Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-10715

Rule2022-10715

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

June 1, 2022

Effective

July 1, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Energy's ("DOE") test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers to further specify test conditions, instrument specifications, and test settings; address large clothes container capacities; add product-specific enforcement provisions; delete obsolete provisions; and consolidate all test cloth-related provisions and codify additional test cloth material verification procedures used by industry. This final rule also establishes a new test procedure for residential and commercial clothes washers with additional modifications for certain test conditions, measurement of average cycle time, required test cycles, tested load sizes, semi-automatic clothes washer provisions, new performance metrics, and updated usage factors. The new test procedure will be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the updated standards, should such standards be established.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33316-33405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10715]

[[Page 33315]]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 105

June 1, 2022

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429, 430 and 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 33316]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429, 430 and 431

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

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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Energy's
(``DOE'') test procedures for residential and commercial clothes
washers to further specify test conditions, instrument specifications,
and test settings; address large clothes container capacities; add
product-specific enforcement provisions; delete obsolete provisions;
and consolidate all test cloth-related provisions and codify additional
test cloth material verification procedures used by industry. This
final rule also establishes a new test procedure for residential and
commercial clothes washers with additional modifications for certain
test conditions, measurement of average cycle time, required test
cycles, tested load sizes, semi-automatic clothes washer provisions,
new performance metrics, and updated usage factors. The new test
procedure will be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated
efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the
updated standards, should such standards be established.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 1, 2022. The amendments
will be mandatory for product testing starting November 28, 2022.
Manufacturers will be required to use the amended test procedure until
the compliance date of any final rule establishing amended energy
conservation standards based on the newly established test procedure.
At such time, manufacturers will be required to begin using the newly
established test procedure.
The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in this
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 1,
2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at <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.
A link to the docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2016-BT-TP-0011">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2016-BT-TP-0011</a>. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#08497878646169666b6d5b7c69666c697a6c7b597d6d7b7c6167667b486d6d266c676d266f677e">[email&#160;protected]</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#622312120e0b030c01073116030c060310061133170711160b0d0c112207074c060d074c050d14">[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#531832273b212a3d7d1e301a3d273c203b133b227d373c367d343c25">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
standards into part 430.
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (``AATCC'')
Test Method 79-2010, ``Absorbency of Textiles,'' Revised 2010.
AATCC Test Method 118-2007, ``Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon
Resistance Test,'' Revised 2007.
AATCC Test Method 135-2010, ``Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after
Home Laundering,'' Revised 2010.
Copies of AATCC test methods can be obtained from AATCC, P.O. Box
12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or by going to
<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.N of
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Applicability
C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation
1. Water Meter Resolution
2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines
3. Water Supply Temperatures
4. Extra-Hot Wash Determination
5. Wash Water Temperature Measurement
6. Pre-Conditioning Requirements
D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct
1. Tested Load Sizes
2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the Proposed Load Sizes
3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested Settings
4. Remaining Moisture Content
5. Cycle Time
6. Capacity Measurement
7. Identifying and Addressing Anomalous Cycles
8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
9. Optional Cycle Modifiers
10. Clothes Washers With Connected Functionality
E. Metrics
1. Replacing Capacity with Weighted-Average Load Size
2. Inverting the Water Metric
3. Representation Requirements
F. Cleaning Performance
G. Consumer Usage Assumptions
1. Annual Number of Wash Cycles
2. Drying Energy Assumptions
3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions
4. Temperature Usage Factors
5. Load Usage Factors
6. Water Heater Assumptions
7. Commercial Clothes Washer Usage
H. Clarifications
1. Water Inlet Hose Length
2. Water Fill Selection Availability
3. Water Fill Control Systems
4. Energy Test Cycle Flowcharts
5. Wash Time Setting
6. Annual Operating Cost Calculation
7. Structure of the New Appendix J
8. Proposed Deletions and Simplifications
9. Typographical Errors
10. Symbology
I. Test Cloth Provisions
1. Test Cloth Specification
2. Consolidation to Appendix J3
J. Product-Specific RMC Enforcement Provisions
K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
L. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001

[[Page 33317]]

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

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

A. Authority

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

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

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42
U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of
those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE
must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply
with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s);
42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products and
equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)) DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the
criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products and equipment, respectively. EPCA
requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this
section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which
measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating
cost of a covered product or equipment during a representative average
use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) \4\ If an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and
off mode energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a
separate test is technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii))
Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \5\
and IEC Standard 62087 \6\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ EPCA does not contain an analogous provision for commercial
equipment.
\5\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\6\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including RCWs, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE determines
that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures.

[[Page 33318]]

EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the same as the
test procedures established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with
the test procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires that DOE evaluate, at least
once every 7 years, the test procedures for CCWs to determine whether
amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to
conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 7-year
review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))

B. Background

As discussed, DOE's existing test procedures for clothes washers
appear in appendix J1, appendix J2, and appendix J3.
DOE originally established its clothes washer test procedure,
codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J''), in
a final rule published Sept. 28, 1977. 42 FR 49802 (``September 1977
Final Rule''). Since that time, the test procedure has undergone
several amendments that are relevant to this rulemaking, summarized as
follows and described in additional detail in a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NOPR'') that DOE published on September 1, 2021. 86 FR
49140 (``September 2021 NOPR'').
DOE amended appendix J in August 1997 (62 FR 45484 (Aug. 27, 1997);
(``August 1997 Final Rule'') and January 2001 (66 FR 3313 (Jan. 12,
2001); ``January 2001 Final Rule''). The August 1997 Final Rule also
established an appendix J1. 62 FR 45484. DOE amended appendix J1 in the
January 2001 Final Rule (66 FR 3313) and in March 2012. 77 FR 13888
(Mar. 7, 2012) (``March 2012 Final Rule''). The March 2012 Final Rule
also established a new test procedure at appendix J2 and removed the
obsolete appendix J.\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ In that rulemaking, DOE also adopted procedures to measure
standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the energy
efficiency metrics in the then-newly created appendix J2.
Manufacturers were not required to incorporate those changes until
the compliance date of an amended standard. 77 FR 13888, 13932.
Amended standards were then adopted through a direct final rule that
required the use of appendix J2 for RCWs manufactured on or after
the 2015 compliance date. 77 FR 32308, 32313 (May 31, 2012). The
appendix J follows a similar approach because manufacturers would
not be required to incorporate the amendments proposed in appendix J
until the compliance date of an amended standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE most recently amended both appendix J1 and appendix J2 in a
final rule published on August 5, 2015. 80 FR 46729 (``August 2015
Final Rule''). The August 2015 Final Rule also moved the test cloth
qualification procedures from appendix J1 and appendix J2 to the newly
created appendix J3. 80 FR 46729, 46735. The current version of the
test procedure at appendix J2 includes provisions for determining
modified energy factor (``MEF<INF>J2</INF>'') \8\ and integrated
modified energy factor (``IMEF'') in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per
cycle (``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''); and water factor (``WF'') and integrated
water factor (``IWF'') in gallons per cycle per cubic feet (``gal/
cycle/ft\3\''). RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2018, must
meet current energy conservation standards, which are based on IMEF and
IWF, determined using appendix J2. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4); 10 CFR
430.23(j)(2)(ii) and (4)(ii). CCWs manufactured on or after January 1,
2018, must meet current energy conservation standards, which are based
on MEF<INF>J2</INF> and IWF, determined using appendix J2. 10 CFR
431.154 and 10 CFR 431.156(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The current appendix J2 test procedure defines modified
energy factor as ``MEF'' (i.e., without the ``J2'' subscript). In
the CCW test procedure regulations at 10 CFR 431.152, DOE defines
the term ``MEF<INF>J2</INF>'' to mean modified energy factor as
determined in section 4.5 of appendix J2. As discussed in a CCW test
procedure final rule published December 3, 2014, since the
calculated value of modified energy factor in appendix J2 is not
equivalent to the calculated value of modified energy factor in
appendix J1, DOE added the ``J2'' subscript to the appendix J2 MEF
descriptor to avoid any potential ambiguity that would result from
using the same energy descriptor for both test procedures. 79 FR
71624, 71626. To maintain consistency with this approach, this final
rule adds the ``J2'' subscript to the MEF metric defined in section
4.5 of appendix J2. See section III.H.10 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 22, 2020, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
(``May 2020 RFI'') to initiate an effort to determine whether to amend
the current test procedures for clothes washers. 85 FR 31065. In the
September 2021 NOPR, DOE responded to stakeholders' comments on the May
2020 RFI, and proposed amendments to appendix J2 and appendix J3 as
well as to establish a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix J (``appendix J'') that would establish new energy
efficiency metrics: The energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') as the energy
efficiency metric for RCWs (replacing IMEF); active-mode energy
efficiency ratio (``AEER'') as the energy efficiency metric for CCWs
(replacing MEF<INF>J2</INF>); and the water efficiency ratio (``WER'')
as the water efficiency metric for both RCWs and CCWs (replacing IWF);
as well as incorporate a number of revisions to improve test procedure
representativeness and reduce test burden. 86 FR 49140.
On December 16, 2020, DOE established separate product classes for
top-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes and for
front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes. 85 FR
81359 (``December 2020 Final Rule''). DOE re-evaluated the new short-
cycle product classes in response to Executive Order 13900,
``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). In addition,
stakeholders and interested parties filed multiple lawsuits challenging
the December 2020 Final Rule, and DOE received several petitions for
reconsideration of the December 2020 Final Rule. Following the re-
evaluation of the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE published a NOPR on
August 11, 2021, that proposed to repeal the short-cycle product
classes. 86 FR 43970. DOE repealed the short-cycle product classes in a
final rule published on January 19, 2022. 87 FR 2673.
The comment period of the September 2021 NOPR was initially set to
close on November 1, 2021. 86 FR 49140. In response to a stakeholder
request,\9\ on October 28, 2021, DOE published a notice (``October 2021
Notice'') extending the comment period until November 29, 2021. 86 FR
59652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Request from Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020) available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table I.1.

Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to
September 2021 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) final rule Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous....................... Anonymous......... Individual.
John Oeisratnas................. Oeisratnas........ Individual.
Kenneth Warren.................. Warren............ Individual.

[[Page 33319]]

Micah Mutrux.................... Mutrux............ Individual.
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Efficiency Efficiency
Project, American Council for Advocates. Organizations.
an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of America,
and Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Ameren, ComEd, and Northwest Joint Commenters.. Efficiency
Energy Efficiency Alliance. Organization &
Utilities.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
GE Appliances................... GEA............... Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Company, Sempra Energy,
Southern California Edison
(collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities).
People's Republic of China...... P.R. China........ Nation.
Samsung Electronics America..... Samsung........... Manufacturer.
Whirlpool Corporation........... Whirlpool......... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whirlpool commented that it supports AHAM's comments on the
September 2021 NOPR. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2) GEA also commented
that it supports AHAM's comments on the September 2021 NOPR, and
incorporated AHAM's comments by reference. (GEA, No. 32 at p. 2)
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

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

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

(1) Modify the hot water supply temperature range;
(2) Modify the clothes washer pre-conditioning requirements;
(3) Modify the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature;
(4) Add measurement and calculation of average cycle time;
(5) Reduce the number of required test cycles by requiring the use
of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more than two
Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles;
(6) Reduce the number of required test cycles by removing the need
for one or more cycles used for measuring RMC;
(7) Reduce the number of load sizes from three to two for units
currently tested with three load sizes;
(8) Modify the load size definitions consistent with two, rather
than three, load sizes;
(9) Update the water fill levels to be used for testing to reflect
the modified load size definitions;
(10) Specify the installation of single-inlet clothes washers, and
simplify the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers;
(11) Define new performance metrics that are based on the weighted-
average load size rather than clothes container capacity: ``energy
efficiency ratio,'' ``active-mode energy efficiency ratio,'' and
``water efficiency ratio;''
(12) Update the final moisture content assumption in the drying
energy formula;
(13) Update the number of annual clothes washer cycles from 295 to
234; and
(14) Update the number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be
based on the clothes washer's measured cycle time rather than an
assumed fixed value.
Finally, in this final rule, DOE is removing appendix J1 and
updating the relevant sections of 10 CFR parts 429, 430 and 431 in
accordance with the edits discussed previously, and modifying the
product-specific enforcement provisions regarding the determination of
RMC.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
test procedure provision prior to the

[[Page 33320]]

amendment, as well as the reason for the adopted change.

Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Appendix J2 Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Appendix J2 test Amended Appendix
procedure J2 test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies a water meter Requires a water Improve
resolution of no larger than meter with a representativenes
0.1 gallons. resolution no s of test
larger than 0.01 results.
gallons if the
hot water use is
less than 0.1
gallons.
Specifies a target water supply Specifies the Reduce test
temperature at the high end of midpoint of the burden.
the water supply temperature allowable range
range. as the target
water temperature.
Specifically allows the use of Adds specification Reduce test
temperature indicating labels for using a burden.
for measuring wash water submersible
temperature. temperature
logger to measure
wash water
temperature.
Specifies the test load sizes Specifies the test Response to
for clothes container load sizes for waiver.
capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. clothes container
capacities up to
8.0 ft\3\.
Provides product-specific Provides Accommodate
enforcement provisions to additional potential source
address anomalous RMC results product-specific of variation in
that are not representative of enforcement enforcement
a basic model's performance. provisions to testing.
accommodate
differences in
RMC values that
may result from
DOE using a
different test
cloth lot than
was used by the
manufacturer for
testing and
certifying the
basic model.
Specifies discarding data from a Specifies Response to test
wash cycle that provides a discarding the laboratory
visual or audio indicator to test data if question.
alert the user that an out-of- during a wash
balance condition has been cycle the clothes
detected, or that terminates washer signals
prematurely if an out-of- the user by means
balance condition is detected. of a visual or
audio alert that
an out-of-balance
condition has
been detected or
terminates
prematurely.
Does not explicitly address the Specifies that Improve
required configuration for clothes washers reproducibility
network-connected functionality. with connected of test results.
functionality
shall be tested
with the network-
connected
functions
disabled if such
settings can be
disabled by the
end-user, and the
product's user
manual provides
instructions on
how to do so.
Does not provide an explicit Provides a Improve
definition for ``user- definition for readability.
adjustable adaptive water fill ``user-adjustable
controls'' or ``wash time''. adaptive water
fill controls''
and for ``wash
time''.
Specifies that user-adjustable Changes the Response to test
automatic clothes washers must wording to laboratory
be tested with the water fill specify selecting question.
setting in the most or least the setting based
energy-intensive setting on the most, or
without defining energy- least, amount of
intensive. water used.
Does not specify on which load Specifies Response to test
size to evaluate the energy evaluating the laboratory
test cycle flow charts. flow charts using question, improve
the maximum load reproducibility
size. of test results.
Does not explicitly address how Explicitly Response to test
to evaluate the Cold/Cold addresses clothes laboratory
energy test cycle flow chart washers that question.
for clothes washers that internally
internally generate hot water. generate hot
water.
Does not provide direction for Clarifies how to Improve
all control panel styles on test cycles with readability.
clothes washers that offer a a range of wash
range of wash time settings. time settings.
Includes test cloth verification Moves all test Improve
specifications in appendix J2. cloth related readability.
provisions to
appendix J3.
Contains obsolete provisions.... Updates or deletes Improve
obsolete readability.
provisions,
including
appendix J1 in
its entirety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II.2--Summary of Changes in Appendix J Test Procedure in
Comparison to Appendix J2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Appendix J2 test New Appendix J
procedure test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies a water meter Requires a water Improve
resolution of no larger than meter with a representativenes
0.1 gallons. resolution no s of test
larger than 0.01 results.
gallons if the
hot water use is
less than 0.1
gallons.
Does not specify how to install Specifies Provide further
clothes washers with a single installing direction for
inlet. clothes washers unaddressed
with a single feature.
inlet to the cold
water inlet.
Specifies a hot water supply Specifies a hot Improve
temperature of 130-135 [deg]F. water supply representativenes
temperature of s of test
120-125 [deg]F. results.
Defines the Extra-Hot Wash Specifies an Extra- Improve
threshold as 135 [deg]F. Hot Wash representativenes
threshold of 140 s of test results
[deg]F. and reduce test
burden.
Specifies a target water supply Specifies the Reduce test
temperature at the high end of midpoint of the burden.
the water supply temperature allowable range
range. as the target
water temperature.
Specifically allows the use of Adds specification Reduce test
temperature indicating labels for using a burden.
for measuring wash water submersible
temperature. temperature
logger to measure
wash water
temperature.
Specifies different pre- Requires the same Improve
conditioning requirements for pre-conditioning reproducibility
water-heating and non-water- requirements for of test results.
heating clothes washers. all clothes
washers.
Specifies the test load sizes Specifies the test Response to
for clothes container load sizes for waiver.
capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. clothes container
capacities up to
8.0 ft\3\.
Requires 3 tested load sizes on Reduces the number Reduce test
clothes washers with automatic of load sizes to burden.
water fill control systems. test to 2, and
specifies new
load sizes.

