Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-17018

Proposed Rule2021-17018

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 1, 2021

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") proposes to amend the test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers to specify test conditions, instrument specifications, and test settings; address large clothes container capacities; add product-specific enforcement provisions; delete obsolete provisions; and consolidate all test cloth-related provisions and codify additional test cloth material verification procedures used by industry. DOE also proposes to create a new test procedure for residential and commercial clothes washers with additional modifications for certain test conditions, measurement of average cycle time, required test cycles, tested load sizes, semi- automatic clothes washer provisions, new performance metrics, and updated usage factors. The proposed new test procedure would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the updated standards. As part of this proposal, DOE is announcing a webinar to collect comments and data on this proposal. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49140-49227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17018]

[[Page 49139]]

Vol. 86

Wednesday,

No. 167

September 1, 2021

Part III

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429, 430, and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 49140]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429, 430 and 431

[EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011]
RIN 1904-AD95

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, request for comment, and
announcement of webinar.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers to
specify test conditions, instrument specifications, and test settings;
address large clothes container capacities; add product-specific
enforcement provisions; delete obsolete provisions; and consolidate all
test cloth-related provisions and codify additional test cloth material
verification procedures used by industry. DOE also proposes to create a
new test procedure for residential and commercial clothes washers with
additional modifications for certain test conditions, measurement of
average cycle time, required test cycles, tested load sizes, semi-
automatic clothes washer provisions, new performance metrics, and
updated usage factors. The proposed new test procedure would be used
for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as
well as to determine compliance with the updated standards. As part of
this proposal, DOE is announcing a webinar to collect comments and data
on this proposal. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the
proposal.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than November 1, 2021. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday,
September 14, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V,
``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, by email to the following address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e7b58294a48b88938f8294b086948f8295d5d7d6d1b3b7d7d7d6d6a78282c9838882c9808891">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include ``Energy Conservation
Program: Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes
Washers'' and docket number EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011 and/or RIN number
1904-AD95 in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic
comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing corona virus 2019 (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is currently
accepting only electronic submissions at this time. If a commenter
finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact
Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need
for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health
emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular
options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier.
No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V for information on how to submit comments through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-0371. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1b081819d98909f9294a285909f9590839582a084948285989e9f82b19494df959e94df969e87">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7fcd6c3dfc5ced999fad4fed9c3d8c4dff7dfc699d3d8d299d0d8c1">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the webinar, contact
the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445
or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c3d0c0c10151d121f192f081d12181d0e180f2d09190f081513120f3c191952181319521b130a">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following standards into part 430.
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (``AATCC'')
Test Method 79-2010, ``Absorbency of Textiles,'' Revised 2010.
AATCC Test Method 118-2007, ``Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon
Resistance Test,'' Revised 2007.
AATCC Test Method 135-2010, ``Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after
Home Laundering,'' Revised 2010.
Copies of AATCC test methods can be obtained from AATC, P.O. Box
12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or by going to
<a href="http://www.aatcc.org">www.aatcc.org</a>.
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 62301,
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,''
(Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
Copies of IEC 62301 are available from the American National
Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036,
(212) 642-4900, or by going to <a href="http://webstore.ansi.org">webstore.ansi.org</a>.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
1. Water Meter Resolution
2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines
3. Water Supply Temperatures
4. Wash Water Temperature Measurement
5. Pre-Conditioning Requirements
D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct
1. Tested Load Sizes
2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the Proposed Load Sizes
3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested Settings
4. Remaining Moisture Content
5. Cycle Time Measurement

[[Page 49141]]

6. Capacity Measurement
7. Anomalous Cycles
8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
9. Optional Cycle Modifiers
10. Clothes Washers With Connected Functionality
E. Metrics
1. Replacing Capacity With Weighted-Average Load Size
2. Inverting the Water Metric
3. Annual Energy Use
4. Representation Requirements
F. Cleaning Performance
G. Consumer Usage Assumptions
1. Annual Number of Wash Cycles
2. Drying Energy Assumptions
3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions
4. Temperature Usage Factors
5. Load Usage Factors
6. Water Heater Assumptions
7. Commercial Clothes Washer Usage
H. Clarifications
1. Water Inlet Hose Length
2. Water Fill Selection Availability
3. Water Fill Control Systems
4. Energy Test Cycle Flowcharts
5. Wash Time Setting
6. Annual Operating Cost Calculation
7. Structure of the Proposed New Appendix J
8. Proposed Deletions and Simplifications
9. Typographical Errors
I. Test Cloth Provisions
1. Test Cloth Specification
2. Consolidation to Appendix J3
J. Product-Specific RMC Enforcement Provisions
K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
3. Other Test Procedure Topics
L. Compliance Date and Waivers
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
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
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Consumer (residential) clothes washers (``RCWs'') are included in
the list of ``covered products'' for which DOE is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test
procedures for RCWs are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (``CFR''), part 430 section 23(j), and subpart B
appendices J1 (``Appendix J1'') and J2 (``Appendix J2''). DOE also
prescribes a test method for measuring the moisture absorption and
retention characteristics of new lots of energy test cloth, which is
used in testing clothes washers, at appendix J3 to subpart B
(``Appendix J3''). Commercial clothes washers (``CCWs'') are included
in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which DOE is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) The test procedures for CCWs must be the same as
those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) The following
sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for RCWs
and CCWs and relevant background information regarding DOE's
consideration of test procedures for these products and equipment.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These
products include RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) Title III, Part C \3\ of
EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established
the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. This
equipment includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) Both RCWs and CCWs are
the subject of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42
U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of
those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)).
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
products and equipment comply with relevant standards promulgated under
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products and
equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)) DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the
criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products and equipment, respectively. EPCA
requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this
section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product or equipment during a representative average use cycle
or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))

[[Page 49142]]

Standby mode and off mode energy consumption must be incorporated into
the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy
descriptor for each covered product unless the current test procedures
already account for and incorporate standby and off mode energy
consumption or such integration is technically infeasible. If an
integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe
a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the
covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) \4\ Any such amendment must consider the most
current versions of the IEC Standard 62301 \5\ and IEC Standard 62087
\6\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ EPCA does not contain an analogous provision for commercial
equipment.
\5\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\6\ IEC 62087, Methods of measurement for the power consumption
of audio, video, and related equipment (Edition 3.0, 2011-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including RCWs, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on his 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. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) The comment
period on a proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least
60 days and may not exceed 270 days.\7\ Id. 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. Id. If
DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE
must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for
test procedure NOPRs, consistent with the comment period requirement
for technical regulations in the North American Free Trade
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M.
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended
at 10 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act'');
and Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However,
Congress repealed the NAFTA Implementation Act and has replaced
NAFTA with the Agreement between the United States of America, the
United Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (``USMCA''),
Nov. 30, 2018, 134 Stat. 11, thereby rendering E.O. 12889
inoperable. Consequently, since the USMCA is consistent with EPCA's
public comment period requirements and normally requires only a
minimum comment period of 60 days for technical regulations, DOE now
provides a 60-day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.6314(a)(1))

B. Background

As discussed, DOE's existing test procedures for clothes washers
appear in Appendix J1, Appendix J2, and Appendix J3.
DOE originally established its clothes washer test procedure,
codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``Appendix J''),\8\
in a final rule published Sept. 28, 1977. 42 FR 49802 (``September 1977
Final Rule''). Since that time, the test procedure has undergone
several amendments that are relevant to this rulemaking, summarized as
follows and described in additional detail in a request for information
(``RFI'') that DOE published on May 22, 2020. 85 FR 31065 (``May 2020
RFI'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ In this NOPR, to distinguish different versions of each test
method, DOE uses the following nomenclature: Appendix [letter]-[year
of amendment]. For example, the original version of Appendix J is
referred to as Appendix J-1977. The version as amended by the August
1997 Final Rule is referred to as Appendix J-1997, and so forth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE amended Appendix J in August 1997 (62 FR 45484 (Aug. 27, 1997);
``August 1997 Final Rule'') and January 2001 (66 FR 3313 (Jan. 12,
2001); ``January 2001 Final Rule''). The August 1997 Final Rule also
established an Appendix J1. 62 FR 45484. DOE amended Appendix J1 in the
January 2001 Final Rule (66 FR 3313) and in March 2012. 77 FR 13887
(Mar. 7, 2012) (``March 2012 Final Rule''). The March 2012 Final Rule
also established a new test procedure at Appendix J2 and removed the
obsolete Appendix J-2001. Id.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ In that rulemaking, DOE also adopted procedures to measure
standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the energy
efficiency metrics in the then-newly created Appendix J2.
Manufacturers were not required to incorporate those changes until
the compliance date of an amended standard. 77 FR 13887, 13932.
Amended standards were then adopted through a direct final rule that
required the use of Appendix J2 for RCWs manufactured on or after
the 2015 compliance date. 77 FR 32308, 32313 (May 31, 2012). The
newly proposed Appendix J in this NOPR follows a similar approach
because manufacturers would not be required to incorporate the
amendments proposed in Appendix J until the compliance date of an
amended standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE most recently amended both Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 in a
final rule published on August 5, 2015. 80 FR 46729 (``August 2015
Final Rule''). The August 2015 Final Rule also moved the test cloth
qualification procedures from Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 to the newly
created Appendix J3. 80 FR 46729, 46735.
The current version of the test procedure at Appendix J2 includes
provisions for determining modified energy factor (``MEF'') and
integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF'') in cubic feet per
kilowatt-hour per cycle (``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''); and water factor
(``WF'') and integrated water factor (``IWF'') in gallons per cycle per
cubic feet (``gal/cycle/ft\3\''). RCWs manufactured on or after January
1, 2018, must meet current energy conservation standards, which are
based on IMEF and IWF, determined using Appendix J2. 10 CFR
430.32(g)(4); 10 CFR 430.23(j)(2)(ii) and (4)(ii). CCWs manufactured
after January 1, 2018 must meet current energy conservation standards,
which are based on MEF and IWF, determined using Appendix J2. 10 CFR
431.154 and 10 CFR 431.156(b).
DOE published the May 2020 RFI to initiate an effort to determine
whether to amend the current test procedures for clothes washers. 85 FR
31065. DOE requested comment on specific aspects of the current test
procedure, including product definitions and configurations, testing
conditions and instrumentation,

[[Page 49143]]

measurement methods, representative usage and efficiency factors, and
metric definitions. 85 FR 31065, 31067-31082 (May 22, 2020). In
response to stakeholder requests, DOE re-opened the comment period for
the May 2020 RFI. 85 FR 38106 (June 25, 2020).
On December 16, 2020, DOE established separate product classes for
top-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes and for
front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes. 85 FR
81359 (``December 2020 Final Rule''). DOE is re-evaluating the new
short-cycle product classes in response to Executive Order 13900,
``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). In addition,
stakeholders and interested parties filed multiple lawsuits challenging
the December 2020 Final Rule, and DOE has received several petitions
for reconsideration of the December 2020 Final Rule.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.

Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to May 2020 RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Commenters.. Efficiency
Project, American Council for Organizations.
an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of America,
National Consumer Law Center,
Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
Electrolux Home Products........ Electrolux........ Manufacturer.
GE Appliances................... GEA............... Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric California Utilities.
Company, Southern California Investor-Owned
Edison, San Diego Gas & Utilities (``CA
Electric Company. IOUs'').
Samsung Electronics America..... Samsung........... Manufacturer.
Underwriters Laboratories....... UL................ Third-Party Test
Laboratory.
Whirlpool Corporation........... Whirlpool......... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for clothes washers. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-
0011, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011</a>). The references are arranged as follows: (Commenter
name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update Appendix J2 as follows:
(1) Further specify supply water temperature test conditions and
water meter resolution requirements;
(2) Add specifications for measuring wash water temperature using
submersible data loggers;
(3) Expand the load size table to accommodate clothes container
capacities up to 8.0 cubic feet (``ft\3\'');
(4) Define ``user-adjustable automatic water fill control;''
(5) Specify the applicability of the wash time setting for clothes
washers with a range of wash time settings;
(6) Specify how the energy test cycle flow charts apply to clothes
washers that internally generate hot water;
(7) Specify that the energy test cycle flow charts are to be
evaluated using the Maximum load size;
(8) Specify that testing is to be conducted with any network
settings disabled if instructions are available to the user to disable
these functions;
(9) Further specify the conditions under which data from a test
cycle would be discarded;
(10) Add product-specific enforcement provisions to accommodate the
potential for test cloth lot-to-lot variation in remaining moisture
content (``RMC'');
(11) Delete obsolete definitions, metrics, and the clothes washer-
specific waiver section; and
(12) Move additional test cloth related specifications to Appendix
J3.
In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing to update 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J3, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Moisture Absorption and Retention Characteristics,'' as follows:
(1) Consolidate all test cloth-related provisions, including those
proposed to be moved from Appendix J2;
(2) Reorganize sections for improved readability; and
(3) Codify the test cloth material verification procedure as used
by industry.
In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing to create a new appendix J to
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers,''
which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of any updated
efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the
updated standards, should DOE determine that amended standards are
warranted based on the criteria established by EPCA.\11\ The proposed
new Appendix J would include the following additional provisions beyond
those proposed as amendments to Appendix J2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Information regarding the ongoing RCW and CCW energy
conservation standards rulemakings can be found at docket numbers
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 and EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Modify the hot water supply target temperature and clothes
washer pre-conditioning requirements;
(2) Modify the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature;
(3) Add measurement and calculation of average cycle time;
(4) Reduce the number of required test cycles by requiring the use
of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more than two
Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles;
(5) Reduce the number of required test cycles by removing the need
for one or more cycles used for measuring RMC;
(6) Reduce the number of load sizes from three to two for units
with automatic water fill controls;
(7) Modify the load size definitions consistent with two, rather
than three, load sizes;
(8) Update the water fill levels to be used for testing to reflect
the modified load size definitions;
(9) Specify the installation of single-inlet clothes washers, and
simplify the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers;
(10) Define new performance metrics that are functions of the
weighted-average load size rather than clothes

[[Page 49144]]

container capacity: ``energy efficiency ratio,'' ``active-mode energy
efficiency ratio,'' and ``water efficiency ratio;''
(11) Update the number of annual clothes washer cycles from 295 to
234; and
(12) Update the number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be
based on the clothes washer's measured cycle time rather than an
assumed fixed value.
Finally, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to remove Appendix J1 and
to update the relevant sections of 10 CFR parts 429, 430 and 431 in
accordance with the edits discussed previously, and to modify the
product-specific enforcement provisions regarding the determination of
RMC.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedures as well as the reason for the proposed change.

Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedures Relative to
Current Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies a water meter Requires a water Improve
resolution of no larger than meter with a representativenes
0.1 gallons. resolution no s of test
larger than 0.01 results.
gallons if the
hot water use is
less than 0.1
gallons, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Does not specify how to install Specifies Provide further
clothes washers with a single installing direction for
inlet. clothes washers unaddressed
with a single feature.
inlet to the cold
water inlet, in
Appendix J.
Specifies a hot water supply Specifies a hot Improve
temperature of 130-135 [deg]F. water supply representativenes
temperature of s of test
120-125 [deg]F, results.
in Appendix J.
Defines the Extra-Hot Wash Specifies an Extra- Improve
threshold as 135 [deg]F. Hot Wash representativenes
threshold of 140 s of test
[deg]F, in results.
Appendix J.
Specifies a target water supply Removes the target Reduce test
temperature at the high end of water temperature burden.
the water supply temperature specification, in
range. Appendices J and
J2.
Specifically allows the use of Adds specification Reduce test
temperature indicating labels for using a burden.
for measuring wash water submersible
temperature. temperature
logger to measure
wash water
temperature, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Specifies different pre- Requires the same Improve
conditioning requirements for pre-conditioning reproducibility
water-heating and non-water- requirements for of test results.
heating clothes washers. all clothes
washers, in
Appendix J.
Specifies the test load sizes Specifies the test Response to
for clothes container load sizes for waiver.
capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. clothes container
capacities up to
8.0 ft\3\, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Requires 3 tested load sizes on Reduces the number Reduce test
clothes washers with automatic of load sizes to burden.
water fill control systems. test to 2, and
specifies new
load sizes, in
Appendix J.
Defines load sizes for each 0.1 Redefines load Maintain
ft\3\ increment in clothes sizes for each representativenes
container capacity. increment in s.
clothes container
capacity,
consistent with
reduction from 3
to 2 load sizes,
in Appendix J.
Defines water fill levels to use Changes the water Maintain
with each tested load sizes on fill levels representativenes
clothes washers with manual consistent with s.
water fill control systems. the updated load
sizes, in
Appendix J.
Requires testing up to 3 Warm Requires testing a Reduce test
Wash temperature selections. maximum of 2 Warm burden.
Wash temperature
selections, in
Appendix J.
Specifies that the RMC is to be Specifies that the Reduce test
measured on separate cycle(s) RMC is to be burden, improve
from the energy test cycle. measured on all representativenes
energy test s of test
cycles, in results.
Appendix J.
Provides product-specific Provides Accommodate
enforcement provisions to additional potential source
address anomalous RMC results product-specific of variation in
that are not representative of enforcement enforcement
a basic model's performance. provisions to testing.
accommodate
differences in
RMC values that
may result from
DOE using a
different test
cloth lot than
was used by the
manufacturer for
testing and
certifying the
basic model, for
Appendices J and
J2.
Specifies that the starting Requires that the Improve
weight of the test cloth may be test cloth be reproducibility
up to 104 percent of bone-dry. bone-dry at the of test results.
start of every
test cycle, in
Appendix J.
Does not specify a measure of Specifies Improve
cycle time. provisions for representativenes
measuring cycle s of test
time, in Appendix results.
J.
Specifies discarding data from a Specifies Response to test
wash cycle that provides a discarding the laboratory
visual or audio indicator to test data if question.
alert the user that an out-of- during a wash
balance condition has been cycle the clothes
detected, or that terminates washer signals
prematurely if an out-of- the user by means
balance condition is detected. of a visual or
audio alert that
an out-of-balance
condition has
been detected or
terminates
prematurely, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Does not explicitly state how to Provides explicit Provide further
test semi-automatic clothes test provisions direction for
washers. for testing semi- unaddressed
automatic clothes feature.
washers, in
Appendix J.
Does not explicitly address the Specifies that Improve
required configuration for clothes washers reproducibility
network-connected functionality. with connected of test results.
functionality
shall be tested
with the network-
connected
functions
disabled if such
settings can be
disabled by the
end-user, and the
product's user
manual provides
instructions on
how to do so, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Defines metrics that are Specifies new Improve
dependent on capacity (IMEF, metrics that are representativenes
MEF, IWF). dependent on the s of test
weighted-average results.
load size, in
Appendix J.
Estimates the number of annual Updates the Update with more
use cycles for clothes washers estimate to 234 recent consumer
as 295, based on the 2005 cycles per year, usage data.
Residential Energy Consumption based on the
Survey (``RECS'') data. latest available
2015 RECS data,
in Appendix J.

[[Page 49145]]

Estimates the number of hours Calculates the Improve
spent in low-power mode as number of hours representativenes
8,465, based on 295 cycles per spent in low- s of test
year and an assumed 1-hour power mode for results.
cycle time. each clothes
washer based on
234 cycles per
year and measured
cycle time, in
Appendix J.
Does not specify how to test a Specifies using a Response to test
clothes washer that does not water inlet hose laboratory
provide water inlet hoses. length of no more question.
than 72 inches,
in Appendix J.
Does not provide an explicit Provides a Improve
definition for ``user- definition for readability.
adjustable automatic water fill ``user-adjustable
controls'' or ``wash time''. automatic water
fill controls,''
in Appendix J and
for ``wash
time,'' in
Appendices J and
J2.
Specifies that user-adjustable Changes the Response to test
automatic clothes washers must wording to laboratory
be tested with the water fill specify selecting question.
setting in the most or least the setting based
energy-intensive setting on the most, or
without defining energy- least, amount of
intensive. water used, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Does not specify on which load Specifies Response to test
size to evaluate the energy evaluating the laboratory
test cycle flow charts. flow charts using question, improve
the maximum load reproducibility
size for Appendix of test results.
J2 and the large
load size for
Appendix J.
Does not explicitly address how Explicitly Response to test
to evaluate the Cold/Cold addresses clothes laboratory
energy test cycle flow chart washers that question.
for clothes washers that internally
internally generate hot water. generate hot
water, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Does not provide direction for Clarifies how to Improve
all control panel styles on test cycles with readability.
clothes washers that offer a a range of wash
range of wash time settings. time settings, in
Appendices J and
J2.
Includes test cloth verification Moves all test Improve
specifications in Appendix J2. cloth related readability.
provisions to
Appendix J3.
Does not include all aspects of Codifies Codify industry
test cloth verification additional test practice.
procedures performed by cloth
industry. verification
procedures
performed by
industry, in
Appendix J3.
Contains obsolete provisions.... Updates or deletes Improve
obsolete readability.
provisions,
including
Appendix J1 in
its entirety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to
Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 described in section III of this document
would not alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers, and that
the proposed test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in the
new Appendix J would alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers,
in part because the amended test procedures would adopt a different
energy efficiency metric and water efficiency metric than in the
current test procedure. Because the proposed new Appendix J would be
used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards,
DOE is proposing that use of new Appendix J, if finalized, would not be
required until the compliance date of any updated standards. Discussion
of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of
this document.

III. Discussion

In the following sections, DOE describes the proposed amendments to
the test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers.
This NOPR includes issues identified in previous rulemakings and
discusses additional issues that DOE has become aware of since the
completion of the August 2015 Final Rule. DOE seeks input from the
public to assist with its consideration of the proposed amendments
presented in this document. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other
relevant issues that may not specifically be identified in this
document.

A. General Comments

DOE received a number of general comments from stakeholders, as
summarized below.
AHAM commented generally that no test can be considered
``reasonably designed'' under EPCA if the test is not accurate,
repeatable, and reproducible. AHAM stated that test procedures with
significant variation do not allow consumers to make informed purchase
decisions based on energy use/efficiency and do not adequately serve
the purpose of demonstrating compliance with energy conservation
standards. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2) AHAM also claimed that as energy
conservation standards become more stringent, minimizing variation in
test procedure results becomes more important because of the need for
manufacturers to conservatively rate their products. AHAM asserted that
lack of uniform test results requires manufacturers to rate more
conservatively, which effectively makes the standard more stringent in
practice. Id.
AHAM commented that the clothes washer test procedure is one of the
most burdensome DOE test procedures for consumer appliances. AHAM
provided an example that a full-featured clothes washer (one that
includes manual and user-adjustable automatic water fill control
systems (``WFCS''), a heater, four warm wash temperatures, warm rinse,
and selectable spin speeds) could require more than 70 test cycles per
unit under Appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 4-5) GEA similarly
commented that DOE should work to reduce test burden for full-featured
clothes washers, stating that requiring 70 individual cycles for a
single test of certain clothes washers demonstrates that the clothes
washer test procedure has become overly complicated and fails to
fulfill the representativeness requirement under the EPCA. (GEA, No. 13
at p. 2)
AHAM requested that if DOE implements any changes that will
significantly impact measured energy, DOE should require compliance
with the revised test procedure on the same date as the next amended
energy conservation standards for clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p.
16)
Electrolux, GEA, and Whirlpool support AHAM's comments to the RFI.
(Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 1; GEA, No. 13 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 7 at
p. 1) GEA incorporates them into its own comments by reference. (GEA,
No. 13 at

[[Page 49146]]

p. 1) Whirlpool further supports a reasonable balancing of the DOE test
procedure, considering repeatability, reproducibility,
representativeness, and testing burden. (Whirlpool, No. 7 at p. 1)
As stated, 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 or
equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use
and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) As described in this NOPR, DOE is proposing a number
of changes to be implemented in a proposed new Appendix J that DOE has
tentatively concluded would significantly reduce test burden while
maintaining or improving the representativeness of test results. In
addition, both the amendments to Appendix J2 and the proposed new
Appendix J are intended to further improve the repeatability and
reproducibility of test results, as described in the relevant sections
of this document.
DOE is proposing to establish a new test procedure at a new
Appendix J at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B. Any changes to the test
procedure that would impact measured efficiency would be provided in
this proposed new Appendix J, which DOE would use for the evaluation
and issuance of updated efficiency standards. Therefore, DOE is
proposing that use of new Appendix J would not be required until the
compliance date of any updated standards that are based on new Appendix
J. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(C)). DOE also proposes to state in the
introductory text to both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J
that Appendix J2 is required to determine compliance with energy
conservation standards until any such amended standards are adopted.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition
of ``clothes washer,'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA does not define the term ``clothes washer.'' DOE has defined a
``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to clean clothes,
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes:
Automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other
clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2.
An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature,
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer that is
not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
This NOPR also covers commercial equipment that meets the
definition of ``commercial clothes washer.'' ``Commercial clothes
washer'' is defined as a soft-mount front-loading or soft-mount top-
loading clothes washer that--

(A) Has a clothes container compartment that--
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5
cubic feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0
cubic feet; and
(B) Is designed for use in--
(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one
household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family
housing common areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.

(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452)

DOE is not proposing any changes to the scope of products and
equipment covered by its clothes washer test procedures, or to the
relevant definitions.

C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation

1. Water Meter Resolution
Section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 requires the use of water meters (in
the hot and cold water lines) with a resolution no larger than 0.1
gallons and a maximum error no greater than 2 percent of the measured
flow rate. DOE has observed that some clothes washers use very small
amounts of hot water on some temperature selections, on the order of
0.1 gallons or less. 85 FR 31065, 31069. For example, some clothes
washers have both Cold and Tap Cold temperature selections, and the
Cold selection may use a fraction of a gallon of hot water. 85 FR
31065, 31070. DOE believes that Appendix J2 may not provide the
necessary resolution to accurately and precisely measure the hot water
usage of such temperature selections. Id. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE
requested input on whether to amend section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 to
require that water meters must have a resolution more precise than 0.1
gallons. Id.
The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to require a water meter with
greater precision than that of the current specification to ensure that
the test procedures are accurately representing energy use. (Joint
Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3)
AHAM commented that requiring more precise water meters could
provide a benefit by increasing the accuracy of the measurements but
could also increase the burden due to the cost of obtaining these
meters that could become overly burdensome. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7)
GEA supported moving to a 0.01-gallon resolution for water meters.
GEA stated that it uses water meters with this resolution and has
encountered reproducibility issues when using a water meter with only
0.1-gallon resolution. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
Whirlpool commented that requiring a more precise water meter is
not justified. Whirlpool estimates that a manufacturer without these
meters installed could face a cost of over $100,000 to purchase and
install them, and cautioned that the need for a more precise water
meter needs to be balanced with the cost burden. (Whirlpool, No. 7 at
p. 1)
DOE has identified clothes washers on the market that use less than
0.1 gallons of hot water on certain temperature selections or load
sizes required for testing. In DOE's experience with such clothes
washers, the maximum load size typically uses more than 0.1 gallons of
hot water on each of the available temperature selections (providing
indication of which temperature selections use hot water), whereas the
average and minimum load sizes may use a quantity less than 0.1
gallons. For these clothes washers, the existing water meter resolution
of 0.1 gallons is insufficient to provide an accurate measurement of
hot water consumption, i.e., the volume of hot water measured is less
than the resolution of the water meter. To improve the
representativeness of the water measurement, DOE is proposing a
requirement to use a water meter with greater precision for clothes
washers that use less than 0.1 gallons of hot water. DOE's testing
suggests that

[[Page 49147]]

clothes washers that use such low volumes of heated water represent a
minority of units on the market. Requiring greater water meter
precision for all clothes washers would represent an undue burden for
those clothes washer models for which water meters with the currently
required level of precision provide representative results. DOE is
therefore proposing that the hot water meter must have a resolution no
larger than 0.01 gallons only for clothes washers with hot water usage
less than 0.1 gallons in any of the individual cycles within the energy
test cycle. All other clothes washers may continue to be tested using a
water meter with a resolution no larger than 0.1 gallons. As noted by
GEA's comment, some manufacturers may already be using water meters
with this greater resolution, and DOE's experience working with third-
party laboratories indicates that at least some third-party
laboratories already use water meters with this greater resolution.
DOE is proposing to include in section 2.5.5 of both the proposed
new Appendix J and Appendix J2 the following specification: ``If the
volume of hot water for any individual cycle within the energy test
cycle is less than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot water meter must
have a resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters).''
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require a hot water meter
resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use
less than 0.1 gallons in any of the individual cycles within the energy
test cycle. DOE requests comment on the extent to which manufacturers
and test laboratories already use water meters with this greater
resolution. DOE also requests comment on whether proposing this
requirement for Appendix J2 would require manufacturers to retest any
basic models that have already been certified under the existing water
meter resolution requirements.
2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines
Section 2.10 of Appendix J2 provides specifications for installing
a clothes washer, referencing both the hot water and cold water inlets.
Additionally, section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 specifies that a water meter
must be installed in both the hot and cold water lines. DOE is aware of
RCWs on the market that have a single water inlet rather than separate
hot and cold water inlets. 85 FR 31065, 31070. DOE has observed two
types of single-inlet RCWs: (1) Semi-automatic clothes washers, which
are generally intended to be connected to a kitchen or bathroom faucet
and which require user intervention to regulate the water temperature
by adjusting the external water faucet valves; and (2) automatic
clothes washers intended to be connected only to a cold water inlet,
and which regulate the water temperature through the use of an internal
heating element to generate any hot water used during the cycle. Id.
DOE stated in the May 2020 RFI that it understood that a ``Y''-
shaped hose or other similar device may be provided by the manufacturer
on some automatic models to allow separate cold and hot water supply
lines to be connected to the single inlet on the unit; however, other
models may not include such a connector. Id. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE
inadvertently attributed the use of a Y-shaped hose to automatic
single-inlet clothes washers (emphasis added)--rather, DOE intended to
describe that semi-automatic single-inlet clothes washers may provide
or accommodate the use of a Y-shaped hose, based on its experience with
testing semi-automatic clothes washers.
For single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers (i.e., the first
example described previously), DOE has observed that these clothes
washers are most often designed to be connected to a kitchen or
bathroom faucet, with a single hose connecting the faucet to the single
inlet on the clothes washer (i.e., both cold and hot water are supplied
to the clothes washer through a single hose).\12\ The user regulates
the water temperature externally by adjusting the faucet(s) to provide
cold, warm, or hot water temperatures for the wash and rinse portions
of the cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ As noted, some models may provide or accommodate a Y-shaped
hose to connect the separate cold and hot water faucets or supply
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3.2.3.2 of Appendix J2 provides setup instructions for
semi-automatic clothes washers regarding the configuration of both cold
and hot water faucets during testing. Specifically, the test procedure
specifies that to obtain a hot inlet water temperature, open the hot
water faucet completely and close the cold water faucet; for a warm
inlet water temperature, open both hot and cold water faucets
completely; and for a cold inlet water temperature, close the hot water
faucet and open the cold water faucet completely. In the laboratory
setup defined by section 2.2 of Appendix J2, the cold and hot water
supplies are provided as separate hookups, in contrast to most faucets
in residential settings, in which the cold and hot water supply lines
combine internally within the faucet into a single output. Thus, the
instructions in section 3.2.3.2 of Appendix J2 can be conducted only
for either a semi-automatic clothes washer with both hot and cold water
inlets (of which no such models are currently on the market, according
to DOE research), or a single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washer
installed with a Y-shaped hose or other similar device that combines
the cold and hot water supply lines to connect to the single inlet on
the unit (simulating most residential faucets, which combine the cold
and hot water supply lines internally, as described). Appendix J2 does
not, however, explicitly prescribe the use of a Y-shaped hose.
As described in the May 2020 RFI, without the use of a Y-shaped
hose, connecting a single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washer to only a
single water supply would limit the available water temperature to
either 60 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') (provided by the cold water
supply) or 135 [deg]F (provided by the hot water supply), based on the
supply water specifications currently provided in section 2.2 of
Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31070. In effect, only Cold Wash/Cold Rinse
or Hot Wash/Hot Rinse could be tested with a single-hose installation.
Id. As noted, Appendix J2 does not provide explicit direction on how to
connect a single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washer to enable testing
at other wash/rinse temperatures. Id. Therefore, DOE requested
information on whether and how consumers using this type of clothes
washer adjust their water temperature for the wash and rinse portions
of the cycle and requested comments, data, and information on the
typical connection and representative average use of single-inlet semi-
automatic clothes washers. Additionally, DOE requested information on
how manufacturers are currently testing single-inlet semi-automatic
clothes washers under Appendix J2. Id.
No comments were received regarding installation or testing of
single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers.
Based on the previous discussion, DOE maintains that additional
direction in the test procedure is warranted for single-inlet semi-
automatic clothes washers to produce test results that reflect
representative consumer usage of cold, warm, and hot wash/rinse
temperatures. DOE considered three potential changes to address the
installation of single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers: (1)
Require the use of a Y-shaped hose, which would be used to connect the
single inlet of the clothes washer to both the cold and hot water
supply connections; (2) connect the single inlet of the clothes washer
to a single water supply

