Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes Dryers, 49607-49651 [2013-18931]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 157
August 14, 2013
Part II
Department of Energy
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes
Dryers; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49608
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054]
RIN 1904–AC63
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Residential Clothes
Dryers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
On January 2, 2013, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
to amend the test procedures for
residential clothes dryers. DOE also
published a supplemental NOPR
(SNOPR) on February 7, 2013, to
propose additional amendments to the
clothes dryer test procedure. Those
proposed rulemakings serve as the basis
for today’s action. This final rule
updates the reference to the latest
edition of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Standard 62301, ‘‘Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power,’’ Edition 2.0 2011–01. For the
test procedures at both appendix D and
appendix D1 to the same subpart, DOE
is adopting amendments to clarify the
cycle settings used for the test cycle, the
requirements for the gas supply for gas
clothes dryers, the installation
conditions for console lights, the
method for measuring the drum
capacity, the maximum allowable
weighing scale range, and the allowable
use of a relative humidity meter. This
final rule also amends the DOE clothes
dryer test procedure to create a new
appendix D2 that includes the
amendments discussed above and
testing methods for more accurately
measuring the effects of automatic cycle
termination.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date
of this rule is September 13, 2013.
Compliance date: Compliance with
the amended test procedure in appendix
D for the purposes of compliance with
current energy conservation standards,
as well as representations, is required
beginning February 10, 2014 until
January 1, 2015. Compliance with the
amended test procedure in appendix D1
for the purpose of compliance with the
January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards, as well as representations, is
required beginning January 1, 2015.
Appendix D2 may be used for
informational purposes and compliance
with the provisions in appendix D2 may
be required at a later date. Voluntary
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
early compliance with appendix D1 or
appendix D2 is permitted.
Incorporation by reference: The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this rule was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register September 13, 2013.
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 regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#
!docketDetail;dct=FR%252B
PR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;r
pp=10;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054.
This Web page will contain a link to the
docket for this notice on the
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov
Web page will contain simple
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Stephen 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. Email:
clothes_dryers@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
1. January 2011 Final Rule
2. August 2011 RFI
3. January 2013 NOPR
4. February 2013 SNOPR
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Automatic Termination Control
Procedures.
B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition).
C. Clarifications to Test Conditions.
III. Discussion
A. Products Covered by This Test
Procedure Rulemaking
B. Automatic Cycle Termination
1. Joint Petition to Amend the Clothes
Dryer Test Procedure
2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis
3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed
Amendments and Today’s Final Rule
a. Definitions
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
b. Test Load
c. Automatic Termination Control Dryer
Test Cycle
d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer
Field Use Factor
e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the
Determination of the Completion of the
Test Cycle
f. New Appendix D2
C. Timed Dry Test Method
D. Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard
62301 Second Edition for Measuring
Standby Mode and Off Mode Power
E. Technical Correction to the Calculation
of the Per-cycle Combined Total Energy
Consumption
F. Clarifications to Test Conditions
1. Cycle Settings
2. Gas Supply Requirements
3. Console Lights
4. Drum Capacity Measurements
5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range
6. Relative Humidity Meter
G. Additional Test Procedure Issues
1. Consumer Usage Patterns and
Capabilities
a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles
b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content and
Moisture Removed During Test Cycle
c. Test Load Weight
d. Exhaust Conditions
2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight
Measurement
3. Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning
4. Room Ambient Humidity Requirements
5. Measurement of Drying Cycle Time
6. Clothes Dryer Energy Conservation
Standards
H. Effects of Proposed Test Procedure
Revisions on Compliance with Standards
1. Active Mode
2. Standby Mode and Off Mode
I. Compliance with Other EPCA
Requirements
1. Test Burden
2. Certification Requirements
3. Compliance date of final amended test
procedures
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets
forth a variety of provisions designed to
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
improve energy efficiency. (All
references to EPCA refer to the statute
as amended through the American
Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law
112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B of title
III, which for editorial reasons was
redesignated as Part A upon
incorporation into the U.S. Code (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified),
establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles.’’ These include
residential clothes dryers, the subject of
today’s notice. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8))
Under EPCA, the energy conservation
program consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. The testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must
use as the basis for (1) certifying to the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that
their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation
standards adopted under EPCA, and (2)
making representations about the
efficiency of those products. Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply
with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA provides that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section shall be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
shall not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a
test procedure amendment is warranted,
it must publish proposed test
procedures and offer the public an
opportunity to present oral and written
comments on them. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to
amend a test procedure, DOE must
determine to what extent, if any, the
proposed test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency of any
covered product as determined under
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the
amended test procedure would alter the
measured efficiency of a covered
product, DOE must amend the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
applicable energy conservation standard
accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
EPCA also requires DOE to amend the
test procedures for all residential
covered products to include measures of
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption. Specifically, EPCA
provides definitions of ‘‘standby mode’’
and ‘‘off mode’’ (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)) and permits DOE to
amend these definitions in the context
of a given product (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(B)). The statute requires
integration of such energy consumption
into the overall energy efficiency,
energy consumption, or other energy
descriptor for each covered product,
unless DOE determines that—
(i) the current test procedures for a
covered product already fully account
for and incorporate the standby mode
and off mode energy consumption of the
covered product; or
(ii) such an integrated test procedure
is technically infeasible for a particular
covered product, in which case the
Secretary shall prescribe a separate
standby mode and off mode energy use
test procedure for the covered product,
if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A))
In any test procedure amendment,
DOE must consider the most current
versions of International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Standard 62301, ‘‘Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power,’’ and IEC Standard 62087,
‘‘Methods of measurement for the power
consumption of audio, video, and
related equipment.’’ Id.
B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
DOE’s test procedures for clothes
dryers are codified in appendix D and
appendix D1 to subpart B of Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
DOE established its test procedure for
clothes dryers at appendix D in a final
rule published in the Federal Register
on September 14, 1977 (the September
1977 Final Rule). 42 FR 46145. On May
19, 1981, DOE published a final rule to
amend the test procedure by
establishing a field-use factor for clothes
dryers with automatic termination
controls, clarifying the test cloth
specifications and clothes dryer
preconditioning, and making editorial
and minor technical changes. 46 FR
27324. The test procedure includes
provisions for determining the energy
factor (EF) for clothes dryers, which is
a measure of the total energy required to
dry a standard test load of laundry to a
‘‘bone dry’’ 1 state.
1 ‘‘Bone dry’’ is defined in the DOE clothes dryer
test procedure as a condition of a load of test
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49609
1. January 2011 Final Rule
On January 6, 2011, DOE published in
the Federal Register a final rule for the
residential clothes dryer and room air
conditioner test procedure rulemaking
(76 FR 972) (January 2011 Final Rule),
in which it (1) adopted the provisions
for the measurement of standby mode
and off mode energy use for those
products; and (2) adopted several
amendments to the clothes dryer and
room air conditioner test procedures
concerning the active mode for these
products. 76 FR 972 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE
created a new appendix D1 in 10 CFR
part 430 subpart B that contained the
amended test procedure for clothes
dryers. Manufacturers must use the test
procedures in appendix D1 to
demonstrate compliance with energy
conservation standards for clothes
dryers as of January 1, 2015. (76 FR
52852 (Aug. 24, 2011), 76 FR 52854
(Aug. 24, 2011))
For clothes dryer standby mode and
off mode, the January 2011 Final Rule
amended the DOE clothes dryer test
procedure to incorporate by reference
specific clauses from the IEC Standard
62301, ‘‘Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power,’’ (first edition June 2005) (IEC
Standard 62301 First Edition) regarding
test conditions and test procedures for
measuring standby mode and off mode
power consumption, as well as language
to clarify application of these provisions
for measuring standby mode and off
mode power consumption in clothes
dryers. In addition, DOE adopted
definitions of modes based on the
relevant provisions from IEC Standard
62301 Second Edition Committee Draft
for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV).
DOE established the Combined Energy
Factor (CEF) for clothes dryers to
integrate energy use in the standby
mode and off mode with the energy use
of the main functions of the product.2
76 FR 972, 975–6 (Jan. 6, 2011).
For clothes dryer active mode, in the
January 2011 Final Rule, DOE adopted
testing methods for ventless clothes
dryers, test cloth preconditioning
requirements for clothes dryer energy
tests, test conditions for gas clothes
dryers, test conditions for clothes dryer
clothes which 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.
(10 CFR subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2)
2 The CEF is defined as the clothes dryer test load
weight in pounds divided by the sum of the percycle standby and off mode energy consumption
and either the total per-cycle electric dryer energy
consumption or the total per-cycle gas dryer energy
consumption expressed in kilowatt hours (kWh).
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49610
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
drum capacity measurement, and
amendments to reflect current clothes
dryer usage patterns and capabilities
and to update the references to the
relevant industry test standard
(Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HLD–
1–2009). 76 FR 972, 976–8 (Jan. 6,
2011).
In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE
did not adopt amendments to more
accurately measure automatic cycle
termination that were proposed earlier
in the rulemaking 3 because DOE
concluded that they did not adequately
measure the energy consumption of
clothes dryers equipped with such
systems using the test load specified in
the DOE test procedure. DOE stated that
clothes dryers with automatic
termination sensing control systems,
which infer the RMC 4 of the load from
the properties of the exhaust air such as
temperature and humidity, may be
designed to stop the cycle when a load
of varying weights, composition, and
size has a higher RMC than the RMC
obtained using the proposed automatic
cycle termination test procedure in
conjunction with the existing DOE test
load.5 In considering whether other test
loads would be appropriate to
incorporate into the DOE test procedure
to produce both representative and
repeatable test results, however, DOE
noted that manufacturers indicated that
test load types and test cloth materials
different than those specified in the
DOE test procedure do not produce
results as repeatable as those obtained
using the test load as currently
specified. 76 FR 977 (Jan. 6, 2011).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2. August 2011 RFI
On August 12, 2011, DOE published
a Request for Information (RFI) to
further investigate the effects of
automatic cycle termination on clothes
dryer energy efficiency (August 2011
RFI). 76 FR 50145. DOE sought
information, data, and comments
regarding methods for more accurately
3 The test method proposed in a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking involved testing
clothes dryers with automatic termination controls
using the ‘‘normal’’ setting (and where the
temperature setting can be chosen independently of
the program, DOE proposed to use the highest
temperature level) and a test load with a starting
moisture content of 57.5 ± 0.33 percent, allowing
the dryer to run until the heater switches off for the
final time at the end of the drying cycle to achieve
a final remaining moisture content of no more than
5 percent. 75 FR 37594, 37612–20 (June 29, 2010).
4 RMC is the ratio of the weight of water
contained by the test load to the bone-dry weight
of the test load, expressed as a percent.
5 The DOE test load is composed of cotton momie
test cloths that are each 24 inches by 36 inches in
dimensions and are a blend of 50-percent cotton
and 50-percent polyester.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
measuring the effects of automatic cycle
termination in the clothes dryer test
procedure. In particular, DOE sought
comment on the following: (1) The
characteristics of loads of varying
weights, composition, and size, (2) the
accuracy of different automatic cycle
termination sensors and controls, (3) the
target final RMC used by manufacturers
to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4)
the effects of the characteristics of water
(i.e., hardness and conductivity) used
for wetting the test load prior to testing,
and (5) the cycle settings selected by
consumers for automatic termination
cycles. In response to the August 2011
RFI, interested parties commented that
DOE should amend the clothes dryer
test procedure to include provisions to
account for the effectiveness of
automatic cycle termination and amend
the relevant energy conservation
standards based on the effects of the test
procedure changes according to EPCA.
3. January 2013 NOPR
On January 2, 2013, DOE published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
(January 2013 NOPR) (78 FR 152) to
propose amendments to the DOE clothes
dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1, to include
methods for more accurately measuring
the effects of automatic cycle
termination. DOE also proposed to
update the reference to the latest edition
of the IEC Standard 62301, ‘‘Household
electrical appliances—Measurement of
standby power,’’ Edition 2.0 2011–01
(IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) or
‘‘Second Edition’’) for measuring
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, along with additional
clarifying language. For the test
procedures at both appendix D and
appendix D1, DOE proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR to clarify the cycle
settings used for the test cycle and the
requirements for the gas supply for gas
clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 154–155 (Jan.
2, 2013). DOE also held a public
meeting on February 6, 2013 (hereafter
referred to as the February 2013 public
meeting) to hear oral comments on and
solicit information relevant to the
January 2013 NOPR.
4. February 2013 SNOPR
On February 7, 2013, DOE published
a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNOPR) to consider
inquiries regarding specific provisions
in the current clothes dryer test
procedures (February 2013 SNOPR).
DOE proposed amendments to clarify
the installation conditions for console
lights, the method for measuring the
drum capacity, the maximum allowable
scale range, and the allowable use of a
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
relative humidity meter. 78 FR 8992
(Feb. 7, 2013).
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Automatic Termination Control
Procedures.
In this final rule, DOE amends the test
procedures for clothes dryers in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B to create a new
appendix D2 to include methods for
more accurately measuring the effects of
automatic cycle termination. As
discussed in section III.I.3, DOE
determined that the amended automatic
cycle termination test procedure for
clothes dryers represents a significantly
different testing methodology that may
impact the energy consumption of some
clothes dryers more than others and
would potentially require additional
product re-design to meet the January 1,
2015 standards. As a result, to maintain
the same basic test procedure that is
required for use to determine
compliance with the January 1, 2015
clothes dryer standards, DOE is not
amending appendix D1 in today’s final
rule to include provisions for more
accurately measuring the effects of
automatic cycle termination. The newly
created appendix D2 with such
amendments will not be required for use
to determine compliance with either the
current or the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards for clothes
dryers. DOE will continue to evaluate
products on the market and collect data
on clothes dryer automatic cycle
termination to evaluate when the
compliance date for the amended test
procedure in appendix D2 will be
required.
The amended test method in
appendix D2 requires that clothes dryers
with automatic cycle termination
controls be tested using the ‘‘Normal’’
automatic termination cycle setting.
Where the drying temperature setting
can be chosen independently, it shall be
set to the maximum. Where the dryness
level setting can be chosen
independently, it shall be set to the
‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘medium’’ dryness level
setting.6 The amendments also specify
that the clothes dryer be allowed to run
until the completion of the drying cycle,
including the cool-down period, to
achieve a final RMC of no more than 2
percent. If the final measured RMC is
above 2 percent, the test shall be
considered invalid and a new test cycle
shall be run using the highest dryness
6 Most clothes dryers available on the market
provide separate settings for the ‘‘temperature
level’’ and ‘‘dryness level.’’ The temperature level
refers to the temperature of the hot air used to dry
the load in the drum. The dryness level refers to
the desired remaining moisture content of the load
at the completion of the drying cycle.
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
level setting. DOE notes that a final
RMC of 2 percent using the DOE test
load is more representative of clothes
dryers currently on the market than the
5-percent final RMC specified in the
existing test procedure and the new
requirement is representative of the
maximum consumer-accepted final
RMC. DOE is including an additional
clarification that the cycle shall be
considered complete when the clothes
dryer indicates to the user that the cycle
has finished (by means of a display,
indicator light, audible signal, or other
signal) and the heater and drum/fan
motor shuts off for the final time. If the
clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle
prevention feature (i.e., that
continuously or intermittently tumbles
the clothes dryer drum after the clothes
dryer indicates to the user that the cycle
has finished) that is activated by default
in the condition as shipped by the
manufacturer, the wrinkle prevention
mode would be included in the test
measurement cycle unless it precluded
the necessary automatic termination
cycle program, temperature setting, or
dryness setting. In addition, if a
manufacturer’s user manual specifies
that the wrinkle prevention mode is
recommended to be activated for normal
use even if it is not done so in the asshipped condition, the product would
be tested with the wrinkle prevention
mode activated per manufacturer’s
instructions.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE
proposed to apply a field use factor of
0.80 for clothes dryers with automatic
cycle termination to account for the
measured energy consumption at the
end of the automatic termination cycle
drying the DOE test load below 2percent RMC. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2,
2013). Based on comments from
interested parties and review of
available field use data, DOE
determined that eliminating the field
use factor for automatic termination
control dryers will produce test results
that are more representative of
consumer use. As a result, in today’s
final rule, DOE is eliminating the field
use factor in appendix D2 for clothes
dryers with automatic termination
controls because the test method
directly measures any over-drying
energy consumption.
For clothes dryers with only timed
dry control settings, the amendments
adopted in the new appendix D2 require
that the existing timed dry test cycle be
used, but change the allowable final
RMC range from 2.5–5 percent to 1–2.5
percent. DOE is also amending the test
procedure in appendix D2 to change the
normalization in the calculation of the
per-cycle energy consumption to
represent the energy consumption
required to dry the test load to 2-percent
RMC. These changes provide
consistency with the test method for
automatic cycle termination and are
representative of the final RMC of
clothes dryers currently on the market
using the DOE test load.
Appendix D2 may be used for
informational purposes, but will not be
required for use to determine
compliance with either the current or
the January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers. DOE is not
amending appendix D1 in today’s final
rule to include the amendments for
more accurately measuring the effects of
49611
automatic cycle termination discussed
above.
B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition).
The IEC published IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition) on January 27,
2011. Consistent with EPCA
requirements for amending test
procedures to include standby and off
mode procedures (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)), DOE analyzed this latest
version of the IEC standard and
determined that it provides for
improvement for some measurements of
standby mode and off mode energy use.
Accordingly, DOE adopts amendments
in today’s final rule to incorporate
certain provisions of the IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition), along with
clarifying language, into the DOE
clothes dryer test procedures in both
appendix D1 and appendix D2.
C. Clarifications to Test Conditions.
DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendices D, D1, and D2 to
clarify: (1) The cycle settings used for
the test cycle, (2) the requirements for
the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, (3)
the installation conditions for console
lights, (4) the method for measuring the
drum capacity, (5) the maximum
allowable weighing scale range for drum
capacity and test cloth measurements,
and (6) the allowable use of a relative
humidity meter.
D. Summary of Test Provisions.
Table II.1 presents the key test
procedure provisions in appendix D,
D1, and D2.
TABLE II.1—TEST PROCEDURE PROVISIONS
Appendix D
Appendix D1
Appendix D2
Standby/Off Mode Test Methods ...
None .............................................
Ventless Dryer Test Methods ........
Number of Cycles Per Year ...........
Referenced AHAM Standard .........
Test Load Weight ..........................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Test provisions
No .................................................
416 ................................................
HLD–1–1974 .................................
Standard Size Dryers: 7.00 ± .07
pounds.
Compact Size Dryers: 3.00 ± .03
pounds.
AHAM Standard Test Detergent
IIA.
100 °F ± 5 °F ................................
Incorporates by reference IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition) with additional clarifications.
Yes ................................................
283 ................................................
HLD–1–2009 .................................
Standard Size Dryers: 8.45 ± .085
pounds.
Compact Size Dryers: 3.00 ± .03
pounds.
AHAM Standard Test Detergent
Formula 3.
60 °F ± 5 °F ..................................
Incorporates by reference IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition) with additional clarifications.
Yes.
283.
HLD–1–2009.
Standard Size Dryers: 8.45 ± .085
pounds.
Compact Size Dryers: 3.00 ± .03
pounds.
AHAM Standard Test Detergent
Formula 3.
60 °F ± 5 °F.
70 ± 3.5 percent ...........................
57.5 ± 3.5 percent ........................
57.5 ± 0.33 percent.
Detergent Specifications for Test
Cloth Preconditioning.
Water Temperature for Test Load
Preparation.
Starting RMC of Test Load ............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49612
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II.1—TEST PROCEDURE PROVISIONS—Continued
Test provisions
Appendix D
Appendix D1
Appendix D2
Cycle and Settings Used for Test ..
Timed Dry Cycle, Maximum Temperature.
Timed Dry Cycle, Maximum Temperature.
RMC of Test Load at Which Test
is Stopped.
Stopped manually at 2.5–5 percent RMC.
Stopped manually at 2.5–5 percent RMC.
Cool Down .....................................
Clothes dryer not permitted to advance into cool down.
= 1.04 for automatic termination
control dryers.
Clothes dryer not permitted to advance into cool down.
= 1.04 for automatic termination
control dryers.
Automatic Termination Control
Dryers: ‘‘Normal’’ Automatic Dry
Cycle; Maximum Temperature
(if separately selectable); ‘‘Normal’’ or ‘‘Medium’’ Dryness (or,
if no such designations, at midpoint between min. and max.
settings).
Timer Dryers: Timed Dry Cycle,
Maximum Temperature.
Automatic Termination Control
Dryers: Allowed to run until
completion of automatic cycle.
Must be below 2-percent RMC
or additional test with highest
dryness level setting must be
run.
Timer Dryers: Stopped manually
at 1–2.5 percent RMC.
Cool down period included in
automatic cycle test.
No field use factor for automatic
termination control dryers.
= 1.18 for timer dryers ..................
= 1.18 for timer dryers ..................
= 1.18 for timer dryers.
Yes ................................................
Yes ................................................
Yes.
Field Use Factor (multiplied by
per-cycle energy consumption to
account for over drying).
Clarifications:.
• Cycle settings used for the
test cycle
• Requirements for the gas
supply for gas clothes dryers
• Installation conditions for
console lights
• Method for measuring the
drum capacity
• Maximum allowable scale
range
• Allowable use of a relative
humidity meter
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
III. Discussion
A. Products Covered by This Test
Procedure Rulemaking
Today’s amendments to DOE’s clothes
dryer test procedure cover both electric
and gas clothes dryers. DOE defines a
clothes dryer to mean a cabinet-like
appliance designed to dry fabrics in a
tumble-type drum with forced air
circulation, with blower(s) driven by an
electric motor(s) and either gas or
electricity as the heat source. 10 CFR
430.2. DOE is not amending the
definition for clothes dryers in DOE’s
regulations.
Hydromatic Technologies Corporation
(Hydromatic) commented that its
‘‘hybrid electric’’ clothes dryer should
be a covered product and should be
considered before setting any standards
or test procedures. (Hydromatic, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24–27,
116–118) 7 DOE notes that the
7 A notation in the form ‘‘Hydromatic, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24–27, 116–118’’
identifies an oral comment that DOE received
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
Hydromatic’s clothes dryer would be
considered a covered product under the
definition of an electric clothes dryer in
10 CFR 430.2 because the heat source is
electricity. The definition does not limit
electric clothes dryers to any specific
method or technology by which the heat
is generated from the electrical supply,
such as an electric resistance heater or
heat pump technology.
B. Automatic Cycle Termination
In today’s final rule, DOE is adopting
amendments to the clothes dryer test
procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B to create a new appendix D2 that
during the February 6, 2013, NOPR public meeting,
was recorded in the public meeting transcript in the
docket for the residential clothes dryer test
procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–
TP–0054), and is available for review at
www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers
to a comment (1) made by the Hydromatic
Technologies Corporation during the public
meeting; (2) recorded in document number 10,
which is the public meeting transcript that is filed
in the docket of the residential clothes dryer test
procedure rulemaking; and (3) which appears on
pages 24–27 and 116–118 of document number 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
includes methods to more accurately
measure the effects of automatic cycle
termination. DOE is not including these
methods for automatic cycle termination
in appendix D1 for the reasons
discussed in section III.I.3.
The DOE test procedures for clothes
dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendices D and D1 require
manufacturers to apply a field use factor
to the per-cycle drying energy
consumption to determine the
performance of clothes dryers equipped
with both automatic cycle termination
and timers. For clothes dryers with
automatic termination control, the test
procedures do not distinguish between
the types of sensing control system (e.g.,
temperature-sensing or moisture-sensing
controls) nor consider the sophistication
and accuracy of the control system. Gas
or electric clothes dryers with time
termination control (i.e., those clothes
dryers equipped with a timer to
determine the end of a drying cycle) are
assigned a field use factor of 1.18, while
clothes dryers with automatic
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
termination are assigned a field use
factor of 1.04. Because the test
procedure requires the measurement of
a timed drying cycle in which the tester
manually stops the drying cycle when
the test load reaches 2.5–5 percent RMC,
the field use factors are intended to
account for consumers that may dry
loads beyond the 2.5–5 percent RMC
specified in the test procedure. The field
use factor for timer dryers was derived
from a field study conducted by the
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company in
1971, consisting of 64 households and
33,000 loads of clothing, as well as data
reported by AHAM representing the
energy consumption in 1972 of
2,983,200 production units of clothes
dryers. 42 FR 46145, 46146 (Sept. 14,
1977). For automatic termination
control dryers, the field use factor was
derived from a field study conducted by
AHAM in 1977 involving 72
households. 45 FR 46762–63 (July 10,
1980); 46 FR 27324 (May 19, 1981).
In an SNOPR published on June 29,
2010 (75 FR 37594) (June 2010 SNOPR)
in advance of the January 2011 Final
Rule, DOE proposed to revise its clothes
dryer test procedure to include
definitions of, and provisions for,
testing both timer dryers and automatic
termination control dryers based on the
methodology provided in Australia/New
Zealand (AS/NZS) Standard 2442.1:
1996, ‘‘Performance of household
electrical appliances—Rotary clothes
dryers, Part 1: Energy consumption and
performance’’ (AS/NZS Standard
2442.1) and AS/NZS Standard 2442.2:
2000, ‘‘Performance of household
electrical appliances—Rotary clothes
dryers, Part 2: Energy labeling
requirements’’ (AS/NZS Standard
2442.2). 75 FR 37594, 37598 (June 29,
2010). DOE proposed to incorporate the
testing methods from these international
test standards, along with a number of
clarifications, to measure the energy
consumption for both timer dryers and
automatic termination control dryers.
The measurement would account for the
energy consumed by the clothes dryer
after the load reaches an RMC of 5
percent. 75 FR 37594, 37599 (June 29,
2010). The proposed test method in the
June 2010 SNOPR specified that a
clothes dryer with automatic cycle
termination controls be tested using the
‘‘normal’’ cycle setting, and where the
temperature setting can be chosen
independently of the program, it would
be set to the highest level. The clothes
dryer would then be allowed to run
until the heater switched off for the final
time at the end of the drying cycle. If the
final RMC was higher than 5 percent,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
the test would be re-run using the
highest dryness level setting. Id.
In addition to the provisions for
automatic termination control dryers,
DOE also proposed testing methods in
the June 2010 SNOPR for timer dryers
based on AS/NZS Standard 2442.1. The
proposed test method specified that the
clothes dryer be operated at the
maximum temperature setting until the
final RMC of the load was between 5
and 6 percent. The procedure would
then be repeated to dry the load until
the final RMC was between 4 and 5
percent, with the results from these two
tests used to interpolate the value of the
per-cycle energy consumption required
to dry the test load to exactly 5-percent
RMC. 75 FR 37594, 37617 (June 29,
2010).
As discussed in the January 2011
Final Rule, DOE conducted testing of
representative residential clothes dryers
using the automatic cycle termination
test procedure proposed in the June
2010 SNOPR. The results of the testing
revealed that all of the clothes dryers
tested significantly over-dried the DOE
test load to near bone dry and, as a
result, the measured EF values were
significantly lower than EF values
obtained using the existing DOE test
procedure in appendix D. 76 FR 972,
977 (Jan. 6, 2011). In the January 2011
Final Rule, DOE concluded that the test
procedure amendments for automatic
cycle termination proposed in the June
2010 SNOPR do not adequately measure
the energy consumption of clothes
dryers equipped with such systems
using the test load specified in the DOE
test procedure. Clothes dryers with
automatic termination sensing control
systems may infer the RMC of the load
from the properties of the exhaust air
such as temperature and humidity or by
using conductivity sensor bars to
determine the amount of moisture in the
load when the load comes in contact
with the sensors. DOE noted in the
January 2011 Final Rule that these
automatic termination sensing control
systems may be designed for consumer
use to dry loads of varying weights,
composition, and size, which may have
different moisture retention properties
than the existing DOE test load, and
therefore, may result in a higher
measured RMC than the RMC obtained
using the existing DOE test load with
the proposed automatic cycle
termination test procedure. In
considering whether other test loads
would be appropriate to incorporate
into the DOE test procedure to produce
both representative and repeatable test
results, however, DOE noted that
manufacturers indicated that test load
types and test cloth materials different
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49613
than those specified in the DOE test
procedure do not produce results as
repeatable as those obtained using the
test load as currently specified. As a
result, in the January 2011 Final Rule,
DOE did not adopt the amendments to
more accurately measure automatic
cycle termination that were originally
proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR.
76 FR 972, 977–78 (Jan. 6, 2011).
1. Joint Petition To Amend the Clothes
Dryer Test Procedure
As discussed in section I of this
notice, DOE published the August 2011
RFI to further investigate the effects of
automatic cycle termination on clothes
dryer energy efficiency. 76 FR 50145
(Aug. 12, 2011). DOE sought
information, data, and comments
regarding methods for more accurately
measuring the effects of automatic cycle
termination in the residential clothes
dryer test procedure. In particular, DOE
sought comment on the following: (1)
The characteristics of loads of varying
weights, composition, and size, (2) the
accuracy of different automatic cycle
termination sensors and controls, (3) the
target final RMC used by manufacturers
to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4)
the effects of the characteristics of water
(i.e., hardness and conductivity) used
for wetting the test load prior to testing,
and (5) the cycle settings selected by
consumers for automatic termination
cycles.
In response to the August 2011 RFI,
DOE received the ‘‘Joint Petition to
Amend the Test Procedure for
Residential Clothes Dryers to Include
Provisions Related to Automatic
Termination Controls’’ (the ‘‘Joint
Petition’’), a comment submitted by
groups representing manufacturers
(AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation
(Whirlpool), General Electric Company
(GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc.
(LG), BSH Home Appliances (BSH),
Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking
Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C,
U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics,
Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel,
Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America,
Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel,
Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch,
Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and
environmental advocates (American
Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP),
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE),
Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE),
Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and
consumer groups (Consumer Federation
of America (CFA) and the National
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49614
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Consumer Law Center (NCLC))
(collectively, the ‘‘Joint Petitioners’’).
The Joint Petitioners commented that
DOE should amend the clothes dryer
test procedure to include provisions to
account for the effectiveness of
automatic cycle termination. (Joint
Petition, No. 3 at pp. 1, 4–5) 8
The Joint Petitioners recognized
DOE’s concerns that the amendments
for automatic cycle termination
proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR may
not properly measure the effectiveness
of automatic termination controls,
particularly in light of data that
suggested that automatic termination
control dryers may in fact be drying
clothes to approximately 5-percent RMC
rather than the less than 2-percent RMC
resulting from testing using the DOE test
cloth. The Joint Petitioners noted that
the DOE test cloth is uniform, for
purposes of repeatability and
reproducibility, but likely dries faster
and more uniformly than a load of
varying weights, composition, and size.
(Joint Petition, No. 3 at p. 5)
As part of the Joint Petition, AHAM
members provided test data on clothes
dryers with automatic termination
controls representing 60 percent of
shipments, measuring the final RMC at
the completion of a ‘‘normal’’ automatic
cycle, including cool down, using the
DOE test load. The data showed that all
tested models had a final RMC below 2
percent. The Joint Petitioners stated that
because there are few consumer
complaints that automatic termination
control dryers do not dry clothes, this
market-representative final RMC from
testing using the DOE test cloth best
approximates the maximum consumeraccepted final RMC. (Joint Petition, No.
3 at pp. 5–6)
Based on this data, the Joint
Petitioners stated that DOE should
amend the clothes dryer test procedure
to include the full automatic
termination cycle, including cool down.
The Joint Petitioners stated that testing
the entire cycle is more representative of
actual consumer use and is less of a test
burden for manufacturers than DOE’s
proposal in the June 2010 SNOPR to
stop the clothes dryer when the heater
switches off for the final time at the end
of the drying cycle. In addition, the Joint
Petitioners commented that the test
procedure should be amended to state
8 A notation in the form ‘‘Joint Petition, No. 3 at
pp. 1, 4–5’’ identifies a written comment: (1) Made
by the Joint Petition; (2) recorded in document
number 2 that is filed in the docket of the
residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking
(Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054) and
available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3)
that appears on pages 1 and 4–5 of document
number 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
that the final RMC when testing units
with automatic termination controls
shall be no more than 2 percent when
testing with the DOE test load to be
representative of clothes dryers
currently on the market. Any test in
which the final RMC is 2 percent or less
should be considered valid. If the final
RMC is greater than 2 percent, the test
would be invalid and a new test run
would be conducted using the highest
dryness level setting. (Joint Petition, No.
3 at p. 6)
AHAM withdrew its support for the
petition in a letter to DOE dated May 29,
2012, stating that the petition was
predicated on DOE’s adoption of test
procedure provisions to account for
automatic termination controls by
December 31, 2011. (AHAM, No. 5 at
pp. 1–2) DOE acknowledged AHAM’s
withdrawal but continued to consider
the substantive provisions to account for
such controls.
2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis
For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE
selected a representative sample of 20
clothes dryers encompassing all clothes
dryer product classes to evaluate
potential amendments for automatic
cycle termination. DOE considered
features such as rated energy factor,
rated capacity, control type (i.e.,
electromechanical versus electronic),
and automatic cycle termination sensor
technology (if advertised) when
selecting units to be most representative
of products currently available on the
U.S. market. DOE initially conducted
testing for all test units according to the
DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1.
Appendix D1 requires that the DOE test
load, initially soaked with an RMC of
57.5 ± 3.5 percent, be dried using the
timed dry and maximum temperature
settings until the test load has reached
a final RMC of 2.5 to 5 percent without
allowing the clothes dryer to advance
into a cool-down phase. A field use
factor is then applied to the measured
per-cycle energy consumption to
account for the over-drying energy
consumption associated with the use of
either timer dryers or automatic
termination control dryers. DOE then
conducted testing of these units using
automatic cycle termination test
methodologies with different test loads
to evaluate the effects of these potential
test procedure amendments on the
measured efficiency as compared to the
existing DOE test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1. DOE
also conducted additional testing to
evaluate repeatability and
reproducibility of the test results. 78 FR
152, 157–158 (Jan. 2, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In conducting the testing for the
January 2013 NOPR, DOE used the DOE
test load and the test load specified in
both the AHAM clothes dryer test
standard HLD–1–2009, ‘‘Household
Tumble Type Clothes Dryers,’’ and the
IEC test standard 61121, ‘‘Tumble dryers
for household use—Methods for
measuring the performance,’’ Edition 3
(2005), which consists of cotton bed
sheets, towels, and pillowcases. DOE
concluded in the August 2011 RFI that
clothes dryers with automatic
termination sensing control systems
may be designed to stop the cycle when
a load of varying weights, composition,
and size has a higher RMC than the
RMC obtained using the automatic
termination drying cycle in conjunction
with the existing DOE test load. 76 FR
50145, 50146 (Aug. 12, 2011).
As part of the January 2013 NOPR,
DOE conducted the testing for the
proposed automatic cycle termination
test methodology according to the DOE
test procedure in appendix D1, with the
following modifications. The test load
was prepared with a starting RMC of
57.5 percent ± 0.33 percent. The
controls were set as follows:
• Instead of using the timed dry cycle
setting, the ‘‘normal’’ automatic
termination cycle setting was selected. If
a ‘‘normal’’ cycle setting was not
provided, then the test cycle
recommended by manufacturers for
drying cotton or linen clothes was used.
• Where the temperature setting
could be chosen independently of the
program, the highest level was selected.
• Where the dryness level setting
could be chosen independently of the
program, it was set to the ‘‘normal’’ or
‘‘medium’’ level. If such designation
was not provided, then the dryness level
was set at the mid-point between the
minimum and maximum settings. 78 FR
152, 158 (Jan. 2, 2013).
The clothes dryer was then allowed to
run until the completion of the cycle,
including the cool-down period. At the
completion of the cycle, the clothes
were weighed to determine the final
RMC. If the final RMC was below 2
percent for the DOE test load, the test
was considered valid. If the RMC was
higher than 2 percent (i.e., the test load
contained more moisture than would be
acceptable to consumers), the test was
considered invalid and was re-run using
the highest dryness level setting. DOE
selected the 2-percent RMC threshold
based on data presented in the Joint
Petitioners’ comment regarding RMC
levels acceptable to consumers,
discussed above. For the IEC/AHAM
test load, similar test conditions were
applied except that the threshold value
for the final RMC was changed from 2
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
percent to 5 percent because of the more
varied composition of the IEC/AHAM
test load. Id.
For each specific testing methodology,
DOE conducted a series of three
identical tests for each model to
evaluate the repeatability of test
results.9 DOE presented the test results
in the January 2013 NOPR, which are
summarized in Table III.1. DOE noted in
the January 2013 NOPR that for the
automatic cycle termination tests using
the DOE test load, all of the tests
resulted in a lower measured CEF (i.e.,
higher per-cycle energy use) compared
to the DOE test procedure, ranging from
a 3.5 percent to 41.9 percent decrease in
CEF. Similarly, for the automatic cycle
termination tests using the IEC/AHAM
test load, DOE noted that all of the tests
49615
resulted in a lower measured CEF
compared to the DOE test procedure,
ranging from a 6.1 percent to 40.3
percent decrease. In addition, the
majority of tested units had a lower CEF
for the automatic cycle termination test
with the IEC/AHAM test load than with
the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 159–160
(Jan. 2, 2013).