[[Page 33321]]

Defines load sizes for each 0.1 Redefines load Maintain
ft\3\ increment in clothes sizes for each representativenes
container capacity. increment in s.
clothes container
capacity,
consistent with
reduction from 3
to 2 load sizes.
Defines water fill levels to use Changes the water Maintain
with each tested load sizes on fill levels representativenes
clothes washers with manual consistent with s.
water fill control systems. the updated load
sizes.
Requires testing up to 3 Warm Requires testing a Reduce test
Wash temperature selections. maximum of 2 Warm burden.
Wash temperature
selections.
Specifies that the RMC is to be Specifies that the Reduce test
measured on separate cycle(s) RMC is to be burden, improve
from the energy test cycle. measured on all representativenes
energy test s of test
cycles. results.
Provides product-specific Provides Accommodate
enforcement provisions to additional potential source
address anomalous RMC results product-specific of variation in
that are not representative of enforcement enforcement
a basic model's performance. provisions to testing.
accommodate
differences in
RMC values that
may result from
DOE using a
different test
cloth lot than
was used by the
manufacturer for
testing and
certifying the
basic model.
Does not specify a measure of Specifies Improve
cycle time. provisions for representativenes
measuring cycle s of test
time. results.
Specifies discarding data from a Specifies Response to test
wash cycle that provides a discarding the laboratory
visual or audio indicator to test data if question.
alert the user that an out-of- during a wash
balance condition has been cycle the clothes
detected, or that terminates washer signals
prematurely if an out-of- the user by means
balance condition is detected. of a visual or
audio alert that
an out-of-balance
condition has
been detected or
terminates
prematurely.
Does not explicitly state how to Provides explicit Provide further
test semi-automatic clothes test provisions direction for
washers. for testing semi- unaddressed
automatic clothes feature.
washers.
Does not explicitly address the Specifies that Improve
required configuration for clothes washers reproducibility
network-connected functionality. with connected of test results.
functionality
shall be tested
with the network-
connected
functions
disabled if such
settings can be
disabled by the
end-user, and the
product's user
manual provides
instructions on
how to do so.
Defines metrics that are based Specifies new Improve
on clothes container capacity metrics that are representativenes
(IMEF, MEFJ2, IWF). based on the s of test
weighted-average results.
load size (EER,
AEER, WER).
Calculates the energy required Updates the Improve
for a clothes dryer to remove assumed final representativenes
the remaining moisture of the moisture content s of test
test load assuming a final to 2 percent. results.
moisture content of 4 percent.
Estimates the number of annual Updates the Update with more
use cycles for clothes washers estimate to 234 recent consumer
as 295, based on the 2005 cycles per year, usage data.
Residential Energy Consumption based on the
Survey (``RECS'') data. latest available
2015 RECS data.
Estimates the number of hours Calculates the Improve
spent in low-power mode as number of hours representativenes
8,465, based on 295 cycles per spent in low- s of test
year and an assumed 1-hour power mode for results.
cycle time. each clothes
washer based on
234 cycles per
year and measured
cycle time.
Does not specify how to test a Specifies using a Response to test
clothes washer that does not water inlet hose laboratory
provide water inlet hoses. length of no more question.
than 72 inches.
Does not provide an explicit Provides a Improve
definition for ``user- definition for readability.
adjustable adaptive water fill ``user-adjustable
controls'' or ``wash time''. adaptive water
fill controls''
and for ``wash
time''.
Categorizes water fill control Categorizes water Improve
systems into automatic fill or fill control readability.
manual fill categories. systems based on
how the user
interacts with
the controls and
whether the water
fill level is
based on the size
or weight of the
clothing load.
Specifies that user-adjustable Changes the Response to test
automatic clothes washers must wording to laboratory
be tested with the water fill specify selecting question.
setting in the most or least the setting based
energy-intensive setting on the most, or
without defining energy- least, amount of
intensive. water used.
Does not specify on which load Specifies Response to test
size to evaluate the energy evaluating the laboratory
test cycle flow charts. flow charts using question, improve
the large load reproducibility
size. of test results.
Does not explicitly address how Explicitly Response to test
to evaluate the Cold/Cold addresses clothes laboratory
energy test cycle flow chart washers that question.
for clothes washers that internally
internally generate hot water. generate hot
water.
Does not provide direction for Clarifies how to Improve
all control panel styles on test cycles with readability.
clothes washers that offer a a range of wash
range of wash time settings. time settings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II.3--Summary of Changes in Appendix J3 Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Appendix J3 test Amended Appendix
procedure J3 test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Includes test cloth verification Moves all test Improve
specifications in appendix J2. cloth related readability.
provisions to
appendix J3.

[[Page 33322]]

Does not include all aspects of Codifies Codify industry
test cloth verification additional test practice.
procedures performed by cloth
industry. verification
procedures
performed by
industry, in
appendix J3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix J2 and appendix
J3 described in section III of this document and adopted in this
document will not alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers or
require retesting or recertification solely as a result of DOE's
adoption of the amendments to the test procedures, and that the
proposed test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
DOE has determined that the amendments in the new appendix J would
alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers, in part because the
amended test procedure adopts a different energy efficiency metric and
water efficiency metric than in the current test procedures. However,
use of new appendix J is not required until the compliance date of any
standards amended based on the test procedure in appendix J, should
such amendments be adopted. Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed
in detail in section III of this document.
The effective date for the amendments adopted in this final rule is
30 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be based on
testing in accordance with the amended appendix J2 test procedures
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule.
Manufacturers will be required to certify compliance using the new
appendix J test procedure beginning on the compliance date of any final
rule establishing amended energy conservation standards for clothes
washers that are published after the effective date of this final rule.

III. Discussion

In the following sections, DOE describes the amendments made to the
test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers.

A. General Comments

DOE received a number of general comments from stakeholders, as
summarized below.
Oeiratnas, Warren, and an anonymous commenter expressed general
support of the September 2021 NOPR. (Oeisratnas, No. 24 at p. 1;
Warren, No. 15 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 23 at p. 1) Another anonymous
commenter expressed general support of improving efficiency in clothes
washers. (Anonymous, No. 21 at p. 1)
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE publishing the RCW energy
conservation standards preliminary analysis on September 29, 2021
(``September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis''; 86 FR 53886)
before finalizing a test procedure, or before the comment period on the
September 2021 NOPR closed. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3) AHAM stated that
although DOE provided some additional time for comment on both the test
procedure and the preliminary analysis for standards, having both rules
open for comment at the same time and before commenters have had
sufficient time to evaluate and conduct the proposed test procedure
does not allow commenters to meaningfully comment on either the
proposed test procedure or the preliminary analysis. (Id.) AHAM also
commented that, while it recognizes and supports DOE's interest in
moving the clothes washer energy conservation standards and test
procedure rulemakings forward, DOE should have released its test
procedure proposal before conducting its RCW Standards Preliminary
Analysis so that DOE could receive feedback on the test procedure
proposal before proceeding with its analysis. (Id.) AHAM concluded that
it is likely that DOE will need to conduct additional analyses based on
the finalized test procedure before proposing a new energy conservation
standard. (Id.)
GEA expressed concern with the development of an energy
conservation standard for a product without a set test procedure. (GEA,
No. 32 at p. 2) GEA stated that without a finalized test procedure, it
is difficult to effectively comment on the September 2021 RCW Standards
Preliminary Analysis, particularly due to complexities of comparing
data between new appendix J and appendix J2 test procedures. (Id.) GEA
recommended that DOE accept and consider feedback generated by the
testing program coordinated by AHAM, and that DOE complete the ongoing
test procedure rulemaking before moving forward with the RCW standards
rulemaking. (Id.)
In response to AHAM and GEA's comments regarding the publication of
the September 2021 NOPR and the September 2021 RCW Standards
Preliminary Analysis, neither the prior version nor the current version
of DOE's ``Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment'' found
in appendix A (``appendix A'') specify that a final amended test
procedure will be issued prior to issuing standards pre-NOPR rulemaking
documents (e.g., a standards preliminary analysis). See 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A (Jan. 1, 2020 edition); 86 FR 70892, 70928
(Dec. 13, 2021). Rather, the prior version of the Process Rule provided
that test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to
evaluate proposed energy conservation standards would be finalized at
least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended
energy conservation standards. Section 8(d) of appendix A of 10 CFR
part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2020 edition). The current version of the
Process Rule generally provides that new test procedures and amended
test procedures that impact measured energy use or efficiency will be
finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period
for a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. 86
FR 70892, 70928. DOE will continue to conduct additional analyses based
on this finalized test procedure before proposing any new energy
conservation standards, and stakeholders will be provided an
opportunity to comment on any updated analysis as part of any proposal
published regarding amended standards.
AHAM commented that DOE should not proceed with its determination
on a clothes washer energy conservation standard until there is
adequate data showing the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility
of new appendix J and changes to appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 2-3)
AHAM added that it is currently unable to provide detailed comment on
the accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, and test burden
associated with the new test procedure. (Id.) In particular, AHAM
stated that it cannot provide detailed comment on the following topics:
Pre-conditioning requirements (see section III.C.6 of this document),
defining new test load sizes

[[Page 33323]]

and their associated load usage factors (see section III.D.1.b of this
document), water fill setting selections for the proposed load sizes
(see section III.D.2 of this document), the revised calculation of RMC
(see section III.D.4.a of this document), semi-automatic clothes
washers \12\ (see section III.D.8 of this document), replacing capacity
with weighted-average load sizes in the efficiency metrics (see section
III.E.1 of this document), and inverting the water efficiency metric
(see section III.E.2 of this document). (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 4-8) AHAM
stated that it and its members have developed a robust testing plan to
evaluate the proposed test procedure changes, but will not have the
testing completed until the end of 2021, and will need much of January
2022 to aggregate and present the results to DOE. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp.
2-3) AHAM commented that, while AHAM appreciates DOE's consideration of
AHAM's October 11, 2021 comment extension request,\13\ the 28-day
comment period extension DOE provided as part of the October 2021
Notice is still not sufficient for AHAM and its members to provide a
full set of meaningful comments. (Id.) AHAM stated that it plans to
continue testing and, when it is complete, will provide an additional
comment to DOE based on the test results. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ AHAM's comments on semi-automatic clothes washers include
comments on temperature selection, temperature usage factors, cycles
required for test, and the general implementation of the proposed
test provisions for semi-automatic clothes washers. All of these
aspects are discussed in section III.D.8 of this document.
\13\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whirlpool commented that industry testing regarding proposed new
appendix J is ongoing. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 2-3) Whirlpool
commented that, given the magnitude of changes proposed for the new
appendix J test procedure, Whirlpool did not have adequate time to
complete and analyze all desired testing during the comment period for
the September 2021 NOPR. (Id.) Whirlpool also commented that it is
taking appropriate steps in its test laboratory to ensure proper
testing to new appendix J. (Id.) Whirlpool added that its comments on
the September 2021 NOPR are preliminary, and that its comments may need
to be supplemented or corrected once investigative testing is
completed. (Id.) In particular, Whirlpool stated that it cannot provide
detailed comments on the following topics: Tested load sizes (see
section III.D.1 of this document), the efficiency metrics (see section
III.E of this document), and consumer usage assumptions (see section
III.G of this document). (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 7-11)
GEA commented that it is participating in testing organized by AHAM
to test 26 models across seven test laboratories to evaluate the
proposed changes to the clothes washer test procedure. (GEA, No. 32 at
p. 2) GEA expressed concern that GEA and other AHAM members are
devoting substantial financial resources to this testing, and that DOE
is not accommodating this test plan by failing to provide the February
1, 2021 comment deadline extension originally proposed by AHAM. (Id.)
GEA added that it is particularly concerned about the impact of the
proposed new metrics, which are based on weighted-average load size
instead of capacity, and the impact of DOE's proposed changes to the
load usage factors. (Id.)
DOE appreciates the efforts described by AHAM and manufacturers in
conducting testing to evaluate the proposed changes to the clothes
washer test procedure. DOE welcomes and encourages interested parties
to submit test data in support of the RCW standards rulemaking. DOE
notes that much of the reservation expressed by AHAM and manufacturers
was with regard to the impact on measured energy as a result of the
proposed amendments to the test procedure. Impacts on measured energy
use between the then-current appendix J2 and the proposed appendix J
test procedures were factored into the September 2021 RCW Standards
Preliminary Analysis and presented in the accompanying Technical
Support Document (``TSD'').\14\ Specifically, testing and modeling of
results between the two test procedures were used to generate
preliminary translations (i.e., ``crosswalks'') between the appendix J2
and appendix J metrics for each defined efficiency level. To the extent
that provisions of appendix J result in higher measured energy compared
to appendix J2, such impacts were factored into the crosswalk of
baseline \15\ and higher efficiency levels. As stated in chapter 5,
section 5.3.3.3 of the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE plans to continue
testing additional units to appendix J as finalized in this document
and will continue to refine its approach for determining appropriate
crosswalk translations in future stages of the standards rulemaking.
Details regarding the expected impacts on measured energy are discussed
in greater detail throughout sections III.C, III.D, and III.E of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See, for example, Table 5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the RCW
preliminary analysis TSD describes the impact of each proposed test
procedure revision on each individual component of the efficiency
metrics. The Residential Clothes Washers Energy Conservation
Standards Preliminary Technical Support Document is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0030">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0030</a>.
\15\ DOE uses the term ``baseline'' to refer to performance that
is minimally compliant with the applicable standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed introductory text to both
appendix J2 and the proposed new appendix J that provides the timeline
for use of appendix J2 and appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49146, 49205,
49218.
P.R. China recommended that DOE clarify the relationship between
new appendix J and appendix J2, and the implementation timeline of new
appendix J and appendix J2. (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3)
As discussed, DOE is establishing a new test procedure at a new
appendix J at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, which DOE would use for the
evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards. Use of new
appendix J is not required until the compliance date of any new or
amended standards that are based on new appendix J. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(C)).
This final rule maintains the introductory notes in appendix J and
appendix J2 as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR, while updating the
reference date from January 1, 2021, to January 1, 2022. Specifically:
<bullet> Manufacturers must use the results of testing under
appendix J2 to determine compliance with the relevant standards for
clothes washers from Sec. 430.32(g)(4) and from Sec. 431.156(b) as
they appeared in the January 1, 2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499.
<bullet> Before the date 180 days following publication of this
final rule, representations must be based upon results generated either
under appendix J2 as amended in this final rule or under appendix J2 as
it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition revised as of January
1, 2022.
<bullet> On or after 180 days following publication of this final
rule, but before the compliance date of any amended standards for
clothes washers, any representations must be made based upon results
generated using appendix J2 as amended in this final rule.
<bullet> On or after the compliance date of any future amended
standards provided in Sec. 430.32(g) or in Sec. 431.156 that are
published after January 1, 2022, any representations must be based upon
results generated using appendix J.
DOE further notes that any representations related to energy or
water consumption of RCWs or CCWs must be made in accordance with the

[[Page 33324]]

appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., appendix J or appendix J2)
when determining compliance with the relevant standard and that
manufacturers may also use appendix J to certify compliance with any
amended standards prior to the applicable compliance date for those
standards.
Warren suggested that DOE be more specific in how the proposed
regulations would be enforced, including who would be responsible to
verify regulation requirements, the necessary amount of funding to
support this rule, and the expected process by which clothes washers
are to be inspected. (Warren, No. 15 at p. 1)
DOE specifies certification, compliance, and enforcement
regulations for consumer products and commercial and industry equipment
covered by DOE's energy conservation standards program at 10 CFR part
429. Subpart A to part 429 specifies general provisions; subpart B to
part 429 (``Certification'') sets forth the procedures for
manufacturers to certify that their covered products and covered
equipment comply with the applicable energy conservation standards; and
subpart C to part 429 (``Enforcement'') describes the enforcement
authority of DOE to ensure compliance with the conservation standards
and regulations.

