Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes Washers, 69870-69893 [2011-28543]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69870-69893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28543]



[[Page 69869]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 217

November 9, 2011

Part III





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 69870]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0021]
RIN 1904-AC08r


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential 
Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR), 
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its test 
procedure for residential clothes washers established under the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). DOE proposes to amend the 
definition of the energy test cycle to provide further clarity to 
ensure that the test procedure is representative of consumer behavior 
and repeatable among different test laboratories. This proposal 
incorporates suggestions received from interested parties in response 
to the September 21, 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and the 
August 9, 2011 SNOPR.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
SNOPR no later than December 9, 2011. See section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR for Test 
Procedures for residential clothes washers (energy test cycle), and 
provide docket number EERE-2011-BT-TP-0021 and/or regulatory 
information number (RIN) number 1904-AC08. Comments may be submitted 
using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: RES-CW-2010-TP-0021@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-TP-0021, including 
Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting attendee 
lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/
materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index 
may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from 
public disclosure. The regulations.gov web page contains instructions 
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 
docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments through 
regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 
586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7463. Email: 
Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: 
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Today's Proposed Revision for Part (B) of the Energy Test 
Cycle
    B. Discussion of Energy Test Cycle Definition
    1. Background
    2. September 2010 NOPR Proposal and Comments Received
    3. August 2011 SNOPR Proposal and Comments Received
    4. DOE Response to All Comments
    a. Vague Language
    b. Elimination of Part (B)
    c. Representativeness
    d. Test Burden
    e. Manufacturer Default Settings
    f. Suggested Alternative Definitions
    g. Definition of the Start and End of Each Cycle
    C. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
    1. Test Burden
    2. Commercial Clothes Washers
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
V. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments

I. Authority and Background

    The statutory authority and background for this SNOPR are the same 
as that published in: (1) DOE's notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to 
amend the test procedure for residential clothes washers, published in 
September 2010 (75 FR 57556, Sept. 21, 2010) (September 2010 NOPR); and 
(2) DOE's recent SNOPR to address the incorporation of certain 
provisions of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) into the test procedure (76 FR 
49238, Aug. 9, 2011) (August 2011 SNOPR). Please see the September 2010 
NOPR and August 2011 SNOPR for further details.

II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The revised clothes washer test procedure amendments DOE is 
proposing in today's SNOPR would update the definition of the energy 
test cycle. The proposed definition would apply to the revised test 
procedure to be published at appendix J2 at 10 CFR 430 subpart B. At 
the end of this SNOPR, DOE sets forth the proposed regulatory text from 
DOE's proposed test procedure amendments in the September 2010 NOPR, as 
amended by the August 2011 SNOPR and today's proposals.
    Today's SNOPR covers only the energy test cycle definition. DOE 
will discuss all other aspects of the proposed test procedure 
revisions, and respond to comments received from interested parties on 
those aspects of the proposed revisions, in the final rule.

III. Discussion

A. Today's Proposed Revision for Part (B) of the Energy Test Cycle

    Based on the discussion of comments in the following sections, DOE 
proposes in today's SNOPR to modify the definition of the energy test 
cycle as follows:

    Energy test cycle for a basic model means:
    (A) The cycle setting recommended by the manufacturer for 
washing cotton or linen clothes, and includes all wash/rinse 
temperature selections offered in that cycle setting, and
    (B) if the cycle setting described in (A) does not include all 
wash/rinse temperature combinations available on the clothes

[[Page 69871]]

washer, the energy test cycle shall also include the alternate cycle 
setting(s) offering these wash/rinse temperature combination(s), 
tested at the wash/rinse temperature combinations not available on 
the cycle setting described in (A).
    Where multiple alternate cycle settings offer a wash/rinse 
temperature combination that is not available on the cycle setting 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, 
the cycle setting certified by the manufacturer to have the highest 
energy consumption, as measured according to section 2.13, shall be 
included in the energy test cycle.
    (C) All cycle settings included under part (A) and part (B) 
shall be tested using each appropriate load size as defined in 
section 2.8 and Table 5.1.
    (D) For any cycle setting tested under (A) or (B), the 
manufacturer default settings shall be used, except for the 
temperature selection, if necessary. This includes wash conditions 
such as agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin speed(s), wash 
times, rinse times, and all other wash parameters or optional 
features applicable to that cycle, including water heating time for 
water heating clothes washers. Each wash cycle included as part of 
the energy test cycle shall comprise the entire active washing mode 
and exclude any delay start or cycle finished modes.

    DOE also proposes to add a new section 2.13 to the revised test 
procedure as follows:
2.13 Energy Consumption for the Purpose of Certifying the Cycle 
Setting(s) To Be Included in Part (B) of the Energy Test Cycle 
Definition
    Where multiple alternate cycle settings offer a wash/rinse 
temperature combination not available on the cycle setting recommended 
by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, the cycle 
setting with the highest energy consumption, as measured according to 
this section, shall be included in the energy test cycle.
    To determine which cycle setting has the highest energy 
consumption, establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2 of 
this test procedure. Select the applicable cycle setting and 
temperature combination. Use the manufacturer default settings for 
agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin speed(s), wash times, 
rinse times, and all other wash parameters or optional features 
applicable to that cycle, including water heating time for water 
heating clothes washers. Each wash cycle tested under this section 
shall comprise the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay 
start or cycle finished modes.
    To identify the cycle setting with the highest energy consumption, 
use the clothes washer's maximum test load size, determined from Table 
5.1. For clothes washers with a manual water fill control system, user-
adjustable adaptive water fill control system, or adaptive water fill 
control system with alternate manual water fill control system, use the 
water fill selector setting resulting in the maximum water level 
available for each cycle setting.
    Measure each cycle setting's electrical energy consumption 
(EB) and hot water consumption (HB). Calculate 
the total energy consumption for each cycle setting (ETB), 
as follows:

ETB = EB + (HB x T x K)

Where:

EB is the electrical energy consumption, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours per cycle.
HB is the hot water consumption, expressed in gallons per 
cycle.
T = temperature rise = 75 [deg]F (41.7 [deg]C)
K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree F = 
0.00240 (0.00114 kWh/L-[deg]C)

    The provisions proposed in today's rule would be set forth in 
appendix J2 and would become effective 30 days after the date of 
publication in the Federal Register of the final rule in this test 
procedure rulemaking. DOE would clarify in the published amended test 
procedures, however, that manufacturers would be required to use 
amended appendix J1 until the compliance date of any final rule 
establishing amended energy conservation standards that addresses 
standby and off mode power consumption for these products. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(C). At such time, manufacturers would begin using the test 
procedures in appendix J2. DOE notes that until use of appendix J2 is 
required, DOE's guidance on warm rinse and capacity measurement, 
available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html, is still applicable.

B. Discussion of Energy Test Cycle Definition

    The following sections summarize DOE's previous proposals regarding 
the energy test cycle definition as well as comments received from 
interested parties. Section III.B.1 provides background on the 
definition of the energy test cycle. Section III.B.2 summarizes DOE's 
proposal published in the September 2010 NOPR and the comments received 
from interested parties on the energy test cycle definition. Section 
III.B.3 summarizes DOE's proposal published in the August 2011 SNOPR 
and the comments received from interested parties on the energy test 
cycle definition. Section III.B.4 provides DOE's responses to all 
comments received from both the September 2010 NOPR and August 2011 
SNOPR that resulted in the proposal stated in section III.A.
1. Background
    The ``energy test cycle'' comprises all the wash/rinse temperature 
selections currently used in determining the modified energy factor 
(MEF) and water factor (WF) for a clothes washer, and proposed to be 
used for determining integrated modified energy factor (IMEF) and 
integrated water consumption factor (IWF). The energy test cycle is 
defined in section 1.7 of the current clothes washer test procedure as 
follows:

    1.7 Energy test cycle for a basic model means (A) The cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, 
and includes all wash/rinse temperature selections and water levels 
offered in that cycle, and (B) for each other wash/rinse temperature 
selection or water level available on that basic model, the 
portion(s) of other cycle(s) with that temperature selection or 
water level that, when tested pursuant to these test procedures, 
will contribute to an accurate representation of the energy 
consumption of the basic model as used by consumers. Any cycle under 
(A) or (B) shall include the agitation/tumble operation, spin 
speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to that cycle, 
including water heating time for water heating clothes washers.

10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix J1
    The cycle setting recommended for washing cotton or linen clothes 
is commonly referred to as the ``Normal'' setting. DOE has observed 
that on clothes washers with electronic control panels, certain wash/
rinse temperature combinations are commonly ``locked out'' of the 
Normal setting. In such cases, these wash/rinse temperatures can be 
accessed only by switching the control panel selection dial to one of 
the other settings (e.g. ``Whites'', ``Heavy Duty'', ``Casual'', 
``Permanent Press'', etc.). DOE has observed that the extra-hot wash/
cold rinse and/or warm wash/warm rinse temperature combinations are 
locked out of the Normal setting on some clothes washer models that 
offer such selections.
    In cases where certain wash/rinse combinations are locked out of 
the Normal setting, manufacturers may test only the temperature 
selections available on the Normal setting, despite being able to 
access other wash/rinse temperature selections on other settings. 
Testing only the wash temperature selections available in the Normal 
setting may neglect part (B) of the energy test cycle definition, which 
requires manufacturers to switch out of the Normal setting to a 
different setting that allows the other temperature

[[Page 69872]]

combinations to be selected and tested, if such testing ``will 
contribute to an accurate representation of energy consumption as used 
by consumers.'' Because the temperature selections typically locked out 
of the Normal setting are those that use greater quantities of hot 
water and thus have higher water heating energy consumption, excluding 
them from the energy test cycle could increase a clothes washer's MEF, 
while not accurately representing the energy consumption of a 
particular machine as used by the consumer.
2. September 2010 NOPR Proposal and Comments Received
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE noted that the specific language 
requiring manufacturers to test different temperature selections if 
such testing ``contribute[s] to an accurate representation of energy 
consumption as used by consumers'' has caused some confusion and 
differences in interpretation among manufacturers and independent test 
laboratories. DOE believes the energy test cycle definition must be 
clear, uniformly understood, and able to be interpreted consistently by 
manufacturers, competitors, and independent test laboratories without 
subjective judgment or reliance on proprietary data.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend part (B) of the 
energy test cycle definition to provide clarity in determining whether 
to test temperature selections that are available on the clothes washer 
but locked out of the Normal setting. Specifically, DOE proposed 
modifying part (B) as follows:

    ``* * * (B) if the cycle described in (A) Does not include all 
wash/rinse temperature settings available on the clothes washer and 
required for testing as described in this test procedure, the energy 
test cycle shall also include the portions of a cycle setting 
offering these wash/rinse temperature settings with agitation/tumble 
operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times that are 
largely comparable to those for the cycle recommended by the 
manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes. Any cycle under 
(A) or (B) shall include the default agitation/tumble operation, 
soil level, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to 
that cycle, including water heating time for water heating clothes 
washers.'' 75 FR 57556, 57575-76 (Sept. 21, 2010).

