[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5519-5538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00986]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009]
RIN 1904-AF68
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers and Consumer Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is
amending the test procedures for residential and commercial clothes
washers and consumer clothes dryers to update the test cloth
specifications. DOE is also reorganizing the test procedures for
improved readability. DOE is conducting this rulemaking to address
specific issues and to make minor corrections to the current test
procedures. This rulemaking does not satisfy the statutory requirement
that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review the test procedures for
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is February 18, 2025. The
amendments will be mandatory for product testing starting July 16,
2025. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 1,
2022.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009. The docket web page contains instructions
on how
[[Page 5520]]
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:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, 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) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Uchechukwu ``Emeka'' Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Process Rule
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Relevant Historical Background
C. Test Cloth Specifications and Requirements
1. Cut Orientation
2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count
3. Granite Weave
4. Alternate Test Cloth
5. Uniformity Criteria
6. Variance P-Value Threshold and Root-Mean-Square Error
D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring Edits
1. Introductory Paragraph
2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions
3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and Clothes Dryer Test Procedures
4. Restructuring Appendix J3
E. Test Procedure Costs
F. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
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
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Consumer (residential) clothes washers (``RCWs''), commercial
clothes washers (``CCWs''), and consumer clothes dryers are included in
the list of ``covered products/equipment'' for which DOE is authorized
to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)-(8); 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) DOE's test
procedures for RCWs are currently prescribed in the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') at 10 CFR 430.23(j) and at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendices J (``appendix J'') and J2 (``appendix J2''). The
test procedures for CCWs must be the same as those established for
RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) DOE's test procedures for consumer clothes
dryers are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23(d) and at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendices D1 (``appendix D1'') and D2 (``appendix
D2''). DOE also prescribes specifications for the test cloth to be used
for testing clothes washers at appendix J3 to subpart B (``appendix
J3''). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and
amend test procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers and
relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test
procedures for these products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\
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 and consumer
clothes dryers. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)-(8)) Title III, Part C of
EPCA,\3\ added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. This equipment includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H))
RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers 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/equipment 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/equipment (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(a)).
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/equipment. 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 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)).
[[Page 5521]]
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product and equipment,
including RCWs, CCWs and consumer clothes dryers, 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); 6314(a)(1)).
If the Secretary determines, on his or 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)).\4\ If
DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE
must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For commercial equipment, if the Secretary determines that a
test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish
proposed test procedures in the Federal Register, and afford
interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days'
duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on
the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)(i)-(ii)) \5\ 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 \6\ and
IEC Standard 62087 \7\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPCA does not contain an analogous provision for commercial
equipment.
\6\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\7\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 to address specific issues and to
make minor corrections to the current test procedures that are required
for certification of compliance with applicable energy conservation
standards. As DOE has not conducted a comprehensive review of the
current test procedures, this rulemaking does not satisfy the EPCA
requirement that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review the test
procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A); 6314(a)(1)(A)).
B. Background
As discussed, DOE's existing test procedures for clothes washers
are prescribed at appendix J and appendix J2,\8\ and DOE's existing
test procedures for consumer clothes dryers are prescribed at appendix
D1 and appendix D2.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix
J2 to determine compliance with the current relevant standards for
RCWs at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1) and for CCWs at 10 CFR 431.156(b).
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix J to
determine compliance with the relevant standards for RCWs
manufactured on or after March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR
430.32(g)(2) and with any amended standards for CCWs provided in 10
CFR 431.156 that are published after January 1, 2022.
\9\ The test procedures in appendix D1 or appendix D2 must be
used to determine compliance with the current relevant standards for
consumer clothes dryers at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must
use the test procedure in appendix D2 to determine compliance with
the relevant standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on
or after March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE's existing test procedure at appendix J3 provides
specifications for the test cloth to be used for testing clothes
washers; procedures for pre-conditioning new test cloth; procedures for
verifying that new lots \10\ of test cloth meet the defined material
specifications; and 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 a historical reference point. These correction
coefficients are applied to the RMC measurements performed during
testing according to appendix J or appendix J2, ensuring consistency in
the final corrected RMC measurement across different test cloth lots
used for testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The term ``lot'' refers to a quantity of cloth that has
been manufactured with the same batches of cotton and polyester
during one continuous process. Section 2 of appendix J3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the test cloth specifications and qualification procedures
in appendix J3 are nominally applicable to clothes washer testing, DOE
understands that manufacturers and test laboratories use the same test
cloth for testing clothes dryers as well. As discussed further in
section III.B of this document, the test cloth specifications for
clothes washer testing and clothes dryer testing have historically been
aligned. Furthermore, as discussed further in section III.D.3 of this
document, test cloth that satisfies the requirements of appendix J3 for
clothes washer testing also satisfies the requirements codified in
appendices D1 and D2 for clothes dryer testing.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') has
established a Test Cloth Task Force (``AHAM task force'') that, among
other responsibilities, reviews and recommends new lots of test cloth
for industry use; identifies and secures suppliers for manufacturing
test cloth; conducts research and investigations to recommend
continuous improvements to the test cloth specifications and
qualification procedures; and addresses any industry-wide concerns that
may arise regarding the test cloth. DOE representatives participate in
the AHAM task force.
On May 31, 2024, DOE received a letter from AHAM (``May 2024 AHAM
Letter'') urging DOE to allow the use of alternate test cloth material
for clothes washer and clothes dryer testing.\11\ The May 2024 AHAM
Letter also made further requests for DOE to amend certain test cloth
specifications based on
[[Page 5522]]
the results of recent investigations by the AHAM task force. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Document available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') on
November 5, 2024 (``November 2024 NOPR''), presenting DOE's proposals
to amend the test procedures for residential and commercial clothes
washers and consumer clothes dryers to update the test cloth
specifications. 89 FR 87803.
DOE received comments in response to the November 2024 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table I.1.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Table I.1 excludes one comment not applicable to this
rulemaking.
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the November 2024 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final Comment No. in
Commenter(s) rule the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ravnitzky....................... Ravnitzky................. 5 Individual.
Anonymous............................... Anonymous................. 6 Individual.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 8 Advocacy Organization.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM...................... 10 Trade Organization.
Manufacturers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ravnitzky, NEEA, and AHAM submitted comments generally supportive
of DOE's proposals in the November 2024 NOPR. (Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p.
1; NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 1-2; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 1) An anonymous commenter
expressed support for test cloth specifications in order to achieve
results that identify the most efficient clothes washers. (Anonymous,
No 6 at p. 1) Comments from these stakeholders regarding specific
topics addressed in the November 2024 NOPR are discussed in the
relevant sections of this document.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for insert product. (Docket No. EERE-2024-BT-TP-
0009, which is maintained at: www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number
at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Process Rule
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE noted in the November 2024 NOPR that
it was deviating from section 8(b)(2) of the Process Rule, which states
that there will be not less than 60 days for public comment on the
NOPR, with at least one public hearing or workshop. As stated in the
November 2024 NOPR, DOE found it appropriate to forgo a public hearing
given the limited scope of issues addressed in the proposal, but also
stated that DOE would hold a public meeting on the November 2024 NOPR
if one was requested. DOE did not receive any comments requesting a
public meeting. DOE also determined in the November 2024 NOPR that 30
days was an appropriate period for providing comments, given the
limited scope of issues addressed in the proposal. 89 FR 87803, 87806.
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends its test cloth specifications as
follows:
(1) Specify that fabric weight and thread count must be measured on
finished goods prior to pre-conditioning,
(2) Clarify that the test cloth be made with a ``granite,''
``momie,'' or ``crepe'' weave,
(3) Allow the use of an alternate test cloth,
(4) Amend the statistical criteria for a new test cloth lot to be
considered acceptable for use,
(5) Restructure and renumber certain sections of appendix J3 for
clarity, and
(6) Harmonize the test cloth specifications for clothes washers and
clothes dryers.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
test procedure provisions prior to the amendments, as well as the
reason for the adopted changes.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE test procedure prior to Amended test
amendment procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not specify at which stage Specifies that Industry request;
of the process the fabric fabric weight and improve
weight and thread count of test thread count must reproducibility
cloth are applicable. be measured on of test results.
finished goods
prior to pre-
conditioning.
Specifies the use of ``granite Specifies the use Industry request;
or momie'' weave. of ``granite, clarification of
momie, or crepe'' existing
weave. requirement.
Specifies one type of allowable Specifies two Industry request;
test cloth. types of reduce test
allowable test burden while
cloth. maintaining
reproducibility
and
representativenes
s.
Specifies that the coefficient Specifies that the Reduce test burden
of variation across nine RMC coefficient of while maintaining
values must be less than or variation across reproducibility
equal to 1 percent. nine RMC values and
must be less than representativenes
or equal to 1.5 s.
percent.
Specifies that the P-value of Specifies that the Reduce test burden
the RMC correction curve must root-mean-square while maintaining
be greater than or equal to 0.1. error of the RMC reproducibility
correction curve and
must be less than representativenes
or equal to 0.012. s.
Appendix J3 test cloth Harmonizes test Industry request;
specifications currently apply cloth clarify existing
only to clothes washers. requirements requirements
across both consistent with
clothes washers industry
and clothes practice.
dryers and
extends
applicability of
appendix J3 test
cloth
specifications to
both clothes
washers and
clothes dryers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5523]]
DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III and
adopted in this document will not alter the measured efficiency of
RCWs, CCWs, or consumer clothes dryers, or require retesting or
recertification solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments
to the test procedures. Additionally, DOE has determined that the
amendments will not increase the cost of testing. Discussion of DOE's
actions are addressed in detail in section III of this document.