B. Scope of Applicability

This final rule covers those consumer products that meet the
definition of ``clothes washer,'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA does not define the term ``clothes washer.'' DOE has defined a
``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to clean clothes,
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes:
Automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other
clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2.
An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature,
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer that is
not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
This final rule also covers commercial equipment that meets the
definition of ``commercial clothes washer.'' ``Commercial clothes
washer'' is defined as a soft-mount front-loading or soft-mount top-
loading clothes washer that--
(A) Has a clothes container compartment that--
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic
feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic
feet; and
(B) Is designed for use in--
(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one household
will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common
areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.

(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452)
DOE is not changing the scope of products and equipment covered by
its clothes washer test procedures, or the relevant definitions, in
this final rule.

C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation

1. Water Meter Resolution
Section 2.5.5 of the previous appendix J2 required the use of water
meters (in both the hot and cold water lines) with a resolution no
larger than 0.1 gallons and a maximum error no greater than 2 percent
of the measured flow rate. As discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE
has observed that some clothes washers use very small amounts of hot
water on some temperature selections, on the order of 0.1 gallons or
less. 86 FR 49140, 49146. For example, some clothes washers have both
Cold and Tap Cold temperature selections, and the Cold selection may
use a fraction of a gallon of hot water. Id.
In DOE's experience with such clothes washers, the maximum load
size typically uses more than 0.1 gallons of hot water on each of the
available temperature selections (providing indication of which
temperature selections use hot water), whereas the average and minimum
load sizes may use a quantity less than 0.1 gallons. Id. For these
clothes washers, a water meter resolution of 0.1 gallons would be
insufficient to provide an accurate measurement of hot water
consumption because the volume of hot water measured would be less than
the resolution of the water meter. Id. As discussed in the September
2021 NOPR, DOE's testing suggests that clothes washers that use such
low volumes of heated water represent a minority of units on the
market. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that requiring greater water
meter precision for all clothes washers would represent an undue burden
for those clothes washer models for which water meters with the
currently required level of precision provide representative results.
Id. DOE therefore proposed the use of a hot water meter with more
precise resolution only for clothes washers with hot water usage less
than 0.1 gallons in any of the individual cycles within the energy test
cycle.
Specifically, DOE proposed to specify in section 2.5.5 of both
appendix J2 and new appendix J that if the volume of hot water for any
individual cycle within the energy test cycle is less than 0.1 gallons
(0.4 liters), the hot water meter must have a resolution no larger than
0.01 gallons (0.04 liters). 86 FR 49140, 49147. DOE requested comment
on this proposal, and on the extent to which manufacturers and test
laboratories already use water meters with this greater resolution. Id.
DOE also requested comment on whether this proposal would require
manufacturers to retest any basic models that have already been
certified under the existing water meter resolution requirements. Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that they support DOE's
proposal to require higher water meter resolution for hot water use
measurements. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 3-4) However,
the Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended that instead of requiring a
water meter resolution of 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use
less than 0.1 gallons of water, DOE should require a water meter
resolution of 0.01 gallons for all hot water use measurements. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates added that requiring a resolution no
larger than 0.01 gallons if hot water use is less than 0.1 gallons
suggests that hot water usage is known prior to testing. (Id.) The
Joint Efficiency Advocates concluded that requiring a 0.01-gallon
resolution would more accurately reflect hot water and energy usage.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that they support DOE's proposal to require a
water meter resolution of 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use
less than 0.1 gallons of water. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 6) However, the
CA IOUs stated

[[Page 33325]]

that it is difficult to discern whether the higher resolution provision
would be required, since the test laboratory would need previous
knowledge that there is a low-level use of hot water prior to the test.
(Id.) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to consider requiring the 0.01-gallon
resolution for all products tested under appendix J2 and new appendix
J, or alternatively provide clarification for how a testing laboratory
would know prior to testing that it would need to use 0.01-gallon-
resolution water meters. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE's proposal to require a water meter
resolution of 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use less than 0.1
gallons of hot water could provide a benefit by increasing the accuracy
of the measurements, but could increase test burden due to the cost of
obtaining higher-resolution meters. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 8) AHAM
additionally commented that DOE's water meter resolution proposal may
not be practical, since laboratories outside of those operated by
manufacturers may not have insight into which cycles use less than 0.1
gallons of hot water. (Id.)
In response to comments that the volume of hot water would need to
be known prior to testing in order to use a water meter with the
correct resolution, DOE notes that this concern would likely apply only
to third-party laboratories, since manufacturers would have advance
knowledge of the expected water usage of their own products. DOE
acknowledges that it may not be possible for a third-party test
laboratory to know in advance the expected water usage of a clothes
washer. In DOE's experience, in practice, an examination of test
results during testing can yield insights as to whether a clothes
washer is using less than 0.1 gallons of hot water. As one example, as
described earlier in this section, if the maximum load size uses close
to 0.1 gallons of hot water on a particular temperature setting, the
average and minimum load sizes are likely to use a quantity less than
0.1 gallons. As another example, laboratories may be aware of trends
among models from the same product lines, such as models containing
both ``Tap Cold'' and ``Cold'' settings that use very little hot water
on the ``Cold'' setting. As yet another example, other measured
parameters such as water pressure can indicate when a water valve is
opened on the clothes washer; e.g., a test cycle that indicates no hot
water use (in the case where a water meter with 0.1 gallon resolution
is used), but for which the water pressure data indicated a brief
opening of the hot water valve, would suggest that a smaller quantity
of hot water may have been used and that a more precise water meter
resolution is required.
DOE tentatively concluded in the September 2021 NOPR that most, if
not all, third-party laboratories already have water meters with the
more precise resolution. DOE also estimated the cost of a water meter
that provides the proposed resolution, including associated hardware,
to be around $600 for each device. 86 FR 49140, 49191. DOE reiterates
these cost estimates in section III.K.1 of this document. DOE received
no comments in response to the September 2021 NOPR regarding DOE's
estimated cost of a water meter.
DOE determines in this final rule that for clothes washers that use
less than 0.1 gallons of hot water on certain temperature selections
required for testing, the use of the more precise water meters would
improve the reproducibility of testing and the representativeness of
the results without being unduly burdensome. DOE also determines that
requiring greater water meter precision for all clothes washers (i.e.,
as opposed to only those that use less than 0.1 gallons of hot water on
certain temperature selections) would represent an undue burden for
those clothes washer models for which water meters with the currently
required level of precision provide representative results. For these
reasons and those discussed above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, by amending section 2.5.5 of
both appendix J2 and new appendix J to specify that if the volume of
hot water for any individual cycle within the energy test cycle is less
than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot water meter must have a
resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters).
2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines
Section 2.10 of appendix J2 provides specifications for installing
a clothes washer, referencing both the hot water and cold water inlets.
Additionally, section 2.5.5 of appendix J2 specifies that a water meter
must be installed in both the hot and cold water lines. DOE is aware of
RCWs on the market that have a single water inlet rather than separate
hot and cold water inlets. 86 FR 49140, 49147. DOE has observed two
types of single-inlet RCWs: (1) Semi-automatic clothes washers, which
are generally intended to be connected to a kitchen or bathroom faucet
and which require user intervention to regulate the water temperature
by adjusting the external water faucet valves; and (2) automatic
clothes washers intended to be connected only to a cold water inlet,
and which regulate the water temperature through the use of an internal
heating element to generate any hot water used during the cycle. Id.
For single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE has observed
that these clothes washers are most often designed to be connected to a
kitchen or bathroom faucet, with a single hose connecting the faucet to
the single inlet on the clothes washer (i.e., both cold and hot water
are supplied to the clothes washer through a single hose).\16\ The user
regulates the water temperature externally by adjusting the faucet(s)
to provide cold, warm, or hot water temperatures for the wash and rinse
portions of the cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ As noted, some models may provide or accommodate a Y-shaped
hose to connect the separate cold and hot water faucets or supply
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that additional direction in
the test procedure is warranted to produce test results that reflect
representative consumer usage of cold, warm, and hot wash/rinse
temperatures. Id. DOE therefore proposed for testing of semi-automatic
RCWs to require connection to only the cold water supply in new
appendix J, enabling testing of only the Cold/Cold wash/rinse
temperature, and proposed to calculate the energy and water performance
at other wash/rinse temperatures formulaically from the Cold Wash/Cold
Rinse (``Cold/Cold'') cycle data. 86 FR 49140, 49148. DOE asserted that
the energy and water performance at temperatures other than Cold/Cold
could be calculated numerically using test data from the Cold/Cold
cycle, because the measured characteristics \17\ of a semi-automatic
clothes washer cycle do not depend on the inlet water temperature. 86
FR 49140, 49148. DOE proposed to make this change only in the new
appendix J because connecting to only the cold water inlet may differ
from how such units are currently being tested by manufacturers and
laboratories under appendix J2. Id. DOE requested information about
implementing this change to appendix J2 as well, specifically regarding
how single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers are being tested and
any potential impact on the measured energy use of these clothes
washers on the market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Measured characteristics of a semi-automatic clothes washer
cycle include total water consumption, electrical energy
consumption, cycle time, and bone-dry and cycle complete load
weights. See section III.D.8 of this document for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For single-inlet automatic clothes washers, in the September 2021
NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that all single-inlet automatic clothes
washers be

[[Page 33326]]

installed to the cold water supply only, based on a review of user
manuals. 86 FR 49140, 49148. DOE proposed to include this provision in
the new appendix J only. Id. The proposed edit to section 2.10.1 of the
new appendix J is that if the clothes washer has only one water inlet,
the inlet would be connected to the cold water supply in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions. Id. DOE requested comment on this
proposal, and on whether this requirement should be included in only
the new appendix J, or whether, if adopted, it should be included as an
amendment to appendix J2. Id.
P.R. China commented in support of requiring single-inlet clothes
washers to be installed to the cold water supply only. (P.R. China, No.
25 at p. 3) P.R. China also recommended that DOE add test methods that
would evaluate single-inlet clothes washers' heating functions using
different programs where the water is heated to different temperatures.
(Id.) DOE received no comments regarding how single-inlet clothes
washers are being tested currently to appendix J2 or whether the
proposed amendments should also be adopted in appendix J2.
In response to P.R. China's recommendation, DOE notes that a
single-inlet clothes washer with a heating function would be classified
as an automatic single-inlet clothes washer and as such would be tested
using the temperature selections determined to be part of the energy
test cycle using the flowcharts provided in section 2.12 of appendix J2
or new appendix J.
For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing its proposal to
require in section 2.10.1 of the new appendix J that a clothes washer
with only one water inlet be connected to the cold water supply in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. DOE is unable to
determine whether these amendments would change how such units are
currently being tested by manufacturers and laboratories under appendix
J2 and therefore is not adopting these amendments in appendix J2. As
described further in section III.D.8 of this document, DOE is also
finalizing its proposal for semi-automatic clothes washers in new
appendix J to require testing of only the Cold/Cold wash/rinse
temperature and to calculate the energy and water performance at other
wash/rinse temperatures formulaically from the Cold/Cold cycle data.
3. Water Supply Temperatures
a. Hot Water Supply Temperature
Section 2.2 of appendix J2 requires maintaining the hot water
supply temperature between 130 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') (54.4
degrees Celsius (``[deg]C'')) and 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), using 135
[deg]F as the target temperature.
DOE has revised the hot water supply temperature requirements
several times throughout the history of the clothes washer test
procedures to remain representative of household water temperatures at
the time of each analysis. When establishing the original clothes
washer test procedure at appendix J in 1977, DOE specified a hot water
supply temperature of 140 [deg]F <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,\18\ the hot water supply temperature cannot exceed 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C); and for other clothes washers, the hot water
supply temperature is to be maintained at 135 [deg]F <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 supply temperature in section 2.2 of appendix J2 to
between 130 [deg]F (54.4 [deg]C) and 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C) for all
clothes washers, but maintained 135 [deg]F as the target temperature.
80 FR 46729, 46734-46735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ For example, water-heating clothes washers or clothes
washers with thermostatically controlled water valves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed household water
temperatures as part of the test procedure final rule for residential
and commercial water heaters published July 11, 2014. 79 FR 40541
(``July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule''). In the July 2014 Water Heater
Final Rule, DOE revised the hot water delivery temperature from 135
[deg]F to 125 [deg]F based on an analysis of data showing that the
average set point temperature for consumer water heaters in the field
is 124.2 [deg]F (51.2 [deg]C), which was rounded to the nearest 5
[deg]F, resulting in a test set point temperature of 125 [deg]F. 79 FR
40541, 40554. Additionally, a 2011 compilation of field data across the
United States and southern Ontario by Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (``LBNL'') \19\ found a median daily outlet water
temperature of 122.7 [deg]F (50.4 [deg]C). Id. Further, DOE noted in
the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule that water heaters are commonly
set with temperatures in the range of 120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Lutz, JD, Renaldi, Lekov A, Qin Y, and Melody M, ``Hot
Water Draw Patterns in Single Family Houses: Findings from Field
Studies,'' LBNL Report number LBNL-4830E (May 2011). Available at
<a href="http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj">www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, section 2.3.2. of DOE's consumer dishwasher test
procedure, codified at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix C1
(``appendix C1''), specifies a hot water supply temperature of 120
[deg]F <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.
This water supply temperature is intended to be representative of
household hot water temperatures.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the hot water
supply temperature in the new appendix J from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-125
[deg]F. Id. Additionally, DOE proposed to change the value of ``T,''
the temperature rise that represents the nominal difference between the
hot and cold water inlet temperatures, from 75 [deg]F to 65 [deg]F,
consistent with the differential between the nominal values for the
proposed hot water supply temperature (120-125 [deg]F) and the cold
water supply temperature (55-60 [deg]F). 86 FR 49140, 49149-49150. DOE
requested comment on any potential impact to testing costs that may
occur by harmonizing temperatures between the clothes washer and
dishwasher test procedures, and the impacts on manufacturer burden
associated with any changes to the hot water supply temperature. 86 FR
49140, 49150.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented in support of DOE
specifying a hot water supply temperature of 120-125 [deg]F and
decreasing the temperature rise from 75 [deg]F to 65 [deg]F
accordingly. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 3) Referencing
DOE's discussion in the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule and the
September 2021 NOPR, the Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that a hot
water supply temperature of 120-125 [deg]F would better reflect current
clothes washer usage conditions than the 135 [deg]F temperature
specified in the current test procedure. (Id.) The comment also noted
that the proposed reduction of the hot water temperature rise for
appendix J was reasonable. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
specify the clothes washer hot water supply temperature range from 120
to 125 [deg]F,