TABLE III.1—JANUARY 2013 NOPR DOE TEST PROCEDURE AND AUTOMATIC CYCLE TERMINATION TEST RESULTS
DOE test
procedure
(Appendix D1)
Product class
Automatic cycle
termination—DOE test load
CEF 1 (lb/kWh)
CEF (lb/kWh)
Vented Electric Standard .................................
Vented Electric Compact (240V) .....................
Vented Electric Compact (120V) .....................
Vented Gas ......................................................
Ventless Electric Compact (240V) ...................
Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer ..
1 No
3.79
3.54
3.75
3.39
2.98
2.54
Automatic cycle
termination—IEC/AHAM test load
% Change
CEF 1 (lb/kWh)
¥16.6
¥21.1
¥41.9
¥13.9
¥8.4
¥3.9
3.16
2.79
2.18
2.92
2.73
2.45
% Change
¥20.0
¥24.4
¥35.6
¥17.7
¥11.9
¥9.7
3.03
2.68
2.42
2.79
2.63
2.29
field use factor for automatic cycle termination applied to results.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also
presented the average final RMC from
the automatic cycle termination tests
with both the DOE and IEC/AHAM test
loads, as well as the cycle settings used
for each test unit. The test data showed
that the final RMC ranged from 0.4
percent to 2.0 percent for the DOE test
load and 1.3 to 4.7 percent for the IEC/
AHAM test load. DOE also noted that
for nearly all of the test units, the
average final RMC was higher for the
tests using the IEC/AHAM test load. The
higher measured per-cycle energy use
and final RMC for the IEC/AHAM test
load compared to the DOE test load is
likely due to the ability of the IEC/
AHAM test load to retain more water
during the drying process than the DOE
test load, which gives off moisture more
readily and terminates the drying cycle
sooner. In addition, as discussed above,
clothes dryers with automatic
termination sensing control systems
may be designed to stop the cycle when
a load of varying weights, composition,
and size has a higher RMC than the
RMC obtained using the DOE test load.
78 FR 152, 160 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR
that manufacturers have indicated that
test load types and test cloth materials
different than those specified in the
DOE test procedure do not produce
results as repeatable as those obtained
using the DOE test load. Therefore, for
each test unit, DOE examined the testto-test variation in CEF among the three
tests conducted using the DOE test
procedure and among the three tests
using the automatic cycle termination
test methodology. DOE presented the
test-to-test variation results in the
January 2013 NOPR, which are
summarized in Table III.2. The analysis
showed that the test-to-test variation for
the automatic cycle termination tests
with the DOE test load is slightly lower
than the test-to-test variation with the
IEC/AHAM test load, and that both are
higher than the test-to-test variation for
the DOE test procedure. DOE noted that
the more consistent results for the
current DOE test procedure are likely
due to the use of the timed dry cycle
rather than the automatic termination
cycles, which may have additional
variation in results due to the
performance of temperature and
moisture sensors and the automatic
termination control strategies. 78 FR
152, 160–161 (Jan. 2, 2013).
TABLE III.2—JANUARY 2013 NOPR CEF TEST-TO-TEST VARIATION
CEF Test-to-test variation (%)
DOE test
procedure
(Appendix D1)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Minimum ..........................................................................................................................
Maximum .........................................................................................................................
Average ............................................................................................................................
In the January 2013 NOPR, to evaluate
the effect of test load composition on
repeatability, DOE then ran appendix
D1 again for a subset of 10 of the clothes
dryers in its test sample, using the IEC/
AHAM test cloth instead of the DOE test
cloth. For each of these units, DOE
conducted three repeat tests. DOE stated
Automatic cycle
termination—
DOE test load
0.18
2.08
0.87
0.16
5.7
1.87
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.16
6.44
2.07
that it believes that using the timed dry
cycle and requiring that the clothes
dryer be stopped manually allow for
better evaluation of the effect of the test
9 For this series of tests, DOE did not make any
modifications to the water used to wet the test
loads.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Automatic cycle
termination—
IEC/AHAM test
load
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49616
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
load composition alone on repeatability
by limiting other factors, such as
automatic termination sensor
performance, that may contribute to
variability of results from test to test.
The results from this testing were
presented in the January 2013 NOPR
and are summarized in Table III.3. The
results showed a test-to-test variation in
CEF (expressed in terms of standard
error) of 1.02 percent for the IEC/AHAM
test load as compared to the 0.87
percent test-to-test variation for the DOE
timed dry test procedure with the DOE
test load. 78 FR 152, 161 (Jan. 2, 2013).
TABLE III.3—JANUARY 2013 NOPR
CEF TEST-TO-TEST VARIATION FOR
APPENDIX D1 WITH IEC/AHAM
TEST LOADS
Timed Dry-IEC/AHAM
test load—
CEF test-to-test
standard error
(%)
Minimum ...............
Maximum ..............
Average ................
0.31
1.42
1.02
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR
that in addition to the use of the IEC/
AHAM test load producing less
repeatable results from test to test, the
reproducibility of test results from lab to
lab must also be considered because
different test laboratories may be using
different lots of test cloth. To evaluate
the reproducibility of test results from
lab to lab, DOE conducted testing of 9
units at an independent test laboratory
with different lots of the DOE and IEC/
AHAM test loads using the automatic
cycle termination test method. The
results showed that the lab-to-lab
reproducibility of test results was, on
average, 3.0 percent for the existing DOE
test load and 4.7 percent for the IEC/
AHAM test load. 78 FR 152, 161–162
(Jan. 2, 2013).
As part of the automatic cycle
termination testing for the January 2013
NOPR, DOE tested a number of units in
the test sample at an independent test
laboratory that measured and recorded
the energy consumption and an
estimated instantaneous RMC of the test
load throughout the test cycle. The
estimated RMC was determined based
on the weight of the test load, measured
in place during the test cycle, and the
rotation of the drum. Based on this
testing, DOE decided to develop a field
use factor to account for the over-drying
energy consumption using the
automatic cycle termination test method
with the DOE test load at the end of the
cycle when the load is dried below 2percent RMC. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan. 2,
2013).
Using the independent test
laboratory’s data, DOE evaluated the
measured energy consumption at
different times during the cycle—when
the test load initially reached 5-percent
RMC, when it reached 2-percent RMC,
and at the end of the cycle (including
after cool down). The test data showed
that the energy consumption measured
over a full automatic termination dry
cycle is 11–72 percent greater than the
energy consumption during the test
cycle when the test load initially
reaches 5-percent RMC, and 4–62
percent greater than the energy
consumption when the test load
initially reaches 2-percent RMC (before
any moisture regain during cool down/
tumbling). DOE also noted that while
the final RMC of the DOE test load using
the automatic cycle termination test
method was between 0.4 percent and
2.0 percent at the completion of the test
cycle for all of the clothes dryers in
DOE’s test sample, this RMC was
achieved either after the end of a cooldown period, during which the clothes
dryer tumbles with no added heat after
the conclusion of the heated drying, or
after an extended period of operation at
nearly 0-percent RMC when the heater
is cycled off and on. The independent
test laboratory’s data showed that
during cool down or non-heated
tumbling, the test load regains moisture
from the room air. As a result, the final
RMC of the test load at the completion
of the cycle after the cool-down/
tumbling period is higher than the RMC
of the load when the heater turns off for
the final time. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan. 2,
2013).
TABLE III.4—JANUARY 2013 NOPR—MEASURED AUTOMATIC CYCLE TERMINATION ENERGY CONSUMPTION AT SPECIFIC
RMC LEVELS
Energy consumption
(kWh)
Product class
Automatic cycle termination sensor
technology
Test unit
5% RMC
Vented Electric Standard ..................
1
2
4
6
10
13
15
17
Vented Electric Compact (240V) ......
Vented Gas .......................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
1 As
Moisture + Temp ..............................
Temperature .....................................
Moisture + Temp ..............................
Moisture + Temp ..............................
Temperature .....................................
Moisture + Temp ..............................
Moisture + Temp ..............................
Moisture + Temp ..............................
1.945
2.068
2.160
2.091
0.823
2.375
2.347
2.300
2% RMC
2.070
2.233
2.318
2.280
0.875
2.569
2.532
2.482
End of cycle
(measured
RMC
(%)) 1
2.624
3.119
2.405
3.141
1.418
2.905
3.161
2.843
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(1.9)
(2.0)
(0.8)
(1.2)
(1.2)
noted above, the test load regained moisture during the cool-down/tumbling period.
Based on the test data, DOE noted that
for all of the clothes dryers tested at the
independent test laboratory, the DOE
test load reached 2-percent RMC before
the clothes dryer initially began cycling
the heater on and off. The test data also
showed that the cool-down/tumbling
period can contribute a significant
amount of energy consumption
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
associated with over-drying and
moisture regain when using the DOE
test load. DOE observed that two test
units, both of which used the same
moisture sensor technology and dried
the test load to final RMCs of close to
1 percent at the end of the cycle, had
significantly different total measured
energy consumption. One of these test
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
units achieved this final RMC with only
a brief cool-down period, while the
other test unit repeatedly heated,
tumbled, and regained moisture before
the final cool down. DOE stated in the
January 2013 NOPR that it believes that
the difference in energy consumption
between these two units is most likely
a function of the control strategy rather
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
than the accuracy of the sensors. 78 FR
152, 163–166 (Jan. 2, 2013).
As part of the January 2013 NOPR,
DOE conducted further analysis to
develop an appropriate field use factor
to account for the measured energy
consumption at the end of the automatic
termination cycle below 2-percent RMC
using the DOE test load (including any
cool-down/tumbling period). DOE
calculated a field use factor of 0.80 for
automatic termination control dryers by
taking the average of the difference
between the measured energy
49617
consumption to initially reach 2-percent
RMC and the measured energy
consumption at the end of the test cycle.
78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 2013). The
results of this analysis showing the
application of the 0.8 field use factor are
presented in Table III.5.
TABLE III.5—JANUARY 2013 NOPR—AUTOMATIC CYCLE TERMINATION TEST RESULTS WITH ADJUSTED FIELD USE
FACTOR
Per-cycle energy consumption
(kWh)
Product class
Test unit
End of test—
measured
2% RMC
Vented Electric Standard .................................................................
1
2
4
6
10
13
15
17
Vented Electric Compact (240V) .....................................................
Vented Gas ......................................................................................
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR
that the IEC recently revised its test
standard for clothes dryers, IEC
Standard 61121. 78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2,
2013). IEC Standard 61121 Fourth
Edition, which published in February
2012, notes that the characteristics of
the water used for wetting the test load
prior to the test, particularly the
conductivity, can influence the test
results when testing automatic
termination control dryers with
moisture sensors. Clothes dryers with
moisture sensors use conductivity
2.070
2.233
2.318
2.280
0.875
2.569
2.532
2.482
End of test—field
adjusted
2.624
3.119
2.405
3.141
1.418
2.905
3.161
2.843
2.099
2.495
1.924
2.513
1.134
2.324
2.528
2.274
sensor bars to determine the amount of
moisture in the load when the load
comes in contact with the sensors. Table
III.6 provides the characteristics of
either soft or hard water to be used for
appliance testing under IEC Standard
61121.
TABLE III.6—IEC STANDARD 61121 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPOSITION OF SOFT AND HARD WATER FOR CLOTHES DRYER
TESTING
Water type
Unit
Standard soft
water
Total hardness ...........................................................
Conductivity (at 20°C) ................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Property
Millimols per liter (mmol/l) (Ca2∂/Mg2∂) ...................
Microsiemens per centimeter (μS/cm) ......................
0.50 ± 0.20 .......
150 ± 50 ...........
In the August 2011 RFI, DOE
requested information and data on these
effects of the characteristics of the water
used to wet the test load on the
measured efficiency, as well as any
potential testing burden associated with
the requirements for modifying the
water supply used for wetting the test
load. DOE did not receive any
comments or information on this issue.
DOE conducted testing for the January
2013 NOPR to evaluate the effects of
using supply water modified to meet the
specifications in the IEC Standard 61121
on the measured efficiency compared to
using supply water according to the
requirements of appendix D1. For this
series of tests, DOE conducted tests on
16 units using the same automatic cycle
termination methodology discussed
above, except that the water used to wet
the test load prior to the test met the
conditions presented in Table III.6 for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
standard soft water. 78 FR 152, 167 (Jan.
2, 2013). DOE selected the soft water
requirements from IEC Standard 61121
rather than the hard water requirements
to more closely match the existing DOE
clothes dryer test procedure, which also
requires the use of soft water.10 For each
test method, DOE again conducted three
identical tests for each test unit. The test
results did not show a correlation
between the average measured CEF and
water supply specifications for the
automatic cycle termination tests with
either the DOE or IEC/AHAM test loads.
Similar to the measured CEF discussed
above, there was no definitive
correlation between the average
measured final RMC or the test-to-test
variation and the water supply
specifications. Based on the test results,
10 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 2.6.3 requires the use of soft water with 17
parts per million hardness or less.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Standard hard
water
2.50 ± 0.20
750 ± 150
DOE determined that the modifications
to the water supply specified in IEC
Standard 61121 did not have a
definitive effect on the measured CEF as
compared to the water requirements
specified in the existing DOE test
procedure. In addition, the repeatability
testing showed that the IEC water
hardness specifications did not improve
overall the test-to-test repeatability. 78
FR 152, 167–169 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE conducted additional testing on
two clothes dryers to evaluate the labto-lab reproducibility using both supply
water specifications in automatic cycle
termination tests with the IEC/AHAM
test load. These tests showed that the
IEC supply water may produce more
reproducible results from lab to lab with
the IEC/AHAM test load. DOE noted,
however, that the percentage difference
in test results from lab to lab was within
the test-to-test variation for a given lab
using the IEC/AHAM test load. For
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49618
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
these reasons, DOE did not propose
amendments in the January 2013 NOPR
to include in the amendments to
appendix D1 the supply water
specifications from IEC Standard 61121.
DOE noted that if additional test results
are made available showing that IEC
supply water characteristics produce
more repeatable and reproducible test
results than the requirements in
appendix D1, DOE may consider such
amendments in a future test procedure
rulemaking. 78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2,
2013).
3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed
Amendments and Today’s Final Rule
Based on the testing and analysis
discussed above, DOE proposed
amendments to the clothes dryer test
procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D1 in the January 2013
NOPR to more accurately measure the
energy consumption of automatic
termination control dryers. 78 FR 152,
169 (Jan. 2, 2013).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
a. Definitions
DOE proposed in the January 2013
NOPR to amend the clothes dryer test
procedure in appendix D1 to add
definitions for both automatic
termination control dryers and timer
dryers. DOE proposed to define
‘‘automatic termination control dryer’’
as a clothes dryer that can be preset to
carry out at least one sequence of
operations to be terminated by means of
a system assessing, directly or
indirectly, the moisture content of the
load. An automatic termination control
dryer with a supplementary timer or
that may also be manually controlled
would be tested as an automatic
termination control dryer. DOE
proposed to define ‘‘timer dryer’’ as a
clothes dryer that can be preset to carry
out at least one operation to be
terminated by a timer, but may also be
manually controlled, and does not
include any automatic termination
function. 78 FR 152, 169–170 (Jan. 2,
2013).
AHAM and ALS commented that they
did not oppose the proposed definitions
for automatic termination control dryer
and timer dryer. (AHAM, No. 17 at p.
12; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) Based on these
comments and the discussion above,
DOE is adopting these definitions for
automatic termination control dryer and
timer dryer in today’s final rule.
b. Test Load
The existing DOE test procedure in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 2.6 specifies that the test load be
composed of 50-percent cotton and 50percent polyester momie weave cloth.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
Section 2.7 in appendix D1 requires that
test loads be prepared with a starting
RMC of 57.5 percent ± 3.5 percent. DOE
proposed amendments in January 2013
NOPR to change the starting RMC from
57.5 percent ± 3.5 percent to 57.5
percent ± 0.33 percent. DOE stated in
the January 2013 NOPR that it believes
that the starting RMC of 57.5 percent ±
0.33 percent, which was used for the
testing presented above, and originally
proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR,
would produce the most repeatable
results, particularly for automatic
termination control dryers. DOE noted
that allowing a wide range in the
starting RMC, such as the ± 3.5 percent
specified in the current DOE test
procedure, would result in significantly
different results using the proposed
automatic cycle termination test
procedure because a test load with a
starting RMC of 61 percent would
contain approximately 0.6 pounds (lb)
of water more than a test load with a
starting RMC of 54 percent for standardsize loads. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
As a result, DOE specifically proposed
to amend 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D1, section 2.7.1, ‘‘Compact
size dryer load,’’ and section 2.7.2,
‘‘Standard size dryer load,’’ to require
that water be extracted from the wet test
loads by spinning the load until the
moisture content of the load is 52.5–
57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of
the test load. Final mass adjustments
would be made, such that the moisture
content is 57.5 percent ± 0.33 percent by
adding water uniformly to the load in a
very fine spray. DOE noted that
requiring water to be extracted to
achieve an RMC between 52.5 percent
and 57.5 percent would serve as an
initial preparation step prior to the final
mass adjustments to obtain a test load
with an RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33 percent
proposed above. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2,
2013).
Test Load Composition
In response to the January 2013
NOPR, The Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) and NPCC jointly
commented (hereafter ‘‘NEEA & NPCC’’)
that the DOE test load is not
representative of the laundry loads
being dried in a representative average
use cycle. NEEA & NPCC stated that the
data from the NEEA residential laundry
field use study, which included 50
households in the Pacific Northwest
United States metered from January
2012 to March 2012, show that the
fabrics in the loads being washed and
dried are much heavier than those in the
DOE test load. NEEA & NPCC added
that the outcomes for the field data, in
terms of RMC from the clothes washer,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
drying cycle time, and clothes dryer
energy use, are all substantially different
than those produced using the test
procedure proposed in the January 2013
NOPR. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3–
4, 10; NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at p. 114; NEEA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at p. 17) NEEA added
that: (1) The current DOE test load is
consistent and the ply is fairly thin, (2)
the IEC Standard 61121 mixed load has
thinner fabric but more cotton than the
DOE load, (3) the IEC Standard 61121
cotton load is also fairly thin and not
substantively different than the DOE
ply, (4) the AS/NZS Standard 2442 load
is mostly cotton and has a large range
of ply thicknesses and resembles loads
that are seen in the field, and (5) the
AHAM HLD–1–1992 test load is cotton
and has a large range of ply thicknesses.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric Company, and
Southern California Edison (hereafter
‘‘California Investor Owned Utilities
(IOUs)’’) and NEEA commented that the
test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation based
on DOE’s testing is slightly higher for
the IEC cotton load as compared to the
DOE test load, but, given that the
amount of energy that it takes to dry the
IEC cotton load is greater, the results as
a percentage of per-cycle energy use are
not significantly different. The
California IOUs added that, given the far
greater differences observed between the
actual clothes dryer energy use per load
in the field and what is measured using
the DOE test procedure, this minimal
increase in testing variability is
justifiable to provide an accurate
representation of energy use. (NEEA,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp.
17, 19–21, 22; California IOUs, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 64)
NEEA & NPCC and the California
IOUs noted that when DOE tested the
IEC/AHAM test load and allowed the
clothes dryers to shut off at 5-percent
RMC or less (rather than 2-percent RMC
with the DOE test load), all of the
clothes dryers used more energy per
load but left the clothes less dry than
the tests with the DOE test load. The
California IOUs added that the average
efficiency drop from the existing
appendix D1 results was 3.9 percent for
automatic termination with the DOE test
load and 9.7 percent with the IEC/
AHAM test load and that the choice of
a test load affects the final test outcome
more than the choice of final RMC or
most of the other factors being
considered in the test procedure. NEEA
& NPCC and the California IOUs
commented that this difference would
increase with an even more realistic test
load, such as the AHAM HLD–1–1992
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
test load. The California IOUs added
that removing the last few percent RMC
from the load is an inefficient process,
and that if the test procedure required
the IEC/AHAM test load to be dried 2percent RMC, the difference in
efficiency compared to the existing
appendix D1 test procedure would
widen further. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21
at p. 5; California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 14;
California IOUs, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 60–61, 64)
NEEA & NPCC and the California
IOUs presented test data for 5 different
clothes dryer models 11 comparing the
drying time, measured per-cycle energy
consumption, and CEF using the
automatic termination test cycle with
the DOE test load versus with a test load
they considered more representative of
real-world laundry loads. NEEA & NPCC
noted that the drying times for the
automatic termination test cycle with
the real-world loads are quite similar
from model to model, except for the
clothes dryer with the moisture sensor
bars that rotate with the drum and the
heat pump clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC
and the California IOUs also noted that
the CEF is lower for the tests with real
world load as compared to the DOE test
load in all cases, but the difference
varies depending on the technology
type. Based on this data, NEEA & NPCC
and the California IOUs believe that it
is inappropriate for DOE to adopt a
single field use factor to adjust the percycle energy use from testing using the
current DOE test load to represent how
various technologies would perform
with real-world laundry loads. NEEA &
NPCC and the California IOUs
commented that DOE should specify
testing with a more realistic test load,
such as the IEC cotton load or AHAM
HLD–1–1992 test load, so that
manufacturers would have an incentive
to optimize their sensors and drying
technology for real-world conditions.
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 10–12;
California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 21–22)
NEEA & NPCC commented that a test
load that is more reflective of real-world
clothing, such as the IEC cotton test load
or the AHAM HLD–1–1992 test load,
would provide additional agreement
between tested energy use and typical
field energy use. NEEA & NPCC urged
DOE to address this issue as soon as
possible for both clothes washers and
clothes dryers in a new rulemaking.
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 12–13)
11 The 5 tested clothes dryers included: (1) A
dryer with temperature sensing, (2) a dryer with
stationary moisture sensing bars, (3) a dryer with
moisture sensing bars that rotate with the drum, (4)
a dryer with an exhaust air-to-air heat exchanger,
and (5) a heat pump clothes dryer.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
NRDC, ASAP, ACEEE, and the
California IOUs similarly commented
that the current test load is not
representative of real-world loads and
results in significant underreporting of
energy use. The California IOUs added
that, as a result, the test procedure does
not appropriately balance
representativeness and repeatability.
NRDC, ASAP, and the California IOUs
requested DOE to address this issue as
soon as possible in a new rulemaking.
NRDC and ASAP commented that
clothes dryers are likely the single
largest opportunity for energy savings in
home appliances, and modifying the test
procedure so that it more accurately
represents field energy use is critical to
being able to capture these additional
opportunities. (NRDC, No. 20 at p. 2;
ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
10 at pp. 119–120; ACEEE, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 114–
115; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 14,
17)
Earthjustice commented that DOE’s
use of 5 percent as the target RMC using
the AHAM test load recognizes that the
AHAM load is more representative of
the loads encountered in the field.
Earthjustice stated that the NEEA field
study data, which shows that heavier
fabrics (such as the towels represented
in the AHAM test load) make up a
significant portion of household laundry
loads, supports this conclusion.
(Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 1–2)
The California IOUs stated that
designs that reduce over-drying can,
based on DOE’s test data in January
2011 Final Rule, save about 0.3 to 0.6
kilowatt hours (kWh) of over-drying
energy use per load relative to designs
that inefficiently terminate the cycle.
The California IOUs stated that, based
on recent testing by Ecos, Consumer
Reports, DOE, and Ecova, certain
automatic termination test methods can
actually result in a higher measured
energy use relative to DOE’s current
timed dry test procedure because the
DOE test cloths are already quite dry by
the time many clothes dryers detect
high exhaust temperatures and low
humidity levels that indicate there is no
water left in the load to evaporate. The
California IOUs stated that it is difficult
for these clothes dryers to prevent overdrying because the condition they are
designed to detect occurs when the DOE
test load has been over-dried. (California
IOUs, No. 22 at p. 13)
The California IOUs commented that
DOE should use the AHAM HLD–1–
1992 bone-dry load weight (7.4 lb),
which according to the NEEA field data
more accurately represents field laundry
loads than the DOE test load or the IEC/
AHAM cotton load because it contains
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49619
a much wider range of fabric
thicknesses and weights. The California
IOUs stated that common items such as
shirts, pants, socks, and other articles of
clothing are three-dimensional, and
therefore contain interior sides that are
more difficult to dry than the twodimensional DOE test cloths. The
California IOUs added that these items
vary quite widely in their moisture
retention capability because of
differences in thickness and synthetic
content but, on average, retain more
moisture per pound than the uniform
DOE test cloth and require more energy
to dry. The California IOUs stated that
these items present automatic
termination controls with greater
difficulty than DOE’s test cloths in
determining when the load is dry.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17–18;
California IOUs, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 112–113) The
Super Efficient Dryer Initiative (SEDI)
also cited the Ecova testing in stating
that the AHAM HLD–1–1992 test load is
the most similar to typical laundry
because it uses items of actual clothing
with different fabrics and varying
thicknesses. SEDI stated that the test
results showed that drying test cloths
that more closely resemble real-world
clothing increased drying time and
energy consumption, and that DOE
should specify the use of the AHAM
HLD–1–1992 test load in the clothes
dryer test procedure. (SEDI, No. 14 at
pp. 2–3)
The California IOUs commented that
manufacturers are likely already using
AHAM HLD–1 to evaluate drying
performance. The California IOUs
commented that if there is already a
representative load that industry is
using to determine drying performance,
measuring energy at the same time as
that test would reduce test burden.
(California IOUs, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 179–180)
AHAM stated that the test burden
associated with using the IEC/AHAM
test load for energy and water testing
would not be lower than the burden
associated with using the DOE test load.
AHAM stated that manufacturers use
the IEC/AHAM test load for non-energy
purposes, but use of the AHAM test
procedure is voluntary and, thus, use of
the IEC/AHAM test load for other
purposes is outside of the regulatory
context. AHAM also stated that it is not
simple to measure the energy using the
IEC/AHAM test load given the increased
variability in test results, which will in
turn increase the burden on
manufacturers. AHAM added that it is
critical that the DOE test procedure be
as repeatable and reproducible as
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49620
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
possible, especially given the more
stringent standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 15)
AHAM stated that the DOE test load,
because it is comprised of uniform test
cloth, produces more repeatable and
reproducible results. AHAM, therefore,
agreed with DOE’s proposal to continue
using the DOE test load at this time.
AHAM stated that should such a change
in the test load be considered in the
future, extensive testing would be
required to determine the appropriate
test load and the impact of such a
change on measured energy efficiency.
AHAM indicated that it would be
impossible to complete this work prior
to the January 1, 2015 compliance date
of the amended standards, even were it
appropriate to make such a change
during the 3-year lead time before the
amended standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 14) Samsung also supported using the
DOE test load to minimize measurement
system uncertainty, based on DOE’s data
and internal experience that the IEC/
AHAM loads could result in higher
variation. Samsung stated that even
though the DOE load is different from
real-world loads, it is expected that the
DOE load will identify relative
differences between the test units with
higher precision. (Samsung, No. 13 at p.
2)
Hydromatic stated that there is no
definition of a real-world test load.
(Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 40–55)
DOE recognizes interested parties
concerns regarding the test load
composition and the available field
study data that show a variety of
weights, composition, and size of
consumer laundry loads. DOE did not
receive any data or information from
interested parties that would alter its
determination that the test-to-test and
lab-to-lab variation using the current
IEC/AHAM test load is sufficiently
higher than with the DOE test load to
warrant the continued use of the DOE
test load. Further, DOE concludes that
specifying any alternative load with
more variation in weights, composition,
and size than the DOE test load would
increase the test-to-test and lab-to-lab
variation. Repeatable and reproducible
test procedures are necessary to ensure
that testing results are consistent from
test to test and lab to lab especially for
compliance and verification testing. In
addition, although certain
manufacturers may use AHAM HLD–1
for measuring clothes dryer performance
and these manufacturers may
experience reduced testing burden if
DOE specified the IEC/AHAM load in
its test procedure, the use of AHAM
HLD–1 is voluntary and thus this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
benefit may not apply to all
manufacturers. For these reasons, DOE
is not adopting amendments to the DOE
test load in today’s final rule. In
addition, due to a lack of sufficient
information at this time, DOE is not
adopting a definition of a real-world
load in today’s final rule. DOE may
continue collecting data on clothes
dryer test loads and may consider
amendments to the test load in a future
rulemaking if data is made available
showing that the variation from test to
test and lab to lab can be reduced,
particularly for different batches and
lots of test loads.
Test Load Preparation
AHAM requested that DOE provide
further definition of what is considered
a ‘‘very fine spray’’ and what is meant
by ‘‘uniform’’ when adding water to
make the final mass adjustments.
AHAM questioned whether testers
should use a spray bottle, a detergent
bottle with holes in it, or some other
method, and that without clarity on
these points, variation could be
introduced into the test procedure.
AHAM stated that the method for
application of the water could impact
the measured energy use. AHAM
suggested that DOE further investigate
the impact this method could have on
measured energy use, including
contacting manufacturers for input.
AHAM stated that it cannot provide
data on the impact on measured energy
efficiency, if any, until DOE clarifies
‘‘very fine spray.’’ (AHAM, No. 17 at p.
12) ALS opposed tightening the
allowable range for the initial RMC to ±
0.33 percent because it claimed
manufacturers and test labs will aim to
be at the low end of this tolerance, and
then try to utilize the proposed
technique of ‘‘uniformly’’ misting with
a ‘‘very fine spray’’ the outside of the
test load to achieve the initial RMC.
ALS believes that the sprayed moisture
on the outside of the test load is the
easiest to evaporate during the energy
test and can skew the test result. (ALS,
No. 16 at pp. 3–4)
DOE does not believe that the method
for wetting the test load, which requires
water to be initially extracted to achieve
an RMC between 52.5 percent and 57.5
percent then making final mass
adjustments to obtain a test load with an
RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33 percent by adding
water uniformly to the load in a very
fine spray, would significantly affect the
measured efficiency at the extremes for
the RMC conditions. Because the DOE
test cloths are uniform and relatively
thin, the water absorbed when making
the final mass adjustments by adding
water uniformly in a very fine spray
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
would be absorbed relatively
equivalently to the water absorbed when
initially dampening the test load. In
addition, DOE notes that the allowable
range for the initial RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33
percent would result in a difference in
the amount of water contained in the
test load of only approximately 0.06 lb
at the minimum and maximum values.
As a result, DOE does not believe this
allowable range for the initial RMC
would measurably affect the efficiency
and that further tightening the
tolerances would add testing burden to
achieve the initial RMC. DOE also notes
that for the testing conducted for the
January 2013 NOPR, the test technicians
did not attempt to control the tolerances
for wetting the test load tighter than the
ranges specified in the test method (i.e.,
the initial extraction achieve an RMC
between 52.5 percent and 57.5 and the
final mass adjustments to obtain a test
load with an RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33
percent). As a result, any effects in the
measured efficiency would have been
captured in the test-to-test variation for
the automatic termination tests with the
DOE test load (which was on average
1.87 percent). For these reasons, DOE is
adopting the test load requirements
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR and
discussed above, with the following
clarification. To provide a clear and
consistent method, the amendments
adopted in today’s final rule specify in
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D2, section 2.7, that water added to
make the final mass adjustments shall
be uniformly distributed among all of
the test cloths in a very fine spray using
a spray bottle.
Automatic Termination Control Dryer
Test Cycle
DOE proposed in the January 2013
NOPR to change the clothes dryer test
cycle specified in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.3 to
require separate test methods for
automatic termination control dryers
and timer dryers. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan.
2, 2013).
For automatic termination control
dryers, DOE proposed to amend the
clothes dryer test procedure to require
the use of the control settings discussed
in section III.B.2 of this notice.
Specifically, DOE proposed to require
that the ‘‘normal’’ automatic termination
cycle program be selected for the test
cycle, and that for clothes dryers that do
not have a ‘‘normal’’ program, the cycle
recommended by the manufacturer for
drying cotton or linen clothes would be
selected. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
Where the drying temperature can be
chosen independently of the program, it
would be set to the maximum
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
temperature setting. Id. In addition, the
proposed amendments would require
that where the dryness level setting can
be chosen independently of the
program, the dryness level would be set
to the ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘medium’’ setting.
Id. If such designation is not provided,
then the dryness level would be set at
the mid-point between the minimum
and maximum settings. DOE also
proposed to require that the cycle
settings used for the test cycle be
recorded. Id.
For the reasons explained below, DOE
proposed that the clothes dryer would
then be allowed to run until the
completion of the cycle, including any
cool-down period. After the cycle is
complete, the test load would be
weighed to determine the final RMC. If
the final RMC is below 2 percent, the
test would be considered valid. If the
RMC is higher than 2 percent, the test
would be considered invalid and would
be re-run using the highest dryness level
setting. Id.
DOE proposed in the January 2013
NOPR to measure the full automatic
termination cycle, including any cooldown period, to be more representative
of actual consumer use. DOE
determined in the January 2013 NOPR
that the proposed provision to include
a cool-down period would result in less
testing burden than the January 2011
Final Rule proposal to stop the test
cycle when the heater switches off for
the final time immediately before the
cool-down period begins (76 FR 972,
998 (Jan. 6, 2011)), which would require
the tester to monitor the clothes dryer
and possibly run multiple test cycles to
determine when the heater has switched
off for the final time. 78 FR 152, 170
(Jan. 2, 2013).
As discussed above, DOE also
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to
base the calculations for automatic
termination control dryers on a nominal
final RMC of 2 percent. This is a change
from the existing test procedure, which
requires that the clothes dryer test cycle
be stopped when the final RMC is
between 2.5 percent and 5 percent.
Based on the data submitted in the Joint
Petition and DOE’s analysis, DOE
tentatively concluded in the January
2013 NOPR that a final RMC of 2
percent using the DOE test load would
be more representative of clothes dryers
currently on the market and
representative of the maximum
consumer-accepted final RMC. Id.
NEEA stated that, based on its field
study data, consumers select the
medium temperature setting 52 percent
of the time. (NEEA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at p. 21) The
California IOUs commented that DOE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
should update the required temperature
settings in the test procedure to reflect
consumer preferences, based on recent
field measurements. The California
IOUs stated that DOE should make these
revisions in a new test procedure
rulemaking. The California IOUs noted
that the NEEA field data also show that
consumers select the high and low
temperature settings 35 percent and 13
percent of the time, respectively.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17, 20)
DOE does not have information to
determine for the clothes dryer models
included in the field study whether the
temperature setting can be selected
independently of the cycle program and
whether the sample of clothes dryers in
the field study is representative of the
optional temperature settings for all
clothes dryer shipments. As a result,
DOE notes that there is uncertainty as to
whether the temperature settings
selected by participants in the NEEA
field study, which included only 50
households in the Pacific Northwest, are
representative of the selections of the
nation as a whole. For these reasons,
DOE is not considering changing the
temperature settings for the automatic
termination test cycle proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR at this time.
However, DOE notes that according to
the provisions for the cycle settings
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR,
which specify that the highest
temperature setting be used if the
temperature setting can be chosen
independently of the cycle program
setting, six of the 14 units in DOE’s test
sample that had a temperature setting
indicator on the control panel were
unable to select the temperature setting
separately from the cycle program and
automatically used the medium
temperature setting for the test cycle. In
addition, DOE may continue to collect
and consider available data and
information on the temperature settings
to consider whether changes to the
temperature settings would be
warranted in a future test procedure
rulemaking.
NEEA stated that, based on its field
study data, consumers select the normal
dryness setting 57 percent of the time
and the very dry setting 42 percent of
the time. (NEEA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at p. 21) The
California IOUs commented that many
people use the very dry setting, and that
it is not true that all consumers are
satisfied with the dryness of their
clothing when using the normal dryness
setting, based on the study conducted
by NRDC in 2011 that found that real
clothing would have to be dried to
approximately 2-percent final RMC in
order to feel uniformly dry to the touch.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49621
The California IOUs commented that,
since the DOE test cloths are much
easier to dry than real-world loads, the
test cloths would need to be
significantly lower than 2-percent final
RMC to approximate a 2-percent final
RMC in real clothing. The California
IOUs stated that with a test load that
more closely approximates real-world
clothing, such as the AHAM HLD–1–
1992 test load, a 2-percent final RMC
would be appropriate. (California IOUs,
No. 22 at pp. 20–21)
DOE notes that the NRDC report
prepared by Ecova and referenced by
the California IOUs states that the 2percent RMC threshold for what
consumers would consider ‘‘dry’’ for
real-world clothing is an assertion made
by NRDC and Ecova without any
empirical basis.12 As a result, DOE is
not considering changing the dryness
level settings for the automatic
termination test cycle proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR. In addition, for the
reasons discussed above, DOE is not
considering changing the DOE test load
at this time.
NEEA & NPCC and the California
IOUs commented that the NEEA field
study showed that participants used
timed drying 29 percent of the time, and
the auto-termination cycle 71 percent of
the time. NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs considered 29 percent
to be a significant fraction of total
clothes dryer cycles, and therefore
stated that the test procedure should
require clothes dryers with automatic
cycle termination to be tested both in
the timed drying and auto cycle
termination modes. (NEEA & NPCC, No.