    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) commented 
that DOE's proposal in the September 2010 NOPR to amend part (B) of the 
energy test cycle definition was vague, undefined, and included a 
significant amount of variability. AHAM noted that variability in a 
test procedure has substantial consequences for manufacturers, and that 
the test procedure must be clear and be uniformly understood to avoid 
significant variations in testing across laboratories or technicians. 
(AHAM, No. 14 at p. 15) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, No. 14 at p. 5'' identifies a 
written comment made by AHAM; recorded in document number 14 that is 
filed in the docket of the clothes washer test procedure rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0021); that appears on page 5 of 
document number 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS) commented that DOE's proposal is 
vague and the proposal would require applying consumer usage factors to 
all available settings other than the Normal setting. ALS believes that 
different certification test laboratories could not apply part (B) in 
any meaningful and consistent manner. Further, ALS believes the burden 
on manufacturers and test laboratories to try to utilize part (B) would 
be significant and likely unbearable. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 5)
    Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) commented that the term ``largely 
comparable'' in the proposed part (B) definition is not clear and is 
open to the same type of interpretation and confusion that currently 
exists, and strongly urged DOE to revise its proposed definition. 
(Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 13)
    BSH Home Appliances (BSH) commented that, while it generally agrees 
with the proposal to measure a complete warm wash/warm rinse cycle, the 
problems suggested by DOE that prompted the proposed revision of part 
(B) would return with the proposed wording of the energy test cycle 
definition. BSH stated that numerous portions of cycles without defined 
start and end points would need to be incorporated into energy data 
depending on the interpretation of the words ``largely comparable.'' 
According to BSH, assembling portions of cycles to test under part (B) 
would not represent a cycle setting that a consumer could ever select, 
and thus would not be representative of actual consumer usage. (BSH, 
No. 20 at p. 4; BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 188-189) 
BSH further stated that it opposes the proposed definition of the 
energy test cycle for the following reasons: (1) The proposed 
definition would lead to questions about which of the ``largely 
comparable'' cycle settings is the ``worst case'' (e.g., the cycle 
setting with the highest energy consumption but not the highest water 
consumption, the cycle setting with the highest water consumption but 
not the highest energy consumption, etcetera); (2) the uncertainty in 
interpreting the phrase ``contributes to an accurate representation of 
the energy consumption'' would be replaced with similar uncertainty in 
interpreting the phrase ``largely comparable.'' Accordingly, BSH 
questioned what threshold criteria would be used to determine whether a 
setting is close enough to the Normal setting to be considered 
comparable. BSH believes that the proposed definition could lead to 
every cycle setting having to be measured, with ``largely comparable'' 
being interpreted differently by manufacturers, certification bodies, 
and verification bodies. (BSH, No. 13 at p. 5; BSH, Public Meeting 
Transcript. No. 20 at pp. 188, 190, 193)
    GE Appliances & Lighting (GE) agreed with AHAM's comments and 
offered an alternative definition for the energy test cycle, as 
follows:

    Energy test cycle for a basic model means (A) The cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, 
and includes all wash/rinse temperature selections and water levels 
offered in that cycle; and (B) If the cycle described in (A) does 
not include all wash/rinse temperature selections available on the 
clothes washer, and these selections are required for testing as 
described in this test procedure, then the energy test cycle shall 
include the other cycles available on the clothes washer tested only 
at the wash/rinse temperature selections which are not available on 
the cycle described in (A). If a wash/rinse temperature selection 
not available in the cycle described in (A) is available on multiple 
other cycles provided on the clothes washer, then each cycle with 
that wash/rinse temperature selection must be tested and the cycle 
resulting in the most energy usage will be included in the energy 
test cycle.'' (GE, No. 15 at pp. 1-2)

    GE expressed concern that the proposed definition supplied in the 
September 2010 NOPR may result in different interpretations of what 
should be included in the energy test cycle. Specifically, GE commented 
that the interpretation of what would be considered ``largely 
comparable to a cottons or linens cycle'' could be variable and affect 
the results of an energy test. GE stated that its proposed definition 
would clarify the definition and remove as much interpretation as 
possible. (GE, No. 15 at pp. 1-2)
    Springboard Engineering (Springboard) interpreted the proposed 
definition in part (B) as requiring the warm wash/warm rinse 
temperature combination to be tested, but questioned whether the 
proposed definition provides enough direction such that different test 
laboratories would select similar cycle settings on the same clothes 
washer. Springboard noted, for example, that some clothes washers

[[Page 69873]]