[[Page 33327]]

stating that it is a reasonable representation of real-world supply
temperatures. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10)
AHAM commented that if DOE proceeds with adjusting the hot water
temperature to 125 [deg]F, all provisions within the test procedure
relating to maximum water temperature should be adjusted to 125 [deg]F
as well, including the flow charts within the test procedure. (AHAM,
No. 27 at p. 9) AHAM added that the flow charts have been helpful to
manufacturers and test laboratories, and that it is therefore critical
that they be properly adjusted to account for the temperature change.
(Id.) AHAM also commented that this change could limit customer choice
with respect to temperature controls, asserting that since the proposed
temperature requirement for the Extra-hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle would
be 140 [deg]F, but the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle would not be able to
get above 125 [deg]F without the use of an internal water heater, a
clothes washer with a temperature setting between 125 [deg]F and 140
[deg]F would experience a negative impact to its energy use. (Id.) AHAM
added that this change would mean that manufacturers would no longer
realistically be able to offer consumers temperatures between 125
[deg]F and 140 [deg]F, and that product redesign would be required.
(Id.) AHAM added that additional testing may illuminate this concern
and, if so, AHAM would provide DOE with more information. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's comment that decreasing the hot inlet supply
temperature to a range of 120 to 125 [deg]F would result in greater
measured energy for a clothes washer with a temperature setting between
125 [deg]F and 140 [deg]F due to the need to use an internal water
heater, DOE expects that the overall measured energy use of a
temperature setting between 125 [deg]F and 140 [deg]F would remain
roughly the same even with the reduced hot water inlet temperature. The
total measured energy for each cycle includes both the machine
electrical energy (which includes any energy expended for internal
water heating) as well as the energy used to heat the water externally
in a water heater (i.e., the water heating energy). As discussed
further in section III.G.6 of this document, the calculation of water
heating energy assumes a 100 percent efficient external electric water
heater. DOE would expect an internal water heater within a clothes
washer to operate similarly at a thermal efficiency of roughly 100
percent. Accordingly, for a given wash temperature, the amount of
thermal energy measured by the test procedure is roughly the same
regardless of whether the heated water is supplied by an external water
heater or an internal water heating element within the clothes washer,
or a combination of both.
As an example, consider a clothes washer with a hot wash
temperature of 135 [deg]F and a test cycle that uses 20 gallons of
water. Under the appendix J2 test procedure with a nominal hot water
supply temperature of 135 [deg]F, all 20 gallons would be hot water,
externally heated with an associated water heating energy of 3.6
kWh.\20\ Using instead a nominal hot water supply temperature of 125
[deg]F, the same test cycle would similarly use 20 gallons of
externally-heated water (heated to 125 [deg]F rather than 135 [deg]F),
plus additional internal water heating to increase the temperature by
an additional 10 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F. In this scenario, the external
water heating energy would be calculated as 3.12 kWh,\21\ and the
internal water heater would be expected to use around 0.48 kWh,\22\ for
a total of 3.6 kWh (matching the first scenario).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Calculated as 20 gallons (gal) x 75 [deg]F temperature rise
x 0.0024 kWh/gal/[deg]F specific heat of water, per section 4.1.2 of
appendix J2.
\21\ Calculated as 20 gal x 65 [deg]F temperature rise x 0.0024
kWh/gal/[deg]F.
\22\ Calculated as 20 gal x 10 [deg]F temperature rise x 0.0024
kWh/gal/[deg]F x 100% assumed efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As exemplified, DOE concludes that any change in the balance
between externally heated water and internally heated water as a result
of changing the inlet supply temperature would have negligible, if any,
impact on overall energy use and therefore would not limit a
manufacturer's ability to continue to offer wash temperatures between
125 [deg]F and 140 [deg]F. As discussed previously, any impacts to
measured energy, however minor, as a result of changes to the hot water
supply inlet temperature were accounted for in the crosswalk between
the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed for the September 2021
RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis. DOE will continue to consider any
such impacts in future stages of the standards rulemaking. Furthermore,
given DOE's determination that a hot water supply temperature range of
120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F is more representative of household hot water
temperatures, any change in measured energy as a result of changing the
hot water supply inlet temperature would be more representative of
consumer use.
For the reasons discussed previously, DOE is finalizing its
proposal to update the hot water supply temperature in the new appendix
J from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-125 [deg]F, and to update the value of
``T'' to 65 [deg]F accordingly, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR. DOE reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a result of
changes to the hot water inlet supply temperature will be accounted for
in the crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part
of the ongoing standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the
changes implemented in this final rule to require significant product
redesign.
b. Target Water Supply Temperatures
Section 2.2 of appendix J2 specified that the hot water supply
temperature must be maintained between 130 [deg]F (54.4 [deg]C) and 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), using 135 [deg]F as the target temperature.
Section 2.2 of appendix J2 specified maintaining a cold water
temperature between 55 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F, using 60 [deg]F as the
target temperature.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to remove the ``target''
temperature associated with each water supply temperature range, and to
instead define only the allowable temperature range. 86 FR 49140,
49151. Based on experience working with third-party test laboratories,
as well as its own testing experience, DOE recognizes that maintaining
a target temperature for the water supply that represents one edge of
the allowable temperature range, rather than the midpoint, may be
difficult. Id. On electronic temperature-mixing valves commonly used by
test laboratories, the output water temperature is maintained within an
approximately 2-degree tolerance above or below a target temperature
programmed by the user (e.g., if the target temperature is set at 135
[deg]F, the controller may provide water temperatures ranging from 133
[deg]F to 137 [deg]F). Id. To ensure that the water inlet temperature
remains within the allowable range, such a temperature controller would
need to be set to around the midpoint of the range, which conflicts
with the test procedure requirement. Id.
Specifically, DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR that the cold
water supply temperature range be defined as 55 [deg]F to 60 [deg]F in
both appendix J2 and the new appendix J; the hot water supply
temperature range in appendix J2 be defined as 130 [deg]F to 135
[deg]F; and the hot water supply temperature range in the new appendix
J be defined as 120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to remove the target
temperatures and instead specify water supply temperature ranges as 55
[deg]F to 60 [deg]F for cold water in both appendix J2 and the new
appendix J, 130 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F for hot water in appendix J2, and
120 [deg]F

[[Page 33328]]

to 125 [deg]F for hot water in the new appendix J. Id.
Whirlpool stated that it opposes DOE's proposal to remove the
target temperatures from the proposed hot or cold water supply
temperature requirements, stating that DOE provided no strong rationale
to remove them. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 5-6) Whirlpool further
commented that removing the target condition could reduce
reproducibility by increasing the chances that test laboratories will
conduct testing throughout the entire allowable range, rather than test
at or near a single target temperature. (Id.) For example, as stated by
Whirlpool, the absence of a target temperature may force manufacturers
to be extremely conservative in the testing and certification of
products and always test at the part of the range that produces the
least energy efficient results. (Id.) Whirlpool expressed concern that
removing the target temperature could increase the overall variation
between laboratory test results. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it opposes DOE's proposal to specify a target
temperature range instead of a target temperature. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp.
9-10) AHAM recommended that DOE align its proposed test procedure with
other DOE test procedures in which the target temperature has a
tolerance and nominal target, rather than any temperature within a
specified range (e.g., X <plus-minus> Y with nominal X as the target),
in order to increase reproducibility. (Id.) AHAM commented that while
it recognizes that any value within a temperature range would be a
valid test, a target nominal temperature would discourage test
laboratories from testing at one end of the range or the other. (Id.)
AHAM further commented that a need for a repeatable, reproducible test
is increasing since manufacturers' ability to conservatively rate and
ensure continued compliance with standards decreases as energy
conservation standards get more stringent. (Id.) AHAM also added that
removing the target temperature would have an impact on calculating the
water heating energy, since the temperature rise between the cold and
hot water supply temperatures would be less certain. (Id.)
Considering comments received, DOE recognizes that specifying a
target temperature for the supply water may be helpful in ensuring
reproducible test results. DOE also recognizes, as discussed, that best
practice by laboratories is to configure the water temperature
controller setpoint to the midpoint of the temperature range in order
to accommodate fluctuations both above and below the setpoint, thus
ensuring that the water inlet temperature remains within the allowable
range throughout the duration of testing. For these reasons, in this
final rule, DOE is amending the temperature supply specifications to
specify targeting the midpoint of each range. DOE reiterates that
specifying a target temperature setpoint is intended to promote
reproducibility of results and does not invalidate test data that is
not centered around the target temperature but remains within the
specified allowable range.
DOE further notes that by targeting the midpoint of both the hot
water temperature range and the cold water temperature range, the value
of ``T'' used in the water heating energy formula (as discussed in
section III.C.3.a of this document) represents the difference between
the targeted values for both appendix J2 and new appendix J.
4. Extra-Hot Wash Determination
Clothes washers are tested using an energy test cycle determined by
taking into consideration all cycle settings available to the end user.
Section 2.12 of appendix J2. Figure 2.12.5 of appendix J2 specifies
that for the energy test cycle to include an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse,
the clothes washer must have an internal heater and the Normal cycle
\23\ must, in part, contain a wash/rinse temperature selection that has
a wash temperature greater than 135 [deg]F. The 135 [deg]F threshold
matches the high end of the hot water inlet temperature range specified
in section 2.2 of appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Section 1.25 of appendix J2 defines the Normal cycle as the
cycle recommended by the manufacturer (considering manufacturer
instructions, control panel labeling, and other markings on the
clothes washer) for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up
to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing. For machines
where multiple cycle settings are recommended by the manufacturer
for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of
normally soiled cotton clothing, then the Normal cycle is the cycle
selection that results in the lowest IMEF or MEF<INF>J2</INF> value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has revised the Extra-Hot wash temperature parameters
previously. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE revised the threshold
temperature for Extra-Hot Wash from 140 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F in
conjunction with changing the minimum hot water supply temperature in
appendix J from 140 [deg]F in appendix J to 135 [deg]F. 62 FR 45484,
45497. As noted, appendix J2 retains this threshold temperature of 135
[deg]F for Extra-Hot Wash.
As described in the September 2021 NOPR, the proposal to update the
hot water inlet temperature from 130-135 [deg]F to 120-125 [deg]F in
new appendix J prompted DOE to reassess the threshold temperature for
the Extra-Hot wash temperature in new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49150.
Because the inclusion of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse in the energy
test cycle requires the clothes washer to have an internal heater, the
threshold temperature is not limited to the input temperature. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE indicated that based on test data
from a broad range of clothes washers, over 70 percent of Extra-Hot
cycles have a wash water temperature that exceeds 140 [deg]F. 86 FR
49140, 49150. Furthermore, DOE research indicated that 140 [deg]F is
widely cited as a threshold for achieving sanitization. Id. DOE
therefore proposed specifying in new appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash
threshold be 140 [deg]F. Id. DOE preliminarily concluded that a
temperature threshold of 140 [deg]F would align with 140 [deg]F as an
accepted temperature threshold for sanitization, and therefore may be
more representative of consumer expectations and usage of an Extra-Hot
Wash cycle, than the current 135 [deg]F threshold. Id.
In addition to improving representativeness, DOE noted in the
September 2021 NOPR that changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature
threshold to 140 [deg]F could potentially reduce test burden. Id. As
discussed more fully in section III.C.5 of this document, a threshold
of 140 [deg]F would enable easier confirmation that an Extra-Hot
temperature has been achieved when measuring wash temperature with non-
reversible temperature indicator labels, as permitted by section 3.3 of
appendix J2.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to specify in the new appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse
designation would apply to a wash temperature greater than or equal to
140 [deg]F. 86 FR 49140, 49151. DOE also requested any additional data
on the wash temperature of cycles that meet the appendix J2 definition
of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. Id. DOE also expressed interest in data
and information on any potential impact to testing costs that may occur
by changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold, and the impacts
on manufacturer burden associated with any changes to the Extra-Hot
Wash/Cold Rinse definition. Id.
Whirlpool commented that it supports DOE's proposal to change the
Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold to 140 [deg]F because that is the
minimum threshold temperature for various international clothes
sanitization standards, including the standards published by the World

[[Page 33329]]

Health Organization. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 5) Whirlpool additionally
suggested that there should be consideration of some tolerance on top
of this threshold temperature at 140 [deg]F (e.g., 2 [deg]F). (Id.)
Whirlpool further explained that without including a tolerance, a
manufacturer using this Extra-Hot temperature setting for sanitization
may be penalized for conservatively setting higher Extra-Hot
temperature settings beyond 140 [deg]F to account for temperature
variation during a sanitization period. (Id.) Whirlpool added that,
using submersible temperature loggers to measure water temperatures, as
proposed in the September 2021 NOPR,\24\ there should be no issue
identifying when such an Extra-Hot water temperature threshold (e.g.,
142 [deg]F or 143 [deg]F) is reached. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See discussion of wash temperature measurements in section
III.C.4 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that the Extra-Hot Wash temperature is a threshold
temperature, rather than a target temperature; as such, defining a
tolerance on the 140 [deg]F threshold, as suggested by Whirlpool, would
not be appropriate. Adding a tolerance to the threshold value would
effectively result in raising the threshold value by the tolerance
amount. DOE notes that the current Extra-Hot Wash threshold of 135
[deg]F does not have a defined tolerance. Any wash temperature that
meets or exceeds the threshold temperature would be considered an
Extra-Hot Wash. For these reasons, DOE is not adding a tolerance to the
threshold value for the Extra-Hot Wash water temperature in this final
rule.
As discussed previously, any impacts to measured energy as a result
of changes to the definition of Extra-Hot Wash were accounted for in
the crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed
for the September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis. DOE will
continue to consider any such impacts in future stages of the standards
rulemaking.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to specify in the new appendix
J that the minimum temperature threshold for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold
Rinse is 140 [deg]F. This change is reflected in the Extra-Hot Wash/
Cold Rinse flowchart and the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart in section
2.12.1 of the new appendix J, as well as any references to this
temperature threshold elsewhere throughout the new appendix J. DOE
reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a result of changes
to the definition of Extra-Hot Wash will be accounted for in the
crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the
ongoing standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the changes
implemented in this final rule to require significant product redesign.
5. Wash Water Temperature Measurement
Section 3.3 of appendix J2 allows the use of non-reversible
temperature indicator labels to confirm that a wash temperature greater
than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature of 135 [deg]F has been
achieved. As discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is aware that
none of the temperature indicator labels on the market provide an
indicator at 135 [deg]F, the current Extra-Hot Wash water temperature
threshold. 86 FR 49140, 49152. Because of this, temperature indicator
labels can be used to confirm that the water temperature reached 135
[deg]F only if the water temperature exceeds 140 [deg]F. Id. Such
temperature indicator labels are unable to identify an Extra-Hot Wash/
Cold Rinse cycle if the temperature of the cycle is greater than 135
[deg]F but less than 140 [deg]F. Id. DOE recognizes the potential
benefit of other methods of measurement to supplement or replace the
temperature indicator labels. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger as an additional temperature measurement
option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than 135
[deg]F has been achieved during the wash cycle for appendix J2, and
greater than 140 [deg]F for new appendix J. Id. DOE proposed that the
submersible temperature logger must have a time resolution of at least
one data point every 5 seconds and a temperature measurement accuracy
of <plus-minus>1 [deg]F. Id. As described currently for temperature
indicator labels, the proposed amendment included a note that failure
to measure a temperature of 135 [deg]F would not necessarily indicate
of the lack of an Extra-Hot Wash temperature. Id. However, such a
result would not be conclusive due to the lack of verification of that
the required water temperature was achieved, in which case an
alternative method must be used to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash
temperature greater than 135 [deg]F has been achieved during the wash
cycle. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger in appendix J2 and new appendix J as an
option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than the
Extra-Hot Wash threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. Id.
DOE also requested data and information confirming (or disputing) DOE's
discussion of the benefits and limitations of using a submersible
temperature logger, including DOE's determination that a submersible
logger's failure to measure a temperature greater than the Extra-Hot
Wash threshold does not necessarily indicate that the cycle under test
does not meet the definition of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger, but noted that the shift in the Extra-
Hot Wash temperature threshold makes this change less necessary than it
may have been in the past. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 10)
Whirlpool commented in support of DOE's proposal to allow for the
use of a submersible temperature logger as an additional temperature
measurement option to confirm that the Extra-Hot Wash temperature
threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 26
at p. 6)
DOE also proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to move the
description of allowable temperature measuring devices from section 3.3
of appendix J2 to section 2.5.4 of both appendix J2 and the proposed
new appendix J (``Water and air temperature measuring devices''),
specifying the use of non-reversible temperature indicator labels in
new section 2.5.4.1, and adding specifications for the use of
submersible temperature loggers to new section 2.5.4.2 of both appendix
J2 and the proposed new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49152.
DOE received no comments in response to its proposal to move the
description of allowable temperature measuring devices.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to allow the use of a
submersible temperature logger in appendix J2 and new appendix J as an
option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than the
Extra-Hot Wash threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. DOE
also finalizes its proposal, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR,
to restructure section 2.5.4 of appendix J2 and new appendix J as
described.
6. Pre-Conditioning Requirements
Section 2.11 of appendix J2 specifies the procedure for clothes
washer pre-conditioning. The current preconditioning procedure requires
that any clothes washer that has not been