21 at pp. 13–14; California IOUs, No. 22
at p. 11)
Because the field study sample was
limited, DOE does not have sufficient
information at this time to determine
how frequently all consumers in the
nation use the timed dry function versus
the automatic cycle termination
function and, thus, properly weight or
apportion the energy consumption
between the two drying modes in the
clothes dryer test procedure. DOE also
notes that Whirlpool submitted a
comment in the last test procedure
rulemaking asserting that, although the
majority of consumers want timed dry
cycle capability, they use it only 10
percent of the time. 76 FR 972, 995 (Jan.
6, 2011). In addition, requiring the
measurement of both the automatic
termination cycle and the timed dry
cycle for automatic termination control
12 Denkenberger, Serena Mau, Chris Calwell, and
Eric Wanless. 2011. Residential Clothes Dryers: A
Closer Look at Energy Efficiency Test Procedures
and Savings Opportunities. Ecova and NRDC. p. 7.
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49622
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
dryers would significantly increase
testing burden. As a result, DOE is not
considering amendments in today’s
final rule to require the measurement of
both the automatic termination cycle
and the timed dry cycle for automatic
termination control dryers.
d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer
Field Use Factor
DOE proposed in the January 2013
NOPR that the measured test cycle
energy consumption be multiplied by a
field use factor of 0.80 to calculate the
per-cycle energy consumption for
automatic termination control dryers
based on the data presented above in
section III.B.2. DOE noted in the January
2013 NOPR that this field use factor
would account for the measured energy
consumption at the end of the automatic
termination cycle drying the DOE test
load below 2-percent RMC, which DOE
determines to be representative of
consumer-acceptable drying levels with
loads of varying weights, composition,
and size. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM and ALS opposed the
proposed 0.80 field use factor, asserting
that it is without technical or empirical
justification. AHAM added that the Joint
Petition did not include such a factor
because it is not necessary under the
proposed test procedure. AHAM and
ALS stated that based on testing, DOE
must rely on the proposed field use
factor to justify the determination of a
de minimus impact on the measured
efficiency according to DOE’s criteria
(e.g., less than a 5-percent impact on
measured efficiency). AHAM
commented that it is inappropriate for
DOE to include the 0.80 field use factor
to avoid adjusting the standard, and that
DOE should either provide a
‘‘crosswalk’’ or not make such
significant test procedure changes
except as part of a future standards
rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 4;
ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
Samsung agreed with DOE’s proposed
field use factor. Samsung alternatively
recommended that the 0.80 field use
factor not be included in the test
procedure and that the standard levels
be adjusted to account for the energy
increase due to the test procedure
change according to 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2). (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3)
NEEA & NPCC, ASAP, ACEEE, SEDI,
and the California IOUs commented that
the 0.80 field use factor for automatic
termination cycles inappropriately
adjusts per-cycle energy use,
significantly underestimating the annual
clothes dryer energy use measured in
the field. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp.
3–4; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 28, 85–86; ACEEE, Public
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 200–
201; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3; California
IOUs, No. 22 at p. 3) NEEA & NPCC
stated that, based on its analysis and
testing, the proposed test procedure
estimates annual energy use that is
approximately 30 percent lower than
what is observed in the field. NEEA &
NPCC commented that their testing
demonstrates reasonably close
agreement in energy use between DOE’s
proposed test procedure, but without
the field use factor, and testing with a
more real-world procedure. NEEA &
NPCC stated that average annual clothes
dryer energy use estimated from NEEA’s
2012 field study is 920 kWh, and
suggests that the field use factor should
be closer to 1.1 or 1.2, assuming all
other test procedure factors are
unchanged. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p.
6) NEEA & NPCC strongly
recommended that DOE not use a field
use factor less than 1.0 to adjust the
actual measured energy use from
testing. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2–
3, 12; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 87–92) NPCC added that
the proposed field use factor is not
consistent with the original proposal in
the Joint Petition. (NPCC, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 104)
The California IOUs commented that the
NEEA field study data supports a field
use adjustment factor of 1.0, or it should
be removed entirely, since the field data
consistently point to clothes dryers
using more energy than they do under
the DOE test procedure. (California
IOUs, No. 22 at p. 6, 17; California IOUs,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp.
170–171) SEDI added that CLASPfunded laboratory testing suggests that
clothes dryers in the field consume
more energy than would be measured by
the proposed test procedure even
without the field use factor. (SEDI, No.
14 at p. 3)
NEEA & NPCC and the California
IOUs commented that DOE’s data show
that the average clothes dryer operating
on an automatic termination cycle uses
on the order of 25 percent more energy
than it would if it terminated the cycle
at optimum load dryness. NEEA &
NPCC and the California IOUs
commented that the difference between
the end-of-cycle energy use and the
energy use upon initially reaching 2percent RMC represent an energy
savings opportunity that manufacturers
should be encouraged to pursue through
modifications to automatic termination
controls. NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs stated that the proposed
field use factor would revise the
measured energy use for automatic
termination control dryers that don’t
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
terminate at an initial 2-percent RMC
down to a value that might have been
achieved if the clothes dryer terminated
properly. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p.
6; California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 5;
California IOUs, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 76–77, 101–
102)
The California IOUs noted that in two
cases (DOE test units 4 and 17), the
adjusted energy consumption is lower
than the measured energy consumption
at both 5-percent and 2-percent RMC,
and likely represents the energy
consumption at points in the cycle
when the test load would have been
damp to the touch. The California IOUs
stated that the field-adjusted values that
DOE presented, therefore, are not
representative of field clothes dryer
performance. The California IOUs also
stated that DOE’s sample of 8 clothes
dryer models is not sufficiently large to
provide statistically meaningful
information on the field use factor.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 5–6;
California IOUs, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 94–97)
NEEA & NPCC commented that DOE’s
testing showed, with one exception, that
the final RMC values for the IEC/AHAM
test load are higher than with the DOE
test load but the increase in the final
RMC was not consistent from model to
model. NEEA & NPCC stated that, as a
result, any single field use factor is
problematic. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at
p. 5) NEEA & NPCC also noted that the
proposed automatic termination test
procedure significantly increases the
range of tested efficiencies, but that this
increase is not predictable for a given
clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC stated that
the most and least efficient models
using the current DOE test procedure
are not the most and least efficient
models using the proposed automatic
termination test procedure but with a
more realistic test load. NEEA & NPCC
stated that the proposed field use factor
will simply reduce the calculated per
cycle energy use, thereby reducing the
differentiation among models. (NEEA &
NPCC, No. 21 at p. 6)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates
commented that DOE should adjust the
January 1, 2015 standards to account for
the proposed test procedure
amendments without the proposed field
use factor. However, the Joint Efficiency
Advocates stated that if DOE concludes
that it cannot adjust the standard levels,
DOE should proceed with the proposal
in the January 2013 NOPR. (Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 2–
3)
SEDI objected to the proposed 0.80
field use factor, but commented that if
DOE chooses to retain the field use
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
factor, manufacturers should be
required to report clothes dryer energy
consumption both with and without the
field use factor applied. SEDI stated that
accurate energy consumption
information is critical for energy
efficiency programs to be able to
evaluate potential for incentives for
more efficient products. (SEDI, No. 14 at
p. 3)
Earthjustice commented that DOE
should revise the proposed field use
factor for automatic termination control
dryers. Earthjustice stated that DOE’s
test data show that the load composition
has much less of an impact on the
effectiveness of automatic termination
controls than DOE’s proposed field use
factor assumes. Earthjustice commented
that for nearly all of the 20 clothes
dryers that DOE tested, the difference in
CEF between the AHAM and DOE test
loads was less than 10 percent, with an
average reduction in CEF of about 4
percent. Earthjustice stated that the
adjustment needed for the CEF ratings
to better reflect real world conditions is
not only much smaller than DOE has
proposed, it is in the opposite direction,
and that DOE’s proposal would lead to
CEFs that significantly overstate the
energy efficiency of many automatic
termination control dryers.
(Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 1–2)
Earthjustice stated that DOE’s analysis
shows that drying the DOE test load to
2-percent RMC at the end of the cycle
reasonably approximates drying a test
load that is more representative of the
varied composition and heavier fabrics
encountered in real world laundry loads
to 5-percent RMC. Earthjustice stated
that based on the test data in the January
2013 NOPR, the only field use factor
that should be applied is a small
correction to reflect that drying the
AHAM test load to the end of a cycle
achieving 5-percent RMC results in CEF
levels about 4 percent below those
measured drying the DOE test cloth as
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR.
(Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 2)
Based on these comments and DOE’s
review of available data, DOE agrees
that eliminating the field use factor for
automatic termination control dryers
will produce test results that are more
representative of consumer use. As a
result, in today’s final rule, DOE is not
adopting the 0.80 field use factor
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR, but
is instead removing the field use factor
for automatic termination control dryers
in appendix D2 because the test method
directly measures the over-drying
energy consumption. Because DOE is
not amending appendix D or appendix
D1 to include the methods for more
accurately measuring the effects of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
automatic cycle termination, as
discussed in section III.B.3.f, DOE is not
amending the current field use factors
specified in section 4.1 in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1.
e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the
Determination of the Completion of the
Test Cycle
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE
proposed for the automatic cycle
termination test method that the clothes
dryer shall be operated until the
completion of the programmed cycle,
including the cool-down period. 78 FR
152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
NRDC commented that DOE should
clarify the definition of ‘‘completion of
test cycle’’ for clothes dryers with
automatic termination controls. NRDC
noted that many clothes dryers have
post-cycle features, such as additional
tumbling designed to prevent wrinkling,
that may run after the clothes dryer has
terminated the main drying cycle. NRDC
stated that these features can sometimes
be enabled by the user and sometimes
are the default operational mode. NRDC
recommended that DOE modify the
proposed test procedure to clarify that
the cycle is complete when the main
cycle terminates and the clothes dryer
indicates to the consumer that the load
is finished. (NRDC, No. 20 at pp. 1–2;
NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
10 at pp. 129–131) NRDC also urged
DOE to conduct a new rulemaking as
soon as possible to further revise the
clothes dryer test procedure to address
post-cycle energy use to better represent
real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at
p. 2)
NEEA & NPCC commented that it is
unclear whether the current test
procedure is designed to capture the
energy use associated with the wrinkle
prevention mode, which is part of the
default cycle in some clothes dryer
models. NEEA & NPCC stated that the
wrinkle prevention mode meets DOE’s
definition of an active mode, and yet
DOE’s testing stopped the test at the
completion of the cool-down phase.
NEEA & NPCC stated clothes dryers
typically use 150–250 watts of power
when rotating the drum (and by default
in most models, the fan) and that over
a few hours, the wrinkle prevention
mode could use as much as 0.5 kWh
depending on how often the feature is
activated and for how long at the end of
each cycle. NEEA & NPCC stated that
this clothes dryer feature should be
accounted for accurately in the test
procedure, regardless of any increase in
the test burden associated with the
measurement. According to NEEA &
NPCC, the potential energy use of this
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49623
function may be large enough to make
the difference as to whether or not a
clothes dryer complies with the
standard, and so is not insignificant.
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 14) NEEA
added that if a cyclical wrinkle
prevention period goes on indefinitely,
it may cause issues with determining
when to measure standby and off mode
if the end of the cycle is not clearly
defined. (NEEA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 154–155)
The California IOUs, Hydromatic, and
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) also questioned how the
wrinkle prevention mode would be
tested and how the end of the cycle
would be determined. The California
IOUs stated that it is a relatively new
feature, but it is becoming more
prevalent. (California IOUs, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 153,
154; Hydromatic, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 124–128, 132–
133; EPA, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 122–123)
AHAM stated that the cycle ends
when the clothes dryer signals to the
consumer that the cycle is complete,
and that wrinkle prevention or similar
functions are selected by the user and
should not be included in the DOE test
unless they are activated by default in
the condition as shipped. AHAM stated
that this approach will minimize
ambiguity for testers, thus resulting in
less variation in the test procedure.
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13) ALS similarly
recommended testing with the default
settings and not with other optional
settings such as a wrinkle prevention
extended cycle. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 4)
DOE conducted a market survey and
testing to evaluate the wrinkle
prevention mode. DOE noted that
products operate in wrinkle prevention
mode either intermittently or by
continuously tumbling for a fixed
period of time or until the user opens
the clothes dryer door. Based on DOE’s
review of products currently available
on the market, approximately 95 percent
of products that are equipped with a
wrinkle prevention feature offer it as a
mode that must be manually selected by
the user (i.e., wrinkle prevention is
turned off by default). Approximately 63
percent of products that are equipped
with a wrinkle prevention feature
operate in this mode by intermittently
tumbling. For the products in DOE’s test
sample, the intermittent tumbling
consisted of 3 to 5 seconds of tumbling
every 5 to 10 minutes for a fixed period
of time. Such intermittent tumbling was
observed for all products on the market
that operated in wrinkle prevention
mode automatically by default after the
end of the programmed cycle, with the
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49624
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
maximum duration among the sample
units being 5 hours. DOE estimates that
products that intermittently tumble for
5 hours would consume approximately
8.3 Wh in the wrinkle prevention mode.
In the worst-case scenario for clothes
dryers on the market for which the
wrinkle prevention mode must be
selected manually by the user,
continuous tumbling was observed with
a duration of up to 45 minutes and a
corresponding energy consumption as
much as approximately 188 Wh.
DOE is unaware of consumer usage
data on how often consumers select the
wrinkle prevention mode when this
feature must be manually selected or
data on the typical elapsed time
between the end of the programmed
cycle and when the consumer opens the
clothes dryer door to remove the
laundry load. As a result, DOE is not
amending the test procedure to include
the measurement of the wrinkle
prevention mode when this feature must
be manually selected by the consumer.
As discussed in section III.F.1, DOE is
adopting amendments to clarify for
automatic termination control dryers
that the test procedures specify
requirements only for the automatic
termination cycle program, temperature
setting, and dryness setting, and do not
specify modifications to any other
optional settings that do not affect the
automatic termination cycle program,
temperature setting, or dryness setting.
As a result, if a product is equipped
with a wrinkle prevention feature that is
activated by default in the condition as
shipped by the manufacturer, the
wrinkle prevention mode would be
included in the test measurement cycle
unless it precluded the necessary
automatic termination cycle program,
temperature setting, or dryness setting.
DOE also notes that, based on the
requirements that products be installed
in accordance with manufacturers’
instructions, if a manufacturers’ user
manual specifies that the wrinkle
prevention mode is recommended to be
activated for normal use even if it not
done so in the as-shipped condition, the
products would be tested with the
wrinkle prevention mode activated as
per manufacturer’s instructions.
DOE is adopting amendments in
today’s final rule to clarify in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D2,
section 3.3.2, that the drying cycle is
complete when the clothes dryer
indicates to the user that the cycle has
finished (by means of a display,
indicator light, audible signal, or other
signal) and the heater and drum/fan
motor shuts off for the final time. If the
clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle
prevention mode (i.e., that continuously
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
or intermittently tumbles the clothes
dryer drum after the clothes dryer
indicates to the user that the cycle has
finished) that is activated by default in
the as-shipped position or if
manufacturers’ instructions specify that
the feature is recommended to be
activated for normal use, the cycle shall
be considered complete after the end of
the wrinkle prevention mode.
f. New Appendix D2
With the exception of the field use
factor and the compliance date, AHAM
and ALS supported the proposed test
procedure for automatic termination
control dryers. In light of its objection
to the proposed field use factor and
compliance date, however, AHAM
stated that it cannot support these
changes at this time and DOE should
instead defer the changes until
compliance with a future standard,
subsequent to the January 1, 2015
standards change. (AHAM, No. 17 at p.
13; ALS, No. 16 at p. 4)
Samsung supported the proposed
automatic termination test method,
including the maximum allowable RMC
of 2 percent. Samsung stated that the
proposed test procedure is
representative of consumer usage
because it measures the energy use of
the most commonly selected cycle
(Normal/Cottons and Linens) and
includes the cool-down period.
Samsung stated that the proposed test
procedure would encourage
manufacturers to refine their automatic
termination feature to terminate drying
very close to the target 2-percent RMC
using the DOE test load, without the
over-drying evidenced on some clothes
dryer models during DOE testing, thus
reducing real-world energy
consumption. (Samsung, No. 13 at pp.
2–3)
ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC
jointly commented (hereafter ‘‘the Joint
Efficiency Advocates’’) and SEDI,
NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and the
California IOUs commented that they
generally support the proposed
automatic termination test procedure
amendments. The Joint Efficiency
Advocates, NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and
the California IOUs noted that DOE’s
test data presented in the January 2013
NOPR show that there is wide
variability among clothes dryers in the
effectiveness of automatic termination
controls, and that many clothes dryers
waste a significant amount of energy at
the end of the automatic termination
cycle (up to 38 percent of energy use).
NRDC and SEDI added that the
proposed test procedure will capture
this energy use at the end of the cycle
and will result in differentiation of the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
measured efficiency of individual
clothes dryers. The Joint Efficiency
Advocates stated that based on DOE’s
test data, the current test procedure in
appendix D1 is not a good predictor of
the efficiency of the complete automatic
termination cycle. The Joint Efficiency
Advocates, NEEA & NPCC, and the
California IOUs stated that the proposed
automatic cycle termination test
procedure will encourage manufacturers
to adopt improved automatic
termination controls and will provide a
significant national energy savings
opportunity. The California IOUs added
that DOE’s sample is too small to
conclusively estimate this savings
opportunity, but a study conducted by
NRDC on 15 clothes dryers concluded
that a variety of energy-saving
technologies, including automatic
termination, could save 20 percent to 30
percent of overall energy consumption
by preventing over-drying. (Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 1–
2; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 20
at p. 1; NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2,
4–5; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 3–
5)
Based on the comments from
interested parties and for the reasons
discussed above, DOE is adopting the
automatic termination test method
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR
with modification as further discussed
above. With regards to AHAM’s
comments concerning the compliance
date, as discussed in section III.B.3.f and
section III.I.3, DOE is amending the
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B to create a new
appendix D2 that includes the testing
methods for more accurately measuring
the effects of automatic cycle
termination. As discussed in section
III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2
will not be required for use to determine
compliance with the January 1, 2015
energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers. DOE is not amending
appendix D1 in today’s final rule to
include the amendments associated
with automatic termination controls.
Appendix D2 is for informational
purposes only.
Timed Dry Test Method
For timer dryers, DOE proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR to use the test
method currently specified in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 3.3, but with a revised final
RMC requirement. The proposed test
method would require that the clothes
dryer be operated using the highest
temperature setting and maximum time
setting. The clothes dryer would then be
allowed to run until the final RMC of
the load is between 1.0 percent and 2.5
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
percent, at which point the test cycle
would be stopped without permitting
the clothes dryer to advance into the
cool-down period and the test load
would be weighed. DOE also proposed
to add a clarification that the clothes
dryer should not be stopped
intermittently in the middle of the test
cycle for any reason. DOE stated that
this clarification would ensure that test
technicians are not stopping the clothes
dryer intermittently to weigh the test
load to check whether the RMC is
within the target range. Such a practice
would alter the measured results
because of the heat loss from the clothes
dryer when the cycle is stopped. 78 FR
152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE proposed in the January 2013
NOPR to include separate calculations
for the per-cycle energy consumption
for timer dryers. The calculations would
be similar to the calculations provided
in the current DOE test procedure in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
sections 4.1–4.3, except that the
normalization of the per-cycle energy
consumption to represent the energy
consumption required to dry the test
load to 4-percent RMC would be
changed to represent the new target
RMC of 2 percent. The per-cycle energy
consumption calculation in the current
test procedure applies a scaling factor of
53.5, which represents the RMC
percentage point change from the
nominal initial RMC of 57.5 percent to
the nominal final RMC of 4 percent. The
proposed amendments would change
this scaling factor to 55.5 to reflect the
new final RMC of 2 percent. DOE
proposed a range of 1.0 percent to 2.5
percent for the allowable final RMC
during the test cycle to reduce testing
burden. DOE tentatively concluded in
the January 2013 NOPR that requiring
the tester to dry the test load to an exact
RMC during the test cycle would be
unduly burdensome because it could
require the test to be repeated a
significant number of times until the
exact RMC is achieved. For the test
procedure to produce repeatable results,
the measured test cycle energy
consumption is normalized to calculate
the energy consumption required to dry
the test load from exactly 57.5-percent
RMC to 2-percent RMC, which is
representative of clothes dryers
currently on the market and of the
maximum consumer-accepted final
RMC. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE proposed in the January 2013
NOPR that manufacturers continue to
apply the field use factor needed to
account for the energy consumption of
timed drying beyond the 2-percent RMC
specified in the test procedure. DOE did
not propose any changes to the 1.18
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
field use factor for timer dryers because
DOE stated that it is not aware of any
data or studies more recent than the
studies on which it was originally based
that would indicate that this value is not
currently representative of consumer
use.
DOE did not propose in the January
2013 NOPR to include the cool-down
period as part of the timed dry test cycle
because the proposed test method
requires drying the load to a specified
RMC, at which point the test cycle is
stopped by the test technician. DOE
determined that specifying a timed dry
cycle that includes the cool-down
period to achieve a target final RMC
would add significant testing burden on
test technicians to determine and preset
the appropriate time setting. DOE also
noted that it would be difficult to ensure
that testing results are repeatable and
reproducible because different
combinations of timed dry cycle length
and cool-down period may be selected
to dry a test load to the same final RMC.
AHAM commented that it did not
oppose the proposed timed dry test
method on a technical basis. AHAM
stated, however, because it considers
these changes to be part of the proposed
amendments regarding automatic cycle
termination controls, it cannot support
these changes at this time. AHAM
commented that DOE should defer the
changes until compliance with future
energy conservation standards,
subsequent to the January 1, 2015
standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13) ALS
also opposed the proposed timed drying
test method because it opposed any test
procedure change with an effective date
concurrent with the January 1, 2015
standards. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 4) As
discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is
adopting the amendments to more
accurately measure the effects of
automatic cycle termination in a new
appendix D2 that will not be required
for use to determine compliance with
the January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers. As a result,
in today’s final rule, DOE is also
adopting the timer dryer test methods
presented above in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.3.2.
DOE is not amending appendix D1 in
today’s final rule to include these
amendments.
Incorporating by Reference IEC
Standard 62301 Second Edition for
Measuring Standby Mode and Off Mode
Power
As discussed in section I of today’s
final rule, EPCA, as amended by EISA
2007, requires that test procedures be
amended to include standby mode and
off mode energy consumption, taking
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49625
into consideration the most current
versions of IEC Standards 62301 and
62087. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) The
January 2011 Final Rule incorporated in
the test procedures for clothes dryers
relevant provisions from IEC Standard
62301 (First Edition) for measuring
standby mode and off mode power. 76
FR 972, 979–80 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE
reviewed the IEC Standard 62301 (First
Edition) and concluded that it would be
generally applicable to clothes dryers,
although some clarification would be
needed. Specifically, DOE adopted
amendments for standby mode and off
mode power measurements to provide a
stabilization period of 30 to 40 minutes
followed by an energy use measurement
period of 10 minutes. 76 FR 986 (Jan.6,
2011). With these clarifications in place,
the January 2011 Final Rule referenced
IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) for
the standby mode and off mode wattage
measurements. DOE also incorporated
into the clothes dryer test procedure
definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘standby
mode,’’ and ‘‘off mode’’ based on the
definitions provided in IEC Standard
62301 CDV. 76 FR 76 FR 981–85 (Jan.
6, 2011).
IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition)
published on January 27, 2011.
Consistent with EPCA requirements for
amending test procedures to include
standby and off mode procedures, DOE
considered IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition) for amendments to the standby
mode and off mode test procedures for
clothes dryers in the January 2013
NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE
determined that IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) is an internationallyaccepted test procedure for measuring
standby power in residential appliances,
and it provides clarification to certain
sections as compared to the First
Edition. In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE
proposed to update its reference to IEC
Standard 62301 by incorporating certain
provisions of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition), along with clarifying
language, into the DOE test procedures
for clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan.
2, 2013).
AHAM and ALS commented that they
support the incorporation by reference
of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition).
AHAM stated that the Second Edition
contains a number of important
clarifications not present in the First
Edition and that adopting the Second
Edition will allow for optimum
international harmonization, which
gives clarity and consistency to the
regulated community. (AHAM, No. 17 at
pp. 13–14; ALS, No. 16 at p. 4)
The suitability of specific clauses
from IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition) regarding testing conditions
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49626
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
and methodology for use in DOE’s
clothes dryer test procedure are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Section 4, paragraph 4.4 of the Second
Edition revises the power measurement
accuracy provisions of the First Edition.
A more comprehensive specification of
required accuracy is provided in the
Second Edition, which depends upon
the characteristics of the power being
measured. Testers using the Second
Edition are required to measure the crest
factor and power factor of the input
power, and to calculate a maximum
current ratio (MCR) (paragraph 4.4.1 of
the Second Edition). The Second
Edition then specifies calculations to
determine permitted uncertainty in
MCR. DOE noted in the January 2013
NOPR, however, that the allowable
uncertainty is the same or less stringent
than the allowable uncertainty specified
in the First Edition, depending on the
value of MCR and the power level being
measured. DOE determined that this
change in the allowable uncertainty,
however, maintains sufficient accuracy
of measurements under a full range of
possible measured power levels without
placing undue demands on the
instrumentation. These power
measurement accuracy requirements
were based upon detailed technical
submissions to the IEC in the
development of IEC Standard 62301
Final Draft International Standard
(FDIS), which showed that commonlyused power measurement instruments
were unable to meet the original
requirements for certain types of loads.
DOE concluded in the January 2013
NOPR that the incremental testing
burden associated with the additional
measurements and calculations is offset
by the more reasonable requirements for
testing equipment, while maintaining
measurement accuracy deemed
acceptable and practical by voting
members for IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition). For these reasons,
DOE proposed in the January 2013
NOPR to incorporate by reference in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 2.4.7 the power equipment
specifications in section 4, paragraph
4.4 of IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition). 78 FR 152, 171–172 (Jan. 2,
2013). AHAM commented that it
supports incorporating by reference
these provisions. (AHAM, No. 17 at p.
14) For the reasons discussed above,
DOE adopts in today’s final rule these
amendments to its clothes dryer test
procedure.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted
that Section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition)
maintains the installation and setup
procedures incorporated by reference in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
the clothes dryer test procedure in the
January 2011 Final Rule from the First
Edition. These provisions require that
the appliance be prepared and set up in
accordance with manufacturer’s
instructions, and that if no instructions
are given, then the factory or default
settings shall be used, or where there are
no indications for such settings, the
appliance is tested as supplied.
Additionally, IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) adds certain
clarifications to the installation and
setup procedures in section 5, paragraph
5.2 of the First Edition regarding
products equipped with a battery
recharging circuit for an internal battery,
as well as instructions for testing each
relevant configuration option identified
in the product’s instructions for use.
DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR
that it is not aware of any clothes dryer
with an internal battery, or with a
recharging circuit for such a battery.
DOE also determined that a requirement
to separately test each configuration
option could substantially increase test
burden and potentially conflicts with
the requirement within the same section
to set up the product in accordance with
the instructions for use or, if no such
instructions are available, to use the
factory or default settings. Therefore,
DOE tentatively concluded in the
January 2013 NOPR that the portions of
the installation instructions in section 5,
paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) pertaining to batteries
and the requirement for the
determination, classification, and
testing of all modes associated with
every combination of available product
configuration options (which may be
more numerous than the modes
associated with operation at the default
settings) are not appropriate for the
clothes dryer test procedures.
Accordingly, DOE proposed qualifying
language in the test procedure
amendments in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.1 to
disregard those portions of the
installation instructions. 78 FR 152, 172
(Jan. 2, 2013). AHAM commented that it
does not oppose this proposal because
it is also not aware of any clothes dryer
with an internal battery or recharging
circuit for such a battery. (AHAM, No.
17 at p. 14) Therefore, for the reasons
discussed, DOE is amending the clothes
dryer test procedure in today’s final rule
to incorporate by reference the
installation instructions in section 5,
paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) and to include
qualifying language to disregard the
portions pertaining to batteries and the
requirement for the determination,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
classification, and testing of all modes
associated with every combination of
available product configuration options.
The Second Edition also contains
provisions for the power supply (section
4.3) and power-measuring instruments
(section 4.4). Paragraph 4.3.2 requires
that the value of the harmonic content
of the voltage supply be recorded during
the test and reported. As described
previously, paragraph 4.4.1 requires the
instrument to measure the crest factor
and maximum current ratio. Paragraph
4.4.3 requires the instrument to be
capable of measuring the average power
or integrated total energy consumption
over any operator-selected time interval.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated
that it is aware of commercially
available power measurement
instruments that can perform each of
these required measurements
individually. However, DOE is also
aware that certain industry-standard
instruments, such as the Yokogawa
WT210/WT230 digital power meter and
possibly others, are unable to measure
harmonic content or crest factor while
measuring average power or total
integrated energy consumption. DOE is
concerned that laboratories currently
using power-measuring instruments
without this capability would be
required to purchase, at potentially
significant expense, additional powermeasuring instruments that are able to
perform all these measurements
simultaneously. Therefore, DOE
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR for
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D1, sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.4.7 that if the
power-measuring instrument is unable
to perform these measurements during
the actual test measurement, it would be
acceptable to measure the total
harmonic content, crest factor, and
maximum current ratio immediately
before and immediately after the actual
test measurement to determine whether
the requirements for the power supply
and power measurement have been met.
78 FR 152, 172 (Jan. 2, 2013). AHAM
commented that it supports this
proposal. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) For
the reasons discussed, DOE adopts these
amendments to its clothes dryer test
procedure in today’s final rule.
The other major changes in the
Second Edition related to the
measurement of standby mode and off
mode power consumption in covered
products involve measurement
techniques and specification of the
stability criteria required to measure
that power. The Second Edition
contains more detailed techniques to
evaluate the stability of the power
consumption and to measure the power
consumption for loads with different
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
stability characteristics. According to
the Second Edition, the user is given a
choice of measurement procedures,
including sampling methods, average
reading methods, and a direct meter
reading method. For the January 2013
NOPR, DOE evaluated these new
methods in terms of test burden and
improvement in results as compared to
the methods adopted in the January
2011 Final Rule, which were based on
IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition).
In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE
adopted provisions requiring that
clothes dryer standby mode and off
mode power be measured using section
5, paragraph 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301
(First Edition), clarified by requiring the
product to stabilize for 30 to 40 minutes
and using an energy use measurement
period of 10 minutes. Further, for any
clothes dryer in which the power varies
over a cycle, as described in section 5,
paragraph 5.3.2 of the First Edition, the
January 2011 Final Rule adopted
amendments to require the use of the
average power approach in section 5,
paragraph 5.3.2(a), with a 30- to 40minute stabilization period and a 10minute minimum measurement period,
as long as the measurement period
comprises one or more complete cycles.
76 FR 972, 979–980, 985–986 (Jan. 6,
2011).
For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE
analyzed the potential impacts of
referencing methodology from IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition) rather
than from the First Edition by
comparing the provisions allowed by
each under different scenarios of power
consumption stability. Based on its
analysis, DOE concluded that the use of
the Second Edition would improve the
accuracy and representativeness of
power consumption measurements and
would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. As a result, DOE proposed in
the January 2013 NOPR to incorporate
by reference the relevant paragraphs of
section 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) in the clothes dryer
test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.6. 78
FR 152, 172–174 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM commented that it does not
oppose the proposed requirement to use
the sampling method in section 5.3.2 of
the Second Edition. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 14) For the reasons discussed above,
DOE amends the clothes dryer test
procedure in today’s final rule to require
in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D1, section 3.6 the use of the sampling
method in section 5.3.2 of the Second
Edition for all standby mode and off
mode power measurements.
DOE also amends the reference in 10
CFR 430.3 to add IEC Standard 62301
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
(Second Edition). DOE is not replacing
the reference to the First Edition in 10
CFR 430.3, because several test
procedures for other covered products
not addressed in today’s notice
incorporate provisions from it. In
addition, there are a number of editorial
changes necessary in appendix D1 to
allow for the correct referencing to the
Second Edition. For example, the
definition section in appendix D1 must
define the IEC Standard 62301 as the
Second Edition instead of the First
Edition. Also, there are certain section
numbering differences in the Second
Edition that impact the text of the
measurement provisions of the relevant
test procedures in appendix D1. In
addition, the definition and section
references discussed above are
incorporated in appendix D2.
E. Technical Correction to the
Calculation of the Per-cycle Combined
Total Energy Consumption
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted
that 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D1, section 4.6, regarding the
calculation of the per-cycle combined
total energy consumption contains a
reference to an incorrect section
number. The per-cycle standby mode
and off mode energy consumption, ETSO,
which is contained in section 4.5, is
incorrectly referenced in the per-cycle
combined total energy consumption as
section 4.7. DOE proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR to correct this
section number reference. 78 FR 152,
174 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE did not receive
any comments on this topic in response
to the January 2013 NOPR. In today’s
final rule, DOE adopts this amendment
to its clothes dryer test procedure in
appendix D1, and includes the correct
calculation in newly adopted appendix
D2.
F. Clarifications to Test Conditions
DOE noted in both the January 2013
NOPR and the February 2013 SNOPR
that it had received a number of
inquiries requesting clarification on
testing according to the DOE clothes
dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D. 78 FR 152, 174
(Jan. 2, 2013); 78 FR 8992 (Feb. 7, 2013).
As discussed in the following sections,
based on these inquiries, DOE is
adopting amendments in today’s final
rule to clarify certain provisions in the
DOE clothes dryer test procedure.
1. Cycle Settings
Section 3.3 in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D specifies that the
maximum temperature setting and, if a
tested unit is equipped with a timer, the
maximum time setting must be used for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49627
the drying test cycle. DOE noted in the
January 2013 NOPR that it received an
inquiry regarding how to test a clothes
dryer that has timed dry cycle length
settings, but no temperature settings on
the control panel. DOE proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR to clarify in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D, section
3.3, that if the clothes dryer does not
have a separate temperature setting
selection on the control panel, the
maximum time setting should be used
for the drying test cycle. DOE also
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to
include the clarification discussed
above in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D1, for the
timer dryer test method. 78 FR 152, 174
(Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM commented that it does not
oppose these clarifications for the cycle
settings, nor does it oppose these
changes becoming effective prior to the
January 1, 2015 standards compliance
date. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 17) Because
DOE did not receive any comments
objecting to this proposal in response to
the January 2013 NOPR and for the
reasons discussed above, DOE adopts
this clarification to its clothes dryer test
procedure in appendix D and appendix
D1 in today’s final rule. Because DOE is
amending the clothes dryer test
procedure in today’s final rule to create
a new appendix D2 for informational
purposes only that includes the
methods for more accurately measuring
the effects of automatic cycle
termination, which includes a separate
method for timer dryers, DOE is also
including the same cycle settings
clarification in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, for
the timer dryer test method.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted
that it also received an inquiry regarding
how to test a clothes dryer that has an
optional cycle setting, other than the
temperature and time settings, that is
activated by default in the condition as
shipped by the manufacturer. DOE
proposed to clarify in both 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D, section 3.3,
and appendix D1, section 3.3.1, that the
test procedures specify requirements
only for the temperature setting and
time setting, and do not specify
modifications to any other optional
settings that do not alter the temperature
setting and time setting. Similarly, in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 3.3.2, DOE proposed to clarify
for automatic termination control dryers
that any other optional cycle settings
that do not affect the automatic
termination cycle program, temperature
setting, or dryness setting shall be tested
in the as-shipped position. 78 FR 152,
174 (Jan. 2, 2013).
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49628
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
AHAM commented that it does not
oppose the clarifications for the optional
cycle settings because they are
consistent with its position that units
should be tested in the as-shipped
condition. AHAM stated that if other
settings are activated by default when
the appropriate temperature and time
settings are selected, the unit should be
tested with those settings activated.
AHAM noted, however, that because it
opposes the amendments related to
automatic termination controls at this
time, it supports incorporating these
clarifications in the current appendix D
and appendix D1. Should DOE finalize
the automatic termination control
methodology and related amendments,
but make them mandatory for
compliance with some future standard
(beyond 2015), AHAM stated it would
support these clarifications in that test
procedure as well. (AHAM, No. 17 at
pp. 17–18)
For the reasons discussed above, DOE
amends section 3.3 in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and D1 and
section 3.3.1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart
B, appendix D2, to clarify that any other
optional cycle settings that do not affect
the temperature or time settings shall be
tested in the as-shipped position. In
addition, DOE amends section 3.3.2 of
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D2, which will not be required to
demonstrate compliance with the 2015
standards, to clarify for automatic
termination control dryers that any
other optional cycle settings that do not
affect the automatic termination cycle
program, temperature setting, or dryness
setting shall be tested in the as-shipped
position.