[[Page 49148]]

connection with a non-fixed temperature output that can be nominally
set to 60 [deg]F (for cold), 97.5 [deg]F (for warm), or 135 [deg]F (for
hot), for example; or (3) require connection to only the cold water
supply, enabling testing of only the Cold/Cold wash/rinse temperature,
and calculate the energy and water performance at other wash/rinse
temperatures formulaically from the Cold/Cold cycle data. As discussed
in detail in the following paragraphs, DOE is proposing to adopt option
3 in this NOPR.
Regarding option 1, requiring the use of a Y-shaped hose would
provide a simple and low-cost approach for testing of cold, warm, and
hot wash/rinse temperatures on single-inlet semi-automatic clothes
washers. The Y-shaped hose would mimic the functionality provided by
most residential faucets, and thus would provide a representative
installation setup. However, by connecting the cold and hot lines to
each other, differences in water pressure \13\ between the two sides
can result in unequal and unrepeatable water flow rates through the
cold and hot sides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Section 2.3 of Appendix J2 specifies maintaining water
pressure of 35 pounds per square inch gauge (``psig'') <plus-minus>
2.5 psig on both the cold and hot water supply lines. These
tolerances could result in a pressure difference of up to 5 psig
between the two lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding option 2, (requiring a non-fixed temperature supply line
that can be set to the specified cold, warm, or hot temperature), DOE
tentatively concludes that such a requirement could present undue test
burden on laboratories that do not currently implement variable-
temperature supply water controls and instrumentation, given the
relatively low number of single-inlet semi-automatic models on the
market that would be tested each year. In addition, because temperature
sensors are typically calibrated around the target temperature being
measured, varying the temperature of the supply line between 60 [deg]F
and 120 [deg]F could result in less accurate inlet water temperature
measurements.
Regarding option 3, (connecting to the cold water inlet only,
testing only on the Cold/Cold cycle, and determining performance at
other temperatures numerically), as discussed further in section
III.D.8.b of this document, energy and water performance at
temperatures other than Cold Wash/Cold Rinse can be calculated
numerically using test data from the Cold/Cold cycle because the
measured characteristics \14\ of a semi-automatic clothes washer cycle
do not depend on the inlet water temperature. Therefore, DOE
tentatively concludes that representative test results can be obtained
with a minimal number of test cycles using this approach, which DOE
proposes to incorporate into the proposed new Appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Measured characteristics of a semi-automatic clothes washer
cycle include total water consumption, electrical energy
consumption, cycle time, and bone-dry and cycle complete load
weights. See section III.D.8.b of this document for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is proposing in this NOPR to make this change only in the
proposed new Appendix J because connecting to only the cold water inlet
may differ from how such units are currently being tested by
manufacturers and laboratories under Appendix J2. DOE seeks information
about implementing this change to Appendix J2 as well, specifically
regarding how single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers are being
tested and any potential impact on the measured energy use of these
clothes washers on the market.
See section III.D.8 of this document for a full discussion of other
proposed edits to testing provisions for semi-automatic clothes washers
and a list of related issues on which DOE seeks comment.
For a single-inlet automatic clothes washer, DOE discussed in the
May 2020 RFI the use of a Y-shaped hose to allow both cold and hot
water supply lines to be connected to the single inlet on the unit. 85
FR 31065, 31070 (emphasis added). DOE requested comments or information
on how single-inlet automatic clothes washers are typically installed
by consumers. Id.
AHAM commented that it is not aware of a Y-shaped hose connecter
being used for typical installation of single-inlet automatic clothes
washers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7)
As described previously, DOE inadvertently attributed the use of a
Y-shaped hose to automatic, rather than semi-automatic, single-inlet
clothes washers. DOE is not aware of any single-inlet automatic clothes
washers that require the use of a Y-shaped hose connector because such
clothes washers internally generate any hot water needed for the cycle.
Based on a review of models currently certified in DOE's compliance
certification database, DOE is aware of three models of single-inlet
automatic clothes washers currently available on the market.\15\ DOE's
examination of user manuals for each of these single-inlet automatic
clothes washers indicates that the instructions accompanying these
products direct that they be connected to the cold water supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ DOE's certification compliance database is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Clothes_Washers.html">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Clothes_Washers.html</a>. DOE identified the following single-inlet
automatic models: WFW3090J**, WFW5090J**, WFC8090G**. Analysis
conducted in March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to specify that all
single-inlet automatic clothes washers be installed to the cold water
supply only. As discussed above, DOE is proposing to include this
provision in the proposed new Appendix J only. The proposed edit would
specify in section 2.10.1 of the proposed new Appendix J that if the
clothes washer has only one water inlet, connect the inlet to the cold
water supply in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require all single-inlet
clothes washers to be installed to the cold water supply only. DOE also
requests comment on whether this requirement should be included in only
the proposed new Appendix J, or whether, if adopted, it should be
included as an amendment to Appendix J2.
3. Water Supply Temperatures
a. Hot Water Supply Temperature
Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 requires maintaining the hot water
supply temperature between 130 [deg]F (54.4 degrees Celsius
(``[deg]C'')) and 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), using 135 [deg]F as the
target temperature.
DOE has revised the hot water supply temperature requirements
several times throughout the history of the clothes washer test
procedures to remain representative of household water temperatures at
the time of each analysis. When establishing the original clothes
washer test procedure at Appendix J in 1977, DOE specified a hot water
supply temperature of 140 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F for clothes
washers equipped with thermostatically controlled inlet water valves.
42 FR 49802, 49808. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE specified in
Appendix J1 that for clothes washers in which electrical energy
consumption or water energy consumption is affected by the inlet water
temperatures,\16\ the hot water supply temperature cannot exceed 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C); and for other clothes washers, the hot water
supply temperature is to be maintained at 135 [deg]F <plus-minus>5
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C <plus-minus> 2.8 [deg]C). 62 FR 45484, 45497. DOE
maintained these same requirements in the original version of Appendix
J2. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE adjusted the allowable tolerance
of the hot water

[[Page 49149]]

supply temperature in section 2.2 of Appendix J2 to between 130 [deg]F
(54.4 [deg]C) and 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C) for all clothes washers, but
maintained 135 [deg]F as the target temperature. 80 FR 46729, 46734-
46735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ For example, water-heating clothes washers or clothes
washers with thermostatically controlled water valves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE analyzed household water temperatures as part of the test
procedure final rule for residential and commercial water heaters
published July 11, 2014. 79 FR 40541 (``July 2014 Water Heater Final
Rule''). In the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule, DOE revised the hot
water delivery temperature from 135 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F based on an
analysis of data showing that the average set point temperature for
consumer water heaters in the field is 124.2 [deg]F (51.2 [deg]C),
which was rounded to the nearest 5 [deg]F, resulting in a test set
point temperature of 125 [deg]F. 79 FR 40541, 40554. Additionally, a
2011 compilation of field data across the United States and southern
Ontario by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (``LBNL'') \17\ found
a median daily outlet water temperature of 122.7 [deg]F (50.4 [deg]C).
Id. Further, DOE noted in the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule that
water heaters are commonly set with temperatures in the range of 120
[deg]F to 125 [deg]F. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Lutz, JD, Renaldi, Lekov A, Qin Y, and Melody M, ``Hot
Water Draw Patterns in Single Family Houses: Findings from Field
Studies,'' LBNL Report number LBNL-4830E (May 2011). Available at
<a href="http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj">www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, DOE's consumer dishwasher test procedure, codified at
10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix C1 (``Appendix C1''), specifies a
hot water supply temperature of 120 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F for
water-heating dishwashers designed for heating water with a nominal
inlet temperature of 120 [deg]F, which includes nearly all consumer
dishwashers currently on the U.S. market. Section 2.3.2 of Appendix C1.
This water supply temperature is intended to be representative of
household hot water temperatures.
Table III.1 summarizes the various hot water temperature data
considered for the present rulemaking.

Table III.1--Summary of Field Surveys of Water Heater Temperature
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature
Source Description ([deg]F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2011 LBNL Report........... Median daily outlet 122.7
water temperature.
July 2014 Water Heater Final Average set point 124.2
Rule. temperature for
consumer water heaters
in the field.
July 2014 Water Heater Final Common water heater 120-125
Rule. setpoints.
Appendix C1.................... Dishwasher test 120
procedure supply
temperature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comments on whether DOE should
consider updating the hot water supply temperature specification for
the clothes washer test procedures to be within the range of 120 [deg]F
to 125 [deg]F, providing better consistency with DOE's test procedures
for dishwashers and consumer water heaters. 85 FR 31065, 31069.
AHAM suggested that product design changes may be required if DOE
amends the clothes washer test procedures to harmonize the hot water
supply temperature with the dishwasher test procedure. AHAM stated that
changing the hot water supply temperature specification would impact
measured efficiency, and DOE would thus need to address that change in
the accompanying standards rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 6)
GEA stated that there is little benefit to consumers by moving the
target temperature to 120 [deg]F. If DOE does change the target
temperature, GEA is concerned about the change in measured hot water
energy usage. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs recommended keeping the target temperature at 135
[deg]F to prevent the growth of Legionella bacteria. The CA IOUs
referenced the American Society of Sanitary Engineering (``ASSE'')
Scald Awareness Task Group and Unified Plumbing Code (``UPC'')
recommendations that hot water temperature should be 130-140 [deg]F to
eliminate the risk of Legionella growth. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 14-15)
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE should consider changing the
target temperature to 120 [deg]F, because 120 [deg]F is the hot water
supply temperature for the consumer dishwasher test procedure and is a
common water heater set point. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3)
However, the Joint Commenters also stated that the 135 [deg]F target
temperature may be appropriate to maintain as average set points
increase in the field due to Legionella concerns. The Joint Commenters
encouraged DOE to investigate which hot water supply temperature would
be most representative. Id.
UL supports specifying the hot water supply temperature to be
consistent with hot water heater outlet temperatures, as supported by
field data. (UL, No. 9 at p. 1)
Samsung recommended that DOE specify a hot water supply temperature
of 120 <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F, consistent with the temperature specified
in the consumer dishwasher test procedure. Samsung also commented that
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends this temperature
to consumers as the safest set point for water heaters to avoid scalds.
(Samsung, No. 6 at p. 3)
NEEA encouraged DOE to investigate the hot water supply temperature
that would be most representative of field use. NEEA added that water
heater set points may increase closer to the Appendix J2-specified 135
[deg]F in the future, due to concerns about Legionella bacteria growth.
(NEEA, No. 12 at p. 26) NEEA also recommended that DOE consider heat
losses in the pipes and static water in the supply line in the field,
which are likely to lower clothes washer inlet hot temperatures
relative to water heater set points. Id.
Based on the analysis of recent water temperature data summarized
in Table III.1, DOE is proposing to update the hot water supply
temperature in the proposed new Appendix J from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-
125 [deg]F. DOE preliminarily concludes that an inlet temperature of
120-125 [deg]F is more representative of consumer hot water
temperatures than the range of 130-135 [deg]F currently specified in
Appendix J2.
In addition, section 4.1.2 of Appendix J2 calculates the hot water
energy consumption for each tested load size, by multiplying the hot
water consumption for each tested load size, by ``T,'' the temperature
rise, and by ``K,'' the specific heat of water. In Appendix J2, T is
defined as 75 [deg]F, which represents the nominal difference between
the hot and cold water inlet temperatures. In this NOPR, DOE is
proposing to use a value for T of 65 [deg]F in the proposed new
Appendix J, consistent with the differential between the nominal values
for the proposed hot

[[Page 49150]]

water supply temperature (120-125 [deg]F) and the cold water supply
temperature (55-60 [deg]F).
DOE agrees with AHAM and GEA that changing the hot water supply
temperature would likely impact measured efficiency because hot water
energy consumption is a significant component in the calculation of the
IMEF metric. As a result, DOE is proposing to update the hot water
supply temperature only in the proposed new Appendix J and not in
existing Appendix J2. Therefore, DOE's proposal would not affect the
measured efficiency of clothes washers currently tested using Appendix
J2. The ongoing RCW and CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings
would consider the impact of this proposed modification to the hot
water supply temperature on measured efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the hot water supply
temperature for the proposed new Appendix J from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-
125 [deg]F. DOE seeks more recent data on hot water supply temperatures
in consumer clothes washer installations. DOE also requests comment on
any potential impact to testing costs that may occur by harmonizing
temperatures between the clothes washer and dishwasher test procedures,
and the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with any changes to
the hot water supply temperature.
In the NOPR preceding the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule, DOE
cited a comment from Applied Energy Technology,\18\ which stated that
water temperatures in the range of 120 [deg]F are adequate to prevent
Legionella growth as long as the water is maintained at a temperature
``high enough, long enough, and often enough.'' 78 FR 66202, 66219
(Nov. 4, 2013). In that NOPR, DOE also cited the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'')
guideline \19\ which states that hot water should be stored above 140
[deg]F only for high-risk applications (such as health-care facilities
and nursing homes). 78 FR 66202, 66218 (Nov. 4, 2013). Moreover, the
specification of hot water supply temperature in the clothes washer
test procedure is intended to be representative of consumer clothes
washer installations, as supported by the data described previously.
The target temperature defined in the clothes washer test procedure
does not and would not introduce any regulatory requirement on water
heater manufacturers, installers, or consumers regarding the set point
temperature that can be chosen for any individual water heater
installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See comment number 22 in Docket number EERE-2011-BT-TP-
0042. Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2011-BT-TP-0042">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2011-BT-TP-0042</a>.
\19\ ASHRAE Guideline 12, ``Minimizing the Risk of Legionellosis
Associated with Building Water Systems,'' states that the
temperature range most favorable for amplification of legionellae
bacteria is 77-108 [deg]F (25-42 [deg]C) and recommends that when
practical, hot water should be stored at temperatures of 120 [deg]F
(49 [deg]C) or above. The guideline states that hot water should be
stored above 140 [deg]F (60 [deg]C) for high-risk settings such as
in health care facilities and nursing homes. For more information
visit: <a href="http://www.ashrae.org">www.ashrae.org</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Extra-Hot Wash Determination
Clothes washers are tested using an energy test cycle that is
comprised of certain cycles taking into consideration all cycle
settings available to the end user. Section 2.12 of Appendix J2. Figure
2.12.5 of Appendix J2 specifies that for the energy test cycle to
include an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, the clothes washer must have an
internal heater and the Normal cycle \20\ must, in part, contain a
wash/rinse temperature selection that has a wash temperature greater
than 135 [deg]F. The 135 [deg]F threshold matches the current hot water
inlet target temperature, as specified in section 2.2 of Appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Section 1.25 of Appendix J2 defines the Normal cycle as the
cycle recommended by the manufacturer (considering manufacturer
instructions, control panel labeling, and other markings on the
clothes washer) for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up
to a full load of normally-soiled cotton clothing. For machines
where multiple cycle settings are recommended by the manufacturer
for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of
normally-soiled cotton clothing, then the Normal cycle is the cycle
selection that results in the lowest IMEF or MEF value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has revised the Extra-Hot wash temperature parameters
previously. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE changed the minimum hot
water supply temperature from 140 [deg]F in Appendix J-1977 to 135
[deg]F in Appendix J1-1997, and also revised the threshold temperature
for Extra-Hot Wash from 140 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F accordingly. 62 FR
45484, 45497. As noted, Appendix J2 retains this threshold temperature
of 135 [deg]F for Extra-Hot Wash.
As described previously, DOE is proposing to update the hot water
inlet temperature from 135 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F (see section III.C.3.a
of this document). This proposed change to the hot water inlet
temperature prompted DOE to reassess the threshold temperature for the
Extra-Hot wash temperature. Because the inclusion of an Extra-Hot Wash/
Cold Rinse in the energy test cycle requires the clothes washer to have
an internal heater, the threshold temperature is not limited to the
input temperature.
DOE testing of a broad range of clothes washers \21\ indicates that
over 70 percent of Extra-Hot cycles have a wash water temperature that
exceeds 140 [deg]F, despite the threshold temperature for Extra-Hot
Wash changing to 135 [deg]F in the August 1997 Final Rule. Furthermore,
DOE research indicates that 140 [deg]F is widely cited as a threshold
for achieving sanitization by organizations including the World Health
Organization and the United Kingdom's National Health Service.\22\ \23\
Based on DOE's data indicating that a majority of existing Extra-Hot
cycles have wash water temperatures that exceed 140 [deg]F, and based
on the cited reports finding that washing textiles at 140 [deg]F is an
accepted sanitation threshold, DOE proposes specifying the Extra-Hot
Wash threshold as 140 [deg]F. Based on the research described above,
DOE preliminarily concludes that a temperature threshold of 140 [deg]F
would align with 140 [deg]F as an accepted temperature threshold for
sanitization, and therefore may be more representative of consumer
expectations and usage of the Extra-Hot Wash cycle, than the current
135 [deg]F threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ DOE analyzed test data from 2 top-loading and 15 front-
loading models representing 7 different manufacturers and 9
different brands.
\22\ World Health Organization. ``Boil Water.'' Available at:
<a href="http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/Boiling_water_01_15.pdf">www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/Boiling_water_01_15.pdf</a>.
\23\ National Health Service. ``Can clothes and towels spread
germs?'' Available at: www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/
infections/can-clothes-and-towels-spread-germs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to improving representativeness, changing the Extra-Hot
Wash temperature threshold to 140 [deg]F could potentially reduce test
burden. As discussed more fully in section III.C.4 of this document, a
threshold of 140 [deg]F would enable easier confirmation that an Extra-
Hot temperature has been achieved when measuring wash temperature with
non-reversible temperature indicator labels, as permitted by section
3.3 of Appendix J2. Temperature indicator labels are widely available
with a 140 [deg]F indicator, whereas DOE is not aware of any
commercially available temperature indicator labels that provide a 135
[deg]F indicator.
In summary, DOE is proposing to specify in the proposed new
Appendix J that the minimum temperature threshold for the Extra-Hot
Wash/Cold Rinse is 140 [deg]F. This change would be reflected in the
proposed Extra Hot Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart in section 2.12 of the
proposed new Appendix J as well as any references to this temperature
threshold elsewhere