[[Page 33330]]

filled with water in the preceding 96 hours, or any water-heating
clothes washer that has not been in the test room at the specified
ambient conditions for 8 hours, must be preconditioned by running it
through a Cold Rinse cycle and then draining it to ensure that the
hose, pump, and sump are filled with water. The purpose of pre-
conditioning is to promote repeatability and reproducibility of test
results by ensuring a consistent starting state for each test, as well
as to promote the representativeness of test results by ensuring that
the clothes washer is operated consistent with the defined ambient
conditions. In particular, the additional specification for water-
heating clothes washers was first suggested in a supplemental NOPR
published on April 22, 1996, (``April 1996 SNOPR''), in which DOE
expressed concern about the testing of water-heating clothes washers
that may have been stored at a temperature outside of the specified
ambient temperature range (75 [deg]F <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 would understate the
clothes washer's energy consumption. Id. Conversely, if the ambient
temperature prior to and during the test is relatively cold, then the
test would overstate the clothes washer's energy consumption. Id. In
the subsequent August 1997 Final Rule, DOE added the pre-conditioning
requirement for water-heating clothes washers, which requires water-
heating units to be pre-conditioned if they had not been in the test
room at ambient conditions for 8 hours. 62 FR 45484, 45002, 45009,
45010.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE expressed concern that the energy
use of non-water-heating clothes washers could also be affected by the
starting temperature of the clothes washer, particularly those that
implement temperature control by measuring internal water temperatures
during the wash cycle. 86 FR 49140, 49153. For example, if the ambient
temperature prior to testing is relatively hot, causing the internal
components of the clothes washer to be at a higher temperature than the
specified ambient temperature range, less hot water may be consumed
during the test than otherwise would be if the starting temperature of
the clothes washer is within the specified ambient temperature range.
Id. Noting that third-party test laboratories cannot necessarily
identify whether a unit is a water-heating clothes washer or not, DOE
proposed to require pre-conditioning for all clothes washers that have
not been in the test room at the specified ambient condition for 8
hours, regardless of whether the clothes washer is water-heating or
non-water-heating. 86 FR 49140, 49153. DOE proposed to make this change
only in new appendix J, due to the potential impact on the measured
energy use. Id.
DOE requested comment on this proposal and requested information
regarding whether test laboratories typically pre-condition water-
heating and non-water-heating clothes washers using the same procedure.
Id.
DOE also proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to remove the
definitions of ``water-heating clothes washer'' and ``non-water-heating
clothes washer'' from section 1 of the proposed new appendix J, since
the differentiation between these terms would no longer be needed.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
specify preconditioning of all clothes washers before measurement in
order to ensure reproducibility. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10)
Whirlpool commented that, pending results from investigative
testing, Whirlpool tentatively agrees with DOE's proposal to require
the pre-conditioning procedure for all clothes washers because it would
reduce overall variation, and would remove any possible small advantage
from leftover warm water or warmer components from the previous
cycle(s). (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 6)
For the reasons discussed above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to require pre-conditioning
for all clothes washers that have not been in the test room at the
specified ambient condition for 8 hours, regardless of whether the
clothes washer is water-heating or non-water-heating, in new appendix
J. DOE also finalizes its proposal, consistent with the September 2021
NOPR, to remove the definitions of ``water-heating clothes washer'' and
``non-water-heating clothes washer'' from section 1 of new appendix J.

D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct

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

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

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand Table 5.1 in
both appendix J2 and the new appendix J to accommodate clothes washers
with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. 86 FR 49140, 49153. In appendix J2,
DOE proposed to expand Table 5.1 using the same equations as the
current table, as described above, and consistent with the load size
tables provided in the two granted waivers. Id. For the new appendix J,
DOE proposed to expand Table 5.1 based on a revised

[[Page 33331]]

methodology for defining the load sizes, as further discussed in
section III.D.1.b of this document. Id. DOE requested comment on its
proposal to expand the load size table in both appendix J2 and the new
appendix J to accommodate RCWs with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to expand the load size
table in appendix J2 and new appendix J to accommodate clothes washers
with capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 10)
For the reasons stated above, DOE is finalizing its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to expand Table 5.1 in both
appendix J2 and the new appendix J to accommodate clothes washers with
capacities up to 8.0 ft\3\. DOE further discusses the termination of
the subject waivers in section III.L of this document.
b. Defining New Load Sizes
As discussed in the previous section, appendix J2 currently defines
three load sizes for automatic clothes washers (minimum, average, and
maximum) for each capacity bin in Table 5.1 of the appendix. The
current load size definitions (i.e., the defining of three load sizes,
and the equations used to determine each of the three load sizes) are
based on consumer usage data analyzed during the test procedure
rulemaking that culminated in the August 1997 Final Rule. As part of
that rulemaking, AHAM presented to DOE data from the Procter & Gamble
Company (``P&G'') showing the distribution of consumer load sizes for
2.4 ft\3\ and 2.8 ft\3\ clothes washers, which represented typical
clothes washer capacities at the time (``1995 P&G data'').\26\ The 1995
P&G data indicated that the distribution of consumer load sizes
followed an approximate normal distribution slightly skewed towards the
lower end of the size range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In response to the May 2020 RFI, the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (``NEEA'') submitted a comment that cited data from a 2014
Field Study published on November 10, 2014 (``2014 NEEA Field
Study'').\27\ 86 FR 49140, 49156. The 2014 NEEA Field Study found an
average clothes washer load size of 7.6 lb, which NEEA characterized as
being close to the average load size of 8.5 lb that corresponds with
the 2010 market-weighted average capacity of 3.5 ft\3\. Id. NEEA
stated, however, that the market-weighted average capacity as of 2019
has increased to 4.4 ft\3\, for which appendix J2 defines an average
load size of 10.4 lb.\28\ Id. NEEA asserted that using a fixed average
load size of 7.6 lb would increase representativeness, stating that the
growing inconsistency between field-measured average load size and
appendix J2-calculated average load size indicates that average load
size is independent of clothes washer capacity and is relatively small.
Id. NEEA also stated that using a fixed average load size would reduce
test burden, since less work would be required by the laboratory to
build an inventory of custom appendix J2-defined average loads for each
clothes washer capacity. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Hannas, Benjamin; Gilman, Lucinda. 2014. Dryer Field Study
(Report#E14 287). Portland, OR. Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance. Available online at: <a href="http://neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study">neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study</a>.
\28\ NEEA's estimate of 4.4 ft\3\ average capacity in 2019 is
based on NEEA's 2019 ENERGY STAR Retail Products Platform data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE did not agree with NEEA's
conclusion that the 2014 NEEA field study confirms that the field
average load size is independent of clothes container size and is
relatively small. Id. In particular, NEEA did not present any field
data demonstrating average consumer load sizes for a sample of clothes
washers with an average capacity of 4.4 ft\3\. Id. Therefore, DOE
stated in the September 2021 NOPR that no conclusions could be drawn
from the 2014 NEEA Field Study regarding how consumer load sizes may
have changed as average clothes washer capacity has increased from
around 3.5 ft\3\ in 2010 to 4.4 ft\3\ in 2019. Id. While DOE agreed
that using a fixed average load size could decrease test burden by
avoiding the need to inventory different average load sizes for each
possible capacity, for the reasons described above, DOE preliminarily
concluded that the data provided by NEEA do not justify using a fixed
average load size across all clothes container capacities. Id. DOE
stated in the September 2021 NOPR that it is not aware of any more
recent, nationally representative field data indicating that the
consumer load size distribution in relation to clothes washer capacity
has changed since the introduction of the three load sizes in the
August 1997 Final Rule. 86 FR 49140, 49158.
Given the increasing prevalence of more feature-rich clothes washer
models that require a higher number of test cycles under appendix J2,
DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to reduce test burden by
reducing the number of defined load sizes for the proposed new appendix
J from three to two for clothes washers with automatic WFCS.
Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the minimum, maximum, and average
load sizes for automatic clothes washers with two new load sizes in the
new appendix J, designated as ``small'' and ``large.'' 86 FR 49140,
49157. The new proposed small and large load sizes would continue to
represent the same roughly normal distribution presented in the 1995
P&G data described previously. The weighted-average load size using the
proposed small and large load sizes would match the weighted-average
load size using the current minimum, average, and maximum load sizes.
The small and large load sizes would represent approximately the 25th
and 75th percentiles of the normal distribution, respectively. As
proposed, the small and large load sizes would have equal load usage
factors (``LUFs'') \29\ of 0.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ LUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage of
wash cycles that consumers run with a given load size and are
discussed further in section III.G.5 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically, DOE proposed to calculate the ``small'' and ``large''
load sizes using Equation III.1 and Equation III.2, respectively. 86 FR
49140, 49158.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN22.014

[[Page 33332]]

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the new
small and large load sizes would substantially reduce test burden while
maintaining or improving representativeness. 86 FR 49140, 49153. DOE's
proposal would reduce test burden under the new appendix J by requiring
only two load sizes to be tested instead of three for clothes washers
with automatic WFCS. Id. 86 FR at 49158. Specifically, the number of
cycles tested would be reduced by 33 percent for clothes washers with
automatic WFCS, which represent a large majority of clothes washers on
the market. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that this proposal would
maintain representativeness because the new proposed small and large
load sizes would continue to represent the same roughly normal
distribution presented in the 1995 P&G data described previously. Id.
at 86 FR 49157. The weighted-average load size using the proposed small
and large load sizes would match the weighted-average load size using
the current minimum, average, and maximum load sizes, and thus would
produce test results with equivalent representativeness. 86 FR 49140,
49158. Further, defining the small and large loads to represent
approximately the 25th and 75th percentiles of the normal distribution
could improve representativeness by balancing the goal of capturing as
large of a load size range as possible while remaining representative
of the ``peak'' of the load distribution curve, which represents the
most frequently used load sizes. Id.
As noted in the September 2021 NOPR, clothes washers with manual
WFCS are tested only with the minimum and maximum load sizes, in
contrast to clothes washers with automatic WFCS, which are tested with
all three load sizes in appendix J2. 86 FR 49140, 49158. Given DOE's
proposal to define only two load sizes in the proposed new appendix J,
DOE proposed in the September 2021 NOPR that the same two load sizes be
used for all clothes washers, regardless of whether a clothes washer's
WFCS is automatic or manual. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to replace the minimum,
maximum, and average load sizes with the small and large load sizes in
the new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49158-49159. DOE sought comment on how
reducing the number of load sizes tested would impact the
representativeness of test results. Id. DOE also requested data and
information to quantify the reduction in test burden that would result
from reducing the number of load sizes from three to two for clothes
washers with automatic WFCS. Id.
The Joint Commenters, CA IOUs, and Joint Efficiency Advocates
expressed concern that the 1995 P&G data used to determine the
representative load sizes for new appendix J are out of date. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5; Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-5) The Joint Commenters and Joint
Efficiency Advocates further commented that capacities represented in
the P&G study (2.4 and 2.8 ft\3\) are much smaller than the current
market average of 4.4 ft\3\, and asserted that extrapolation of the P&G
data may not be appropriate, especially as DOE proposes to extend its
test procedure to include basket sizes from 6.0 to 8.0 ft\3\. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at
pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs noted that, at the time of the 1995 P&G Study, the
``regular'' 2.4 ft\3\ and ``large'' 2.8 ft\3\ clothes washers had
average load sizes of 5.7 lb and 6.7 lb, respectively; but as the
average tub volume has since increased to almost 4.0 ft\3\, the average
clothes washer on the market today uses a weighted-average test load
size of 9.7 lb. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5) The Joint Commenters also
commented that clothes washers in 1995, when the P&G study was
published, were much less feature rich than today, and that the P&G
study may not represent consumer choice about load size on modern
clothes washers. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9) The Joint
Commenters stated as an example that consumers may separate a single
load into multiple smaller loads to tailor the available washing cycles
to the textiles. (Id.)
The CA IOUs presented data from a forthcoming paper titled ``PG&E
Home Energy Use Study--Laundry Weight Report,'' (``2021 PG&E data''),
which surveyed 97 California households and which the CA IOUs
characterized as finding no significant relationship between clothes
washer capacity and load size. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5) The CA IOUs
commented that these findings from the PG&E study align with comments
made by NEEA and the Joint Efficiency Advocates \30\ in response to the
May 2020 RFI, which the CA IOUs characterized as also finding no
correlation between clothes washer capacity and load size. (Id.) The CA
IOUs further commented that the findings from the 2021 PG&E data do not
reflect what is represented in Table 5.1 of appendix J2 and new
appendix J. (Id.) In their comment on the September 2021 NOPR, the CA
IOUs categorized the 2021 PG&E data by capacity: Clothes washers with
capacities less than 4.0 ft\3\, clothes washers with capacities between
4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, and clothes washers with capacities greater than 5.0
ft\3\. (Id.) Each capacity category showed a roughly normal
distribution in load size, but the average load size was roughly the
same for all three categories: 8.01 lb for clothes washers smaller than
4.0 ft\3\, 8.34 lb for clothes washers between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, and
7.17 for clothes washers larger than 5.0 ft\3\. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that, in contrast, Table 5.1 in new appendix J would define
load sizes of 8.25 lb for clothes washers smaller than 4.0 ft\3\, 10.28
lb for clothes washers between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, and 12.28 for clothes
washers larger than 5.0 ft\3\. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ In the September 2021 NOPR, the set of joint commenters
including Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, and
Natural Resources Defense Council was abbreviated as the ``Joint
Commenters'' and this is how the CA IOUs refer to them in their
comment. In this document, that same set of commenters is
abbreviated as the ``Joint Efficiency Advocates,'' and are therefore
referred to as such here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Efficiency Advocates also commented that using the
proposed large and small load sizes continues to result in test loads
for large-capacity washers being significantly greater than those for
smaller clothes washers. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-
5) For example, the small and large loads for a 6.0 ft\3\ clothes
washer are 7.74 and 19.44 lb, respectively, compared to load sizes of
5.49 and 11.64 lb, respectively, for a 3.5 ft\3\ clothes washer. (Id.)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that a large difference in
load sizes between capacities is not consistent with the 2014 NEEA
Field Study or with the 2021 PG&E data presented by the CA IOUs in
response to the September 2021 NOPR. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency
Advocates expressed concern that larger capacity clothes washers may be
less efficient than smaller capacity clothes washers when washing a
load of 7 to 8 lb, which they asserted is a load size more
representative of real-world conditions. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency
Advocates also referenced a 2020 report published by NEEA titled
``Coming Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency of Clothes Washers''
\31\ (``2020 NEEA Report''), which presented test results from 12 RCWs
and suggested that an efficiency rank order change was observed when
testing the appendix J2-specified maximum load versus a