2. Gas Supply Requirements
Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and appendix
D1, specifies that gas supply to the
clothes dryer should be maintained at a
normal inlet test pressure at 7 to 10
inches of water column, and that the
hourly British thermal unit (Btu) rating
of the burner shall be maintained within
± 5 percent of the rating specified by the
manufacturer. DOE discussed in the
January 2013 NOPR that it received an
inquiry noting that during testing of a
gas clothes dryer, the unit under test did
not meet the requirement to maintain
the Btu rating within 5 percent of the
rating specified by the manufacturer
under the allowable range in gas inlet
test pressure. DOE proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR to add a
clarification in both 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1
that if the requirement to maintain the
hourly Btu rating of the burner within
± 5 percent of the rating specified by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
manufacturer cannot be achieved under
the allowable range in gas inlet test
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner
should be modified as necessary to
achieve the required Btu rating. 78 FR
152, 174–175 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM and ALS opposed the
proposal to change the orifice of the gas
burner or any other hardware to meet
the ± 5 percent requirement. AHAM
added that the burner Btu rating is
based on a test gas value intended to
ensure product safety and that the
average heating value and typical
heating value during consumer use may
be lower than the heating value of the
test gas. AHAM commented that
because the intent of the test procedure
is to be representative of actual
consumer use, DOE should not go
forward with this proposal because the
consumer would never and should
never modify the orifice. (AHAM, No.
17 at p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at pp. 4–5)
DOE notes that the proposed
requirement to modify the gas burner
orifice if the hourly Btu rating specified
by the manufacturer cannot be achieved
under the allowable range in gas inlet
pressure ensures that the burner output
is reproducible from lab to lab for
testing purposes. DOE notes that
removing the gas supply requirements
specified in the test procedure and
allowing a wider range in the burner
output could affect the measured
efficiency and reproducibility of results
because of the resulting variation in the
heat input into the air entering the
clothes dryer drum. In addition, DOE
notes that the test procedure for gas
water heaters similarly specifies that the
burner should be adjusted as necessary
to achieve the hourly Btu rating
specified by the manufacturer. (10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix E, section
5.1.3) To ensure that test results are
repeatable and reproducible, in today’s
final rule, DOE amends the clothes
dryer test procedure in section 2.3.2 in
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D
and appendix D1 to include this
clarification for the gas supply
requirements. In addition, because DOE
is also amending the clothes dryer test
procedure to include a new appendix
D2, DOE is also including this
clarification for the gas supply
requirements in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D2, section 2.3.2.
Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1
specifies that if a clothes dryer is
equipped with a gas appliance pressure
regulator, the regulator outlet pressure
at the normal test pressure shall be
approximately that recommended by the
manufacturer. DOE noted in the January
2013 NOPR that the test procedures for
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
similar gas heating products, such as gas
water heaters, specify that the regulator
outlet pressure must be within ± 10
percent of the value specified by the
manufacturer. DOE proposed to clarify
the term ‘‘approximately’’ by specifying
that the regulator outlet pressure shall
be within ± 10 percent of the value
specified by the manufacturer. 78 FR
152, 175 (Jan. 2, 2013).
ALS supported DOE’s proposal to
clarify the outlet pressure range for the
gas regulator. (ALS, No. 16, at p. 5)
AHAM commented that the regulator
outlet pressure should be as close as
possible to that specified by the
manufacturer. AHAM stated that this
manufacturer recommendation helps
ensure the safety of the product and,
thus, the outlet pressure should not be
altered. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 18)
Because DOE did not receive any
comments objecting to this proposal in
response to the January 2013 NOPR and
for the reasons discussed above, DOE
amends section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1 in today’s final rule to
include the clarification that the
regulator outlet pressure shall be within
± 10 percent of the value recommended
by the manufacturer in the installation
manual, on the nameplate sticker, or
wherever the manufacturer makes such
a recommendation for the basic model.
In addition, because DOE is also
amending the clothes dryer test
procedure to include a new appendix
D2, DOE is also including this
clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D2, section 2.3.2.
3. Console Lights
In the February 2013 SNOPR, DOE
noted that it received an inquiry
requesting clarification on section 2.1 in
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D
and appendix D1, which specifies for
the installation conditions that all
console lights or other lighting systems
that do not consume more than 10 watts
shall be disconnected during the clothes
dryer active mode test cycle. 78 FR
8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013). DOE noted
that this provision was originally
adopted in the September 1977 Final
Rule. 42 FR 46145, 46146, 46150. DOE
intended this provision to apply to an
older generation of clothes dryers
existing at the time of the September
1977 Final Rule that used task lights to
illuminate the area of the clothes dryer
for consumers doing the laundry that
did not provide any function related to
the drying process during the drying
cycle. Newer-generation clothes dryers
equipped with electronic controls may
have control setting indicators such as
indicator lights showing the cycle
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
progression, temperature or dryness
settings, or other cycle functions. In
contrast to the task lighting of oldergeneration clothes dryers, these
indicator lights associated with cycle
settings or the drying operation are fully
integrated into the clothes dryer control
printed circuit boards (PCBs).
Disconnecting such lights would require
extracting the control PCB from the
clothes dryer and either physically
cutting off the indicator lights or
destroying their electrical signal traces
etched on the PCB.
As a result of these differences, DOE
proposed in the February 2013 SNOPR
to clarify in section 2.1 in both
appendix D and appendix D1 that
‘‘console lights or other lighting
systems’’ refers to task lights that do not
provide any function during the drying
cycle related to the drying process,
rather than the control setting indicators
in newer-generation clothes dryers with
electronic controls. DOE also proposed
to clarify that control setting indicators
such as indicator lights showing the
cycle progression, temperature or
dryness settings, or other cycle
functions should not be disconnected
during the active mode test cycle. 78 FR
8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013).
AHAM and ALS commented that they
do not oppose the proposed clarification
for the installation conditions of console
lights. AHAM added that because this is
not different than current industry
practice, this proposal would not impact
measured efficiency. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) Because DOE
did not receive any comments objecting
to this proposal and for the reasons
discussed above, DOE amends the
section 2.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D and appendix D1 in
today’s final rule to include this
clarification to the installation
requirements for console lights or other
lighting systems. In addition, because
DOE is also amending the clothes dryer
test procedure to include a new
appendix D2, DOE is also including this
clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D2, section 2.1.
4. Drum Capacity Measurements
Section 3.1 in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1
specifies that when measuring drum
capacity, the drum shall be filled with
water to a level determined by the
intersection of the door plane and the
loading port. In addition, section 3.1
specifies that volume should be added
or subtracted as appropriate depending
on whether the plastic bag used for the
measurement protrudes into the drum
interior. DOE noted in the February
2013 SNOPR that it received an inquiry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
requesting clarification of this
requirement. DOE proposed to amend
section 3.1 to clarify that, for the
measurement of the drum capacity, the
intersection of the door plane and the
loading port refers to the uppermost
edge of the drum that is in contact with
the door seal and that volume should be
added or subtracted from the measured
water fill volume to account for any
space in the drum interior not measured
by water fill (e.g., space occupied by the
door protruding into the drum interior).
78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013).
ALS supported DOE’s proposal to
clarify the drum capacity measurement.
(ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) AHAM commented
that it opposes the change for the drum
capacity measurements in appendix D
due to a lack of information and data on
the impact, if any, on measured energy
efficiency. AHAM stated that it does not
have such data. AHAM also commented
that the proposed amendments could
impact manufacturers’ reported
capacities and that it would be
burdensome to require such a change
during the transition to the January 1,
2015 standards. AHAM suggested that
DOE make this change only to appendix
D1, and only if DOE determines that
there would be no impact on measured
energy efficiency. Otherwise, AHAM
requested that any changes DOE made
not be mandatory for compliance with
the January 1, 2015 standards.
According to AHAM, this would allow
any impact on measured energy
efficiency to be evaluated in the future.
AHAM commented that it is possible
that manufacturers have information on
whether there is an impact on measured
energy efficiency, and, thus, AHAM
suggested that DOE contact
manufacturers to understand the
potential impact. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp.
18–19)
DOE notes that the amendment for the
drum capacity measurement proposed
in the February 2013 SNOPR would
clarify the measurement method (i.e.,
the level to which water is filled in the
drum and the amount of volume added
or subtracted from the measurement),
but not change the measurement results.
Therefore, the amendments to clarify
the drum capacity measurement would
not affect the measured drum volume or
energy efficiency. In today’s final rule,
DOE amends section 3.1 in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1 to include this clarification
to the drum capacity measurement. In
addition, because DOE is also amending
the clothes dryer test procedure to
include a new appendix D2, DOE is also
including this clarification in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D2,
section 3.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49629
The California IOUs commented that
the current method for measuring drum
capacity requires a technician to line the
clothes dryer drum with a plastic bag
and then fill the lined drum with water
while the clothes dryer rests on its side
on a scale. The California IOUs stated
that this procedure is burdensome,
presents a risk of very large water spills,
and can introduce measurement errors
because it is often difficult for
technicians to ensure that the plastic
bag has completely filled every
extrusion inside the drum, particularly
those just inside the drum opening. The
California IOUs stated that DOE should
consider the IEC method for drum
volume measurement. (California IOUs,
No. 22 at p. 24)
DOE notes that the drum volume
measurement method in annex E of IEC
Standard 61121 requires that the clothes
dryer be placed on its side with the door
leveled horizontally. The drum is then
filled with specifically-sized table
tennis balls without preventing the door
closing. In addition, the table tennis
balls are stirred occasionally to achieve
the closest packing of balls possible and
to eliminate void spaces. The number of
table tennis balls are then counted and
used to calculate the drum volume. DOE
notes that this method could result in
variation due to test technicians stirring
the table tennis balls differently, and
thus ending up with a different number
of total balls in the drum. DOE also
notes that counting the table tennis balls
may be burdensome depending on the
size of the drum. DOE notes that, if
conducted properly, the drum capacity
measurement using water is not
significantly more burdensome that the
drum volume measurement method in
IEC Standard 61121. As a result, DOE is
not considering such amendments to the
drum capacity measurement method in
today’s final rule.
5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range
Section 2.4.1 in appendix D and
appendix D1 specifies that the weighing
scale for the test cloth shall have a range
of 0 to a maximum of 30 lb with a
resolution of at least 0.2 ounces and a
maximum error no greater than 0.3
percent of any measured value within
the range of 3 to 15 lb. Similarly, section
2.4.1.2 in appendix D and appendix D1
specifies that the weighing scale for
drum capacity measurements should
have a range of 0 to a maximum of 500
lb with resolution of 0.50 lb and a
maximum error no greater than 0.5
percent of the measured value. DOE
noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that
it received an inquiry requesting
clarification of this requirement. DOE
recognizes that scales for weighing the
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49630
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
test cloth may have maximum capacity
higher than 30 lb, but still meet the
requirements for resolution and
maximum error within the range of 3 to
15 lb, as specified in the test procedure.
DOE also recognizes that a clothes
dryer, when filled with water for the
drum capacity measurement, could
exceed 500 lb. As a result, DOE
proposed in February 2013 SNOPR to
allow a higher maximum scale range, 60
lb for weighing the test cloth and 600 lb
for drum capacity measurements. DOE
also noted that the resolution and
maximum error requirements would
remain unchanged. 78 FR 8992, 8993–
8994 (Feb. 7, 2013).
AHAM stated that it did not oppose
the proposal to increase the maximum
allowable scale range while retaining
the resolution and maximum error
requirements. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 19)
ALS opposed DOE’s proposal for the
weighing scales, especially for the 600
lb maximum range for the weighing
scale used for drum capacity
measurements. ALS commented that a
larger maximum range would be
acceptable provided that the scale’s
accuracy in the range where the
measurement is being made is calibrated
to ISO 17025. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 5–6)
As discussed above, DOE is maintaining
the resolution and accuracy
requirements in the range where the
measurement is being made that are
specified in the current test procedure.
DOE does not believe it is necessary to
require a calibration to a specific
standard as long as the resolution and
accuracy requirements have been
properly certified. For the reasons
discussed above, in today’s final rule,
DOE adopts the amendments to sections
2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2 in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1
to allow a higher maximum scale range,
60 lb for weighing the test cloth and 600
lb for drum capacity measurements,
while maintaining the current
resolution and maximum error
requirements. In addition, because DOE
is also amending the clothes dryer test
procedure to include a new appendix
D2, DOE is also incorporating these
provisions for the weighing scale in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2,
sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2.
6. Relative Humidity Meter
Section 2.4.4 in appendix D and
appendix D1 specifies that the dry and
wet bulb psychrometer used for
measuring the ambient humidity shall
have an error no greater than ±1 degree
Fahrenheit (°F). DOE noted in the
February 2013 SNOPR that it received
an inquiry requesting clarification of
this provision. DOE recognizes that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
relative humidity meters may be an
acceptable means to measure the
ambient humidity. DOE also recognizes
that some humidity meters may express
error tolerances in terms of the dry and
wet bulb temperatures, while others
express error tolerances in terms of
percent relative humidity. As a result,
DOE evaluated how the ±1 °F tolerance
for the dry and wet bulb temperatures
translates to relative humidity. DOE
determined in the February 2013
SNOPR, based on the allowable range in
ambient temperature (72 to 78 °F) and
ambient humidity (40 to 60 percent
relative humidity) specified in the DOE
test procedure, that a ±1 °F tolerance for
the dry and wet bulb temperatures
would translate to a tolerance between
±2 percent and ±4 percent relative
humidity. As a result, DOE proposed
that a relative humidity meter with a
maximum error tolerance expressed in
°F equivalent to the requirements for the
dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with
a maximum error tolerance of ±2
percent relative humidity would be
acceptable for testing. 78 FR 8992,
8993–8994 (Feb. 7, 2013).
ALS supported DOE’s proposed
requirements for the relative humidity
meter. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 6) Because
DOE did not receive any comments
objecting to this proposal in response to
the February 2013 SNOPR and for the
reasons discussed above, DOE adopts in
today’s final rule the amendments to
section 2.4.4 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D and appendix D1
specifying that a relative humidity
meter with a maximum error tolerance
expressed in °F equivalent to the
requirements for the dry and wet bulb
psychrometer or with a maximum error
tolerance of ±2 percent relative
humidity would be acceptable for
testing. In addition, because DOE is also
amending the clothes dryer test
procedure to include a new appendix
D2, DOE is also including this
clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D2, section 2.4.4.
G. Additional Test Procedure Issues
DOE received comments in response
to the January 2013 NOPR and February
2013 SNOPR regarding a number of
additional issues related to the clothes
dryer test procedure. These issues are
discussed in the following sections.
1. Consumer Usage Patterns and
Capabilities
DOE received a number of comments
regarding changes to reflect current
consumer usage patterns and
capabilities. NEEA and the California
IOUs commented that based on the
NEEA field use data, the drying energy
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consumption per-cycle in the field is
different than what is measured in the
DOE test procedure. NEEA stated that
real-world drying times are longer and
the energy used per load is greater.
According to NEEA, their field use data
indicates that the average annual energy
use is 1134 kWh/year, which is nearly
double what the DOE test procedure
produces. According to the California
IOUs, the typical annual energy use
using DOE’s proposed amendments to
appendix D1 is 30 percent lower than
values observed in the NEEA field
study, which ranged from
approximately 830 to 1,100 kWh/year.
The California IOUs stated that the
estimated clothes dryer energy use is
967 kWh/year when using the appendix
D test procedure, which closely
approximates the trends observed in the
field data. The California IOUs stated
that the proposed number of clothes
dryer loads per year reduces the
estimated annual energy use to 641
kWh/year, which is too low. (NEEA,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp.
15–16, 17, 18; California IOUs, No. 22
at pp. 1–2)
The California IOUs commented that
in terms of load size, typical drying
times, and the measurement of
automatic termination, NEEA’s field
study and the proposed test procedure
in the January 2013 NOPR are in fairly
close agreement. However, the
California IOUs stated that the initial
RMC, number of annual use cycles, field
use factor, temperature settings, load
composition, and duct restriction are
substantively different, and as a result,
a number of values derived from these
parameters (i.e., the adjusted per-cycle
energy use, energy factor, and estimated
annual energy use) are significantly
different as well. The California IOUs
commented that changes to the initial
RMC, field use factor, and number of
annual use cycles are feasible to include
in the current test procedure
rulemaking. (California IOUs, No. 22 at
p. 6)
NRDC also commented that there are
several aspects of the test procedure that
remain inconsistent with real-world use,
including the number of annual clothes
dryer use cycles and the initial RMC, as
demonstrated by the recent NEEA field
study, testing by Ecos for NRDC, and
more recent testing by Ecova. NRDC
commented that, while these issues are
beyond the scope of the current
rulemaking, DOE should conduct a new
rulemaking as soon as possible to
address these issues to better represent
real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at
p. 2) NEEA & NPCC similarly
commented that if DOE is unable to
make appropriate changes to the
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
proposed test procedures in the current
rulemaking that would bring tested
energy use in closer agreement with a
more representative average use cycle as
indicated by the NEEA field data, DOE
should initiate another round of test
procedure and standards rulemaking as
soon as possible. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21
at p. 4)
The following sections discuss the
specific issues related to consumer use.
a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles
The DOE test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 4.5, specifies that the
representative number of clothes dryer
average-use cycles is 283 cycles per
year. NEEA presented data at the
February 2013 public meeting from a
field study that it conducted in the
Pacific Northwest for a four- to fiveweek period during the winter of 2012
indicating that the number of clothes
dryer annual use cycles is 428, and that
the amendment in the January 2011
Final Rule to change the number of
cycles per year to 283 is not
representative. (NEEA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 17–18, 194–
195) The California IOUs also
commented that the number of loads
being dried per year is greater than
specified in appendix D1. The
California IOUs commented that, as a
result, real-world energy consumption is
higher, with a greater potential for
absolute energy savings. (California
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10
at pp. 196–198) NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs commented that the
clothes dryer annual use cycles should
be adjusted upward to 337 based on the
NEEA field study data. (NEEA & NPCC,
No. 21 at p. 13; California IOUs, No. 22
at pp. 6, 10) NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs commented that the
RECS data alone are not precise enough
to use as the basis for the annual use
cycles of clothes dryers. NEEA & NPCC
and the California IOUs commented that
RECS data are based on self-reporting of
survey participants, who were asked to
recall and report on their typical
laundry habits, rather than relying on
precisely metered laundry loads. NEEA
& NPCC and the California IOUs also
stated that the ranges allowed for the
responses are too wide to produce
accurate data on average use, and that
the clothes dryer data are qualitative
and categorical in nature, further
introducing room for interpretation.
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs
commented that the estimate of the
fraction of clothes washer loads that are
dried is 124 percent based on NEEA
data and not the 84 percent or 91
percent that DOE estimated. NEEA &
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
NPCC stated that the matching process
between the monitored clothes dryer
cycles and the hand-written log entries
for each load can lead to ambiguity in
the results of their analysis of the field
data, but that the NEEA data also show
that people are often splitting loads that
come out of the clothes washer into two
or more clothes dryer loads. (NEEA &
NPCC, No. 21 at p. 13; California IOUs,
No. 22 at pp. 6, 7–8)
The California IOUs stated that they
conducted a sensitivity analysis on the
RECS data to establish high,
intermediate, and low estimates of
annual clothes dryer usage, using the
distribution of responses for each
question to establish weighted averages
of clothes washer and clothes dryer use.
The California IOUs commented that
their analysis showed that the RECS
data could yield values as high as 363
and as low as 199 clothes dryer loads
per year. The California IOUs
commented that DOE should consider
existing field measurements of
residential laundry behavior to
determine an appropriate estimate for
the number of annual clothes dryer use
cycles, noting a number of surveys with
estimates for the average annual use
cycles ranging from 224 loads per year
to 545 loads per year. (California IOUs,
No. 22 at p. 9) The California IOUs
stated that the NEEA field study, which
estimated 338 annual use cycles, is
more reflective of the average U.S.
homeowner usage than the RECS data
are for several reasons: (1) The 50
participants were metered for a longer
period than other field studies
(including a total of 903 valid clothes
dryer runs); (2) the NEEA study was
specifically designed to examine the
energy use and behaviors associated
with laundry care in the Northwest
region, including written logs of clothes
washer and clothes dryer use to
corroborate metered clothes dryer data;
(3) NEEA captured a diverse sample of
homes in its study, whereas one earlier
study was dominated by homes already
participating in energy efficiency
programs that show a tendency to use
equipment less frequently; and (4) the
estimates of annual clothes dryer loads
per year from the NEEA study fall in the
middle of the range of possible clothes
dryer use estimates resulting from
analysis of RECS data. (California IOUs,
No. 22 at p. 10) The California IOUs
commented that although a
comprehensive study of typical U.S.
residential laundry behavior does not
yet exist, the existing studies provide a
sounder basis for calculating clothes
dryer cycles per year than RECS survey
data. The California IOUs requested that
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49631
DOE adjust its current assumption of
283 clothes dryer loads per year up to
336 clothes dryer loads per year, which
both reflects findings of the NEEA study
and serves as a compromise point
between current and pre-2011 DOE duty
cycle values. (California IOUs, No. 22 at
pp. 10–11)
AHAM opposed a change to the
number of clothes dryer annual use
cycles. AHAM stated that DOE just
completed a rulemaking in which it
determined that it was appropriate to
decrease the number of annual use
cycles. AHAM commented that DOE
should not reverse that determination
now, at least, not without further study
and the opportunity for full notice and
comment rulemaking on the issue. In
addition, AHAM stated that it is not
appropriate to make this change at this
time given that it will impact test
results, thus necessitating an adjustment
to the standard, which should not be
done during the 3-year lead time to the
January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No.
17 at p. 16)
DOE notes that the 283 clothes dryer
annual use cycles specified in appendix
D1 was based on data from the 2005
RECS, which is a national sample
survey of housing units that collects
statistical information on the
consumption of, and expenditures for,
energy in housing units along with data
on energy-related characteristics of the
housing units and occupants. In the
January 2011 Final Rule, DOE estimated
that the fraction of clothes washer loads
that go into the clothes dryer is 91
percent (not the 84 percent suggested by
NEEA & NPCC). In addition, DOE noted
in the January 2011 Final Rule that the
283 annual use cycles is fairly
consistent with data provided by AHAM
that referenced a study conducted by
Procter & Gamble (which estimated 279
annual use cycles), as well as data from
Whirlpool (which estimated 288 annual
use cycles). 76 FR 972, 1010 (Jan. 6,
2011). DOE also notes that the NEEA
field study does not appear to take into
account users that may line-dry certain
laundry loads, which could potentially
be due to the timing (winter) and
location (Pacific Northwest) of the
survey. DOE recognizes interested
parties’ concerns regarding the number
of annual use cycles based on the
available field use data. However, DOE
does not have sufficient information at
this time to make a definitive
conclusion regarding the number of
clothes dryer annual use cycles. As a
result, DOE is not amending the number
of clothes dryer annual use cycles at this
time in the limited scope of this test
procedure rulemaking. DOE may
continue collecting and considering
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49632
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
available data on clothes dryer use and
may consider amendments to the
number of annual use cycles in a future
rulemaking.
b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content
and Moisture Removed During Test
Cycle
The DOE test procedure in appendix
D1 specifies that the initial RMC of the
test load shall be 57.5 percent. (10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 2.7) NEEA presented data at the
February 2013 public meeting from a
field study that it conducted showing
that real-world initial RMC is 80
percent. In addition, NEEA commented
that based on its field use data, the
drying cycle times in the field are
different than what is measured in the
DOE test procedure. (NEEA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 15, 16,
194–195) The California IOUs also
commented that, based on the NEEA
field data, clothes are wetter when they
come out of the clothes washer than
DOE estimates. (California IOUs, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 196–
197)
NEEA & NPCC and the California
IOUs commented that, based on the
NEEA field study data, initial RMC
values below 60 percent are not being
realized in the field, and that their
average (from a sample of 50 households
that comprised 30-percent top-loaders
and 70-percent front-loaders) is
estimated to be 62 percent. NEEA &
NPCC stated that this results in greater
energy use and longer cycle times in the
field than is produced using the DOE
test procedure. NEEA & NPCC added
that the initial RMC is largely
independent of the dry weight of the
test load because: (1) Clothes washer
users are not always selecting the cycles
that utilize the highest spin speeds
available on their equipment; and (2) if
consumers do select those cycles, the
clothes washers are not always
successfully balancing the loads
sufficiently to actually spin at the
highest speeds. NEEA & NPCC
commented that in many cases, the
machine is unable to balance the load
after a long period and simply spins at
the highest speed that the suspension
allows, and they believe that this speed
may decrease over time as the drum
suspension components wear. (NEEA &
NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3–4, 7–8, NPCC,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p.
114) NEEA & NPCC stated that the RMC
values seen in the field result in more
time and energy to dry a typical load
than DOE’s current test procedures
would suggest. According to NEEA &
NPCC, the estimated average drying
cycle time from the field testing was 58
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
minutes. NEEA & NPCC also stated that
there is a positive linear trend between
average drying time versus average total
moisture removed. Based on field data,
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs
recommended that DOE change the
initial RMC value to 62 percent ± 0.33
percent. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp.
8–10; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6–
7)
AHAM opposed a change to the initial
RMC currently specified in the DOE test
procedure at appendix D1. AHAM
stated that DOE just completed a
rulemaking in which it determined that
it was appropriate to decrease the initial
RMC. AHAM commented that DOE
should not now reverse that
determination, at least not without
further study and the opportunity for
full notice and comment rulemaking on
the issue. In addition, AHAM stated that
it is not appropriate to make this change
at this time given that it will impact test
results, thus necessitating an adjustment
to the standard, which should not be
done during the 3-year lead time to the
January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No.
17 at pp. 12–13)
DOE noted in the January 2011 Final
Rule that the 57.5-percent initial RMC
was based on AHAM shipmentweighted clothes washer RMC data,
which was representative of all products
on the market. In addition, DOE notes
that there is uncertainty in the initial
RMC estimates from the NEEA field
study data because each laundry load
was not dried to determine the bone-dry
weight, which is then used to calculate
the RMC of the test load. Instead, a fixed
correction was used to estimate the
RMC of laundry loads from the NEEA
field study. DOE also notes that NEEA
& NPCC’s comment that initial RMCs
below 60 percent are not being realized
in the field appears to be contrary to the
data presented in their comments,
which show that a large number of
laundry loads metered in the NEEA
field study had initial RMCs of 60
percent or less (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21
at p. 7). After considering this
information, DOE determined it is not
sufficient at this time to make a
definitive conclusion regarding the
value of the initial RMC of the test load.
As a result, DOE is not amending the
initial RMC in this test procedure
rulemaking. DOE may continue
collecting and considering available
data on clothes dryer use and may
consider amendments to the initial RMC
in a future rulemaking.
The California IOUs stated that the
amount of moisture being removed
better describes the work being done by
a clothes dryer than the dry weight of
clothing in the load, and that the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed test procedure does not
require the clothes dryer under test to
remove as much moisture as the field
data suggests is typical. The California
IOUs stated that, as a result, the DOE
test procedure underestimates field
clothes dryer energy use by 30 percent.
The California IOUs presented data
showing that the amount of water
removed during the proposed automatic
cycle termination test procedure is 4.6
lb, whereas the NEEA field study data
show an average of 4.5 lb of water
removed during the drying cycle. The
California IOUs stated that the test
procedure will not be representative of
field conditions unless the total
moisture being removed per load is
greater, as suggested by the field data.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 18–19)
DOE notes that the amount of
moisture removed is controlled by the
weight, initial RMC, and final RMC of
the test load. For the reasons discussed
in this section, DOE is not considering
changes to the test load weight and
initial RMC in today’s final rule. In
addition, as discussed in section III.B.3,
the 2-percent final RMC threshold for
the automatic cycle termination test
method was based on the data presented
in the Joint Petitioners’ comment
regarding RMC levels acceptable to
consumers. DOE also notes that the
amount of water removed during the
proposed automatic termination test
cycle for standard-size clothes dryers
must be at a minimum 4.7 lb to dry the
load to just 2-percent RMC (not 4.6 lb
as suggested by the California IOUs),
and thus most clothes dryers will dry
more than 4.7 lb of water during the test
cycle. DOE also notes that the data from
the NEEA field study cited by the
California IOUs showing that on average
4.5 lb of water was removed during the
drying cycle appears to be contrary to
the California IOUs’ comment that the
total moisture being removed per load
should be greater. For these reasons,
DOE is not considering changes to these
values that would revise the amount of
moisture removed during the test cycle.
c. Test Load Weight
The DOE test procedure at appendix
D1 specifies test load bone-dry weights
of 8.45 lb and 3.00 lb for standard-size
and compact-size clothes dryers,
respectively. As part of the test
procedure amendments in the January
2011 Final Rule, DOE changed the load
bone-dry weights for standard-size
dryers from 7.00 lb to 8.45 lb based on
the historical trends of clothes washer
tub volumes and the corresponding
percentage increase in clothes washer
test load sizes (as specified by the DOE
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
clothes washer test procedure). 76 FR
972, 977 (Jan. 6, 2011).
NEEA commented that the dry weight
of real-world test loads, as determined
from its field study, is on average 7.4 lb.
(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
10 at p. 17) As discussed above, DOE
notes that there is uncertainty in the test
load bone-dry weight estimates from the
NEEA field study data because each
laundry load was not dried to determine
the bone-dry weight. Instead, a fixed
correction was used to estimate the dry
weight of laundry loads based on the
weight measurements after the drying
cycle from the NEEA field study. In
addition, it is unclear whether the
NEEA field study included both
standard-size and compact-size clothes
dryers and whether the capacities of the
clothes dryer models in the 50
households selected in the survey are
representative of all U.S. clothes dryer
shipments. DOE recognizes NEEA’s
concerns regarding the test load bonedry weight based on the available field
use data. However, DOE does not have
sufficient information at this time to
make a definitive conclusion regarding
the test load bone-dry weight. As a
result, DOE is not amending the test
load bone-dry weight at this time in this
test procedure rulemaking. DOE may
continue collecting and considering
available data on clothes dryer use and
may consider amendments to the test
load bone-dry weight in a future
rulemaking.
d. Exhaust Conditions
The DOE test procedure specifies in
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D
and appendix D1, section 2.1, that the
clothes dryer exhaust shall be restricted
by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator
described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM
HLD–1–2009.
The California IOUs commented that
DOE should update the test procedure
in a new rulemaking to modify the
exhaust cap diameter to better reflect
the duct restriction and airflow from
recent NEEA field measurements.
According to the California IOUs,
typical clothes dryers operate with lessthan-ideal venting and have greater duct
blockage, lower airflow, and
correspondingly longer drying times
than those measured under DOE test
conditions. The California IOUs stated
that this is due to lint accumulation in
ducts, failure of users to clean lint filters
routinely, unsecured ducting, and long
venting distances in older homes. The
California IOUs stated that NEEA’s field
study confirms a wide range of air flow
rates from clothes dryers, representing
various levels of duct restriction. The
California IOUs noted that air flow rates
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
at the output of the vent were found to
be as low as 6 cubic feet per minute
(CFM) and as high as 146 CFM, with an
average of 79 CFM. The California IOUs
stated that this is significantly lower
than air flow rates of approximately 96
CFM that they measured in the
laboratory when a set of clothes dryers
similar to those metered in the field
were tested under the current DOE test
procedure. The California IOUs
developed a correlation of air flow rate
with the size of hole in an end cap, as
allowed by the 2010 AHAM procedure,
and found that the NEEA field study
average air flow rate was reproduced for
the average of four representative
clothes dryers in the laboratory with a
hole diameter of 211⁄16 inches versus the
current DOE value of 27⁄8 inch diameter.
The California IOUs stated that DOE
should update its airflow restriction in
a new rulemaking to better reflect
conditions documented in the field.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17, 19–
20, 21)
DOE first notes that the exhaust
simulator specified in section 3.3.5.1 of
AHAM HLD–1–2009, which is required
for use in the DOE test procedure,
requires a hole diameter of 29⁄16 inches,
not the 27⁄8-inch diameter referenced by
the California IOUs. As a result, DOE
notes that it is unclear whether the
correlation between air flow rates with
the size of the hole was developed
correctly to take into consideration the
29⁄16-hole diameter required in the DOE
test procedure. In addition, drum
volume and shipments information
were not made available for the four
clothes dryers used in the limited
testing conducted by the California
IOUs, to determine whether airflow
rates would be representative of all
clothes dryer shipments and household
venting configurations. Therefore, DOE
does not have sufficient information at
this time to make a definitive
conclusion regarding the exhaust
conditions. As a result, DOE is not
amending the exhaust conditions at this
time in this test procedure rulemaking.
DOE may continue collecting and
considering available data on clothes
dryer use and may consider
amendments to the exhaust conditions
in a future rulemaking.
2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight
Measurement
DOE notes that 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2 and
appendix D1, section 1.5 specify that
the bone-dry weight means the
condition of a load of test clothes which
has been dried in a clothes dryer at
maximum temperature for a minimum
of 10 minutes, removed and weighed
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49633
before cool down, and then dried again
for 10-minute periods until the final
weight change of the load is 1 percent
or less.
The California IOUs commented that
DOE should clarify its requirements for
bone-dry weight measurements. The
California IOUs stated that the process
for obtaining bone-dry weight is
considerably labor intensive, requiring
technicians to iteratively dry test cloths
until their run-to-run weight variation is
less than a particular percentage. The
California IOUs added that for a
laboratory conducting large numbers of
clothes dryer measurements, the
repeated bone drying of test cloths can
be burdensome. The California IOUs
commented that the current wording of
the test procedure appears to require
that testers obtain new bone-dry cloth
measurements for every clothes dryer
test. According to the California IOUs,
test cloths shed very little mass through
the drying process (about 0.01 lb for
every 10 drying cycles) and so they
question whether it may be acceptable
for bone drying to occur at a less
frequent interval as long as the same test
cloths are used for every drying cycle.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 24)
DOE notes that if a commercial
clothes dryer is used, bone-drying test
loads should only take two to three 10minute drying cycles to achieve a bonedry state. In addition, DOE notes that
the current DOE clothes dryer test
procedure does not require multiple test
runs. As a result, DOE does not consider
the bone-drying process to be unduly
burdensome to conduct and, therefore,
is not amending the bone-drying process
in today’s final rule.
Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning
DOE notes that the current clothes
dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.8.2,
specifies that for ventless clothes dryers,
before any test cycle, the steady-state
machine temperature must be equal to
the room ambient temperature. Section
2.8.2 also specifies that this may be
done by leaving the machine at ambient
room conditions for at least 12 hours
between tests.
The California IOUs commented that
for testing laboratories conducting a
high volume of testing with limited test
stations, the requirement for ventless
clothes dryers to leave the machine at
ambient conditions for 12 hours
between tests when conducting repeated
tests can be burdensome and effectively
means that only one test may be
performed per day. The California IOUs
requested that DOE consider alternate
language that might enable shorter
turnaround times when testing ventless
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49634
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
clothes dryers. The California IOUs
stated that, for example, drum or cabinet
air temperature measurements could be
conducted after an initial 6-hour period
to determine whether a clothes dryer’s
internal temperature is within ± 5 °F of
ambient conditions. If internal
temperatures are within the given range
of ambient conditions, testing would
proceed. Otherwise, test technicians
would need to wait the full 12 hours
until conducting another test. The
California IOUs stated that such
provisions would greatly reduce the
testing burden for ventless clothes
dryers. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 24)
As discussed above, the provisions
specify that the steady-state temperature
may be achieved by leaving the machine
at ambient room conditions for at least
12 hours between tests. DOE notes,
however, that a 12-hour period is not
required and, as discussed in the
January 2011 Final Rule, other means
used to achieve a steady-state machine
temperature would be acceptable under
the test procedure provisions. 76 FR
972, 1007 (Jan. 6, 2011). As a result,
DOE is not changing the preconditioning requirements for ventless
clothes dryers in today’s final rule.
Room Ambient Humidity Requirements
The DOE test procedures specify in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D,
section 2.2 and appendix D1, section
2.2.1, that the room relative humidity
must be maintained at 50 ± 10 percent
relative humidity.
The California IOUs also commented
that the lab-to-lab variation from DOE’s
testing with the DOE and IEC/AHAM
test loads may be largely attributed to
the variation in ambient humidity. The
California IOUs commented that if the
DOE were to change the test load
composition such that reproducibility
and repeatability were lessened, DOE
could change other conditions in the
test procedure to compensate, such as
specifying a tighter tolerance for the
allowable humidity. The California
IOUs noted that it is relatively harder
for the air coming in to the clothes dryer
to evaporate the moisture in the load if
the air has more water in it. (California
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10
at pp. 70–72)
The California IOUs commented that
they tested one clothes dryer with
moisture sensors near the extremes of
environmental conditions for
temperature and humidity. The
California IOUs stated that the hightemperature, low-relative humidity
scenario was only 1-percent more
efficient than the low-temperature, highrelative humidity scenario. The
California IOUs noted that other studies,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
such as data provided by Whirlpool in
chapter 5 of the 2011 DOE Final Rule
Technical Support Document, have
shown the measured efficiency has a
greater sensitivity to ambient
temperature and relative humidity. The
California IOUs stated their limited data
to date on this topic do not suggest that
the range of allowable environmental
conditions needs to be narrowed, but
they encouraged DOE to investigate this
issue more thoroughly in a new
rulemaking as it seeks ways of
minimizing run-to-run variability while
increasing the representativeness of the
test procedure. (California IOUs, No. 22
at pp. 22–23)
DOE notes that, in its tests, it did not
require the ambient conditions to be
controlled any more tightly than
required by the current test procedure
and that variations in the ambient
humidity would also have been present
from test to test within a given test lab.
