time
conditions, as previously listed in sections 5.1 through 5.10 of
appendix J3, with some minor organizational changes. Id.
DOE proposed to create a new section 7, ``Test Cloth Material
Verification Procedure,'' in appendix J3 that codifies the ``uniformity
check'' procedure described above. Id.
DOE proposed to add a new section 8, ``RMC Correction Curve
Procedure,'' in appendix J3, which would
[[Page 33369]]
consolidate the provisions previously specified in sections 5 and 6 of
appendix J3. 86 FR 49140, 49189-49190.
DOE proposed to renumber section 7 to section 9 in appendix J3 and
to update any applicable cross references. 86 FR 49140, 49190.
Finally, given the broader scope of appendix J3 as proposed by
these amendments, DOE proposed to rename appendix J3 from ``Uniform
Test Method for Measuring the Moisture Absorption and Retention
Characteristics of New Energy Test Cloth Lots'' to ``Energy Test Cloth
Specifications and Procedures for Determining Correction Coefficients
of New Energy Test Cloth Lots.'' Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed edits to appendix J3 to
codify the ``uniformity check'' procedure and to restructure appendix
J3 to improve the overall logical flow of the procedure. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposed structural changes to
appendix J3, and added that DOE's proposed changes are consistent with
AHAM's work on this topic. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 16)
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to codify the ``uniformity check'' procedure
and to restructure appendix J3 to improve the overall logical flow of
the procedure.
J. Product-Specific RMC Enforcement Provisions
DOE provides product-specific enforcement provisions for all
clothes washers at 10 CFR 429.134(c), which specify provisions for
determining RMC. 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(i) specifies that the measured
RMC value of a tested unit will be considered the tested unit's final
RMC value if the measured RMC value is within two RMC percentage points
of the certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a
percentage), or is lower than the certified RMC value. 10 CFR
429.134(c)(1)(ii) specifies that if the measured RMC value of a tested
unit is more than two RMC percentage points higher than the certified
RMC value of the basic model, DOE will perform two additional
replications of the RMC measurement procedure, each pursuant to the
provisions of section 3.8.5 of appendix J2, for a total of three
independent RMC measurements of the tested unit. The average of the
three RMC measurements will be the tested unit's final RMC value and
will be used as the basis for the calculation of per-cycle energy
consumption for removal of moisture from the test load for that unit.
As described in sections I.B and III.I of this document, DOE uses
the procedures specified in appendix J3 to evaluate the moisture
absorption and retention characteristics of each new lot of test cloth.
The results are used to develop a unique correction curve for each new
lot of test cloth, which helps ensure that a consistent RMC measurement
is obtained for any test cloth lot used during testing. The correction
factors developed for each new cloth lot are used to adjust the
``uncorrected'' RMC measurements obtained when performing an appendix
J2 test on an individual clothes washer model.\70\ Without the
application of correction factors, the uncorrected RMC values for a
given spin setting can vary by more than 10 RMC percentage points. The
application of correction factors is intended to significantly reduce
this lot-to-lot variation in RMC results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ DOE maintains an historical record of the standard
extractor test data and final correction curve coefficients for each
approved lot of energy test cloth. These are available through DOE's
web page for standards and test procedures for residential clothes
washers at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/clothes-washer-test-clothcorrection-factor-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that multiple interested
parties have presented confidential data to DOE suggesting that despite
the application of correction factors, the ``corrected'' RMC values can
vary by up to three RMC percentage points among different test cloth
lots. 86 FR 49140, 49190. A variation of three RMC percentage points
can lead to over a 5-percent variation in IMEF rating.\71\ DOE
conducted an internal analysis of the confidential data, in which DOE
investigated three potential sources of the observed variation in
corrected RMC values: (1) Test-to-test variation masking as lot-to-lot
variation; (2) spin cycle anomalies masking as lot-to-lot variation;
and (3) choice of Lot 3 as the reference lot.\72\ Id. Based on DOE's
investigations, none of these three hypotheses explained the observed
lot-to-lot variation in corrected RMC values in the data presented by
the interested parties. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See discussion in the August 2015 Final Rule in which DOE
described that limiting RMC variation to 2 RMC percentage points
would limit the variation in the overall MEFJ2 or IMEF
calculation to roughly 5 percent. 80 FR 46730, 46756.
\72\ The RMC characteristics of historical Lot 3 represent the
``standard RMC values'' defined in Table 6.1 of appendix J3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these investigations, DOE preliminarily concluded in the
September 2021 NOPR that although the application of correction factors
for each test cloth lot significantly reduces the lot-to-lot variation
in RMC (from over 10 percentage points uncorrected), the current
methodology may be limited to reducing lot-to-lot variation in
corrected RMC to around three RMC percentage points. Id.
Recognizing this potential for lot-to-lot variation of up to three
RMC percentage points (corrected), DOE proposed to extend its product-
specific enforcement provisions for clothes washers to accommodate up
to a 3-percentage point variation in the corrected RMC measurement
based on the test cloth lot used for testing. Id. The following
paragraphs describe the approach proposed by DOE in the September 2021
NOPR.
DOE proposed to modify the text of 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1) to state
that its provisions address anomalous RMC results that are not
representative of a basic model's performance, as well as differences
in RMC values that may result from DOE using a different test cloth lot
than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic
model. Id.
DOE proposed to specify the enforcement provisions when testing
according to the proposed new appendix J at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(i),
and when testing according to appendix J2 at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(ii).
Id.
Under the provisions for appendix J2, DOE proposed new paragraph
(ii)(A), which would specify that the procedure for determining RMC
will be performed once in its entirety, pursuant to the test
requirements of section 3.8 of appendix J2, for each unit tested (as
currently specified at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)). Id.
DOE proposed new paragraph (ii)(B), which would specify that if the
measured RMC value of a tested unit is equal to or lower than the
certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a percentage), the
measured RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value
and will be used as the basis for the calculation of per-cycle energy
consumption for removal of moisture from the test load for that unit
(consistent with the current specifications at 10 CFR
429.134(c)(1)(i)). Id.
DOE proposed new paragraph (ii)(C), which would specify that if the
difference between the measured RMC value and the certified RMC value
of the basic model is less than or equal to two RMC percentage points,
the measured RMC value of a tested unit will be considered the tested
unit's final RMC value unless DOE used a different test cloth lot than
was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic
model; in which case, DOE
[[Page 33370]]
may apply the proposed new paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(E) of the same section
if the difference between the measured and certified RMC values would
affect the unit's compliance with the applicable standards. Id.
DOE proposed new paragraph (ii)(D)--which would address anomalous
RMC results that are not representative of a basic model's
performance--specifying that if the measured RMC value of a tested unit
is more than two RMC percentage points higher than the certified RMC
value of the basic model, DOE will perform two replications of the RMC
measurement procedure, each pursuant to the provisions of section 3.8.5
of appendix J2, for a total of three independent RMC measurements of
the tested unit; and that average of the three RMC measurements will be
calculated (as currently specified at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(ii)). 86 FR
49140, 49190-49191. Within this section, DOE proposed a new paragraph
(ii)(D)(1) that would specify that if the average of the three RMC
measurements is equal to or lower than the certified RMC value of the
basic model, the average RMC value will be considered the tested unit's
final RMC value. 86 FR 49140, 49191. A new proposed paragraph
(ii)(D)(2) would specify that if the average of the three RMC
measurements is higher than the certified RMC value of the basic model,
the average RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC
value unless DOE used a different test cloth lot than was used by the
manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model; in which case,
DOE may apply a new proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(E) of the same
section if the difference between the average and certified RMC values
would affect the unit's compliance with the applicable standards. Id.
The proposed new paragraph (ii)(E)--which would address differences
in RMC values that may result from DOE using a different test cloth
lot--would specify two potential courses of action if DOE uses a
different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing
and certifying the basic model. Id. New paragraph (ii)(E)(1) would
specify that if the difference between the tested unit's measured RMC
value (or average RMC value pursuant to the new proposed paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(D) of the same section) and the certified RMC value of the
basic model is less than or equal to three RMC percentage points, then
the certified RMC value of the basic model may be considered the tested
unit's final RMC value. Id. New proposed paragraph (ii)(E)(2) would
specify that if the tested unit's measured RMC value (or average RMC
value pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D) of the same section) is more
than three RMC percentage points higher than the certified RMC value of
the basic model, then a value three RMC percentage points less than the
measured RMC value may be considered the tested unit's final RMC value.
Id.
For testing conducted according to the proposed new appendix J,
several modifications would be made to the procedures described for
appendix J2 due to the revised methodology for measuring RMC in the
proposed new appendix J, as described in section III.D.4 of this
document (specifically, that in the proposed new appendix J, RMC would
be measured for each individual test cycle as opposed to measured using
a separate set of additional test cycles, as is required by appendix
J2). Id. The provisions for the proposed new appendix J would not
include the specifications for 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(ii)(A) or 10 CFR
429.134(c)(1)(ii)(D) as described previously. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to extend its product-specific enforcement provisions for clothes
washers to accommodate up to a 3-percentage point variation in the
corrected RMC measurement based on the test cloth lot used for testing.
Id. DOE also requested comment on alternate enforcement approaches that
could be implemented. Id.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider obtaining samples from
each test cloth lot and use the applicable lot when conducting
compliance testing to reduce the need to use the three percent
tolerance for the RMC enforcement provisions, as was proposed in new
appendix J. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 7) The CA IOUs also recommended that
DOE add the test cloth lot number to the certification data collection
sheets for RCWs and CCWs to aid in DOE's compliance efforts. (Id.)
Whirlpool recommended that DOE use decision tree flow charts for
the product-specific RMC enforcement provisions, similar to the charts
used in Figures 2.12.1-2.12.5 in section 2.12 of appendix J2.
(Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 11-13) Whirlpool commented that a flowchart
would help provide further clarity for stakeholders. (Id.) Whirlpool
also attached drafts of the two suggested flow charts for initial
consideration by DOE. (Id.)
Whirlpool also suggested edits to the wording of the proposed
product-specific enforcement provisions found in 10 CFR 429.134(c) in
order to add clarity. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 13-14) In 10 CFR
429.134(c)(i)(C)(1), Whirlpool suggested that instead of, ``If the
difference between the tested unit's measured RMC value and the
certified RMC value of the basic model is less than or equal to three
RMC percentage points, then the certified RMC value of the basic model
may be considered the tested unit's final RMC value,'' DOE should use
the following wording, ``If the tested unit's measured RMC value is
more than the certified RMC value of the basic model and is less than
or equal to three RMC percentage points higher than the certified RMC
value, then the certified RMC value of the basic model may be
considered the tested unit's final RMC value.'' (Id.) Whirlpool
suggested similar wording changes to increase the parallelism of the
language for 10 CFR 429.134(c)(ii)(C) and 10 CFR 429.134(c)(ii)(E)(1).
(Id.)
Whirlpool also suggested that instead of using the word ``may'' in
10 CFR 429.134(c)(i)(B), 10 CFR 429.134(c)(i)(C)(1), 10 CFR
429.134(c)(i)(C)(2), 10 CFR 429.134(c)(ii)(C), 10 CFR
429.134(c)(ii)(E)(1) and 10 CFR 429.134(c)(ii)(E)(2), DOE should use
the word ``will.'' (Id.) Whirlpool stated that using ``may'' is
troublesome because of its ambiguous nature in particular due to its
use in an enforcement provision. (Id.)
DOE notes it is not amending the certification or reporting
requirements for clothes washers in this final rule to require
reporting of test cloth lot. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
amend the certification requirements and reporting for RCWs and CCWs
under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment
certification.
In response to the CA IOUs' suggestion that DOE obtain samples from
each test cloth lot and use the applicable lot when conducting
compliance testing, DOE notes that this approach would not be feasible
due to the nature of how test laboratories acquire and use test cloth.
Test cloth is produced in large batches (i.e., lots) by a single
textile manufacturer. A new test cloth lot is produced roughly every
year. Test laboratories typically purchase in bulk whichever test cloth
lot is available at the time of purchase. Depending on a laboratory's
testing throughput, each bulk purchase of a particular lot may provide
enough material for several years of testing. As a result, in DOE's
experience, test laboratories typically do not have test cloth
available from every test cloth lot, and will typically only have a few
lots available at a time. DOE conducts enforcement testing using
certified third-party test laboratories, and therefore during such
testing only
[[Page 33371]]
has access to that test laboratory's supply of any given test cloth
lot.
DOE appreciates Whirlpool's detailed suggested edits the wording of
the product-specific RMC enforcement provisions, has reviewed
Whirlpool's proposals, and is making some clarifying changes to the
wording to 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1) consistent with the intent of the
wording as presented in the September 2021 NOPR.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use the phrase ``may
apply,'' as opposed to ``will apply'' (or ``shall apply'') to allow for
appropriate discretion by DOE and allow DOE to not need to seek the
test cloth lot information from the manufacturer in every such case,
since lot number is not a reported value. 86 FR 49140, 49190. In this
final rule, DOE has determined that the wording of 10 CFR 429.134 would
require DOE to seek test cloth lot information from the manufacturer
only for cases in which the difference between the measured and
certified RMC values would affect the unit's compliance with the
applicable standards. DOE agrees that use of the word ``will'' instead
of ``may'' would provide greater certainty to describe DOE's course of
action during enforcement testing. Therefore, DOE is revising the
wording of the language in proposed 10 CFR 429.134(c)(i)(B), 10 CFR
429.134(c)(i)(C)(1), 10 CFR 429.134(c)(i)(C)(2), 10 CFR
429.134(c)(ii)(C), 10 CFR 429.134(c)(ii)(E)(1) and 10 CFR
429.134(c)(ii)(E)(2) to use the phrase ``will'' instead of ``may.''
In this final rule, DOE is also re-ordering the RMC enforcement
provisions within 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1) to improve the logical flow of
the revised enforcement provisions. Furthermore, to aid in
understanding these product-specific RMC enforcement provisions via
visual representation, DOE is providing informative flow charts in the
docket for this rulemaking, available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011/document. The logical flow through the finalized
RMC enforcement provisions matches the logical flow through the flow
chart.
In reviewing the language in 10 CFR 429.134, DOE determined an
incompatibility in the language, which it is removing in this final
rule. In the language as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR, paragraph
(ii)(C)--which applied if the difference between the measured and
certified RMC values is less than or equal to two RMC percentage
points--cross-referenced proposed paragraph (ii)(E) if DOE used a
different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing
and certifying the basic model and the difference between the measured
and certified RMC values would affect the unit's compliance with the
applicable standards. Within paragraph (ii)(E), paragraph (ii)(E)(2) as
proposed applied to cases in which the measured RMC value is more than
three RMC percentage points higher than the certified RMC value. DOE
notes that it would be impossible for a situation to arise in which the
difference between the measured and certified RMC values is less than
or equal to two RMC percentage points and in which the measured RMC
value is more than three RMC percentage points higher than the
certified RMC value (i.e., it would be impossible for the provisions at
proposed paragraph (ii)(C) to lead to proposed paragraph (ii)(E)(2)).
DOE removes this incompatibility in this final rule.
This final rule also implements non-substantive wording changes to
use more consistent language among each paragraph within 10 CFR
429.134(c)(1).
K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The following sections
discuss DOE's evaluation of estimated costs and savings associated with
the amendments in this final rule.
a. Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 Amendments
In this document, DOE amends the existing test procedure for
clothes washers by:
(1) Further specifying supply water temperature test conditions and
water meter resolution requirements;
(2) Adding specifications for measuring wash water temperature
using submersible data loggers;
(3) Expanding the load size table to accommodate clothes container
capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\;
(4) Defining user-adjustable adaptive WFCS;
(5) Specifying the applicability of the wash time setting for
clothes washers with a range of wash time settings;
(6) Specifying how the energy test cycle flow charts apply to
clothes washers that internally generate hot water;
(7) Specifying that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated
using the Maximum load size;
(8) Specifying that testing is to be conducted with any network
settings disabled if instructions are available to the user to disable
these functions;
(9) Further specifying the conditions under which data from a test
cycle would be discarded;
(10) Adding a product-specific enforcement provision to accommodate
the potential for test cloth lot-to-lot variation in RMC;
(11) Deleting obsolete definitions, metrics, and the clothes
washer-specific waiver section;
(12) Consolidating all test cloth-related specifications in
appendix J3;
(13) Reorganizing sections of appendix J3 for improved readability;
and
(14) Codifying the test cloth material verification procedure as
used by industry.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments to appendix J2 and appendix J3 would not be unduly
burdensome for manufacturers to conduct and would not result in the
need for any re-testing. 86 FR 49140, 49191.
DOE requested comment on its characterization of the expected costs
of the proposed amendments to appendix J2 and appendix J3 and on DOE's
preliminary determination that the proposed amendments would not be
unduly burdensome. Id. DOE received no comments on its characterization
of the expected costs of the proposed amendments to appendix J2 and
appendix J3. DOE has addressed in the preceding sections of this
document comments regarding the related test procedure burdens
associated with the amendments adopted in this final rule.
DOE has determined that the amendment to change the target inlet
water temperatures to the midpoint of each defined range may reduce
test burden by reducing the potential for invalid cycles to occur due
to a deviation in water temperatures outside the specified range.
DOE has determined that the amendment to require more precise hot
water meters for clothes washers with hot water usage less than 0.1
gallons in any of the energy test cycles would require additional cost
to upgrade existing water meters if a manufacturer or test laboratory
expects to test such clothes washers but does not already have a water
meter with the proposed more precise resolution. Based on a market
survey of water meters, DOE determined the cost of a water meter that
provides the proposed resolution, including associated hardware, to be
around $600 for each device. DOE recognizes that laboratories may have
multiple test stands, and that each test stand would likely be upgraded
with the more precise hot water meter (if such an
[[Page 33372]]
upgrade is required). As an example, for a laboratory with 10 test
stands, the material cost associated with installing a more precise hot
water meter would total approximately $6,000. However, as discussed, at
least one manufacturer already uses water meters with the proposed more
precise resolution, and DOE's experience working with third-party
laboratories indicates that most, if not all, third-party laboratories
already use water meters with this resolution. DOE has not included the
potential costs associated with this amendment based on stakeholders'
comments and DOE's knowledge of third-party laboratory capabilities
that suggest that laboratories that test clothes washers with hot water
usage less than 0.1 gallons already use water meters with the proposed
more precise resolution.