have three or more warm wash/warm rinse settings to choose among, and 
different laboratories might use different criteria to select which 
setting to include in the energy test cycle. Springboard stated that it 
would choose the cycle setting similar in time and agitation to the 
Normal setting; however, Springboard noted that the possibility that 
one laboratory could select the ``Colors'' setting, for example, while 
another might select the ``Permanent Press'' setting, which could 
produce different measured performance. According to Springboard, 
different settings may not have the same wash and rinse temperatures or 
spin speeds, but such information would not be known without first 
testing each setting on the clothes washer and comparing the hot water 
usage. Springboard believes that these tests could increase the test 
burden. (Springboard, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) Springboard also noted that 
the different warm wash/warm rinse settings on a clothes washer may 
have different spin speeds, which will affect the remaining moisture 
content (RMC) and MEF calculation. Id. Furthermore, Springboard 
commented that some laboratories may interpret that a ``Sanitize'' 
setting with extra-hot wash would not have to be tested because it is 
not comparable to the Normal setting. Springboard questioned whether 
the intention of part (B) is to test the extra-hot wash temperature 
combination, even if it has to be selected with a different setting 
such as the ``Sanitize'' setting. (Springboard, No. 11 at p. 2)
    The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) supports DOE's 
proposal to account for temperature options available outside the 
``Normal'' setting. NEEA believes DOE clarified this provision in the 
proposed language change for part (B) of the energy test cycle. (NEEA, 
No. 12 at p. 14)
3. August 2011 SNOPR Proposal and Comments Received
    In testing conducted since the September 2010 NOPR, DOE observed 
that some clothes washers retain in memory the most recent options 
selected for a cycle setting the next time that cycle is run. To ensure 
repeatability of test results, particularly for cycles under part (B) 
of the energy test cycle definition, DOE proposed in the August 2011 
SNOPR to further clarify that the manufacturer default conditions for 
each cycle setting shall be used, except for the temperature selection, 
if necessary. For example, if the extra-hot temperature selection was 
only available on the ``Whites'' setting, the manufacturer would use 
the Whites setting to test that temperature option. If the default wash 
temperature for the Whites setting was warm or hot, however, the 
manufacturer would have to manually adjust the temperature to obtain 
the extra-hot wash temperature. For certification testing in this 
illustrative case, the manufacturer would use the default settings on 
the Whites setting for all options except the temperature selection, 
which would be manually adjusted to achieve the desired temperature.
    In addition, DOE proposed in the August 2011 SNOPR to delete the 
phrase, ``and required for testing as described in this test 
procedure'' from part (B) as redundant and unnecessary.
    In response to the revised proposal in the August 2011 SNOPR, AHAM 
stated that it opposes including the phrase, ``the manufacturer default 
settings for each cycle setting shall be used, except for the 
temperature selection'' in the energy test cycle definition. AHAM 
believes the proposed clarification is vague because it is open to 
interpretation by manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 5) AHAM further 
stated generally that the proposed clarification to the energy test 
cycle definition, as well as the existing part (B) of the definition, 
represent significant test burden with no corresponding benefit because 
the results are not representative of actual consumer use. (AHAM, No. 
24 at p. 5)
    ALS opposed the proposed clarification to part (B) of the energy 
test cycle definition, stating that the phrase ``largely comparable'' 
is vague and open to interpretation. (ALS, No. 22 at p. 2) ALS proposed 
eliminating part (B) of the energy test cycle definition entirely, due 
to the test burden associated with measuring energy use in every 
possible cycle option. ALS proposed implementing only part (A) of the 
energy test cycle definition, which is ``the cycle recommended by the 
manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, and includes all the 
wash/rinse temperature selections and water levels offered in that 
cycle.'' (ALS, No. 22 at p. 2) ALS supports DOE's proposal to clarify 
that the manufacturer's default settings be utilized in the energy test 
cycle definition. (ALS, No. 22 at p. 2)
    Whirlpool disagreed with part (B) of the energy test cycle 
definition as proposed in the August 2011 SNOPR. Whirlpool stated that 
part (B) would require including temperature/water level options not 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton and linen clothing 
because they may lead to clothing damage such as shrinkage, dye 
transfer, puckering, or other outcomes unacceptable to the consumer. 
(Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2) Whirlpool stated that it possesses 
proprietary consumer data suggesting that steam and Sanitize cycle 
settings are used infrequently, warranting their exclusion from the 
energy test cycle definition. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2) Whirlpool 
proposes the following definition for the energy test cycle:

    ``Energy test cycle for a basic model means the cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, 
and includes all wash/rinse temperature selections and water levels 
offered in that cycle. If a particular wash/rinse temperature 
selection or water level is available on the basic model, but is not 
available for selection in the cycle recommended by the manufacturer 
for washing cotton or linen clothes (i.e., is locked out of the 
cycle), then that temperature selection and/or water level shall not 
be included in the energy test cycle.'' (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2).

    Whirlpool, ALS, and GE (hereafter referred to as the ``Joint 
Manufacturers'') submitted a joint comment on the August 2011 SNOPR. 
The Joint Manufacturers agree with AHAM that DOE's proposed amendment 
to part (B) in the August 2011 SNOPR is vague because it is open to a 
significant amount of interpretation by manufacturers. (Joint 
Manufacturers, No. 28 at p. 1) The Joint Manufacturers further agree 
with AHAM that the cycle setting recommended for washing cotton or 
linen clothes is the cycle setting that is most representative of 
consumer use, and if the consumer cannot select a temperature for that 
cycle setting, then it is not representative to arbitrarily select 
other settings that have that temperature option. The Joint 
Manufacturers stated that requiring arbitrary selection of temperatures 
adds ambiguity to the test procedure, which results in variability. The 
Joint Manufacturers urged DOE to eliminate part (B) from the proposed 
definition of the energy test cycle. Id.
    The Joint Manufacturers further stated that if DOE nevertheless 
decides to retain part (B) of the energy test cycle definition, the 
following revised language should be used for part (B):

    ``* * * (B) if the cycle described in (A) does not include a 
water heating option and the clothes washer has a water heating 
temperature selection or cycle available, the cycle and temperature 
selection recommended by the manufacturer for sanitization, 
disinfection or similar must be included in the energy test cycle. 
In the case of multiple such cycles, the cycle using the most energy 
at the manufacturer default setting must be chosen. If the clothes 
washer has a water heating option and the manufacturer does not 
recommend a cycle for sanitization, disinfection, or similar, the 
energy test cycle shall include the water

[[Page 69874]]

heating cycle and temperature selection with the manufacturer's 
default cycle time. Again, in the case of multiple such cycles the 
cycle using the most energy at the manufacturer default setting must 
be chosen. Any cycle under (A) or (B) shall include the 
manufacturer's default agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin 
speeds, wash times, and rinse times applicable to that cycle, 
including water heating time for water heating clothes washers.'' 
(Joint Manufacturers, No. 28 at pp. 1-2; Whirlpool, No. 27 at pp. 2-
3).