The effective date for the amended test procedures 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 test procedures
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE discusses certain amendments to its
test procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. For each
amendment, DOE provides relevant background information, explains why
the amendment merits consideration, discusses relevant public comments,
and its final approach.
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to clothes washers (both RCWs and CCWs,
which use the same test procedures) \14\ and consumer clothes dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The test procedures for CCWs must be the same as those
established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\15\ semi-automatic
clothes washers,\16\ and other clothes washers.\17\ 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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. 10 CFR
430.2
\16\ 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.
\17\ ``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer
that is not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE regulations also define ``electric clothes dryer'' and ``gas
clothes dryer'' similarly as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry
fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation, with
blower(s) driven by an electric motor(s) and either electricity or gas,
respectively, as the heat source. See, 10 CFR 430.2. DOE's clothes
dryer test procedures are applicable to both electric and gas clothes
dryers.
A 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 the RCW, CCW, or consumer clothes
dryer test procedures, or the relevant definitions, in this final rule.
B. Relevant Historical Background
This section summarizes the historical background of test cloth
specifications in DOE's clothes washer and clothes dryer test
procedures that is relevant to topics discussed in this final rule.
DOE first introduced the use of test cloth into the original
clothes dryer test procedure established by the final rule published
September 14, 1977 (``September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final Rule''). 42 FR
46145. The test cloth specifications were a 50-percent cotton and 50-
percent polyester blended material, representative of the range of
fabrics comprising consumer wash loads. Id. at 42 FR 46146. The
September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final Rule also established a maximum use
of 25 clothes dryer test cycles for each piece of test cloth to reduce
potential variability in the test results that may occur from any
change in the composition of the test cloth due to continued drying of
the same test cloth. Id.
DOE introduced the use of test cloth into the original clothes
washer test procedure established by the final rule published September
28, 1977 (``September 1977 Clothes Washer Final Rule''). 42 FR 49802.
As discussed in the September 1977 Clothes Washer Final Rule, the size
and composition of the test load was chosen to be identical to the test
load that had been specified for clothes dryers in the September 1977
Clothes Dryer Final Rule. Id. at 49 FR 49805. The number of test runs
for each piece of test cloth was limited to no more than 25 clothes
washer test cycles. Id. at 49 FR 49808.
Since introducing the use of test cloth into the originally
established clothes dryer and clothes washer test procedures, DOE has
periodically updated the test cloth specifications and requirements.
The following paragraphs summarize some of these changes to test cloth
specifications and requirements that are relevant to the amendments in
this document.
In a final rule published May 19, 1981 (``May 1981 Final Rule''),
DOE amended the clothes dryer test procedure to, among other changes,
establish test cloth pre-conditioning requirements to improve test
repeatability by ensuring that the test cloth not contain any water-
soluble sizing or finishing agents that could affect the moisture
performance of test cloth. 46 FR 27324. The May 1981 Final Rule also
established a weight tolerance on the test cloth. Id.
In a final rule published August 27, 1997, DOE amended its test
cloth requirements in the clothes washer test procedure by adding a new
requirement to prewash (i.e., pre-condition) new test cloth prior to
first use for energy consumption testing. 62 FR 45484.
DOE published a final rule on January 12, 2001 (``January 2001
Final Rule'') that, among other changes to the clothes washer test
procedure, introduced the modified energy factor descriptor, which
incorporated an estimate of clothes drying energy into the clothes
washer efficiency descriptor through consideration of the RMC of the
clothes leaving the clothes washer. 66 FR 3314. As discussed in the
January 2001 Final Rule, it had been discovered that the test cloth to
be used for determining the RMC was giving inconsistent results. Id. at
66 FR 3317. DOE investigated possible causes for the inconsistent test
results and summarized the results in a report published in May 2000
titled Development of a Standardized Energy Test Cloth for Measuring
Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes Washer (``May 2000
Test Cloth Report'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The May 2000 Test Cloth Report is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0064-0277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, relevant to topics discussed in this final rule, the
May 2000 Test Cloth Report documented the difficulty of relating
specifiable test
[[Page 5524]]
cloth characteristics--fiber content, weight, etc.--to RMC
measurements. (See section 4 of May 2000 Test Cloth Report). On this
basis, DOE concluded that tighter test cloth specifications alone would
not necessarily lead to comparably consistent RMC measurements. To
provide more consistent RMC measurements from lot to lot, the May 2000
Test Cloth Report proposed a new method for developing a ``correction
factor'' for each new lot of test cloth. The correction factor would be
applied to the RMC measurement to normalize the RMC results to match
the RMC performance of a designated ``standard lot.''
The May 2000 Test Cloth Report also concluded that a viable
approach to minimize the effects of test cloth variation on RMC would
be to consistently specify a single type of fabric that is produced
frequently by one mill to a consistent set of specifications. The
report recommended the use of a 50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester
momie weave fabric from one particular mill as a suitable choice,
noting that this cloth (at the time) was produced in high volume, had
been produced to a consistent specification for many years, and was
likely to continue to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable
future. (See section 6 of May 2000 Test Cloth Report).
The May 2000 Test Cloth Report recommended a set of test cloth
specifications and an RMC correction factor approach that could be
adopted into the DOE test procedure. The January 2001 Final Rule
incorporated into the clothes washer test procedures many of the
recommendations of the May 2000 Test Cloth Report, including the
recommended updates to the test cloth specifications and the RMC
correction factor procedure. The January 2001 Final Rule also increased
the number of allowable test runs for each piece of test cloth to no
more than 60 clothes washer test cycles (from 25 previously). 66 FR
3314, 3320.
DOE published a direct final rule on October 31, 2003 (``October
2003 Final Rule'') that, among other changes to the clothes washer test
procedure, added as a testing requirement the use of a statistical
analysis approach to qualify any interactive effect between different
lots of test cloth and spin speeds to further improve consistency of
the RMC measurement. 68 FR 62198.
On March 7, 2012, DOE published a final rule (``March 2012 Final
Rule'') that, among other changes, updated certain test cloth
specifications for clothes washer testing based on recommendations
provided by AHAM. 77 FR 13888, 13920-13921. Specifically, the March
2012 Final Rule adopted definitions for cloth ``lot'' and ``roll'' and
established test cloth weight tolerances. Id. at 77 FR 13921-13922. The
March 2012 Final Rule also updated pre-conditioning wash requirements
and incorporated American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
(``AATCC'') test methods for verifying the absence of water-repellent
finishes on the test cloth. Id. at 77 FR 13922.
In a final rule published on August 5, 2015 (``August 2015 Final
Rule''), DOE moved the standard extractor RMC procedure for developing
the correction factors for each new test cloth lot from appendix J2 to
the newly created appendix J3. 80 FR 46730.
In a final rule published on June 1, 2022 (``June 2022 Final
Rule''), among other changes, DOE further consolidated clothes washer
test cloth-related provisions into appendix J3 (from appendix J2) to
improve the overall logical flow of both test procedures. Id. at 87 FR
33367. DOE additionally codified in appendix J3 a test cloth material
verification procedure that had historically been used by the AHAM task
force when evaluating new lots of test cloth. Id. at 87 FR 33368.
C. Test Cloth Specifications and Requirements
In this final rule, DOE is updating its test cloth specifications
and requirements to (1) further improve consistency in test results
across different lots of test cloth, (2) clarify certain requirements
consistent with textile industry nomenclature, (3) allow the use of an
alternate type of test cloth that has been shown to exhibit performance
consistent with the current test cloth, and (4) re-define appropriate
thresholds for certain statistical requirements specified for new lots
of test cloth.
Each of the changes are in line with DOE's historical practice of
regularly updating its test cloth specifications to improve the
consistency of test results and adapt to changes in material
specifications and availability of commercially available textiles.
In this section, DOE addresses clothes washer specifications in
appendix J3 specifically. As discussed in section III.C.3 of this
document, DOE is harmonizing the clothes washer and clothes dryer test
cloth specifications such that the edits in this section apply to both
product types.
1. Cut Orientation
Section 3.1 of appendix J3 specifies that the test cloth material
should come from a roll of material with a width of approximately 63
inches, although other sizes may be used if the test cloth material
meets the specifications listed in sections 3.2 through 3.6 of appendix
J3. Section 3.7.1 of appendix J3 specifies the dimensions of the
individual energy test cloths--nominally 24 inches by 36 inches prior
to hemming.\19\ Furthermore, section 5 of appendix J3 specifies that
the maximum shrinkage requirements for the energy test cloth after pre-
conditioning \20\ must not be more than 5 percent of the length and
width.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Section 3.7.2 of appendix J3 specifies dimensions of
smaller energy ``stuffer'' cloths, which are nominally 12 inches by
12 inches prior to hemming. Since the energy stuffer cloths are
square, the consideration of cut orientation in this section of the
document pertains only to the rectangular energy test cloths.
\20\ The pre-conditioning process is specified in section 5 of
appendix J3 and consists of five wash-rinse-spin cycles, with the
load bone-dried between each of the five cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix J3 does not specify the orientation of the rectangular
dimensions (i.e., lengthwise versus widthwise) for cutting individual
energy test cloths from the roll of fabric. As such, the cut
orientation of the rectangular energy test cloths can be optimized to
minimize wasted fabric (e.g., a lengthwise cut of 36 inches adjacent to
a widthwise cut of 24 inches could be patterned on a 63-inch width roll
of material with minimal waste).