The amendment to explicitly allow for the use of submersible
temperature loggers specifies an additional means for determining wash
water temperatures to confirm whether a wash temperature greater than
135 [deg]F (defined as an Extra-Hot Wash) has been achieved during the
wash cycle. As discussed, other methods for measuring wash water
temperatures may provide inconclusive results, thus requiring retesting
of cycles or additional ``exploratory'' testing to accurately determine
the wash water temperature. Explicitly providing for the use of
submersible temperature loggers may avoid the need for such additional
testing. Based on a market survey of submersible data loggers, the cost
of a submersible data logger is around $230 for each device. As
discussed, laboratories may have multiple test stands, and DOE expects
that a laboratory would purchase a separate data logger for each test
stand. As an example, for a laboratory with 10 test stands, the
material cost associated with purchasing submersible data loggers for
each test stand would total around $2,300. DOE expects that the
recurring cost savings enabled by the use of submersible temperature
loggers (due to reducing the need for re-testing certain cycles or
performing additional exploratory testing) would substantially outweigh
the one-time purchase cost associated with each device and therefore
has not included this cost in its summary of costs associated with this
final rule.
The amendment to extend the load size table applies only to clothes
washers with capacities exceeding 6.0 ft\3\. Any such clothes washers
currently on the market have already been granted a test procedure
waiver from DOE, which specifies the same extended capacity table.
The amendment to more explicitly define user-adjustable adaptive
WFCS provides greater specification of DOE's existing definitions and
could potentially alleviate test burden resulting from an incorrect
application of the existing language. The amendments specifying updated
language regarding cycle selection for clothes washers with a range of
wash time settings are expected to improve repeatability and
reproducibility without imposing any additional test burden. The
amendment to specify how the energy test cycle flow charts apply to
clothes washers that internally generate hot water reflects DOE's
interpretation of the current Cold/Cold flowchart and subsequent
flowcharts for the Warm Rinse temperature selections for this type of
clothes washer; in addition, comments from interested parties suggest
that this interpretation is generally consistent with that of
manufacturers and third-party laboratories. The amendment to specify
that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the Maximum
load size are expected to improve repeatability and reproducibility
without imposing any additional test burden.
The amendment to specify that network settings must be disabled for
testing under appendix J2 will impact only clothes washers with network
settings that are enabled by default. DOE is not aware of any clothes
washers currently on the market that meet these characteristics, and as
such DOE does not expect this proposal to change how any current models
are tested.
The amendment to add product-specific enforcement provisions to
accommodate the potential for lot-to-lot variation in RMC will extend
current product-specific enforcement provisions for clothes washers to
accommodate up to a 3-percentage point variation in the corrected RMC
measurement based on the test cloth lot used for testing, and will not
impact manufacturers' testing costs.
The amendments to delete obsolete definitions, metrics, and the
waiver section will not impact manufacturers' testing costs because
these sections of the test procedure are no longer in use.
The amendment to move all test cloth-related sections of the test
procedures into appendix J3 will simplify appendix J2 without any
changes to the test conduct or cost to manufacturers. The amendment to
add additional test cloth qualification procedures to appendix J3 will
not affect manufacturer cost because the proposal would codify existing
industry-standard practices.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix
J2 and appendix J3 adopted in this final rule are not unduly
burdensome. Moreover, DOE has determined that the amendments to
appendix J2 and appendix J3 would not alter the measure energy and
water efficiency of currently certified clothes washers and therefore
would not require retesting or recertification.
b. Appendix J Test Procedure
In this document, DOE is creating a new appendix J that includes,
in addition to the amendments discussed previously for appendix J2,
significant additional changes that will affect the measured efficiency
of a clothes washer. Because DOE will use the new appendix J for the
evaluation and issuance of any updated efficiency standards, and for
determining compliance with those standards, the use of the new
appendix J will not be required until such a time as compliance with
any amended energy conservation standards that are developed with
consideration of new appendix J are required. The differences between
appendix J2 and new appendix J are the following:
(1) Modifying the hot water supply temperature range;
(2) Modifying the clothes washer preconditioning requirements;
(3) Modifying the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature;
(4) Adding a measurement and calculation of average cycle time;
(5) Requiring the testing of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse
cycles, and no more than two Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles;
(6) Measuring RMC on each cycle within the energy test cycle,
rather than on cycles specifically dedicated to measuring RMC;
(7) Reducing the number of load sizes from three to two for units
currently tested with three load sizes;
(8) Modifying the load size definitions consistent with two, rather
than three, load sizes;
(9) Updating the water fill levels to be used for testing to
reflect the modified load size definitions;
(10) Specifying the installation of single-inlet clothes washers,
and simplifying the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers;
(11) Defining new performance metrics that are based on the
weighted-average load size rather than clothes container capacity;
(12) Updating the final moisture content assumption in the drying
energy formula;
[[Page 33373]]
(13) Updating the number of annual clothes washer cycles from 295
to 234; and
(14) Updating the number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be
based on the clothes washer's average measured cycle time rather than
an assumed fixed value.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE preliminarily concluded that the
proposal to require measurement of cycle time is unlikely to result in
an increase in test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49193. The proposal to require
the measurement of cycle time could result in an increase in test
burden if a laboratory is not currently measuring cycle time. However,
although cycle time is not currently required to be measured, it is
DOE's understanding that test laboratories already measure cycle time
or use a data acquisition system to record electronic logs of each test
cycle, from which average cycle time can be readily determined such
that any increase in test burden would be de minimis.
DOE further tentatively concluded in the September 2021 NOPR that
none of the other proposed changes for appendix J would result in an
increase in test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49193. In the September 2021
NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that several of the proposed changes
would result in a substantial decrease in test burden, an average
savings of $348 per basic model of RCW and $153 per basic model of CCW.
86 FR 49140, 49193-49194.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the test burden, average
costs or savings of the proposed appendix J. In this final rule, DOE
determines, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, that the new
appendix J will not result in any increase in test burden, as compared
to appendix J2, and that it will result in a decrease in test burden.
DOE based its determination on the following.
To determine the potential savings to manufacturers, DOE first
estimated the number of RCW and CCW models that are currently
certified, using data from DOE's publicly available CCMS database.\73\
DOE identified approximately 25 manufacturers selling an estimated 718
basic models of RCWs and 43 basic models of CCWs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Last accessed
on January 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To enable an estimate of cost savings associated with specific
features, as described in the paragraphs that follow, DOE developed
representative market samples consisting of 100 basic models of RCWs
and 10 basic models of CCWs (representing approximately 15 percent of
the total basic models for each) that capture the range of available
functionalities and options available to consumers. To develop these
market samples, DOE selected a sample of basic models for which
detailed product features could be determined from product brochures
and other marketing materials, representing all major manufacturers and
product designs currently on the market, and spanning all available
efficiency levels.
Reducing the number of load sizes from three to two for units with
an automatic WFCS will reduce test burden for all clothes washers with
an automatic WFCS. DOE's representative market sample suggests that 11
percent of RCWs have a manual WFCS and therefore will experience no
change in test burden as a result of this change. This being the case,
89 percent of RCWs on the market will experience a reduction in test
burden as follows: 20 percent of RCWs will experience a reduction in
test burden of 2 to 4 cycles; 54 percent of RCWs will experience a
reduction in test burden of 5 to 8 cycles; and 15 percent of RCWs will
experience a reduction in test burden of more than 9 cycles. DOE's
representative market sample suggests that all CCWs have an automatic
WFCS and therefore DOE estimates that 70 percent of CCWs will
experience a reduction in test burden of 3 or 4 cycles and that 30
percent of CCWs will experience a reduction in test burden of 5 cycles.
Id. Based on these estimates, DOE estimates a weighted-average test
burden reduction of 5.1 cycles per RCW, and 3.7 cycles per CCW.
Reducing the number of required test cycles by requiring the use of
no more than two Warm/Cold cycles, and no more than two Warm/Warm
cycles, will reduce the number of tested cycles for any clothes washer
offering more than two Warm Wash temperatures. Based on DOE's
representative market sample, DOE estimates that 49 percent of RCWs
offer two or fewer Warm Wash temperature options and therefore will
experience no change; 44 percent of RCWs will experience a reduction in
test burden of 2 cycles; and 7 percent of RCWs will experience a
reduction in test burden of 4 cycles. Id. DOE estimates that 70 percent
of CCWs will experience no change and that 30 percent of CCWs will
experience a reduction in test burden of 4 cycles. Id. Based on these
estimates, DOE estimates a weighted-average additional test burden
reduction of 1.2 cycles per RCW, and 0.6 cycles per CCW.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ These savings assume the savings from reducing the number
of load sizes have already been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing the number of required test cycles by measuring RMC on
each tested cycle instead of measuring it on dedicated RMC cycles will
remove the need for one or more cycles used for measuring RMC for any
clothes washer offering more than one spin speed selectable on the
Normal cycle. Based on DOE's representative market sample, DOE
estimates that 45 percent of RCWs will experience no change; 27 percent
of RCWs will experience a reduction in test burden of 1 cycle; 27
percent of RCWs will experience a reduction in test burden of 2 cycles;
and 1 percent of RCWs will experience a reduction in test burden of 4
cycles. DOE estimates that no CCWs will experience a reduction in test
burden from this change. Based on these estimates, DOE estimates a
weighted-average additional test burden reduction of 0.9 cycles per
RCW.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ These savings assume the savings from reducing the number
of load sizes and from reducing the number of Warm Wash temperature
selections under test have already been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simplifying the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers
will reduce test burden for all semi-automatic clothes washers by 10
cycles. DOE has determined that approximately 2 percent of RCW basic
models in the CCMS database are semi-automatic and is not aware of any
semi-automatic CCWs. DOE therefore estimates a weighted-average
additional test burden reduction of 0.2 cycles per RCW.
To estimate the cost savings associated with the changes that are
expected to reduce the number of cycles required for testing, DOE
estimated each RCW cycle to have a duration of 1 hour, and each CCW
cycle to have a duration of 45 minutes. Based on data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' (``BLS's'') Occupational Employment and Wage
Statistics, the mean hourly wage for mechanical engineering
technologists and technicians is $29.27.\76\ Additionally, DOE used
data from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee Compensation to estimate
the percent that wages comprise the total compensation for an employee.
DOE estimates that wages make up 70.8 percent of the total compensation
for
[[Page 33374]]
private industry employees.\77\ Therefore, DOE estimated that the total
hourly compensation (including all fringe benefits) of a technician
performing the testing is $41.34.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ``17-3027 Mechanical
Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' from the most recent BLS
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May 2020) to estimate
the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to perform this
testing. See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm. Last accessed on
January 11, 2022.
\77\ DOE used the September 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry Workers,''
``Wages and Salaries'' are 70.8 percent of the total employee
compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Last
accessed on January 11, 2022.
\78\ $29.27 / 0.708 = $41.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a January 2022 price list from the test cloth
manufacturer, the cost of the test cloth required for performing
testing is $7.16 per cloth.\79\ Based on an average RCW capacity of
4.14 ft\3\,\80\ the load sizes associated with testing an average-
capacity RCW,\81\ and the maximum allowable usage of 60 test cycles per
cloth,\82\ DOE estimates a total material cost of $5.13 per wash cycle
on average across all RCWs on the market. 86 FR 49140, 49193-49194.
Using these material costs, labor rates and time estimates, DOE
estimates that the reduction in burden of a single test cycle on an RCW
will provide $46.47 in costs savings \83\ for tests conducted at an in-
house test facility. Based on discussions with manufacturers over the
course of multiple rulemakings, DOE understands that the majority of
manufacturer testing is conducted at in-house test facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ testgewebe.de/en/products/ballast-loads-base-load-textiles/
doe-energy-test-cloth/. Last accessed and converted to U.S. dollars
on January 11, 2022.
\80\ AHAM Trends in Energy Efficiency, 2018.
\81\ The load sizes associated with a 4.14 ft\3\ clothes washer
are 3.0 lb (minimum), 10.0 lb (average), and 17.0 lb (maximum) under
appendix J2; and 6.1 lb (small) and 13.65 lb (large) under new
appendix J, resulting in an average load size of 10.0 lb under
appendix J2 or 9.9 lb under appendix J. For the purpose of the
calculations in this analysis, DOE used 10.0 lb to represent the
average load size.
\82\ Section 2.7.1 of appendix J2 specifies that each energy
test cloth must not be used for more than 60 test runs (after
preconditioning).
\83\ 1 x $41.34 + $5.13 = $46.47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on an average CCW capacity of 3.17 ft\3\,\84\ the load sizes
associated with testing an average-capacity CCW,\85\ and the maximum
allowable usage of 60 test cycles per cloth, DOE estimates a total
material cost of $4.18 per wash cycle on average across all CCWs on the
market. Using these material costs, labor rates and time estimates, DOE
estimates that the reduction in burden of a single test cycle on a CCW
will provide $35.19 in costs savings \86\ for tests conducted at an in-
house test facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ DOE calculated the average CCW capacity based on the
average capacity of the representative sample of CCWs presented in
chapter 5 of the technical support document accompanying the
December 2014 Final Rule. Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BTSTD-0020-0036.
\85\ The load sizes associated with a 3.17 ft\3\ clothes washer
are 3.0 lb (minimum), 7.95 lb (average), and 12.9 lb (maximum) under
appendix J2; and 5.2 lb (small) and 10.55 lb (large) under new
appendix J, resulting in an average load size of 7.95 lb under
appendix J2 or 7.9 lb under appendix J. For the purpose of the
calculations in this analysis, DOE used 7.95 lb to represent the
average load size.
\86\ 0.75 x $41.34 + $4.18 = $35.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these estimates, DOE has determined that the use of new
appendix J will result in a total burden reduction of 7.4 cycles per
RCW on average, which results in an average saving of $344 per basic
model of RCW.\87\ For CCWs, use of new appendix J will result in a
total burden reduction of 4.3 cycles per CCW on average, which results
in an average saving of $151 per basic model of CCW.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ 7.4 x $46.47 = $344.
\88\ 4.3 x $35.19 = $151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these estimates, DOE determines that the new test
procedure at appendix J is not unduly burdensome for manufacturers to
conduct.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly
burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect
the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or
estimated operating costs of that product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. Section 8(c) of appendix A of 10
CFR part 430 subpart C; 10 CFR 431.4. In cases where the industry
standard does not meet EPCA statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE
will make modifications through the rulemaking process to these
standards as the DOE test procedures.
The test procedures for clothes washers at the new appendix J and
appendix J2 and appendix J3 incorporate by reference certain provisions
of IEC Standard 62301 that provide test conditions, testing equipment,
and methods for measuring standby mode and off mode power consumption.
These appendices also reference AATCC test methods for qualifying new
batches of test cloth, and AHAM Standard Test Detergent Formula 3 for
preconditioning new test cloths. DOE is not aware of any existing
industry test procedures for clothes washers that measure energy and
water efficiency.
DOE is aware of two clothes washer test procedures established by
industry: AHAM HLW-2-2020 and IEC 60456. AHAM's existing clothes washer
procedure, AHAM HLW-2-2020, does not include a procedure for measuring
energy and water. IEC 60456 includes tests for water and energy use,
water extraction (i.e., RMC), washing performance, rinsing performance,
and wool shrinkage. DOE noted several key differences between IEC 60456
and DOE's test procedure, including:
(1) IEC 60456 uses manufacturer-declared capacity or, in the
absence of a declared capacity, specifies two alternative capacity
measurement procedures: A table tennis ball method (in which the drum
is filled with table tennis balls) and a water fill method, which more
closely resembles DOE's capacity measurement method. However, the water
fill method for top-loading clothes washers corresponds to ``Fill Level
1,'' as defined in the March 2012 Final Rule, in contrast to DOE's
currently specified ``Fill Level 2.''
(2) IEC 60456 defines two types of load materials that can be used:
A 100-percent cotton load, consisting of sheets, pillowcases, and
towels; or a synthetics/blends load (65-percent polyester, 35-percent
cotton), consistent of men's shirt and pillowcases. IEC 60456 requires
a distribution in age (i.e., number of cycles that have been performed)
for each different item type comprising the load.
(3) The procedure for determining water and energy consumption
(Section 8.6 of IEC 60456) specifies that the test load shall be
subjected to ``performance'' testing, which requires operating a
reference clothes washer in parallel with the unit under test; using a
test load that includes stain strips used to evaluate cleaning
performance; and using detergent as specified.
(4) IEC 60456 does not define the ``Normal'' cycle or energy test
cycle; rather, the procedures in IEC 60456 are generic and can be
applied to any wash program or cycle selections defined by the tester.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that IEC
60456 does not meet EPCA statutory criteria, in that IEC 60456 would be
unduly burdensome to conduct and would not produce test results that
reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated
operating costs of a clothes washer during a representative average use
cycle or period of use for a U.S. consumer. 86 FR 49140, 49194.
The Joint Commenters commented in disagreement with DOE's
assessment that the industry-developed IEC 60456 test procedure is
significantly more burdensome to conduct and less representative than
DOE's own test procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 9-10) The
Joint Commenters commented that IEC 60456 has the benefit of industry
familiarity, asserting that U.S. and European manufacturers
[[Page 33375]]
use this test procedure to verify that their European models meet
European energy standards. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also commented
that IEC 60456 can represent U.S.-specific test conditions, including
use of the Normal cycle and specific load sizes. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters added that IEC 60456 uses a more representative 100 percent
cotton test cloth, which the Joint Commenters asserted is more
representative of real textiles. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also
commented that using IEC 60456 could possibly increase the availability
of European models in the U.S. market, since reducing the U.S.-specific
testing burden may enable manufacturers to build models for U.S.
markets. (Id.) Lastly, the Joint Commenters commented that because the
IEC 60456 test procedure is updated by industry, DOE could expend less
effort on maintaining repeatability and reproducibility, and instead
focus updates on additional instructions needed to ensure
representation of U.S. consumer use. (Id.)