[[Page 49151]]

throughout the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE recognizes that for the 30 percent of units with Extra-Hot Wash
temperatures that do not exceed 140 [deg]F, DOE's proposal to change
the Extra-Hot Wash definition may impact measured efficiency.
Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to include the amended Extra-
Hot Wash temperature parameter only in the proposed new Appendix J and
not in existing Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and CCW energy
conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact of any
modifications to the Extra-Hot Wash definition on measured efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify in the proposed new
Appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse designation would apply
to a wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 [deg]F. DOE requests
any additional data on the wash temperature of cycles that meet the
Appendix J2 definition of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. DOE is also
interested in data and information on any potential impact to testing
costs that may occur by changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature
threshold, and the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with any
changes to the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse definition.
c. Target Water Supply Temperature
Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies that the hot water supply
temperature must be maintained between 130 [deg]F (54.4 [deg]C) and 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), using 135 [deg]F as the target temperature. Based
on experience working with third-party test laboratories, as well as
its own testing experience, DOE recognizes that maintaining 135 [deg]F
as the target temperature for the hot water supply may be difficult
given that the target temperature of 135 [deg]F lies at the edge,
rather than the midpoint, of the allowable temperature range of 130
[deg]F to 135 [deg]F. 85 FR 31065, 31069. On electronic temperature-
mixing valves commonly used by test laboratories, the output water
temperature is maintained within an approximately two-degree tolerance
above or below a target temperature programmed by the user (e.g., if
the target temperature is set at 135 [deg]F, the controller may provide
water temperatures ranging from 133 [deg]F to 137 [deg]F). Id. To
ensure that the hot water inlet temperature remains within the
allowable range of 130 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F, such a temperature
controller would need to be set to around the midpoint of the range,
which conflicts with the test procedure requirement to use 135 [deg]F
as the target temperature. Id. An analogous difficulty exists for the
cold water supply temperature. Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies
maintaining a cold water temperature between 55 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F,
using 60 [deg]F as the target.
In the May 2020 NOPR, DOE requested comments on whether it should
consider changes to the target temperature or allowable range of
temperature specified for the hot and cold water inlets, and if so,
what alternate specifications should be considered. Id.
UL commented that it supports the change to an equal sided
tolerance for the hot and cold water inlet temperature requirements.
(UL, No. 9 at p. 1)
AHAM also supported DOE updating the target water temperature to
have a tolerance and nominal value (rather than any temperature within
the range) specified as the target, i.e., X <plus-minus> Y, with
nominal (X) as the target. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 6)
The CA IOUs supported a change in the water supply temperature
tolerance to <plus-minus> 2.5 [deg]F around the target temperature,
claiming that it may create a more repeatable test procedure and
decrease the number of failed test runs. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 15)
GEA supported a hot water target temperature adjustment to 132.5
<plus-minus> 2.5 [deg]F, stating that doing so would align the test
procedure with engineering best practices. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
DOE recognizes the widespread support for defining a temperature
range centered around a target midpoint of the range. Although this
would appear to reflect current test laboratory practice, DOE is
concerned that specifying a cold water target temperature of 57.5
[deg]F in Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J, or specifying a
hot water target temperature of 132.5 [deg]F for Appendix J2 or 122.5
[deg]F for the proposed new Appendix J, could imply that the test
procedure requires a precision of 0.5 [deg]F in temperature control,
which could create undue test burden. Furthermore, DOE is concerned
that defining a ``target'' temperature, whether as currently defined or
defined as the midpoint of the range, could unintentionally imply that
a test would be invalid if the water temperature remains within the
allowable range, but not centered exactly around the target.
For these reasons, DOE is proposing to remove the ``target''
temperature associated with each water supply temperature range, and to
instead define only the allowable temperature range. Specifically, the
cold water supply temperature range would be defined as 55 [deg]F to 60
[deg]F in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J; the hot
water supply temperature range in Appendix J2 would be defined as 130
[deg]F to 135 [deg]F; and the hot water supply temperature range in the
proposed new Appendix J would be defined as 120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F.
Defining allowable water supply temperature ranges instead of specific
target temperatures at the upper end of the allowable ranges would
reduce the difficulty of maintaining water supply temperatures within
the desired ranges.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove the target
temperatures and instead specify water supply temperature ranges as 55
[deg]F to 60 [deg]F for cold water in both Appendix J2 and the proposed
new Appendix J, 130 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F for hot water in Appendix J2,
and 120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F for hot water in the proposed new Appendix
J.
4. Wash Water Temperature Measurement
In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE amended section 3.3 of Appendix
J2, ``Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse,'' to allow the use of non-reversible
temperature indicator labels to confirm that a wash temperature greater
than 135 [deg]F had been achieved. 80 FR 46729, 46753. Since the
publication of the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE has become aware that
some third-party laboratories measure wash temperature using self-
contained temperature sensors in a waterproof capsule placed inside the
clothes washer drum during testing. 85 FR 31065, 31069. In the May 2020
RFI, DOE requested comments on manufacturers' or test laboratories'
experience with these or any other methods for determining the
temperature during a wash cycle that may reduce manufacturer burden,
including the reliability and accuracy of those methods. Id.
UL commented that it has not found any temperature labels that read
exactly 135 [deg]F, but rather only labels that provide 10 [deg]F
increments between 130 [deg]F and 140 [deg]F. (UL, No 9 at p. 2) UL
added that if a label does not change at 140 [deg]F but does change at
130 [deg]F, there is no way of knowing if the water temperature reached
135 [deg]F without running an additional test run with a data logger.
Id. UL also commented that if DOE requires temperature loggers for
measuring the internal water temperature, DOE should prescribe a
specific method, for increased lab-to-lab reproducibility. Id.
AHAM similarly commented that the non-reversible temperature
indicator labels currently specified in the test procedure do not work
well because the labels available on the market do not easily identify
when 135 [deg]F is reached, as they typically provide 10 [deg]F

[[Page 49152]]

increments, and none are available in increments of 125 [deg]F to 135
[deg]F. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 6-7) According to AHAM, testers must
estimate when 135 [deg]F is reached on labels that are currently
available. Thus, AHAM suggests that DOE consider permitting the use of
submersible temperature loggers. Id.
As discussed by UL and AHAM, DOE is aware that none of the
temperature indicator labels available on the market provide an
indicator at 135 [deg]F, the current Extra-Hot Wash water temperature
threshold. Because of this, temperature indicator labels can be used to
confirm that the water temperature reached 135 [deg]F only if the water
temperature exceeds 140 [deg]F. The temperature indicator labels are
unable to identify an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle if the
temperature of the cycle is greater than 135 [deg]F but less than 140
[deg]F. DOE recognizes the potential benefit of other methods of
measurement to supplement or replace the temperature indicator labels.
DOE investigated submersible temperature loggers as suggested by
AHAM. DOE found submersible temperature loggers available for less than
$175 and available with a resolution of 0.5 [deg]C (0.9 [deg]F) or
better and an accuracy of <plus-minus>0.5 [deg]C (0.9 [deg]F) for water
temperatures between -10 [deg]C (14 [deg]F) and +65 [deg]C (149
[deg]F).\24\ In testing with such temperature loggers, DOE found them
small enough in size to be able to embed within the test load during
testing. However, DOE testing indicated a 5 to 10-minute time lag in
measuring dynamically changing temperatures, which is likely due to the
thermal mass of the waterproof capsule. As a result of this time lag,
if a clothes washer's wash water temperature were to reach 135 [deg]F
only briefly, then a submersible temperature logger may not record that
135 [deg]F had been reached. DOE concludes that, similar to temperature
indicator labels, a submersible temperature logger indicating a
temperature higher than 135 [deg]F can provide confirmation that the
water temperature reached 135 [deg]F, but failure to record a
temperature of 135 [deg]F does not necessarily determine that the
temperature threshold for the Extra-Hot Wash cycle has not been
achieved. For clothes washers with sustained water temperatures greater
than 135 [deg]F but less than 140 [deg]F, submersible temperature
loggers may provide potentially reduced test burden, compared to using
temperature indicator labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See e.g., <a href="http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/ibutton-one-wire/data-loggers/DS1923.html/product-details/tabs-3">www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/ibutton-one-wire/data-loggers/DS1923.html/product-details/tabs-3</a>,
<a href="http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/ibutton-one-wire/ibutton/DS9107.html">www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/ibutton-one-wire/ibutton/DS9107.html</a>, and <a href="http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/interface/universal-serial-bus/DS9490.html">www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/interface/universal-serial-bus/DS9490.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appendix J2, DOE is proposing to allow the use of a submersible
temperature logger as an additional temperature measurement option to
confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than 135 [deg]F has
been achieved during the wash cycle. DOE is proposing that the
submersible temperature logger must have a time resolution of at least
1 data point every 5 seconds and a temperature measurement accuracy of
<plus-minus>1 [deg]F. As described currently for temperature indicator
labels, DOE would include a note that failure to measure a temperature
of 135 [deg]F would not necessarily indicate of the lack of an Extra-
Hot Wash temperature. However, such a result would not be conclusive
due to the lack of verification of that the required water temperature
was achieved, in which case an alternative method must be used to
confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 [deg]F has
been achieved during the wash cycle.
Because DOE is proposing to change the Extra-Hot Wash water
temperature threshold to 140 [deg]F for the proposed new Appendix J,
commercially available temperature indicator labels with indications at
140 [deg]F would be able to be used more readily to determine whether
the water temperature reached the Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold.
DOE is also proposing to allow the usage of a submersible temperature
logger in the proposed new Appendix J as an option to confirm that an
Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than 140 [deg]F has been achieved
during the wash cycle. Like the temperature threshold of 135 [deg]F in
Appendix J2, failure to measure a temperature of 140 [deg]F would not
necessarily indicate the lack of an Extra-Hot Wash temperature.
However, such a result would not be conclusive due to the lack of
verification of that the required water temperature was achieved, in
which case an alternative method must be used to confirm that an extra-
hot wash temperature greater than 140 [deg]F has been achieved during
the wash cycle.
Lastly, DOE is proposing to move the description of allowable
temperature measuring devices from section 3.3 of Appendix J2 to
section 2.5.4 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J
(``Water and air temperature measuring devices''), specifying the use
of non-reversible temperature indicator labels in new section 2.5.4.1,
and adding specifications for the use of submersible temperature
loggers to new section 2.5.4.2 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new
Appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger in Appendix J2 and the proposed new
Appendix J as an option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature
greater than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold has been achieved during the
wash cycle. DOE requests data and information confirming (or disputing)
DOE's discussion of the benefits and limitations of using a submersible
temperature logger, including DOE's determination that a submersible
logger's failure to measure a temperature greater than the Extra-Hot
Wash threshold does not necessarily indicate that the cycle under test
does not meet the definition of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle.
5. Pre-Conditioning Requirements
Section 2.11 of Appendix J2 specifies the procedure for clothes
washer pre-conditioning. The current pre-conditioning procedure
requires that any clothes washer that has not been filled with water in
the preceding 96 hours, or any water-heating clothes washer that has
not been in the test room at the specified ambient conditions for 8
hours, must be pre-conditioned by running it through a Cold Rinse cycle
and then draining it to ensure that the hose, pump, and sump are filled
with water. The purpose of pre-conditioning is to promote repeatability
and reproducibility of test results by ensuring a consistent starting
state for each test, as well as to promote the representativeness of
test results by ensuring that the clothes washer is operated consistent
with the defined ambient conditions. In particular, the additional
specification for water-heating clothes washers was first suggested in
a supplemental NOPR published on April 22, 1996, (``April 1996
SNOPR''), in which DOE expressed concern about the testing of water-
heating clothes washers that may have been stored at a temperature
outside of the specified ambient temperature range (75 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 5 [deg]F) prior to testing. 61 FR 17589, 17594-17595. DOE stated
that the energy consumed in a water-heating clothes washer may be
affected by the ambient temperature. Id. Thus, if the ambient
temperature prior to and during testing is relatively hot, then less
energy will be consumed than under typical operating conditions, i.e.,
the test will understate the clothes washer's energy consumption. Id.
Conversely, if the ambient temperature prior to and during the test is
relatively cold, then the energy consumption will be overstated. Id. In
the subsequent August 1997 Final Rule, DOE added the

[[Page 49153]]

pre-conditioning requirement for water-heating clothes washers, which
requires water-heating units to be pre-conditioned if they had not been
in the test room at ambient conditions for 8 hours. 62 FR 45484, 45002,
45009, 45010.
DOE is concerned that the energy use of non-water-heating clothes
washers could also be affected by the starting temperature of the
clothes washer, particularly those that implement temperature control
by measuring internal water temperatures during the wash cycle. For
example, if the ambient temperature prior to testing is relatively hot,
causing the internal components of the clothes washer to be at a higher
temperature than the specified ambient temperature range, less hot
water may be consumed during the test than otherwise would be if the
starting temperature of the clothes washer is within the specified
ambient temperature range. Noting that third-party test laboratories
cannot necessarily identify whether a unit is a water-heating clothes
washer or not, DOE is proposing to require the same pre-conditioning
procedure for both water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers,
which would minimize the influence of ambient temperature on energy use
and alleviate the need for third-party test laboratories to determine
whether a clothes washer is water-heating or not. If adopted, this
proposed change may impact the measured energy use of non-water-heating
clothes washers that implement temperature control by measuring
internal water temperatures during the wash cycle. Due to the potential
impact on the measured energy use, DOE is proposing this change only
for the proposed new Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation
and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and to determine
compliance with those standards. DOE is therefore proposing that use of
the proposed new Appendix J, if finalized, would not be required until
the compliance date of any updated standards.
In addition, the proposed amendments to the pre-conditioning
requirements would eliminate the differentiation between ``water-
heating clothes washer'' and ``non-water heating clothes washer,''
which are defined terms in the test procedure. Therefore, DOE is also
proposing to remove the definitions of ``water-heating clothes washer''
and ``non-water-heating clothes washer'' from section 1 of the proposed
new Appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the same pre-
conditioning requirements for all clothes washers and to remove the
``water-heating clothes washer'' and ``non-water-heating clothes
washer'' definitions in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests
information regarding whether test laboratories typically pre-condition
water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers using the same
procedure.