As a result, the effects of variations in
the ambient humidity would be equally
present in both the test-to-test and labto-lab variation. As a result, DOE
considers the difference in lab-to-lab
reproducibility for the DOE test load
(3.0 percent) and the IEC/AHAM test
load (4.7 percent) to be primarily
attributable to the variation in test loads
from lot to lot. DOE notes that further
tightening the room temperature and
humidity conditions may require testing
to be conducted in an environmental
chamber to maintain the required
conditions, which would significantly
increase testing burden. Based on the
information and test data available
regarding the effects of the ambient
humidity on the measured efficiency,
DOE is not amending the room relative
humidity requirements in today’s final
rule.
Measurement of Drying Cycle Time
The California IOUs commented that
DOE should include a measurement of
drying time in its test procedure. The
California IOUs indicated that test labs
can already determine drying time for
timed dry and automatic termination
cycles from their data logs of power
consumption over time, but the DOE
test procedure does not require it to be
reported. The California IOUs stated
that various U.S. clothes dryer
manufacturers currently make widely
different claims about drying times for
various models, each employing
different assumptions about the size and
composition of the load being dried and
the initial RMC. According to the
California IOUs, some manufacturers
have made claims that particular clothes
dryer models can achieve energy
savings of 40 percent or more, or can
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
dry laundry in as little as 14 minutes,
but these results may not have been
achieved under representative
conditions. The California IOUs stated
that in the absence of standardized
guidelines for how to report drying
times and energy savings, manufacturers
developed their own guidelines for
marketing purposes. (California IOUs,
No. 22 at pp. 11–12)
The California IOUs further stated
that the link between energy efficiency
and drying times in clothes dryers has
already been established in laboratory
testing. The California IOUs stated that,
all else being equal, a clothes dryer that
reduces the heating element
temperature and modestly extends
average drying times can save energy,
which is the basis for the optional ‘‘ecomodes’’ now being offered in many new
clothes dryers. The California IOUs
stated that this will not affect consumer
satisfaction for loads that are not timecritical, but that it may be an
unacceptable tradeoff to many
consumers. The California IOUs stated
that having an accurate measure of
drying times will help users purchase
those models that can achieve energy
savings without sacrificing performance,
and will help programs such as
ENERGYSTAR establish a reasonable
upper bound for allowable drying times
for labeled products. (California IOUs,
No. 22 at p. 12)
The California IOUs stated that
recording and reporting drying time will
also encourage manufacturers to
automatically terminate the drying cycle
promptly and as close as possible to 2percent RMC, since any additional overdrying would take more time and
produce no consumer benefit.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 12)
DOE notes that requiring the
measurement of the drying time is
inconsistent with the EPCA requirement
that a test procedure measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As a
result, DOE is not adopting amendments
to require the measurement and
reporting of the clothes dryer cycle time
in today’s final rule.
Effects of Proposed Test Procedure
Revisions on Compliance With
Standards
In any rulemaking to amend a test
procedure, DOE must determine to what
extent, if any, the proposed test
procedure would alter the measured
energy efficiency of any covered
product as determined under the
existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the
amended test procedure would alter the
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
measured efficiency of a covered
product, DOE must amend the
applicable energy conservation standard
accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In
determining the amended energy
conservation standard, the Secretary
shall measure, pursuant to the amended
test procedure, the energy efficiency,
energy use, or water use of a
representative sample of covered
products that minimally comply with
the existing standard. The average of
such energy efficiency, energy use, or
water use levels determined under the
amended test procedure shall constitute
the amended energy conservation
standard for the applicable covered
products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) If DOE
were to amend an energy conservation
standard under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2),
models of covered products in use
before the date on which the amended
energy conservation standard becomes
effective (or revisions of such models
that come into use after such date and
have the same energy efficiency, energy
use or water use characteristics) that
comply with the energy conservation
standard applicable to such covered
products on the day before such date
shall be deemed to comply with the
amended energy conservation standard.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)) DOE’s authority to
amend energy conservation standards
does not affect DOE’s obligation to issue
any final standards as described in 42
U.S.C. 6295. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(4))
Active Mode
As discussed in section III.F, DOE is
amending 10 CFR part 430 subpart B,
appendix D in today’s final only to
clarify the cycle settings used for
testing, the requirements for the gas
supply, the installation conditions for
console lights, the method for
measuring the drum capacity, the
maximum allowable scale range, and
the allowable use of a relative humidity
meter. Because the amendments to
appendix D would not change the actual
testing method, DOE determined that
these amendments would not affect the
measured efficiency according to
appendix D and would not affect a
manufacturer’s ability to demonstrate
compliance with the current energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(h)(2).
As part of the January 2013 NOPR,
because the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards for clothes
dryers are based on CEF as measured
according to 10 CFR part 430 subpart B,
appendix D1, DOE investigated how the
proposed amendments for automatic
cycle termination would affect the
measured CEF. For the January 2013
NOPR, DOE conducted testing on 20
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
clothes dryers according to the DOE
clothes dryer test procedure in existing
appendix D1 and then according to the
proposed automatic cycle termination
test procedure.13 The results of this
testing showed that specific models
resulted in either a lower or higher
measured CEF as compared to the
measured CEF using the existing test
procedure, ranging from a 27.4-percent
decrease to a 20.4-percent increase in
CEF with an average of a 3.8-percent
increase. DOE also evaluated the effects
of the proposed amendments for the
products in DOE’s test sample that
minimally comply with the existing
energy conservation standards (based on
rated EF). The results for the 10
minimally compliant units in DOE’s test
sample showed a 27.4-percent decrease
to a 16.9-percent increase in CEF as
compared to the CEF using the existing
test procedure, with an average of a 4.1percent increase. 78 FR 152, 175–176
(Jan. 2, 2013).
Based on these results and consistent
with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) and (2), DOE
tentatively concluded in the January
2013 NOPR that the proposed
amendments to the active mode test
procedure will on average not impact
the measured efficiency as compared to
the current test procedure for models
currently available on the market. As a
result, DOE did not consider
amendments to the energy conservation
standards that will be required on
January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176 (Jan. 2,
2013).
AHAM disagreed with DOE’s
determination that the proposed test
procedure’s impact on measured
efficiency is de minimus and that an
adjustment to the standards is
unnecessary. AHAM stated that DOE’s
data shows that the impact of the
proposed test procedure amendments is
significant enough that it would be
inappropriate for DOE to make the
proposed test procedure amendments
effective until a future standards change
(i.e., subsequent to the January 1, 2015
standards). (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 2–3,
11; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 172–173)
AHAM commented that DOE’s
approach does not meet either the test
procedure ‘‘crosswalk’’ and lead time
requirements for amended standards or
the procedural and substantive
requirements and criteria under 42
U.S.C. 6295. AHAM stated that the
provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) do not
contain the same rigorous economic and
13 As discussed in section III.B.III.B.3, the
proposed amendments in the January 2013 NOPR
included the 0.80 field use factor for automatic
termination control dryers.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49635
technical criteria as in the standards
provisions because changes in standards
stringency are intended to occur in a
standards rulemaking only, not in a
stand-alone test procedure rulemaking.
AHAM stated that in a future joint
standards and test procedure
rulemaking, the basic criteria of
technical feasibility and economic
justification, and the many subeconomic and technical considerations,
can be reviewed fully. (AHAM, No. 17
at p. 3)
AHAM commented that test
procedures should not be used to
tighten or loosen standards. AHAM
stated that DOE must comply with 42
U.S.C. 6293(e), and if that would result
in unlawful attenuating of lead time and
lock-in periods, then DOE should wait
until a future standards rulemaking is
complete and integrate the regulatory
processes. AHAM stated that, should
DOE proceed as proposed in the January
2013 NOPR despite AHAM’s
opposition, AHAM would prefer that
DOE include the 0.80 field use factor
rather than exclude it because it would
mitigate the burden to manufacturers.
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 5)
AHAM commented that DOE’s
evaluation of the impacts of the
proposed test procedure revisions on
the measured efficiency was not
conducted pursuant to any formal
policy or guidance on how the
evaluation under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is to
be conducted. AHAM commented that
without some establishment of these
policies and procedures, it is difficult to
evaluate whether the analysis was
conducted properly or to determine how
to interpret its results. (AHAM, No. 17
at p. 5)
AHAM members conducted testing on
vented electric standard, vented electric
compact (240V), vented gas, and
ventless electric compact (240V) clothes
dryers under existing appendix D1 and
the proposed appendix D1. AHAM
stated that its test data, applying the
0.80 field use factor, showed similar
results to DOE’s testing. In particular,
AHAM’s testing under the proposed test
procedure showed a 28.1-percent
decrease to a 13.1-percent increase in
CEF as compared to the CEF using
appendix D1, with an average 0.63percent increase in CEF. However,
AHAM stated that without a protocol for
choosing which models to test, a focus
on individual product classes rather
than clothes dryers as a whole, and
criteria for what is significant versus de
minimus, the DOE and the AHAM
processes are both arbitrary. (AHAM,
No. 17 at pp. 5–6)
AHAM disagreed with DOE’s
determination that an average 3.8-
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49636
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
percent (based on all tested models) or
an average 4.1-percent (based on
minimally compliant models only)
increase in CEF is de minimus, and,
thus, does not constitute an ‘‘impact’’ on
measured efficiency. AHAM stated that
42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)–(2) requires DOE to
determine to what extent, if any, the
proposed test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency and it does
not say ‘‘significantly alter.’’ AHAM
noted that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) specifies
that if DOE determines that the
amended test procedure will alter the
measured efficiency, the Secretary shall
(not ‘‘may’’ or ‘‘shall under certain
circumstances’’) amend the applicable
energy conservation standard during the
rulemaking carried out with respect to
such test procedure. AHAM noted that
the statute provides for an averaging
process—which DOE has failed to
further define or clarify—that is
required to determine the amended
standard. AHAM stated that there is no
process to determine when not to
change the standard and that even if
such de minimus determinations are
statutorily permitted, these data—even
if accepted as an appropriate
sampling—do not support a de minimus
determination. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 7)
AHAM commented that because the
January 1, 2015 standards are 5 percent
more stringent than the existing
standard, it is not reasonable to
conclude that a 3.8–4.1 percent change
in measured efficiency will on average
not impact the measured efficiency.
AHAM and ALS commented that the
field use factor seems to have been
selected to allow DOE to meet what it
considers a de minimus threshold.
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 7; ALS, No. 16 at
p. 3)
AHAM stated that it is improper to
consider just an average impact on
measured efficiency, across all product
classes combined, and that DOE should
instead assess the range of impacts.
AHAM commented that every clothes
dryer, not just the average clothes dryer,
must comply with the standards and,
thus, ranges of impact must not be
ignored as DOE assesses whether there
is an impact on measured efficiency
under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1). AHAM
commented that DOE and AHAM data
under the proposed test procedure show
a wide range of effects on the measured
CEF as compared to the appendix D1
test results. AHAM commented that
even if DOE determined that the
proposed test procedure changes impact
measured efficiency, it is unclear
whether DOE should adopt test
procedure changes that would have this
range of impacts during a 3-year lead
time or any time other than coincident
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
with a standards rulemaking. In this
particular case, AHAM stated that it
does not believe it is appropriate to
make such a standards change. (AHAM,
No. 17 at pp. 7–8) According to ALS, it
is unacceptable to have certain models
that cannot be certified or sold after
January 1, 2015 because Congress
intended under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3) that
every model that is compliant before a
test procedure change would be
compliant after the test procedure
change. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) The
California IOUs also commented that
there is a wide range in measured
efficiency under the proposed test
procedure, and that although the effects
on the measured efficiency on average
may be small, clothes dryers must
qualify individually. (California IOUs,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp.
169–171)
AHAM commented that DOE should
assess the impact on measured
efficiency by product class. AHAM
stated that product classes exist for
energy conservation standards because
of important design, use, and utility
differences between products that
impact energy use, and those differences
should not be ignored when assessing
the impact a test procedure change will
have on measured energy efficiency.
AHAM commented that based on DOE’s
data, there are certain product classes
for which the de minimus argument
does not hold, even if such
determinations are permitted and even
if the field use factor is applied (e.g.,
vented electric compact (120V) clothes
dryers). Furthermore, comparing the
DOE and AHAM data by product class,
AHAM noted that the product class
average impacts differ. For example,
DOE’s test data show a 7.4-percent
change for vented gas clothes dryers,
whereas AHAM’s data show a 2.5percent change in average CEF under
the proposed test procedure as
compared to appendix D1 results. Thus,
AHAM stated that the overall averages
are not comparable. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 8)
AHAM and ALS opposed the 0.80
field use factor for automatic
termination control dryers and noted
that without that field use factor
applied, the data show that an
adjustment under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is
necessary. AHAM noted that DOE and
AHAM’s data, when the field use factor
is removed, show an average impact on
measured energy efficiency of ¥16.9
percent and ¥19.5 percent,
respectively, for the proposed test
procedure as compared to the appendix
D1 test results. In addition, AHAM
again noted that for certain product
classes, the average impact is even more
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
significant. AHAM noted that, for
example, the impact on measured
efficiency for vented electric compact
(120V) clothes dryers in DOE’s sample
(of which there is only one) without the
field use factor applied is ¥42.0 percent
as compared to the appendix D1 test
results. In addition, according to
AHAM’s data, without the field use
factor applied, the average impact on
measured efficiency for vented electric
standard clothes dryers is ¥20.0
percent and the average impact on
measured efficiency for vented gas
clothes dryers is ¥18.0 percent as
compared to the appendix D1 test
results. Furthermore, AHAM stated that
though the overall average impact on
measured efficiency is similar between
the DOE data (¥16.9 percent) and
AHAM data (¥19.5 percent), AHAM
believes this is coincidental because the
individual product class averages which
factor in to the overall average are quite
different. AHAM noted, for example,
that the percent change for vented gas
clothes dryers is ¥14.0 percent based
on DOE’s data, whereas AHAM’s data
show a ¥18.0-percent change as
compared to appendix D1. (AHAM, No.
17 at pp. 8–10; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
Samsung stated that it conducted
testing on units to evaluate the effects of
the proposed test procedure change on
the measured efficiency. Samsung stated
that, in general, its test results are
within the data range of the DOE tests.
(Samsung, No. 13 at p. 4)
AHAM commented that DOE does not
have sufficient data or a transparent
model selection process upon which to
base either: 1) A determination as to
whether the proposed test procedure
amendments impact measured
efficiency, or 2) a standards adjustment
under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). AHAM
stated that the basic models on the
market today are not necessarily the
basic models that will be on the market
when compliance with the January 1,
2015 standards is required. According to
AHAM, many of those models are still
in the design phase and may have
different platforms than those in current
production. AHAM stated, however,
that its own data are similarly limited
and did not suggest how DOE could
adjust the standard. As a result, AHAM
recommended that DOE work together
with stakeholders to develop a process
for that adjustment. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 11)
AHAM and NEEA & NPCC
commented that the anti-backsliding
provision in EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1)) is not intended to apply to
standards adjustments done per 42
U.S.C. 6293(e). AHAM stated that,
otherwise, DOE could never address the
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
consequences of test procedure changes
between standards changes. AHAM also
stated that if DOE does not apply these
test procedure amendments until the
underlying standards changes in the
future, this would no longer be an issue.
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 11; NEEA & NPCC,
No. 21 at p. 15) NEEA & NPCC and
Earthjustice added that if DOE chooses
not to adjust the January 1, 2015
standards based on the proposed
changes to the test procedure, not only
will it violate the provisions in section
42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1), but also the 5percent energy savings estimated for the
January 1, 2015 standards could largely
be lost. NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice
stated that the 4-percent difference in
energy use when applying the proposed
test procedure might be enough to allow
most of the models now in production
to meet the standards and would be a de
facto weakening of the January 1, 2015
standards. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p.
15; Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 3) ASAP
also commented that a 4-percent
increase in CEF is not insignificant
considering that the January 1, 2015
standards will reduce energy use by
about 5 percent compared to the current
standards. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at p. 169) NEEA &
NPCC commented that it is not clear
whether or not the testing conducted by
DOE required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is
sufficient to properly calculate an
appropriate adjustment to the standard.
NEEA & NPCC disagreed with DOE’s
determination that no adjustment is
needed. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 15)
Earthjustice commented that the
January 2013 NOPR asserts that the
proposed test procedure amendments
will not alter the measured energy
efficiency of clothes dryers, but this
conclusion is contrary to DOE’s own
findings that the proposed amended test
procedure resulted in an average
increase in CEF of 3.8 percent and a 4.1percent increase when only considering
the minimally compliant clothes dryers
in DOE’s sample. Earthjustice stated that
because DOE’s testing confirms that the
amendments to the test procedures will
alter the measured energy efficiency of
clothes dryers, EPCA requires that DOE
adjust the standards for these products.
Earthjustice stated that nothing in 42
U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) suggests that DOE is
authorized to determine that the extent
of any such alteration is insufficient to
trigger the obligation to adjust the
standards and that the ‘‘extent’’ of any
such alteration determines the amount
of adjustment required under 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2). Earthjustice noted that a
final rule published on October 17, 1990
(55 FR 42162) reduced the required
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
energy factor levels for electric storage
water heaters by 0.02 to account for the
impact of revisions to the water heater
test procedure. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at
pp. 3–4)
Earthjustice commented that the need
to adjust the standards might be
different if adjusting the standards
under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would have no
impact on covered products.
Earthjustice noted examples of the
dishwasher, boiler, and refrigerator test
procedure amendments where the
change in the measured energy
efficiency is so small that any
adjustment to the standard would not
impact the compliance of any covered
products. Earthjustice commented that
DOE has not suggested that a 4-percent
change in the level of the clothes dryer
standards would have no impact on the
compliance status of covered models.
Earthjustice stated that DOE cannot
conclude that a 4-percent reduction in
the stringency of the clothes dryer
standards would have a de minimus
impact, given that DOE determined in
the final rule adopting the January 1,
2015 standards that a significant share
of the clothes dryers currently on the
market perform just below the adopted
standards. Earthjustice stated that
adding 4-percent to the January 1, 2015
standard for electric standard-size
clothes dryers would enable many of the
clothes dryers meeting the efficiency
level below the standards to then
comply with the standards, reducing the
energy savings that the January 1, 2015
standards would otherwise have
delivered. To avoid this weakening of
the standards, Earthjustice stated that
DOE must adjust them as 42 U.S.C.
6293(e) requires. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at
pp. 4–5)
NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice
commented that anti-backsliding
provisions would not preclude
amending the energy conservation
standards based on the proposed test
procedure amendments for automatic
cycle termination. Earthjustice added
that such an adjustment is required to
avoid backsliding. Earthjustice also
noted that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(4) provides
that DOE’s authority to adjust energy
conservation standards under this
subsection shall not affect the
Secretary’s obligation to issue final rules
as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295.
According to Earthjustice, this provision
means that any adjustments to standards
that DOE makes under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)
do not count as amendments to the
standards that satisfy DOE’s rulemaking
obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6295.
Earthjustice stated that the adjustment
process established under 42 U.S.C.
6293(e) is designed to avoid de facto
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49637
reductions (or increases) in the
stringency of standards by ensuring that
the impacts of test procedure
amendments on measured energy
efficiency are reflected in the level of
the standard and that application of
section 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) preserves the
integrity of the standards, consistent
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (NEEA &
NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 14–15; Earthjustice,
No. 15 at pp. 2–3)
NPCC commented that if the
automatic termination field use factor is
not applied, more units in DOE’s test
sample would fail to meet the January
1, 2015 standard than would pass.
(NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
10 at pp. 166–167) ASAP questioned
whether, if DOE did not adopt the field
use factor, the standards would be
adjusted so that, on average, a clothes
dryer that just complies with the
January 1, 2015 standards under the
current test procedure would still
comply with those standards under the
new test procedure. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 168)
As discussed in section III.B.3 and
section III.I.3, DOE is amending the
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B to create a new
appendix D2 that includes the testing
methods for more accurately measuring
the effects of automatic cycle
termination. As discussed in section
III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2
will not be required for use to determine
compliance with the January 1, 2015
energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers. DOE is not amending
appendix D1 in today’s final rule to
include these amendments for
automatic cycle termination. As a result,
DOE determined that the amendments
for automatic cycle termination adopted
in today’s final rule would not affect a
manufacturer’s ability to comply with
the January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers in 10 CFR
430.32(h)(3).
DOE is only amending the active
mode test procedures in 10 CFR part
430 subpart B, appendix D1 in today’s
final to correct the calculation of the
per-cycle combined total energy
consumption and to clarify the cycle
settings used for testing, the
requirements for the gas supply, the
installation conditions for console
lights, the method for measuring the
drum capacity, the maximum allowable
scale range, and the allowable use of a
relative humidity meter. Because these
amendments to appendix D1 do not
change the actual testing method, DOE
has determined that these amendments
will not affect the measured efficiency
according to appendix D1 and will not
affect a manufacturer’s ability to
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49638
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
demonstrate compliance with the
January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3).
2. Standby Mode and Off Mode
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also
investigated how the proposed
amendments for standby mode and off
mode would affect the measured
efficiency. DOE stated that because the
proposed amendments to the DOE
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430 subpart B, appendix D1 for
measuring standby mode and off mode
energy consumption would not alter the
existing measure of energy consumption
for clothes dryers (EF), the proposed
amendments would not affect a
manufacturer’s ability to comply with
the current energy conservation
standards. 78 FR 152, 176 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE’s amendments in the January
2011 Final Rule specified that
manufacturers will not be required to
use the test procedure provisions for
standby mode and off mode until the
mandatory January 1, 2015 compliance
date of the amended clothes dryer
energy conservation standards. (10 CFR
430.32(h)(3)) The January 1, 2015
amended energy conservation standards
are based on CEF, which accounts for
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption. In the January 2013
NOPR, DOE investigated how the
proposed test procedure amendments
for standby mode and off mode would
affect the amended energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). DOE
stated that the proposed changes to the
testing methods for measuring standby
mode and off mode energy consumption
do not vary significantly from the
methods in the amended DOE clothes
dryer test procedure in appendix D1 for
measuring standby power and would
not alter the measured efficiency. To
confirm this assertion, DOE conducted
testing on four clothes dryers (three of
which minimally comply with the
existing energy conservation standards)
according to both the existing appendix
D1 and the proposed amendments to
appendix D1 for standby mode and off
mode that are based IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition). The results showed
that the measured standby power was
the same using both methods. Based on
these test results, DOE stated that the
proposed amendments to the clothes
dryer test procedure for standby mode
and off mode would not alter the
measured CEF. DOE, therefore, did not
consider amendments to the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(h)(3) that must be met on
January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176–177
(Jan. 2, 2013). DOE did not receive any
comments on this issue. In the absence
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
of comments, and for the reasons
discussed above, DOE concludes that
the amendments to the clothes dryer test
procedure for standby mode and off
mode adopted in today’s final rule will
not alter the measured CEF.
DOE’s amendments continue to
clarify that manufacturers are not
required to use the provisions relating to
standby mode and off mode energy use
in appendix D1 to determine
compliance with the energy
conservation standard until the
compliance date of the amended energy
conservation standards for clothes
dryers addressing standby mode and off
mode energy use on January 1, 2015. As
a result, the test procedure amendments
for standby mode and off mode will not
affect a manufacturer’s ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
current energy conservation standards.
In addition, as discussed in section
III.D and section III.I.3, DOE is
amending the clothes dryer test
procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B to create a new appendix D2 that
includes the amendments for standby
mode and off mode. For the reasons
discussed in section III.I.3, the newly
created appendix D2 will not be
required for use to determine
compliance with the January 1, 2015
energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers. As a result, DOE
determined that the amendments to
appendix D2 for standby mode and off
mode adopted in today’s final rule will
not affect a manufacturer’s ability to
comply with the current energy
conservation standards for clothes
dryers.
I. Compliance With Other EPCA
Requirements
1. Test Burden
EPCA requires that test procedures
shall be reasonably designed to produce
test results which measure energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered
product during a representative average
use cycle or period of use. Test
procedures must also not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3))
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR
that the proposed amendments for
automatic cycle termination would
change the test cycle for automatic
termination control dryers to require
that a programmed automatic
termination cycle be used for the test
instead of using the maximum timed
dry setting. DOE stated that the
proposed provision to include the cooldown period and to allow the clothes
dryer to run until the completion of the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
programmed dry cycle would likely be
less burdensome than the existing test
procedure in which the tester is
required to monitor or make estimates
about the RMC of the test load and
potentially run multiple test cycles to
determine when to stop the test to
achieve the desired final RMC. For timer
dryers, DOE stated that the proposed
amendments would use the same basic
test method that is currently specified in
the DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D1, except that
the test cycle would be stopped when
the final RMC is between 1.0 percent
and 2.5 percent instead of between 2.5
percent and 5.0 percent. DOE noted that
this would result in a slightly longer
cycle time, but the additional time
would be minimal compared to the
overall time to set up and conduct the
test. For these reasons, DOE stated in
the January 2013 NOPR that the
proposed amendments to more
accurately account for automatic cycle
termination would not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. DOE also noted
that the revised test cycle for automatic
termination control dryers would
produce a measured energy use that is
more representative of consumer use
because it directly measures the energy
consumption of the programmed
automatic termination cycle. 78 FR 152,
177 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM commented that the proposed
changes to the test procedure regarding
automatic cycle termination controls
would add significant burden to
manufacturers if implemented prior to
the January 1, 2015 standards. AHAM
indicated that manufacturers have
already begun designing products to
comply with the January 1, 2015
standards using the existing appendix
D1 and that many manufacturers would
have to redesign their models in order
to meet the standards using the
proposed test procedure, which would
add an unreasonable burden on
manufacturers during the 3-year lead
time. Thus, AHAM urged DOE not to
make the test procedure changes
associated with automatic cycle
termination controls effective until
compliance with future standards
(beyond 2015) is required so that the
impacts on measured energy efficiency
can be fully considered. (AHAM, No. 17
at p. 16)
The California IOUs commented that
the burden for clothes washers is greater
than for clothes dryers. The California
IOUs stated that, in the past, clothes
washers used significantly more energy
than clothes dryers and, thus, more
testing to determine the energy use was
justified. The California IOUs
commented that clothes washers have
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
improved significantly and that clothes
dryers now use roughly three times as
much energy as clothes washers use on
average, based on the total average
annual energy consumption in the field.
The California IOUs commented that
greater test burden would be justified to
determine clothes dryer energy use
because the clothes washer test burden
has been justified in the past and
accepted by industry for what is now a
much smaller potential energy savings.
(California IOUs, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 176–179) In
response, AHAM commented that the
test burden of two completely different
products (clothes washers and clothes
dryers) cannot be compared. AHAM
stated that although clothes washers and
clothes dryers are linked products from
a consumer and product planning
perspective, they are not similar
products. Thus, AHAM did not agree
that because the clothes washer test
procedure takes longer to conduct, it
would be acceptable for the clothes
dryer test procedure to take just as long.
AHAM stated that increasing the testing
time for clothes dryers would increase
testing burden on manufacturers,
irrespective of what the burden is for
testing a different product. (AHAM, No.
17 at pp. 16–17)
As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is
amending the clothes dryer test
procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B to create a new appendix D2 that
includes the testing methods for more
accurately measuring the effects of
automatic cycle termination. The newly
created appendix D2 will not be
required for use to determine
compliance with the January 1, 2015
energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers. DOE is not amending
appendix D1 in today’s final rule to
include these amendments for
automatic cycle termination. As a result,
DOE concludes that the test procedure
amendments and the compliance date
for the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards and
corresponding use of the appendix D1
test procedure will not be unduly
burdensome. DOE is not considering
additional test procedure amendments
that would increase testing burden for
the reasons discussed in sections III.B
and III.G.
As discussed in section III.F, DOE is
amending 10 CFR part 430 subpart B,
appendix D and appendix D1 in today’s
final rule to clarify the cycle settings
used for testing, the requirements for the
gas supply, the installation conditions
for console lights, the method for
measuring the drum capacity, the
maximum allowable scale range, and
the allowable use of a relative humidity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
meter. Because the amendments to
clarify the test procedures would not
change the actual testing method and
provide additional options for
instrumentations while requiring the
same resolution and accuracy, DOE has
determined that these amendments will
not result in any added test burden on
manufacturers as compared to the
existing DOE clothes dryer test
procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D and appendix D1. In
addition, DOE is adopting these same
provisions in newly created appendix
D2. As discussed above, the newly
created appendix D2 will not be
required for use to determine
compliance with the January 1, 2015
energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers. For the same reasons
discussed above, DOE has determined
that amendments to clarify the cycle
settings used for testing, the
requirements for the gas supply, the
installation conditions for console
lights, the method for measuring the
drum capacity, the maximum allowable
scale range, and the allowable use of a
relative humidity meter, will not result
in any added test burden on
manufacturers.
With regards to the amendments for
standby and off mode power
consumption, DOE concluded in the
January 2011 Final Rule that the
amended test procedure would produce
test results that measure the standby
mode and off mode power consumption
of covered products during a
representative average use cycle as well
as annual energy consumption, and that
the test procedure would not be unduly
burdensome to conduct.76 FR 972, 1020
(Jan. 6, 2011). The amendments to the
DOE clothes dryer test procedure for
standby mode and off mode are based
on an updated version of IEC Standard
62301, IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition), which has been the subject of
significant review and input from
interested parties and, thus, continues
to be an internationally accepted test
standard for measuring standby mode
and off mode power consumption. In
the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that
the provisions of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) that it proposed to
incorporate by reference provide a
means to measure power consumption
with greater accuracy and repeatability
than the provisions from IEC Standard
62301 (First Edition) that were adopted
in the January 2011 Final Rule. DOE
tentatively concluded in the January
2013 NOPR that the proposed
amendments would also provide
measurements representative of average
consumer use of the product under test.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49639
78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE also
noted that interested parties have
commented that the testing methods in
IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition)
would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. 77 FR 28805, 28812 (May 16,
2012); 76 FR 58346, 58350 (Sept. 20,
2011); 77 FR 13888, 13893 (March 7,
2012). The potential for increased test
burden for certain power consumption
measurements is also offset by more
reasonable requirements for testing
equipment, while maintaining
measurement accuracy deemed
acceptable and practical by voting
members for IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition). For these reasons,
DOE tentatively concluded in the
January 2013 NOPR that the proposed
amendments would produce test results
that measure the standby mode and off
mode power consumption during
representative use, and that the test
procedures would not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. 78 FR 152, 177
(Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM commented that incorporating
by reference IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) will allow for optimal
international harmonization and will
reduce testing burden. (AHAM, No. 17
at p. 14) DOE concludes, based on this
comment and the discussion above, that
the amendments for standby mode and
off mode adopted in today’s final rule
produce test results that measure the
standby mode and off mode power
consumption during representative use,
and that the test procedures will not be
unduly burdensome to conduct.
Certification Requirements
DOE is authorized under 42 U.S.C.
6299 et seq. to enforce compliance with
the energy and water conservation
standards established for certain
consumer products. On March 7, 2011,
the Department revised, consolidated,
and streamlined its existing
certification, compliance, and
enforcement regulations for certain
consumer products and commercial and
industrial equipment covered under
EPCA, including clothes dryers. 76 FR
12422. The certification regulations are
codified in 10 CFR 429.12 and 429.21
(residential clothes dryers).
The certification and compliance
requirements for residential clothes
dryers consist of a sampling plan for the
selection of units for testing, calculation
procedures for determining a basic
model’s certified rating, and
requirements for the submittal of
certification reports. Because DOE
introduced a new metric (CEF) in the
January 2011 Final Rule, DOE proposed
in the January 2013 NOPR to amend the
sampling provisions in 10 CFR
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49640
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
429.21(a)(2) to include CEF, along with
the existing measure of EF, in the list of
metrics for which consumers would
favor higher values. DOE also proposed
to amend the dryer-specific certification
requirements in 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to
require manufacturers, when using
either appendix D or appendix D1, to
provide an indication if the clothes
dryer has automatic termination
controls and also to report the hourly
Btu rating of the burner for gas clothes
dryers. DOE also proposed to amend 10
CFR 429.21(b)(2) to require
manufacturers, when using appendix
D1, to include the CEF and to list the
cycle setting selections for the energy
test cycle as recorded in the proposed
section 3.4.7 of appendix D1 for each
basic model.
ALS supported DOE’s proposal to
update 10 CFR part 429 to include CEF.
In addition ALS stated that it did not
oppose reporting: (1) Whether the
clothes dryer has automatic termination
controls, (2) the hourly Btu rating of the
burner, and (3) the cycle setting
selections for the energy test cycle.
(ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) For the reasons
discussed above, and because DOE did
not receive any comments objecting to
this proposal, DOE is adopting in
today’s final rule the amendments to 10
CFR 429.21 for the additional
certification and reporting requirements
presented above. Even though appendix
D2 is not required for compliance and
representation purposes for the 2015
energy conservation standards, DOE is
adopting the methodology and allowing
for its voluntary use early at the
discretion of the manufacturer.
Consequently, DOE is also adopting
amendments to 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to
require manufacturers, when using
appendix D2, to list the cycle setting
selections for the energy test cycle.
In addition, DOE is clarifying in 10
CFR 429.21(a)(3) that the certified
capacity of any clothes dryer basic
model should be the mean of the
capacities of the units in the sample for
the basic model. While DOE believes
this is current practice since the existing
test procedure and sampling plan
require testing at least two units and
measuring the drum capacity
individually for each, DOE is adopting
this provision in the final rule for
clarity.
Compliance date of final amended test
procedures
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR
that it proposed amendments to the test
procedures for clothes dryers in
appendix D and appendix D1 in 10 CFR
part 430 subpart B. Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), effective 180 days
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
after DOE prescribes or establishes a
new or amended test procedure,
manufacturers must make
representations of energy efficiency
using that new or amended test
procedure. DOE stated in the January
2013 NOPR that, therefore, effective 180
days after the promulgation of any final
amendments to the test procedure based
on the proposal, manufacturers must
make representations of energy
efficiency, including certifications of
compliance, using either appendix D or
appendix D1. Manufacturers must use a
single appendix for all representations,
including certifications of compliance,
and may not use appendix D for certain
representations and appendix D1 for
other representations. 78 FR 152, 177–
178 (Jan. 2, 2013). See DOE’s existing
guidance on this topic for additional
information, available at: https://www1.
eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_
standards/pdfs/tp_faq_2012–06–29.pdf.
DOE stated that compliance with
DOE’s amended standards for clothes
dryers, and the corresponding use of the
test procedures at appendix D1 for all
representations, including certifications
of compliance, is required as of January
1, 2015. (76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011),
76 FR 52854 (Aug. 24, 2011))
AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS opposed
the January 1, 2015 compliance date
based on the proposed test procedure
amendments for automatic cycle
termination. AHAM, Whirlpool, and
ALS stated that a January 1, 2015
compliance date significantly undercuts
the statutory 3-year lead time provided
to manufacturers for compliance with a
revised standards (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(4)(A)(i)). AHAM, Whirlpool,
and ALS commented that manufacturers
would not have enough time to prepare
for the upcoming January 1, 2015
standards compliance date using a
proposed revised appendix D1 (except
for the minor technical corrections),
especially because the proposed test
procedure amendments for automatic
cycle termination effectively constitutes
a new, revised standard due to its
significant impact on measured
efficiency. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 3;
Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1–2; ALS, No.
16 at p. 2; AHAM, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 172–173)
AHAM commented that requiring the
test procedure amendments for
automatic cycle termination for the
January 1, 2015 compliance date is
problematic because EPCA ensures that
compliant models in use prior to the test
procedure change and accompanying
standards adjustment remain in
compliance after the change. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(3)) AHAM stated that during the
3-year lead time to an amended
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standard, manufacturers may have many
basic models in the design phase that
are not yet ‘‘in use,’’ and thus, may not
be afforded the protections the statute
was designed to provide. According to
AHAM, this will result in stranded
investments for manufacturers and
could require manufacturers to redesign
some, many, or even all of the basic
models that were already being
redesigned to comply with the January
1, 2015 standards using the existing
appendix D1. AHAM stated that the
design process takes time, and DOE
cannot truncate that lead time provided
by EPCA by effectively engaging in a
standards revision through the test
procedure rulemaking process. AHAM
stated that DOE should not make
standards changes that impact measured
energy as significantly as the proposed
automatic termination control
amendments would during a lead time
to amended or new standards. (AHAM,
No. 17 at pp. 3–4)
ALS commented that it has
implemented significant design
construction changes to its products
towards compliance with the January 1,
2015 standards based on the current test
procedure in appendix D1. ALS stated
that the proposed test procedure for
automatic cycle termination will require
it to make significant new design
changes to its clothes dryers, which
cannot be completed in the remaining
time before the January 1, 2015
compliance date. ALS identified
numerous preparatory steps that it must
take to meet the January 1, 2015
standards under the proposed test
procedure.14 ALS further stated that the
investment it has already made may
become stranded because its designs
14 These preparatory steps include, but are not
limited to: (1) Generate ideas and concepts to meet
the minimum standard with the new measurement
method; (2) create prototypes for feasibility testing;
(3) conduct an initial design review to select the
best design path to pursue; (4) secure input from all
cross-functional areas (e.g., consumer marketing,
sales, manufacturing, etc.); (5) create the planned
timeline with critical paths identified; (6) create the
output specifications (e.g., drawings, bill of
material, quality and manufacturing plan
documents, etc.); (7) identify and qualify suppliers
for new parts; (8) procure prototype parts for a
assembling multiple prototypes of the full dryer for
in-house lab tests to confirm performance and
reliability requirements can be met; (9) conduct full
reliability and performance tests in-house (9
months); (10) conduct field tests with consumers,
to learn of any unknown deficiencies; (11) conduct
a validation and verification design review for
commitment to procure production tooling &
equipment; (12) procure production tooling and
equipment (usually takes 1 year); (13) react to any
unanticipated issues learned from continued
testing; (14) secure all agency approvals; (15)
qualify production tooling and equipment; (16)
conduct factory pilot runs using new tooling and
equipment; (17) conduct final design and safety
review; and (18) commit to starting production.