In response to the Joint Commenters' comments, DOE continues to
assert that a test load that is 100 percent cotton is not more
representative of consumer usage (as discussed in section III.I.1 of
this document). For the reasons discussed, DOE maintains its conclusion
from the September 2021 NOPR that IEC 60456 would be unduly burdensome
to conduct and would not produce test results that reflect the energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated operating costs of a
clothes washer during a representative average use cycle or period of
use for a U.S. consumer.
L. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendments is 30
days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. EPCA
prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and energy
use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels,
must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning
180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) EPCA provides an allowance
for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the
180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in
meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) To
receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later
than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how
the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.) To the extent
the modified test procedure adopted in this final rule is required only
for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards,
compliance with the amended test procedure does not require use of such
modified test procedure provisions until the compliance date of updated
standards.
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions in this final
rule, any waivers that had been previously issued and are in effect
that pertain to issues addressed by such provisions are terminated. 10
CFR 430.27(h)(3); 10 CFR 431.401(h)(3). Recipients of any such waivers
are required to test the products subject to the waiver according to
the amended test procedure as of the compliance date of the amended
test procedure. The amendments adopted in this document pertain to
issues addressed by waivers granted to Whirlpool and Samsung on May 2,
2016, and April 10, 2017, respectively. 81 FR 26215 (Case No. CW-026);
82 FR 17229 (Case No. CW-027). Specifically, both waivers specified
load sizes for basic models with capacity larger than 6.0 ft\3\. As
discussed in section III.D.1.a of this document, this final rule
expands Table 5.1 in both appendix J2 and the new appendix J to
accommodate clothes washers with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. Per 10 CFR
430.27(l), the publication of this final rule eliminates the need for
the continuation of granted waivers. The publication of this final rule
terminates these waivers consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10 CFR
430.27(l). Under 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3), the waivers automatically
terminate on the date on which use of the amended appendix J2 test
procedure is required to demonstrate compliance (i.e., 180 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register).
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for
any final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272,
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
[[Page 33376]]
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for
this certification is as follows.
DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (``SBA'') small
business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as
small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS''). The SBA considers a business entity
to be a small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121.
The NAICS code for clothes washers is 335220, ``Major Household
Appliance Manufacturing.'' The threshold number for NAICS code 335220
is 1,500 employees.\89\ This employee threshold includes all employees
in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Available online at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed its CCMS database and other publicly available data to
identify original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of the products
and equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE then consulted individual
company websites and subscription-based market research tools (e.g.,
reports from Dun & Bradstreet \90\), to determine whether they meet the
SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened out
companies that do not offer products or equipment covered by this
rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are
foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is
available at app.dnbhoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified 25 companies that import, private label, produce, or
manufacture clothes washers. Of those 25 companies, DOE determined 15
are OEMs of the covered products and equipment. Of those 15 companies,
one is a small domestic OEM that offers a single model of RCWs. DOE
determined no small domestic OEMs manufacture CCWs.
In this final rule, DOE amends appendix J2 by (1) Further
specifying supply water temperature test conditions and water meter
resolution requirements; (2) Adding specifications for measuring wash
water temperature using submersible data loggers; (3) Expanding the
load size table to accommodate clothes container capacities up to 8.0
ft\3\; (4) Defining ``user-adjustable adaptive water fill control;''
(5) Specifying the applicability of the wash time setting for clothes
washers with a range of wash time settings; (6) Specifying how the
energy test cycle flow charts apply to clothes washers that internally
generate hot water; (7) Specifying that the energy test cycle flow
charts are to be evaluated using the Maximum load size; (8) Specifying
that testing is to be conducted with any network settings disabled if
instructions are available to the user to disable these functions; (9)
Further specifying the conditions under which data from a test cycle
would be discarded; (10) Adding product-specific enforcement provisions
to accommodate the potential for test cloth lot-to-lot variation in
remaining moisture content (``RMC''); (11) Deleting obsolete
definitions, metrics, and the clothes washer-specific waiver section;
and (12) Moving additional test cloth related specifications to
appendix J3.
In this final rule, DOE also updates 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix J3, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Moisture
Absorption and Retention Characteristics,'' by: (1) Consolidating all
test cloth-related provisions, including those proposed to be moved
from appendix J2; (2) Reorganizing sections for improved readability;
and (3) Codifying the test cloth material verification procedure as
used by industry.
DOE has determined that these amendments to appendix J2 and
appendix J3 would not result in manufacturers needing to re-rate
clothes washers. The amendment (1) to appendix J2 (i.e., further
specifying water meter resolution requirements) may require more
precise hot water meters for clothes washers with hot water usage less
than 0.1 gallons in any of the energy test cycles. However, DOE's
analysis of the small manufacturer's product offering indicates that
the amendment will not apply and no capital expenditures would be
necessary for the business.
In this final rule, DOE also adds appendix J to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption
of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers,'' which will be used
for the evaluation and issuance of any updated efficiency standards, as
well as to determine compliance with the updated standards, should DOE
determine that amended standards are warranted based on the criteria
established by EPCA.\91\ The new appendix J will include the following
additional provisions beyond the amendments to appendix J2 that: (1)
Modify the hot water supply temperature range; (2) Modify the clothes
washer pre-conditioning requirements; (3) Modify the Extra-Hot Wash
threshold temperature; (4) Add measurement and calculation of average
cycle time; (5) Reduce the number of required test cycles by requiring
the use of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more
than two Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles; (6) Reduce the number of required
test cycles by removing the need for one or more cycles used for
measuring RMC; (7) Reduce the number of load sizes from three to two
for units currently tested with three load sizes; (8) Modify the load
size definitions consistent with two, rather than three, load sizes;
(9) Update the water fill levels to be used for testing to reflect the
modified load size definitions; (10) Specify the installation of
single-inlet clothes washers, and simplify the test procedure for semi-
automatic clothes washers; (11) Define new performance metrics that are
based on the weighted-average load size rather than clothes container
capacity: ``energy efficiency ratio,'' ``active-mode energy efficiency
ratio,'' and ``water efficiency ratio;'' (12) Update the final moisture
content assumption in the drying energy formula; (13) Update the number
of annual clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; and (14) Update the
number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be based on the clothes
washer's measured cycle time rather than an assumed fixed value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Information regarding the ongoing RCW and CCW energy
conservation standards rulemakings can be found at docket numbers
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 and EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the reduction in number of loads and number of wash cycles,
the proposed new appendix J would be less burdensome than appendix J2
for industry. However, the small manufacturer would need to re-rate its
one model when any future amended energy conservation standard requires
the use of the proposed new appendix J. Taking into account the fully-
burdened wage of a technician ($41.34/hour), the estimated time per
wash cycle (1 hour for a RCW), the average cost of test cloth per RCW
wash cycle ($5.13 of cloth), the estimated number of test cycles for
the small entity's basic model (6 cycles), and the number of test units
(2 units tested), DOE estimates the cost of re-rating one model would
be less than $1,000.\92\ Using subscription-based market research
tools, DOE found the
[[Page 33377]]
small business annual revenue to be approximately $6 million. DOE
calculates the cost of re-rating one model to Appendix J to be less
than 0.1 percent of revenue for the small manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Additional detail can be found in section III.K.1.b ``Test
Procedure Costs and Impacts'' of the test procedure Final Rule
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified 15 OEMs affected by this final rule. One OEM is a
small entity that certifies a single basic model of RCW, in an industry
with 718 basic models of RCWs. As discussed previously, the amendments
to appendix J2 will result in zero costs to the small manufacturer and
the proposed new appendix J would be less burdensome to conduct than
appendix J2 for all manufacturers. Additionally, the new appendix J
will have no impact before an amended energy conservation standard is
adopted.
If and when amended energy conservation standards are adopted, DOE
expects the new appendix J to have de minimis cost impacts on the small
manufacturer. DOE estimated the cost to re-test the small entity's
basic model to appendix J would be less than $1,000. DOE calculates
this potential cost to be less than 0.1 percent of revenue for the one
small manufacturer. Based on this analysis, DOE certifies that this
final rule does not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and determined that the
preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit a
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of RCWs and CCWs must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including RCWs and CCWs.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
DOE is not amending the certification or reporting requirements for
RCWs or CCWs in this final rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
amend the certification requirements and reporting for RCWs and CCWs
under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment
certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400
at that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for RCWs and CCWs. DOE 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 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 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. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional
and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement
of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will
follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE
examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
No further action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice
Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the
general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize
litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and
burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that
executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
E.O. 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 has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O.
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that
[[Page 33378]]
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final rule
according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the
rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that
may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so
these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final rule will 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.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'' 53 FR
8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any
takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for 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 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 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 significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and
use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated
as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore,
it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test procedure for clothes washers adopted
in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain
sections of the following commercial standards: AATCC Test Method 79-
2010, AATCC Test Method 118-2007, AATCC Test Method 135-2010, and IEC
62031. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude
whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides
for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with
both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact
on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and
has received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before 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. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard
published by AATCC, titled ``Absorbency of Textiles,'' AATCC Test
Method 79-2010. DOE also incorporates by reference the test standard
published by AATCC, titled ``Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance
Test,'' AATCC Test Method 118-2007. AATCC 79-2010 and AATCC 118-2007
are industry-accepted test procedure that verify the presence or
absence of water repellent finishes on fabric by measuring the water
absorbency and oil repellency of the fabric, respectively.
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard
published by AATCC, titled ``Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after Home
Laundering,'' AATCC Test Method 135-2010. AATCC 135-2010 is an
industry-accepted test procedure for measuring dimensional changes in
fabric (i.e., ``shrinkage'') due to laundering.
All three of these AATCC test methods are currently incorporated by
reference for use in appendix J2. This
[[Page 33379]]
final rule transfers the references to these test methods to appendix
J3. Copies of AATCC test methods can be obtained from AATCC, P.O. Box
12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or by going to
www.aatcc.org.
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard
published by IEC, titled ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement
of standby power,'' (Edition 2.0, 2011-01), IEC 62301. IEC 62301 is an
industry-accepted test procedure for measuring standby energy
consumption. IEC 62301 is currently incorporated by reference for use
in appendix J2, which references specific provisions of the industry
standard. See 10 CFR 430.3(o)(6). This final rule includes the same
references in the new appendix J.
Copies of IEC 62301 available from the American National Standards
Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-
4900, or by going to webstore.ansi.org.
In this final rule, DOE adds a new section 0 (Incorporation by
Reference) to appendix J2 listing the applicable sections of the
incorporated test standard and specifying that in cases in which there
is a conflict, the language of the DOE test procedure takes precedence
over the referenced test standards. DOE also includes a similar section
0 in appendix J. This approach is consistent with the approach taken by
DOE in other recent consumer product test procedure amendments (see,
for example, test procedure final rules for consumer clothes dryers
(October 8, 2021; 86 FR 56608) and water closets and urinals (March 23,
2022; 87 FR 16375)).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 13,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429, 430,
and 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 429.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
introductory text, (a)(2)(ii) introductory text, and (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.20 Residential clothes washers.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Any represented value of the integrated water factor, the
estimated annual operating cost, the energy or water consumption, or
other measure of energy or water consumption of a basic model for which
consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to
the higher of:
* * * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the integrated modified energy
factor, energy efficiency ratio, water efficiency ratio, or other
measure of energy or water consumption of a basic model for which
consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the
lower of:
* * * * *
(3) The clothes container capacity of a basic model reported in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be the mean of
the measured clothes container capacity, C, of all tested units of the
basic model.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 429.46 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 429.46 Commercial clothes washers.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the modified energy factor, active-
mode energy efficiency ratio, water efficiency ratio, or other measure
of energy or water consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be greater than or equal to the higher
of:
* * * * *
0
4. Section 429.134 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(c) Clothes washers--(1) Determination of Remaining Moisture
Content. These provisions address anomalous remaining moisture content
(RMC) results that are not representative of a basic model's
performance, as well as differences in RMC values that may result from
DOE using a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer
for testing and certifying the basic model.
(i) When testing according to appendix J to subpart B of part 430:
(A) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is equal to or lower
than the certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a
percentage), then the measured RMC value will be considered the tested
unit's final RMC value and will be used as the basis for the
calculation of per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture
from the test load for that unit.
(B) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model but the difference between the
measured and certified RMC values would not affect the unit's
compliance with the applicable standards, then the measured RMC value
will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value.
[[Page 33380]]
(C) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model and the difference between the
measured and certified RMC values would affect the unit's compliance
with the applicable standards, then:
(1) If DOE used the same test cloth lot that was used by the
manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model, then the
measured RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC
value.
(2) If DOE used a different test cloth lot than was used by the
manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model, then:
(i) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model by more than three RMC
percentage points, then a value three RMC percentage points less than
the measured RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC
value.
(ii) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model, but by no more than three RMC
percentage points, then the certified RMC value of the basic model will
be considered the tested unit's final RMC value.
(ii) When testing according to appendix J2 to subpart B of part
430:
(A) The procedure for determining remaining moisture content (RMC)
will be performed once in its entirety, pursuant to the test
requirements of section 3.8 of appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430,
for each unit tested.
(B) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is equal to or lower
than the certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a
percentage), then the measured RMC value will be considered the tested
unit's final RMC value and will be used as the basis for the
calculation of per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture
from the test load for that unit.
(C) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model but by no more than two RMC
percentage points and the difference between the measured and certified
RMC values would not affect the unit's compliance with the applicable
standards, then the measured RMC value will be considered the tested
unit's final RMC value.
(D) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model but by no more than two RMC
percentage points and the difference between the measured and certified
RMC values would affect the unit's compliance with the applicable
standards, then:
(1) If DOE used the same test cloth lot that was used by the
manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model, then the
measured RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC
value.
(2) If DOE used a different test cloth lot than was used by the
manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model, then the
certified RMC value of the basic model would be considered the tested
unit's final RMC value.
(E) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model by more than two RMC percentage
points, then DOE will perform two replications of the RMC measurement
procedure, each pursuant to the provisions of section 3.8.5 of appendix
J2 to subpart B of part 430, for a total of three independent RMC
measurements of the tested unit. The average of the three RMC
measurements will be calculated.
(1) If the average of the three RMC measurements is equal to or
lower than the certified RMC value of the basic model, then the average
RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value.
(2) If the average of the three RMC measurements is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model but the difference between the
measured and certified RMC values would not affect the unit's
compliance with the applicable standards, then the average RMC value
will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value.
(3) If the average of the three RMC measurements is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model and the difference between the
measured and certified RMC values would affect the unit's compliance
with the applicable standards, then DOE will apply paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(F) of this section.
(F) If the average of the three RMC measurements is higher than the
certified RMC value of the basic model and the difference between the
measured and certified RMC values would affect the unit's compliance
with the applicable standards, then:
(1) If DOE used the same test cloth lot that was used by the
manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model, then the
average RMC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(E) of this section will be
considered the tested unit's final RMC value.
(2) If DOE used a different test cloth lot than was used by the
manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model, then:
(i) If the average RMC value pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D) of
this section is higher than the certified valued of the basic model by
more than three RMC percentage points, then a value three RMC
percentage points less than the average RMC value will be considered
the tested unit's final RMC value.
(ii) If the average RMC value pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D)
of this section is higher than the certified RMC value of the basic
model, but by no more than three RMC percentage points, then the
certified RMC value of the basic model will be considered the tested
unit's final RMC value.
* * * * *
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
5. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.3 [Amended]
0
6. Section 430.3 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), remove the text ``J2'' and add, in
its place, the text ``J3'' wherever it appears; and
0
b. In paragraph (o)(6), remove the text ``J2'' and add, in its place,
the text ``J, J2''.
0
7. Section 430.23 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Removing paragraph (j)(2)(i);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (j)(2)(ii) as (j)(2)(i);
0
d. Adding a new paragraph (j)(2)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraph (j)(3)(i);
0
f. Removing paragraph (j)(4)(i);
0
g. Redesignating paragraph (j)(4)(ii) as (j)(4)(i);
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (j)(4)(i);
0
i. Adding a new paragraph (j)(4)(ii); and
0
j. Revising paragraph (j)(5).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) When using appendix J (see the note at the beginning of
appendix J),
(A) When electrically heated water is used,
(N x (MET + HET + ETLP) x
CKWH)
Where:
N = the representative average residential clothes washer use of 234
cycles per year according to appendix J,
MET = the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical
energy consumption, in
[[Page 33381]]
kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to section 4.1.6 of
appendix J,
HET = the total weighted per-cycle hot water energy
consumption using an electrical water heater, in kilowatt-hours per
cycle, determined according to section 4.1.3 of appendix J,
ETLP = the per-cycle combined low-power mode energy
consumption, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to
section 4.6.2 of appendix J, and
CKWH = the representative average unit cost, in dollars
per kilowatt-hour, as provided by the Secretary.
(B) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used,
(N x (((MET + ETLP) x CKWH) +
(HETG x CBTU)))
Where:
N, MET, ETLP, and CKWH are defined
in paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) of this section,
HETG = the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption
using gas-heated or oil-heated water, in Btu per cycle, determined
according to section 4.1.4 of appendix J, and
CBTU = the representative average unit cost, in dollars
per Btu for oil or gas, as appropriate, as provided by the
Secretary.
(ii) When using appendix J2 (see the note at the beginning of
appendix J2),
(A) When electrically heated water is used
(N2 x (ETE2 + ETLP2) x
CKWH)
Where:
N2 = the representative average residential clothes
washer use of 295 cycles per year according to appendix J2,
ETE2 = the total per-cycle energy consumption when
electrically heated water is used, in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
determined according to section 4.1.7 of appendix J2,
ETLP2 = the per-cycle combined low-power mode energy
consumption, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to
section 4.4 of appendix J2, and
CKWH = the representative average unit cost, in dollars
per kilowatt-hour, as provided by the Secretary
(B) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used,
(N2 x (((MET2 + ETLP2) x
CKWH) + (HETG2 x CBTU)))
Where:
N2, ETLP2, and CKWH are defined in
paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) of this section,
MET2 = the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical
energy consumption, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined
according to section 4.1.6 of appendix J2,
HETG2 = the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption
using gas-heated or oil-heated water, in Btu per cycle, determined
according to section 4.1.4 of appendix J2, and
CBTU = the representative average unit cost, in dollars
per Btu for oil or gas, as appropriate, as provided by the
Secretary.