    NEEA agrees with DOE's proposed changes to the energy test cycle 
definition. However, NEEA believes that the point at which the test 
cycle starts and ends is not defined in the clothes washer test 
procedure. (NEEA, No. 26 at p. 4) NEEA questioned whether the beginning 
of the energy test cycle could be defined as the beginning of the 
delayed wash cycle, if any; and whether the end of the energy test 
cycle could be defined as the beginning of the ``inactive'' mode. 
(NEEA, No. 26 at p. 4) NEEA stated that defining the energy test cycle 
as starting with the activation of the ``delay start'' mode, if any 
(with the duration specified) and ending with the beginning of the 
inactive mode (with the duration of the ``cycle finished'' mode, if 
any, specified, either in minutes or number of cycles, or both), would 
simplify and clarify the test procedure. NEEA believes that while this 
could lengthen the energy test cycle itself, a greater amount of 
testing time could be saved by not having to set up and measure the 
``delay start'' and ``cycle finished'' modes separately. (NEEA, No. 26 
at p. 4).
4. DOE Response to All Comments
    As outlined in the previous sections, the comments DOE received 
from interested parties collectively identify seven concerns related to 
its proposed energy test cycle definition:
    (1) Vague language. The proposed definition is vague and would lead 
to significant variability in interpretation; particularly the phrase 
``largely comparable.''
    (2) Elimination of part (B). Including part (B) may not provide 
benefit to the public interest and should be eliminated entirely.
    (3) Representativeness. The cycles required to be tested under the 
proposed part (B) are not representative of typical consumer usage 
patterns.
    (4) Test burden. Third party laboratories could be required to test 
numerous alternate cycle settings to determine which cycles are largely 
comparable to the normal cycle, which could significantly increase test 
burden.
    (5) Manufacturer default settings. The energy test cycle definition 
should clearly specify whether the manufacturer default settings should 
be used, and if so, should clarify which default settings to use.
    (6) Suggested alternative definitions. Interested parties suggested 
several alternatives for defining the energy test cycle.
    (7) Definition of the start and end of each cycle. The energy test 
cycle definition should clearly define what constitutes the start and 
end of each active wash cycle.
    The following sections provide DOE's responses to each of these 
issues.
a. Vague Language
    Interested parties generally commented that DOE's proposed change 
to part (B) of the energy test cycle definition would create just as 
much confusion as the current definition. Specifically, interested 
parties believe that the proposed definition does not provide clear 
enough guidance on how to determine whether a cycle setting is 
``largely comparable'' to the Normal setting, which would lead to 
significant variability in interpretation and test results.
    DOE intended the proposed definition to specify that the 
determination of whether to include a cycle setting under part (B) of 
the energy test cycle should be made by comparing the agitation/tumble 
operation, spin speeds, wash times, and rinse times to those of the 
Normal setting. DOE acknowledges, however, that the proposed definition 
does not clearly define the boundaries of term ``largely comparable,'' 
leaving this determination to the subjective judgment of the test 
laboratory.
    As stated earlier, DOE believes the energy test cycle definition 
must be clear, uniformly understood, and able to be interpreted 
consistently by manufacturers, competitors, and independent test 
laboratories without subjective judgment or reliance on proprietary 
data. DOE notes that under the alternative definitions proposed by the 
Joint Manufacturers, the determination of which cycle settings to 
include under part (B) would be based on an objective numerical 
criterion readily determined by any test laboratory: The cycle setting 
using the most energy.
    DOE recognizes that there are other possible numerical criteria for 
determining whether a cycle setting should be included in the energy 
test cycle under part (B) of the definition, including the cycle 
setting using the least energy, the cycle setting with energy 
consumption most similar to that of the Normal setting, or cycle 
settings above or below a certain energy consumption threshold.
    DOE proposes, however, that including the cycle setting that uses 
the most energy would be the most appropriate, objective criterion for 
determining which cycle setting should be included under part (B) of 
the energy test cycle. This approach would ensure that clothes washers 
requiring testing under part (B) of the energy test cycle meet the 
applicable energy conservation standard when the maximum energy 
consumption representative of average consumer use is tested. This 
approach would also provide clarity by requiring only a single variable 
to be considered to make the determination. Therefore, DOE proposes in 
today's SNOPR that for each wash/rinse temperature combination not 
available under the Normal setting, the alternate cycle setting that 
uses the most energy must be chosen in the case where multiple 
alternate cycle settings offer that wash/rinse temperature combination.
    DOE notes that this criterion requires a clear definition of which 
components of energy consumption should be included in the measurement 
of each cycle setting's energy consumption--e.g. electrical energy, hot 
water energy, energy required for moisture removal (i.e., dryer 
energy), or a combination of these three energy components. DOE 
proposes that the machine electrical energy be included because this is 
a direct measure of a form of energy consumption by the clothes washer. 
DOE also proposes that the hot water energy be included for the 
following reasons: (1) Water temperature is the key characteristic that 
determines the need for testing under part (B) of the energy test cycle 
definition; (2) water temperature is often one of the primary 
parameters that consumers consider when selecting a wash/rinse cycle; 
(3) water heating energy represents a significant portion of a cycle's 
total energy consumption; (4) the test procedure already requires 
measuring hot water consumption for each tested cycle; and (5) a simple 
equation can be used to translate hot water quantity into hot water 
heating energy.
    DOE does not propose to include the drying energy in the 
determination of which cycle settings should be tested under part (B) 
of the energy test cycle. DOE lacks information on whether an RMC value 
that would be measured in alternate cycle settings would be comparable 
or analogous to the current RMC metric from which drying energy is 
calculated. Currently, RMC is determined for a clothes washer based on 
the results of only the cold wash/cold rinse cycle and the warm wash/