The May 2024 AHAM Letter recommended that appendix J3 specify that
the energy test cloth be cut in a specific orientation relative to the
fabric roll. Specifically, the May 2024 AHAM Letter suggested that the
24-inch dimension be cut from the lengthwise (i.e., ``warp'') direction
of the roll and the 36-inch dimension be cut from the widthwise (i.e.,
``weft'') direction of the roll, as depicted in Figure III.1.
[[Page 5525]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA25.090
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE discussed that differences in cut
orientation can impact the relative shrinking of cloth in each
direction after repeated wash and dry cycles, which could potentially
affect its water absorption and retention properties--characteristics
that are particularly relevant to the RMC measurement.\21\ 89 FR 87803,
87809. The May 2024 AHAM Letter did not, however, provide any data or
quantitative evaluation of whether, or to what extent, the direction of
cut orientation could affect the shrinkage of the energy test cloth, or
the RMC measurement in the clothes washer test procedure. In the
November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that even if the cut orientation could
impact the relative shrinkage of the length and width of the energy
test cloth, section 5 of appendix J3 already specifies a maximum
allowable shrinkage of 5 percent in each direction. Id. DOE added that
it had no information to suggest that any variation in shrinkage within
this 5 percent tolerance would have a substantive impact on the
resulting RMC measurement in the clothes washer test procedure. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As discussed, RMC is a measure of the remaining water
content of the clothes washer load at the end of the wash cycle and
is used to incorporate an estimate of clothes drying energy into the
clothes washer efficiency descriptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE further raised concerns about
potential unintended consequences of requiring a specific cut
orientation for each energy test cloth. Id. DOE noted that depending on
the width of the fabric roll, specifying a cut orientation as suggested
in the May 2024 AHAM Letter could prevent the optimization of cut
patterns as described previously (i.e., a 36-inch lengthwise cut
adjacent to a 24-inch widthwise cut on a 63-inch width roll of
material), resulting in increased fabric waste and a corresponding
increase in material cost. Id. For instance, a 63-inch-wide roll as
specified by section 3.1 of appendix J3 would be able to accommodate
only a single 36-inch wide cut as suggested by AHAM, resulting in
nearly 40 percent of the roll material being wasted. And although
section 3.1 of appendix J3 permits the use of other size rolls, DOE
noted that textiles are typically woven in standardized widths and
expressed concern that fabricating rolls with a custom width for DOE
test cloth could increase the material cost. Id.
In summary, in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE expressed uncertainty as
to whether, or to what extent, the energy test cloth cut orientation
could impact the RMC measurement in the clothes washer test procedure,
and whether specifying a particular cut orientation could result in
fabric waste that would lead to an increase in material cost. Id.
Irrespective of its determination regarding the specification of a
cut orientation requirement, in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively
determined that section 3.1 of appendix J3 is superfluous,\22\ given
that the suggested parameters regarding the width and length dimensions
of the roll (i.e., a roll width of approximately 63 inches and
approximately 500 yards per roll) are rendered moot by the accompanying
provision allowing for rolls of other sizes to be used. Id. at 89 FR
87810. As such, in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed removing
section 3.1 of appendix J3 and renumbering the subsequent sections
accordingly. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Section 3.1 of appendix J3 specifies that 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 appendix
J3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the roll
dimensions and cut orientations that are currently used to fabricate
DOE test cloth. Id. DOE also requested comment as to whether, or to
what extent, the energy test cloth cut orientation could impact the RMC
measurement in the clothes washer test procedure. Id.
[[Page 5526]]
DOE further requested comment on its concern that establishing a
cut orientation requirement could lead to fabric waste, depending on
the dimensions of the fabric roll. Id. DOE also requested comment on
its tentative determination not to specify a cut orientation
requirement, and whether it should adopt the cut orientation
requirement specified by AHAM or any other cut orientation requirement.
Id. DOE requested comment on its tentative determination that section
3.1 of appendix J3 is superfluous and its proposal to remove the
requirements in section 3.1 of appendix J3. Id.
AHAM commented that it specifically supports the roll dimension and
cut orientation amendments to appendix J3 proposed in the November 2024
NOPR. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 1)
Ravnitzky commented that allowing flexibility in test cloth
specifications, such as adjustments in cut orientations and fabric
dimensions, would help reduce fabric waste and lower material costs
without compromising test integrity. Ravnitzky added that this
practical approach would benefit both the industry and sustainability
efforts. (Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 1)
For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November
2024 NOPR, to not specify a cut orientation requirement and to remove
the requirements in section 3.1 of appendix J3.
2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count
Section 3.3 of appendix J3 specifies that the fabric weight of the
test cloth must be 5.60 0.25 ounces per square yard, but
it does not currently specify at what point in the fabrication process
this specification applies. Similarly, section 3.4 of appendix J3
specifies that the thread count of the test cloth must be 65 x 57
threads per inch 2 percent, but it does not currently
specify at what point in the fabrication process this specification
applies. The May 2024 AHAM Letter requested that DOE amend these
specifications to clarify that fabric weight and thread count
specifications apply to ``finished goods'' test cloth prior to pre-
conditioning. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted the term ``finished
goods'' means after the cloth has been hemmed into energy test cloth
and energy stuffer cloths, but prior to any pre-conditioning. 89 FR
87803, 87810.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE further noted that specifying that
these requirements apply to finished goods (as opposed to prior to the
cloth having been processed, de-starched, and hemmed), but prior to any
pre-conditioning, is the most appropriate point in the cloth
fabrication process because these dimensional properties can change
during certain stages of the cloth fabrication process. Id. In the
November 2024 NOPR, DOE stated that applying these specifications to
finished goods therefore ensures the consistency of each test cloth lot
at the state in which the test cloth is purchased by a manufacturer or
test laboratory. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify within section 3
of appendix J3 that fabric weight and thread count specifications apply
to finished goods prior to pre-conditioning, and requested feedback on
this proposal. Id.
NEEA commented that it supports specifying a point in the
manufacturing and preconditioning process at which the fabric weight
and thread count are measured. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2)
For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November
2024 NOPR, to specify in section 3 of appendix J3 that fabric weight
and thread count specifications apply to finished goods prior to pre-
conditioning.
3. Granite Weave
Section 3.2 of appendix J3 currently states that the test cloth
used for clothes washer testing must be a pure finished bleached cloth,
made with a momie or granite weave. As discussed in the May 2024 AHAM
Letter, recent lots 25A and 25B \23\ were woven with a different type
of granite weave--a ``crepe'' weave--than the ``momie'' type of granite
weave that has historically been used for DOE test cloth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The AHAM task force designated the two most recent lots of
test cloth ``25A'' and ``25B'' to reflect that these two lots were
manufactured at the same time using the same continuous weaving
process, although they were finished in separate batch processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate whether using a crepe weave would impact test results
compared to the historical momie weave, DOE conducted comparative
testing of RCWs and consumer clothes dryers using Lot 25A (made with a
crepe weave) and previous test cloth Lot 23 (made with a momie weave).
89 FR 87803, 87810. The results of DOE's testing are presented in a
Technical Appendix published in the docket for this rulemaking.\24\ The
testing presented in the November 2024 NOPR showed no substantive
variation in RMC, integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF''), or
integrated water factor--the reported metrics for RCWs--or in combined
energy factor--the reported metric for consumer clothes dryers--between
the different granite weave types (i.e., traditional momie versus crepe
weave). Id. Although DOE's test sample in the November 2024 NOPR did
not include any CCWs, DOE noted that it expects that the trends in RMC
values, energy use, and water use that it observed in RCWs would apply
to CCWs, given that RCWs and CCWs are designed and operate similarly
and are tested using the same test procedure. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Technical Appendix can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that through its participation
in discussions with the AHAM task force it understands that very few
textile mills maintain the capability to fabricate cloth using the type
of momie weave that has traditionally been used to produce DOE test
cloth. Id. DOE noted that, instead, the type of crepe weave used for
Lot 25A is expected to be more readily available going forward. Id.
Appendix J3 currently does not define the terms ``momie'' or
``granite'' weave. In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM suggested that DOE
establish definitions for these terms in appendix J3.\25\ In the
November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that momie, granite, and crepe weave
types are generally understood terms of art within the textile
industry, but there is not a definitive source for definitions of these
terms. Id. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE expressed concerns that
creating its own definitions for these terms could inadvertently
conflict with the range of weave styles that are generally understood
by the textile industry to be granite weaves. Id. Therefore, in the
November 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined not to establish a
definition for these terms within the appendix J3 test procedure. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ AHAM suggested defining ``granite weave'' as a broad
classification of weave producing a small, irregular, pebbled
surface similar to crepe fabrics; fabrics made with a granite weave
are generally interlaced tightly, and warp and filling yarns appear
on the face. AHAM suggested defining ``momie/granite weave fabric''
as test cloth made with granite weave fabric as specified in the
suggested definition of granite weave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested feedback on its proposal
to add the term ``crepe'' to the list of allowable weaves in appendix
J3. Id. DOE further requested feedback on its tentative determination
not to establish definitions for ``crepe,'' ``granite,'' or ``momie''
weave in appendix J3. Id.