(2) * * *
(ii) The energy efficiency ratio for automatic and semi-automatic
clothes washers is determined according to section 4.9 of appendix J
(when using appendix J). The result shall be rounded to the nearest
0.01 pound per kilowatt-hour per cycle.
(3) * * *
(i) When using appendix J, the product of the representative
average-use of 234 cycles per year and the total weighted per-cycle
water consumption in gallons per cycle determined according to section
4.2.4 of appendix J.
* * * * *
(4)(i) The integrated water factor must be determined according to
section 4.2.12 of appendix J2, with the result rounded to the nearest
0.1 gallons per cycle per cubic foot.
(ii) The water efficiency ratio for automatic and semi-automatic
clothes washers is determined according to section 4.7 of appendix J
(when using appendix J). The result shall be rounded to the nearest
0.01 pound per gallon per cycle.
(5) Other useful measures of energy consumption for automatic or
semi-automatic clothes washers shall be those measures of energy
consumption that the Secretary determines are likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions and that are derived from the
application of appendix J or appendix J2, as appropriate.
* * * * *
0
8. Add Appendix J to subpart B of part 430 to 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
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under
Appendix J2 to determine compliance with the relevant standards for
clothes washers from Sec. 430.32(g)(4) and from Sec. 431.156(b) as
they appeared in January 1, 2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499.
Specifically, before November 28, 2022 representations must be based
upon results generated either under Appendix J2 as codified on July
1, 2022 or under Appendix J2 as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-
499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. Any representations made
on or after November 28, 2022 but before the compliance date of any
amended standards for clothes washers must be made based upon
results generated using Appendix J2 as codified on July 1, 2022.
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this
appendix to determine compliance with any amended standards for
clothes washers provided in Sec. 430.32(g) and in Sec. 431.156
that are published after January 1, 2022. Any representations
related to energy or water consumption of residential or commercial
clothes washers must be made in accordance with the appropriate
appendix that applies (i.e., this appendix or Appendix J2) when
determining compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may
also use this appendix to certify compliance with any amended
standards prior to the applicable compliance date for those
standards.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 430.3, the entire test
standard for IEC 62301. However, only enumerated provisions of this
standard are applicable to this appendix, as follows. In cases in
which there is a conflict, the language of the test procedure in
this appendix takes precedence over the referenced test standard.
0.1 IEC 62301:
(a) Section 4.2 as referenced in section 2.4 of this appendix;
(b) Section 4.3.2 as referenced in section 2.1.2 of this
appendix;
(c) Section 4.4 as referenced in section 2.5.3 of this appendix;
(d) Section 5.1 as referenced in section 3.5.2 of this appendix;
(e) Section 5.2 as referenced in section 2.10.2 of this
appendix; and
(f) Section 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.5.3 of this
appendix.
0.2 [Reserved]
1. Definitions
Active mode means a mode in which the clothes washer is
connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is
performing one or more of the main functions of washing, soaking,
tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing water from the
clothing, or is involved in functions necessary for these main
functions, such as admitting water into the washer or pumping water
out of the washer. Active mode also includes delay start and cycle
finished modes.
Active-mode energy efficiency ratio means the quotient of the
weighted-average load size divided by the total clothes washer
energy consumption per cycle, with such energy consumption expressed
as the sum of the machine electrical energy consumption, the hot
water energy consumption, and the energy required for removal of the
remaining moisture in the wash load.
Active washing mode means a mode in which the clothes washer is
performing any of the operations included in a complete cycle
intended for washing a clothing load, including the main functions
of washing, soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing
water from the clothing.
Bone-dry means a condition of a load of test cloth that has been
dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes,
removed and weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10
minute periods until the final weight change of the load is 1
percent or less.
Clothes container means the compartment within the clothes
washer that holds the clothes during the operation of the machine.
Cold rinse means the coldest rinse temperature available on the
machine, as indicated to the user on the clothes washer control
panel.
[[Page 33382]]
Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available modes
other than active washing mode, including inactive mode, off mode,
delay start mode, and cycle finished mode.
Cycle finished mode means an active mode that provides
continuous status display, intermittent tumbling, or air circulation
following operation in active washing mode.
Delay start mode means an active mode in which activation of
active washing mode is facilitated by a timer.
Energy efficiency ratio means the quotient of the weighted-
average load size divided by the total clothes washer energy
consumption per cycle, with such energy consumption expressed as the
sum of:
(a) The machine electrical energy consumption;
(b) The hot water energy consumption;
(c) The energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in
the wash load; and
(d) The combined low-power mode energy consumption.
Energy test cycle means the complete set of wash/rinse
temperature selections required for testing, as determined according
to section 2.12 of this appendix.
Fixed water fill control system means a clothes washer water
fill control system that automatically terminates the fill when the
water reaches a pre-defined level that is not based on the size or
weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container, without
allowing or requiring the user to determine or select the water fill
level.
Inactive mode means a standby mode that facilitates the
activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote
control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous
status display.
Load usage factor means the percentage of the total number of
wash loads that a user would wash a particular size (weight) load.
Lot means a quantity of cloth that has been manufactured with
the same batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous
process.
Manual water fill control system means a clothes washer water
fill control system that requires the user to determine or select
the water fill level.
Non-user-adjustable adaptive water fill control system means a
clothes washer water fill control system that is capable of
automatically adjusting the water fill level based on the size or
weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container.
Normal cycle means the cycle recommended by the manufacturer
(considering manufacturer instructions, control panel labeling, and
other markings on the clothes washer) for normal, regular, or
typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton
clothing. For machines where multiple cycle settings are recommended
by the manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing
up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing, then the
Normal cycle is the cycle selection that results in the lowest EER
or AEER value.
Off mode means a mode in which the clothes washer is connected
to a mains power source and is not providing any active or standby
mode function, and where the mode may persist for an indefinite
time.
Standby mode means any mode in which the clothes washer is
connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the
following user oriented or protective functions that may persist for
an indefinite time:
(a) Facilitating the activation of other modes (including
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(b) Continuous functions, including information or status
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions.
A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be
associated with a display) that provides regular scheduled tasks
(e.g., switching) and that operates on a continuous basis.
Temperature use factor means, for a particular wash/rinse
temperature setting, the percentage of the total number of wash
loads that an average user would wash with that setting.
User-adjustable adaptive water fill control system means a
clothes washer fill control system that allows the user to adjust
the amount of water that the machine provides, which is based on the
size or weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container.
Wash time means the wash portion of active washing mode, which
begins when the cycle is initiated and includes the agitation or
tumble time, which may be periodic or continuous during the wash
portion of active washing mode.
Water efficiency ratio means the quotient of the weighted-
average load size divided by the total weighted per-cycle water
consumption for all wash cycles in gallons.
2. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
2.1 Electrical energy supply.
2.1.1 Supply voltage and frequency. Maintain the electrical
supply at the clothes washer terminal block within 2 percent of 120,
120/240, or 120/208Y volts as applicable to the particular terminal
block wiring system and within 2 percent of the nameplate frequency
as specified by the manufacturer. If the clothes washer has a dual
voltage conversion capability, conduct test at the highest voltage
specified by the manufacturer.
2.1.2 Supply voltage waveform. For the combined low-power mode
testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage waveform indicated
in Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301. If the power measuring
instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record the
total harmonic content during the test measurement period, total
harmonic content may be measured and recorded immediately before and
after the test measurement period.
2.2 Supply water. Maintain the temperature of the hot water
supply at the water inlets between 120 [deg]F (48.9 [deg]C) and 125
[deg]F (51.7 [deg]C), targeting the midpoint of the range. Maintain
the temperature of the cold water supply at the water inlets between
55 [deg]F (12.8 [deg]C) and 60 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C), targeting the
midpoint of the range.
2.3 Water pressure. Maintain the static water pressure at the
hot and cold water inlet connection of the clothes washer at 35
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) 2.5 psig (241.3 kPa
17.2 kPa) when the water is flowing.
2.4 Test room temperature. For all clothes washers, maintain the
test room ambient air temperature at 75 5 [deg]F (23.9
2.8 [deg]C) for active mode testing and combined low-
power mode testing. Do not use the test room ambient air temperature
conditions specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 for
combined low-power mode testing.
2.5 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the
following instruments, as appropriate:
2.5.1 Weighing scales.
2.5.1.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale used for
weighing test cloth must have a resolution of no larger than 0.2 oz
(5.7 g) and a maximum error no greater than 0.3 percent of the
measured value.
2.5.1.2 Weighing scale for clothes container capacity
measurement. The scale used for performing the clothes container
capacity measurement must have a resolution no larger than 0.50 lbs
(0.23 kg) and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the
measured value.
2.5.2 Watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter used to measure
electrical energy consumption must have a resolution no larger than
1 Wh (3.6 kJ) and a maximum error no greater than 2 percent of the
measured value for any demand greater than 50 Wh (180.0 kJ).
2.5.3 Watt meter. The watt meter used to measure combined low-
power mode power consumption must comply with the requirements
specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301. If the power
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and
record the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio
during the test measurement period, the crest factor, power factor,
and maximum current ratio may be measured and recorded immediately
before and after the test measurement period.
2.5.4 Water and air temperature measuring devices. The
temperature devices used to measure water and air temperature must
have an error no greater than 1 [deg]F (0.6
[deg]C) over the range being measured.
2.5.4.1 Non-reversible temperature indicator labels, adhered to
the inside of the clothes container, may be used to confirm that an
extra-hot wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 [deg]F has
been achieved during the wash cycle, under the following conditions.
The label must remain waterproof, intact, and adhered to the wash
drum throughout an entire wash cycle; provide consistent maximum
temperature readings; and provide repeatable temperature indications
sufficient to demonstrate that a wash temperature of greater than or
equal to 140 [deg]F has been achieved. The label must have been
verified to consistently indicate temperature measurements with an
accuracy of 1 [deg]F. If using a temperature indicator
label to test a front-loading clothes washer, adhere the label along
the interior surface of the clothes container drum, midway between
the front and the back of the drum, adjacent to one of the baffles.
If using a temperature indicator label to test a top-loading clothes
washer, adhere the label along the interior surface of the clothes
container drum, on the
[[Page 33383]]
vertical portion of the sidewall, as close to the bottom of the
container as possible.
2.5.4.2 Submersible temperature loggers placed inside the wash
drum may be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature
greater than or equal to 140 [deg]F has been achieved during the
wash cycle, under the following conditions. The submersible
temperature logger must have a time resolution of at least 1 data
point every 5 seconds and a temperature measurement accuracy of
1 [deg]F. Due to the potential for a waterproof capsule
to provide a thermal insulating effect, failure to measure a
temperature of 140 [deg]F does not necessarily indicate the lack of
an extra-hot wash temperature. However, such a result would not be
conclusive due to the lack of verification of the water temperature
requirement, in which case an alternative method must be used to
confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than or equal to
140 [deg]F has been achieved during the wash cycle.
2.5.5 Water meter. A water meter must be installed in both the
hot and cold water lines to measure water flow and/or water
consumption. The water meters must have a resolution no larger than
0.1 gallons (0.4 liters) and a maximum error no greater than 2
percent for the water flow rates being measured. If the volume of
hot water for any individual cycle within the energy test cycle is
less than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot water meter must have a
resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters).
2.5.6 Water pressure gauge. A water pressure gauge must be
installed in both the hot and cold water lines to measure water
pressure. The water pressure gauges must have a resolution of 1
pound per square inch gauge (psig) (6.9 kPa) and a maximum error no
greater than 5 percent of any measured value.
2.6 Bone-dryer. The dryer used for drying the cloth to bone-dry
must heat the test cloth load above 210 [deg]F (99 [deg]C).
2.7 Test cloths. The test cloth material and dimensions must
conform to the specifications in appendix J3 to this subpart. The
energy test cloth and the energy stuffer cloths must be clean and
must not be used for more than 60 test runs (after preconditioning
as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this subpart). All
energy test cloth must be permanently marked identifying the lot
number of the material. Mixed lots of material must not be used for
testing a clothes washer. The moisture absorption and retention must
be evaluated for each new lot of test cloth using the standard
extractor Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) procedure specified in
appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.8 Test Loads.
2.8.1 Test load sizes. Create small and large test loads as
defined in Table 5.1 of this appendix based on the clothes container
capacity as measured in section 3.1 of this appendix. Record the
bone-dry weight for each test load.
2.8.2 Test load composition. Test loads must consist primarily
of energy test cloths and no more than five energy stuffer cloths
per load to achieve the proper weight.
2.9 Preparation and loading of test loads. Use the following
procedures to prepare and load each test load for testing in section
3 of this appendix.
2.9.1 Test loads for energy and water consumption measurements
must be bone-dry prior to the first cycle of the test, and dried to
a maximum of 104 percent of bone-dry weight for subsequent testing.
2.9.2 Prepare the energy test cloths for loading by grasping
them in the center, lifting, and shaking them to hang loosely, as
illustrated in Figure 2.9.2 of this appendix.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.000
For all clothes washers, follow any manufacturer loading
instructions provided to the user regarding the placement of
clothing within the clothes container. In the absence of any
manufacturer instructions regarding the placement of clothing within
the clothes container, the following loading instructions apply.
2.9.2.1 To load the energy test cloths in a top-loading clothes
washer, arrange the cloths circumferentially around the axis of
rotation of the clothes container, using alternating lengthwise
orientations for adjacent pieces of cloth. Complete each cloth layer
across its horizontal plane within the clothes container before
adding a new layer. Figure 2.9.2.1 of this appendix illustrates the
correct loading technique for a vertical-axis clothes washer.
[[Page 33384]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.001
2.9.2.2 To load the energy test cloths in a front-loading
clothes washer, grasp each test cloth in the center as indicted in
section 2.9.2 of this appendix, and then place each cloth into the
clothes container prior to activating the clothes washer.
2.10 Clothes washer installation. Install the clothes washer in
accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
2.10.1 Water inlet connections. If the clothes washer has 2
water inlets, connect the inlets to the hot water and cold water
supplies, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If the
clothes washer has only 1 water inlet, connect the inlet to the cold
water supply, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
Use the water inlet hoses provided with the clothes washer;
otherwise use commercially available water inlet hoses, not to
exceed 72 inches in length, in accordance with manufacturer's
instructions.
2.10.2 Low-power mode testing. For combined low-power mode
testing, install the clothes washer in accordance with Section 5,
Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301, disregarding the provisions regarding
batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of
relevant modes.
2.11 Clothes washer pre-conditioning. If the clothes washer has
not been filled with water in the preceding 96 hours, or if it has
not been in the test room at the specified ambient conditions for 8
hours, pre-condition it by running it through a cold rinse cycle and
then draining it to ensure that the hose, pump, and sump are filled
with water.
2.12 Determining the energy test cycle.
2.12.1 Automatic clothes washers. To determine the energy test
cycle, evaluate the wash/rinse temperature selection flowcharts in
the order in which they are presented in this section. Use the large
load size to evaluate each flowchart. The determination of the
energy test cycle must take into consideration all cycle settings
available to the end user, including any cycle selections or cycle
modifications provided by the manufacturer via software or firmware
updates to the product, for the basic model under test. The energy
test cycle does not include any cycle that is recommended by the
manufacturer exclusively for cleaning, deodorizing, or sanitizing
the clothes washer.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.002
[[Page 33385]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.003
[[Page 33386]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.004
[[Page 33387]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.005
[[Page 33388]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.006
2.12.2. Semi-automatic clothes washers. The energy test cycle
for semi-automatic clothes washers includes only the Cold Wash/Cold
Rinse (``Cold'') test cycle. Energy and water use for all other
wash/rinse temperature combinations are calculated numerically in
section 3.4.2 of this appendix.
3. Test Measurements
3.1 Clothes container capacity. Measure the entire volume that a
clothes load could occupy within the clothes container during active
mode washer operation according to the following procedures:
3.1.1 Place the clothes washer in such a position that the
uppermost edge of the clothes container opening is leveled
horizontally, so that the container will hold the maximum amount of
water. For front-loading clothes washers, the door seal and shipping
bolts or other forms of bracing hardware to support the wash drum
during shipping must remain in place during the capacity
measurement. If the design of a front-loading clothes washer does
not include shipping bolts or other forms of bracing hardware to
support the wash drum during shipping, a laboratory may support the
wash drum by other means, including temporary bracing or support
beams. Any temporary bracing or support beams must keep the wash
drum in a fixed position, relative to the geometry of the door and
door seal components, that is representative of the position of the
wash drum during normal operation. The method used must avoid damage
to the unit that would affect the results of the energy and water
testing. For a front-loading clothes washer that does not include
shipping bolts or other forms of bracing hardware to support the
wash drum during shipping, the laboratory must fully document the
alternative method used to support the wash drum during capacity
measurement, include such documentation in the final test report,
and pursuant to Sec. 429.71 of this chapter, the manufacturer must
retain such documentation as part its test records.
3.1.2 Line the inside of the clothes container with a 2 mil
thickness (0.051 mm) plastic bag. All clothes washer components that
occupy space within the clothes container and that are recommended
for use during a wash cycle must be in place and must be lined with
a 2 mil thickness (0.051 mm) plastic bag to prevent water from
entering any void space.
3.1.3 Record the total weight of the machine before adding
water.
3.1.4 Fill the clothes container manually with either 60 [deg]F
5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C 2.8 [deg]C) or 100
[deg]F 10 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C 5.5 [deg]C)
water, with the door open. For a top-loading vertical-axis clothes
washer, fill the clothes container to the uppermost edge of the
rotating portion, including any balance ring. Figure 3.1.4.1 of this
appendix illustrates the maximum fill level for top-loading clothes
washers.