(ALS, No. 16 at pp. 1–2)
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
will not allow compliance under DOE’s
new proposed test procedure. ALS
commented that it is the low-volume
manufacturer of residential clothes
dryers, and as such, any investment for
DOE minimum standard compliance
normally impacts ALS disproportionally
compared to the larger market share
manufacturers. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 1–2)
Whirlpool commented that, based on
the data presented in the January 2013
NOPR, the proposed test procedure
amendments for automatic cycle
termination will likely require a major
switch from electromechanical to
electronic controls for some basic
models. Whirlpool indicated that this is
not a simple or low-cost change, and
that even with this significant change in
technology, it would not necessarily
ensure that a product would be
compliant. Whirlpool stated that such
an upgrade is a complete redesign, in
many cases requiring manufacturers to
engage in every phase of the design
process. (Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1–2)
AHAM commented that DOE should
not proceed with the proposed test
procedure amendments on the proposed
timeline. AHAM commented that if
DOE moves forward with the proposed
automatic termination control
amendments, the changes to appendix
D1 must not be required for compliance
with the January 1, 2015 standards.
Instead, AHAM urged that the proposed
amendments not be required until a
future standards revision, during which
the impact on measured efficiency can
be more fully analyzed in an integrated
analysis of the effects of both standards
and test procedure changes under 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B). AHAM
commented that, given the significant
impact on measured efficiency,
compounded by the disparate impact on
individual basic models and product
classes as demonstrated by the range of
impacts on measured efficiency, DOE
should not require the use of the
automatic termination control test
procedure for compliance with the
January 1, 2015 standards. Even if DOE
were to adjust the standards pursuant to
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)), AHAM stated
that the statutory 3-year lead-time
would be undercut. (AHAM, No. 17 at
pp. 4, 10–11)
Samsung suggested that if DOE
determines that manufacturers of units
that tested with a lower final RMC and
consumed more energy would require
more time to make the required
refinements to the drying algorithm,
such units should be covered under the
EPCA grandfathering provision (42
U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)). Samsung stated that
DOE should not delay the proposed
automatic cycle termination test
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
procedure until the next standard
change, which could be 2020, thereby
potentially delaying the possible energy
savings by 5 years or more. Samsung
supported the compliance date of
January 1, 2015, noting that the
proposed test procedure would reflect
the real-world energy use of clothes
dryers having automatic cycle
termination. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates,
NRDC, and SEDI urged DOE to publish
a final rule for this rulemaking as soon
as possible so that manufacturers have
adequate lead time before the January 1,
2015 standards. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 20
at p. 2; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates added that the
consensus standards for clothes dryers
were based on the assumption that
significant additional energy savings
would be achieved through a change to
the test procedure to capture the
effectiveness of automatic termination
controls. The Joint Efficiency Advocates
stated that it is important that the
proposed test procedure amendments
take effect with the January 1, 2015
standards to realize these additional
energy savings. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3)
DOE is not amending appendix D1 in
today’s final rule to include the
amendments for measuring the effects of
automatic cycle termination. DOE is
amending the clothes dryer test
procedure in appendix D1 to include
the amendments for standby mode and
off mode, the technical correction to the
per-cycle combined total energy
consumption, the clarifications to the
test conditions, and the amendments to
address the additional test procedure
issues, as discussed in section III.D
through section III.G. As discussed in
section III.H, these amendments to
appendix D1 will not affect a
manufacturer’s ability to comply with
the January 1, 2015 standards. As
discussed above, compliance with
DOE’s amended standards for clothes
dryers, and corresponding use of the test
procedures at appendix D1 for all
representations, including certifications
of compliance, is required as of January
1, 2015.
However, DOE is amending the
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B to create a new
appendix D2 that includes the testing
methods for more accurately measuring
the effects of automatic cycle
termination. The newly created
appendix D2 will not be required for use
to determine compliance with the
January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers. DOE will
continue to evaluate products on the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49641
market and collect data on clothes dryer
automatic cycle termination. However,
manufacturers may elect to use
appendix D2 early to show compliance
with the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. 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
(Aug. 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://energy.gov/
gc/office-general-counsel.
In conducting this review, DOE first
determined the potential number of
affected small entities. The Small
Business Administration (SBA)
considers an entity to be a small
business if, together with its affiliates, it
employs fewer than the threshold
number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121 according to the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes. The SBA’s Table
of Size Standards is available at: https://
www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/
documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_
tablepdf.pdf. The threshold number for
NAICS classification 335224, Household
Laundry Equipment Manufacturing,
which includes clothes dryer
manufacturers, is 1,000 employees.
DOE determined that most of the
manufacturers supplying clothes dryers
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49642
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
are large multinational corporations. As
part of the most recent energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
residential clothes dryers, DOE
requested comment on whether there
are any manufacturer subgroups,
including potential small businesses,
that it should consider for its analyses.
DOE received a comment from one
business stating that it should be
considered a small business. 77 FR
22454, 22521 (April 21, 2011).
DOE then conducted a market survey
in which it reviewed the AHAM
membership directory, product
databases (the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute;
AHAM; California Energy Commission;
and ENERGY STAR databases),
individual company Web sites, and the
SBA dynamic small business search 15
to find potential small business
manufacturers. During manufacturer
interviews and at DOE public meetings
for the energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE asked interested
parties and industry representatives if
they were aware of any other small
business manufacturers. DOE also
contacted various companies, as
necessary, to determine whether they
met the SBA’s definition of a small
business manufacturer of covered
residential clothes dryers. DOE screened
out companies that did not offer
products covered by this rulemaking,
did not meet the definition of a ‘‘small
business,’’ or are foreign-owned and
operated.
DOE initially identified at least 14
manufacturers of residential clothes
dryers that sold products in the United
States. DOE determined that 13 of these
companies exceeded the SBA’s
maximum number of employees. Thus,
DOE identified only one small business
manufacturer of residential clothes
dryers. This small business has
developed a drying technology that it
installs on existing clothes dryers. DOE
notes that this small business currently
offers for sale two clothes dryer models
with its drying technology installed.
Accordingly, DOE considered the
economic impacts of the proposed test
procedure amendments on this one
small business manufacturer.
For active mode, as discussed in
section III.F, DOE is amending 10 CFR
part 430 subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1 to clarify: (1) The cycle
settings used for the test cycle, (2) the
requirements for the gas supply for gas
clothes dryers, (3) the installation
conditions for console lights, (4) the
15 A searchable database of certified small
businesses is available online at: https://dsbs.sba.
gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
method for measuring the drum
capacity, (5) the maximum allowable
scale range, and (6) the allowable use of
a relative humidity meter. DOE
determined that because these test
procedure amendments do not change
the actual testing method or time
required for testing and provide
additional options for instrumentation
while requiring the same resolution and
accuracy, these amendments will not
result in any added test burden on
manufacturers as compared to the
existing DOE clothes dryer test
procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D and appendix D1.
For standby mode and off mode, DOE
has determined that the test procedure
amendments adopted in today’s final
rule, presented in section III.D, will not
represent a significant economic impact.
DOE notes that industry-standard
instruments, such as the Yokogawa
WT210/WT230 digital power meter, that
meet the standby mode and off mode
requirements of the current DOE clothes
dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1, also meet the
requirements of the amendments for
standby mode and off mode adopted in
today’s final rule. DOE also notes that
these tests can be conducted in the same
facilities used for the current standby
mode and off mode testing of these
products, so it is anticipated that
manufacturers would not incur any
additional facilities costs as a result of
the test procedure amendments. As a
result, DOE does not expect any
increase in testing equipment costs
based on the standby mode and off
mode test procedure amendments. DOE
also notes that the duration of a standby
mode or off mode test period using the
current test procedure in appendix D1 is
40 to 50 minutes. As discussed in
section III.D, DOE recognizes that the
test duration using the standby and off
mode test procedure adopted in today’s
final rule may range from 15 minutes to
3 hours depending on the stability of the
measured power consumption.
However, based on DOE’s testing of four
clothes dryers from four different
manufacturers comprising over 78
percent of the total clothes dryer market
share, DOE expects the test duration
using the standby and off mode test
procedure adopted in today’s final rule
to be approximately 30 to 45 minutes for
the majority of clothes dryers currently
available on the market. DOE also notes
that most third party testing laboratories
already use these or similar industrystandard power meters for clothes dryer
testing. As a result, if the small
manufacturer decides to use a third
party testing laboratory, DOE does not
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
expect there to be an increase in cost for
standby mode and off mode testing. In
addition, as discussed in section III.I.1,
interested parties have commented that
incorporating by reference IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition) will allow for
optimal international harmonization
and will reduce testing burden.
For these reasons, DOE concludes and
certifies that this final rule will 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 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).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of clothes dryers must
certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. In certifying
compliance, manufacturers must test
their products according to the DOE test
procedures for clothes dryers, including
any amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including
clothes dryers. (76 FR 12422 (March 7,
2011). The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement
has been approved by OMB under OMB
control number 1910–1400. Public
reporting burden for the certification is
estimated to average 20 hours per
response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE amends its test
procedure for residential clothes dryers.
DOE has determined that this rule falls
into a class of actions that are
categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
seq.) and DOE’s implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, this rule amends an
existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, will not
result in any environmental impacts.
Thus, this rulemaking is covered by
Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to
any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without
changing the environmental effect of
that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE
examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations for
energy conservation for the products
that are the subject of today’s final rule.
States can petition DOE for exemption
from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action resulting in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49643
DOE examined today’s final rule
according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that the rule
contains neither an intergovernmental
mandate, nor a mandate that may result
in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements
do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being.
Today’s final rule will not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
today’s final rule under the OMB and
DOE guidelines and has concluded that
it is consistent with applicable policies
in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgated or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49644
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
will not have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, nor has it been designated as a
significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
Today’s final rule incorporates testing
methods contained in the commercial
standard, IEC Standard 62301,
‘‘Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power,’’
Edition 2.0, 2011–01. DOE has
evaluated this standard and is unable to
conclude whether it fully complies with
the requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA, i.e., whether it was developed in
a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review.
DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods
contained in these standards and has
received no comments objecting to their
use.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of today’s rule before its effective date.
The report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Energy conservation, Household
appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31,
2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Section 429.21 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
introductory text;
■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
§ 429.21
Residential clothes dryers.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the
energy factor, combined energy factor,
or other measure of energy consumption
of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less
than or equal to the lower of:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The capacity of a basic model
reported in accordance with paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(b)(2) of this section shall be the mean
of the capacities measured for each
tested unit of the basic model.
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a
certification report shall include the
following public product-specific
information: When using appendix D,
the energy factor in pounds per kilowatt
hours (lb/kWh), the capacity in cubic
feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for
electric dryers only), an indication if the
dryer has automatic termination
controls, and the hourly British thermal
unit (Btu) rating of the burner (for gas
dryers only); when using appendix D1,
the combined energy factor in pounds
per kilowatt hours (lb/kWh), the
capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the voltage
in volts (V) (for electric dryers only), an
indication if the dryer has automatic
termination controls, and the hourly Btu
rating of the burner (for gas dryers only);
when using appendix D2, the combined
energy factor in pounds per kilowatt
hours (lb/kWh), the capacity in cubic
feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for
electric dryers only), an indication if the
dryer has automatic termination
controls, the hourly Btu rating of the
burner (for gas dryers only), and a list
of the cycle setting selections for the
energy test cycle as recorded in section
3.4.7 of appendix D2 to Subpart B of
Part 430.
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
3. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
§ 430.3
[Amended]
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
■ a. Adding ‘‘and D2’’ after ‘‘appendix
D1’’ in paragraph (h)(4).
■ b. Removing ‘‘appendix D1,’’ from
paragraph (m)(1); and
■ c. Adding ‘‘D1,’’ and ‘‘D2,’’ after
‘‘appendices C1,’’ in (m)(2).
■ 5. Appendix D to Subpart B of Part
430 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the Note after the
appendix heading;
■ b. Revising sections 2.1, 2.3.2.1,
2.3.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.4 in
section 2. Test Conditions; and
■ c. Revising sections 3.1 and 3.3 in
section 3. Test Methods and
Measurements.
The revisions read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: Effective February 10, 2014,
manufacturers must make representations of
energy efficiency, including certifications of
compliance, using appendix D. Compliance
with DOE’s amended standards for clothes
dryers, and corresponding use of the test
procedures at appendix D1 for all
representations, including certifications of
compliance, is required as of January 1, 2015.
Manufacturers must use a single appendix for
all representations, including certifications of
compliance, and may not use appendix D for
certain representations and appendix D1 for
other representations. The procedures in
appendix D2 need not be performed to
determine compliance with energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers at
this time. However, manufacturers may elect
to use the amended appendix D, D1 or D2
early.
*
*
*
*
*
2. Testing Conditions
2.1 Installation. Install the clothes dryer
in accordance with manufacturer’s
instructions as shipped with the unit. If the
manufacturer’s instructions do not specify
the installation requirements for a certain
component, it shall be tested in the asshipped condition. The dryer exhaust shall
be restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust
simulator described in 3.3.5 of HLD–1. All
external joints should be taped to avoid air
leakage. Disconnect all lights, such as task
lights, that do not provide any information
related to the drying process on the clothes
dryer and that do not consume more than 10
watts during the clothes dryer test cycle.
Control setting indicator lights showing the
cycle progression, temperature or dryness
settings, or other cycle functions that cannot
be turned off during the test cycle shall not
be disconnected during the active mode test
cycle.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
2.3.2 Gas supply.
2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas
supply to the clothes dryer at a normal inlet
test pressure immediately ahead of all
controls at 7 to 10 inches of water column.
If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas
appliance pressure regulator, the regulator
outlet pressure at the normal test pressure
shall be within ±10 percent of the value
recommended by the manufacturer in the
installation manual, on the nameplate
sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes
such a recommendation for the basic model.
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be
maintained within ±5 percent of the rating
specified by the manufacturer. If the
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu
rating of the burner within ± 5 percent of the
rating specified by the manufacturer cannot
be achieved under the allowable range in gas
inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas
burner should be modified as necessary to
achieve the required Btu rating. The natural
gas supplied should have a heating value of
approximately 1,025 Btus per standard cubic
foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in Btus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to
be used in the test shall be obtained either
from measurements made by the
manufacturer conducting the test using a
standard continuous flow calorimeter as
described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase
of bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is
certified to be at least as accurate a rating as
could be obtained from measurements with
a standard continuous flow calorimeter as
described in section 2.4.6.
2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas
supply to the clothes dryer at a normal inlet
test pressure immediately ahead of all
controls at 11 to 13 inches of water column.
If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas
appliance pressure regulator, the regulator
outlet pressure at the normal test pressure
shall be within ±10 percent of the value
recommended by the manufacturer in the
installation manual, on the nameplate
sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes
such a recommendation for the basic model.
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be
maintained within ±5 percent of the rating
specified by the manufacturer. If the
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu
rating of the burner within ± 5 percent of the
rating specified by the manufacturer cannot
be achieved under the allowable range in gas
inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas
burner should be modified as necessary to
achieve the required Btu rating. The propane
gas supplied should have a heating value of
approximately 2,500 Btus per standard cubic
foot. The actual heating value, Hp, in Btus per
standard cubic foot, for the propane gas to be
used in the test shall be obtained either from
measurements made by the manufacturer
conducting the test using a standard
continuous flow calorimeter as described in
section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled gas
whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as
accurate a rating as could be obtained from
measurement with a standard continuous
calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
*
*
*
*
*
2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The
scale shall have a range of 0 to a maximum
of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 0.2
ounces and a maximum error no greater than
0.3 percent of any measured value within the
range of 3 to 15 pounds.
2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity
measurements. The scale should have a range
of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with
resolution of 0.50 pounds and a maximum
error no greater than 0.5 percent of the
measured value.
*
*
*
*
*
2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The
dry and wet bulb psychrometer shall have an
error no greater than ±1 °F. A relative
humidity meter with a maximum error
tolerance expressed in °F equivalent to the
requirements for the dry and wet bulb
psychrometer or with a maximum error
tolerance of ±2 percent relative humidity
would be acceptable for measuring the
ambient humidity.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Test Procedures and Measurements
3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum
capacity by sealing all openings in the drum
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49645
except the loading port with a plastic bag,
and ensure that all corners and depressions
are filled and that there are no extrusions of
the plastic bag through any openings in the
interior of the drum. Support the dryer’s rear
drum surface on a platform scale to prevent
deflection of the dryer, and record the weight
of the empty dryer. Fill the drum with water
to a level determined by the intersection of
the door plane and the loading port (i.e., the
uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact
with the door seal). Record the temperature
of the water and then the weight of the dryer
with the added water and then determine the
mass of the water in pounds. Add the
appropriate volume to account for any space
in the drum interior not measured by water
fill (e.g., the space above the uppermost edge
of the drum within a curved door) and
subtract the appropriate volume to account
for space that is measured by water fill but
cannot be used when the door is closed (e.g.,
space occupied by the door when closed).
The drum capacity is calculated as follows:
C = w/d +/¥ volume adjustment
C = capacity in cubic feet.
w = mass of water in pounds.
d = density of water at the measured
temperature in pounds per cubic foot.
*
*
*
*
*
3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes dryer
at the maximum temperature setting and, if
equipped with a timer, at the maximum time
setting. Any other optional cycle settings that
do not affect the temperature or time settings
shall be tested in the as-shipped position. If
the clothes dryer does not have a separate
temperature setting selection on the control
panel, the maximum time setting should be
used for the drying test cycle. Dry the test
load until the moisture content of the test
load is between 2.5 percent and 5.0 percent
of the bone-dry weight of the test load, but
do not permit the dryer to advance into cool
down. If required, reset the timer or
automatic dry control.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part
430 is amended:
■ a. By revising the Note after the
appendix heading;
■ b. In section 1. Definitions, by revising
section 1.11;
■ c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by:
■ 1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1.1,
2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.4, and
2.4.7;
■ 2. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and
2.1.3;
■ d. In section 3. Test Methods and
Measurements, by revising sections 3.1,
3.3, and 3.6; and
■ e. In section 4. Calculation of Derived
Results From Test Measurements, by
revising section 4.6.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: Effective February 10, 2014,
manufacturers must make representations of
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
49646
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
energy efficiency, including certifications of
compliance, using appendix D. Compliance
with DOE’s amended standards for clothes
dryers, and corresponding use of the test
procedures at appendix D1 for all
representations, including certifications of
compliance, is required as of January 1, 2015.
Manufacturers must use a single appendix for
all representations, including certifications of
compliance, and may not use appendix D for
certain representations and appendix D1 for
other representations. The procedures in
appendix D2 need not be performed to
determine compliance with energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers at
this time. However, manufacturers may elect
to use the amended appendix D, D1, or D2
early.
1. Definitions
*
*
*
*
1.11 ‘‘IEC 62301’’ (Second Edition)
means the test standard published by
the International Electrotechnical
Commission (‘‘IEC’’) titled ‘‘Household
electrical appliances—Measurement of
standby power,’’ Publication 62301
(Edition 2.0 2011–01) (incorporated by
reference; see § 430.3).
*
*
*
*
*
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
2. Testing Conditions
2.1 Installation.
2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both
conventional clothes dryers and
ventless clothes dryers, as defined in
sections 1.7 and 1.19 of this appendix,
install the clothes dryer in accordance
with manufacturer’s instructions as
shipped with the unit. If the
manufacturer’s instructions do not
specify the installation requirements for
a certain component, it shall be tested
in the as-shipped condition. Where the
manufacturer gives the option to use the
dryer both with and without a duct, the
dryer shall be tested without the
exhaust simulator described in section
3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD–1 (incorporated
by reference; see § 430.3). All external
joints should be taped to avoid air
leakage. For drying testing, disconnect
all lights, such as task lights, that do not
provide any information related to the
drying process on the clothes dryer and
that do not consume more than 10 watts
during the clothes dryer test cycle.
Control setting indicator lights showing
the cycle progression, temperature or
dryness settings, or other cycle
functions that cannot be turned off
during the test cycle shall not be
disconnected during the active mode
test cycle. For standby and off mode
testing, the clothes dryer shall also be
installed in accordance with section 5,
paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see
§ 430.3), disregarding the provisions
regarding batteries and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
determination, classification, and
testing of relevant modes. For standby
and off mode testing, all lighting
systems shall remain connected.
2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers.
For conventional clothes dryers, as
defined in section 1.7 of this appendix,
the dryer exhaust shall be restricted by
adding the AHAM exhaust simulator
described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM
HLD–1 (incorporated by reference; see
§ 430.3).
2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For
ventless clothes dryers, as defined in
section 1.19, the dryer shall be tested
without the AHAM exhaust simulator. If
the manufacturer gives the option to use
a ventless clothes dryer, with or without
a condensation box, the dryer shall be
tested with the condensation box
installed. For ventless clothes dryers,
the condenser unit of the dryer must
remain in place and not be taken out of
the dryer for any reason between tests.
*
*
*
*
*
2.2.2 For standby and off mode
testing, maintain room ambient air
temperature conditions as specified in
section 4, paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by
reference; see § 430.3)
*
*
*
*
*
2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform.
For the clothes dryer standby mode and
off mode testing, maintain the electrical
supply voltage waveform indicated in
section 4, paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by
reference; see § 430.3). If the power
measuring instrument used for testing is
unable to measure and record the total
harmonic content during the test
measurement period, it is acceptable to
measure and record the total harmonic
content immediately before and after the
test measurement period.
2.3.2 Gas supply.
2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas
supply to the clothes dryer immediately
ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7
to 10 inches of water column. If the
clothes dryer is equipped with a gas
appliance pressure regulator for which
the manufacturer specifies an outlet
pressure, the regulator outlet pressure
shall be within ±10 percent of the value
recommended by the manufacturer in
the installation manual, on the
nameplate sticker, or wherever the
manufacturer makes such a
recommendation for the basic model.
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall
be maintained within ±5 percent of the
rating specified by the manufacturer. If
the requirement to maintain the hourly
Btu rating of the burner within ± 5
percent of the rating specified by the
manufacturer cannot be achieved under
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the allowable range in gas inlet test
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner
should be modified as necessary to
achieve the required Btu rating. The
natural gas supplied should have a
heating value of approximately 1,025
Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual
heating value, Hn2, in Btus per standard
cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used
in the test shall be obtained either from
measurements made by the
manufacturer conducting the test using
a standard continuous flow calorimeter
as described in section 2.4.6 or by the
purchase of bottled natural gas whose
Btu rating is certified to be at least as
accurate a rating as could be obtained
from measurements with a standard
continuous flow calorimeter as
described in section 2.4.6.
2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the
gas supply to the clothes dryer
immediately ahead of all controls at a
pressure of 11 to 13 inches of water
column. If the clothes dryer is equipped
with a gas appliance pressure regulator
for which the manufacturer specifies an
outlet pressure, the regulator outlet
pressure shall be within ±10 percent of
the value recommended by the
manufacturer in the installation manual,
on the nameplate sticker, or wherever
the manufacturer makes such a
recommendation for the basic model.
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall
be maintained within ±5 percent of the
rating specified by the manufacturer. If
the requirement to maintain the hourly
Btu rating of the burner within ± 5
percent of the rating specified by the
manufacturer cannot be achieved under
the allowable range in gas inlet test
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner
should be modified as necessary to
achieve the required Btu rating. The
propane gas supplied should have a
heating value of approximately 2,500
Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual
heating value, Hp, in Btus per standard
cubic foot, for the propane gas to be
used in the test shall be obtained either
from measurements made by the
manufacturer conducting the test using
a standard continuous flow calorimeter
as described in section 2.4.6 or by the
purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating
is certified to be at least as accurate a
rating as could be obtained from
measurement with a standard
continuous calorimeter as described in
section 2.4.6.
*
*
*
*
*
2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth.
The scale shall have a range of 0 to a
maximum of 60 pounds with a
resolution of at least 0.2 ounces and a
maximum error no greater than 0.3
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
percent of any measured value within
the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum
capacity measurements. The scale
should have a range of 0 to a maximum
of 600 pounds with resolution of 0.50
pounds and a maximum error no greater
than 0.5 percent of the measured value.
*
*
*
*
*
2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb
psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb
psychrometer shall have an error no
greater than ±1 °F. A relative humidity
meter with a maximum error tolerance
expressed in °F equivalent to the
requirements for the dry and wet bulb
psychrometer or with a maximum error
tolerance of ± 2 percent relative
humidity would be acceptable for
measuring the ambient humidity.
*
*
*
*
*
2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode
watt meter. The watt meter used to
measure standby mode and off mode
power consumption shall meet the
requirements specified in section 4,
paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see
§ 430.3). If the power measuring
instrument used for testing is unable to
measure and record the crest factor,
power factor, or maximum current ratio
during the test measurement period, it
is acceptable to measure the crest factor,
power factor, and maximum current
ratio immediately before and after the
test measurement period.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Test Procedures and Measurements
3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the
drum capacity by sealing all openings in
the drum except the loading port with
a plastic bag, and ensuring that all
corners and depressions are filled and
that there are no extrusions of the
plastic bag through any openings in the
interior of the drum. Support the dryer’s
rear drum surface on a platform scale to
prevent deflection of the drum surface,
and record the weight of the empty
dryer. Fill the drum with water to a
level determined by the intersection of
the door plane and the loading port (i.e.,
the uppermost edge of the drum that is
in contact with the door seal). Record
the temperature of the water and then
the weight of the dryer with the added
water and then determine the mass of
the water in pounds. Add the
appropriate volume to account for any
space in the drum interior not measured
by water fill (e.g., the space above the
uppermost edge of the drum within a
curved door) and subtract the
appropriate volume to account for space
that is measured by water fill but cannot
be used when the door is closed (e.g.,
space occupied by the door when
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
49647
closed). The drum capacity is calculated
as follows:
4. Calculation of Derived Results From
Test Measurements
C = w/d +/¥ volume adjustment
C = capacity in cubic feet.
w = mass of water in pounds.
d = density of water at the measured
temperature in pounds per cubic
foot.
*
*
*
*
*
3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes
dryer at the maximum temperature
setting and, if equipped with a timer, at
the maximum time setting. Any other
optional cycle settings that do not affect
the temperature or time settings shall be
tested in the as-shipped position. If the
clothes dryer does not have a separate
temperature setting selection on the
control panel, the maximum time
setting should be used for the drying
test cycle. Dry the load until the
moisture content of the test load is
between 2.5 and 5.0 percent of the bonedry weight of the test load, at which
point the test cycle is stopped, but do
not permit the dryer to advance into
cool down. If required, reset the timer
to increase the length of the drying
cycle. After stopping the test cycle,
remove and weigh the test load. The
clothes dryer shall not be stopped
intermittently in the middle of the test
cycle for any reason. Record the data
specified by section 3.4 of this
appendix. If the dryer automatically
stops during a cycle because the
condensation box is full of water, the
test is stopped, and the test run is
invalid, in which case the condensation
box shall be emptied and the test re-run
from the beginning. For ventless dryers,
as defined in section 1.19 of this
appendix, during the time between two
cycles, the door of the dryer shall be
closed except for loading (and
unloading).
*
*
*
*
*
3.6 Standby mode and off mode
power. Establish the testing conditions
set forth in Section 2 ‘‘Testing
Conditions’’ of this appendix. For
clothes dryers that take some time to
enter a stable state from a higher power
state as discussed in Section 5,
Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by
reference; see § 430.3), allow sufficient
time for the clothes dryer to reach the
lower power state before proceeding
with the test measurement. Follow the
test procedure specified in section 5,
paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition) for testing in each possible
mode as described in sections 3.6.1 and
3.6.2 of this appendix.
*
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy
consumption expressed in kilowatthours. Calculate the per-cycle combined
total energy consumption, ECC,
expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle
and defined for an electric clothes dryer
as:
ECC = Ece + ETSO
Where:
Ece = the energy recorded in section 4.1
of this appendix, and
ETSO = the energy recorded in section
4.5 of this appendix, and defined
for a gas clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ecg + ETSO
Where:
Ecg = the energy recorded in section 4.4
of this appendix, and
ETSO = the energy recorded in section
4.5 of this appendix.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Appendix D2 is added to Subpart
B of Part 430 to read as follows:
■
Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: The procedures in appendix D2 need
not be performed to determine compliance
with energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers at this time. Manufacturers
may elect to use the amended appendix D2
early to show compliance with the January 1,
2015 energy conservation standards.
Manufacturers must use a single appendix for
all representations, including certifications of
compliance, and may not use appendix D1
for certain representations and appendix D2
for other representations.
1. Definitions
1.1 ‘‘Active mode’’ means a mode in which
the clothes dryer is connected to a main
power source, has been activated and is
performing the main function of tumbling the
clothing with or without heated or unheated
forced air circulation to remove moisture
from the clothing, remove wrinkles or
prevent wrinkling of the clothing, or both.
1.2 ‘‘AHAM’’ means the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers.
1.3 ‘‘AHAM HLD–1’’ means the test
standard published by the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers, titled
‘‘Household Tumble Type Clothes Dryers,’’
(2009), AHAM HLD–1–2009 (incorporated by
reference; see § 430.3).
1.4 ‘‘Automatic termination control’’
means a dryer control system with a sensor
which monitors either the dryer load
temperature or its moisture content and with
a controller which automatically terminates
the drying process. A mark, detent, or other
visual indicator or detent which indicates a
preferred automatic termination control
setting must be present if the dryer is to be
classified as having an ‘‘automatic
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49648
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
termination control.’’ A mark is a visible
single control setting on one or more dryer
controls.
1.5 ‘‘Automatic termination control dryer’’
means a clothes dryer which can be preset to
carry out at least one sequence of operations
to be terminated by means of a system
assessing, directly or indirectly, the moisture
content of the load. An automatic
termination control dryer with
supplementary timer or that may also be
manually controlled shall be tested as an
automatic termination control dryer.
1.6 ‘‘Bone dry’’ means a condition of a load
of test clothes which 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.
1.7 ‘‘Compact’’ or ‘‘compact size’’ means a
clothes dryer with a drum capacity of less
than 4.4 cubic feet.
1.8 ‘‘Conventional clothes dryer’’ means a
clothes dryer that exhausts the evaporated
moisture from the cabinet.
1.9 ‘‘Cool down’’ means that portion of the
clothes drying cycle when the added gas or
electric heat is terminated and the clothes
continue to tumble and dry within the drum.
1.10 ‘‘Cycle’’ means a sequence of
operation of a clothes dryer which performs
a clothes drying operation, and may include
variations or combinations of the functions of
heating, tumbling, and drying.
1.11 ‘‘Drum capacity’’ means the volume of
the drying drum in cubic feet.
1.12 ‘‘IEC 62301’’ (Second Edition) means
the test standard published by the
International Electrotechnical Commission
(‘‘IEC’’) titled ‘‘Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power,’’ Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0
2011–01) (incorporated by reference; see
§ 430.3).
1.13 ‘‘Inactive mode’’ means a standby
mode that facilitates the activation of active
mode by remote switch (including remote
control), internal sensor, or timer, or that
provides continuous status display.
1.14 ‘‘Moisture content’’ means the ratio of
the weight of water contained by the test load
to the bone-dry weight of the test load,
expressed as a percent.
1.15 ‘‘Moisture sensing control’’ means a
system which utilizes a moisture sensing
element within the dryer drum that monitors
the amount of moisture in the clothes and
automatically terminates the dryer cycle.
1.16 ‘‘Off mode’’ means a mode in which
the clothes dryer is connected to a main
power source and is not providing any active
or standby mode function, and where the
mode may persist for an indefinite time. An
indicator that only shows the user that the
product is in the off position is included
within the clasification of an off mode.
1.17 ‘‘Standard size’’ means a clothes dryer
with a drum capacity of 4.4 cubic feet or
greater.
1.18 ‘‘Standby mode’’ means any product
modes where the energy using product is
connected to a mains power source and offers
one or more of the following user-oriented or
protective functions which may persist for an
indefinite time:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
(a) To facilitate the activation of other
modes (including activation or deactivation
of active mode) by remote switch (including
remote control), internal sensor, or timer.
(b) Continuous functions, including
information or status displays (including
clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is
a continuous clock function (which may or
may not be associated with a display) that
provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g.,
switching) and that operates on a continuous
basis.
1.19 ‘‘Temperature sensing control’’ means
a system which monitors dryer exhaust air
temperature and automatically terminates the
dryer cycle.
1.20 ‘‘Timer dryer’’ means a clothes dryer
that can be preset to carry out at least one
operation to be terminated by a timer, but
may also be manually controlled, and does
not include any automatic termination
function.
1.21 ‘‘Ventless clothes dryer’’ means a
clothes dryer that uses a closed-loop system
with an internal condenser to remove the
evaporated moisture from the heated air. The
moist air is not discharged from the cabinet.
2. Testing Conditions
2.1 Installation.
2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both
conventional clothes dryers and ventless
clothes dryers, as defined in sections 1.8 and
1.21 of this appendix, install the clothes
dryer in accordance with manufacturer’s
instructions as shipped with the unit. If the
manufacturer’s instructions do not specify
the installation requirements for a certain
component, it shall be tested in the asshipped condition. Where the manufacturer
gives the option to use the dryer both with
and without a duct, the dryer shall be tested
without the exhaust simulator described in
section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD–1
(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). All
external joints should be taped to avoid air
leakage. For drying testing, disconnect all
lights, such as task lights, that do not provide
any information related to the drying process
on the clothes dryer and that do not consume
more than 10 watts during the clothes dryer
test cycle. Control setting indicator lights
showing the cycle progression, temperature
or dryness settings, or other cycle functions
that cannot be turned off during the test cycle
shall not be disconnected during the active
mode test cycle. For standby and off mode
testing, the clothes dryer shall also be
installed in accordance with section 5,
paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3),
disregarding the provisions regarding
batteries and the determination,
classification, and testing of relevant modes.
For standby and off mode testing, all lighting
systems shall remain connected.
2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers. For
conventional clothes dryers, as defined in
section 1.8 of this appendix, the dryer
exhaust shall be restricted by adding the
AHAM exhaust simulator described in
section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD–1
(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless
clothes dryers, as defined in section 1.21, the
dryer shall be tested without the AHAM
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exhaust simulator. If the manufacturer gives
the option to use a ventless clothes dryer,
with or without a condensation box, the
dryer shall be tested with the condensation
box installed. For ventless clothes dryers, the
condenser unit of the dryer must remain in
place and not be taken out of the dryer for
any reason between tests.
2.2 Ambient temperature and humidity.
2.2.1 For drying testing, maintain the
room ambient air temperature at 75 ± 3 ßF
and the room relative humidity at 50 ±10
percent relative humidity.
2.2.2 For standby and off mode testing,
maintain room ambient air temperature
conditions as specified in section 4,
paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
2.3 Energy supply.
2.3.1 Electrical supply. Maintain the
electrical supply at the clothes dryer terminal
block within 1 percent of 120/240 or 120/
208Y or 120 volts as applicable to the
particular terminal block wiring system and
within 1 percent of the nameplate frequency
as specified by the manufacturer. If the dryer
has a dual voltage conversion capability,
conduct the test at the highest voltage
specified by the manufacturer.
2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. For the
clothes dryer standby mode and off mode
testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage
waveform indicated in section 4, paragraph
4.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). If the
power measuring instrument used for testing
is unable to measure and record the total
harmonic content during the test
measurement period, it is acceptable to
measure and record the total harmonic
content immediately before and after the test
measurement period.
2.3.2 Gas supply.
2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas
supply to the clothes dryer immediately
ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 to 10
inches of water column. If the clothes dryer
is equipped with a gas appliance pressure
regulator for which the manufacturer
specifies an outlet pressure, the regulator
outlet pressure shall be within ±10 percent of
the value recommended by the manufacturer
in the installation manual, on the nameplate
sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes
such a recommendation for the basic model.