Aside from the generally supportive comments discussed previously,
DOE received no comments in response to
[[Page 5527]]
the November 2024 NOPR specifically regarding its proposal to add the
term ``crepe'' to the list of allowable weaves in appendix J3, or its
tentative determination not to establish definitions for ``crepe,''
``granite,'' or ``momie'' weave in appendix J3.
For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November
2024 NOPR, to add the term ``crepe'' to the list of allowable weaves in
appendix J3, and to not establish definitions for ``crepe,''
``granite,'' or ``momie'' weave in appendix J3.
4. Alternate Test Cloth
DOE is required to ensure that the test procedure is reasonably
designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy
use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered
product/equipment during a representative average use cycle or period
of use and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3);
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In establishing the current test cloth
specifications, DOE considered the representativeness of the range of
fabrics comprising consumer wash loads, the manufacturability of the
fabric, the consistency in test cloth production, and the consistency
in test results from the fabric. 66 FR 3314, 3318 (Jan. 12, 2001).
As discussed, the current test cloth specifications were
recommended by the May 2000 Test Cloth Report, which noted that this
cloth (at the time) was produced in high volume, had been produced to a
consistent specification for many years, and was likely to continue to
be produced on this basis for the foreseeable future. (See section 6 of
May 2000 Test Cloth Report.) The May 2000 Test Cloth Report also
highlighted the benefits of specifying a single type of fabric that is
produced frequently by one mill to a consistent set of specifications.
However, while the test cloth specified in appendix J3 continues to
be produced by a single supplier, DOE noted in the November 2024 NOPR
that it now understands through its participation in the AHAM task
force that this cloth is produced exclusively for use in conducting the
DOE test procedure (i.e., this specific cloth is not used to any
significant extent by any other industry bodies or for any other
regulatory or research and development purposes). 89 FR 87803, 87811.
As such, it is no longer the case that this cloth is produced in high
volume (beyond the volume needed for DOE testing purposes), leading to
uncertainty as to whether this cloth is likely to remain readily
available on a consistent basis for the foreseeable future. Id.
As discussed in the November 2024 NOPR, during the COVID-19
pandemic, the laundry industry experienced shortages in DOE test cloth
supply.\26\ Id. The specialized nature of the DOE test cloth (i.e., the
fact the cloth is unique to DOE testing needs and produced in
relatively low volumes) inhibited the ability to identify alternate
sources of supply for the test cloth. Id. To mitigate this shortage,
AHAM requested that DOE use its enforcement discretion to allow
extended use of test cloth beyond the currently defined cycle
limits.\27\ On September 28, 2023, DOE issued a statement \28\ that it
would exercise its enforcement discretion and not impose civil
penalties on a clothes washer, commercial clothes washer, or clothes
dryer manufacturer for certifying compliance with DOE's energy
conservation standards based on testing that exceeds the maximum test
cloth run provision set forth in the DOE test procedures. Instead, DOE
allowed for usage of test cloth for twice the number of runs allowed in
the relevant test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ AHAM informed DOE on March 3, 2022 that there were
significant issues with the quality and availability of the required
test cloth material for the applicable energy tests for clothes
washers and clothes dryers.
\27\ On August 7, 2023, AHAM informed DOE that test cloth
shortages were persisting and that this supply shortage could also
eventually impact DOE's ability to conduct assessment, enforcement,
or other testing.
\28\ Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Test%20Cloth%20Policy%20for%20Clothes%20Washers%20and%20Clothes%20Dryers%20Enforcement%20Policy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to further alleviate any test cloth supply constraints
that could limit energy testing activities for clothes washers and
clothes dryers, the AHAM task force evaluated the potential merits of
specifying an alternate test cloth that could be used for DOE testing,
as discussed in the May 2024 AHAM Letter.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that the AHAM task force
identified a commercially available standardized fabric as a possible
alternative to the current test cloth specification. Id. This fabric is
used as ``ballast'' for testing specific material attributes (such as
colorfastness) of textiles and, according to the May 2024 AHAM Letter,
has been used by the textile industry for over 80 years. Specifically,
the fabric meets the specifications of Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth
specified by industry standard AATCC LP1-2021, Laboratory Procedure for
Home Laundering: Machine Washing.\29\ The specifications for Laundering
Ballast Type 3 cloth are provided in Table III.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021 provides specifications for
various types of cloth, one of which is designated as Laundering
Ballast Type 3.
Table III.1--Specifications for Laundering Ballast Type 3 Cloth From
AATCC LP1-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic Specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiber Content................ 50% cotton/50% polyester 3%.
Greige Fabric Yarns.......... 16/1 or 30/2 ring spun.
Greige Fabric Construction... 52 x 48 5 yarns per inch,
plain weave.
Finished Fabric Weight....... 155 10 grams per square
meter (4.57 0.29 ounces per
square yard).
Edges........................ All edges hemmed or over-edged.
Finished Piece Size.......... 920 x 920 30 millimeters
(36.0 x 36.0 1 inch).
Finished Piece Weight........ 130 10 grams (4.59 0.35 ounces).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of an AHAM task force investigation, DOE and AHAM members
conducted comparative testing of Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth \30\
to evaluate whether this cloth could be used to conduct the DOE test
procedures and whether doing so would produce test results comparable
to the currently specified test cloth. Id. The
[[Page 5528]]
results of DOE's testing are presented in the Technical Appendix
published in the docket for this rulemaking.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The tested cloth used 16/1 fabric yarns and was sized to
match the DOE energy test cloth and energy stuffer cloth dimensions
and hemming instructions (as currently specified in section 3.7.1
and 3.7.2 of appendix J3, respectively) instead of the finished
piece dimensions specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021.
\31\ The Technical Appendix can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, as discussed in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE tested
six RCWs and eight consumer clothes dryers, representing eight
manufacturers and all major product classes; AHAM members additionally
conducted testing of eight RCWs and six consumer clothes dryers,
representing all major product classes. Id. These products were tested
to their rated appendix (D1, D2, or J2) using both the current DOE test
cloth and the Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth. Id.
As discussed in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE's testing demonstrated
no substantive difference in measured efficiency compared with
historical lots used for RCW and consumer clothes dryer testing. Id. In
particular for clothes washers, the Laundering Ballast Type 3 produced
RMC results comparable to existing DOE test cloth using the currently
specified correction factor approach. Id. In the November 2024 NOPR,
DOE discussed that although its test sample did not include any CCWs,
DOE expects that the trends in RMC values, energy use, and water use
that it observed in RCWs would apply to CCWs, given that RCWs and CCWs
are designed and operate similarly and are tested using the same test
procedure. Id. at 89 FR 87811-87812.
In addition, AHAM presented the results of its members' testing in
appendix A to the May 2024 AHAM Letter. As discussed in the November
2024 NOPR, this testing also demonstrated no substantive difference in
measured efficiency compared with historical lots used for RCW and
consumer clothes dryer testing. Id. at 89 FR 87812.
Based on these data, DOE tentatively determined in the November
2024 NOPR that the AATCC Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth provides
results that are equally as representative as results obtained using
the currently specified test cloth. Id. On this basis, in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE proposed, consistent with the recommendations from the
May 2024 AHAM Letter, to amend appendix J3 to allow for the use of
AATCC Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth, with a specific yarn size, and
cut and hemmed to the DOE energy test cloth dimensions. Id.
Specifically, DOE proposed in the November 2024 NOPR to incorporate
by reference AATCC LP1-2021 into appendix J3 and to allow the use of
test cloth meeting the specifications of Laundering Ballast Type 3, as
specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021, with the following additional
specifications and substitutions:
Greige Fabric Yarns: Type 16/1 only \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ As discussed previously, comparative testing was conducted
only on fabric with 16/1 yarn type, which is a single-string yarn
similar in thickness to the 15/1 yarn type currently specified in
section 3.5 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on fabric with
30/2 yarn type--the other fabric yarn option specified in Table VII
of AATCC LP1-2021--which is a two-string version of yarn with each
string roughly half the diameter of the single-string version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edges: All edges hemmed only \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ As discussed previously, comparative testing was conducted
only on fabric matching the hemming instructions currently specified
in sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted
on over-edged pieces of test cloth (i.e., the other edging option
specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished Piece Size: Dimensions in accordance with
sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3 for energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths, respectively.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ As discussed previously, comparative testing was conducted
only on fabric matching the dimensions currently specified in
sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on
fabric pieces matching the dimensions as specified in Table VII of
AATCC LP1-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished Piece Weight: Disregard.\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Finished Piece Weight specified in Table VII of AATCC
LP1-2021 corresponds to the Finished Piece Size specified in the
same table; as such, this specification does not apply to fabric
pieces matching the proposed finished piece dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, and consistent with the discussion in section III.C.3
of this document, DOE considered in the November 2024 NOPR whether to
propose a definition for ``plain weave'' as specified in Table VII of
AATCC LP1-2021. Id. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted the term
``plain weave'' to be a well-understood term of art and therefore
tentatively determined that adding a definition of ``plain weave'' to
appendix J3 was not warranted. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
allow the use of Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC
LP1-2021 (with certain additional specifications) as an alternate test
cloth for conducting clothes washer and clothes dryer testing. Id. DOE
also requested feedback on its tentative determination not to establish
a definition for ``plain weave'' in appendix J3. Id.