[[Page 33389]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.007
For a front-loading horizontal-axis clothes washer, fill the
clothes container to the highest point of contact between the door
and the door gasket. If any portion of the door or gasket would
occupy the measured volume space when the door is closed, exclude
from the measurement the volume that the door or gasket portion
would occupy. For a front-loading horizontal-axis clothes washer
with a concave door shape, include any additional volume above the
plane defined by the highest point of contact between the door and
the door gasket, if that area can be occupied by clothing during
washer operation. For a top-loading horizontal-axis clothes washer,
include any additional volume above the plane of the door hinge that
clothing could occupy during washer operation. Figure 3.1.4.2 of
this appendix illustrates the maximum fill volumes for all
horizontal-axis clothes washer types.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.008
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
For all clothes washers, exclude any volume that cannot be
occupied by the clothing load during operation.
3.1.5 Measure and record the weight of water, W, in pounds.
3.1.6 Calculate the clothes container capacity as follows:
C = W/d
Where:
C = Capacity in cubic feet (liters).
W = Mass of water in pounds (kilograms).
d = Density of water (62.0 lbs/ft\3\ for 100 [deg]F (993 kg/m\3\ for
37.8 [deg]C) or 62.3 lbs/ft\3\ for 60 [deg]F (998 kg/m\3\ for 15.6
[deg]C)).
3.1.7 Calculate the clothes container capacity, C, to the
nearest 0.01 cubic foot for the purpose of determining test load
sizes per Table 5.1 of this appendix and for all subsequent
calculations that include the clothes container capacity.
3.2 Cycle settings.
3.2.1 Wash/rinse temperature selection. For automatic clothes
washers, set the wash/rinse temperature selection control to obtain
the desired wash/rinse temperature selection within the energy test
cycle.
3.2.2 Wash time setting.
3.2.2.1 If the cycle under test offers a range of wash time
settings, the wash time setting shall be the higher of either the
minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available for the
wash cycle under test, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial
locations. If 70 percent of the maximum wash time is not available
on a dial with a discrete number of wash time settings, choose the
next-highest setting greater than 70 percent.
3.2.2.2 If the clothes washer is equipped with an
electromechanical dial or timer controlling wash time that rotates
in both directions, reset the dial to the minimum wash time and then
turn it in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the
appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting is passed, return
the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn in the direction of
increasing wash time until the appropriate setting is reached.
3.2.3 Water fill level settings. The water fill level settings
depend on the clothes washer's water fill control system, as
determined in Table 3.2.3.
Table 3.2.3--Clothes Washer Water Fill Control Settings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settings are user- Settings are not
adjustable user-adjustable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water fill level unaffected by Manual water fill. Fixed water fill.
the size or weight of the
clothing load.
Water fill level is determined User-adjustable Non-user-
automatically by the clothes adaptive water adjustable
washer based on the size and fill. adaptive water
weight of the clothing load. fill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33390]]
3.2.3.1 Clothes washers with a manual water fill control system.
For the large test load size, set the water fill level selector to
the maximum water fill level setting available for the wash cycle
under test. If the water fill level selector has two settings
available for the wash cycle under test, for the small test load
size, select the minimum water fill level setting available for the
wash cycle under test.
If the water fill level selector has more than two settings
available for the wash cycle under test, for the small test load
size, select the second-lowest water fill level setting.
3.2.3.2 Clothes washers with a fixed water fill control system.
The water level is automatically determined by the water fill
control system.
3.2.3.3 Clothes washers with a user-adjustable adaptive water
fill control system. For the large test load size, set the water
fill selector to the setting that uses the most water. For the small
test load size, set the water fill selector to the setting that uses
the least water.
3.2.3.4 Clothes washers with a non-user-adjustable adaptive
water fill control system. The water level is automatically
determined by the water fill control system.
3.2.3.5 Clothes washers with multiple water fill control
systems. If a clothes washer allows user selection among multiple
water fill control systems, test all water fill control systems and,
for each one, calculate the energy consumption (HET,
MET, and DET) and water consumption
(QT) values as set forth in section 4 of this appendix.
Then, calculate the average of the tested values (one from each
water fill control system) for each variable (HET,
MET, DET, and QT) and use the
average value for each variable in the final calculations in section
4 of this appendix.
3.2.4 Manufacturer default settings. For clothes washers with
electronic control systems, use the manufacturer default settings
for any cycle selections, except for (1) the temperature selection,
(2) the wash water fill levels, or (3) network settings. If the
clothes washer has network capabilities, the network settings must
be disabled throughout testing if such settings can be disabled by
the end-user and the product's user manual provides instructions on
how to do so. For all other cycle selections, the manufacturer
default settings must be used for wash conditions such as agitation/
tumble operation, soil level, spin speed, wash times, rinse times,
optional rinse settings, water heating time for water heating
clothes washers, and all other wash parameters or optional features
applicable to that wash cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature or
setting (other than wash/rinse temperature, water fill level
selection, or network settings on clothes washers with network
capabilities) that is activated by default on the wash cycle under
test must be included for testing unless the manufacturer
instructions recommend not selecting this option, or recommend
selecting a different option, for washing normally soiled cotton
clothing. For clothes washers with control panels containing
mechanical switches or dials, any optional settings, except for the
temperature selection or the wash water fill levels, must be in the
position recommended by the manufacturer for washing normally soiled
cotton clothing. If the manufacturer instructions do not recommend a
particular switch or dial position to be used for washing normally
soiled cotton clothing, the setting switch or dial must remain in
its as-shipped position.
3.2.5 For each wash cycle tested, include the entire active
washing mode and exclude any delay start or cycle finished modes.
3.2.6 Anomalous Test Cycles. If during a wash cycle the clothes
washer: (a) Signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert
that an out-of-balance condition has been detected; or (b)
terminates prematurely and thus does not include the agitation/
tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times
applicable to the wash cycle under test, discard the test data and
repeat the wash cycle. Document in the test report the rejection of
data from any wash cycle during testing and the reason for the
rejection.
3.3 Test cycles for automatic clothes washers. Perform testing
on each wash/rinse temperature selection available in the energy
test cycle was defined in section 2.12.1 of this appendix. Test each
load size as defined in section 2.8 of this appendix with its
associated water fill level defined in section 3.2.3 of this
appendix. Assign the bone-dry weight according to the value measured
in section 2.8 of this appendix. Place the test load in the clothes
washer and initiate the cycle under test. Measure the values for hot
water consumption, cold water consumption, electrical energy
consumption, and cycle time for the complete cycle. Record the
weight of the test load immediately after completion of the cycle.
Table 3.3 of this appendix provides the symbol definitions for each
measured value.
Table 3.3--Symbol Definitions of Measured Values for Automatic Clothes Washer Test Cycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wash/rinse temperature
selection Load size Bone-dry weight Hot water Cold water Electrical energy Cycle time Cycle complete weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-Hot/Cold................. Large................ WIxL................. HxL.................. CxL.................. ExL.................. TxL.................. WCxL
Small................ WIxS................. HxS.................. CxS.................. ExS.................. TxS.................. WCxS
Hot/Cold....................... Large................ WIhL................. HhL.................. ChL.................. EhL.................. ThL.................. WChL
Small................ WIhS................. HhS.................. ChS.................. EhS.................. ThS.................. WChS
Warm/Cold *.................... Large................ WIwL................. HwL.................. CwL.................. EwL.................. TwL.................. WCwL
Small................ WIwS................. HwS.................. CwS.................. EwS.................. TwS.................. WCwS
Warm/Warm *.................... Large................ WIwwL................ HwwL................. CwwL................. EwwL................. TwwL................. WCwwL
Small................ WIwwS................ HwwS................. CwwS................. EwwS................. TwwS................. WCwwS
Cold/Cold...................... Large................ WIcL................. HcL.................. CcL.................. EcL.................. TcL.................. WCcL
Small................ WIcS................. HcS.................. CcS.................. EcS.................. TcS.................. WCcS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If two cycles are tested to represent the Warm/Cold selection or the Warm/Warm selection, calculate the average of the two tested cycles and use that value for all further calculations.
3.4 Test cycles for semi-automatic clothes washers.
3.4.1 Test Measurements. Perform testing on each wash/rinse
temperature selection available in the energy test cycle as defined
in section 2.12.2 of this appendix. Test each load size as defined
in section 2.8 of this appendix with the associated water fill level
defined in section 3.2.3 of this appendix. Assign the bone-dry
weight according to the value measured in section 2.8 of this
appendix. Place the test load in the clothes washer and initiate the
cycle under test. Measure the values for cold water consumption,
electrical energy consumption, and cycle time for the complete
cycle. Record the weight of the test load immediately after
completion of the cycle. Table 3.4.1 of this appendix provides
symbol definitions for each measured value for the Cold temperature
selection.
Table 3.4.1--Symbol Definitions of Measured Values for Semi-Automatic Clothes Washer Test Cycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature selection Load size Bone-dry weight Hot water Cold water Electrical energy Cycle time Cycle complete weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold........................... Large................ WIcL................. not measured......... CcL.................. EcL.................. TcL.................. WCcL
[[Page 33391]]
Small................ WIcS................. not measured......... CcS.................. EcS.................. TcS.................. WCcS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4.2 Calculation of Hot and Warm measured values. In lieu of
testing, the measured values for the Hot and Warm cycles are
calculated based on the measured values for the Cold cycle, as
defined in section 3.4.1 of this appendix. Table 3.4.2 of this
appendix provides the symbol definitions and calculations for each
value for the Hot and Warm temperature selections.
Table 3.4.2--Symbol Definitions and Calculation of Measured Values for Semi-Automatic Clothes Washer Test Cycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature selection Load Size Bone-Dry weight Hot water Cold water Electrical energy Cycle time Cycle complete weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot............................ Large................ WIhL = WIcL.......... HhL = CcL............ ..................... EhL = EcL............ ThL = TcL............ WChL = WCcL
Small................ WIhS = WIcS.......... HhS = CcS............ ..................... EhS = EcS............ ThS = TcS............ WChS = WCcS
Warm........................... Large................ WIwL = WIcL.......... HwL = CcL / 2........ CwL = CcL / 2........ EwL = EcL............ TwL = TcL............ WCwL = WCcL
Small................ WIwS = WIcS.......... HwS = CcS / 2........ CwS = CcS / 2........ EwS = EcS............ TwS = TcS............ WCwS = WCcS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.5 Combined low-power mode power. Connect the clothes washer to
a watt meter as specified in section 2.5.3 of this appendix.
Establish the testing conditions set forth in sections 2.1, 2.4, and
2.10.2 of this appendix.
3.5.1 Perform combined low-power mode testing after completion
of an active mode wash cycle included as part of the energy test
cycle; after removing the test load; without changing the control
panel settings used for the active mode wash cycle; with the door
closed; and without disconnecting the electrical energy supply to
the clothes washer between completion of the active mode wash cycle
and the start of combined low-power mode testing.
3.5.2 For a clothes washer that takes some time to automatically
enter a stable inactive mode or off mode state from a higher power
state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, note 1 of IEC 62301,
allow sufficient time for the clothes washer to automatically reach
the default inactive/off mode state before proceeding with the test
measurement.
3.5.3 Once the stable inactive/off mode state has been reached,
measure and record the default inactive/off mode power,
Pdefault, in watts, following the test procedure for the
sampling method specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC
62301.
3.5.4 For a clothes washer with a switch, dial, or button that
can be optionally selected by the end user to achieve a lower-power
inactive/off mode state than the default inactive/off mode state
measured in section 3.5.3 of this appendix, after performing the
measurement in section 3.5.3 of this appendix, activate the switch,
dial, or button to the position resulting in the lowest power
consumption and repeat the measurement procedure described in
section 3.5.3 of this appendix. Measure and record the lowest-power
inactive/off mode power, Plowest, in Watts.
3.6 Energy consumption for the purpose of determining the cycle
selection(s) to be included in the energy test cycle. This section
is implemented only in cases where the energy test cycle flowcharts
in section 2.12.1 of this appendix require the determination of the
wash/rinse temperature selection with the highest energy
consumption.
3.6.1 For the wash/rinse temperature selection being considered
under this section, establish the testing conditions set forth in
section 2 of this appendix. Select the applicable cycle selection
and wash/rinse temperature selection. For all wash/rinse temperature
selections, select the cycle settings as described in section 3.2 of
this appendix.
3.6.2 Measure each wash cycle's electrical energy consumption
(EL) and hot water consumption (HL). Calculate
the total energy consumption for each cycle selection
(ETL), as follows:
ETL = EL + (HL x T x K)
Where:
EL is the electrical energy consumption, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per cycle.
HL is the hot water consumption, expressed in gallons per
cycle.
T = nominal temperature rise = 65 [deg]F (36.1 [deg]C).
K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree F =
0.00240 kWh/gal - [deg]F (0.00114 kWh/L - [deg]C).
4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements
4.1 Hot water and machine electrical energy consumption of
clothes washers.
4.1.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted hot water consumption for
all load sizes tested. Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted
hot water consumption for the large test load size, VhL,
and the small test load size, VhS, expressed in gallons
per cycle (or liters per cycle) and defined as:
(a) VhL = [HxL x TUFx] +
[HhL x TUFh] + [HwL x
TUFw] + [HwwL x TUFww] +
[HcL x TUFc]
(b) VhS = [HxS x TUFx] +
[HhS x TUFh] + [HwS x
TUFw] + [HwwS x TUFww] +
[HcS x TUFc]
Where:
HxL, HhL, HwL, HwwL,
HcL, HxS, HhS, HwS,
HwwS, and HcS are the hot water consumption
values, in gallons per-cycle (or liters per cycle) as measured in
section 3.3 of this appendix for automatic clothes washers or
section 3.4 of this appendix for semi-automatic clothes washers.
TUFx, TUFh, TUFw,
TUFww, and TUFc are temperature use factors
for Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, Warm Wash/Cold
Rinse, Warm Wash/Warm Rinse, and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature
selections, respectively, as defined in Table 4.1.1 of this
appendix.
[[Page 33392]]
Table 4.1.1--Temperature Use Factors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothes washers with cold rinse only Clothes washers with both cold and
----------------------------------------------------------------- warm rinse
Wash/rinse temperature selections available in --------------------------------------
the energy test cycle C/C H/C C/C H/C W/C C/C XH/C H/C C/ XH/C H/C W/ H/C W/C W/W XH/C H/C W/ XH/C H/C W/
* C C C/C C/C W C/C C W/W C/C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUFx (Extra-Hot/Cold)........................... ........... ........... ........... 0.14 0.05 ........... 0.14 0.05
TUFh (Hot/Cold)................................. ........... 0.63 0.14 ** 0.49 0.09 0.14 ** 0.22 0.09
TUFw (Warm/Cold)................................ ........... ........... 0.49 ........... 0.49 0.22 ........... 0.22
TUFww (Warm/Warm)............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.27 0.27 0.27
TUFc (Cold/Cold)................................ 1.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column applies to all semi-automatic clothes washers.
** On clothes washers with only two wash temperature selections <140 [deg]F, the higher of the two wash temperatures is classified as a Hot Wash/Cold
Rinse, in accordance with the wash/rinse temperature definitions within the energy test cycle.
4.1.2 Total per-cycle hot water energy consumption for all load
sizes tested. Calculate the total per-cycle hot water energy
consumption for the large test load size, HEL, and the
small test load size, HES, expressed in kilowatt-hours
per cycle and defined as:
(a) HEL = [VhL x T x K] = Total energy when
the large test load is tested.
(b) HES = [VhS x T x K] = Total energy when
the small test load is tested.
Where:
VhL and VhS are defined in section 4.1.1 of
this appendix.
T = Temperature rise = 65 [deg]F (36.1 [deg]C).
K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree F =
0.00240 kWh/gal - [deg]F (0.00114 kWh/L - [deg]C).
4.1.3 Total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption.
Calculate the total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption,
HET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined
as:
HET = [HEL x LUFL] +
[HES x LUFS]
Where:
HEL and HES are defined in section 4.1.2 of
this appendix.
LUFL = Load usage factor for the large test load = 0.5.
LUFS = Load usage factor for the small test load = 0.5.
4.1.4 Total per-cycle hot water energy consumption using gas-
heated or oil-heated water, for product labeling requirements.
Calculate for the energy test cycle the per-cycle hot water
consumption, HETG, using gas-heated or oil-heated water,
expressed in Btu per cycle (or megajoules per cycle) and defined as:
HETG = HET x 1/e x 3412 Btu/kWh or
HETG = HET x 1/e x 3.6 MJ/kWh.
Where:
e = Nominal gas or oil water heater efficiency = 0.75.
HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.
4.1.5 Per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption for all
load sizes tested. Calculate the total per-cycle machine electrical
energy consumption for the large test load size, MEL, and
the small test load size, MES, expressed in kilowatt-
hours per cycle and defined as:
(a) MEL = [ExL x TUFx] +
[EhL x TUFh] + [EwL x
TUFw] + [EwwL x TUFww] +
[EcL x TUFc]
(b) MES = [ExS x TUFx] +
[EhS x TUFh] + [EwS x
TUFw] + [EwwS x TUFww] +
[EcS x TUFc]
Where:
ExL, EhL, EwL, EwwL,
EcL, ExS, EhS, EwS,
EwwS, and EcS are the electrical energy
consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle as measured in
section 3.3 of this appendix for automatic clothes washers or
section 3.4 of this appendix for semi-automatic clothes washers.
TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww,
and TUFc are defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix.
4.1.6 Total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy
consumption. Calculate the total weighted per-cycle machine
electrical energy consumption, MET, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:
MET = [MEL x LUFL] +
[MES x LUFS]
Where:
MEL and MES are defined in section 4.1.5 of
this appendix.
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
4.2 Water consumption of clothes washers.
4.2.1 Per cycle total water consumption for each large load size
tested. Calculate the per-cycle total water consumption of the large
test load for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QxL,
Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QhL, Warm Wash/Cold Rinse
cycle, QwL, Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle, QwwL,
and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QcL, defined as:
(a) QxL = HxL + CxL
(b) QhL = HhL + ChL
(c) QwL = HwL + CwL
(d) QwwL = HwwL + CwwL
(e) QcL = HcL + CcL
Where:
HxL, HhL, HwL, HwwL,
HcL, CxL, ChL, CwL,
CwwL, and CcL are defined in section 3.3 of
this appendix for automatic clothes washers or section 3.4 of this
appendix for semi-automatic clothes washers.