[[Page 69875]]

warm rinse cycle (if available), at minimum and maximum spin speeds (if 
available), using the maximum load size. Depending on the clothes 
washer, this corresponds to between one and four dedicated RMC tests 
and could significantly increase the test burden if required to be 
performed for each alternate cycle setting. The weighted-average value 
obtained from these RMC tests is calculated and considered to be the 
average RMC value for the clothes washer, across all cycles. Requiring 
the measurement of RMC for the individual cycles comprising the energy 
test cycle would be inconsistent with this methodology. Determining the 
energy required for moisture removal would require weighing the test 
cloth before and after each cycle to determine its remaining moisture 
content, which would also impose additional test burden. DOE further 
believes that in many circumstances, consumers may not be aware of 
variations in spin speed if that information is not displayed on the 
front panel of the clothes washer.
    For these reasons, DOE does not believe that the drying energy 
should be included in determining whether a cycle setting should be 
tested under part (B) of the energy test cycle. Therefore, DOE proposes 
in today's SNOPR to include the machine electrical energy consumption 
and hot water energy consumption when determining each cycle setting's 
total energy consumption, in the identification of the cycle setting 
that uses the most energy for each wash/rinse temperature combination 
to be tested under part (B) of the energy test cycle.
    Further, DOE notes that in sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.6 of the current 
test procedure, machine electrical energy and hot water energy are 
calculated as the weighted averages of each tested load size. Requiring 
the testing of multiple load sizes for the purpose of determining which 
cycle setting to select for part (B) of the energy test cycle, however, 
would unduly increase the test burden. Therefore, DOE proposes in 
today's SNOPR to require testing only the clothes washer's maximum load 
size, determined from Table 5.1, for the purpose of comparing the 
energy consumption of the alternate cycle settings considered under 
part (B) of the energy test cycle. Using the maximum load size will 
produce the most consistent, repeatable, and conservative results.
    In addition, DOE notes inconsistent usage of the word ``cycle'' in 
the energy test cycle definition. In some instances, the word ``cycle'' 
refers to the labeled program setting on the clothes washer (e.g. 
``Normal'', ``Whites'', ``Colors'', etc.). In other instances, the word 
``cycle'' refers to an individual wash/rinse cycle performed during 
active wash mode (e.g. a cold wash/cold rinse cycle). To help reduce 
this ambiguity, DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to modify the 
nomenclature by using the term ``cycle setting'' to indicate the 
labeled program setting on the clothes washer, and the term ``cycle'' 
to indicate an individual wash/rinse cycle.
b. Elimination of Part (B)
    As described in previous sections, manufacturers and AHAM commented 
that DOE should eliminate part (B) of the energy test cycle definition, 
while NEEA supports keeping part (B) to account for temperature options 
available outside the Normal setting.
    Wash/rinse temperature combinations locked out of the Normal 
setting should also be included in the energy test cycle, and doing so 
is representative of average consumer use according to the temperature 
use factors (TUFs) in the test procedure. DOE is unaware of any 
publicly available data indicating the frequency with which consumers 
select the Normal setting versus other cycle settings. However, DOE 
notes that the TUFs in the test procedure were developed to represent 
consumer selection of different temperature options available on a 
clothes washer. Each TUF represents the frequency with which consumers 
select a particular temperature option on machines offering that 
temperature option. The TUFs do not represent the frequency with which 
consumers select a particular temperature option among all clothes 
washers on the market. For example, if a particular clothes washer 
offers a warm rinse option, the warm rinse TUF indicates that the 
typical consumer using that clothes washer will select the warm rinse 
option for 27 percent of all wash loads. DOE believes that the energy 
test cycle proposed in section III.A, which requires use of part (B) of 
the definition if part (A) does not include all wash/rinse temperature 
combinations available on the machine, should include any temperature 
combination for which a TUF has been developed.
    If part (B) of the energy test cycle were to be eliminated, only 
the temperature options available in the Normal setting would be 
required for testing. Under this scenario, if one clothes washer 
offered all available temperature options in the Normal setting, while 
a second clothes washer offered the same temperature options but with a 
subset of those temperatures locked out of the Normal setting, the 
locked out temperature options on the second clothes washer would not 
be factored into its energy efficiency rating. This would imply that 
consumer behavior would differ for these two clothes washers; i.e., 
that consumers would select the locked out temperature combinations 
less frequently on the second machine. DOE is not aware of any data 
that quantifies how consumers may adjust their behavior based on the 
cycle setting for which a particular temperature option is available 
(e.g. ``Normal'', ``Whites'', ``Colors'', etc.) rather than on the 
desired temperature option itself.
    In addition, if DOE eliminated part (B) from the energy test cycle 
definition, manufacturers could arbitrarily exclude temperatures from 
the Normal setting, thus excluding them from being tested under the DOE 
test procedure. In the most extreme case, a manufacturer could create a 
Normal setting that offers only cold water temperatures, and move all 
heated water cycles to alternate cycle settings on the machine. In this 
case, consumers would likely select the alternate cycle settings for a 
significant portion of wash cycles, yet only the cold cycle would be 
required for testing under the DOE test procedure.
    In summary, DOE believes that if a temperature combination is 
``locked out'' of the Normal cycle setting but exists on at least one 
alternate cycle setting, it should be included in the energy test cycle 
under the assumption that a consumer will switch to one of the 
alternate cycles to obtain that wash/rinse temperature combination. For 
the reasons stated above, DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to keep part 
(B) of the energy test cycle definition, and to require testing of all 
temperature combinations available on the machine, including any 
temperature options locked out of the Normal setting.
c. Representativeness
    Manufacturers and AHAM expressed concern that the wash cycles, or 
portions of wash cycles, required to be tested under part (B) are not 
representative of consumer usage patterns. As described in the previous 
section, DOE does not have data to verify how consumers may adjust 
their behavior based on the particular cycle setting for which a 
temperature option is available, rather than the desired temperature 
option itself.
    DOE acknowledges that the wording of part (B) in the current test 
procedure and DOE's proposals in the September 2010 NOPR and August 
2011 SNOPR include language referring to ``portion(s) of other cycle(s) 
with that temperature selection or water level * * *'' that may be 
interpreted in different ways. DOE