[[Page 33333]]

constant load of 8.45 lb. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates
summarized an example from the 2020 NEEA Report showing that among
front-loading RCWs, the largest unit in the sample demonstrated the
most efficient performance at the maximum load, but the least efficient
performance using the constant 8.45 lb load. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Foster Porter, Suzanne; Denkenberger, Dave. 2020. Coming
Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency of Clothes Washers. Portland,
OR. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at:
<a href="http://neea.org/resources/coming-clean-revealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers">neea.org/resources/coming-clean-revealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Commenters commented that they understand DOE's reasons
for rejecting the data from the 2014 NEEA Field Study on the grounds
that they are regional and seasonal in nature, and that they represent
a limited sample size. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9) The CA
IOUs expressed a similar sentiment, and stated that they acknowledge
DOE's concerns regarding the potential limitations of regional studies
such as the ones presented by the CA IOUs' in response to the May 2020
RFI. (CA IOUs, NO. 29 at pp. 3-5)
The Joint Commenters, CA IOUs, and Joint Efficiency Advocates
recommended that DOE conduct further investigation regarding load
sizes. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-
5; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-5) The Joint Commenters
and CA IOUs recommended that, before the next clothes washer test
procedure update, DOE should commission a nationally representative
field laundry study to improve representativeness of modern load sizes.
(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3-5) The
Joint Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to investigate the
relationship between clothes washer capacity and energy/water use at a
constant load size and to consider specifying constant load sizes
across all capacities. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4-5)
Additionally, the Joint Commenters commented that there was no
information available on the 1995 P&G study to confirm whether the
study was nationally, annually, and statistically representative of
households in the U.S. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8-9) The Joint
Commenters expressed concern that the P&G study may not be more
geographically and seasonally relevant than the more recent NEEA
laundry study. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also added that NEEA is
planning to update its regional laundry study and would welcome a
conversation with DOE to determine how its regional data could be made
more relevant or complementary to DOE's own study. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it appreciates DOE's proposal to reduce the
number of load sizes tested from three to two, stating that at a first
glance, it appears that DOE's proposed new load sizes will reduce test
burden. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4) AHAM commented, however, that it must
complete its testing in order to more holistically evaluate DOE's
proposal and provide feedback to DOE on the reduction in test burden
and the representativeness of test results. (Id.) AHAM added that the
proposed new load sizes could lead to a need for significant product
redesign, and could potentially impact RMC. (Id.)
Samsung recommended that DOE continue to use three test load sizes.
(Samsung, No. 30 at pp. 2-3) Samsung explained that while reducing the
number of load sizes would reduce test burden and represent the same
statistical load usage distribution as in appendix J2, automatic WFCSs
have been generally designed to detect three to four discrete load
levels (e.g., minimum, average, maximum, and full). (Id.) Samsung
expressed concern that reducing the test load to two sizes could result
in manufacturers changing the load detection algorithm designs to
detect a lower number of discrete load levels, which could increase the
amount of water and energy use by consumers. (Id.) Samsung further
explained that changing from three to two load sizes could result in
clothes washers using a larger amount of water than necessary for loads
smaller than the ``small'' load, and more water for loads larger than
the ``large'' load. (Id.)
P.R. China recommended that DOE increase the proposed large load
size. (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3) P.R. China commented that, since the
proposed small and large load sizes are relatively smaller than the
current average and maximum load sizes, they only evaluate the energy
consumption of a clothes washer that is loaded with half or less of the
full capacity. (Id.) P.R. China expressed concern that using the
proposed small and large load sizes would not be reflective of energy
consumption for a clothes washer that is heavily or fully loaded, which
P.R. China asserted is more common in normal use. (Id.)
DOE greatly appreciates the additional consumer usage data provided
by commenters and submitted to the docket for DOE's consideration. The
2021 PG&E data suggests that a roughly normal distribution of load
sizes remains applicable across the range of clothes washer capacities
represented in the report (roughly 3.3 to 5.3 ft\3\), consistent with
the trend from the 1995 P&G data. DOE also acknowledges that the
results of the 2021 PG&E data are suggestive that consumers may not be
consistently loading larger capacity machines with proportionately
larger load sizes (on average), as is implied by the relationship
between load sizes and capacity defined in Table 5.1 of appendix J2.
DOE remains concerned, however, that the 2021 PG&E data is not
nationally representative. DOE would expect clothing load composition
to vary significantly among regions of the United States (e.g., warmer
and colder climates, urban and rural households), which could coincide
with different load size patterns in clothes washer usage. DOE is also
mindful that population demographics (e.g., household size, age of
household members, etc.) could also affect laundry usage patterns. DOE
also notes that the results from the 2021 PG&E data conflict with 2016
PG&E data presented previously by the CA IOUs in response to the May
2020 RFI, which suggested that consumer average load sizes for clothes
washers in the range of 2 to 5 ft\3\ capacity are larger than the
appendix J2 load sizes. 86 FR 49140, 49157. The conflicting conclusions
between the submitted reports as well as their limited geographic
representation do not provide sufficient justification for DOE to
change the relationship of load size with capacity at this time.
DOE continues to welcome additional data that could be used to
inform future changes to the test load sizes. DOE potentially would
consider a collection of diverse regional studies as a proxy for a
single nationally representative data set. As suggested by the Joint
Commenters, DOE welcomes further dialogue to determine how additional
regional data could be made more relevant or complementary to DOE's
consideration of potential further amendments to the test procedure.
DOE also appreciates AHAM's intention to provide test data for DOE
to consider when it becomes available. DOE reiterates that any impacts
to measured energy, however minor, as a result of changes to the load
size definitions were accounted for in the crosswalk between the
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed for the September 2021 RCW
Standards Preliminary Analysis. DOE will continue to consider any such
impacts in future stages of the standards rulemaking.
In response to Samsung's concern that reducing the number of load
sizes to two could result in manufacturers changing the load detection
algorithms in way that could increase water and energy use, DOE
acknowledges that the small and large load sizes proposed for appendix
J represent a narrower range than the range represented by the

[[Page 33334]]

minimum and maximum load sizes specified in appendix J2.\32\ DOE
expects that any changes that manufacturers would make to the load
detection algorithms to optimize performance when tested to appendix J
(which Samsung asserted could result in fewer discrete water fill
levels) would be balanced against consumer expectation that when using
an adaptive fill setting, the quantity of water determined by the
clothes washer appropriately matches the size of the load. Changing the
test procedure load size definitions does not preclude clothes washer
manufacturers from designing load sensing algorithms from detecting any
number of discrete load levels. DOE further notes that the historical
data and more recent data discussed in this section indicate that
consumer load size distribution follows a roughly normal distribution.
Any impacts due to the type of load detection changes described by
Samsung would be expected to affect the ``tail ends'' of the normal
distribution, which by definition represent relatively low consumer
usage; i.e., the very small and very large load sizes that could be
impacted are not as representative of average consumer use as the range
of load sizes represented by the small and large load sizes as
proposed. Weighing all of these factors, DOE has determined that the
use of two load sizes as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR provides a
reasonable balance between considerations of representativeness and
test burden as required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ As discussed, the small and load sizes proposed for
appendix J are defined at approximately the 25th and 75th
percentiles of the normal distribution, respectively; whereas the
minimum and maximum load sizes under appendix J2 are defined at
approximately the 14th and 88th percentiles of the normal
distribution, respectively, as described in the September 2021 NOPR.
86 FR 49140, 49154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to P.R. China's comment on the distribution of load
sizes, DOE does not agree with the assertion that small and large load
sizes as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR represent half or less
than half of the full capacity. As proposed, the large load size in
appendix J represents roughly 80 percent of the maximum load size
defined in appendix J2; i.e., roughly 80 percent of the full capacity
of a clothes washer.\33\ As discussed, historical and recent data
indicate that U.S. consumer load size distribution follows a roughly
normal distribution, such that the maximum load size is much less
commonly used than the load sizes proposed for appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ DOE assumes that the maximum load size defined in appendix
J2 represents 100 percent full capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking into consideration the discussion presented in the September
2021 NOPR, comments submitted by interested parties in response to
DOE's proposals, and DOE's analysis and response to comments, DOE
finalizes its proposal, consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to
replace the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes with the small and
large load sizes in new appendix J. As discussed, DOE welcomes any
opportunities to continue working with interested parties to collect
nationally representative data on the relationship between load size
and capacity. DOE reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a
result of changes to the tested load sizes will be accounted for in the
crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the
ongoing standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the changes
implemented in this final rule to require significant product redesign.
2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the Proposed Load Sizes
Section 3.2.6 of appendix J2 prescribes the water fill setting
selections to use with each load size based on the type of WFCS on the
clothes washer. As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document,
consistent with the proposal in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is
defining new small and large load sizes in appendix J, in contrast to
the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes defined in appendix J2. 86
FR 49140, 49159-49160. To test clothes washers using these new small
and large load sizes, the appropriate water fill setting selections
also needs to be provided in the new appendix J for each load size for
each type of WFCS.
Appendix J2 defines two main types of WFCS: Manual WFCS, which
``requires the user to determine or select the water fill level,'' and
automatic WFCS, which ``does not allow or require the user to determine
or select the water fill level, and includes adaptive WFCS and fixed
WFCS.'' Sections 1.22 and 1.5 of appendix J2, respectively. Section
3.2.6.2 of appendix J2 further distinguishes between user-adjustable
and not-user-adjustable automatic WFCS. Additionally, section 3.2.6.3
of appendix J2 accommodates clothes washers that have both an automatic
WFCS and an alternate manual WFCS. Amendments to the definitions of
fixed WFCS and user-adjustable WFCS are further discussed in section
III.H.3.a of this document.
Section 3.2.6.1 of appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers with
a manual WFCS are set to the maximum water level available for the wash
cycle under test for the maximum test load size and the minimum water
level available for the wash cycle under test for the minimum test load
size.
Section 3.2.6.2.1 of appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers
with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS are tested using the specified
maximum, minimum, and average test load sizes, and that the maximum,
minimum, and average water levels are selected by the control system
when the respective test loads are used (i.e., no selection of water
fill level is required by the user).
Section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers
with user-adjustable automatic WFCS undergo four tests. The first test
is conducted using the maximum test load and with the automatic WFCS
set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result. The
second test is conducted with the minimum test load and with the
automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy
intensive result. The third test is conducted with the average test
load and with the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the
most energy intensive result for the given test load. The fourth test
is conducted with the average test load and with the automatic WFCS set
in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result for the
given test load. The energy and water consumption for the average test
load and water level are calculated as the average of the third and
fourth tests.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify the use of the
second-lowest water fill level setting for the proposed small load
size, and the maximum water fill level setting for the proposed large
load size for clothes washers with manual WFCS. 86 FR 49140, 49159. DOE
proposed to use the second-lowest water fill level setting for the
proposed small size because the proposed small load is larger than the
current minimum load, and using the minimum water fill setting for the
larger-sized ``small'' load may not be representative of consumer use,
particularly because consumers tend to select more water than is
minimally necessary for the size of the load being washed. Id. Although
DOE was not aware of any clothes washers with manual WFCS currently on
the market with only two water fill level settings available, DOE also
proposed to accommodate such a design by specifying that if the water
fill level selector has two settings available for the wash cycle under
test, the minimum

[[Page 33335]]

water fill level setting would be selected for the small load size,
consistent with the current specification in appendix J2. Id.
To accommodate the proposed ``small'' and ``large'' load sizes in
the new appendix J, DOE proposed to require testing clothes washers
with user-adjustable WFCS using the small test load size at the setting
that provides the least energy-intensive \34\ result, and the large
test load size at the setting that provides the most energy-intensive
result. Id. This proposal captures the same range of water fill
performance as the current test procedure (i.e., capturing the range of
least-intensive to most-intensive results). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ As described in section III.H.3.b of this document, DOE is
updating the phrase ``the setting that will give the most energy-
intensive result'' to ``the setting that uses the most water'' (and
likewise for the setting that will give the least energy-intensive
result) to reflect the original intent of this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For clothes washers with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS, no
changes are required because the water fill levels are determined
automatically by the WFCS.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to change the water fill
level selections in the new appendix J for clothes washers with manual
and user-adjustable automatic WFCS to reflect the proposed small and
large test load sizes. 86 FR 49140, 49160.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposed water
fill level selections for manual WFCSs in new appendix J. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10). The Joint Commenters commented that DOE's
proposal establishes a reasonable representation of normal consumer use
given the load sizes proposed in new appendix J. (Id.)
Although AHAM did not comment specifically on the proposed changes
to the water fill level selections, AHAM did comment on DOE's proposed
definitions for certain types of WFCSs. DOE summarizes and addresses
these comments in section III.H.3.a of this document.
For the reasons stated above, DOE finalizes its proposal,
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, to change the water fill level
selections in the new appendix J for clothes washers with manual and
user-adjustable automatic WFCS to reflect the proposed small and large
test load sizes.
3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested Settings
Section 3.5 of appendix J2 states that if a clothes washer has four
or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse (``Warm/Cold'') temperature selections,
either all discrete selections shall be tested, or the clothes washer
shall be tested at the 25-percent, 50- percent, and 75-percent
positions of the temperature selection device between the hottest hot
(<=135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C)) wash and the coldest cold wash. If a
selection is not available at the 25-, 50- or 75-percent position, in
place of each such unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature
selection shall be used. DOE refers to the latter provision as the
``25/50/75 test.'' Section 3.6 of appendix J2 states that the 25/50/75
test provision also applies to the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse (``Warm/Warm'')
temperature selection.
DOE first established the 25/50/75 test in appendix J1 as part of
the August 1997 Final Rule to address the test burden for clothes
washers that offer a large number of warm wash temperature selections,
if the test procedure were to require testing all warm temperature
selections. 62 FR 45484, 45497. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE
considered clothes washers with more than three warm wash temperatures
to be clothes washers with infinite warm wash temperature selections,
therefore allowing them to also use the 25/50/75 test. 62 FR 45484,
45498. DOE concluded at that time that testing at the various test
points of the temperature range, with a requirement to test to the next
higher selection if a temperature selection is not available at a
specified test point, would provide data representative of the warm
wash temperature selection offerings. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that the 25/50/75 test was
adopted before the widespread use of electronic controls, which now
allow for the assignment of wash water temperatures that may not
reflect the physical spacing between temperature selections on the
control panel. 86 FR 49140, 49160. For example, with electronic
controls, the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions on the
dial may not necessarily correspond to 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-
percent temperature differences between the hottest and coldest
selections. Id. DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market with four
or more warm wash temperature selections, in which the temperature
selections located at the 25-, 50-, and 75- percent positions are low-
temperature cycles that have wash temperatures only a few degrees
higher than the coldest wash temperature; whereas the temperature
selection labeled ``Warm'' is located beyond the 75-percent position on
the temperature selection dial and is therefore not included for
testing under the 25/50/75 test. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require testing of both
the hottest Warm/Cold setting and the coldest Warm/Cold setting for all
clothes washers in the new appendix J instead of the current provisions
to either test all warm wash selections or conduct the 25/50/75 test.
86 FR 49140, 49161. Water consumption, electrical energy consumption,
and all other measured values \35\ would be averaged between the two
tested cycles to represent the Warm/Cold cycle. Id. DOE proposed to
make the same changes to the Warm/Warm cycle in the new appendix J. Id.
DOE's proposal would decrease the test burden under the new appendix J
for clothes washers that offer more than two Warm/Cold or Warm/Warm
temperature settings, which DOE estimates represent around half of the
market, by reducing the number of Warm/Cold and Warm/Warm tested cycles
from three to two. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ As discussed in sections III.D.4.a and III.D.5 of this
document, DOE is requiring measurements of wet weight, and cycle
time for each tested cycle under new appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because this proposed approach may change the measured energy use
of clothes washers that offer more than two Warm/Cold or Warm/Warm
settings, the proposed edits were not proposed for appendix J2 and
therefore would not affect the measured efficiency of existing clothes
washers. Id. As discussed previously, any impacts to measured energy as
a result of changes to the required warm wash settings were accounted
for in the crosswalk between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics
developed for the September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis.
DOE will continue to consider any such impacts in future stages of the
standards rulemaking.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the
proposed approach in the new appendix J would maintain
representativeness by continuing to capture the complete range of Warm
Wash temperatures available for selection (i.e., by relying on an
average of the hottest Warm/Cold setting and the coldest Warm/Cold
setting). Id. For models that are currently tested using the 25/50/75
test and for which certain ``Warm'' settings are located beyond the 75-
percent position on the temperature selection dial and therefore not
included for testing, DOE's proposal would capture entire range of
available Warm Wash temperatures available to the consumer, and
therefore would improve representativeness. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the proposal
to