4.2.2 Per cycle total water consumption for each small load size
tested. Calculate the per-cycle total water consumption of the small
test load for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QxS,
Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QhS, Warm Wash/Cold Rinse
cycle, QwS, Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle, QwwS,
and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QcS, defined as:
(a) QxS = HxS + CxS
(b) QhS = HhS + ChS
(c) QwS = HwS + CwS
(d) QwwS = HwwS + CwwS
(e) QcS = HcS + CcS
Where:
HxS, HhS, HwS, HwwS,
HcS, CxS, ChS, CwS,
CwwS, and CcS are defined in section 3.3 of
this appendix for automatic clothes washers or section 3.4 of this
appendix for semi-automatic clothes washers.
4.2.3 Per-cycle total water consumption for all load sizes
tested. Calculate the total per-cycle water consumption for the
large test load size, QL, and the small test load size,
QS, expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle)
and defined as:
(a) QL = [QxL x TUFx] + [QhL x
TUFh] + [QwL x TUFw] + [QwwL x TUFww] +
[QcL x TUFc]
(b) QS = [QxS x TUFx] + [QhS x
TUFh] + [QwS x TUFw] + [QwwS x TUFww] +
[QcS x TUFc]
Where:
QxL, QhL, QwL, QwwL, and
QcL are defined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.
QxS, QhS, QwS, QwwS, and
QcS are defined in section 4.2.2 of this appendix.
TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, and TUFc are defined in Table 4.1.1 of this
appendix.
4.2.4 Total weighted per-cycle water consumption. Calculate the
total per-cycle water consumption, QT, expressed in
gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle) and defined as:
QT = [QL x LUFL] + [QS x
LUFS]
Where:
QL and QS are defined in section 4.2.3 of this
appendix.
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
4.3 Remaining moisture content (RMC).
4.3.1 Per cycle remaining moisture content for each large load
size tested. Calculate the per-cycle remaining moisture content of
the large test load for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle,
RMCxL, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMChL, Warm
Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCwL, Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle,
RMCwwL, and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCcL,
defined as:
(a) RMCxL = (WCxL - WIxL)/
WIxL
(b) RMChL = (WChL - WIhL)/
WIhL
(c) RMCwL = (WCwL - WIwL)/
WIwL
(d) RMCwwL = (WCwwL - WIwwL)/
WIwwL
(e) RMCcL = (WCcL - WIcL)/
WIcL
Where:
[[Page 33393]]
WCxL, WChL, WCwL, WCwwL,
WCcL, WIxL, WIhL, WIwL,
WIwwL, and WIcL are the bone-dry weights and
cycle completion weights as measured in section 3.3 of this appendix
for automatic clothes washers or section 3.4 of this appendix for
semi-automatic clothes washers.
4.3.2 Per cycle remaining moisture content for each small load
size tested. Calculate the per-cycle remaining moisture content of
the small test load for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle,
RMCxS, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMChS, Warm
Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCwS, Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle,
RMCwwS, and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCcS,
defined as:
(a) RMCxS = (WCxS--WIxS)/
WIxS
(b) RMChS = (WChS--WIhS)/
WIhS
(c) RMCwS = (WCwS--WIwS)/
WIwS
(d) RMCwwS = (WCwwS--WIwwS)/
WIwwS
(e) RMCcS = (WCcS--WIcS)/
WIcS
Where:
WCxS, WChS, WCwS, WCwwS,
WCcS, WIxS, WIhS, WIwS,
WIwwS, and WIcS are the bone-dry weights and
cycle completion weights as measured in section 3.3 of this appendix
for automatic clothes washers or section 3.4 of this appendix for
semi-automatic clothes washers.
4.3.3 Per-cycle remaining moisture content for all load sizes
tested. Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted remaining
moisture content for the large test load size, RMCL, and
the small test load size, RMCS, defined as:
(a) RMCL = [RMCxL x TUFx] +
[RMChL x TUFh] + [RMCwL x
TUFw] + [RMCwwL x TUFww] +
[RMCcL x TUFc]
(b) RMCS = [RMCxS x TUFx] +
[RMChS x TUFh] + [RMCwS x
TUFw] + [RMCwwS x TUFww] +
[RMCcS x TUFc]
Where:
RMCxL, RMChL, RMCwL,
RMCwwL, and RMCcL are defined in section 4.3.1
of this appendix.
RMCxS, RMChS, RMCwS,
RMCwwS, and RMCcS are defined in section 4.3.2
of this appendix.
TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww,
and TUFc are defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix.
4.3.4 Weighted per-cycle remaining moisture content. Calculate
the weighted per-cycle remaining moisture content, RMCT,
defined as:
RMCT = [RMCL x LUFL] +
[RMCS x LUFS]
Where:
RMCL and RMCS are defined in section 4.3.3 of
this appendix.
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
4.3.5 Apply the RMC correction curve as described in section 9
of appendix J3 to this subpart to calculate the corrected remaining
moisture content, RMCcorr, expressed as a percentage as
follows:
RMCcorr = (A x RMCT + B) x 100%
Where:
A and B are the coefficients of the RMC correction curve as defined
in section 8.7 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
RMCT = As defined in section 4.3.4 of this appendix.
4.4 Per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from
test load. Calculate the per-cycle energy required to remove the
remaining moisture of the test load, DET, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:
DET = [(LUFL x Large test load weight) +
(LUFS x Small test load weight)] x (RMCcorr-
2%) x (DEF) x (DUF)
Where:
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
Large and small test load weights are defined in Table 5.1 of this
appendix.
RMCcorr = As defined in section 4.3.5 of this appendix.
DEF = Nominal energy required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture
from clothes = 0.5 kWh/lb (1.1 kWh/kg).
DUF = Dryer usage factor, percentage of washer loads dried in a
clothes dryer = 0.91.
4.5 Cycle time.
4.5.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted cycle time for all load
sizes tested. Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted cycle
time for the large test load size, TL, and the small test
load size, TS, expressed in minutes, and defined as:
(a) TL = [TxL x TUFx] +
[ThL x TUFh] + [TwL x
TUFw] + [TwwL x TUFww] +
[TcL x TUFc]
(b) TS = [TxS x TUFx] +
[ThS x TUFh] + [TwS x
TUFw] + [TwwS x TUFww] +
[TcS x TUFc]
Where:
TxL, ThL, TwL, TwwL,
TcL, TxS, ThS, TwS,
TwwS, and TcS are the cycle time values, in
minutes as measured in section 3.3 of this appendix for automatic
clothes washers or section 3.4 of this appendix for semi-automatic
clothes washers.
TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww,
and TUFc are temperature use factors for Extra-Hot Wash/
Cold Rinse, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, Warm Wash/Cold Rinse, Warm Wash/
Warm Rinse, and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections,
respectively, as defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix.
4.5.2 Total weighted per-cycle cycle time. Calculate the total
weighted per-cycle cycle time, TT, expressed in minutes,
rounded to the nearest minute, and defined as:
TT = [TL x LUFL] + [TS x
LUFS]
Where:
TL and TS are defined in section 4.5.1 of this
appendix.
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
4.6 Combined low-power mode energy consumption.
4.6.1 Annual hours in default inactive/off mode. Calculate the
annual hours spent in default inactive/off mode,
Sdefault, expressed in hours and defined as:
Sdefault = [8,760-(234 x TT/60)]/N
Where:
TT = As defined in section 4.5.2 of this appendix, in
minutes.
N = Number of inactive/off modes, defined as 1 if no optional
lowest-power inactive/off mode is available; otherwise 2.
8,760 = Total number of hours in a year.
234 = Representative average number of clothes washer cycles in a
year.
60 = Conversion from minutes to hours.
4.6.2 Per-cycle combined low-power mode energy consumption.
Calculate the per-cycle combined low-power mode energy consumption,
ETLP, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined
as:
ETLP = [(Pdefault x Sdefault) +
(Plowest x Slowest)] x Kp/234
Where:
Pdefault = Default inactive/off mode power, in watts, as
measured in section 3.5.3 of this appendix.
Plowest = Lowest-power inactive/off mode power, in watts,
as measured in section 3.5.4 of this appendix for clothes washers
with a switch, dial, or button that can be optionally selected by
the end user to achieve a lower-power inactive/off mode than the
default inactive/off mode; otherwise, Plowest = 0.
Sdefault = Annual hours in default inactive/off mode, as
calculated in section 4.6.1 of this appendix.
Slowest = Annual hours in lowest-power inactive/off mode,
defined as 0 if no optional lowest-power inactive/off mode is
available; otherwise equal to Sdefault, as calculated in
section 4.6.1 of this appendix.
Kp = Conversion factor of watt-hours to kilowatt-hours =
0.001.
234 = Representative average number of clothes washer cycles in a
year.
4.7 Water efficiency ratio. Calculate the water efficiency
ratio, WER, expressed in pounds per gallon per cycle (or kilograms
per liter per cycle), as:
WER = [(LUFL x Large test load weight) + (LUFS
x Small test load weight)]/QT
Where:
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
Large and small test load weights are defined in Table 5.1 of this
appendix.
QT = As defined in section 4.2.4 of this appendix.
4.8 Active-mode energy efficiency ratio. Calculate the active-
mode energy efficiency ratio, AEER, expressed in pounds per
kilowatt-hour per cycle (or kilograms per kilowatt-hour per cycle)
and defined as:
AEER = [(LUFL x Large test load weight) +
(LUFS x Small test load weight)]/(MET +
HET + DET)
Where:
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
Large and small test load weights are defined in Table 5.1 of this
appendix.
MET = As defined in section 4.1.6 of this appendix.
HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.
DET = As defined in section 4.4 of this appendix.
4.9 Energy efficiency ratio. Calculate the energy efficiency
ratio, EER, expressed in pounds per kilowatt-hour per cycle (or
kilograms per kilowatt-hour per cycle) and defined as:
EER = [(LUFL x Large test load weight) + (LUFS
x Small test load weight)]/(MET + HET +
DET + ETLP)
[[Page 33394]]
Where:
LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 of
this appendix.
Large and small test load weights are defined in Table 5.1 of this
appendix.
MET = As defined in section 4.1.6 of this appendix.
HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.
DET = As defined in section 4.4 of this appendix.
ETLP = As defined in section 4.6.2 of this appendix.
5. Test Loads
Table 5.1--Test Load Sizes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Container volume Small load Large load
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cu. ft. liter
------------------------------------------------- lb kg lb kg
>= < >= <
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00-0.80..................... 0.00-22.7....... 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36
0.80-0.90..................... 22.7-25.5....... 3.10 1.41 3.35 1.52
0.90-1.00..................... 25.5-28.3....... 3.20 1.45 3.70 1.68
1.00-1.10..................... 28.3-31.1....... 3.30 1.50 4.00 1.81
1.10-1.20..................... 31.1-34.0....... 3.40 1.54 4.30 1.95
1.20-1.30..................... 34.0-36.8....... 3.45 1.56 4.60 2.09
1.30-1.40..................... 36.8-39.6....... 3.55 1.61 4.95 2.25
1.40-1.50..................... 39.6-42.5....... 3.65 1.66 5.25 2.38
1.50-1.60..................... 42.5-45.3....... 3.75 1.70 5.55 2.52
1.60-1.70..................... 45.3-48.1....... 3.80 1.72 5.85 2.65
1.70-1.80..................... 48.1-51.0....... 3.90 1.77 6.20 2.81
1.80-1.90..................... 51.0-53.8....... 4.00 1.81 6.50 2.95
1.90-2.00..................... 53.8-56.6....... 4.10 1.86 6.80 3.08
2.00-2.10..................... 56.6-59.5....... 4.20 1.91 7.10 3.22
2.10-2.20..................... 59.5-62.3....... 4.30 1.95 7.45 3.38
2.20-2.30..................... 62.3-65.1....... 4.35 1.97 7.75 3.52
2.30-2.40..................... 65.1-68.0....... 4.45 2.02 8.05 3.65
2.40-2.50..................... 68.0-70.8....... 4.55 2.06 8.35 3.79
2.50-2.60..................... 70.8-73.6....... 4.65 2.11 8.70 3.95
2.60-2.70..................... 73.6-76.5....... 4.70 2.13 9.00 4.08
2.70-2.80..................... 76.5-79.3....... 4.80 2.18 9.30 4.22
2.80-2.90..................... 79.3-82.1....... 4.90 2.22 9.60 4.35
2.90-3.00..................... 82.1-85.0....... 5.00 2.27 9.90 4.49
3.00-3.10..................... 85.0-87.8....... 5.10 2.31 10.25 4.65
3.10-3.20..................... 87.8-90.6....... 5.20 2.36 10.55 4.79
3.20-3.30..................... 90.6-93.4....... 5.25 2.38 10.85 4.92
3.30-3.40..................... 93.4-96.3....... 5.35 2.43 11.15 5.06
3.40-3.50..................... 96.3-99.1....... 5.45 2.47 11.50 5.22
3.50-3.60..................... 99.1-101.9...... 5.55 2.52 11.80 5.35
3.60-3.70..................... 101.9-104.8..... 5.65 2.56 12.10 5.49
3.70-3.80..................... 104.8-107.6..... 5.70 2.59 12.40 5.62
3.80-3.90..................... 107.6-110.4..... 5.80 2.63 12.75 5.78
3.90-4.00..................... 110.4-113.3..... 5.90 2.68 13.05 5.92
4.00-4.10..................... 113.3-116.1..... 6.00 2.72 13.35 6.06
4.10-4.20..................... 116.1-118.9..... 6.10 2.77 13.65 6.19
4.20-4.30..................... 118.9-121.8..... 6.15 2.79 14.00 6.35
4.30-4.40..................... 121.8-124.6..... 6.25 2.83 14.30 6.49
4.40-4.50..................... 124.6-127.4..... 6.35 2.88 14.60 6.62
4.50-4.60..................... 127.4-130.3..... 6.45 2.93 14.90 6.76
4.60-4.70..................... 130.3-133.1..... 6.55 2.97 15.25 6.92
4.70-4.80..................... 133.1-135.9..... 6.60 2.99 15.55 7.05
4.80-4.90..................... 135.9-138.8..... 6.70 3.04 15.85 7.19
4.90-5.00..................... 138.8-141.6..... 6.80 3.08 16.15 7.33
5.00-5.10..................... 141.6-144.4..... 6.90 3.13 16.50 7.48
5.10-5.20..................... 144.4-147.2..... 7.00 3.18 16.80 7.62
5.20-5.30..................... 147.2-150.1..... 7.05 3.20 17.10 7.76
5.30-5.40..................... 150.1-152.9..... 7.15 3.24 17.40 7.89
5.40-5.50..................... 152.9-155.7..... 7.25 3.29 17.70 8.03
5.50-5.60..................... 155.7-158.6..... 7.35 3.33 18.05 8.19
5.60-5.70..................... 158.6-161.4..... 7.45 3.38 18.35 8.32
5.70-5.80..................... 161.4-164.2..... 7.50 3.40 18.65 8.46
5.80-5.90..................... 164.2-167.1..... 7.60 3.45 18.95 8.60
5.90-6.00..................... 167.1-169.9..... 7.70 3.49 19.30 8.75
6.00-6.10..................... 169.9-172.7..... 7.80 3.54 19.60 8.89
6.10-6.20..................... 172.7-175.6..... 7.90 3.58 19.90 9.03
6.20-6.30..................... 175.6-178.4..... 7.95 3.61 20.20 9.16
6.30-6.40..................... 178.4-181.2..... 8.05 3.65 20.55 9.32
6.40-6.50..................... 181.2-184.1..... 8.15 3.70 20.85 9.46
6.50-6.60..................... 184.1-186.9..... 8.25 3.74 21.15 9.59
6.60-6.70..................... 186.9-189.7..... 8.30 3.76 21.45 9.73
6.70-6.80..................... 189.7-192.6..... 8.40 3.81 21.80 9.89
6.80-6.90..................... 192.6-195.4..... 8.50 3.86 22.10 10.02
[[Page 33395]]
6.90-7.00..................... 195.4-198.2..... 8.60 3.90 22.40 10.16
7.00-7.10..................... 198.2-201.0..... 8.70 3.95 22.70 10.30
7.10-7.20..................... 201.0-203.9..... 8.80 3.99 23.05 10.46
7.20-7.30..................... 203.9-206.7..... 8.85 4.01 23.35 10.59
7.30-7.40..................... 206.7-209.5..... 8.95 4.06 23.65 10.73
7.40-7.50..................... 209.5-212.4..... 9.05 4.11 23.95 10.86
7.50-7.60..................... 212.4-215.2..... 9.15 4.15 24.30 11.02
7.60-7.70..................... 215.2-218.0..... 9.25 4.20 24.60 11.16
7.70-7.80..................... 218.0-220.9..... 9.30 4.22 24.90 11.29
7.80-7.90..................... 220.9-223.7..... 9.40 4.26 25.20 11.43
7.90-8.00..................... 223.7-226.5..... 9.50 4.31 25.50 11.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) All test load weights are bone-dry weights.
(2) Allowable tolerance on the test load weights is 0.10 lbs (0.05 kg).
Appendix J1 [Removed and Reserved]
0
9. Remove and reserve Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430.
0
10. Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory note;
0
b. Adding section 0;
0
c. Revising section 1;
0
d. Revising the heading for section 2;
0
e. Revising section 2.2;
0
f. Adding sections 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2;
0
g. Revising sections 2.5.5, 2.7 and 2.12;
0
h. Removing sections 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.7.4.1, 2.7.4.2,
2.7.4.3, 2.7.4.4, 2.7.4.5, 2.7.4.6, 2.7.4.6.1, 2.7.4.6.2, 2.7.4.7, and
2.7.5;
0
i. Removing ``energy stuffer clothes'' and adding in its place,
``energy stuffer cloths'' in section 2.8;
0
j. Revising section 3.2.5;
0
k. Adding sections 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2;
0
l. Revising sections 3.2.6.2.2, 3.2.7 and 3.2.9;
0
m. Revising sections 3.3 and 3.6;
0
n. In sections 3.8.2.6, 3.8.3.2, and 3.8.3.4 removing ``section 7 of
appendix J3'' and adding in its place, ``section 9 of appendix J3'',
and removing ``section 6.1 of appendix J3'' and adding in its place,
``section 8.7 of appendix J3'';
0
o. Removing section 4.2.12;
0
p. Redesignating section 4.2.13 as 4.2.12;
0
q. Removing ``MEF'' and adding in its place ``MEFJ2'' in all
instances in section 4.5;
0
r. Revising Table 5.1; and
0
s. Removing section 6.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this
appendix to determine compliance with the relevant standards for
clothes washers from Sec. 430.32(g)(4) and from Sec. 431.156(b) as
they appeared in January 1, 2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499.