[[Page 69876]]

does not believe that the energy test cycle should include portions of 
individual wash cycles. DOE concurs with BSH that assembling portions 
of cycles to test under part (B) (i.e. testing the wash portion of one 
cycle in combination with the rinse portion of another cycle) would not 
represent a cycle that a consumer could select, and thus would not be 
representative of actual consumer usage. As a result, the energy test 
cycle should include only complete wash/rinse cycles as programmed on 
the clothes washer. Accordingly, DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to 
remove the phrase ``portion(s) of other cycles'' from the definition of 
energy test cycle.
d. Test Burden
    DOE acknowledges that the language it proposed in the September 
2010 NOPR and August 2011 SNOPR for part (B) of the energy test cycle 
could significantly increase test burden if a laboratory is required to 
test numerous alternate cycle settings to determine which cycles are 
largely comparable to the normal cycle. Under today's proposal, 
manufacturers would test all wash/rinse temperature combinations not 
available under part (A) of the energy test cycle definition. Where 
multiple cycle settings offer these wash/rinse temperature 
combinations, DOE proposes a clear, objective way for manufacturers to 
determine of which cycle(s) to include in the energy test cycle. DOE 
proposes that for each of these wash/rinse temperature combinations, 
manufacturers include the cycle setting that uses the most energy in 
the energy test cycle. DOE further proposes to require manufacturers to 
certify to DOE the specific cycle settings comprising the energy test 
cycle for each basic model of its clothes washer. This list of cycle 
settings would be provided to DOE and any test laboratory used by the 
manufacturer or DOE, so that neither DOE nor the test laboratory would 
be required to independently determine which cycles should be included. 
DOE believes that this proposal would eliminate a major source of 
ambiguity and inconsistency of test results among various laboratories.
    This proposal would require a manufacturer to provide to DOE as 
part of its certification the cycle settings that a manufacturer used 
to determine each clothes washer's energy efficiency rating. Under 
DOE's certification, compliance, and enforcement program in 10 CFR part 
429, subpart C, DOE can conduct assessment or enforcement testing to 
determine whether the manufacturer's declared energy test cycles are 
those cycles for a particular wash/rinse temperature combination that 
use the most energy.
e. Manufacturer Default Settings
    A typical clothes washer may allow the consumer to adjust certain 
parameters of a given cycle setting, such as wash/rinse temperature, 
water fill levels, soil level, agitation/tumble operation, spin speed, 
wash time, rinse time, and other optional features such as delay start, 
cycle-finished activity, steam injection, chemical dispensers, and 
signal sounds. For any active wash mode cycle included in the energy 
test cycle, the default manufacturer settings should be used for any 
parameter not explicitly specified by the test procedure because DOE is 
not aware of any data quantifying how often consumers select these 
optional features or deviate from the default manufacturer cycle 
settings. The test procedure specifies wash/rinse temperatures and 
water fill levels for all test cycles, and spin speeds for the RMC test 
cycles. DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to clarify in the definition of 
the energy test cycle that for any cycle setting tested under part (A) 
or (B), the manufacturer default parameters shall be used, except for 
the temperature selection, if necessary.
f. Suggested Alternative Definitions
    Several manufacturers suggested alternate definitions for the 
energy test cycle, including specific suggestions for part (B), as 
described previously in sections III.B.2 and III.B.3. In response to 
the August 2011 SNOPR, the Joint Manufacturers proposed language for 
part (B) that would require testing the extra-hot cycle on water 
heating clothes washers. The proposal suggested that in the case of 
multiple such cycles, the cycle using the most energy at the 
manufacturer default setting must be chosen.
    As described in the previous sections, DOE proposes that a cycle 
setting's energy consumption be used to determine whether that setting 
should be included under part (B). However, the definition proposed by 
the Joint Manufacturers would require testing only the extra-hot 
temperature setting under part (B). Under this proposal, if other wash/
rinse temperature combinations such as warm wash/warm rinse or hot 
wash/cold rinse were also locked out of the Normal setting, they would 
not be required for testing. In contrast, GE's proposed definition for 
part (B), submitted in response to the September 2010 NOPR, as 
discussed previously, would require testing all wash/rinse temperature 
selections available on the machine and not included in the Normal 
setting.
    DOE's proposed definition of energy test cycle would require 
testing of all wash/rinse temperature combinations available on the 
machine, not just the extra-hot temperature setting, to ensure that the 
definition is representative of average consumer use. As stated 
previously, DOE's proposed definition of energy test cycle would 
include any temperature combination for which a TUF has been developed. 
As stated above, if a ``locked out'' temperature combination exists on 
at least one alternate cycle setting, a setting with that temperature 
combination should be included in the energy test cycle because the 
TUFs indicate that a consumer will switch to one of the alternate 
settings to obtain that wash/rinse temperature combination.
    Therefore, DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to use the criteria 
suggested by the Joint Manufacturers for determining which cycle 
setting to choose under part (B), and to use language suggested by GE 
to require testing all wash/rinse temperature combinations available on 
the machine not included in the Normal setting. DOE's revised proposal 
for part (B) of the energy test cycle definition is set forth in 
section III.A.
g. Definition of the Start and End of Each Cycle
    As described previously, NEEA commented that the energy test cycle 
does not clearly define the start and end of each wash cycle tested 
under the energy test cycle. DOE has observed through its own testing 
that delay start and cycle finished features are typically available as 
optional features which are not activated by default. Thus, they would 
not be activated during the energy test cycle, and the start and finish 
of each wash cycle would be unambiguous. DOE acknowledges that as delay 
start and cycle finished features become more prevalent in the market, 
however, clothes washers could be manufactured that activate some of 
these features by default during any of the wash cycles comprising the 
energy test cycle. Therefore, DOE proposes to define the start and end 
of the energy test cycle more clearly.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed adding definitions for 
active washing mode, delay start mode, and cycle finished mode. DOE 
believes that these three definitions can be used to clarify the start 
and end of the energy test cycle. DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to 
specify that each cycle included as part of the energy test cycle 
comprises the entire active washing