NEEA commented that it specifically supports allowing the use of
the Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC LP1-2021 (with
certain additional specifications) as an alternate test cloth for
conducting clothes washer and clothes dryer testing. (NEEA, No. 8 at p.
2)
Ravnitzky commented in support of the alternate test cloth proposed
in the November 2024 NOPR to address potential supply shortages and
ensure consistent and reliable results, based on thorough testing.
(Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 1)
AHAM commented that it supports DOE's proposal in the November 2024
NOPR to not establish a definition for ``plain weave'' in appendix J3.
(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 1)
For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November
2024 NOPR, to allow the use of test cloth corresponding to the
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC LP1-2021 (with
certain additional specifications) as an alternate test cloth for
conducting clothes washer and clothes dryer testing, and to not
establish a definition for ``plain weave'' in appendix J3. In this
final rule, DOE is implementing this in appendix J3 by directly
codifying each of the cloth specifications within appendix J3, rather
than incorporating by reference Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021 with
modifications (as was proposed in the November 2024 NOPR). As discussed
in section III.D.3 of this document, as a result of the amendments in
this final rule, the specifications in appendix J3 apply to both
clothes washers and clothes dryers.
In response to the November 2024 NOPR, AHAM commented that section
3.1.2.3 of appendix J3 as proposed in the November 2024 NOPR \36\
should reference section 3.3 instead of section 3.7.1 and 3.7.2. (AHAM,
No. 10 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Section 3.1.2.3 of the proposed regulatory text in the
November 2024 NOPR specified the following: Finished piece size.
Dimensions in accordance with sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of [appendix
J3] for energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE agrees with AHAM's assessment of the incorrect cross-references
in the proposed amendments to section 3.1.2.3 of appendix J3. However,
these proposed cross-references are rendered moot by the approach taken
in this final rule to directly codify each of the test cloth
specifications within appendix J3.
5. Uniformity Criteria
In the June 2022 Final Rule, DOE codified a prequalification
procedure to be performed on each new lot of test cloth to verify the
uniformity of the test cloth throughout the beginning, middle, and end
of the lot. 87 FR 33316. As discussed in the June 2022 Final Rule,
[[Page 5529]]
DOE had received a request from members of the AHAM 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. at 87 FR 33368.
Industry practice has been to perform this ``uniformity check'' before
conducting the procedure to develop the RMC correction factors
currently specified in appendix J3. Id. Specifically, the uniformity
check involves performing an RMC measurement on nine bundles of sample
test cloth representing the beginning, middle, and end locations of the
first, middle, and last rolls of test cloth in a new lot. Id. In the
historical procedure provided by the AHAM task force, the coefficient
of variation (``CV'') 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. The amendments codified by the June 2022 Final Rule
included the suggested requirement for the CV of the ``uniformity
check'' procedure to be less than or equal to 1 percent. Id. at 87 FR
33369.
Shortly after the publication of the June 2022 Final Rule
establishing the requirement for the CV to be less than or equal to 1
percent--but prior to its effective date--Lot 24D was produced by the
test cloth supplier and was measured to have a CV of 1.6 percent. As
discussed in the November 2024 NOPR, AHAM developed correction factors
for this lot of test cloth despite its CV over 1 percent, on the basis
that the new CV requirement had not yet become effective, and that the
industry was facing a test cloth shortage. 89 FR 87803, 87812.
Since the effective date of the CV requirement, the AHAM task force
has developed correction factors for test cloth lots 25A and 25B \37\--
both with CV values of 1.1 percent. AHAM stated in letters to DOE that
it based its recommendations to proceed with these test cloth lots on
the ongoing test cloth shortages, DOE's historical acceptance of lots
with CVs exceeding 1 percent, and the extensive testing that DOE
performed of Lot 25A, as described in section III.C.3 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See letters received by DOE on December 13, 2023 and May
24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that the 1-percent threshold
was originally recommended by AHAM during a previous test procedure
rulemaking. Id. citing 87 FR 33316, 33368 (Jun. 1, 2022). DOE further
noted that prior to the codification of the pre-qualification
procedure, the AHAM task force used its discretion to evaluate the
uniformity of each new test cloth lot. 89 FR 87803, 87812. DOE noted
that it understood the repeatable performance of test cloth lots with a
CV slightly higher than 1 percent--as shown by the testing of Lot 25A
described in section III.C.3 of this document--to be an indication that
the 1-percent threshold may be unnecessarily stringent (i.e., too low).
Id. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend appendix J3 by
increasing the allowable CV threshold to 2 percent. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested feedback on its proposal
to amend the CV threshold requirement in appendix J3 from 1 percent to
2 percent. Specifically, DOE requested comment on whether another
threshold would be more appropriate. Id.
NEEA commented that it supports increasing the CV of the
``uniformity check'' from 1 percent to 2 percent. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2)
NEEA noted that it has extensive experience testing laundry products
with common and emerging technologies using a variety of textiles. (Id.
at p. 1)
AHAM commented that it agrees with DOE's statement in the November
2024 NOPR that repeatable performance of test cloth lots with a CV
slightly higher than 1 percent is an indication that the threshold may
be unnecessarily stringent. However, AHAM expressed reluctance with a
2-percent threshold, stating that a CV threshold of 2 percent would
result in a within-lot variation of up to 1 RMC percentage point, and
instead suggested a CV limit of 1.5 percent. AHAM commented that this
threshold would exclude lots 19, 24B, and 24D, which AHAM characterized
as highly variable and problematic lots. (AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 3-4)
As discussed, EPCA requires that any test procedures be reasonably
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency,
energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product
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)) DOE tentatively
determined in the November 2024 NOPR that increasing the allowable CV
threshold to 2 percent would reduce test burden while maintaining
reproducibility and representativeness \38\ of test results. DOE
understands that the cost of the test cloth factors in the cost of pre-
qualification testing as specified in appendix J3. If the pre-
qualification test must be repeated, either on subdivided portions of
the test cloth lot or on a different test cloth lot, in order to
achieve an allowable CV value, the cost of the qualified test cloth and
thus test burden for clothes washer and clothes dryer manufacturers may
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test
Procedures Relative to Current Test Procedures in the November 2024
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the comments received from NEEA and AHAM, both of which
have extensive experience testing clothes washers and clothes dryers,
DOE understands that there is general support to increase the threshold
to 1.5 percent, but only mixed support to increase the threshold to 2
percent. DOE understands AHAM's comment as indicating that, despite
historical test cloth lots with CV values greater than 1.5 percent
having been qualified for use, manufacturers would currently find an
allowable CV threshold of 1.5 percent to reflect the appropriate
balance between representativeness and test burden. DOE recognizes that
manufacturers (as represented by AHAM) have extensive experience in
dealing with differences between test cloth lots, and likewise
recognizes manufacturers' interest in ensuring repeatable and
reproducible test results--as the basis for producing representative
test results--for the purposes of certifying compliance with the
applicable standards. In consideration of the above, in this final
rule, DOE is amending the CV threshold requirement in section 7.2.5 of
appendix J3 from 1 percent to 1.5 percent. DOE further specifies that
this requirement applies to test cloth lots qualified after February
18, 2025.
6. Variance P-Value Threshold and Root-Mean-Square Error
In the October 2003 Final Rule, DOE adopted a statistical
procedure, called ``analysis of variance'' (or ``ANOVA''), as the lot-
to-lot interactive-effect statistical test for screening out lots of
test cloth whose RMC behavior is inconsistent with the baseline lot. 68
FR 62198, 62201. The ANOVA statistical test measures the extent of the
deviation of the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve for a given
lot of the test cloth from the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve
for the baseline lot. Id. In the October 2003 Final Rule, DOE explained
that it believed that the test would catch any unanticipated deviation
in RMC in future lots. Id.
Section 8.8 of appendix J3 specifies performing the analysis of
variance with replication test using two factors, spin speed and lot,
to determine whether the interaction of speed and lot is
[[Page 5530]]
significant. If the interaction is not significant (as calculated by
the ``P-value'' of the F-statistic being greater than 0.1), then the
lot is considered acceptable. If the P-value is less than 0.1, the test
cloth is deemed unacceptable. The P-value provides an indication of any
interactive effect between lots and spin speeds. The lower the P-value,
the stronger the evidence of such an interaction.
On March 29, 2010, AHAM sent DOE a letter (``March 2010 AHAM
Letter'') noting that Lot 17 was measured to have a P-value that was
less than 0.1.\39\ AHAM requested that DOE approve Lot 17 for use on
the basis that the root-mean-square error (``RMSE'') was less than 2
percent, the P-value of the test cloth excluding the 100g test
condition was greater than 0.1, and test cloth supply shortage issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The March 2010 AHAM Letter is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more recent lot of AATCC test cloth evaluated by DOE and AHAM,
as described in section III.C.4 of this document, had a P-value of
0.072, which would not meet the requirements of section 8.8 of appendix
J3. However, the testing conducted by DOE and AHAM \40\ suggests that,
despite the low P-value, the application of the test cloth correction
factors produces corrected RMC values that are comparable (i.e., less
than 1 RMC percentage point difference on average) to the standard RMC
values for each tested extractor condition. For this reason, in the
November 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that a low P-value is
not necessarily indicative of a test cloth lot not being acceptable for
use in the clothes washer test procedures. 89 FR 87803, 87813. DOE
further tentatively determined that a different statistical measure can
provide a better measure of the acceptability of a new test cloth lot.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See the Technical Appendix available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE evaluated the
usefulness of the RMSE between the corrected RMC values and the
standard RMC values for the same test conditions as a potentially more
relevant statistical measure to evaluate a new test cloth lot. Id.