Specifically, before November 28, 2022 representations must be based
upon results generated either under this appendix as codified on
July 1, 2022 or under this appendix as it appeared in the 10 CFR
parts 200-499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. Any
representations made on or after November 28, 2022 but before the
compliance date of any amended standards for clothes washers must be
made based upon results generated using this appendix as codified on
July 1, 2022. Manufacturers must use the results of testing under
Appendix J to determine compliance with any amended standards for
clothes washers provided in 10 CFR 430.32(g) and in Sec. 431.156
that are published after January 1, 2022. Any representations
related to energy or water consumption of residential or commercial
clothes washers must be made in accordance with the appropriate
appendix that applies (i.e., Appendix J or this appendix) when
determining compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may
also use Appendix J to certify compliance with any amended standards
prior to the applicable compliance date for those standards.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 430.3, the entire test
standard for IEC 62301. However, only enumerated provisions of this
standard are applicable to this appendix, as follows. In cases in
which there is a conflict, the language of the test procedure in
this appendix takes precedence over the referenced test standard.
0.1 IEC 62301:
(a) Section 4.2 as referenced in section 2.4 of this appendix;
(b) Section 4.3.2 as referenced in section 2.1.2 of this
appendix;
(c) Section 4.4 as referenced in section 2.5.3 of this appendix;
(d) Section 5.1 as referenced in section 3.9.2 of this appendix;
(e) Section 5.2 as referenced in section 2.10 of this appendix;
and
(f) Section 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.9.3 of this
appendix.
0.2 [Reserved]
1. Definitions
Active mode means a mode in which the clothes washer is
connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is
performing one or more of the main functions of washing, soaking,
tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing water from the
clothing, or is involved in functions necessary for these main
functions, such as admitting water into the washer or pumping water
out of the washer. Active mode also includes delay start and cycle
finished modes.
Active washing mode means a mode in which the clothes washer is
performing any of the operations included in a complete cycle
intended for washing a clothing load, including the main functions
of washing, soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing
water from the clothing.
Adaptive water fill control system means a clothes washer
automatic water fill control system that is capable of automatically
adjusting the water fill level based on the size or weight of the
clothes load placed in the clothes container.
Automatic water fill control system means a clothes washer water
fill control system that does not allow or require the user to
determine or select the water fill level, and includes adaptive
water fill control systems and fixed water fill control systems.
Bone-dry means a condition of a load of test cloth that has been
dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes,
removed and weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10
minute periods until the final weight change of the load is 1
percent or less.
Clothes container means the compartment within the clothes
washer that holds the clothes during the operation of the machine.
Cold rinse means the coldest rinse temperature available on the
machine, as indicated to the user on the clothes washer control
panel.
Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available modes
other than active washing mode, including inactive
[[Page 33396]]
mode, off mode, delay start mode, and cycle finished mode.
Cycle finished mode means an active mode that provides
continuous status display, intermittent tumbling, or air circulation
following operation in active washing mode.
Delay start mode means an active mode in which activation of
active washing mode is facilitated by a timer.
Energy test cycle means the complete set of wash/rinse
temperature selections required for testing, as determined according
to section 2.12 of this appendix.
Fixed water fill control system means a clothes washer automatic
water fill control system that automatically terminates the fill
when the water reaches a pre-defined level that is not based on the
size or weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container,
without allowing or requiring the user to determine or select the
water fill level.
Inactive mode means a standby mode that facilitates the
activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote
control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous
status display.
Integrated modified energy factor means the quotient of the
cubic foot (or liter) capacity of the clothes container divided by
the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such
energy consumption expressed as the sum of:
(a) The machine electrical energy consumption;
(b) The hot water energy consumption;
(c) The energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in
the wash load; and
(d) The combined low-power mode energy consumption.
Integrated water factor means the quotient of the total weighted
per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons divided
by the cubic foot (or liter) capacity of the clothes washer.
Load usage factor means the percentage of the total number of
wash loads that a user would wash a particular size (weight) load.
Lot means a quantity of cloth that has been manufactured with
the same batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous
process.
Manual water fill control system means a clothes washer water
fill control system that requires the user to determine or select
the water fill level.
Modified energy factor means the quotient of the cubic foot (or
liter) capacity of the clothes container divided by the total
clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such energy
consumption expressed as the sum of the machine electrical energy
consumption, the hot water energy consumption, and the energy
required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load.
Non-water-heating clothes washer means a clothes washer that
does not have an internal water heating device to generate hot
water.
Normal cycle means the cycle recommended by the manufacturer
(considering manufacturer instructions, control panel labeling, and
other markings on the clothes washer) for normal, regular, or
typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton
clothing. For machines where multiple cycle settings are recommended
by the manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing
up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing, then the
Normal cycle is the cycle selection that results in the lowest IMEF
or MEFJ2 value.
Off mode means a mode in which the clothes washer is connected
to a mains power source and is not providing any active or standby
mode function, and where the mode may persist for an indefinite
time.
Standby mode means any mode in which the clothes washer is
connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the
following user oriented or protective functions that may persist for
an indefinite time:
(a) Facilitating the activation of other modes (including
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(b) Continuous functions, including information or status
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions.
(c) A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not
be associated with a display) that provides regular scheduled tasks
(e.g., switching) and that operates on a continuous basis.
Temperature use factor means, for a particular wash/rinse
temperature setting, the percentage of the total number of wash
loads that an average user would wash with that setting.
User-adjustable adaptive water fill control system means a
clothes washer fill control system that allows the user to adjust
the amount of water that the machine provides, which is based on the
size or weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container.
Wash time means the wash portion of active washing mode, which
begins when the cycle is initiated and includes the agitation or
tumble time, which may be periodic or continuous during the wash
portion of active washing mode.
Water factor means the quotient of the total weighted per-cycle
water consumption for cold wash divided by the cubic foot (or liter)
capacity of the clothes washer.
Water-heating clothes washer means a clothes washer where some
or all of the hot water for clothes washing is generated by a water
heating device internal to the clothes washer.
2. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
* * * * *
2.2 Supply water. Maintain the temperature of the hot water
supply at the water inlets between 130 [deg]F (54.4 [deg]C) and 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), targeting the midpoint of the range. Maintain
the temperature of the cold water supply at the water inlets between
55 [deg]F (12.8 [deg]C) and 60 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C), targeting the
midpoint of the range.
* * * * *
2.5.4 * * *
2.5.4.1 Non-reversible temperature indicator labels, adhered to
the inside of the clothes container, may be used to confirm that an
extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 [deg]F has been achieved
during the wash cycle, under the following conditions. The label
must remain waterproof, intact, and adhered to the wash drum
throughout an entire wash cycle; provide consistent maximum
temperature readings; and provide repeatable temperature indications
sufficient to demonstrate that a wash temperature of greater than
135 [deg]F has been achieved. The label must have been verified to
consistently indicate temperature measurements with an accuracy of
1 [deg]F if the label provides a temperature indicator
at 135 [deg]F. If the label does not provide a temperature indicator
at 135 [deg]F, the label must have been verified to consistently
indicate temperature measurements with an accuracy of 1
[deg]F if the next-highest temperature indicator is greater than 135
[deg]F and less than 140 [deg]F, or 3 [deg]F if the
next-highest temperature indicator is 140 [deg]F or greater. If the
label does not provide a temperature indicator at 135 [deg]F,
failure to activate the next-highest temperature indicator does not
necessarily indicate the lack of an extra-hot wash temperature.
However, such a result would not be conclusive due to the lack of
verification of the water temperature requirement, in which case an
alternative method must be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash
temperature greater than 135 [deg]F has been achieved during the
wash cycle. If using a temperature indicator label to test a front-
loading clothes washer, adhere the label along the interior surface
of the clothes container drum, midway between the front and the back
of the drum, adjacent to one of the baffles. If using a temperature
indicator label to test a top-loading clothes washer, adhere the
label along the interior surface of the clothes container drum, on
the vertical portion of the sidewall, as close to the bottom of the
container as possible.
2.5.4.2 Submersible temperature loggers placed inside the wash
drum may be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature
greater than 135 [deg]F has been achieved during the wash cycle,
under the following conditions. The submersible temperature logger
must have a time resolution of at least 1 data point every 5 seconds
and a temperature measurement accuracy of 1 [deg]F. Due
to the potential for a waterproof capsule to provide a thermal
insulating effect, failure to measure a temperature of 135 [deg]F
does not necessarily indicate the lack of an extra-hot wash
temperature. However, such a result would not be conclusive due to
the lack of verification of the water temperature requirement, in
which case an alternative method must be used to confirm that an
extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 [deg]F has been achieved
during the wash cycle.
2.5.5 Water meter. A water meter must be installed in both the
hot and cold water lines to measure water flow and/or water
consumption. The water meters must have a resolution no larger than
0.1 gallons (0.4 liters) and a maximum error no greater than 2
percent for the water flow rates being measured. If the volume of
hot water for any individual cycle within the energy test cycle is
less than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot water meter must have a
resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters).
* * * * *
2.7 Test cloths. The test cloth material and dimensions must
conform to the specifications in appendix J3 to this subpart.
[[Page 33397]]
The energy test cloth and the energy stuffer cloths must be clean
and must not be used for more than 60 test runs (after
preconditioning as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart). All energy test cloth must be permanently marked
identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed lots of material
must not be used for testing a clothes washer. The moisture
absorption and retention must be evaluated for each new lot of test
cloth using the standard extractor Remaining Moisture Content (RMC)
procedure specified in appendix J3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
2.12 Determining the energy test cycle. To determine the energy
test cycle, evaluate the wash/rinse temperature selection flowcharts
in the order in which they are presented in this section. Except for
Cold Wash/Cold Rinse, use the maximum load size to evaluate each
flowchart. The determination of the energy test cycle must take into
consideration all cycle settings available to the end user,
including any cycle selections or cycle modifications provided by
the manufacturer via software or firmware updates to the product,
for the basic model under test. The energy test cycle does not
include any cycle that is recommended by the manufacturer
exclusively for cleaning, deodorizing, or sanitizing the clothes
washer.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.009
[[Page 33398]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.010
[[Page 33399]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.011
[[Page 33400]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.012
[[Page 33401]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.013
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
3. Test Measurements
* * * * *
3.2.5 Wash time setting.
3.2.5.1 If the cycle under test offers a range of wash time
settings, the wash time setting shall be the higher of either the
minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available for the
wash cycle under test, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial
locations. If 70 percent of the maximum wash time is not available
on a dial with a discrete number of wash time settings, choose the
next-highest setting greater than 70 percent.
3.2.5.2 If the clothes washer is equipped with an
electromechanical dial or timer controlling wash time that rotates
in both directions, reset the dial to the minimum wash time and then
turn it in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the
appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting is passed, return
the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn in the direction of
increasing wash time until the appropriate setting is reached.
* * * * *
3.2.6 * * *
* * * * *
3.2.6.2.2 User-adjustable adaptive. Conduct four tests on
clothes washers with user-adjustable adaptive water fill controls.
Conduct the first test using the maximum test load and with the
adaptive water fill control system set in the setting that uses the
most water. Conduct the second test using the minimum test load and
with the adaptive water fill control system set in the setting that
uses the least water. Conduct the third test using the average test
load and with the adaptive water fill control system set in the
setting that uses the most water. Conduct the fourth test using the
average test load and with the adaptive water fill control system
set in the setting that uses the least water. Average the results of
the third and fourth tests to obtain the energy and water
consumption values for the average test load size.
* * * * *
3.2.7 Manufacturer default settings. For clothes washers with
electronic control systems, use the manufacturer default settings
for any cycle selections, except for (1) the temperature selection,
(2) the wash water fill levels, (3) if necessary, the spin speeds on
wash cycles used to determine remaining moisture content, or (4)
network settings. If the clothes washer has network capabilities,
the network settings must be disabled throughout testing if such
settings can be disabled by the end-user and the product's user
manual provides instructions on how to do so. For all other cycle
selections, the manufacturer default settings must be used for wash
conditions such as
[[Page 33402]]
agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin speed on wash cycles
used to determine energy and water consumption, wash times, rinse
times, optional rinse settings, water heating time for water heating
clothes washers, and all other wash parameters or optional features
applicable to that wash cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature or
setting (other than wash/rinse temperature, water fill level
selection, spin speed on wash cycles used to determine remaining
moisture content, or network settings on clothes washers with
network capabilities) that is activated by default on the wash cycle
under test must be included for testing unless the manufacturer
instructions recommend not selecting this option, or recommend
selecting a different option, for washing normally soiled cotton
clothing. For clothes washers with control panels containing
mechanical switches or dials, any optional settings, except for (1)
the temperature selection, (2) the wash water fill levels, or (3) if
necessary, the spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine
remaining moisture content, must be in the position recommended by
the manufacturer for washing normally soiled cotton clothing. If the
manufacturer instructions do not recommend a particular switch or
dial position to be used for washing normally soiled cotton
clothing, the setting switch or dial must remain in its as-shipped
position.
* * * * *
3.2.9 Anomalous Test Cycles. If during a wash cycle the clothes
washer: (a) Signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert
that an out-of-balance condition has been detected; or (b)
terminates prematurely and thus does not include the agitation/
tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times
applicable to the wash cycle under test, discard the test data and
repeat the wash cycle. Document in the test report the rejection of
data from any wash cycle during testing and the reason for the
rejection.
3.3 Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. Measure the water and electrical
energy consumption for each water fill level and test load size as
specified in sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.3 of this appendix for the
Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse as defined within the energy test cycle.
* * * * *
3.6 Warm Wash/Warm Rinse. Measure the water and electrical
energy consumption for each water fill level and/or test load size
as specified in sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3 of this appendix for
the applicable Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature selection(s), as
defined within the energy test cycle. For a clothes washer with
fewer than four discrete Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature
selections, test all Warm Wash/Warm Rinse selections. For a clothes
washer that offers four or more Warm Wash/Warm Rinse selections,
test at all discrete selections, or test at 25 percent, 50 percent,
and 75 percent positions of the temperature selection device between
the hottest hot (<= 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C)) wash and the coldest
cold wash. If a selection is not available at the 25, 50 or 75
percent position, in place of each such unavailable selection use
the next warmer setting. For each reportable value to be used for
the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature selection, calculate the
average of all Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature selections tested
pursuant to this section.