[[Page 69877]]

mode, and excludes any delay start or cycle finished modes.

C. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden
    EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under 
this section be reasonably designed to produce test results that 
measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating 
cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or 
period of use. Test procedures must also not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    DOE determined that the proposed test procedure amendments in the 
September 2010 NOPR and August 2011 SNOPR satisfy these EPCA 
requirements, as described in those rulemaking documents. The proposals 
in today's SNOPR also satisfy these requirements, as described in the 
following paragraphs.
    Commenters stated that the proposed definition of energy test cycle 
in the September 2010 NOPR and August 2011 SNOPR would be vague and 
could significantly increase the testing burden. Today's proposal is 
intended to provide a clear, objective definition of energy test cycle 
and would require manufacturers to certify to DOE the list of cycle 
settings comprising the energy test cycle for each basic model of its 
clothes washers, so that testing laboratories would know which cycles 
to test. While the proposed definition of the energy test cycle would 
require testing additional wash cycles under part (B) to determine 
which cycle setting has the highest energy consumption, the 
manufacturer already possesses in-depth knowledge about the energy 
characteristics of each wash/rinse cycle offered on its clothes 
washers. Other test laboratories would not be required to conduct 
multiple tests to determine which cycle settings should be included 
under part (B) of the energy test cycle. Therefore, compared to the 
current test procedure, DOE expects that today's proposal could reduce 
the test burden, because it would remove the existing uncertainty as to 
which cycle settings should be selected.
2. Commercial Clothes Washers
    The test procedure for commercial clothes washers is required to be 
the same test procedure established for residential clothes washers. 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) Thus, the test procedure set forth in appendix 
J1 of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 is also currently used to test 
commercial clothes washers. (10 CFR part 431.154) The definition of the 
energy test cycle proposed in today's SNOPR could affect the 
measurement of active mode energy use. DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(3) provides that models of covered products in use before the 
date on which an amended energy conservation standard (developed using 
the amended test procedure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) becomes 
effective that comply with the energy conservation standard applicable 
to such covered products on the day before such date are deemed to 
comply with the amended standard. The same is true of revisions of such 
models that come into use after such date and have the same energy 
efficiency, energy use or water use characteristics.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the August 2011 SNOPR. An update to 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification is set forth below. Please 
see the August 2011 SNOPR for further details.

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: https://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed today's supplemental proposed rule under the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and 
policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE tentatively concluded that 
the September 2010 NOPR and August 2011 SNOPR would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and 
today's SNOPR contains no revisions to that proposal that would result 
in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
factual basis for this certification is as follows:
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity 
to be small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less 
than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These 
size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS 
classification code 335224, which applies to household laundry 
equipment manufacturers and includes clothes washer manufacturers, is 
1,000 employees. Searches of the SBA Web site \2\ to identify clothes 
washer manufacturers within these NAICS codes identified, out of 
approximately 17 manufacturers supplying clothes washers in the United 
States, only one small business. This small business manufactures 
laundry appliances, including clothes washers. The other manufacturers 
supplying clothes washers are large, multinational corporations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is 
available online at: https://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would amend DOE's test procedure by revising the 
definition of energy test cycle to more precisely define which cycles 
are required for testing under part (B) of the definition.
    DOE believes these additional requirements would not be expected to 
impose a significant economic burden on entities subject to the 
applicable testing requirements. Today's proposal is intended to 
provide a clear, objective definition of energy test cycle, which is 
expected to reduce the testing burden. The provisions in today's SNOPR 
would also require manufacturers to report to DOE the cycle settings 
comprising the complete energy test cycle for each basic model. 
Manufacturers already possess in-depth knowledge about the energy 
characteristics of each wash/rinse cycle offered on their clothes 
washers, so DOE expects manufacturers to experience little or no 
additional test burden due to today's proposed revisions.
    For these reasons, DOE certifies that if adopted, the September 
2010 NOPR, as modified by the August 2011 SNOPR and today's SNOPR, 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has previously 
transmitted the certification and supporting statement of factual basis 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b).

[[Page 69878]]

DOE seeks comment on the updated certification set forth above.

V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments
    Include contact inform