Conceptually, this RMSE value represents the closeness of fit of the
corrected RMC values to the standard RMC values. A smaller RMSE value
indicates a better closeness of fit. Recognizing that the corrected RMC
value is used to calculate IMEF, DOE tentatively determined in the
November 2024 NOPR that RMSE--which evaluates corrected RMC values--
would provide a better measure of acceptability than P-value, which
evaluates uncorrected RMC values. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR DOE presented RMSE values of the
historical test cloth lots posted to DOE's website \41\ that fell
within a range of 0.004 to 0.014. Id. Additionally, DOE stated that the
AATCC lot of test cloth evaluated by DOE and AHAM, as described in
section III.C.4 of this document, has an RMSE of 0.009. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ DOE maintains a historical record of the standard extractor
test data and final correction curve coefficients for each approved
lot of energy test cloth at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/clothes-washer-test-cloth-correction-factor-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the historical record and its testing, DOE tentatively
determined in the November 2024 NOPR that an RMSE-based threshold for
new test cloth lots would provide a better measure of the acceptability
of a new test cloth lot, and therefore proposed to replace the P-value
evaluation in section 8.8 of appendix J3 with a calculation of RMSE and
a requirement that the RMSE be below 0.015, which represents a
threshold slightly higher than the maximum RMSE value of 0.014 observed
among historical test cloth lots. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
replace the P-value test in appendix J3 with a root-mean-square error
test, and on its proposal to specify 0.015 as an acceptability
threshold for the RMSE value. Id.
Ravnitzky commented in support of the proposed shift from the P-
value test to the RMSE threshold, stating that the proposed RMSE
threshold of 0.015, based on historical data, provides a more accurate
measure of test cloth performance and ensures that new test cloth lots
produce consistent RMC measurements, improving the robustness of the
testing protocol. (Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 1)
AHAM commented that it does not necessarily oppose DOE's tentative
determination that an RMSE-based threshold for new test cloth lots
would provide a better measure of acceptability than the P-value
evaluation, but suggested certain improvements to the approach. (AHAM,
No. 10 at p. 4)
Specifically, AHAM recommended that the RMSE calculation reflect
the ``N-2'' approach \42\ that has historically been used in the test
cloth evaluations and is used in the appendix J3 test report template
today.\43\ AHAM commented that this would change the denominator in
equation proposed in section 8.9 of draft appendix J3 from 20 to 18.
(Id. at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The RMSE, as proposed in the November 2024 NOPR, is equal
to the square root of the ratio of the sum of the squared errors
across the test sample divided by the number of values in the test
sample (N). The ``N-2'' approach refers to a different formula for
RMSE wherein the denominator of the equation is N-2 instead of N, as
proposed in the November 2024 NOPR.
\43\ The appendix J3 test report referenced by AHAM is available
at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/standardized-templates-reporting-test-results. DOE develops standardized data templates for reporting
the results of tests conducted in accordance with current DOE test
procedures. Templates may be used by third-party laboratories under
contract with DOE that conduct testing in support of ENERGY STAR
verification, DOE rulemakings, and enforcement of the federal energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that in addition to being used in the appendix J3 test
report (as described by AHAM), the ``N-2'' approach was also used in
the RMSE calculation previously specified in appendices J1 and J2 as
codified by the January 2001 Final Rule. See 66 FR 3314, 3332. DOE did
not intend to change its approach to calculating RMSE compared to the
approach used in the appendix J3 test report and previously specified
in appendices J1 and J2.\44\ For this final rule, DOE re-calculated the
historical test cloth lot RMSE values that were presented in the
November 2024 NOPR using the ``N-2'' approach.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The appendix J3 test report uses the STEYX() function in
Microsoft Excel to calculate RMSE. This function uses N-2 as the
denominator. In its analysis conducted for the November 2024 NOPR,
DOE inadvertently used a different formula for calculating RMSE that
uses N as the denominator.
\45\ The RMSE values presented in this final rule were
calculated using the N-2 approach consistent with the formula in
section 8.9 of appendix J3, as amended in this final rule, using all
available tested runs. For lots of test cloth prior to Lot 16, where
the 500g and 650g tests were not performed, the N-2=18 value in the
denominator of the RMSE formula was updated to N-2=10 to correspond
to the number of tested runs for these lots of test cloth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM further noted that as presented in the November 2024 NOPR, the
highest RMSE value of 0.014 is for Lot 6, which included testing at the
50g force instead of the 100g force testing that has been required
since the introduction of Lot 7.\46\ AHAM suggested that Lot 6 be
excluded from the evaluation. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ In the October 2003 Final Rule, the 50g test point resulted
in inconsistent corrected RMC results. DOE acknowledged a basic lack
of repeatability of the 50g spin tests and replaced these test
points with 100g test points. 68 FR 62198, 62200-62201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that Lot 5 was also tested using the 50g test point
instead of the 100g test point. Due to the lack of repeatability and
consistency of the previous 50g data point, DOE agrees with AHAM's
suggestion to exclude Lot 6--as well as Lot 5--from consideration in
determining an appropriate RMSE threshold.
[[Page 5531]]
The updated RMSE values used for this final rule analysis are
presented in Table III.2 of this document. These values reflect use of
the ``N-2'' approach and exclude Lot 5 and Lot 6.
Table III.2--Historical Test Cloth Lot RMSE Values for Lot 7 Through Lot
25B
[Calculated using ``N-2'' approach]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lot RMSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7....................................................... 0.007
8....................................................... 0.006
9....................................................... 0.006
10...................................................... 0.008
11...................................................... 0.009
12...................................................... 0.010
13...................................................... 0.010
14...................................................... 0.008
15...................................................... 0.005
16...................................................... 0.010
17...................................................... 0.011
18...................................................... 0.010
19...................................................... 0.010
20...................................................... 0.009
21...................................................... 0.010
22...................................................... 0.010
23...................................................... 0.010
24A..................................................... 0.010
24B..................................................... 0.008
24D..................................................... 0.011
25A..................................................... 0.008
25B..................................................... 0.010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The updated RMSE values fall within a range of 0.004 to 0.011,
compared to a range of 0.004 to 0.014 as presented in the November 2024
NOPR. Additionally, the AATCC lot of test cloth evaluated by DOE and
AHAM, as described in section III.C.4 of this document, has an updated
RMSE value of 0.010, compared to a value of 0.009 as presented in the
November 2024 NOPR. Accordingly, DOE determines that a threshold RMSE
value of 0.012, as suggested by AHAM, is appropriate.
Lastly, AHAM requested that the P-value calculation remain in the
test cloth test report (without an acceptability threshold) so that the
metric can be monitored and ensure that the change does not have
unintended consequences. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4)
DOE recognizes the benefits to maintaining the P-value calculation
in the appendix J3 test report, even if no longer used as acceptability
criteria, and will consider AHAM's suggestion at such time DOE updates
its appendix J3 test report.
In summary, in this final rule, DOE is finalizing its proposal to
replace the P-value test in appendix J3 with an RMSE test. DOE is
establishing the RMSE threshold requirement in section 8.9 of appendix
J3 at 0.012, as calculated using the ``N-2'' approach. DOE further
specifies that this requirement applies to test cloth lots qualified
after February 18, 2025.
D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring Edits
1. Introductory Paragraph
Appendix J3 includes test cloth specifications, procedures for pre-
conditioning test cloth, procedures for verifying that new lots of test
cloth meet the defined material specifications, and procedures for
developing RMC correction factors. Appendix J3 contains an introductory
section titled ``Objective'' that summarizes the key objectives of the
procedure. This paragraph currently does not reference the pre-
conditioning of test cloth as one of the key objectives.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the heading to
appendix J3 and its objective paragraph to explicitly include pre-
conditioning of test cloth as one of the key objectives. 89 FR 87803,
87813.In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested feedback on its proposal
to update appendix J3 to explicitly mention pre-conditioning of test
cloth. Id.
DOE did not receive any specific comments on this topic and is
finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November 2024 NOPR, to
update appendix J3 to explicitly include pre-conditioning of test cloth
as one of the key objectives.
2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions
Section 5 of appendix J3 provides the test cloth pre-conditioning
instructions. Currently, this section is organized as a single
paragraph detailing the entire procedure, whereas other sections of
appendix J3 are organized with subsections that provide a clearer step-
by-step sequence of instructions.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to restructure section 5 of
appendix J3 to read as a sequence of instructions rather than a single
paragraph, for greater clarity and ease of use. 89 FR 87803, 87813.
DOE did not receive any specific comments on this topic and is
finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November 2024 NOPR, to
restructure section 5 of appendix J3 to read as a sequence of
instructions rather than a single paragraph, for greater clarity and
ease of use.
3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and Clothes Dryer Test Procedures
As previously discussed, in the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE moved
the test cloth qualification procedures from appendix J2 to a newly
created appendix J3. Appendix J3 is currently referenced by only the
clothes washer test procedure. Section 2.7 of appendices J and J2
reference appendix J3 generally for test cloth specifications and
section 5 of appendix J3 for test cloth pre-conditioning instructions.
Whereas, for clothes dryers, section 2.6 of appendices D1 and D2 list
each of the test cloth specifications and detail the test cloth pre-
conditioning requirements.