D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct

1. Tested Load Sizes
Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 provides the minimum, average, and maximum
load sizes to be used for testing based on the measured capacity of the
clothes washer. The table defines capacity ``bins'' in 0.1 ft\3\
increments. The load sizes for each capacity bin are determined as
follows:
[squ] Minimum load is 3 pounds (``lb'') for all capacity bins;
[squ] Maximum load (in lb) is equal to 4.1 times the mean clothes
washer capacity of each capacity bin (in ft3); and
[squ] Average load is the arithmetic mean of the minimum load and
maximum load.
These three load sizes are used for testing clothes washers with
automatic WFCS. Clothes washers with manual WFCS are tested with only
the minimum and maximum load sizes.
a. Expanding the Load Size Table
DOE originally introduced the load size table in Appendix J1-1997,
which accommodated clothes container capacities up to 3.8 ft\3\. 62 FR
45484, 45513. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE expanded Table 5.1 in
both Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 to accommodate clothes container
capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. 77 FR 13887, 13910. DOE extrapolated the
load sizes to 6.0 ft\3\ using the same equations to define the maximum
and average load sizes as described above.
On May 2, 2016 and April 10, 2017, DOE granted waivers to Whirlpool
and Samsung, respectively, for testing RCWs \25\ with capacities
between 6.0 and 8.0 ft\3\, by further extrapolating Table 5.1 using the
same equations to define the maximum and average load sizes as
described. 81 FR 26215; 82 FR 17229. DOE's regulations in 10 CFR 430.27
contain provisions allowing any interested person to seek a waiver from
the test procedure requirements if certain conditions are met. A waiver
allows manufacturers to use an alternate test procedure in situations
where the DOE test procedure cannot be used to test the product or
equipment, or where use of the DOE test procedure would generate
unrepresentative results. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1) DOE's regulations at 10
CFR 430.27(l) require that as soon as practicable after the granting of
any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a NOPR to amend
its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of
such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the
Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ As noted, CCWs are limited under the statutory definition
to a maximum capacity of 3.5 cubic feet for horizontal-axis CCWs and
4.0 cubic feet for vertical-axis CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(21))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether to
extrapolate Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 to accommodate RCW capacities up
to 8.0 ft\3\, and if so, appropriate methods for extrapolation. 85 FR
31065, 31077. DOE received comments from multiple interested parties
regarding the definition of load sizes more generally, which DOE
addresses in section III.D.1.b of this document. DOE received no
comments regarding the expansion of the load size table itself.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to expand Table 5.1 in both Appendix
J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to accommodate clothes washers with
capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. In Appendix J2, DOE proposes to expand
Table 5.1 using the same equations as the current table, as described
above, and consistent with the load size tables provided in the two
granted waivers. For the proposed new Appendix J, DOE proposes a
revised methodology for defining the load sizes in each capacity bin in
Table 5.1, as further discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to expand the load size table
in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to accommodate RCWs
with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\.
b. Defining New Load Sizes
As discussed in the previous section, Appendix J2 currently defines
three load sizes for automatic clothes washers (minimum, average, and
maximum) for each capacity bin in Table 5.1 of the appendix. In this
NOPR, DOE is proposing for the proposed new Appendix J to define two
load sizes for automatic clothes washers (small and large) for each
capacity bin, which are intended to represent the same load size
distribution underlying the existing three load sizes. DOE has
tentatively concluded that this would substantially reduce test burden
while maintaining or improving representativeness. The following
paragraphs describe the development of the current load size
definitions to provide context and

[[Page 49154]]

justification for DOE's proposed changes.
The current load size definitions (i.e., the defining of three load
sizes, and the equations used to determine each of the three load
sizes) are based on consumer usage data analyzed during the test
procedure rulemaking that culminated in the August 1997 Final Rule. As
part of that rulemaking, AHAM presented to DOE data from the Procter &
Gamble Company (``P&G'') showing the distribution of consumer load
sizes for 2.4 ft\3\ and 2.8 ft\3\ clothes washers, which represented
typical clothes washer capacities at the time (1995).\26\ The 1995 P&G
data indicated that the distribution of consumer load sizes followed an
approximate normal distribution slightly skewed towards the lower end
of the size range. Figure III.1 shows the summarized data presented by
AHAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The full data set presented by AHAM is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01SE21.001

In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE defined three load sizes--
minimum, average, and maximum--to represent this normal distribution.
62 FR 45484, 45490. The minimum load size represented approximately the
14th percentile of the distribution (i.e., the lower 14 percent of the
cumulative distribution); the average load size represented
approximately the 14th through 88th percentile (i.e., the middle 74
percent of the cumulative distribution); and the maximum load size
represented approximately the 88th through 100th percentile (i.e., the
upper 12 percent of the cumulative distribution).\27\ Figure III.2
illustrates the boundaries representing the three defined load sizes
overlaid with the P&G load distribution data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See the table titled ``Relationship of Water Fill Factors
to Cumulative Load Size Distribution'' on page 22 of the data
presented by AHAM as part of the rulemaking that culminated in the
August 1997 Final Rule, available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027</a>.

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

[[Page 49155]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01SE21.002

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
In the August 1997 Final Rule, these load size relationships were
scaled across the range of 0.8 ft\3\ to 3.8 ft\3\ capacities \28\ using
the equations described above: Minimum load size fixed at 3 lb for all
capacity bins; maximum load size calculated as 4.1 times the mean
clothes washer capacity of each capacity bin; and average load size
calculated as the mean of the minimum and maximum load sizes. 62 FR
45484, 45504, 45513. Within each capacity bin, the three defined load
sizes were intended to approximate a normal distribution of consumer
load sizes. As noted, the load size table in Appendix J1-1997 was
extrapolated to 6.0 ft\3\ in the March 2012 Final Rule, applicable to
both Appendix J1 and Appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ For capacities in the range of 0.0 to 0.8 ft\3\, a fixed
load size of 3 lb was defined for all three test load sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested data and information on whether
the minimum, average, and maximum load size definitions in Table 5.1
are representative of the range of load sizes used by consumers for
each capacity bin in the table, particularly for larger-capacity RCWs.
85 FR 31065, 31078.
UL commented that in order to make load sizes more equitable for
the widening range of clothes washer capacities, all three load sizes
should be proportional to capacity, similar to the current definition
of maximum load. UL suggested that minimum and average load sizes could
be proportional to the maximum load size (e.g., minimum and average
load sizes could be 25 percent and 50 percent of maximum load size,
respectively). (UL, No. 9 at p. 4)
Fixing the minimum load size at 3 lb represents the need for
consumers to wash a small load of laundry (for example, a single outfit
of clothing) regardless of the capacity of the clothes washer. The
``average'' load size as constructed in Appendix J2 represents the
middle of the range of load sizes \29\ washed by consumers (i.e., the
approximate peak of the roughly normal distribution of load sizes). As
described below, DOE is proposing in the proposed new Appendix J to
define two, rather than three, load sizes, and each of the two load
sizes would be defined as a function of capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ In effect, the ``average'' load size is intended to
represent the median load size washed by consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE amend the average and maximum load
sizes in Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 to use

[[Page 49156]]

a logarithmic relationship between capacity and load size. (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at pp. 1-4) The CA IOUs presented data from a 2016 Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (``PG&E'') field survey (``2016 PG&E survey'')
that recorded load size and capacity data, and showed a logarithmic
relationship between load size and capacity for clothes washers with
capacities from 2-5 ft\3\. In the range of 2 ft\3\ to approximately 5
ft\3\ capacity, the 2016 PG&E survey showed slightly higher average
consumer load sizes than would be defined by Table 5.1 in Appendix J2
for a clothes washer of the same capacity. The CA IOUs commented that
extrapolating this relationship to smaller and larger-capacity clothes
washers, however, would result in a smaller consumer load sizes than
would be defined by Table 5.1 of the current Appendix J2. Id. The CA
IOUs also commented that a similar logarithmic trend was found in an
Australian clothes dryer study.\30\ Although the Australian study
relates to residential clothes dryers, the CA IOUs asserted that the
operation of clothes washers and clothes dryers are closely linked. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that the 2016 PG&E survey excludes households
outside of the ``hot-dry'' Southwestern region of the United States, as
well as households that rely on CCWs to wash their clothes, and
requested that DOE conduct a larger national survey or study existing
surveys to explore the relationship between capacity and average load
size before making any changes to Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 to ensure
that the test procedure produces results that most represent an average
use cycle. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Lloyd Harrington of Energy Efficient Strategies, Australia.
Supporting data and corresponding presentations: <a href="http://eedal2017.uci.edu/wp-content/uploads/Thursday-17-Harrington.pdf">eedal2017.uci.edu/wp-content/uploads/Thursday-17-Harrington.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE appreciates the CA IOUs providing consumer usage data from the
2016 PG&E field survey. While the conclusions from this data may be
instructive as a point of comparison, these data are limited in that
they represent usage in a single season (summer), in a single state
(California), and only around three wash cycles per participating
household.\31\ Notwithstanding these limitations, the results indicate
that within the range of 2 to approximately 5 ft\3\, which encompasses
the large majority of units on the market, the load sizes defined by
Appendix J2 are reasonably close to the load sizes observed in the 2016
PG&E field study. Regarding the Australian clothes dryer study, while
these data provide a point of comparison, usage patterns of Australian
consumers do not necessarily represent the usage patterns of U.S.
consumers. DOE is not aware of, and the CA IOUs have not provided, any
data or information that would suggest that Australian usage patterns
are the same as U.S. usage patterns. Further, clothes dryer load sizes
may differ from clothes washer loads for reasons which may depend on
region or localized customs (for example, line drying clothing may be
more common in hot, dry climates). DOE is not aware of, nor have the CA
IOUs provided, any data to suggest how Australian dryer load sizes
relate to Australian clothes washer load sizes. DOE also observes that
a logarithmic trend may not represent the best characterization of the
Australian data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ According to CA IOUs, the data represent 310 wash cycles
across 105 California households. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEEA recommended that, if DOE were to adopt an efficiency metric
that is a function of capacity, DOE should eliminate the current
average load calculation method and replace it with a fixed 7.6 lb
load, which it believes would be more representative. NEEA cited its
2014 laundry field study that found an average clothes washer load size
of 7.6 lb, which NEEA characterized as being close to the average load
size of 8.5 lb that corresponds with the 2010 market-weighted average
capacity of 3.5 ft\3\. NEEA stated, however, that the market-weighted
average capacity as of 2019 has increased to 4.4 ft\3\, for which
Appendix J2 defines an average load size of 10.4 lb.\32\ (NEEA, No. 12
at pp. 22-24) NEEA compared this 10.4 lb average load size to three
Australian field studies that found an average load size of
approximately 6.6 lb. NEEA further referenced another Australian
research study conducted by Choice \33\ in which consumers were
instructed to fully fill the clothes container. The resulting average
load size measured during the study was 8 lb, which NEEA described as
significantly less than an amount that the clothes container could
hold. Id. NEEA asserted that using a fixed average load size of 7.6 lb
would increase representativeness, stating that the growing
inconsistency between field-measured average load size and Appendix J2-
calculated average load size indicates that average load size is
independent of clothes washer capacity and is relatively small. Id.
NEEA also stated that using a fixed average load size would reduce test
burden, since less work would be required by the laboratory to build an
inventory of custom Appendix J2-defined average loads for each clothes
washer capacity. NEEA recommended that if DOE were to determine a field
average load size for the United States, DOE could conduct a study
similar to the referenced Choice study but with a representative group
of consumers in the United States. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ NEEA's estimate of 4.4 ft\3\ average capacity in 2019 is
based on NEEA's 2019 ENERGY STAR Retail Products Platform data.
\33\ ``Washing machine user habits: A report on wash temperature
and load size habits among CHOICE Members.'' 2011. Prepared for the
Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy. Not publicly
published, but can be made available upon request to Simon Newman,
Residential Energy Efficiency Branch, Energy Security and Efficiency
Division, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, PO
Box 2013, Canberra, ACT 2601. 39 Personal Communication. Lloyd
Harington, Energy Efficient Strategies. 17 June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE appreciates NEEA providing the consumer usage data from the
2014 laundry study. DOE does not agree with NEEA's conclusion that the
2014 laundry study confirms that the field average load size is
independent of clothes container size and is relatively small. In
support of its assertion, NEEA presented data indicating that current
(2019) average capacity has increased to 4.4 ft\3\, for which Appendix
J2 defines an average load size of 10.4 lb. However, NEEA did not
present any field data demonstrating average consumer load sizes for a
sample of clothes washers with an average capacity of 4.4 ft\3\.
Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from the 2014 laundry study
regarding how consumer load sizes may have changed as average clothes
washer capacity has increased from around 3.5 ft\3\ in 2010 to 4.4
ft\3\ in 2019. Regarding NEEA's summary of the three Australian field
studies, DOE reiterates that the usage patterns of Australian consumers
do not necessarily represent the usage patterns of U.S. consumers. DOE
notes that the summaries of the Electrolux and Fisher & Paykel surveys
provided by NEEA do not identify the average capacity of the clothes
washers in the survey samples. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn
regarding how the average consumer load size of 6.6 lb from the surveys
compares to the load size that Appendix J2 would prescribe for a U.S.
clothes washer of the same size. While DOE agrees that using a fixed
average load size could decrease test burden by avoiding the need to
inventory different average load sizes for each possible capacity, for
the reasons described above, DOE preliminarily concludes that the data
provided by NEEA do not justify using a fixed average load size across
all clothes container capacities.
The Joint Commenters also encouraged DOE to consider specifying an
average load size that is a constant value independent of capacity.
(Joint

[[Page 49157]]

Commenters, No. 10 at pp. 4-5) According to the Joint Commenters, the
introduction of large-capacity clothes washers to the market, combined
with the structure of Table 5.1 in Appendix J2, has led to the
weighted-average load size for the largest clothes washers being
significantly greater than that for small clothes washers. For example,
the Joint Commenters stated that the weighted-average load size for a
6.0 ft\3\ clothes washer (13.68 lb) is around 60 percent larger than
the weighted-average load size for a 3.5 ft\3\ clothes washer (8.68
lb). Id. The Joint Commenters also referenced NEEA's laundry field
study, which the Joint Commenters characterized as finding no clear
correlation between clothes washer capacity and load size. The Joint
Commenters expressed concern that the current test procedure may not be
representative of an average cycle use for large-capacity clothes
washers. Id.
As noted previously, DOE preliminary concludes that the data
provided by NEEA, as referenced by the Joint Commenters, do not
demonstrate that using a fixed average load size would be
representative of U.S. consumer usage. DOE also notes that the
assertion made by NEEA and the Joint Commenters--that consumer average
load sizes are smaller than DOE's Appendix J2 load sizes--conflicts
with the data summarized above from the CA IOUs, which suggest consumer
average load sizes for clothes washers in the range of 2 to 5 ft\3\
capacity that are larger than the Appendix J2 load sizes. These
conflicting conclusions, combined with the noted limitations of each
data set, do not provide justification for DOE to change the average
load sizes in Table 5.1 of Appendix J2.
As noted, DOE is proposing to replace the minimum, maximum, and
average load sizes with two new load sizes in the proposed new Appendix
J, designated as ``small'' and ``large.'' In the paragraphs that
follow, DOE explains its rationale for (1) reducing the number of load
sizes from three to two, and (2) defining the two load sizes for each
capacity bin.
As discussed in section III.A of this document, AHAM and GEA
commented on the current test burden associated with conducting the
Appendix J2 test procedure. While DOE acknowledges the theoretical
possibility of Appendix J2 requiring up to 70 test cycles, DOE is not
aware of any products currently or historically on the market that
would require this maximum number of test cycles. In DOE's experience,
in practice the number of test cycles is around 6 cycles for clothes
washers with very few and basic features; around 15-20 cycles for the
most typical configurations on the market; and around 35 cycles for the
most feature-rich models that would trigger the greatest number of
required test cycles in Appendix J2. Nevertheless, DOE seeks to find
opportunities for reducing the test burden associated with its test
procedures, while maintaining representative, repeatable, and
reproducible test results.
One of the key contributors to the total number of required cycles
is the requirement to test three load sizes for each wash/rinse
temperature selection required for testing on clothes washers with
automatic WFCS (which represent the majority of the market). As
described previously, the three load sizes were devised to approximate
a normal distribution of consumer load sizes. At the time of the August
1997 Final Rule, clothes washer control panels were not as feature-rich
as current models available on the market, and DOE had not contemplated
that future clothes washer models could require testing up to 35
cycles.
Given the increasing prevalence of more feature-rich clothes washer
models that require a higher number of test cycles under Appendix J2,
DOE is proposing to reduce test burden by reducing the number of
defined load sizes for the proposed new Appendix J from three to two
for clothes washers with automatic WFCS. The following paragraphs
discuss how DOE proposes to define the two load sizes for each capacity
bin.
The new proposed small and large load sizes would continue to
represent the same roughly normal distribution presented in the 1995
P&G data described above. The weighted-average load size using the
proposed small and large load sizes would match the weighted-average
load size using the current minimum, average, and maximum load sizes.
As proposed, the small and large load sizes would have equal load usage
factors (``LUFs'') \34\ of 0.5. The small and large load sizes would
represent approximately the 25th and 75th percentiles of the normal
distribution, respectively. Each of these points is discussed in
greater detail in the paragraphs that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ LUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage of
wash cycles that consumers run with a given load size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Figure III.3 illustrates how the proposed new small and large load
sizes would overlay with the P&G load distribution data.