[[Page 33336]]

require in the new appendix J testing only the hottest and the coldest
Warm/Cold settings. Id. DOE also requested data and information on how
this proposed change to the Warm Wash temperature settings required for
testing would impact representativeness, testing costs, and
manufacturer burden. Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposal to
require testing on the hottest Warm/Cold and coldest Warm/Cold settings
for all clothes washers instead of the ``25/50/75'' test will more
accurately reflect energy usage of Warm Wash settings while decreasing
burden. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 2-3)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to test
and average the hottest and coldest Warm/Cold temperatures and
encouraged DOE to apply an identical approach to clothes washers with
Warm/Warm settings. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 3-4) The Joint
Commenters further agreed with DOE's tentative determination that DOE's
proposal concerning Warm/Cold testing would reduce test burden by
eliminating test runs for clothes washers with more than two Warm/Cold
settings, and increase representation of typical hot water use of
clothes washer by testing temperature selections that would not have
been tested using the 25/50/75 rule. (Id.)
AHAM commented that, while it appreciates DOE's attempt to ease
testing burden in its proposal by only requiring testing on the hottest
and coldest Warm/Cold settings for all clothes washers, using only
coldest and hottest of the warm cycles could increase the measured
water heating energy in the IMEF calculation. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 10-
11) AHAM asserted that in order to offset this increase in water
heating energy, the hottest warm setting would need to be redesigned
with a reduced temperature, resulting in the hottest warm setting being
cooler than what consumers expect for a warm setting. (Id.) AHAM also
commented that additional testing is required to determine whether
detergents, especially laundry pods, will dissolve as well at lower
temperatures. (Id.) Lastly, AHAM stated that this change will impact
measured energy and commented that this impact needs to be accounted
for in any energy conservation standard that DOE develops. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that DOE's proposal to require testing on the
hottest and coldest Warm/Cold temperatures may eliminate the ability of
manufacturers to offer a warm and/or hot wash setting for consumers
that meets the temperature level(s) and performance that they expect on
their clothes washer, especially from Warm/Cold temperature settings.
(Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 7-8) Whirlpool added that these impacts could
also become compounded by any amendment to clothes washer standards.
(Id.) Whirlpool also expressed concern that lower warm and/or hot wash
temperatures could impact cleaning performance since most detergents,
especially lower cost detergents and laundry pods, are designed to be
most effective at current wash temperatures. (Id.)
DOE notes that the reservations expressed by AHAM and Whirlpool are
related to the impact on measured energy as a result of this proposed
amendment to the test procedure. As discussed previously, impacts on
measured energy use between the then-current appendix J2 and the
proposed appendix J test procedures were factored into the crosswalk
relating the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed for the
September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis, such that DOE does
not expect the changes implemented in this final rule to require any
significant changes to wash water temperatures. In particular, any
increase in measured energy as a result of this amendment would be
factored into the crosswalk (i.e., manufacturers would not necessarily
be required to decrease wash temperatures to ``offset'' any increase in
measured energy under appendix J).
Specifically, as presented in Table 5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the
preliminary TSD, DOE determined through testing that this amendment
would result in a 17 percent increase, on average, in the water heating
energy use for clothes washers with 3 or more Warm/Cold temperature
settings, in which the two coldest Warm/Cold temperatures use much less
hot water than the hottest Warm/Cold temperature. This increase was
factored into the metric translations.
In response to the Joint Commenters' request that DOE consider
applying an identical approach to clothes washers with Warm/Warm
settings, DOE's proposal in the September 2021 NOPR applied to both
Warm/Cold and Warm/Warm settings.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the September 2021 NOPR, to require in the new appendix J testing
only the hottest and the coldest Warm/Cold and Warm/Warm settings. DOE
reiterates that any impacts to measured energy as a result of changes
to the tested warm wash settings will be accounted for in the crosswalk
between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the ongoing
standards analysis, such that DOE does not expect the changes
implemented in this final rule to require any significant changes to
wash water temperatures.
4. Remaining Moisture Content
Section 3.8.4 of appendix J2 requires that for clothes washers that
have multiple spin settings \36\ available within the energy test cycle
that result in different RMC values, the maximum and minimum extremes
of the available spin settings must be tested with the maximum load
size on the Cold/Cold temperature selection.\37\ The final RMC is the
weighted average of the maximum and minimum spin settings, with the
maximum spin setting weighted at 75 percent and the minimum spin
setting weighted at 25 percent. The RMC measurement is used to
calculate the drying energy component of IMEF. On most clothes washers,
the drying energy component represents the largest portion of energy
captured in the MEF<INF>J2</INF> and IMEF metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ The term ``spin settings'' refers to spin times or spin
speeds. The maximum spin setting results in a lower (better) RMC.
\37\ On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse option,
appendix J2 requires that RMC be measured on both Cold Rinse and
Warm Rinse, with the final RMC calculated as a weighted average
using TUFs of 73 percent for Cold Rinse and 27 percent for Warm
Rinse. DOE has observed very few clothes washer models on the market
that offer Warm Rinse. For simplicity throughout this discussion,
DOE references the testing requirements for clothes washers that
offer Cold Rinse only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Revised Calculation
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the
current method of measuring RMC may no longer produce test results that
measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle
or period of use, particularly as the prevalence of clothes washers
with complex electronic controls continues to increase in the market.
86 FR 49140, 49162. On a clothes washer with basic controls (e.g., in
which the available spin settings are the same regardless of what wash/
rinse temperature is selected), measuring RMC using only the Cold/Cold
cycle would be expected to provide RMC results that are equally
representative of the other available wash/rinse temperatures, which as
noted comprise the majority of consumer cycle selections. Id. However,
on a clothes washer in which the selection of wash/rinse temperature
affects which spin settings are available to be selected, measuring RMC
using

[[Page 33337]]

only the Cold/Cold cycle may not necessarily provide results that
measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle
or period of use (i.e., across the range of wash/rinse temperature
options selected by consumers, as represented by the temperature use
factors). Id. For example, data presented by NEEA in response to the
May 2020 RFI suggested that the specific cycle configuration from which
RMC is measured is programed with a longer spin time than other
temperature settings available to the consumer, resulting in a
significantly better RMC measurement than would be experienced by the
consumer on the majority of wash cycles performed. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an amended method for
measuring RMC in the new appendix J that would require measuring RMC on
each of the energy test cycles using the default spin settings, and
determining the final RMC by weighting the individual RMC measurements
using the same Temperature Usage Factors (``TUFs'') \38\ and LUFs that
apply to the water and energy measurements. Id. DOE asserted that the
proposed update to the RMC measurement would provide a more
representative measure of RMC than the current test procedures because
RMC would be measured on all of the energy test cycles rather than only
the Cold/Cold cycles, which represent only 37 percent of consumer
cycles and may not share the same RMC performance as the other 63
percent of consumer cycles.\39\ Id. DOE also tentatively concluded that
this proposal would reduce overall test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49163. The
proposal would require weighing the cloth before and after each test
cycle, but would avoid the need to perform extra cycles for capturing
both the maximum and minimum spin settings available on the clothes
washer if such spin settings are not activated by default as part of
the energy test cycle. Id. To DOE's knowledge, many laboratories
already measure and record the test load weight after each test cycle
as a means for identifying potential cycle anomalies or to provide
additional data that can be used to verify quality control
retrospectively. Id. In cases where a laboratory currently does not
measure the weight after completion of the cycle, DOE's proposal would
incur a de minimis amount of additional time to weigh the load after
the cycle, which can be performed using the same scale used to weigh
the load at the beginning of the cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ As described in more detail in section III.G.4 of this
document, TUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage
of time that consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature
selection for the wash cycle.
\39\ 37 percent is the TUF for the Cold/Cold temperature
selection as specified in Table 4.1.1 of appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE acknowledged that its proposal would likely impact the measured
RMC value and thus would impact a clothes washer's IMEF value. 86 FR
49140, 49163. Therefore, DOE proposed the revised RMC procedure only in
the proposed new appendix J and not in appendix J2. Id.
In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
to revise the RMC procedure so that RMC would be measured at the
default spin setting for each temperature selection and load size, and
the individual RMC values would be averaged using TUFs and LUFs to
calculate the final RMC. Id. DOE sought data and information regarding
how this change to the RMC calculation would impact testing costs and
manufacturer test burden. Id. DOE further requested comment on whether
DOE should implement any changes to the RMC calculation in appendix J2
to address clothes washers with spin settings that are available only
on certain temperature selections. Id.
Samsung commented in support of DOE's proposed changes to the RMC
measurement, stating that the changes would make the metric more
representative of real-world usage. (Samsung, No. 30 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's proposal to measure RMC
as a part of all energy test cycles, stating that it would improve the
representativeness of the drying energy measurement, which is the
largest component of energy use. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposed
amendment to measure RMC for all cycles tested rather than on a single
cold-cold test cycle would more accurately estimate drying energy usage
than the current method. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 2)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted that, using appendix J2, clothes
washers that only offer the maximum spin speed on the Cold/Cold cycle
have lower spin settings at other temperature settings that are not
being factored into the RMC calculation, even though these cycles
represent the majority of cycles used by consumers, according to the
TUFs. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates also cited data from the
2020 NEEA Report that showed significant IMEF rank order changes
between washers when comparing RMC values measured on Cold/Cold cycles
and RMC values measured on Warm/Cold cycles for the same test loads.
(Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates concluded that DOE's proposal to
measure RMC for each energy test cycle at the default spin setting and
calculate an overall RMC using TUF- and LUF-weighted averages would
make drying energy usage calculations more consistent with the other
energy and water usage calculations, and that the proposed amendment
would improve representativeness and provide more accurate relative
rankings of clothes washers by better capturing real-world RMC and
drying energy usage. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
measure RMC at the default spin setting for each test cycle. (Joint
Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 2-3) The Joint Commenters added that
measuring RMC at the default setting would reduce test burden, increase
representativeness, and could potentially result in an estimated 1.0
quad of energy savings for clothes dryers.\40\ (Id.) The Joint
Commenters further commented that DOE's proposed RMC measurement
changes would be one of the best opportunities to improve the test
procedure for three reasons: drying energy use is the largest and most
important contributor to IMEF, and would remain the most significant
contributor to the proposed EER and AEER metrics; according to the
Joint Commenters, default spin settings are more representative of
real-world use instead of the ``best case'' scenario; and testing RMC
under different temperature settings and load sizes revealed
substantial rank order changes. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ The Joint Commenters referenced NEEA's comment on the May
2020 RFI in which NEEA estimated the potential savings over a 30-
year period, assuming the change in the RMC measurement would lead
to clothes washer manufacturers changing their machines to make the
spin portion of all temperature settings match the current spin
portion of the Cold/Cold setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whirlpool commented that DOE's proposed change to the RMC
measurement would likely have significant implications on Whirlpool's
product design, cost, performance, and customer satisfaction.
(Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 8-9) Whirlpool also noted that RMC accounts
for over 70 to 75 percent of energy measured by the IMEF. (Id.)
Whirlpool further commented that, since today's clothes washers are
designed and tested for appendix J2, product redesign would be
necessary because, without modifying clothes washer spinning strategies
for the proposed RMC measurement method in new appendix J, Whirlpool
expects the measured RMC of its clothes washer models under the
proposed amendments to increase significantly. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p.
9) Specifically,

[[Page 33338]]