As discussed in the November 2024 NOPR, historically, manufacturers
and test laboratories have used the same test cloth for both clothes
washers and clothes dryers. 89 FR 87803, 87813. The May 2024 AHAM
Letter requested that DOE harmonize specifically the pre-conditioning
procedure for clothes washers and clothes dryers. Id. In line with this
recommendation, in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined
that all aspects of the test cloth specifications can be harmonized
between clothes washers and clothes dryers (i.e., not just the pre-
conditioning requirements). Id. at 89 FR 87814.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to harmonize test cloth
specifications between appendices J, J2, D1, and D2 by replacing
existing test cloth specifications in appendices D1 and D2 with
references to the analogous specifications in appendix J3. Id.
Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the entirety of section 2.6
in both appendices D1 and D2 with a paragraph specifically referencing
sections 3 (Test Cloth Specifications) and 7 (Test Cloth Material
Verification Procedure) of appendix J3. DOE also proposed to update
section 2.7 of appendices J and J2 to specifically reference sections 3
(Test Cloth Specifications), 7 (Test Cloth Material Verification
Procedure), and 8 (RMC Correction Curve Procedure) of appendix J3. Id.
DOE further proposed to remove section 3.8 of appendix J3, which
currently specifies that the test cloth must be clean, may not be used
for more than 60 clothes washer runs, must be permanently marked, and
may not be used in mixed lots. Id. DOE proposed that these
specifications--which are specific to clothes washers and do not apply
to clothes dryers--be included in section 2.7 of appendices J and J2.
Id. DOE also proposed that appendices D1 and D2 retain the existing
requirement that for clothes dryers the test cloth must not be used for
more than 25 runs, although this requirement will be relocated to
section 2.6 (from 2.6.1(c) currently). Id.
Finally, DOE proposed to update the objective statement and section
5 of appendix J3 to explicitly reference
[[Page 5532]]
clothes dryers alongside clothes washers. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
harmonize test cloth specifications for clothes washers and clothes
dryers. Id.
AHAM commented that it supports DOE's proposal in the November 2024
NOPR to harmonize test cloth specifications for clothes washers and
clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 1)
Ravnitzky commented in support of harmonizing the test cloth
specifications between clothes washers and clothes dryers to simplify
compliance, enhance the consistency of test results, reduce complexity
for manufacturers, and support standardized testing practices.
(Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 1)
For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November
2024 NOPR, to harmonize test cloth specifications for clothes washers
and clothes dryers.
4. Restructuring Appendix J3
Section 3.2 of appendix J3 specifies the ``nominal fabric type''
for the test cloth as pure finished bleached cloth made with a momie or
granite weave, which is nominally 50 percent cotton and 50 percent
polyester. Section 3.5 of appendix J3 contains a duplicative (although
more specific) requirement specifying a fiber content of 50 percent
4 percent cotton, with the balance being polyester. In the
November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to remove the less-specific nominal
fiber content specification from section 3.2 of appendix J3. 89 FR
87803, 87814. Accordingly, DOE further proposed to update the name of
section 3.2 of appendix J3 from ``nominal fabric type'' to ``fabric
type.'' Id.
Within section 3 of appendix J3, which lists the specifications for
the test cloth, subsections 3.2 through 3.5 are currently organized as
follows: section 3.2 specifies the nominal fabric type, section 3.3
specifies the fabric weight, section 3.4 specifies the thread count,
and section 3.5 specifies the fiber content of the yarn. This order
does not match the order in which these material properties are
considered throughout the test cloth fabrication process. Specifically,
the weaving process starts with spinning yarn of a specific fiber
content, then a specific number of yarn strands (corresponding to
thread count) are woven into a roll of fabric, resulting in a specific
material density (i.e., fabric weight). To better match the order in
which these material properties are considered throughout the test
cloth fabrication process, DOE proposed in the November 2024 NOPR to
reorder these subsections to provide the fiber content specification
first, followed by thread count specification, followed by the fabric
weight specification. Id.
Section 3.7 of appendix J3 currently includes dimensions for the
energy test cloth and energy stuffer cloth \47\ and specifies that the
dimensions apply ``before washing.'' DOE is aware that this terminology
may lead to confusion, as it is inconsistent with other parts of the
test procedure that use the term ``pre-conditioning'' rather than
``washing'' to refer to the process by which test cloth is washed
before its first use. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed,
consistent with the recommendations in the May 2023 AHAM Letter, to
clarify this wording and to specify that the dimensions listed in
section 3.7 apply before pre-conditioning of the test cloth. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ An energy stuffer cloth is made from the same material as
an energy test cloth but is cut to a smaller size. Test loads must
consist of energy test cloths and no more than five energy stuffer
cloths per load to achieve the specified weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices D1, D2, J, J2, and J3 currently use inconsistent
hyphenation of the word pre-conditioning, using ``pre-conditioning'' in
some cases and ``preconditioning'' in others. The May 2024 AHAM Letter
requested that DOE standardize the hyphenation of ``pre-conditioning''
throughout the appendix. Id. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to
standardize the hyphenation of ``pre-conditioning'' across all five
appendices. Id.
The June 2022 Final Rule re-numbered certain sections of appendix
J3 and implemented in section 8.5 of appendix J3 references to
``sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 of this appendix.'' 87 FR 33316, 33405.
These cross-references should instead reference sections 8.3 and 8.4 of
appendix J3. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to correct this
typographical error by updating section 8.5 of appendix J3 to correctly
reference sections 8.3 and 8.4, in place of sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4.
89 FR 87803, 87814.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested feedback on its proposal
to clarify and restructure appendix J3. Id.
Ravnitzky commented that the proposed reorganization of the test
procedures for improved readability and simplicity is a significant
improvement, stating that clearer procedural instructions make it
easier for manufacturers and testing laboratories to accurately follow
the guidelines, enhancing overall compliance, and that simplifying the
test procedures helps manufacturers to meet important energy efficiency
requirements for major appliances such as clothes washers and clothes
dryers, supporting broader energy conservation goals. (Ravnitzky, No. 5
at p. 1)
For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November
2024 NOPR, to clarify and restructure appendix J3.
E. Test Procedure Costs
EPCA requires that test procedures amended by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 6314(a)(2)) DOE does not
anticipate that the amendments in this final rule will impact testing
costs or the burden of conducting the test procedure.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE presented market research indicating
that the alternate test cloth proposed for use has approximately the
same cost per pound as the current test cloth--approximately $40-50 per
pound of unconditioned test cloth.\48\ 89 FR 87803, 87814. Therefore,
DOE tentatively determined that using the alternate test cloth would
not impact clothes washer or clothes dryer testing costs. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ These cost estimates are based on DOE's most recent
purchases of test cloth in relatively small quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on an analysis of the test results presented in the Technical
Appendix, in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that
manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated under the current
test procedures for the newly finalized amendments. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its tentative
determination that that the amendments proposed in this NOPR would not
impact testing costs or the burden of conducting the test procedure.
Id.
DOE received no comments in response to the November 2024 NOPR
regarding the impact of testing costs or the burden of conducting the
test procedure.
For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the November
2024 NOPR, DOE has determined that the amendments adopted in this final
rule will not impact testing costs or the burden of conducting the test
procedure.
F. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency
[[Page 5533]]
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.)
As discussed, on September 28, 2023, DOE issued a statement stating
that DOE would exercise its enforcement discretion and not impose civil
penalties on a clothes washer, commercial clothes washer, or clothes
dryer manufacturer for certifying compliance with DOE's energy
conservation standards based on testing that exceeds the maximum test
cloth run provision set forth in the DOE test procedures. Instead, DOE
allowed for usage of test cloth for twice the number of runs allowed in
the relevant test procedures.
In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM requested that DOE maintain its
enforcement discretion policy to allow twice the number of test runs
than is currently specified for test cloth meeting the current
specifications, but not for any of the alternate test cloth, noting
that it did not have any test data to support an extended number of
cycles on the new test cloth at the time. 89 FR 87803, 87815.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the
updated test cloth provisions would alleviate any test cloth shortages
that were the impetus for the enforcement discretion policy, and that
at the time of compliance of the amended test procedure, no need for
such a policy would remain. Id. Therefore, in the November 2024 NOPR,
DOE tentatively determined that upon the compliance date of test
procedure provisions of an amended test procedure (i.e., 180 days after
publication of a test procedure final rule), the enforcement discretion
policy would be withdrawn. Id.
In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM further requested that DOE
consider allowing immediate use of the alternate test cloth as a relief
to manufacturers facing test cloth shortages, rather than waiting for
the completion of the rulemaking. Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE recognized the concern of test cloth
availability. Id. As noted, DOE tentatively determined that it would
maintain the current enforcement policy allowing for the extended
lifetime of the current test cloth until 180 days after publication of
a test procedure final rule and noted that the amendments could be used
as early as their effective date (i.e., 30 days after publication of
the final rule DOE published regarding these amendments). Id.
In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE requested comments on its tentative
determination that the enforcement discretion policy allowing twice the
number of test cloth runs would be withdrawn 180 days after publication
of a test procedure final rule. Id.
DOE did not receive any specific comments on this topic and is
finalizing its proposal, consistent with the November 2024 NOPR, that
the enforcement discretion policy allowing twice the number of test
cloth runs will be withdrawn 180 days after publication of this final
rule.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
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) and E.O.
14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023),
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 Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this final rule under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003.
DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers covered by
this rulemaking. DOE used available public information to identify
potential small manufacturers. DOE accessed the
[[Page 5534]]
Compliance Certification Database \49\ to create a list of companies
that import or otherwise manufacture the RCWs, CCWs, and consumer
clothes dryers covered by this final rule. Of the domestic original
equipment manufacturers (``OEM'') that manufacture the RCWs, CCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers covered by this final rule, DOE has identified
one domestic RCW OEM that qualifies as a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Database, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed in section III.C.4 of this document, DOE is
establishing an additional type of test cloth be permitted for testing.
This alternate test cloth (and updated test cloth provisions) will
alleviate any test cloth shortages currently experienced by
manufacturers. This alternate test cloth is approximately the same cost
as the existing test cloth and has not demonstrated any substantive
differences in measured efficiency compared with historical lots used
to RCW and consumer clothes dryer testing. As a result, DOE does not
expect any increased cost or burdens to manufacturers from this final
rule.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the final rule would not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE
has submitted 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, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers 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, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. (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, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers in this final rule.
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 for
measuring the energy efficiency of RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes
dryers. 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
Executive Order 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 Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 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 Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
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 Executive Order 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 5535]]
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 www.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 proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. When developing a Family Policymaking Assessment,
agencies must assess whether: (1) the action strengthens or erodes the
stability or safety of the family and, particularly, the marital
commitment; (2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children; (3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or
substitutes governmental activity for the function; (4) the action
increases or decreases disposable income or poverty of families and
children; (5) the benefits of the action justify the financial impact
on the family; (6) the action may be carried out by State or local
government or by the family; and whether (7) the action establishes an
implicit or explicit policy concerning the relationship between the
behavior and personal responsibility of youth, and the norms of
society. In evaluating the above factors, DOE has concluded that it is
not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment as none of
the above factors are implicated. Further, this determination would not
have any financial impact on families nor any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 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
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order, and is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use 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
Executive Order 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 Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The modifications to the test procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers adopted in this final rule do not incorporate
any new commercial standards or test procedures that are not already
incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 430.3 and therefore DOE has not re-
assessed such standards as part of this final rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
AATCC Test Method 135-2010 is referenced in the amendatory text of
this document but has already been approved for the sections where it
appears. No changes are being made to the IBR material.
N. 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).
[[Page 5536]]
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 10,
2025, by Jeffrey Marootian, 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 January 13, 2025.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of
Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend appendix D1 to subpart B of part 430 by:
0
a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3;
0
b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; and
0
c. Revising the heading for section 2.8.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
* * * * *
2. Testing Conditions
* * * * *
2.6 Test cloths.
2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes dryer.
2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 25 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
* * * * *
2.8 Clothes dryer pre-conditioning.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend appendix D2 to subpart B of part 430 by:
0
a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3;
0
b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; and
0
c. Revising the heading for section 2.8.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
* * * * *
2. Testing Conditions
* * * * *
2.6 Test cloths.
2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes dryer.
2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 25 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
* * * * *
2.8 Clothes dryer pre-conditioning.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend appendix J to subpart B of part 430 by revising section 2.7 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
* * * * *
2. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
* * * * *
2.7 Test cloths.
2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test cloth lot used for testing
must have a remaining moisture content (RMC) correction curve
determined, according to section 8 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes
washer.
2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 60 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
* * * * *
0
5. Amend appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 by revising section 2.7
to 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
* * * * *
2. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
* * * * *
2.7 Test cloths.
2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test cloth lot used for testing
must have a remaining moisture content (RMC) correction curve
determined, according to section 8 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes
washer.
[[Page 5537]]
2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 60 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
0
6. Amend appendix J3 to subpart B of part 430 by:
0
a. Revising the heading for appendix J3;
0
b. Revising section 1;
0
c. Revising section 3;
0
d. Revising section 5;
0
e. Revising sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.5;
0
f. Revising sections 8.5 through 8.8; and
0
g. Adding section 8.9.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix J3 to Subpart B of Part 430--Test Cloth Specifications and
Procedures for Pre-Conditioning and Determining Correction Coefficients
of New Test Cloth Lots
* * * * *
1. Objective
This appendix includes the following: (1) Specifications for the
test cloth to be used for testing clothes washers and clothes
dryers; (2) procedures for pre-conditioning the test cloth for use
in testing clothes washers and clothes dryers; (3) procedures for
verifying that new lots of test cloth meet the defined material
specifications; and (4) 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.
* * * * *
3. Test Cloth Specifications
The energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths must meet the
following specifications:
3.1 The test cloth material must be one of the following two
types:
3.1.1 Legacy Momie Cloth. Test cloth meeting all of the
specifications in sections 3.1.1.1 through 3.1.1.4 of this appendix.
3.1.1.1 Fabric type. Pure finished bleached cloth made with a
momie, granite, or crepe weave.
3.1.1.2 Fiber content of warp and filling yarn. 50%
4% cotton, with the balance being polyester, open end spun, 15/1
5% cotton count blended yarn.
3.1.1.3 Thread count. 65 x 57 per inch (warp x fill), 2%. Thread count is measured on the finished good, prior to
pre-conditioning.
3.1.1.4 Fabric weight. 5.60 0.25 ounces per square
yard (190.0 8.4 g/m\2\). Fabric weight is measured on
the finished good, prior to pre-conditioning.
3.1.2 Modified AATCC Laundering Ballast Type 3. Test cloth
meeting the specifications in sections 3.1.2.1 through 3.1.2.4 of
this appendix.
3.1.2.1 Fabric Type. Plain weave.
3.1.2.2 Fiber content of warp and filling yarn. 50% cotton/50%
polyester 3%, 16/1 ring spun.
3.1.2.3 Thread count. 52 x 48 5 yarns per inch.
Thread count is measured on the finished good, prior to pre-
conditioning.
3.1.2.4 Fabric weight. 4.57 0.29 ounces per square
yard (155 10 g/m\2\). Fabric weight is measured on the
finished good, prior to pre-conditioning.
3.2 Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain
resistant finishes, must not be applied to the test cloth.
3.3. Test cloth dimensions.
3.3.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test cloth must be made from
test cloth material that is cut to 24 \1/2\ inches by
36 \1/2\ inches (61.0 1.3 cm by 91.4
1.3 cm), and hemmed to 22 \1/2\ inches by
34 \1/2\ inches (55.9 1.3 cm by 86.4
1.3 cm) before pre-conditioning.
3.3.2 Energy stuffer cloth. The energy stuffer cloth must be
made from the same test cloth material as the energy test cloth, cut
to 12 \1/4\ inches by 12 \1/4\ inches
(30.5 0.6 cm by 30.5 0.6 cm), and hemmed
to 10 \1/4\ inches by 10 \1/4\ inches
(25.4 0.6 cm by 25.4 0.6 cm) before pre-
conditioning.
* * * * *
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, before any
clothes washer testing using appendix J or appendix J2 to this
subpart, and before any clothes dryer testing using appendix D1 or
appendix D2 to this subpart.
5.1 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).
5.2 Dry the load to bone-dry between each of the five wash-
rinse-spin cycles.
5.3 The maximum shrinkage after pre-conditioning 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).
* * * * *
7. Test Cloth Material Verification Procedure
* * * * *
7.1.1 Dimensions. Each hemmed energy test cloth must meet the
size specifications in section 3.3.1 of this appendix. Each hemmed
energy stuffer cloth must meet the size specifications in section
3.3.2 of this appendix.
* * * * *
7.2 Uniformity Verification.
* * * * *
7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) of the nine
average RMC values from each sample load. For test cloth lots
qualified after February 18, 2025, the CV must be less than or equal
to 1.5% for the test cloth lot to be considered acceptable and to
perform the standard extractor RMC testing.
8. RMC Correction Curve Procedure
* * * * *
8.5 Repeat sections 8.3 and 8.4 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 Calculate RMCcloth-avg for each extractor test
condition by averaging the values of the 3 replications performed
specified in sections 8.3 and 8.4 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
RMCcloth-avg values calculated in section 8.6 of this
appendix:
RMCstandard ~ A x RMCcloth-avg + B
where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.
Table 8.7--Standard RMC Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMC percentage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``g Force'' Warm soak Cold soak
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 min. spin (percent) 4 min. spin (percent) 15 min. spin (percent) 4 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
[[Page 5538]]
650................................................. 23.0 26.4 24.1 28.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.8 Calculate the corrected RMC value for each extractor test
condition, RMCcloth-corr as follows:
RMCcloth-corr = A x RMCcloth-avg + B
Where:
RMCcloth-avg = the average RMC value, as calculated in
section 8.6 of this appendix for each extractor test condition,
expressed as a decimal, and
A and B are the coefficients of the linear least squares fit as
determined in section 8.7 of this appendix.
8.9 Calculate the root mean square error of the linear fit,
RMSE. For test cloth lots qualified after February 18, 2025, the
RMSE must be less than or equal to 0.012 for the test cloth lot to
be considered acceptable. The RMSE is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA25.091
Where:
RMCstandard_i = the RMCstandard value in Table
8.7 of this appendix for the ith extractor test condition, expressed
as a decimal,
RMCcloth-corr_i = the corrected RMC value, as calculated
in section 8.8 of this appendix for the ith extractor test
condition, expressed as a decimal, and
N = the number of extractor test conditions listed in Table 8.7 of
this appendix = 20.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-00986 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P