[[Page 49158]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01SE21.003

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
As noted, DOE defined the proposed new load sizes and LUFs such
that the weighted-average load size equals the weighted-average load
size of the current minimum, average, and maximum load definitions for
clothes washers with automatic WFCS, and thus will produce test results
with equivalent representativeness. As noted in DOE's responses to
comments above, DOE is not aware of any more recent, nationally
representative field data indicating that the consumer load size
distribution in relation to clothes washer capacity has changed since
the introduction of the three load sizes in the August 1997 Final Rule.
Further, defining the small and large loads to represent
approximately the 25th and 75th percentiles of the normal distribution
balances the need to capture as large of a load size range as possible
while remaining representative of the ``peak'' of the load distribution
curve, which represents the most frequently used load sizes.
Specifically, DOE is proposing that the small and large load sizes
be calculated using Equation III.1 and Equation III.2, respectively.

Small load size [lb] = 0.90 x Capacity [ft\3\] + 2.34
Equation III.1 Proposed Determination of the Small Test Load Size

Large load size [lb] = 3.12 x Capacity [ft\3\] + 0.72
Equation III.2 Proposed Determination of the Large Test Load Size

As noted, clothes washers with manual WFCS are tested only with the
minimum and maximum load sizes, in contrast to clothes washers with
automatic WFCS, which are tested with all three load sizes. Given DOE's
proposal to define only two load sizes in the proposed new Appendix J,
the same two load sizes could be used for all clothes washers,
regardless of whether a clothes washer's WFCS is automatic or manual.
DOE's proposal would reduce test burden under the proposed new
Appendix J by requiring only two load sizes to be tested instead of
three for clothes washers with automatic WFCS. Specifically, the number
of cycles tested would be reduced by 33 percent for clothes washers
with automatic WFCS, which represent a large majority of clothes
washers on the market.
DOE's proposed water fill selections corresponding to the new small
and large load sizes are further discussed in section III.D.2 of this
document.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to replace the minimum,
maximum, and average load sizes with the small and large load sizes in
the proposed new Appendix J. DOE seeks comment on how reducing the
number of load sizes tested would impact the

[[Page 49159]]

representativeness of test results. DOE also requests data and
information to quantify the reduction in test burden that would result
from reducing the number of load sizes from three to two for clothes
washers with automatic WFCS.
2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the Proposed Load Sizes
Section 3.2.6 of Appendix J2 prescribes the water fill setting
selections to use with each load size based on the type of WFCS on the
clothes washer. As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, DOE
is proposing that the proposed new Appendix J test newly-defined small
and large load sizes, rather than the minimum, maximum, and average
load sizes used in Appendix J2. To test clothes washers using these new
small and large load sizes, the appropriate water fill setting
selections would also need to be provided in the proposed new Appendix
J for each load size for each type of WFCS.
Appendix J2 defines two main types of WFCS: manual WFCS, which
``requires the user to determine or select the water fill level,'' and
automatic WFCS, which ``does not allow or require the user to determine
or select the water fill level, and includes adaptive WFCS and fixed
WFCS.'' Sections 1.22 and 1.5 of Appendix J2, respectively. Section
3.2.6.2 of Appendix J2 further distinguishes between user-adjustable
and not-user-adjustable automatic WFCS. Additionally, section 3.2.6.3
of Appendix J2 accommodates clothes washers that have both an automatic
WFCS and an alternate manual WFCS. Proposed amendments to the
definitions of fixed WFCS and user-adjustable automatic WFCS are
further discussed in section III.H.3.a of this document.
Section 3.2.6.1 of the current Appendix J2 specifies that clothes
washers with a manual WFCS are set to the maximum water level available
for the wash cycle under test for the maximum test load size and the
minimum water level available for the wash cycle under test for the
minimum test load size.
Section 3.2.6.2.1 of Appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers
with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS are tested using the specified
maximum, minimum, and average test load sizes, and that the maximum,
minimum, and average water levels are selected by the control system
when the respective test loads are used (i.e., no selection of water
fill level is required by the user).
Section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers
with user-adjustable automatic WFCS undergo four tests. The first test
is conducted using the maximum test load and with the automatic WFCS
set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result. The
second test is conducted with the minimum test load and with the
automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy
intensive result. The third test is conducted with the average test
load and with the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the
most energy intensive result for the given test load. The fourth test
is conducted with the average test load and with the automatic WFCS set
in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result for the
given test load. The energy and water consumption for the average test
load and water level are calculated as the average of the third and
fourth tests.
As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, DOE is
proposing that the proposed new Appendix J test newly-defined small and
large load sizes, rather than the minimum, maximum, and average load
sizes used in Appendix J2. To test clothes washers using these new
small and large load sizes, the appropriate water fill setting
selections would also need to be provided in the proposed new Appendix
J for each load size for each type of WFCS.
For manual WFCS clothes washers, DOE first considered maintaining
the current water fill level settings as specified in Appendix J2
(i.e., testing the proposed small load with the minimum water level
setting available and testing the proposed large load with the maximum
water level setting available). However, the proposed small load is
larger than the current minimum load, and using the minimum water fill
setting for the larger-sized ``small'' load may not be representative
of consumer use. In other words, while the minimum water fill level
setting may provide an appropriate amount of water for washing the
``minimum'' load size, it may not provide sufficient water for washing
the ``small'' load size as proposed. Further, the 1995 P&G data showed
that when using a clothes washer with manual WFCS, consumers tend to
select more water than is minimally necessary for the size of the load
being washed.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See p. 20 of the AHAM document at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027</a>; specifically, the conclusions that
``consumers are not good judges of clothes load size'' and
``consumers overuse maximum fill level.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on these considerations, DOE is instead proposing to specify
the use of the second-lowest water fill level setting for the proposed
small load size. Although DOE is not aware of any clothes washers with
manual WFCS currently on the market with only two water fill level
settings available, DOE proposes to accommodate such a design by
specifying that if the water fill level selector has two settings
available for the wash cycle under test, the minimum water fill level
setting would be selected for the small load size, consistent with the
current specification in Appendix J2. In all cases, the water fill
level selector would be set for the large load size to the maximum
water fill level setting available for the wash cycle under test,
consistent with the current specification in Appendix J2 for testing
the maximum load size.
For clothes washers with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS, no
changes would be required because the water fill levels are determined
automatically by the WFCS.
As discussed, section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies that
clothes washers with user-adjustable automatic WFCS require four test
cycles: one test at the most energy-intensive setting \36\ using the
maximum load size, one test at the least energy-intensive setting using
the minimum load size, one test at the least energy-intensive setting
using the average load size, and one test at the most energy-intensive
setting using the average load size. As described in section III.D.1.b
of this document, DOE's proposal would reduce the number of test load
sizes from three to two, which would necessitate a change to these
instructions for clothes washers with user-adjustable WFCS. To
accommodate the proposed ``small'' and ``large'' load sizes in the
proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to require testing clothes
washers with user-adjustable WFCS using the large test load size at the
setting that provides the most energy-intensive result, and the small
test load size at the setting that provides the least energy-intensive
result. This proposal would capture the same range of water fill
performance as the current test procedure (i.e., capturing the range of
least-intensive to most-intensive results). Additional tests could be
considered, for example: Testing the small test load size at the
setting that provides the most energy-intensive result and the large
test load size at the setting that provides the least energy-intensive
result. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that requiring

[[Page 49160]]

these two additional cycles beyond the two proposed cycles would create
additional test burden with little, if any, improvement to
representativeness compared to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ As described in section III.H.3.b of this document, DOE is
proposing to update the phrase ``the setting that will give the most
energy-intensive result'' to ``the setting that uses the most
water'' (and likewise for the setting that will give the least
energy-intensive result) to reflect the original intent of this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed changes to
the water fill level settings, in conjunction with the proposed changes
to the load sizes and the applicable LUFs, would continue to produce
representative test results for each type of WFCS. Collectively, this
combination of amendments would continue to approximate the same
consumer usage patterns that provide the foundation for the current
Appendix J2 test procedure.
DOE recognizes that for some models, these proposed amendments
could change the measured efficiency. As noted, DOE is proposing to
include the changes to the water fill level specifications only in the
proposed new Appendix J, which DOE would use for the evaluation and
issuance of updated efficiency standards. Thus, DOE is proposing that
use of the proposed new Appendix J, if finalized, would not be required
until such time as the energy conservation standards are amended using
the measured efficiency as determined under Appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to change the water fill level
selections in the proposed new Appendix J for clothes washers with
manual and user-adjustable automatic WFCS to reflect the proposed small
and large test load sizes. DOE seeks data and information on how the
proposed changes to the water fill level selection for clothes washers
with manual and user-adjustable automatic WFCS would impact test
procedure representativeness.
3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested Settings
Section 3.5 of Appendix J2 states that if a clothes washer has four
or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections, either all
discrete selections shall be tested, or the clothes washer shall be
tested at the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions of the
temperature selection device between the hottest hot (<=135 [deg]F
(57.2 [deg]C)) wash and the coldest cold wash. If a selection is not
available at the 25, 50 or 75-percent position, in place of each such
unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature selection shall be
used. DOE refers to the latter provision as the ``25/50/75 test.''
Section 3.6 of Appendix J2 states that the 25/50/75 test provision also
applies to the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature selection.
DOE first established the 25/50/75 test in Appendix J1-1997 to
address the test burden for clothes washers that offer a large number
of warm wash temperature selections, if the test procedure were to
require testing all warm temperature selections. 62 FR 45484, 45497.
DOE had originally proposed a similar method \37\ in the April 1996
SNOPR for clothes washers having infinite warm wash selections that are
nonuniformly distributed. 61 FR 17589, 17599. In the August 1997 Final
Rule, DOE considered clothes washers with more than three warm wash
temperatures to be clothes washers with infinite warm wash temperature
selections, therefore allowing them to also use the 25/50/75 test. 62
FR 45484, 45498. DOE concluded at that time that testing at the various
test points of the temperature range, with a requirement to test to the
next higher selection if a temperature selection is not available at a
specified test point, would provide data representative of the warm
wash temperature selection offerings. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ The originally proposed test would have required testing at
the 20/40/60/80 percent positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that the 25/50/75 test was adopted before the widespread
use of electronic controls, which now allow for the assignment of wash
water temperatures that may not reflect the physical spacing between
temperature selections on the control panel. For example, with
electronic controls, the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent
positions on the dial may not necessarily correspond to 25-percent, 50-
percent, and 75-percent temperature differences between the hottest and
coldest selections. DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market with
four or more warm wash temperature selections, in which the temperature
selections located at the 25, 50, and 75-percent positions are low-
temperature cycles that have wash temperatures only a few degrees
higher than the coldest wash temperature; whereas the temperature
selection labeled ``Warm'' is located beyond the 75-percent position on
the temperature selection dial and is therefore not included for
testing under the 25/50/75 test. 85 FR 31065, 31073.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested feedback on the
representativeness of using the 25/50/75 test on clothes washers with
electronic controls, particularly for clothes washers in which the 25-
percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions on the dial do not
correspond to 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent temperature
increments between the hottest and coldest selections. Id. DOE also
requested comment on whether there is a less burdensome means for the
test procedure to be reasonably designed to measure energy use or
efficiency of the clothes washer during a representative average use
cycle.
AHAM opposed any changes to the 25/50/75 test for clothes washers
with four or more warm/cold temperature selections, stating that
changes are not necessary. AHAM asserted that introducing any change
could lead to increased test burden with no evident benefit to
consumers or energy savings. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 13)
The CA IOUs supported DOE amending the 25/50/75 test to define
positions along the temperature range instead of positions along the
temperature selection device. The CA IOUs expressed concern that the
current 25/50/75 test significantly underestimates energy usage of
clothes washers in situations where positions along the temperature
selection device do not match positions along the temperature range.
(CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 16)
The Joint Commenters expressed concern that the 25/50/75 test for
clothes washers with four or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature
selections is not representative because, for some clothes washers, the
25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions on the temperature
dial may not accurately represent the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-
percent temperature differences between the coldest and hottest
selections. The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to amend the 25/50/75
test so that it adequately represents the energy use of all clothes
washers' Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections. (Joint
Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3)
NEEA recommended that DOE characterize the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse
temperature selections using a single test run on the wash temperature
setting labeled ``Warm'' in order to increase representativeness of
real-world use. NEEA expressed concern that the current test procedure
likely underestimates hot water use and adds unnecessary test burden.
(NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 18-20) NEEA added that its recommended change
would eliminate up to six test runs from the test procedure (three load
sizes at two wash/rinse temperatures). NEEA expects that this benefit
would affect a sizeable percentage of the market, given NEEA's estimate
that more than 75 percent of clothes washers sold in the Northwest have
three or more discrete Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections. Id.