Whirlpool explained that measuring RMC on smaller loads leads to a
higher RMC because smaller loads do not experience as much compression
against the drum during spinning as larger loads. (Id.) Whirlpool also
commented that their concern about RMC measurement is especially
pronounced for baseline top-loading clothes washers, which do not spin
as fast as front-loading clothes washers for a variety of technical
reasons. (Id.) Whirlpool explained that in order to address DOE's
proposed RMC change, Whirlpool would need to increase spin speeds and
have longer high-spin plateau times. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that these
changes would ultimately lead to enormous stress placed on the clothes
washers and would degrade their overall reliability. (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that they would need to make changes to the motor, tub
composition, and other structural changes to the washer, all of which
would add product cost. (Id.) Whirlpool also expressed concerns related
to consumers' perception of these changes, including increased cost and
performance concerns such as increased vibration and noise from faster
and longer spins, in addition to longer cycle times from longer high-
spin plateaus. (Id.) Whirlpool also stated that consumers may also
notice that the overall electrical energy of the clothes washer
increases as clothes washers spin longer and faster. (Id.) Whirlpool
also commented that an increase in measured mechanical energy could
lead to the annual energy consumption reported on the Federal Trade
Commission (``FTC'') EnergyGuide label showing that a new model uses
more energy (i.e., appears less efficient) than a model currently owned
by a consumer. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it opposes changing the RMC calculation in
appendix J2, stating that the proposed changes would impact measured
energy. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 11)
DOE also received comments from interested parties suggesting that
DOE add an RMC adjustment factor to account for test cloth material
composition. These comments are discussed in section III.I.1 of this
document.
DOE notes that the reservations expressed by AHAM and Whirlpool,
particularly with regard to implications for product design and
performance, stem from the impact on measured energy as a result of
this proposed amendment to the test procedure. As discussed previously,
impacts on measured energy use between the then-current appendix J2 and
the proposed appendix J test procedures were factored into the
crosswalk relating to the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics developed
for the September 2021 RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis.
Specifically, as presented in Table 5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the
preliminary TSD, DOE determined through testing that this amendment
would result in a 3.8 percent increase in drying energy for units in
which the spin cycle is consistent across temperature selections and
thus the primary factor affecting measured RMC is the smaller load
sizes; a 27 percent increase in drying energy for units in which the
spin cycle is significantly faster or longer on the Cold/Cold setting
(which would be tested under appendix J2) than on the other temperature
settings (which would all be tested under appendix J); and a 21 percent
increase in drying energy for units in which the default spin speed
setting on the Normal cycle (which would be tested under appendix J) is
not the maximum spin speed setting (which would be tested under
appendix J2). These increases in RMC under appendix J were factored
into the metric translations. As stated in the September 2021 RCW
Standards Preliminary Analysis, DOE plans to continue testing
additional units to appendix J and will continue to refine its approach
for determining appropriate crosswalk translations in future stages of
the standards rulemaking.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the September 2021 NOPR, to require measuring RMC on each of the
energy test cycles in appendix J using the default spin settings, and
determining the final RMC by weighting the individual RMC measurements
using the same TUFs and LUFs that apply to the water and energy
measurements. DOE has determined that the amendment to the RMC
measurement provides a more representative measure of RMC because RMC
is measured on all of the energy test cycles. DOE also concludes that
this amendment reduces overall test burden. DOE reiterates that any
impacts to measured energy as a result of changes to the RMC
calculation will be accounted for in the crosswalk between the appendix
J2 and appendix J metrics as part of the ongoing standards analysis,
such that DOE does not expect the changes implemented in this final
rule to require significant product redesign.
b. Definition of Bone-Dry
In section 1.6 of appendix J2, the term ``bone-dry'' is defined as
a condition of a load of test cloth that has been dried in a dryer at
maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, removed and weighed
before cool down, and then dried again for 10-minute periods until the
final weight change of the load is 1 percent or less.
In the absence of data or information indicating any problems with
the current procedure, DOE did not propose any changes to the bone-dry
definition or associated dryer temperature measurement method in the
September 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 49140, 49163. DOE requested comment on its
tentative conclusion not to propose changes to the bone-dry definition
and associated dryer temperature measurement method. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal not to change the bone-
dry definition and associated dryer temperature measurement method,
stating that changes would be unnecessary. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 11)
For the reasons discussed, this final rule does not make any
changes to the bone-dry definition or associated dryer temperature
measurement method.
c. Starting Moisture Content
Section 2.9.1 of appendix J2 requires the test load for energy and
water consumption measurements to be bone-dry prior to the first cycle
of the test, and allows the test load to be dried to a maximum of 104
percent of the bone-dry weight for subsequent testing. In the September
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that this allowance effectively allows for an
increase to the starting moisture content of the load from 1 percent
moisture (as implied in the definition of ``bone-dry'' in section 1 of
appendix J2) to 4 percent moisture, which creates two concerns. 86 FR
49140, 49163.
First, for the largest clothes washers on the market, which use the
largest test load sizes, a 4 percent tolerance can represent up to 1 lb
of additional water weight in a starting test load. Id. DOE expressed
concern that the range of starting water weights that this provision
allows could reduce the repeatability and reproducibility of test
results, particularly for larger clothes washers. Id.
Second, as described in section III.D.4.a of this document, DOE is
requiring the measurement of RMC for all tested cycles in the new
appendix J. Id. The RMC of each tested cycle is calculated based on the
bone-dry weight at the start of the cycle. Id. Allowing the bone-dry
weight to vary within a range of 1 percent to 4 percent moisture at the
beginning of each tested cycle would introduce variability into the RMC
calculation. Id.

[[Page 33339]]

Therefore, to improve repeatability and reproducibility of test
results, DOE proposed in new appendix J to remove the provision that
allows for a starting test load weight of 104 percent of the bone-dry
weight, and instead require that each test cycle use a bone-dry test
load. Id. In DOE's experience, most test laboratories use the bone-dry
weight as the starting weight of each test load rather than a starting
weight up to 104 percent of bone-dry, as allowed by section 2.9.1 of
appendix J2. Id. DOE estimated that if a test laboratory does make use
of this provision in section 2.9.1 of appendix J2, the requirement to
use the bone-dry weight would add no more than 10 minutes of drying
time per cycle to ensure that the test load has reached the bone-dry
requirement. Id. DOE did not anticipate that this proposal would
increase test burden because, in DOE's experience, most test
laboratories dry the load from the previous test cycle while the next
cycle is being tested on the clothes washer, such that a minor increase
in drying time would not affect the overall time required to conduct
the test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require that each test
cycle use a bone-dry test load in the new appendix J. Id. DOE requested
comment on whether test laboratories start test cycles with the test
load at bone-dry or at up to 104 percent of the bone-dry weight. 86 FR
49140, 49163-49164. DOE further requested feedback on its assessment
that this change would not affect test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49164.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
require bone-drying of textile loads before the start of each test run.
(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10) The Joint Commenters further
asserted that bone-drying the test load before each run would improve
repeatability and reproducibility, given that RMC would be measured for
each test run. (Id.) The Joint Commenters concluded that, since test
laboratories must dry the test load before using it, DOE's proposal
represents minimal to no additional test burden. (Id.)
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE's proposal to require each test
cycle to use a bone-dry test load. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM
commented that while it understands the theoretical reason for this
proposal, it may not be practically possible because as soon as the
load cools, it starts to collect humidity. Therefore, AHAM asserted
that it would not be possible for test laboratories to meet this
requirement. (Id.)
P.R. China recommended that if each test cycle uses a bone-dry test
load, DOE should add requirements to the temperature of the test load
to make sure the test cloth is at ambient temperature prior to testing.
(P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3)
In response to AHAM's comments, DOE acknowledges that the concerns
DOE expressed regarding the potential for over 1 lb of moisture in the
starting ``dry'' load would apply only to the largest load sizes, and
that for the large majority of tested loads, the potential amount of
moisture in the starting dry load would be a smaller weight. DOE notes
that the ``large'' test load sizes in appendix J implemented in this
final rule are smaller than the ``maximum'' test load sizes defined in
appendix J2 (as discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document), which
partially alleviates this concern. DOE's testing experience also
confirms AHAM's statement that a test cloth load begins to collect
moisture as soon as the drying cycle is complete. DOE therefore
concludes that logistical constraints during testing could create
challenges for test laboratories to meet a bone-dry requirement for
each individual test cycle.
In response to P.R. China's comment on adding a requirement that
the load be at ambient temperature prior to testing, DOE does not
expect that the temperature of the load prior to the start of the test
cycle would have a significant impact on energy use for two reasons.
First, DOE's teardowns of clothes washers conducted for the standards
preliminary analysis indicate that most clothes washers measure wash
water temperature either as the water enters the clothes washer through
the inlet valves or within the detergent mixing chamber, such that the
temperature of the test load would not affect the relative amounts of
hot and cold water usage. Second, even for clothes washers that may
measure the water temperature near the bottom of the wash tub in
proximity to the load, the thermal mass of the test cloth fabric is
significantly less than thermal mass of the amount of water used during
the wash portion of the cycle, such that any residual heat contained
within the test cloth would have a negligible impact on the temperature
of the water.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ For example, DOE testing indicates that a typical clothes
washer may use a gallon or more of water (i.e., over 8.3 lb of
water) per lb of test cloth load. Furthermore, the specific heat of
cotton and polyester fiber is around one-third of the specific heat
of water. Based on these parameters, each 1 [deg]F of elevated
temperature in a given test load would result in no more than a 0.04
[deg]F temperature rise in the wash water used for that cycle.
(Calculated as 1 / 8.3 / 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, DOE is not adopting the proposal from the
September 2021 NOPR and is including in appendix J the provision from
section 2.9.1 of appendix J2 to allow the test load to be dried to a
maximum of 104 percent of the bone-dry weight for subsequent testing.
Because each subsequent test load may not always start at the bone-dry
weight, DOE is also not adopting the proposal from the September 2021
NOPR to require recording the bone-dry weight of the test load weight
prior to each cycle. DOE notes that it is continuing to require that
the bone-dry weight of each test load (which would be measured once at
the start of testing) be used in calculating the RMC for each test
cycle.
5. Cycle Time
a. Inclusion of a Cycle Time Measurement
The current test procedure does not specify a measurement for
average cycle time. In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE is proposed to base
the allocation of annual combined low-power mode hours on the measured
average cycle time rather than a fixed value of 8,465 hours, for the
new appendix J (see section III.G.3 of this document). 86 FR 49140,
49164. DOE therefore also proposed to require the measurement of
average cycle time for the new appendix J. Id. Calculating the annual
standby mode and off mode hours using the measured average cycle time
would provide a more representative basis for determining the energy
consumption in the combined low-power modes for the specific clothes
washer under test. Id.
DOE proposed to define the overall average cycle time of a clothes
washer model in new appendix J as the weighted average of the
individual cycle times for each wash cycle configuration conducted as
part of the test procedure, using the TUFs and LUFs for the weighting.
Id. Using the weighted-average approach would align the average cycle
time calculation with the calculations for determining weighted-average
energy and water use. Id.
DOE noted that it does not expect the measurement of cycle time to
increase test burden. Id. To DOE's knowledge, test laboratories are
either already measuring cycle time for all tested cycles or using data
acquisition systems to record electronic logs of each cycle, from which
determining the cycle time would require minimal additional work. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to add cycle time
measurements and to calculate average cycle time using the weighted-
average

[[Page 33340]]

method in the new appendix J. Id. DOE also requested comment on its
assertion that adding cycle time measurements and a calculation of a
weighted-average cycle time would not increase testing costs or overall
test burden. Id.
Samsung commented in support of DOE's proposal to require reporting
of weighted-average cycle time, stating that it would provide useful
information for consumers comparing average cycle time differences
between clothes washer models. (Samsung, No. 30 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's proposal to measure cycle
time on all test cycles and to include an average cycle time
calculation, stating that there are significant consumer benefits in
this information being disclosed. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2) The CA IOUs
also recommended that DOE report average cycle time in the Compliance
Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database, and that DOE work
with the FTC to incorporate average cycle time into product labeling.
(Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
measure the cycle time of each test cycle and to calculate a weighted-
average cycle time. (Joint Commenters, No 31 at p. 5) The Joint
Commenters further agreed with DOE's tentative determination that DOE's
cycle time measurement proposal would create no additional test burden
since most test laboratories use time series data acquisition systems
that obtain cycle time measurements automatically. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters also commented that DOE's cycle time proposal would increase
the representativeness of the low-power-mode energy usage, and would
standardize cycle time marketing claims by establishing a standardized
approach for measuring cycle times. (Id.) The Joint Commenters also
encouraged DOE to require the reporting of average cycle time as part
of clothes washer certification, stating that it would increase
consumers' access to relevant information on cycle time, which the
Joint Commenters asserted is an important aspect of clothes washer
performance; increase transparency of reported energy efficiency
metrics by clarifying how the energy efficiency metric is derived for a
given clothes washer; and lead to continuous improvement of the test
procedure over time since having access to additional data on cycle
time would enable DOE and other stakeholders to continually evaluate
the value of cycle time measurement in future rulemakings. (Id.)
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE's proposal to include a
measurement of cycle time and a calculation of weighted-average cycle
time. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM commented that while cycle time is a
key consideration for consumer utility, DOE properly accounts for cycle
time in its evaluation of possible amended standards. (Id.)
For the reasons stated above, DOE determines that requiring test
laboratories to include cycle time measurement would not increase test
burden. DOE also determines that defining the annual standby mode and
off mode hours using the measured average cycle time would provide a
more representative basis for determining the energy consumption in the
combined low-power modes for the specific clothes washer under test.
With regard to AHAM's comment opposing the proposed cycle time
measurement on the basis that DOE accounts for cycle time in its
evaluation of possible amended standards, DOE notes that the purpose of
implementing a measurement of cycle time in the test procedure would
differ from the purpose of evaluating cycle time as part of an energy
conservation standards analysis. In an energy conservation standards
analysis, cycle time could be evaluated, for example, to determine
whether higher efficiency levels under consideration would require
longer cycle times. Whereas, the purpose of the cycle time measurement
as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR is to provide a more
representative allocation of standby and off mode hours for a unit
under test. Evaluating cycle time as part of an energy conservation
standards analysis would not contribute to providing more
representative test results when testing to the DOE test procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the September 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with
the September 2021 NOPR, to require cycle time measurement in new
appendix J. As discussed in section III.G.3 of this document, also
consistent with the September 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes its proposal to
base the allocation of annual combined low-power mode hours on the
measured average cycle time rather than a fixed value of 8,465 hours,
for the new appendix J.
DOE notes it is not amending the certification or reporting
requirements for clothes washers in this final rule to require
reporting of cycle time measurements. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to amend the certification requirements and reporting for
RCWs and CCWs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification.
b. Definition of Cycle Time
Section 3.2.8 of appendix J2 specifies that for each wash cycle
tested, include the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay
start or cycle finished modes. ``Active washing mode'' is defined in
section 1.2 of appendix J2 as ``a mode in which the clothes washer is
performing any of the operations included in a complete cycle intended
for washing a clothing load, including the main functions of washing,
soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing water from the
clothing.'' ``Delay start mode'' is defined in section 1.12 of appendix
J2 as ``an active mode in which activation of washing mode is
facilitated by a timer.'' ``Cycle finished mode'' is defined in section
1.11 of appendix J2 as ``an active mode that provides continuous status
display, intermittent tumbling, or air circulation following operation
in active washing mode.''
The Joint Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE further clarify
the definition of a clothes washer cycle. (Joint Efficiency Advocates,
No. 28 at p. 6) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that some
clothes washers may enter a new mode between the completion of the main
cycle and subsequent standby mode. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates
asserted that it is not clear whether energy usage in these scenarios
is being captured by either the active mode or standby mode testing.
(Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates also noted that, while the DOE
test procedure for clothes dryers codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D2 (``appendix D2'') specifies when the cycle shall be
considered complete, there is no clear definition of what constitutes
the beginning and end of a clothes washer cycle in the new appendix J.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE provide additional details in new
appendix J to better define cycle time, stating that on some clothes
washers the end of the cycle is unclear. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2) For
example, the CA IOUs noted that some clothes washers have wrinkle-free
settings in which the clothes washer tumbles the clothes once every 15
minutes for up to 12 hours after the cycle has finished. (Id.) The CA
IOUs suggested that, similar to the way appendix D2 treats clothes
dryers with similar wrinkle-free settings, DOE should include these
types of extended cycle operations in the test procedure if they are
activated by default or instructed by the manufacturer for normal use.
(Id.)

[[Page 33341]]

In response to the Joint Efficiency Advocates and the CA IOUs'
requests to clarify the cycle time definition, DOE reiterates that the
requirement of section 3.2.8 in appendix J2 (and section 3.2.5 of
appendix J as proposed) states explicitly that each wash cycle must
include the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay start or
cycle finished modes. A mode between completion of the main cycle and
subsequent standby mode (including, for example, a wrinkle-free setting
described by the CA IOUs), would be considered a cycle finished mode.
DOE determines that the specification in section 3.2.8 of appendix J2
and section 3.2.5 of new appendix J to include only active washing
mode, and to exclude delay start and cycle finish modes, provides
sufficient specification regarding the wash cycle operations that
comprise a complete cycle, and on which the measurement of cycle time
is to be based.
For these reasons, DOE is not adding a definition of cycle time to
either appendix J2 or new appendix J.
Regarding the suggestion by CA IOUs that DOE include extended cycle
operations in the test procedure if they are activated by def

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 1, 2022.

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.