* * * * *
5. Test Loads
Table 5.1--Test Load Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Container volume Minimum load Maximum load Average load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cu. ft. liter
--------------------------------------------------------- lb kg lb kg lb kg
>= < >= <
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00-0.80......................... 0.00-22.7........... 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36
0.80-0.90......................... 22.7-25.5........... 3.00 1.36 3.50 1.59 3.25 1.47
0.90-1.00......................... 25.5-28.3........... 3.00 1.36 3.90 1.77 3.45 1.56
1.00-1.10......................... 28.3-31.1........... 3.00 1.36 4.30 1.95 3.65 1.66
1.10-1.20......................... 31.1-34.0........... 3.00 1.36 4.70 2.13 3.85 1.75
1.20-1.30......................... 34.0-36.8........... 3.00 1.36 5.10 2.31 4.05 1.84
1.30-1.40......................... 36.8-39.6........... 3.00 1.36 5.50 2.49 4.25 1.93
1.40-1.50......................... 39.6-42.5........... 3.00 1.36 5.90 2.68 4.45 2.02
1.50-1.60......................... 42.5-45.3........... 3.00 1.36 6.40 2.90 4.70 2.13
1.60-1.70......................... 45.3-48.1........... 3.00 1.36 6.80 3.08 4.90 2.22
1.70-1.80......................... 48.1-51.0........... 3.00 1.36 7.20 3.27 5.10 2.31
1.80-1.90......................... 51.0-53.8........... 3.00 1.36 7.60 3.45 5.30 2.40
1.90-2.00......................... 53.8-56.6........... 3.00 1.36 8.00 3.63 5.50 2.49
2.00-2.10......................... 56.6-59.5........... 3.00 1.36 8.40 3.81 5.70 2.59
2.10-2.20......................... 59.5-62.3........... 3.00 1.36 8.80 3.99 5.90 2.68
2.20-2.30......................... 62.3-65.1........... 3.00 1.36 9.20 4.17 6.10 2.77
2.30-2.40......................... 65.1-68.0........... 3.00 1.36 9.60 4.35 6.30 2.86
2.40-2.50......................... 68.0-70.8........... 3.00 1.36 10.00 4.54 6.50 2.95
2.50-2.60......................... 70.8-73.6........... 3.00 1.36 10.50 4.76 6.75 3.06
2.60-2.70......................... 73.6-76.5........... 3.00 1.36 10.90 4.94 6.95 3.15
2.70-2.80......................... 76.5-79.3........... 3.00 1.36 11.30 5.13 7.15 3.24
2.80-2.90......................... 79.3-82.1........... 3.00 1.36 11.70 5.31 7.35 3.33
2.90-3.00......................... 82.1-85.0........... 3.00 1.36 12.10 5.49 7.55 3.42
3.00-3.10......................... 85.0-87.8........... 3.00 1.36 12.50 5.67 7.75 3.52
3.10-3.20......................... 87.8-90.6........... 3.00 1.36 12.90 5.85 7.95 3.61
3.20-3.30......................... 90.6-93.4........... 3.00 1.36 13.30 6.03 8.15 3.70
3.30-3.40......................... 93.4-96.3........... 3.00 1.36 13.70 6.21 8.35 3.79
3.40-3.50......................... 96.3-99.1........... 3.00 1.36 14.10 6.40 8.55 3.88
3.50-3.60......................... 99.1-101.9.......... 3.00 1.36 14.60 6.62 8.80 3.99
3.60-3.70......................... 101.9-104.8......... 3.00 1.36 15.00 6.80 9.00 4.08
3.70-3.80......................... 104.8-107.6......... 3.00 1.36 15.40 6.99 9.20 4.17
3.80-3.90......................... 107.6-110.4......... 3.00 1.36 15.80 7.16 9.40 4.26
3.90-4.00......................... 110.4-113.3......... 3.00 1.36 16.20 7.34 9.60 4.35
4.00-4.10......................... 113.3-116.1......... 3.00 1.36 16.60 7.53 9.80 4.45
4.10-4.20......................... 116.1-118.9......... 3.00 1.36 17.00 7.72 10.00 4.54
4.20-4.30......................... 118.9-121.8......... 3.00 1.36 17.40 7.90 10.20 4.63
4.30-4.40......................... 121.8-124.6......... 3.00 1.36 17.80 8.09 10.40 4.72
4.40-4.50......................... 124.6-127.4......... 3.00 1.36 18.20 8.27 10.60 4.82
4.50-4.60......................... 127.4-130.3......... 3.00 1.36 18.70 8.46 10.85 4.91
4.60-4.70......................... 130.3-133.1......... 3.00 1.36 19.10 8.65 11.05 5.00
[[Page 33403]]
4.70-4.80......................... 133.1-135.9......... 3.00 1.36 19.50 8.83 11.25 5.10
4.80-4.90......................... 135.9-138.8......... 3.00 1.36 19.90 9.02 11.45 5.19
4.90-5.00......................... 138.8-141.6......... 3.00 1.36 20.30 9.20 11.65 5.28
5.00-5.10......................... 141.6-144.4......... 3.00 1.36 20.70 9.39 11.85 5.38
5.10-5.20......................... 144.4-147.2......... 3.00 1.36 21.10 9.58 12.05 5.47
5.20-5.30......................... 147.2-150.1......... 3.00 1.36 21.50 9.76 12.25 5.56
5.30-5.40......................... 150.1-152.9......... 3.00 1.36 21.90 9.95 12.45 5.65
5.40-5.50......................... 152.9-155.7......... 3.00 1.36 22.30 10.13 12.65 5.75
5.50-5.60......................... 155.7-158.6......... 3.00 1.36 22.80 10.32 12.90 5.84
5.60-5.70......................... 158.6-161.4......... 3.00 1.36 23.20 10.51 13.10 5.93
5.70-5.80......................... 161.4-164.2......... 3.00 1.36 23.60 10.69 13.30 6.03
5.80-5.90......................... 164.2-167.1......... 3.00 1.36 24.00 10.88 13.50 6.12
5.90-6.00......................... 167.1-169.9......... 3.00 1.36 24.40 11.06 13.70 6.21
6.00-6.10......................... 169.9-172.7......... 3.00 1.36 24.80 11.25 13.90 6.30
6.10-6.20......................... 172.7-175.6......... 3.00 1.36 25.20 11.43 14.10 6.40
6.20-6.30......................... 175.6-178.4......... 3.00 1.36 25.60 11.61 14.30 6.49
6.30-6.40......................... 178.4-181.2......... 3.00 1.36 26.00 11.79 14.50 6.58
6.40-6.50......................... 181.2-184.1......... 3.00 1.36 26.40 11.97 14.70 6.67
6.50-6.60......................... 184.1-186.9......... 3.00 1.36 26.90 12.20 14.95 6.78
6.60-6.70......................... 186.9-189.7......... 3.00 1.36 27.30 12.38 15.15 6.87
6.70-6.80......................... 189.7-192.6......... 3.00 1.36 27.70 12.56 15.35 6.96
6.80-6.90......................... 192.6-195.4......... 3.00 1.36 28.10 12.75 15.55 7.05
6.90-7.00......................... 195.4-198.2......... 3.00 1.36 28.50 12.93 15.75 7.14
7.00-7.10......................... 198.2-201.0......... 3.00 1.36 28.90 13.11 15.95 7.23
7.10-7.20......................... 201.0-203.9......... 3.00 1.36 29.30 13.29 16.15 7.33
7.20-7.30......................... 203.9-206.7......... 3.00 1.36 29.70 13.47 16.35 7.42
7.30-7.40......................... 206.7-209.5......... 3.00 1.36 30.10 13.65 16.55 7.51
7.40-7.50......................... 209.5-212.4......... 3.00 1.36 30.50 13.83 16.75 7.60
7.50-7.60......................... 212.4-215.2......... 3.00 1.36 31.00 14.06 17.00 7.71
7.60-7.70......................... 215.2-218.0......... 3.00 1.36 31.40 14.24 17.20 7.80
7.70-7.80......................... 218.0-220.9......... 3.00 1.36 31.80 14.42 17.40 7.89
7.80-7.90......................... 220.9-223.7......... 3.00 1.36 32.20 14.61 17.60 7.98
7.90-8.00......................... 223.7-226.5......... 3.00 1.36 32.60 14.79 17.80 8.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
11. Appendix J3 to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix J3 to Subpart B of Part 430--Energy Test Cloth Specifications
and Procedures for Determining Correction Coefficients of New Energy
Test Cloth Lots
Note: DOE maintains an historical record of the standard
extractor test data and final correction curve coefficients for each
approved lot of energy test cloth. These can be accessed through
DOE's web page for standards and test procedures for residential
clothes washers at DOE's Building Technologies Office Appliance and
Equipment Standards website.
1. Objective
This appendix includes the following: (1) Specifications for the
energy test cloth to be used for testing clothes washers; (2)
procedures for verifying that new lots of energy test cloth meet the
defined material specifications; and (3) procedures for developing a
set of correction coefficients that correlate the measured remaining
moisture content (RMC) values of each new test cloth lot with a set
of standard RMC values established as an historical reference point.
These correction coefficients are applied to the RMC measurements
performed during testing according to appendix J or appendix J2 to
this subpart, ensuring that the final corrected RMC measurement for
a clothes washer remains independent of the test cloth lot used for
testing.
2. Definitions
AHAM means the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
Bone-dry means a condition of a load of test cloth that has been
dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes,
removed and weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10
minute periods until the final weight change of the load is 1
percent or less.
Lot means a quantity of cloth that has been manufactured with
the same batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous
process.
Roll means a subset of a lot.
3. Energy Test Cloth Specifications
The energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths must meet the
following specifications:
3.1 The test cloth material should come from a roll of material
with a width of approximately 63 inches and approximately 500 yards
per roll. However, other sizes may be used if the test cloth
material meets the specifications listed in sections 3.2 through 3.6
of this appendix.
3.2 Nominal fabric type. Pure finished bleached cloth made with
a momie or granite weave, which is nominally 50 percent cotton and
50 percent polyester.
3.3 Fabric weight. 5.60 0.25 ounces per square yard
(190.0 8.4 g/m2).
3.4 Thread count. 65 x 57 per inch (warp x fill), 2
percent.
3.5 Fiber content of warp and filling yarn. 50 percent 4 percent cotton, with the balance being polyester, open end
spun, 15/1 5 percent cotton count blended yarn.
3.6 Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain
resistant finishes, must not be applied to the test cloth.
3.7. Test cloth dimensions.
3.7.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test cloth must be made from
energy test cloth material, as specified in section 3.1 of this
appendix, that is 24 \1/2\ inches by 36
\1/2\ inches (61.0 1.3 cm by 91.4 1.3 cm)
and has been hemmed to 22 \1/2\ inches by 34 \1/2\ inches (55.9 1.3 cm by 86.4
1.3 cm) before washing.
3.7.2 Energy stuffer cloth. The energy stuffer cloth must be
made from energy test cloth material, as specified in section 3.1 of
this appendix, that is 12 \1/4\ inches by 12 \1/4\ inches (30.5 0.6 cm by 30.5
0.6 cm) and has been hemmed to 10 \1/4\ inches by
[[Page 33404]]
10 \1/4\ inches (25.4 0.6 cm by 25.4
0.6 cm) before washing.
3.8 The test cloth must be clean and must not be used for more
than 60 test runs (after pre-conditioning as specified in section 5
of this appendix). All test cloth must be permanently marked
identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed lots of material
must not be used for testing a clothes washer according to appendix
J or appendix J2 to this subpart.
4. Equipment Specifications
4.1 Extractor. Use a North Star Engineered Products Inc.
(formerly Bock) Model 215 extractor (having a basket diameter of 20
inches, height of 11.5 inches, and volume of 2.09 ft\3\), with a
variable speed drive (North Star Engineered Products, P.O. Box 5127,
Toledo, OH 43611) or an equivalent extractor with same basket design
(i.e., diameter, height, volume, and hole configuration) and
variable speed drive. Table 4.1 of this appendix shows the extractor
spin speed, in revolutions per minute (RPM), that must be used to
attain each required g-force level.
Table 4.1--Extractor Spin Speeds for Each Test Condition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``g Force'' RPM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100..................................................... 594 1
200..................................................... 840 1
350..................................................... 1,111 1
500..................................................... 1,328 1
650..................................................... 1,514 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Bone-dryer. The dryer used for drying the cloth to bone-dry
must heat the test cloth and energy stuffer cloths above 210 [deg]F
(99 [deg]C).
5. Test Cloth Pre-Conditioning Instructions
Use the following instructions for performing pre-conditioning
of new energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths as specified
throughout section 7 and section 8 of this appendix, and before any
clothes washer testing using appendix J or appendix J2 to this
subpart: Perform five complete wash-rinse-spin cycles, the first two
with current AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3 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 27.0 grams + 4.0 grams per pound of
cloth load of AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3. 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). Dry the load to bone-dry between each of
the five wash-rinse-spin cycles. The maximum shrinkage after
preconditioning must not be more than 5 percent of the length and
width. Measure per AATCC Test Method 135-2010 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 430.3).
6. Extractor Run Instructions
Use the following instructions for performing each of the
extractor runs specified throughout section 7 and section 8 of this
appendix:
6.1 Test load size. Use a test load size of 8.4 lbs.
6.2 Measure the average RMC for each sample loads as follows:
6.2.1 Dry the test cloth until it is bone-dry according to the
definition in section 2 of this appendix. Record the bone-dry weight
of the test load (WI).
6.2.2 Prepare the test load for soak by grouping four test
cloths into loose bundles. Create the bundles by hanging four cloths
vertically from one corner and loosely wrapping the test cloth onto
itself to form the bundle. Bundles should be wrapped loosely to
ensure consistency of water extraction. Then place the bundles into
the water to soak. Eight to nine bundles will be formed depending on
the test load. The ninth bundle may not equal four cloths but can
incorporate energy stuffer cloths to help offset the size
difference.
6.2.3 Soak the test load for 20 minutes in 10 gallons of soft
(<17 ppm) water. The entire test load must be submerged. Maintain a
water temperature of 100 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C
2.8 [deg]C) at all times between the start and end of
the soak.
6.2.4 Remove the test load and allow each of the test cloth
bundles to drain over the water bath for a maximum of 5 seconds.
6.2.5 Manually place the test cloth bundles in the basket of the
extractor, distributing them evenly by eye. The draining and loading
process must take no longer than 1 minute. Spin the load at a fixed
speed corresponding to the intended centripetal acceleration level
(measured in units of the acceleration of gravity, g)
1g for the intended time period 5 seconds. Begin the
timer when the extractor meets the required spin speed for each
test.
6.2.6 Record the weight of the test load immediately after the
completion of the extractor spin cycle (WC).
6.2.7 Calculate the remaining moisture content of the test load
as (WC-WI)/WI.
6.2.8 Draining the soak tub is not necessary if the water bath
is corrected for water level and temperature before the next
extraction.
6.2.9 Drying the test load in between extraction runs is not
necessary. However, the bone-dry weight must be checked after every
12 extraction runs to make sure the bone-dry weight is within
tolerance (8.4 0.1 lbs). Following this, the test load
must be soaked and extracted once before continuing with the
remaining extraction runs. Perform this extraction at the same spin
speed used for the extraction run prior to checking the bone-dry
weight, for a time period of 4 minutes. Either warm or cold soak
temperature may be used.
7. Test Cloth Material Verification Procedure
7.1 Material Properties Verification. The test cloth
manufacturer must supply a certificate of conformance to ensure that
the energy test cloth and stuffer cloth samples used for
prequalification testing meet the specifications in section 3 of
this appendix. The material properties of one energy test cloth from
each of the first, middle, and last rolls must be evaluated as
follows, prior to pre-conditioning:
7.1.1 Dimensions. Each hemmed energy test cloth must meet the
size specifications in section 3.7.1 of this appendix. Each hemmed
stuffer cloth must meet the size specifications in section 3.7.2 of
this appendix.
7.1.2 Oil repellency. Perform AATCC Test Method 118-2007, Oil
Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test, (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 430.3), to confirm the absence of ScotchguardTM
or other water-repellent finish. An Oil Repellency Grade of 0 (Fails
Kaydol) is required.
7.1.3 Absorbency. Perform AATCC Test Method 79-2010, Absorbency
of Textiles, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3), to
confirm the absence of ScotchguardTM or other water-
repellent finish. The time to absorb one drop must be on the order
of 1 second.
7.2 Uniformity Verification. The uniformity of each test cloth
lot must be evaluated as follows.
7.2.1 Pre-conditioning. Pre-condition the energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths used for uniformity verification, as specified
in section 5 of this appendix.
7.2.2 Distribution of samples. Test loads must be comprised of
cloth from three different rolls from the sample lot. Each roll from
a lot must be marked in the run order that it was made. The three
rolls are selected based on the run order such that the first,
middle, and last rolls are used. As the rolls are cut into cloth,
fabric must be selected from the beginning, middle, and end of the
roll to create separate loads from each location, for a total of
nine sample loads according to Table 7.2.2.
Table 7.2.2--Distribution of Sample Loads for Prequalification Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll No. Roll location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First.................................. Beginning.
Middle.
End.
Middle................................. Beginning.
Middle.
End.
Last................................... Beginning.
Middle.
End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.2.3 Measure the remaining moisture content of each of the nine
sample test loads, as specified in section 6 of this appendix, using
a centripetal acceleration of 350g (corresponding to 1111 1 RPM) and a spin duration of 15 minutes 5
seconds.
7.2.4 Repeat section 7.2.3 of this appendix an additional two
times and calculate the arithmetic average of the three RMC values
to determine the average RMC value for each sample load. It is not
necessary to dry the load to bone-dry the load before the second and
third replications.
7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) of the nine
average RMC values from each sample load. The CV must be less than
or equal to 1 percent for the test cloth lot to be considered
acceptable and to perform the standard extractor RMC testing.
8. RMC Correction Curve Procedure
8.1 Pre-conditioning. Pre-condition the energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths
[[Page 33405]]
used for RMC correction curve measurements, as specified in section
5 of this appendix.
8.2 Distribution of samples. Test loads must be comprised of
randomly selected cloth at the beginning, middle and end of a lot.
Two test loads may be used, with each load used for half of the
total number of required tests. Separate test loads must be used
from the loads used for uniformity verification.
8.3 Measure the remaining moisture content of the test load, as
specified in section 6 of this appendix at five g-force levels: 100
g, 200 g, 350 g, 500 g, and 650 g, using two different spin times at
each g level: 4 minutes and 15 minutes. Table 4.1 of this appendix
provides the corresponding spin speeds for each g-force level.
8.4 Repeat section 8.3 of this appendix using soft (<17 ppm)
water at 60 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C
2.8 [deg]C).
8.5 Repeat sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 of this appendix an
additional two times, so that three replications at each extractor
condition are performed. When this procedure is performed in its
entirety, a total of 60 extractor RMC test runs are required.
8.6 Average the values of the 3 replications performed for each
extractor condition specified in section 8.3 of this appendix.
8.7 Perform a linear least-squares fit to determine coefficients
A and B such that the standard RMC values shown in Table 8.7 of this
appendix (RMCstandard) are linearly related to the
average RMC values calculated in section 8.6 of this appendix
(RMCcloth):
RMCstandard ~ A x RMCcloth + B
where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.
Table 8.7--Standard RMC Values
[RMCstandard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMC percentage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``g Force'' Warm soak Cold soak
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 min. spin (percent) 4 min. spin (percent) 15 min. spin (percent) 15 min. spin (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
650................................................. 23.0 26.4 24.1 28.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.8 Perform an analysis of variance with replication test using
two factors, spin speed and lot, to check the interaction of speed
and lot. Use the values from section 8.6 of this appendix and Table
8.7 of this appendix in the calculation. The ``P'' value of the F-
statistic for interaction between spin speed and lot in the variance
analysis must 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 measure of interaction based on an analysis of
variance.
9. Application of the RMC Correction Curve
9.1 Using the coefficients A and B calculated in section 8.7 of
this appendix:
RMCcorr = A x RMC + B
9.2 Apply this RMC correction curve to measured RMC values in
appendix J and appendix J2 to this subpart.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
12. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
13. Section 431.152 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.152 Definitions concerning commercial clothes washers.
AEER means active-mode energy efficiency ratio, in pounds per
kilowatt-hour per cycle (lbs/kWh/cycle), as determined in section 4.8
of appendix J to subpart B of part 430 (when using appendix J).
Basic model means all units of a given type of covered product (or
class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same
primary energy source, and which have essentially identical electrical,
physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect
energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water
efficiency.
Commercial clothes washer means a soft-mounted front-loading or
soft-mounted top-loading clothes washer that--
(1) Has a clothes container compartment that--
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic
feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic
feet; and
(2) Is designed for use in--
(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one household
will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common
areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.
IWF means integrated water factor, in gallons per cubic feet per
cycle (gal/cu ft/cycle), as determined in section 4.2.12 of appendix J2
to subpart B of part 430 (when using appendix J2).
MEFJ2 means modified energy factor, in cu ft/kWh/cycle, as
determined in section 4.5 of appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 (when
using appendix J2).
WER means water efficiency ratio, in pounds per gallon per cycle
(lbs/gal/cycle), as determined in section 4.7 of appendix J to subpart
B of part 430 (when using appendix J).
0
14. Section 431.154 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.154 Test procedures.
The test procedures for clothes washers in appendix J2 to subpart B
of part 430 must be used to determine compliance with the energy
conservation standards at Sec. 431.156(b).
[FR Doc. 2022-10715 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P