[[Page 49161]]

DOE is proposing to require testing of both the hottest Warm Wash/
Cold Rinse setting and the coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse setting for all
clothes washers in the proposed new Appendix J instead of the 25/50/75
test. Water consumption, electrical energy consumption, and all other
measured values \38\ would be averaged between the two tested cycles to
represent the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycle. DOE is proposing to make the
same changes to the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle in the proposed new
Appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ As discussed in sections III.D.4.a and III.D.5 of this
document, DOE is proposing to require measurements of RMC and cycle
time for each tested cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's proposal would decrease the test burden under the proposed
new Appendix J for clothes washers that offer more than two Warm Wash/
Cold Rinse or Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature settings, which DOE
estimates represent around half of the market, by reducing the number
of Warm Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Warm Rinse tested cycles from
three to two. Because this proposed approach may, however, change the
measured energy use of clothes washers that offer more than two Warm
Wash/Cold Rinse or Warm Wash/Warm Rinse settings, the proposed edits
would not apply to Appendix J2 and therefore would not affect the
measured efficiency of existing clothes washers. The ongoing RCW and
CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact
of any modifications to the measured efficiency using the proposed new
Appendix J.
DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed approach in the
proposed new Appendix J would maintain representativeness by continuing
to capture the complete range of Warm Wash temperatures available for
selection (i.e., by relying on an average of the hottest Warm Wash/Cold
Rinse setting and the coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse setting). For models
that are currently tested using the 25/50/75 test and for which certain
``Warm'' settings are located beyond the 75-percent position on the
temperature selection dial and therefore not included for testing,
DOE's proposal would capture entire range of available Warm Wash
temperatures available to the consumer, and therefore would improve
representativeness.
DOE acknowledges that NEEA's suggestion to characterize the Warm
Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections using a single test run on the
wash temperature setting labeled ``Warm'' would reduce test burden even
further by requiring just a single test cycle. However, DOE tentatively
concludes that testing a single Warm Wash temperature on a clothes
washer that offers multiple Warm Wash selections to the user may not
provide as accurate a representation of consumer usage as DOE's
proposal, which captures the full range of available Warm Wash
temperatures. In addition, DOE is concerned that defining the tested
temperature as the setting labeled ``Warm'' would create ambiguity for
clothes washers that offer multiple Warm Wash temperatures but for
which no setting is expressly labeled ``Warm.'' For example, DOE is
aware of clothes washers that use descriptors such as ``Colors,''
``Brights,'' and ``Whites'' to describe the different wash temperature
selections available to the user.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to require in the proposed new
Appendix J testing only the hottest and the coldest Warm Wash/Cold
Rinse settings. DOE seeks data and information on how this proposed
change to the Warm Wash temperature settings required for testing would
impact representativeness, testing costs, and manufacturer burden.
As noted, based on its market research, DOE estimates that roughly
half of all clothes washer models on the U.S. market offer more than
two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature settings. For these units, DOE's
proposal to simplify the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings required for
testing may impact measured efficiency. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is
proposing to change the Warm Wash tested settings only in the proposed
new Appendix J and not in the existing Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and
CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact
of these modifications to the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse tested cycles on
measured efficiency.
4. Remaining Moisture Content
Section 3.8.4 of Appendix J2 requires that for clothes washers that
have multiple spin settings \39\ available within the energy test cycle
that result in different RMC values, the maximum and minimum extremes
of the available spin settings must be tested with the maximum load
size on the Cold/Cold temperature selection.\40\ The final RMC is the
weighted average of the maximum and minimum spin settings, with the
maximum spin setting weighted at 75 percent and the minimum spin
setting weighted at 25 percent. The RMC measurement is used to
calculate the drying energy component of IMEF. On most clothes washers,
the drying energy component represents the largest portion of energy
captured in the MEF and IMEF metric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ The term ``spin settings'' refers to spin times or spin
speeds. The maximum spin setting results in a lower (better) RMC.
\40\ On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse option, RMC
must be measured on both Cold Rinse and Warm Rinse, with the final
RMC calculated as a weighted average using TUFs of 73 percent for
Cold Rinse and 27 percent for Warm Rinse. DOE has observed very few
clothes washer models on the market that offer Warm Rinse. For
simplicity throughout this discussion, DOE references the testing
requirements for clothes washers that offer Cold Rinse only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market that offer multiple
spin settings, but which offer only the maximum spin setting on the
Cold/Cold temperature selection. 85 FR 31065, 31073. This results in
the lower spin setting not being factored into the RMC calculation,
despite being available at other temperature selections in the energy
test cycle. As defined in the Temperature Use Factor (``TUF'') \41\
Table 4.1.1 in Appendix J2, the Cold/Cold temperature selection
represents 37 percent of consumer temperature selections, whereas the
other available temperature selections, for which the lower spin
settings would be available on such a unit, represent a combined 63
percent of consumer temperature selections. Id. DOE has tentatively
concluded that the existing RMC measurement procedure may not provide
representative test results on certain clothes washer models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ As described in more detail in section III.G.4 of this
document, TUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage
of time that consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature
selection for the wash cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Revised Calculation
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on testing clothes
washers that offer only the maximum spin setting on the Cold/Cold
temperature selection but provide lower spin settings on other
temperature selections. Id. DOE suggested that, RMC could be measured
at the default spin setting for each temperature selection and averaged
using the TUFs. Id.
AHAM stated that it is not necessary to address clothes washers
with spin settings that are only available on certain temperature
selections because the current method of RMC calculation is
representative of an average use cycle. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 13)
Samsung commented that clothes washers with spin settings that are
available only on certain temperature selections make the current test
procedure unrepresentative of real world use, since customers can
select an

[[Page 49162]]

un-tested, and potentially more energy-intensive mode, in order to
access the spin speed they intend to use. Samsung suggested that for
such units, DOE consider requiring an additional test at another
temperature setting where the spin speed is selectable. (Samsung, No. 6
at pp. 2-3)
NEEA commented that it was not aware of any units with spin speeds
that are available only on certain temperature selections, but asserted
that Appendix J2's current RMC test does not represent the range of
RMCs expected in the field, even when maximum and minimum speeds are
tested as specified in Appendix J2. NEEA presented RMC data from its
testing of three top-selling clothes washer models, which demonstrated
a difference in RMC of 0.3-1.1 percentage points between maximum and
minimum speed.\42\ (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 5) NEEA described laboratory
testing it conducted to isolate and measure variables that affect RMC:
testing was performed on 12 top-selling RCW models (including six
front-loading and five top-loading), representing over five
manufacturers, and spanning the range of efficiencies available on the
market; two CCWs were tested as well. (NEEA at No. 12, pp. 2-13) NEEA
stated its testing was performed according to the DOE Appendix J2
procedure, except that the RMC was calculated for all test runs
performed; an encoder non-invasively measured revolutions per minute
during test runs; and some tests were performed at different load sizes
or using different cycle selections. Based on its data, NEEA stated
that the current Appendix J2 RMC test does not represent the RMC of an
average clothes washer cycle. NEEA asserted that the RMC test procedure
prescribed in Appendix J2 represents a ``best-case'' scenario for RMC
conditions--every other test that NEEA performed at alternate
temperatures, load sizes, and cycle types increased the RMC value
relative to the Appendix J2-tested value. Id. NEEA commented that,
according to its testing, the primary difference in RMC for a given
clothes washer was due to programmed spin differences such as spin
time, and not differences in load size. Id. NEEA's stated that its test
data show that among all the clothes washers tested, spin time was, on
average, 7 minutes longer using the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature
selection with the maximum spin selection than when using the Warm
Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection with the default spin selection.
These differences resulted in an RMC difference of an average of 10
percentage points. Id. NEEA recommended that DOE measure RMC at the
default spin setting for each temperature selection and load size, and
average those RMC values using TUFs and LUFs. NEEA stated that this
approach will reduce test burden by removing the need for a separate
test run exclusively for measuring RMC, increase representativeness by
capturing RMC for all load sizes and water temperatures, and
potentially result in significant energy savings for clothes dryers in
the future. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ DOE notes that in NEEA's comment, this range was cited as
0.3-0.9, but the data in the table presented by NEEA displayed a
range of 0.3-1.1 percentage points between the RMCs at maximum and
minimum speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Commenters and CA IOUs supported NEEA's comments and
urged DOE to amend the test procedure to measure RMC for all load sizes
and temperature selections, and to weight the measurements using LUFs
and TUFs because doing so would improve the representativeness of the
test procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at
pp. 6-7) The Joint Commenters stated that the current test procedure is
likely significantly underestimating drying energy use and is leading
to inaccurate efficiency ratings. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 1)
DOE is proposing an amended method for measuring RMC in the
proposed new Appendix J that would require measuring RMC on each of the
energy test cycles using the default spin settings, and determining the
final RMC by weighting the individual RMC measurements using the same
TUFs and LUFs that apply to the water and energy measurements. DOE
notes that this proposal is largely consistent with the approach
recommended by NEEA and supported by the Joint Commenters and CA IOUs.
DOE tentatively concludes (based on its test observations as
described above and the test results presented by NEEA) that the
current method of measuring RMC may no longer produce test results that
measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle
or period of use, particularly as the prevalence of clothes washers
with complex electronic controls continues to increase in the market.
On a clothes washer with basic controls (e.g., in which the available
spin settings are the same regardless of what wash/rinse temperature is
selected), measuring RMC using only the Cold/Cold cycle would be
expected to provide RMC results that are equally representative of the
other available wash/rinse temperatures, which as noted comprise the
majority of consumer cycle selections. However, on a clothes washers in
which the selection of wash/rinse temperature affects which spin
settings are available to be selected, measuring RMC using only the
Cold/Cold cycle may not necessarily provide results that measure energy
and water use during a representative average use cycle or period of
use (i.e., across the range of wash/rinse temperature options selected
by consumers, as represented by the temperature use factors).
The data presented by NEEA illustrates how, on average, the spin
portion of the cycle on the setting used to measure RMC (i.e., the
maximum spin setting on the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature setting)
may not be representative of the spin characteristics and resulting RMC
measurement of other temperature selections comprising the energy test
cycle. Specifically, the data presented by NEEA suggest that the
specific cycle configuration from which RMC is measured is programed
with a longer spin time than other temperature settings available to
the consumer, resulting in a significantly better RMC measurement than
would be experienced by the consumer on the majority of wash cycles
performed.
The proposed update to the RMC measurement would provide a more
representative measure of RMC than the current test procedures because
RMC would be measured on all of the energy test cycles rather than only
the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, which represent only 37 percent of
consumer cycles and may not share the same RMC performance as the other
63 percent of consumer cycles.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ 37% is the TUF for the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature
selection as specified in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Samsung's suggestion to require an additional RMC test at
a different temperature setting that would provide the spin speed that
is unavailable on the Cold setting, DOE tentatively concludes that its
proposed approach would provide a more representative measure of RMC by
capturing RMC across all the temperature settings within the energy
test cycle.
Because RMC directly affects drying energy, which is a large
component in the calculation of IMEF, it is important that the RMC
value be representative of all test cycles. DOE's proposal would make
the RMC calculation consistent with how hot water energy, electrical
energy, and water usage are calculated, i.e., by testing multiple load
sizes and temperatures and averaging these values using LUFs and TUFs.

[[Page 49163]]

DOE tentatively concludes that this proposal would reduce overall
test burden. The proposal would require weighing the cloth before and
after each test cycle, but would avoid the need to perform extra cycles
for capturing both the maximum and minimum spin settings available on
the clothes washer if such spin settings are not activated by default
as part of the energy test cycle. In DOE's experience, a majority of
clothes washers offer multiple spin settings, thus requiring between
one and eight RMC cycles, depending on the specific options available
on the clothes washer. Appendix J2 currently requires measuring the
test load weight before each cycle in order to verify that the load is
bone-dry.\44\ To DOE's knowledge, many laboratories already measure and
record the test load weight after each test cycle as a means for
identifying potential cycle anomalies or to provide additional data
that can be used to verify quality control retrospectively. In cases
where a laboratory currently does not measure the weight after
completion of the cycle, DOE's proposal would incur a de minimis amount
of additional time to weigh the load after the cycle, which can be
performed using the same scale used to weigh the load at the beginning
of the cycle. For these reasons DOE does not expect the additional
collection of data to result in additional test burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ See section III.D.4.b of this document for the definition
of the term ``bone-dry.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal would likely impact the measured RMC value and thus
would impact a clothes washer's IMEF value. Therefore, in this NOPR,
DOE is proposing the revised RMC procedure only in the proposed new
Appendix J and not in existing Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and CCW
energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact of
any modifications to the RMC calculation on measured efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to revise the RMC procedure so
that RMC would be measured at the default spin setting for each
temperature selection and load size, and the individual RMC values
would be averaged using TUFs and LUFs to calculate the final RMC. DOE
seeks data and information regarding how this change to the RMC
calculation would impact testing costs and manufacturer test burden.
DOE further requests comment on whether DOE should implement any
changes to the RMC calculation in Appendix J2 to address clothes
washers with spin settings that are available only on certain
temperature selections.
b. Definition of Bone-Dry
In section 1.6 of Appendix J2, the term ``bone-dry'' is defined as
a condition of a load of test cloth that has been dried in a dryer at
maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, removed and weighed
before cool down, and then dried again for 10-minute periods until the
final weight change of the load is 1 percent or less. The bone-dry
definition was first established in the September 1977 Final Rule. 42
FR 49801, 49807-49808. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE added a
specification to section 2.6 of Appendix J2 requiring that the dryer
used for drying the cloth to bone-dry must heat the test cloth (and
stuffer cloths) above 210 [deg]F (99 [deg]C). 77 FR 13888, 13924.
In response to the May 2020 RFI, NEEA recommended that DOE update
its procedure for achieving bone-dry test cloth to harmonize with Annex
G of IEC Standard 60456, ``Clothes washing machines for household use--
Methods for measuring the performance'' Edition 5.0 (``IEC 60456'').
(NEEA, No. 12 at p. 26) In particular, NEEA recommended that DOE
consider the tumble dryer specifications in Section G.2 of IEC 60456,
the dryer inlet temperature measurement method, and the requirement
that the weight of the bone-dry load change be no more than 1 percent
or 0.044 lb (whichever is smaller) between 10-minute drying periods
(Section G.3 of IEC 60456). Id.
DOE is not aware of any problems with the current bone-dry
definition that would justify changing the bone-dry definition as NEEA
has suggested. DOE has tentatively concluded that specifying a weight
change of no more than 1 percent or 0.044 lb (whichever is smaller)
would increase the test burden because for a majority of tested loads,
the 0.044 lb requirement would apply, which would be more stringent
than the existing 1 percent requirement. DOE has not identified, and
commenters have not suggested, any problems with the current approach.
In the absence of data indicating any problems with the current
procedure, DOE is not proposing any changes to the bone-dry definition
or associated dryer temperature measurement method in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on its tentative conclusion not to propose
changes to the bone-dry definition and associated dryer temperature
measurement method.
c. Starting Moisture Content
Section 2.9.1 of Appendix J2 requires the test load for energy and
water consumption measurements to be bone-dry prior to the first cycle
of the test, and allows the test load to be dried to a maximum of 104
percent of the bone-dry weight for subsequent testing. This allowance
effectively allows for an increase to the starting moisture content of
the load from 1 percent moisture (as implied in the definition of
``bone-dry'' in section 1 of Appendix J2) to 4 percent moisture, which
creates two concerns.
First, for the largest clothes washers on the market, which use the
largest test load sizes, a 4 percent tolerance can represent up to 1 lb
of additional water weight in a starting test load. DOE is concerned
that the range of starting water weights that this provision allows
could reduce the repeatability and reproducibility of test results,
particularly for larger clothes washers.
Second, as described in section III.D.4.a of this document, DOE is
proposing to require the measurement of RMC for all tested cycles in
the proposed new Appendix J. The RMC of each tested cycle would be
calculated based on the bone-dry weight at the start of the cycle.
Allowing the bone-dry weight to vary within a range of 1 percent to 4
percent moisture at the beginning of each tested cycle would introduce
variability into the RMC calculation.
Therefore, to improve repeatability and reproducibility of test
results, DOE is proposing in new Appendix J to remove the provision
that allows for a starting test load weight of 104 percent of the bone-
dry weight, and instead require that each test cycle use a bone-dry
test load. DOE is not proposing to make any changes to section 2.9.1 of
Appendix J2, recognizing that such a change could impact measured
energy efficiency.
In DOE's experience, most test laboratories use the bone-dry weight
as the starting weight of each test load rather than a starting weight
up to 104 percent of bone-dry, as allowed by section 2.9.1 of Appendix
J2. If a test laboratory does make use of this provision in section
2.9.1 of Appendix J2, the requirement to use the bone-dry weight would
add no more than 10 minutes of drying time per cycle to ensure that the
test load has reached the bone-dry requirement. In DOE's experience,
most test laboratories dry the load from the previous test cycle while
the next cycle is being tested on the clothes washer, such that a minor
increase in drying time would not affect the overall time required to
conduct the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that each test
cycle use a bone-dry test load in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE
requests comment on whether test laboratories

[[Page 49164]]

start test cycles with the test load at bone-dry or at up to 104
percent of the bone-dry weight. DOE further requests feedback on its
assessment that this change would not affect test burden.
5. Cycle Time Measurement
The current test procedure does not specify a measurement for
average cycle time. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to base the
allocation of annual combined low-power mode hours on the measured
average cycle time rather than a fixed value of 8,465 hours, for the
proposed new Appendix J (see section III.G.3 of this document). DOE is
therefore proposing to require the measurement of average cycle time
for the proposed new Appendix J. Calculating the annual standby mode
and off mode hours using the measured average cycle time would provide
a more representative basis for determining the energy consumption in
the combined low-power modes for the specific clothes washer under
test.
DOE is proposing to define the overall average cycle time of a
clothes washer model as the weighted average of the individual cycle
times for each wash cycle configuration conducted as part of the test
procedure, using the TUFs and LUFs for the weighting. Using the
weighted-average approach would align the average cycle time
calculation with the calculations for determining weighted-average
energy and water use. These proposed changes would apply only to the
proposed new Appendix J.
DOE does not expect the measurement of cycle time to increase test
burden. To DOE's knowledge, test laboratories are either already
measuring cycle time for all tested cycles or using data acquisition
systems to record electronic logs of each cycle, from which determining
the cycle time would require minimal additional work.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to add cycle time measurements
and to calculate average cycle time using the weighted-average method
in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests comment on its
assertion that adding cycle time measurements and a calculation of a
weighted-average cycle time would not increase testing costs or overall
test burden.
6. Capacity Measurement
Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides the procedure for measuring the
clothes container capacity, which represents the maximum usable volume
for washing clothes. The clothes container capacity is measured by
filling the clothes container with water and using the weight of the
water to determine the volume of the clothes container. For front-
loading clothes washers, this procedure requires positioning the
clothes washer on its back surface such that the door opening of the
clothes container faces upwards and is leveled horizontally.
a. Computer-Aided Design
DOE is aware that for some front-loading clothes washers,
positioning the clothes washer on its back surface may be impractical
or unsafe, particularly for very large or heavy clothes washers or
those with internal components that could be damaged by the procedures
specified in section 3.1 of Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31072. On other
clothes washers, filling the clothes container volume as described
could be difficult or impractical, particularly for clothes washers
with concave or otherwise complex door geometries. Id.
Recognizing these challenges, in the May 2020 RFI, DOE considered
whether to allow manufacturers to determine the clothes container
capacity by performing a calculation of the volume based upon computer-
aided design (``CAD'') models of the basic model in lieu of physical
measurements of a production unit of the basic model. 85 FR 31065,
31072. DOE allows a CAD-based approach for consumer refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as specified at 10 CFR
429.72(c).\45\ In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comments on whether
to allow CAD-based determination of clothes container capacity for
clothes washers in lieu of physical measurements of a production unit
of the basic model. Id. DOE also requested comments on the impacts on
manufacturer burden associated with any such change to the capacity
measurement procedure. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Under this approach, any value of total refrigerated volume
of a basic model reported to DOE in a certification of compliance in
accordance with Sec. 429.14(b)(2) must be calculated using the CAD-
derived volume(s) and the applicable provisions in the test
procedures in 10 CFR part 430 for measuring volume, and must be
within 2 percent, or 0.5 ft\3\ (0.2 ft\3\ for compact products),
whichever is greater, of the volume of a production unit of the
basic model measured in accordance with the applicable test
procedure in 10 CFR part 430. (See 10 CFR 429.72(c).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM stated that the current volume measurement procedure works
well as written, and AHAM does not believe it is necessary to allow for
CAD-based determination of volume, stating that it would add
unnecessary complexity to the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 10)
UL commented that while manufacturers could easily use CAD models
of their clothes washer containers in order to measure capacity, third-
party laboratories would still need to use the water-filling method. UL
suggested that in order to eliminate the necessity of the water-filling
method, manufacturers could submit CAD drawings to DOE as part of the
certification process. (UL, No. 9 at p. 3)
NEEA commented that DOE should not allow manufacturers to declare
capacities that cannot be verified by a third party (such as
manufacturer-reported CAD-based determinations). (NEEA, No. 12 at pp.
26-27)
No information is available at this time to determine how a
capacity rating based on a CAD model would compare to the measured
capacity using the procedure defined in Appendix J2. DOE is not
proposing to allow CAD-based capacity measurement at this time.
b. Alternative Measurements
In test procedures established in certain other jurisdictions
(e.g., Europe, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, and New Zealand),
clothes washer capacity is represented in terms of the weight of
clothing (e.g., kilograms or pounds) that may be washed, rather than
the physical volume of the clothes container. Furthermore, some of
these test procedures allow for the clothes washer capacity to be
declared by the manufacturer, representing the maximum weight of
clothing that the clothes washer is designed to successfully clean. 85
FR 31065, 31072.
Some of the alternate representations of clothes washer capacity
that DOE could consider include:
<bullet> A weight-based capacity, such as pounds of clothing, which
could be derived from the measured volume of the clothes container in a
similar manner to the way that the maximum test load is currently
specified in Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 based on the measured clothes
container volume.
<bullet> A clothes container capacity that is declared by the
manufacturer using an industry-standard methodology. For example, IEC
60456 provides two optional methodologies for determining clothes
container capacity, using either table tennis balls or water.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ For the table tennis ball approach, the clothes container
is filled with specified table tennis balls, and an empirically
determined equation is provided to convert the number of balls into
a capacity value. The water approach is similar to the approach
provided in section 3.1 of Appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether to consider
any changes to the representation of clothes washer capacity,
including, but not limited to, a weight-based capacity or manufacturer-
declared capacity based on industry-standard methodology. 85 FR 31065,
31072. Specifically, DOE

[[Page 49165]]

requested comment on whether the two methodologies provided in IEC
60456 provide capacity measurements that result in a test method that
measures the energy use of the clothes washer during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. Id.
AHAM supported the continued use of the current DOE clothes washer
volume measurement, stating that it is accurate, repeatable, and
reproducible. AHAM opposed any changes of the representation of clothes
washer volume to a weight-based measurement or other manufacturer-
declared capacity because, to AHAM's knowledge, there is not a
repeatable, reproducible way to do so. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 10-12) AHAM
described work it has performed over the past decade to develop a test
procedure to evaluate capacity in terms of the weight of clothes that
can be effectively washed and rinsed, similar to various international
approaches. Id. As part of its investigation, AHAM tested cleaning,
rinsing, and gentleness on nine randomly selected units to develop a
baseline performance. AHAM stated that the results of this testing
showed that the variation of the performance scores was too high to
yield repeatable or reproducible results. Id. AHAM stated that any DOE
effort to formulate a similar procedure would likely meet similar
challenges. Id.
Electrolux supported AHAM's position that alternative capacity
measurement methods should not be considered. Electrolux stated that
the water volume-based method in use today is easy for third-party
laboratories to use, and provides the best and most accurate data for
the DOE test method. Electrolux stated that the water method is neither
too restrictive nor too burdensome. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 1)
NEEA commented that DOE should maintain a single method of
measurement of volumetric capacity, as it does currently in Appendix
J2. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 26-27) NEEA stated that DOE should not allow
multiple methods of capacity measurement under the test method, stating
that this can lead to inconsistency and inequitable application of the
test procedure that includes a maximum load size based on basket
capacity. Id. NEEA also commented that DOE should not allow
manufacturer declarations of capacity that cannot be verified by a
third party (such as manufacturer reported CAD-based determinations).
Id. NEEA cited the potentially high burden that would be associated
with including washing performance testing that would be required for a
manufacturer-reported weight capacity. Id.
DOE appreciates details and insights from stakeholders and industry
regarding efforts to investigate this issue. DOE is not proposing to
specify any alternatives to the current capacity measurement procedure
at this time.
c. Modifications to the Existing Capacity Method
Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides the methodology for determining
clothes container capacity. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE revised
the clothes container capacity measurement to better reflect the actual
usable capacity compared to the previous measurement procedures. 77 FR
13887, 13917. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE further added to the
capacity measurement procedure a revised description of the maximum
fill volume for front-loading clothes washers, as well as illustrations
of the boundaries defining the uppermost edge of the clothes container
for top-loading vertical-axis clothes washers and the maximum fill
volume for horizontal-axis clothes washers. 80 FR 46729, 46733.
For top-loading vertical-axis clothes washers, DOE defined the
uppermost edge of the clothes container as the uppermost edge of the
rotating portion of the wash basket. 77 FR 13887, 13917-13918. DOE also
concluded that the uppermost edge is the highest horizontal plane that
a dry clothes load could occupy in a top-loading vertical-axis clothes
washer that would allow clothing to interact with the water and
detergent properly. Id.
Samsung recommended that DOE reconsider the capacity measurement
guideline for top-loading clothes washers. Samsung stated that volume
should be measured up to the manufacturer-recommended fill line,
instead of measuring up to the top of the rotating portion of the
clothes container. Samsung added that the discrepancy between measured
volume and manufacturer-recommended fill line may overstate the energy
and water efficiency in the test method compared to real-world use.
(Samsung, No. 6 at p. 2)
DOE discussed its justification for the current fill level
definition for top-loading clothes washers as part of the March 2012
Final Rule. 77 FR 13888, 13917-13920. The fill level recommended by
Samsung corresponds to ``Fill Level 1'' as described in the March 2012
Final Rule, while the current definition as the uppermost edge of the
rotating portion of the wash basket corresponds to ``Fill Level 2'' as
described in the March 2012 Final Rule. As DOE explained in the March
2012 Final Rule, by respecting manufacturer recommendations, Fill Level
1 would best ensure wash performance is maintained, and thus is the
most consumer-relevant fill level. However, should clothing occupy the
space between Fill Level 1 and Fill Level 2 during a wash cycle, the
clothing could be cleaned sufficiently because water can still be
contained within that volume. Clothing above Fill Level 2, however, is
not likely to be cleaned sufficiently because it would be outside the
wash basket during the wash cycle and risks being damaged if it becomes
entangled on stationary fixtures such as the tub cover or other
mechanical components of the clothes washer during the wash cycle. Id.
For these reasons, DOE adopted Fill Level 2 for determining the
capacity of top-loading clothes washers.
DOE is not aware of any changes to product designs since the March
2012 Final Rule that would cause DOE to reevaluate its conclusions
about the most appropriate capacity fill level. In DOE's experience
since the March 2012 Final Rule, the existing capacity fill definition
is implemented consistently by test laboratories and results in
repeatable and reproducible measurements of capacity. DOE is therefore
not proposing any changes to the existing capacity measurement method.
DOE requests comment on its tentative determination to maintain the
current capacity measurement method.
7. Anomalous Cycles
Section 3.2.9 of Appendix J2 specifies discarding the data from a
wash cycle that ``provides a visual or audio indicator to alert the
user that an out-of-balance condition has been detected, or that
terminates prematurely if an out-of-balance condition is detected, and
thus does not include the agitation/tumble operation, spin speed(s),
wash times, and rinse times applicable to the wash cycle under test.''
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought input on whether the test procedure
should, in addition to out-of-balance conditions, also require
discarding data for wash cycles in which any other anomalous behavior
may be observed. 85 FR 31065, 31070. DOE also requested information on
whether the test procedure should explicitly require that any wash
cycle for which data was discarded due to anomalous behavior must also
be repeated to obtain data without the anomalous behavior to be
included in the energy test cycle. Id.
NEEA requested more specific guidance on when test cycle data
should be considered anomalous to ensure test

[[Page 49166]]

procedure consistency, specifically whether a ``visual or audio''
indicator includes tub cabinet hits, a paused spin cycle, anomalous
revolutions per minute (``rpm''), an ``unbalanced'' indication on the
control panel, or any other type of signal. NEEA stated that
inconsistencies among test laboratory interpretations of this provision
could lead to repeatability and reproducibility issues. (NEEA, No. 12
at p. 17)
UL commented that DOE should consider amending section 3.2.9 of
Appendix J2 to specify whether the term ``audio indicator'' includes
only electronic tones from the clothes washer (e.g., beeps), or if it
also includes mechanical noises from the machinery itself (e.g., the
cabinet hitting due to an unbalanced load). UL added that unbalanced
visual indicators (such as a machine control panel displaying ``ul''
for unbalanced load) may last for only a few seconds and could be
easily missed. (UL, No. 9 at p. 2) UL also suggested that wash water
use data be discarded if consumption and/or cycle time differ vastly
from other cycles run on the machine, since cycle time may be altered
if a clothes washer adds an extra rinse to redistribute an unbalanced
load. Id.
AHAM commented that sometimes a cycle may not terminate due to an
out-of-balance or other anomalous behavior, and that some models do not
provide audio or visual indicators to notify the consumer that an
anomalous condition was detected and fixed by the machine. (AHAM, No. 5
at pp. 7-8) According to AHAM, these actions benefit the consumer--
instead of requiring consumer interaction during the cycle, the clothes
washer addresses the anomalous behavior and finishes the cycle. AHAM
added that this also often saves energy and water by finishing the
cycle with some incrementally increased water or energy usage instead
of requiring a cycle to be canceled and completely re-run. Id. AHAM
stated that it is unlikely that these anomalous conditions happen
frequently when consumers use the clothes washer and that test runs
exhibiting these conditions should be considered invalid. Id. In
response to DOE's question about how anomalous behavior can be detected
without an indicator and during the test of only one unit, AHAM
commented that a spot check verification test would be the only means
for doing so. AHAM added that should anomalous behavior occur during a
single test, more units will almost always be tested as part of DOE's
enforcement procedures or ENERGY STAR verification procedures, and that
at that time, anomalous behavior would become evident and would be a
signal to the laboratory that the outlier test run should be discarded.
Id. According to AHAM, a trained technician--whether at a manufacturer
laboratory or a third-party laboratory--should similarly be able to
tell that there was a power interruption at some point in the duration
of the cycle due to software detecting an issue, stopping the cycle,
and taking action to fix it (e.g., redistributing the load). Id.
AHAM recommended that DOE add language to the test procedure
specifying that if there is a visual or audio indicator that would
alert the user about anomalous behavior, or if there are other
indicators that suggest anomalous behavior, the test be stopped and the
results discarded. Id. According to AHAM, without this change,
manufacturers may need to redesign products to terminate at any
indication of anomalous behavior rather than automatically resolve the
issue for the consumer. AHAM added that the ability of a clothes washer
to correct itself without terminating the cycle is an important
consumer utility. Id. To address possible circumvention concerns (e.g.,
that a product would be designed to perform this way), AHAM proposed
that DOE consider a similar approach to IEC 60456 (Section 8.2.5 and
the accompanying note which references Section 9.1), which limits the
number of additional test runs and requires reporting the reason for
the rejection of a test run. Id.
Electrolux supported the suggestion that energy data obtained from
a cycle that may be acting erratically or abnormally in any way should
be discarded. Electrolux recommended that DOE consider a possible
manufacturer-supplied cycle status code that would be available to any
test agency following completion of a cycle, which would monitor the
cycle for anomalous behavior and provide an error code indicating not
to use that cycle data. Electrolux additionally supported AHAM's
comments on this issue. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 3)
DOE acknowledges that as clothes washer technology has improved,
certain clothes washers are designed to self-correct out-of-balance
loads or make other adjustments to the operation of the unit to
complete the cycle without alerting the consumer or requiring user
intervention. DOE also recognizes the benefit of objective and
observable criteria to determine when an anomalous cycle has occurred,
based on a single test, such that the data from that anomalous cycle
should be discarded.
To provide more objective and observable criteria, DOE proposes
that data from a wash cycle would be discarded if either: The washing
machine signals to the user by means of an audio or visual alert that
an off-balance condition has occurred; or the wash cycle terminates
prematurely and thus does not include the agitation/tumble operation,
spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to the wash cycle
under test. The proposed reference to an audio or visual alert refers
to a warning sound initiated by the clothes washer, or visual cue such
as a flashing light or persistent error code, that is provided to the
user to actively inform the user that a problem has occurred; as
opposed to a more passive indication such as the cabinet hitting the
side or a change in the projected cycle duration, which could go
unnoticed by the user or which itself may not be an indication of an
out-of-balance load that warrants discarding the data for a test cycle.
To emphasize this intent, DOE is proposing to change the current phrase
``provides a visual or audio indicator to alert the user'' to ``signals
to the user by means of a visual or audio alert'' in both section 3.2.9
of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 of the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE is also proposing to change the current phrase ``terminates
prematurely if an out-of-balance condition is detected'' to simply
``terminates prematurely,'' in recognition that other factors beyond an
out-of-balance condition could also cause a wash cycle to terminate
prematurely (e.g., a clogged filter, mechanical malfunction, etc.), and
that for any such reason, the data from that wash cycle would be
discarded.
DOE is further proposing non-substantive wording changes to section
3.2.9 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 of the proposed new Appendix J
to make explicit that if data are discarded for the reasons described
in these sections, the wash cycle is repeated.
DOE requests comment on the proposed criteria for determining
whether test data are to be discarded. Specifically, DOE requests
comment on the proposal that test data are discarded if a washing
machine either signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert
that an out-of-balance condition has occurred or terminates
prematurely. DOE requests comment on whether additional or alternate
criteria would provide objective and observable indication during a
single test that test data are to be discarded.
8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
Section III.C.2 of this document discussed the installation of
semi-automatic clothes washers for testing.

[[Page 49167]]

This section discusses the wash/rinse temperature selections and TUFs
applicable to semi-automatic clothes washers. As noted, semi-automatic
clothes washers are defined at 10 CFR 430.2 as a class of clothes
washer that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. DOE's test procedure requirements at
10 CFR 430.23(j)(2)(ii) state that the use of Appendix J2 is required
to determine IMEF for both automatic and semi-automatic clothes
washers.
Semi-automatic clothes washers inherently do not provide wash/rinse
temperature selections on th

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 1, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.