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be
maintained within ±5 percent of the rating
specified by the manufacturer. If the
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu
rating of the burner within ± 5 percent of the
rating specified by the manufacturer cannot
be achieved under the allowable range in gas
inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas
burner should be modified as necessary to
achieve the required Btu rating. The natural
gas supplied should have a heating value of
approximately 1,025 Btus per standard cubic
foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in Btus
per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to
be used in the test shall be obtained either
from measurements made by the
manufacturer conducting the test using a
standard continuous flow calorimeter as
described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase
of bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is
certified to be at least as accurate a rating as
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
could be obtained from measurements with
a standard continuous flow calorimeter as
described in section 2.4.6.
2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas
supply to the clothes dryer immediately
ahead of all controls at a pressure of 11 to
13 inches of water column. If the clothes
dryer is equipped with a gas appliance
pressure regulator for which the
manufacturer specifies an outlet pressure, the
regulator outlet pressure shall be within ±10
percent of the value recommended by the
manufacturer in the installation manual, on
the nameplate sticker, or wherever the
manufacturer makes such a recommendation
for the basic model. The hourly Btu rating of
the burner shall be maintained within ±5
percent of the rating specified by the
manufacturer. If the requirement to maintain
the hourly Btu rating of the burner within ±
5 percent of the rating specified by the
manufacturer cannot be achieved under the
allowable range in gas inlet test pressure, the
orifice of the gas burner should be modified
as necessary to achieve the required Btu
rating. The propane gas supplied should have
a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btus
per standard cubic foot. The actual heating
value, Hp, in Btus per standard cubic foot, for
the propane gas to be used in the test shall
be obtained either from measurements made
by the manufacturer conducting the test
using a standard continuous flow calorimeter
as described in section 2.4.6 or by the
purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating is
certified to be at least as accurate a rating as
could be obtained from measurement with a
standard continuous calorimeter as described
in section 2.4.6.
2.4 Instrumentation. Perform all test
measurements using the following
instruments as appropriate.
2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The
scale shall have a range of 0 to a maximum
of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 0.2
ounces and a maximum error no greater than
0.3 percent of any measured value within the
range of 3 to 15 pounds.
2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity
measurements. The scale should have a range
of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with
resolution of 0.50 pounds and a maximum
error no greater than 0.5 percent of the
measured value.
2.4.2 Kilowatt-hour meter. The kilowatthour meter shall have a resolution of 0.001
kilowatt-hours and a maximum error no
greater than 0.5 percent of the measured
value.
2.4.3 Gas meter. The gas meter shall have
a resolution of 0.001 cubic feet and a
maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent
of the measured value.
2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The
dry and wet bulb psychrometer shall have an
error no greater than ±1 °F. A relative
humidity meter with a maximum error
tolerance expressed in °F equivalent to the
requirements for the dry and wet bulb
psychrometer or with a maximum error
tolerance of ± 2 percent relative humidity
would be acceptable for measuring the
ambient humidity.
2.4.5 Temperature. The temperature
sensor shall have an error no greater than
±1 °F.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
2.4.6 Standard Continuous Flow
Calorimeter. The calorimeter shall have an
operating range of 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic
foot. The maximum error of the basic
calorimeter shall be no greater than 0.2
percent of the actual heating value of the gas
used in the test. The indicator readout shall
have a maximum error no greater than 0.5
percent of the measured value within the
operating range and a resolution of 0.2
percent of the full-scale reading of the
indicator instrument.
2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode watt
meter. The watt meter used to measure
standby mode and off mode power
consumption shall meet the requirements
specified in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC
62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by
reference; see § 430.3). If the power
measuring instrument used for testing is
unable to measure and record the crest factor,
power factor, or maximum current ratio
during the test measurement period, it is
acceptable to measure the crest factor, power
factor, and maximum current ratio
immediately before and after the test
measurement period.
2.5 Lint trap. Clean the lint trap
thoroughly before each test run.
2.6 Test Cloths.
2.6.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test
cloth shall be clean and consist of the
following:
(a) Pure finished bleached cloth, made
with a momie or granite weave, which is a
blended fabric of 50-percent cotton and 50percent polyester and weighs within +10
percent of 5.75 ounces per square yard after
test cloth preconditioning, and has 65 ends
on the warp and 57 picks on the fill. The
individual warp and fill yarns are a blend of
50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester
fibers.
(b) Cloth material that is 24 inches by 36
inches and has been hemmed to 22 inches by
34 inches before washing. The maximum
shrinkage after five washes shall not be more
than 4 percent on the length and width.
(c) The number of test runs on the same
energy test cloth shall not exceed 25 runs.
2.6.2 Energy stuffer cloths. The energy
stuffer cloths shall be made from energy test
cloth material, and shall consist of pieces of
material that are 12 inches by 12 inches and
have been hemmed to 10 inches by 10 inches
before washing. The maximum shrinkage
after five washes shall not be more than 4
percent on the length and width. The number
of test runs on the same energy stuffer cloth
shall not exceed 25 runs after test cloth
preconditioning.
2.6.3 Test Cloth Preconditioning.
A new test cloth load and energy stuffer
cloths shall be treated as follows:
(1) Bone dry the load to a weight change
of ± 1 percent, or less, as prescribed in
section 1.6 of this appendix.
(2) Place the test cloth load in a standard
clothes washer set at the maximum water fill
level. Wash the load for 10 minutes in soft
water (17 parts per million hardness or less),
using 60.8 grams of AHAM standard test
detergent Formula 3. Wash water
temperature should be maintained at 140 °F
±5 °F (60 °C ±2.7 °C). Rinse water
temperature is to be controlled at 100 °F ±5
°F (37.7 °C ±2.7 °C).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49649
(3) Rinse the load again at the same water
temperature.
(4) Bone dry the load as prescribed in
section 1.6 of this appendix and weigh the
load.
(5) This procedure is repeated until there
is a weight change of 1 percent or less.
(6) A final cycle is to be a hot water wash
with no detergent, followed by two warm
water rinses.
2.7 Test loads.
2.7.1 Compact size dryer load. Prepare a
bone-dry test load of energy cloths that
weighs 3.00 pounds ± .03 pounds. The test
load can be adjusted to achieve proper
weight by adding energy stuffer cloths, but
no more than five stuffer cloths may be
added per load. Dampen the load by agitating
it in water whose temperature is 60 °F ± 5 °F
and consists of 0 to 17 parts per million
hardness for approximately 2 minutes to
saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from
the wet test load by spinning the load until
the moisture content of the load is between
52.5 and 57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight
of the test load. Make a final mass
adjustment, such that the moisture content is
57.5 percent ± 0.33 percent by adding water
uniformly distributed among all of the test
clothes in a very fine spray using a spray
bottle.
2.7.2 Standard size dryer load. Prepare a
bone-dry test load of energy cloths that
weighs 8.45 pounds ± .085 pounds. The test
load can be adjusted to achieve proper
weight by adding stuffer cloths, but no more
than five stuffer cloths may be added per
load. Dampen the load by agitating it in water
whose temperature is 60 °F ± 5 °F and
consists of 0 to 17 parts per million hardness
for approximately 2 minutes to saturate the
fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test
load by spinning the load until the moisture
content of the load is between 52.5 and 57.5
percent of the bone-dry weight of the test
load. Make a final mass adjustment, such that
the moisture content is 57.5 percent ± 0.33
percent by adding water uniformly
distributed among all of the test clothes in a
very fine spray using a spray bottle.
2.7.3 Method of loading. Load the energy
test cloths by grasping them in the center,
shaking them to hang loosely, and then
dropping them in the dryer at random.
2.8 Clothes dryer preconditioning.
2.8.1 Conventional clothes dryers. For
conventional clothes dryers, before any test
cycle, operate the dryer without a test load
in the non-heat mode for 15 minutes or until
the discharge air temperature is varying less
than 1 °F for 10 minutes—whichever is
longer—in the test installation location with
the ambient conditions within the specified
test condition tolerances of 2.2.
2.8.2 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless
clothes dryers, before any test cycle, the
steady-state machine temperature must be
equal to ambient room temperature described
in 2.2.1. This may be done by leaving the
machine at ambient room conditions for at
least 12 hours between tests.
3. Test Procedures and Measurements
3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum
capacity by sealing all openings in the drum
except the loading port with a plastic bag,
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49650
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
and ensuring that all corners and depressions
are filled and that there are no extrusions of
the plastic bag through any openings in the
interior of the drum. Support the dryer’s rear
drum surface on a platform scale to prevent
deflection of the drum surface, and record
the weight of the empty dryer. Fill the drum
with water to a level determined by the
intersection of the door plane and the loading
port (i.e., the uppermost edge of the drum
that is in contact with the door seal). Record
the temperature of the water and then the
weight of the dryer with the added water and
then determine the mass of the water in
pounds. Add the appropriate volume to
account for any space in the drum interior
not measured by water fill (e.g., the space
above the uppermost edge of the drum within
a curved door) and subtract the appropriate
volume to account for the space that is
measured by water fill but cannot be used
when the door is closed (e.g., space occupied
by the door when closed). The drum capacity
is calculated as follows:
C= w/d +/¥ volume adjustment
C= capacity in cubic feet.
w= mass of water in pounds.
d= density of water at the measured
temperature in pounds per cubic foot.
3.2 Dryer Loading. Load the dryer as
specified in 2.7.
3.3 Test cycle.
3.3.1 Timer dryers. For timer dryers, as
defined in section 1.20 of this appendix,
operate the clothes dryer at the maximum
temperature setting and, if equipped with a
timer, at the maximum time setting. Any
other optional cycle settings that do not affect
the temperature or time settings shall be
tested in the as-shipped position. If the
clothes dryer does not have a separate
temperature setting selection on the control
panel, the maximum time setting should be
used for the drying test cycle. Dry the load
until the moisture content of the test load is
between 1 and 2.5 percent of the bone-dry
weight of the test load, at which point the
test cycle is stopped, but do not permit the
dryer to advance into cool down. If required,
reset the timer to increase the length of the
drying cycle. After stopping the test cycle,
remove and weigh the test load. The clothes
dryer shall not be stopped intermittently in
the middle of the test cycle for any reason.
Record the data specified by section 3.4 of
this appendix. If the dryer automatically
stops during a cycle because the
condensation box is full of water, the test is
stopped, and the test run is invalid, in which
case the condensation box shall be emptied
and the test re-run from the beginning. For
ventless dryers, as defined in section 1.21 of
this appendix, during the time between two
cycles, the door of the dryer shall be closed
except for loading (and unloading).
3.3.2 Automatic termination control
dryers. For automatic termination control
dryers, as defined in section 1.5 of this
appendix, a ‘‘normal’’ program shall be
selected for the test cycle. For dryers that do
not have a ‘‘normal’’ program, the cycle
recommended by the manufacturer for drying
cotton or linen clothes shall be selected.
Where the drying temperature setting can be
chosen independently of the program, it shall
be set to the maximum. Where the dryness
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
level setting can be chosen independently of
the program, it shall be set to the ‘‘normal’’
or ‘‘medium’’ dryness level setting. If such
designation is not provided, then the dryness
level shall be set at the mid-point between
the minimum and maximum settings. Any
other optional cycle settings that do not affect
the program, temperature or dryness settings
shall be tested in the as-shipped position.
Operate the clothes dryer until the
completion of the programmed cycle,
including the cool down period. The cycle
shall be considered complete when the dryer
indicates to the user that the cycle has
finished (by means of a display, indicator
light, audible signal, or other signal) and the
heater and drum/fan motor shuts off for the
final time. If the clothes dryer is equipped
with a wrinkle prevention mode (i.e., that
continuously or intermittently tumbles the
clothes dryer drum after the clothes dryer
indicates to the user that the cycle has
finished) that is activated by default in the
as-shipped position or if manufacturers’
instructions specify that the feature is
recommended to be activated for normal use,
the cycle shall be considered complete after
the end of the wrinkle prevention mode.
After the completion of the test cycle, remove
and weigh the test load. Record the data
specified in section 3.4 of this appendix. If
the final moisture content is greater than 2
percent, the test shall be invalid and a new
run shall be conducted using the highest
dryness level setting. If the dryer
automatically stops during a cycle because
the condensation box is full of water, the test
is stopped, and the test run is invalid, in
which case the condensation box shall be
emptied and the test re-run from the
beginning. For ventless dryers, during the
time between two cycles, the door of the
dryer shall be closed except for loading (and
unloading).
3.4 Data recording. Record for each test
cycle:
3.4.1 Bone-dry weight of the test load
described in 2.7.
3.4.2 Moisture content of the wet test
load before the test, as described in 2.7.
3.4.3 Moisture content of the dry test load
obtained after the test described in 3.3.
3.4.4 Test room conditions, temperature,
and percent relative humidity described in
2.2.1.
3.4.5 For electric dryers—the total
kilowatt-hours of electric energy, Et,
consumed during the test described in 3.3.
3.4.6 For gas dryers:
3.4.6.1 Total kilowatt-hours of electrical
energy, Ete, consumed during the test
described in 3.3.
3.4.6.2 Cubic feet of gas per cycle, Etg,
consumed during the test described in 3.3.
3.4.6.3 Correct the gas heating value,
GEF, as measured in 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2, to
standard pressure and temperature
conditions in accordance with U.S. Bureau of
Standards, circular C417, 1938.
3.4.7 The cycle settings selected, in
accordance with section 3.3.2 of this
appendix, for the automatic termination
control dryer test.
3.5 Test for automatic termination field
use factor. The field use factor for automatic
termination can be claimed for those dryers
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
which meet the requirements for automatic
termination control, defined in 1.4.
3.6 Standby mode and off mode power.
Establish the testing conditions set forth in
Section 2 ‘‘Testing Conditions’’ of this
appendix. For clothes dryers that take some
time to enter a stable state from a higher
power state as discussed in Section 5,
Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see
§ 430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes
dryer to reach the lower power state before
proceeding with the test measurement.
Follow the test procedure specified in section
5, paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition) for testing in each possible mode as
described in sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of this
appendix.
3.6.1 If a clothes dryer has an inactive
mode, as defined in section 1.13 of this
appendix, measure and record the average
inactive mode power of the clothes dryer,
PIA, in watts.
3.6.2 If a clothes dryer has an off mode,
as defined in section 1.16 of this appendix,
measure and record the average off mode
power of the clothes dryer, POFF, in watts.
4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test
Measurements
4.1 Total per-cycle electric dryer energy
consumption. Calculate the total electric
dryer energy consumption per cycle, Ece,
expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and
defined as:
Ece = Et,
for automatic termination control dryers,
and,
Ece = [55.5/(Ww¥ Wd)] × Et × field use,
for timer dryers
Where:
55.5 = an experimentally established value
for the percent reduction in the moisture
content of the test load during a
laboratory test cycle expressed as a
percent.
Et = the energy recorded in section 3.4.5 of
this appendix
field use = 1.18, the field use factor for
clothes dryers with time termination
control systems only without any
automatic termination control functions.
Ww = the moisture content of the wet test
load as recorded in section 3.4.2 of this
appendix.
Wd = the moisture content of the dry test load
as recorded in section 3.4.3 of this
appendix.
4.2 Per-cycle gas dryer electrical energy
consumption. Calculate the gas dryer
electrical energy consumption per cycle, Ege,
expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and
defined as:
Ege = Ete,
for automatic termination control dryers,
and,
Ege = [55.5/(Ww ¥Wd)] × Ete × field use,
for timer dryers
Where:
Ete = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.1
of this appendix.
field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section
4.1 of this appendix.
4.3 Per-cycle gas dryer gas energy
consumption. Calculate the gas dryer gas
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
energy consumption per cycle, Ege,
expressed in Btus per cycle and defined
as:
Egg = Etg × GEF
for automatic termination control dryers,
and,
Egg = [55.5/(Ww ¥Wd)] × Etg × field use × GEF
for timer dryers
Where:
Etg = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.2
of this appendix.
GEF = corrected gas heat value (Btu per cubic
foot) as defined in section 3.4.6.3 of this
appendix,
field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section
4.1 of this appendix.
4.4 Total per-cycle gas dryer energy
consumption expressed in kilowatt-hours.
Calculate the total gas dryer energy
consumption per cycle, Ecg, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:
Ecg = Ege + (Egg/3412 Btu/kWh)
Where:
Ege = the energy calculated in section 4.2 of
this appendix
Egg = the energy calculated in section 4.3 of
this appendix
4.5 Per-cycle standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. Calculate the dryer
inactive mode and off mode energy
consumption per cycle, ETSO, expressed in
kWh per cycle and defined as:
ETSO = [(PIA × SIA) + (POFF × SOFF)] × K/283
Where:
PIA = dryer inactive mode power, in watts, as
measured in section 3.6.1;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 Aug 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
POFF = dryer off mode power, in watts, as
measured in section 3.6.2.
If the clothes dryer has both inactive mode
and off mode, SIA and SOFF both equal
8,620 ÷ 2 = 4,310, where 8,620 is the
total inactive and off mode annual hours;
If the clothes dryer has an inactive mode but
no off mode, the inactive mode annual
hours, SIA, is equal to 8,620 and the off
mode annual hours, SOFF, is equal to 0;
If the clothes dryer has an off mode but no
inactive mode, SIA is equal to 0 and SOFF
is equal to 8,620
Where:
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for
watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; and
283 = representative average number of
clothes dryer cycles in a year.
4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy
consumption expressed in kilowatt-hours.
Calculate the per-cycle combined total energy
consumption, ECC, expressed in kilowatthours per cycle and defined for an electric
clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ece + ETSO
Where:
Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of
this appendix, and
ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of
this appendix, and defined for a gas
clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ecg + ETSO
Where:
Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of
this appendix, and
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
49651
ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of
this appendix.
4.7 Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatthour. Calculate the energy factor, EF,
expressed in pounds per kilowatt-hour and
defined for an electric clothes dryer as:
EF = Wbonedry/Ece
Where:
Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight
recorded in section 3.4.1 of this
appendix, and
Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of
this appendix, and and defined for a gas
clothes dryer as:
EF = Wbonedry/Ecg
Where:
Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight
recorded in section 3.4.1 of this
appendix, and
Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of
this appendix,
4.8 Combined Energy Factor in pounds
per kilowatt-hour. Calculate the combined
energy factor, CEF, expressed in pounds per
kilowatt-hour and defined as:
CEF = Wbonedry/ECC
Where:
Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight
recorded in section 3.4.1 of this
appendix, and
ECC = the energy calculated in section 4.6 of
this appendix.
[FR Doc. 2013–18931 Filed 8–13–13; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\14AUR2.SGM
14AUR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49607-49651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18931]
[[Page 49607]]
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 157
August 14, 2013
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes
Dryers; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49608]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054]
RIN 1904-AC63
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential
Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedures for
residential clothes dryers. DOE also published a supplemental NOPR
(SNOPR) on February 7, 2013, to propose additional amendments to the
clothes dryer test procedure. Those proposed rulemakings serve as the
basis for today's action. This final rule updates the reference to the
latest edition of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Standard 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power,'' Edition 2.0 2011-01. For the test procedures at both
appendix D and appendix D1 to the same subpart, DOE is adopting
amendments to clarify the cycle settings used for the test cycle, the
requirements for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, the
installation conditions for console lights, the method for measuring
the drum capacity, the maximum allowable weighing scale range, and the
allowable use of a relative humidity meter. This final rule also amends
the DOE clothes dryer test procedure to create a new appendix D2 that
includes the amendments discussed above and testing methods for more
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date of this rule is September 13,
2013.
Compliance date: Compliance with the amended test procedure in
appendix D for the purposes of compliance with current energy
conservation standards, as well as representations, is required
beginning February 10, 2014 until January 1, 2015. Compliance with the
amended test procedure in appendix D1 for the purpose of compliance
with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards, as well as
representations, is required beginning January 1, 2015. Appendix D2 may
be used for informational purposes and compliance with the provisions
in appendix D2 may be required at a later date. Voluntary early
compliance with appendix D1 or appendix D2 is permitted.
Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register September 13, 2013.
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 regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=10;po=0;D=EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0054. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for
this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page
will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen 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. Email: clothes_dryers@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
1. January 2011 Final Rule
2. August 2011 RFI
3. January 2013 NOPR
4. February 2013 SNOPR
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Automatic Termination Control Procedures.
B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition).
C. Clarifications to Test Conditions.
III. Discussion
A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Rulemaking
B. Automatic Cycle Termination
1. Joint Petition to Amend the Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis
3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed Amendments and Today's Final Rule
a. Definitions
b. Test Load
c. Automatic Termination Control Dryer Test Cycle
d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer Field Use Factor
e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the Determination of the
Completion of the Test Cycle
f. New Appendix D2
C. Timed Dry Test Method
D. Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition
for Measuring Standby Mode and Off Mode Power
E. Technical Correction to the Calculation of the Per-cycle
Combined Total Energy Consumption
F. Clarifications to Test Conditions
1. Cycle Settings
2. Gas Supply Requirements
3. Console Lights
4. Drum Capacity Measurements
5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range
6. Relative Humidity Meter
G. Additional Test Procedure Issues
1. Consumer Usage Patterns and Capabilities
a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles
b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content and Moisture Removed
During Test Cycle
c. Test Load Weight
d. Exhaust Conditions
2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight Measurement
3. Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning
4. Room Ambient Humidity Requirements
5. Measurement of Drying Cycle Time
6. Clothes Dryer Energy Conservation Standards
H. Effects of Proposed Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance
with Standards
1. Active Mode
2. Standby Mode and Off Mode
I. Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements
1. Test Burden
2. Certification Requirements
3. Compliance date of final amended test procedures
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to
[[Page 49609]]
improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B
of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A
upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as
codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.'' These include residential clothes
dryers, the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8))
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) that their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2)
making representations about the efficiency of those products.
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered
product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would
alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2))
EPCA also requires DOE to amend the test procedures for all
residential covered products to include measures of standby mode and
off mode energy consumption. Specifically, EPCA provides definitions of
``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) and
permits DOE to amend these definitions in the context of a given
product (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B)). The statute requires integration of
such energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product,
unless DOE determines that--
(i) the current test procedures for a covered product already fully
account for and incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption of the covered product; or
(ii) such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible
for a particular covered product, in which case the Secretary shall
prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test
procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A))
In any test procedure amendment, DOE must consider the most current
versions of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard
62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby
power,'' and IEC Standard 62087, ``Methods of measurement for the power
consumption of audio, video, and related equipment.'' Id.
B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
DOE's test procedures for clothes dryers are codified in appendix D
and appendix D1 to subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). DOE established its test procedure for clothes
dryers at appendix D in a final rule published in the Federal Register
on September 14, 1977 (the September 1977 Final Rule). 42 FR 46145. On
May 19, 1981, DOE published a final rule to amend the test procedure by
establishing a field-use factor for clothes dryers with automatic
termination controls, clarifying the test cloth specifications and
clothes dryer preconditioning, and making editorial and minor technical
changes. 46 FR 27324. The test procedure includes provisions for
determining the energy factor (EF) for clothes dryers, which is a
measure of the total energy required to dry a standard test load of
laundry to a ``bone dry'' \1\ state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Bone dry'' is defined in the DOE clothes dryer test
procedure as a condition of a load of test clothes which 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. (10 CFR subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. January 2011 Final Rule
On January 6, 2011, DOE published in the Federal Register a final
rule for the residential clothes dryer and room air conditioner test
procedure rulemaking (76 FR 972) (January 2011 Final Rule), in which it
(1) adopted the provisions for the measurement of standby mode and off
mode energy use for those products; and (2) adopted several amendments
to the clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedures
concerning the active mode for these products. 76 FR 972 (Jan. 6,
2011). DOE created a new appendix D1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B that
contained the amended test procedure for clothes dryers. Manufacturers
must use the test procedures in appendix D1 to demonstrate compliance
with energy conservation standards for clothes dryers as of January 1,
2015. (76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011), 76 FR 52854 (Aug. 24, 2011))
For clothes dryer standby mode and off mode, the January 2011 Final
Rule amended the DOE clothes dryer test procedure to incorporate by
reference specific clauses from the IEC Standard 62301, ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' (first edition
June 2005) (IEC Standard 62301 First Edition) regarding test conditions
and test procedures for measuring standby mode and off mode power
consumption, as well as language to clarify application of these
provisions for measuring standby mode and off mode power consumption in
clothes dryers. In addition, DOE adopted definitions of modes based on
the relevant provisions from IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition
Committee Draft for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV). DOE established the
Combined Energy Factor (CEF) for clothes dryers to integrate energy use
in the standby mode and off mode with the energy use of the main
functions of the product.\2\ 76 FR 972, 975-6 (Jan. 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The CEF is defined as the clothes dryer test load weight in
pounds divided by the sum of the per-cycle standby and off mode
energy consumption and either the total per-cycle electric dryer
energy consumption or the total per-cycle gas dryer energy
consumption expressed in kilowatt hours (kWh).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For clothes dryer active mode, in the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE
adopted testing methods for ventless clothes dryers, test cloth
preconditioning requirements for clothes dryer energy tests, test
conditions for gas clothes dryers, test conditions for clothes dryer
[[Page 49610]]
drum capacity measurement, and amendments to reflect current clothes
dryer usage patterns and capabilities and to update the references to
the relevant industry test standard (Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HLD-1-2009). 76 FR 972, 976-8 (Jan. 6,
2011).
In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE did not adopt amendments to
more accurately measure automatic cycle termination that were proposed
earlier in the rulemaking \3\ because DOE concluded that they did not
adequately measure the energy consumption of clothes dryers equipped
with such systems using the test load specified in the DOE test
procedure. DOE stated that clothes dryers with automatic termination
sensing control systems, which infer the RMC \4\ of the load from the
properties of the exhaust air such as temperature and humidity, may be
designed to stop the cycle when a load of varying weights, composition,
and size has a higher RMC than the RMC obtained using the proposed
automatic cycle termination test procedure in conjunction with the
existing DOE test load.\5\ In considering whether other test loads
would be appropriate to incorporate into the DOE test procedure to
produce both representative and repeatable test results, however, DOE
noted that manufacturers indicated that test load types and test cloth
materials different than those specified in the DOE test procedure do
not produce results as repeatable as those obtained using the test load
as currently specified. 76 FR 977 (Jan. 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The test method proposed in a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking involved testing clothes dryers with automatic
termination controls using the ``normal'' setting (and where the
temperature setting can be chosen independently of the program, DOE
proposed to use the highest temperature level) and a test load with
a starting moisture content of 57.5 0.33 percent,
allowing the dryer to run until the heater switches off for the
final time at the end of the drying cycle to achieve a final
remaining moisture content of no more than 5 percent. 75 FR 37594,
37612-20 (June 29, 2010).
\4\ RMC is the ratio of the weight of water contained by the
test load to the bone-dry weight of the test load, expressed as a
percent.
\5\ The DOE test load is composed of cotton momie test cloths
that are each 24 inches by 36 inches in dimensions and are a blend
of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. August 2011 RFI
On August 12, 2011, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI)
to further investigate the effects of automatic cycle termination on
clothes dryer energy efficiency (August 2011 RFI). 76 FR 50145. DOE
sought information, data, and comments regarding methods for more
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination in the
clothes dryer test procedure. In particular, DOE sought comment on the
following: (1) The characteristics of loads of varying weights,
composition, and size, (2) the accuracy of different automatic cycle
termination sensors and controls, (3) the target final RMC used by
manufacturers to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4) the effects of the
characteristics of water (i.e., hardness and conductivity) used for
wetting the test load prior to testing, and (5) the cycle settings
selected by consumers for automatic termination cycles. In response to
the August 2011 RFI, interested parties commented that DOE should amend
the clothes dryer test procedure to include provisions to account for
the effectiveness of automatic cycle termination and amend the relevant
energy conservation standards based on the effects of the test
procedure changes according to EPCA.
3. January 2013 NOPR
On January 2, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) (January 2013 NOPR) (78 FR 152) to propose amendments to the DOE
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D1, to include methods for more accurately measuring the effects of
automatic cycle termination. DOE also proposed to update the reference
to the latest edition of the IEC Standard 62301, ``Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Edition 2.0 2011-01 (IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition) or ``Second Edition'') for measuring
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, along with additional
clarifying language. For the test procedures at both appendix D and
appendix D1, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to clarify the cycle
settings used for the test cycle and the requirements for the gas
supply for gas clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 154-155 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE
also held a public meeting on February 6, 2013 (hereafter referred to
as the February 2013 public meeting) to hear oral comments on and
solicit information relevant to the January 2013 NOPR.
4. February 2013 SNOPR
On February 7, 2013, DOE published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) to consider inquiries regarding specific
provisions in the current clothes dryer test procedures (February 2013
SNOPR). DOE proposed amendments to clarify the installation conditions
for console lights, the method for measuring the drum capacity, the
maximum allowable scale range, and the allowable use of a relative
humidity meter. 78 FR 8992 (Feb. 7, 2013).
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Automatic Termination Control Procedures.
In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedures for clothes
dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B to create a new appendix D2 to
include methods for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic
cycle termination. As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE determined that
the amended automatic cycle termination test procedure for clothes
dryers represents a significantly different testing methodology that
may impact the energy consumption of some clothes dryers more than
others and would potentially require additional product re-design to
meet the January 1, 2015 standards. As a result, to maintain the same
basic test procedure that is required for use to determine compliance
with the January 1, 2015 clothes dryer standards, DOE is not amending
appendix D1 in today's final rule to include provisions for more
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. The
newly created appendix D2 with such amendments will not be required for
use to determine compliance with either the current or the January 1,
2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE will
continue to evaluate products on the market and collect data on clothes
dryer automatic cycle termination to evaluate when the compliance date
for the amended test procedure in appendix D2 will be required.
The amended test method in appendix D2 requires that clothes dryers
with automatic cycle termination controls be tested using the
``Normal'' automatic termination cycle setting. Where the drying
temperature setting can be chosen independently, it shall be set to the
maximum. Where the dryness level setting can be chosen independently,
it shall be set to the ``normal'' or ``medium'' dryness level
setting.\6\ The amendments also specify that the clothes dryer be
allowed to run until the completion of the drying cycle, including the
cool-down period, to achieve a final RMC of no more than 2 percent. If
the final measured RMC is above 2 percent, the test shall be considered
invalid and a new test cycle shall be run using the highest dryness
[[Page 49611]]
level setting. DOE notes that a final RMC of 2 percent using the DOE
test load is more representative of clothes dryers currently on the
market than the 5-percent final RMC specified in the existing test
procedure and the new requirement is representative of the maximum
consumer-accepted final RMC. DOE is including an additional
clarification that the cycle shall be considered complete when the
clothes dryer indicates to the user that the cycle has finished (by
means of a display, indicator light, audible signal, or other signal)
and the heater and drum/fan motor shuts off for the final time. If the
clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle prevention feature (i.e., that
continuously or intermittently tumbles the clothes dryer drum after the
clothes dryer indicates to the user that the cycle has finished) that
is activated by default in the condition as shipped by the
manufacturer, the wrinkle prevention mode would be included in the test
measurement cycle unless it precluded the necessary automatic
termination cycle program, temperature setting, or dryness setting. In
addition, if a manufacturer's user manual specifies that the wrinkle
prevention mode is recommended to be activated for normal use even if
it is not done so in the as-shipped condition, the product would be
tested with the wrinkle prevention mode activated per manufacturer's
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Most clothes dryers available on the market provide separate
settings for the ``temperature level'' and ``dryness level.'' The
temperature level refers to the temperature of the hot air used to
dry the load in the drum. The dryness level refers to the desired
remaining moisture content of the load at the completion of the
drying cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to apply a field use factor
of 0.80 for clothes dryers with automatic cycle termination to account
for the measured energy consumption at the end of the automatic
termination cycle drying the DOE test load below 2-percent RMC. 78 FR
152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). Based on comments from interested parties and
review of available field use data, DOE determined that eliminating the
field use factor for automatic termination control dryers will produce
test results that are more representative of consumer use. As a result,
in today's final rule, DOE is eliminating the field use factor in
appendix D2 for clothes dryers with automatic termination controls
because the test method directly measures any over-drying energy
consumption.
For clothes dryers with only timed dry control settings, the
amendments adopted in the new appendix D2 require that the existing
timed dry test cycle be used, but change the allowable final RMC range
from 2.5-5 percent to 1-2.5 percent. DOE is also amending the test
procedure in appendix D2 to change the normalization in the calculation
of the per-cycle energy consumption to represent the energy consumption
required to dry the test load to 2-percent RMC. These changes provide
consistency with the test method for automatic cycle termination and
are representative of the final RMC of clothes dryers currently on the
market using the DOE test load.
Appendix D2 may be used for informational purposes, but will not be
required for use to determine compliance with either the current or the
January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE
is not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include the
amendments for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle
termination discussed above.
B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition).
The IEC published IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) on January
27, 2011. Consistent with EPCA requirements for amending test
procedures to include standby and off mode procedures (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)), DOE analyzed this latest version of the IEC standard
and determined that it provides for improvement for some measurements
of standby mode and off mode energy use. Accordingly, DOE adopts
amendments in today's final rule to incorporate certain provisions of
the IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition), along with clarifying
language, into the DOE clothes dryer test procedures in both appendix
D1 and appendix D2.
C. Clarifications to Test Conditions.
DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices D, D1, and
D2 to clarify: (1) The cycle settings used for the test cycle, (2) the
requirements for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, (3) the
installation conditions for console lights, (4) the method for
measuring the drum capacity, (5) the maximum allowable weighing scale
range for drum capacity and test cloth measurements, and (6) the
allowable use of a relative humidity meter.
D. Summary of Test Provisions.
Table II.1 presents the key test procedure provisions in appendix
D, D1, and D2.
Table II.1--Test Procedure Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test provisions Appendix D Appendix D1 Appendix D2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standby/Off Mode Test Methods........ None................... Incorporates by Incorporates by
reference IEC Standard reference IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition) 62301 (Second Edition)
with additional with additional
clarifications. clarifications.
Ventless Dryer Test Methods.......... No..................... Yes.................... Yes.
Number of Cycles Per Year............ 416.................... 283.................... 283.
Referenced AHAM Standard............. HLD-1-1974............. HLD-1-2009............. HLD-1-2009.
Test Load Weight..................... Standard Size Dryers: Standard Size Dryers: Standard Size Dryers:
7.00 .07 8.45 .085 8.45 .085
pounds. pounds. pounds.
Compact Size Dryers: Compact Size Dryers: Compact Size Dryers:
3.00 .03 3.00 .03 3.00 .03
pounds. pounds. pounds.
Detergent Specifications for Test AHAM Standard Test AHAM Standard Test AHAM Standard Test
Cloth Preconditioning. Detergent IIA. Detergent Formula 3. Detergent Formula 3.
Water Temperature for Test Load 100 [deg]F 60 [deg]F 60 [deg]F
Preparation. 5 [deg]F. 5 [deg]F. 5 [deg]F.
Starting RMC of Test Load............ 70 3.5 57.5 3.5 57.5 0.33
percent. percent. percent.
[[Page 49612]]
Cycle and Settings Used for Test..... Timed Dry Cycle, Timed Dry Cycle, Automatic Termination
Maximum Temperature. Maximum Temperature. Control Dryers:
``Normal'' Automatic
Dry Cycle; Maximum
Temperature (if
separately
selectable);
``Normal'' or
``Medium'' Dryness
(or, if no such
designations, at mid-
point between min. and
max. settings).
Timer Dryers: Timed Dry
Cycle, Maximum
Temperature.
RMC of Test Load at Which Test is Stopped manually at 2.5- Stopped manually at 2.5- Automatic Termination
Stopped. 5 percent RMC. 5 percent RMC. Control Dryers:
Allowed to run until
completion of
automatic cycle. Must
be below 2-percent RMC
or additional test
with highest dryness
level setting must be
run.
Timer Dryers: Stopped
manually at 1-2.5
percent RMC.
Cool Down............................ Clothes dryer not Clothes dryer not Cool down period
permitted to advance permitted to advance included in automatic
into cool down. into cool down. cycle test.
Field Use Factor (multiplied by per- = 1.04 for automatic = 1.04 for automatic No field use factor for
cycle energy consumption to account termination control termination control automatic termination
for over drying). dryers. dryers. control dryers.
= 1.18 for timer dryers = 1.18 for timer dryers = 1.18 for timer
dryers.
Clarifications:......................
Cycle settings used for Yes.................... Yes.................... Yes.
the test cycle
Requirements for the gas
supply for gas clothes dryers
Installation conditions
for console lights
Method for measuring the
drum capacity
Maximum allowable scale
range
Allowable use of a
relative humidity meter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Rulemaking
Today's amendments to DOE's clothes dryer test procedure cover both
electric and gas clothes dryers. DOE defines a clothes dryer to mean a
cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum
with forced air circulation, with blower(s) driven by an electric
motor(s) and either gas or electricity as the heat source. 10 CFR
430.2. DOE is not amending the definition for clothes dryers in DOE's
regulations.
Hydromatic Technologies Corporation (Hydromatic) commented that its
``hybrid electric'' clothes dryer should be a covered product and
should be considered before setting any standards or test procedures.
(Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24-27, 116-118)
\7\ DOE notes that the Hydromatic's clothes dryer would be considered a
covered product under the definition of an electric clothes dryer in 10
CFR 430.2 because the heat source is electricity. The definition does
not limit electric clothes dryers to any specific method or technology
by which the heat is generated from the electrical supply, such as an
electric resistance heater or heat pump technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A notation in the form ``Hydromatic, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24-27, 116-118'' identifies an oral
comment that DOE received during the February 6, 2013, NOPR public
meeting, was recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket
for the residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking (Docket
No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054), and is available for review at
www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers to a comment
(1) made by the Hydromatic Technologies Corporation during the
public meeting; (2) recorded in document number 10, which is the
public meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of the
residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking; and (3) which
appears on pages 24-27 and 116-118 of document number 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Automatic Cycle Termination
In today's final rule, DOE is adopting amendments to the clothes
dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B to create a new
appendix D2 that includes methods to more accurately measure the
effects of automatic cycle termination. DOE is not including these
methods for automatic cycle termination in appendix D1 for the reasons
discussed in section III.I.3.
The DOE test procedures for clothes dryers in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendices D and D1 require manufacturers to apply a field
use factor to the per-cycle drying energy consumption to determine the
performance of clothes dryers equipped with both automatic cycle
termination and timers. For clothes dryers with automatic termination
control, the test procedures do not distinguish between the types of
sensing control system (e.g., temperature-sensing or moisture-sensing
controls) nor consider the sophistication and accuracy of the control
system. Gas or electric clothes dryers with time termination control
(i.e., those clothes dryers equipped with a timer to determine the end
of a drying cycle) are assigned a field use factor of 1.18, while
clothes dryers with automatic
[[Page 49613]]
termination are assigned a field use factor of 1.04. Because the test
procedure requires the measurement of a timed drying cycle in which the
tester manually stops the drying cycle when the test load reaches 2.5-5
percent RMC, the field use factors are intended to account for
consumers that may dry loads beyond the 2.5-5 percent RMC specified in
the test procedure. The field use factor for timer dryers was derived
from a field study conducted by the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company
in 1971, consisting of 64 households and 33,000 loads of clothing, as
well as data reported by AHAM representing the energy consumption in
1972 of 2,983,200 production units of clothes dryers. 42 FR 46145,
46146 (Sept. 14, 1977). For automatic termination control dryers, the
field use factor was derived from a field study conducted by AHAM in
1977 involving 72 households. 45 FR 46762-63 (July 10, 1980); 46 FR
27324 (May 19, 1981).
In an SNOPR published on June 29, 2010 (75 FR 37594) (June 2010
SNOPR) in advance of the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE proposed to
revise its clothes dryer test procedure to include definitions of, and
provisions for, testing both timer dryers and automatic termination
control dryers based on the methodology provided in Australia/New
Zealand (AS/NZS) Standard 2442.1: 1996, ``Performance of household
electrical appliances--Rotary clothes dryers, Part 1: Energy
consumption and performance'' (AS/NZS Standard 2442.1) and AS/NZS
Standard 2442.2: 2000, ``Performance of household electrical
appliances--Rotary clothes dryers, Part 2: Energy labeling
requirements'' (AS/NZS Standard 2442.2). 75 FR 37594, 37598 (June 29,
2010). DOE proposed to incorporate the testing methods from these
international test standards, along with a number of clarifications, to
measure the energy consumption for both timer dryers and automatic
termination control dryers. The measurement would account for the
energy consumed by the clothes dryer after the load reaches an RMC of 5
percent. 75 FR 37594, 37599 (June 29, 2010). The proposed test method
in the June 2010 SNOPR specified that a clothes dryer with automatic
cycle termination controls be tested using the ``normal'' cycle
setting, and where the temperature setting can be chosen independently
of the program, it would be set to the highest level. The clothes dryer
would then be allowed to run until the heater switched off for the
final time at the end of the drying cycle. If the final RMC was higher
than 5 percent, the test would be re-run using the highest dryness
level setting. Id.
In addition to the provisions for automatic termination control
dryers, DOE also proposed testing methods in the June 2010 SNOPR for
timer dryers based on AS/NZS Standard 2442.1. The proposed test method
specified that the clothes dryer be operated at the maximum temperature
setting until the final RMC of the load was between 5 and 6 percent.
The procedure would then be repeated to dry the load until the final
RMC was between 4 and 5 percent, with the results from these two tests
used to interpolate the value of the per-cycle energy consumption
required to dry the test load to exactly 5-percent RMC. 75 FR 37594,
37617 (June 29, 2010).
As discussed in the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE conducted testing
of representative residential clothes dryers using the automatic cycle
termination test procedure proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR. The results
of the testing revealed that all of the clothes dryers tested
significantly over-dried the DOE test load to near bone dry and, as a
result, the measured EF values were significantly lower than EF values
obtained using the existing DOE test procedure in appendix D. 76 FR
972, 977 (Jan. 6, 2011). In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE concluded
that the test procedure amendments for automatic cycle termination
proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR do not adequately measure the energy
consumption of clothes dryers equipped with such systems using the test
load specified in the DOE test procedure. Clothes dryers with automatic
termination sensing control systems may infer the RMC of the load from
the properties of the exhaust air such as temperature and humidity or
by using conductivity sensor bars to determine the amount of moisture
in the load when the load comes in contact with the sensors. DOE noted
in the January 2011 Final Rule that these automatic termination sensing
control systems may be designed for consumer use to dry loads of
varying weights, composition, and size, which may have different
moisture retention properties than the existing DOE test load, and
therefore, may result in a higher measured RMC than the RMC obtained
using the existing DOE test load with the proposed automatic cycle
termination test procedure. In considering whether other test loads
would be appropriate to incorporate into the DOE test procedure to
produce both representative and repeatable test results, however, DOE
noted that manufacturers indicated that test load types and test cloth
materials different than those specified in the DOE test procedure do
not produce results as repeatable as those obtained using the test load
as currently specified. As a result, in the January 2011 Final Rule,
DOE did not adopt the amendments to more accurately measure automatic
cycle termination that were originally proposed in the June 2010 TP
SNOPR. 76 FR 972, 977-78 (Jan. 6, 2011).
1. Joint Petition To Amend the Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
As discussed in section I of this notice, DOE published the August
2011 RFI to further investigate the effects of automatic cycle
termination on clothes dryer energy efficiency. 76 FR 50145 (Aug. 12,
2011). DOE sought information, data, and comments regarding methods for
more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination in
the residential clothes dryer test procedure. In particular, DOE sought
comment on the following: (1) The characteristics of loads of varying
weights, composition, and size, (2) the accuracy of different automatic
cycle termination sensors and controls, (3) the target final RMC used
by manufacturers to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4) the effects of
the characteristics of water (i.e., hardness and conductivity) used for
wetting the test load prior to testing, and (5) the cycle settings
selected by consumers for automatic termination cycles.
In response to the August 2011 RFI, DOE received the ``Joint
Petition to Amend the Test Procedure for Residential Clothes Dryers to
Include Provisions Related to Automatic Termination Controls'' (the
``Joint Petition''), a comment submitted by groups representing
manufacturers (AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General
Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home
Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-
Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele,
Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell
Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch,
Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE),
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer
Federation of America (CFA) and the National
[[Page 49614]]
Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners'').
The Joint Petitioners commented that DOE should amend the clothes dryer
test procedure to include provisions to account for the effectiveness
of automatic cycle termination. (Joint Petition, No. 3 at pp. 1, 4-5)
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A notation in the form ``Joint Petition, No. 3 at pp. 1, 4-
5'' identifies a written comment: (1) Made by the Joint Petition;
(2) recorded in document number 2 that is filed in the docket of the
residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking (Docket No.
EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054) and available for review at
www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on pages 1 and 4-5 of
document number 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Petitioners recognized DOE's concerns that the amendments
for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR may not
properly measure the effectiveness of automatic termination controls,
particularly in light of data that suggested that automatic termination
control dryers may in fact be drying clothes to approximately 5-percent
RMC rather than the less than 2-percent RMC resulting from testing
using the DOE test cloth. The Joint Petitioners noted that the DOE test
cloth is uniform, for purposes of repeatability and reproducibility,
but likely dries faster and more uniformly than a load of varying
weights, composition, and size. (Joint Petition, No. 3 at p. 5)
As part of the Joint Petition, AHAM members provided test data on
clothes dryers with automatic termination controls representing 60
percent of shipments, measuring the final RMC at the completion of a
``normal'' automatic cycle, including cool down, using the DOE test
load. The data showed that all tested models had a final RMC below 2
percent. The Joint Petitioners stated that because there are few
consumer complaints that automatic termination control dryers do not
dry clothes, this market-representative final RMC from testing using
the DOE test cloth best approximates the maximum consumer-accepted
final RMC. (Joint Petition, No. 3 at pp. 5-6)
Based on this data, the Joint Petitioners stated that DOE should
amend the clothes dryer test procedure to include the full automatic
termination cycle, including cool down. The Joint Petitioners stated
that testing the entire cycle is more representative of actual consumer
use and is less of a test burden for manufacturers than DOE's proposal
in the June 2010 SNOPR to stop the clothes dryer when the heater
switches off for the final time at the end of the drying cycle. In
addition, the Joint Petitioners commented that the test procedure
should be amended to state that the final RMC when testing units with
automatic termination controls shall be no more than 2 percent when
testing with the DOE test load to be representative of clothes dryers
currently on the market. Any test in which the final RMC is 2 percent
or less should be considered valid. If the final RMC is greater than 2
percent, the test would be invalid and a new test run would be
conducted using the highest dryness level setting. (Joint Petition, No.
3 at p. 6)
AHAM withdrew its support for the petition in a letter to DOE dated
May 29, 2012, stating that the petition was predicated on DOE's
adoption of test procedure provisions to account for automatic
termination controls by December 31, 2011. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 1-2) DOE
acknowledged AHAM's withdrawal but continued to consider the
substantive provisions to account for such controls.
2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis
For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE selected a representative sample of
20 clothes dryers encompassing all clothes dryer product classes to
evaluate potential amendments for automatic cycle termination. DOE
considered features such as rated energy factor, rated capacity,
control type (i.e., electromechanical versus electronic), and automatic
cycle termination sensor technology (if advertised) when selecting
units to be most representative of products currently available on the
U.S. market. DOE initially conducted testing for all test units
according to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1. Appendix D1 requires that the DOE test load,
initially soaked with an RMC of 57.5 3.5 percent, be dried
using the timed dry and maximum temperature settings until the test
load has reached a final RMC of 2.5 to 5 percent without allowing the
clothes dryer to advance into a cool-down phase. A field use factor is
then applied to the measured per-cycle energy consumption to account
for the over-drying energy consumption associated with the use of
either timer dryers or automatic termination control dryers. DOE then
conducted testing of these units using automatic cycle termination test
methodologies with different test loads to evaluate the effects of
these potential test procedure amendments on the measured efficiency as
compared to the existing DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D1. DOE also conducted additional testing to evaluate
repeatability and reproducibility of the test results. 78 FR 152, 157-
158 (Jan. 2, 2013).
In conducting the testing for the January 2013 NOPR, DOE used the
DOE test load and the test load specified in both the AHAM clothes
dryer test standard HLD-1-2009, ``Household Tumble Type Clothes
Dryers,'' and the IEC test standard 61121, ``Tumble dryers for
household use--Methods for measuring the performance,'' Edition 3
(2005), which consists of cotton bed sheets, towels, and pillowcases.
DOE concluded in the August 2011 RFI that clothes dryers with automatic
termination sensing control systems may be designed to stop the cycle
when a load of varying weights, composition, and size has a higher RMC
than the RMC obtained using the automatic termination drying cycle in
conjunction with the existing DOE test load. 76 FR 50145, 50146 (Aug.
12, 2011).
As part of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE conducted the testing for the
proposed automatic cycle termination test methodology according to the
DOE test procedure in appendix D1, with the following modifications.
The test load was prepared with a starting RMC of 57.5 percent 0.33 percent. The controls were set as follows:
Instead of using the timed dry cycle setting, the
``normal'' automatic termination cycle setting was selected. If a
``normal'' cycle setting was not provided, then the test cycle
recommended by manufacturers for drying cotton or linen clothes was
used.
Where the temperature setting could be chosen
independently of the program, the highest level was selected.
Where the dryness level setting could be chosen
independently of the program, it was set to the ``normal'' or
``medium'' level. If such designation was not provided, then the
dryness level was set at the mid-point between the minimum and maximum
settings. 78 FR 152, 158 (Jan. 2, 2013).
The clothes dryer was then allowed to run until the completion of
the cycle, including the cool-down period. At the completion of the
cycle, the clothes were weighed to determine the final RMC. If the
final RMC was below 2 percent for the DOE test load, the test was
considered valid. If the RMC was higher than 2 percent (i.e., the test
load contained more moisture than would be acceptable to consumers),
the test was considered invalid and was re-run using the highest
dryness level setting. DOE selected the 2-percent RMC threshold based
on data presented in the Joint Petitioners' comment regarding RMC
levels acceptable to consumers, discussed above. For the IEC/AHAM test
load, similar test conditions were applied except that the threshold
value for the final RMC was changed from 2
[[Page 49615]]
percent to 5 percent because of the more varied composition of the IEC/
AHAM test load. Id.
For each specific testing methodology, DOE conducted a series of
three identical tests for each model to evaluate the repeatability of
test results.\9\ DOE presented the test results in the January 2013
NOPR, which are summarized in Table III.1. DOE noted in the January
2013 NOPR that for the automatic cycle termination tests using the DOE
test load, all of the tests resulted in a lower measured CEF (i.e.,
higher per-cycle energy use) compared to the DOE test procedure,
ranging from a 3.5 percent to 41.9 percent decrease in CEF. Similarly,
for the automatic cycle termination tests using the IEC/AHAM test load,
DOE noted that all of the tests resulted in a lower measured CEF
compared to the DOE test procedure, ranging from a 6.1 percent to 40.3
percent decrease. In addition, the majority of tested units had a lower
CEF for the automatic cycle termination test with the IEC/AHAM test
load than with the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 159-160 (Jan. 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For this series of tests, DOE did not make any modifications
to the water used to wet the test loads.
Table III.1--January 2013 NOPR DOE Test Procedure and Automatic Cycle Termination Test Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE test Automatic cycle termination--DOE Automatic cycle termination--IEC/
procedure test load AHAM test load
Product class (Appendix D1) -----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
CEF (lb/kWh) CEF \1\ (lb/kWh) % Change CEF \1\ (lb/kWh) % Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard...................................... 3.79 3.16 -16.6 3.03 -20.0
Vented Electric Compact (240V)................................ 3.54 2.79 -21.1 2.68 -24.4
Vented Electric Compact (120V)................................ 3.75 2.18 -41.9 2.42 -35.6
Vented Gas.................................................... 3.39 2.92 -13.9 2.79 -17.7
Ventless Electric Compact (240V).............................. 2.98 2.73 -8.4 2.63 -11.9
Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer.................... 2.54 2.45 -3.9 2.29 -9.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No field use factor for automatic cycle termination applied to results.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also presented the average final RMC
from the automatic cycle termination tests with both the DOE and IEC/
AHAM test loads, as well as the cycle settings used for each test unit.
The test data showed that the final RMC ranged from 0.4 percent to 2.0
percent for the DOE test load and 1.3 to 4.7 percent for the IEC/AHAM
test load. DOE also noted that for nearly all of the test units, the
average final RMC was higher for the tests using the IEC/AHAM test
load. The higher measured per-cycle energy use and final RMC for the
IEC/AHAM test load compared to the DOE test load is likely due to the
ability of the IEC/AHAM test load to retain more water during the
drying process than the DOE test load, which gives off moisture more
readily and terminates the drying cycle sooner. In addition, as
discussed above, clothes dryers with automatic termination sensing
control systems may be designed to stop the cycle when a load of
varying weights, composition, and size has a higher RMC than the RMC
obtained using the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 160 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that manufacturers have
indicated that test load types and test cloth materials different than
those specified in the DOE test procedure do not produce results as
repeatable as those obtained using the DOE test load. Therefore, for
each test unit, DOE examined the test-to-test variation in CEF among
the three tests conducted using the DOE test procedure and among the
three tests using the automatic cycle termination test methodology. DOE
presented the test-to-test variation results in the January 2013 NOPR,
which are summarized in Table III.2. The analysis showed that the test-
to-test variation for the automatic cycle termination tests with the
DOE test load is slightly lower than the test-to-test variation with
the IEC/AHAM test load, and that both are higher than the test-to-test
variation for the DOE test procedure. DOE noted that the more
consistent results for the current DOE test procedure are likely due to
the use of the timed dry cycle rather than the automatic termination
cycles, which may have additional variation in results due to the
performance of temperature and moisture sensors and the automatic
termination control strategies. 78 FR 152, 160-161 (Jan. 2, 2013).
Table III.2--January 2013 NOPR CEF Test-to-Test Variation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEF Test-to-test variation (%)
------------------------------------------------------
DOE test Automatic cycle Automatic cycle
procedure termination--DOE termination--IEC/
(Appendix D1) test load AHAM test load
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum.................................................. 0.18 0.16 0.16
Maximum.................................................. 2.08 5.7 6.44
Average.................................................. 0.87 1.87 2.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2013 NOPR, to evaluate the effect of test load
composition on repeatability, DOE then ran appendix D1 again for a
subset of 10 of the clothes dryers in its test sample, using the IEC/
AHAM test cloth instead of the DOE test cloth. For each of these units,
DOE conducted three repeat tests. DOE stated that it believes that
using the timed dry cycle and requiring that the clothes dryer be
stopped manually allow for better evaluation of the effect of the test
[[Page 49616]]
load composition alone on repeatability by limiting other factors, such
as automatic termination sensor performance, that may contribute to
variability of results from test to test. The results from this testing
were presented in the January 2013 NOPR and are summarized in Table
III.3. The results showed a test-to-test variation in CEF (expressed in
terms of standard error) of 1.02 percent for the IEC/AHAM test load as
compared to the 0.87 percent test-to-test variation for the DOE timed
dry test procedure with the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 161 (Jan. 2,
2013).
Table III.3--January 2013 NOPR CEF Test-to-Test Variation for Appendix
D1 with IEC/AHAM Test Loads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timed Dry-IEC/AHAM test
load-- CEF test-to-test
standard error (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum....................................... 0.31
Maximum....................................... 1.42
Average....................................... 1.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that in addition to the use of
the IEC/AHAM test load producing less repeatable results from test to
test, the reproducibility of test results from lab to lab must also be
considered because different test laboratories may be using different
lots of test cloth. To evaluate the reproducibility of test results
from lab to lab, DOE conducted testing of 9 units at an independent
test laboratory with different lots of the DOE and IEC/AHAM test loads
using the automatic cycle termination test method. The results showed
that the lab-to-lab reproducibility of test results was, on average,
3.0 percent for the existing DOE test load and 4.7 percent for the IEC/
AHAM test load. 78 FR 152, 161-162 (Jan. 2, 2013).
As part of the automatic cycle termination testing for the January
2013 NOPR, DOE tested a number of units in the test sample at an
independent test laboratory that measured and recorded the energy
consumption and an estimated instantaneous RMC of the test load
throughout the test cycle. The estimated RMC was determined based on
the weight of the test load, measured in place during the test cycle,
and the rotation of the drum. Based on this testing, DOE decided to
develop a field use factor to account for the over-drying energy
consumption using the automatic cycle termination test method with the
DOE test load at the end of the cycle when the load is dried below 2-
percent RMC. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan. 2, 2013).
Using the independent test laboratory's data, DOE evaluated the
measured energy consumption at different times during the cycle--when
the test load initially reached 5-percent RMC, when it reached 2-
percent RMC, and at the end of the cycle (including after cool down).
The test data showed that the energy consumption measured over a full
automatic termination dry cycle is 11-72 percent greater than the
energy consumption during the test cycle when the test load initially
reaches 5-percent RMC, and 4-62 percent greater than the energy
consumption when the test load initially reaches 2-percent RMC (before
any moisture regain during cool down/tumbling). DOE also noted that
while the final RMC of the DOE test load using the automatic cycle
termination test method was between 0.4 percent and 2.0 percent at the
completion of the test cycle for all of the clothes dryers in DOE's
test sample, this RMC was achieved either after the end of a cool-down
period, during which the clothes dryer tumbles with no added heat after
the conclusion of the heated drying, or after an extended period of
operation at nearly 0-percent RMC when the heater is cycled off and on.
The independent test laboratory's data showed that during cool down or
non-heated tumbling, the test load regains moisture from the room air.
As a result, the final RMC of the test load at the completion of the
cycle after the cool-down/tumbling period is higher than the RMC of the
load when the heater turns off for the final time. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan.
2, 2013).
Table III.4--January 2013 NOPR--Measured Automatic Cycle Termination Energy Consumption at Specific RMC Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy consumption (kWh)
Automatic cycle -----------------------------------------------
Product class Test unit termination End of cycle
sensor 5% RMC 2% RMC (measured RMC
technology (%)) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard...... 1 Moisture + Temp. 1.945 2.070 2.624 (1.2)
2 Temperature..... 2.068 2.233 3.119 (0.9)
4 Moisture + Temp. 2.160 2.318 2.405 (0.7)
6 Moisture + Temp. 2.091 2.280 3.141 (1.9)
Vented Electric Compact (240V) 10 Temperature..... 0.823 0.875 1.418 (2.0)
Vented Gas.................... 13 Moisture + Temp. 2.375 2.569 2.905 (0.8)
15 Moisture + Temp. 2.347 2.532 3.161 (1.2)
17 Moisture + Temp. 2.300 2.482 2.843 (1.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As noted above, the test load regained moisture during the cool-down/tumbling period.
Based on the test data, DOE noted that for all of the clothes
dryers tested at the independent test laboratory, the DOE test load
reached 2-percent RMC before the clothes dryer initially began cycling
the heater on and off. The test data also showed that the cool-down/
tumbling period can contribute a significant amount of energy
consumption associated with over-drying and moisture regain when using
the DOE test load. DOE observed that two test units, both of which used
the same moisture sensor technology and dried the test load to final
RMCs of close to 1 percent at the end of the cycle, had significantly
different total measured energy consumption. One of these test units
achieved this final RMC with only a brief cool-down period, while the
other test unit repeatedly heated, tumbled, and regained moisture
before the final cool down. DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR that it
believes that the difference in energy consumption between these two
units is most likely a function of the control strategy rather
[[Page 49617]]
than the accuracy of the sensors. 78 FR 152, 163-166 (Jan. 2, 2013).
As part of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE conducted further analysis to
develop an appropriate field use factor to account for the measured
energy consumption at the end of the automatic termination cycle below
2-percent RMC using the DOE test load (including any cool-down/tumbling
period). DOE calculated a field use factor of 0.80 for automatic
termination control dryers by taking the average of the difference
between the measured energy consumption to initially reach 2-percent
RMC and the measured energy consumption at the end of the test cycle.
78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 2013). The results of this analysis showing the
application of the 0.8 field use factor are presented in Table III.5.
Table III.5--January 2013 NOPR--Automatic Cycle Termination Test Results With Adjusted Field Use Factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per-cycle energy consumption (kWh)
-----------------------------------------------------
Product class Test unit End of test--
2% RMC End of test-- field adjusted
measured
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard................ 1 2.070 2.624 2.099
2 2.233 3.119 2.495
4 2.318 2.405 1.924
6 2.280 3.141 2.513
Vented Electric Compact (240V).......... 10 0.875 1.418 1.134
Vented Gas.............................. 13 2.569 2.905 2.324
15 2.532 3.161 2.528
17 2.482 2.843 2.274
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that the IEC recently revised
its test standard for clothes dryers, IEC Standard 61121. 78 FR 152,
166 (Jan. 2, 2013). IEC Standard 61121 Fourth Edition, which published
in February 2012, notes that the characteristics of the water used for
wetting the test load prior to the test, particularly the conductivity,
can influence the test results when testing automatic termination
control dryers with moisture sensors. Clothes dryers with moisture
sensors use conductivity sensor bars to determine the amount of
moisture in the load when the load comes in contact with the sensors.
Table III.6 provides the characteristics of either soft or hard water
to be used for appliance testing under IEC Standard 61121.
Table III.6--IEC Standard 61121 Requirements for Composition of Soft and Hard Water for Clothes Dryer Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water type
Property Unit ------------------------------------------------------
Standard soft water Standard hard water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total hardness.................... Millimols per liter 0.50 0.20.... 2.50 0.20
(mmol/l) (Ca2+/Mg2+).
Conductivity (at 20[deg]C)........ Microsiemens per 150 50....... 750 150
centimeter ([mu]S/
cm).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the August 2011 RFI, DOE requested information and data on these
effects of the characteristics of the water used to wet the test load
on the measured efficiency, as well as any potential testing burden
associated with the requirements for modifying the water supply used
for wetting the test load. DOE did not receive any comments or
information on this issue. DOE conducted testing for the January 2013
NOPR to evaluate the effects of using supply water modified to meet the
specifications in the IEC Standard 61121 on the measured efficiency
compared to using supply water according to the requirements of
appendix D1. For this series of tests, DOE conducted tests on 16 units
using the same automatic cycle termination methodology discussed above,
except that the water used to wet the test load prior to the test met
the conditions presented in Table III.6 for standard soft water. 78 FR
152, 167 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE selected the soft water requirements from
IEC Standard 61121 rather than the hard water requirements to more
closely match the existing DOE clothes dryer test procedure, which also
requires the use of soft water.\10\ For each test method, DOE again
conducted three identical tests for each test unit. The test results
did not show a correlation between the average measured CEF and water
supply specifications for the automatic cycle termination tests with
either the DOE or IEC/AHAM test loads. Similar to the measured CEF
discussed above, there was no definitive correlation between the
average measured final RMC or the test-to-test variation and the water
supply specifications. Based on the test results, DOE determined that
the modifications to the water supply specified in IEC Standard 61121
did not have a definitive effect on the measured CEF as compared to the
water requirements specified in the existing DOE test procedure. In
addition, the repeatability testing showed that the IEC water hardness
specifications did not improve overall the test-to-test repeatability.
78 FR 152, 167-169 (Jan. 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.6.3
requires the use of soft water with 17 parts per million hardness or
less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE conducted additional testing on two clothes dryers to evaluate
the lab-to-lab reproducibility using both supply water specifications
in automatic cycle termination tests with the IEC/AHAM test load. These
tests showed that the IEC supply water may produce more reproducible
results from lab to lab with the IEC/AHAM test load. DOE noted,
however, that the percentage difference in test results from lab to lab
was within the test-to-test variation for a given lab using the IEC/
AHAM test load. For
[[Page 49618]]
these reasons, DOE did not propose amendments in the January 2013 NOPR
to include in the amendments to appendix D1 the supply water
specifications from IEC Standard 61121. DOE noted that if additional
test results are made available showing that IEC supply water
characteristics produce more repeatable and reproducible test results
than the requirements in appendix D1, DOE may consider such amendments
in a future test procedure rulemaking. 78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 2013).
3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed Amendments and Today's Final Rule
Based on the testing and analysis discussed above, DOE proposed
amendments to the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1 in the January 2013 NOPR to more accurately
measure the energy consumption of automatic termination control dryers.
78 FR 152, 169 (Jan. 2, 2013).
a. Definitions
DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to amend the clothes dryer
test procedure in appendix D1 to add definitions for both automatic
termination control dryers and timer dryers. DOE proposed to define
``automatic termination control dryer'' as a clothes dryer that can be
preset to carry out at least one sequence of operations to be
terminated by means of a system assessing, directly or indirectly, the
moisture content of the load. An automatic termination control dryer
with a supplementary timer or that may also be manually controlled
would be tested as an automatic termination control dryer. DOE proposed
to define ``timer dryer'' as a clothes dryer that can be preset to
carry out at least one operation to be terminated by a timer, but may
also be manually controlled, and does not include any automatic
termination function. 78 FR 152, 169-170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM and ALS commented that they did not oppose the proposed
definitions for automatic termination control dryer and timer dryer.
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 12; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) Based on these comments
and the discussion above, DOE is adopting these definitions for
automatic termination control dryer and timer dryer in today's final
rule.
b. Test Load
The existing DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D1, section 2.6 specifies that the test load be composed of
50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester momie weave cloth. Section
2.7 in appendix D1 requires that test loads be prepared with a starting
RMC of 57.5 percent 3.5 percent. DOE proposed amendments
in January 2013 NOPR to change the starting RMC from 57.5 percent
3.5 percent to 57.5 percent 0.33 percent. DOE
stated in the January 2013 NOPR that it believes that the starting RMC
of 57.5 percent 0.33 percent, which was used for the
testing presented above, and originally proposed in the June 2010
SNOPR, would produce the most repeatable results, particularly for
automatic termination control dryers. DOE noted that allowing a wide
range in the starting RMC, such as the 3.5 percent
specified in the current DOE test procedure, would result in
significantly different results using the proposed automatic cycle
termination test procedure because a test load with a starting RMC of
61 percent would contain approximately 0.6 pounds (lb) of water more
than a test load with a starting RMC of 54 percent for standard-size
loads. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). As a result, DOE specifically
proposed to amend 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section
2.7.1, ``Compact size dryer load,'' and section 2.7.2, ``Standard size
dryer load,'' to require that water be extracted from the wet test
loads by spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is
52.5-57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. Final mass
adjustments would be made, such that the moisture content is 57.5
percent 0.33 percent by adding water uniformly to the load
in a very fine spray. DOE noted that requiring water to be extracted to
achieve an RMC between 52.5 percent and 57.5 percent would serve as an
initial preparation step prior to the final mass adjustments to obtain
a test load with an RMC of 57.5 0.33 percent proposed
above. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
Test Load Composition
In response to the January 2013 NOPR, The Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and NPCC jointly commented (hereafter ``NEEA
& NPCC'') that the DOE test load is not representative of the laundry
loads being dried in a representative average use cycle. NEEA & NPCC
stated that the data from the NEEA residential laundry field use study,
which included 50 households in the Pacific Northwest United States
metered from January 2012 to March 2012, show that the fabrics in the
loads being washed and dried are much heavier than those in the DOE
test load. NEEA & NPCC added that the outcomes for the field data, in
terms of RMC from the clothes washer, drying cycle time, and clothes
dryer energy use, are all substantially different than those produced
using the test procedure proposed in the January 2013 NOPR. (NEEA &
NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3-4, 10; NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at
p. 114; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 17) NEEA added
that: (1) The current DOE test load is consistent and the ply is fairly
thin, (2) the IEC Standard 61121 mixed load has thinner fabric but more
cotton than the DOE load, (3) the IEC Standard 61121 cotton load is
also fairly thin and not substantively different than the DOE ply, (4)
the AS/NZS Standard 2442 load is mostly cotton and has a large range of
ply thicknesses and resembles loads that are seen in the field, and (5)
the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load is cotton and has a large range of ply
thicknesses. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric Company, and Southern California Edison (hereafter
``California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs)'') and NEEA commented that
the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation based on DOE's testing is
slightly higher for the IEC cotton load as compared to the DOE test
load, but, given that the amount of energy that it takes to dry the IEC
cotton load is greater, the results as a percentage of per-cycle energy
use are not significantly different. The California IOUs added that,
given the far greater differences observed between the actual clothes
dryer energy use per load in the field and what is measured using the
DOE test procedure, this minimal increase in testing variability is
justifiable to provide an accurate representation of energy use. (NEEA,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 17, 19-21, 22; California
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 64)
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs noted that when DOE tested the
IEC/AHAM test load and allowed the clothes dryers to shut off at 5-
percent RMC or less (rather than 2-percent RMC with the DOE test load),
all of the clothes dryers used more energy per load but left the
clothes less dry than the tests with the DOE test load. The California
IOUs added that the average efficiency drop from the existing appendix
D1 results was 3.9 percent for automatic termination with the DOE test
load and 9.7 percent with the IEC/AHAM test load and that the choice of
a test load affects the final test outcome more than the choice of
final RMC or most of the other factors being considered in the test
procedure. NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that this
difference would increase with an even more realistic test load, such
as the AHAM HLD-1-1992
[[Page 49619]]
test load. The California IOUs added that removing the last few percent
RMC from the load is an inefficient process, and that if the test
procedure required the IEC/AHAM test load to be dried 2-percent RMC,
the difference in efficiency compared to the existing appendix D1 test
procedure would widen further. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 5; California
IOUs, No. 22 at p. 14; California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
10 at pp. 60-61, 64)
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs presented test data for 5
different clothes dryer models \11\ comparing the drying time, measured
per-cycle energy consumption, and CEF using the automatic termination
test cycle with the DOE test load versus with a test load they
considered more representative of real-world laundry loads. NEEA & NPCC
noted that the drying times for the automatic termination test cycle
with the real-world loads are quite similar from model to model, except
for the clothes dryer with the moisture sensor bars that rotate with
the drum and the heat pump clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs also noted that the CEF is lower for the tests with
real world load as compared to the DOE test load in all cases, but the
difference varies depending on the technology type. Based on this data,
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs believe that it is inappropriate
for DOE to adopt a single field use factor to adjust the per-cycle
energy use from testing using the current DOE test load to represent
how various technologies would perform with real-world laundry loads.
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that DOE should specify
testing with a more realistic test load, such as the IEC cotton load or
AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load, so that manufacturers would have an
incentive to optimize their sensors and drying technology for real-
world conditions. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 10-12; California IOUs,
No. 22 at pp. 21-22) NEEA & NPCC commented that a test load that is
more reflective of real-world clothing, such as the IEC cotton test
load or the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load, would provide additional
agreement between tested energy use and typical field energy use. NEEA
& NPCC urged DOE to address this issue as soon as possible for both
clothes washers and clothes dryers in a new rulemaking. (NEEA & NPCC,
No. 21 at pp. 12-13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The 5 tested clothes dryers included: (1) A dryer with
temperature sensing, (2) a dryer with stationary moisture sensing
bars, (3) a dryer with moisture sensing bars that rotate with the
drum, (4) a dryer with an exhaust air-to-air heat exchanger, and (5)
a heat pump clothes dryer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC, ASAP, ACEEE, and the California IOUs similarly commented that
the current test load is not representative of real-world loads and
results in significant underreporting of energy use. The California
IOUs added that, as a result, the test procedure does not appropriately
balance representativeness and repeatability. NRDC, ASAP, and the
California IOUs requested DOE to address this issue as soon as possible
in a new rulemaking. NRDC and ASAP commented that clothes dryers are
likely the single largest opportunity for energy savings in home
appliances, and modifying the test procedure so that it more accurately
represents field energy use is critical to being able to capture these
additional opportunities. (NRDC, No. 20 at p. 2; ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 119-120; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 114-115; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 14, 17)
Earthjustice commented that DOE's use of 5 percent as the target
RMC using the AHAM test load recognizes that the AHAM load is more
representative of the loads encountered in the field. Earthjustice
stated that the NEEA field study data, which shows that heavier fabrics
(such as the towels represented in the AHAM test load) make up a
significant portion of household laundry loads, supports this
conclusion. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 1-2)
The California IOUs stated that designs that reduce over-drying
can, based on DOE's test data in January 2011 Final Rule, save about
0.3 to 0.6 kilowatt hours (kWh) of over-drying energy use per load
relative to designs that inefficiently terminate the cycle. The
California IOUs stated that, based on recent testing by Ecos, Consumer
Reports, DOE, and Ecova, certain automatic termination test methods can
actually result in a higher measured energy use relative to DOE's
current timed dry test procedure because the DOE test cloths are
already quite dry by the time many clothes dryers detect high exhaust
temperatures and low humidity levels that indicate there is no water
left in the load to evaporate. The California IOUs stated that it is
difficult for these clothes dryers to prevent over-drying because the
condition they are designed to detect occurs when the DOE test load has
been over-dried. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 13)
The California IOUs commented that DOE should use the AHAM HLD-1-
1992 bone-dry load weight (7.4 lb), which according to the NEEA field
data more accurately represents field laundry loads than the DOE test
load or the IEC/AHAM cotton load because it contains a much wider range
of fabric thicknesses and weights. The California IOUs stated that
common items such as shirts, pants, socks, and other articles of
clothing are three-dimensional, and therefore contain interior sides
that are more difficult to dry than the two-dimensional DOE test
cloths. The California IOUs added that these items vary quite widely in
their moisture retention capability because of differences in thickness
and synthetic content but, on average, retain more moisture per pound
than the uniform DOE test cloth and require more energy to dry. The
California IOUs stated that these items present automatic termination
controls with greater difficulty than DOE's test cloths in determining
when the load is dry. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17-18; California
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 112-113) The Super
Efficient Dryer Initiative (SEDI) also cited the Ecova testing in
stating that the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load is the most similar to
typical laundry because it uses items of actual clothing with different
fabrics and varying thicknesses. SEDI stated that the test results
showed that drying test cloths that more closely resemble real-world
clothing increased drying time and energy consumption, and that DOE
should specify the use of the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load in the clothes
dryer test procedure. (SEDI, No. 14 at pp. 2-3)
The California IOUs commented that manufacturers are likely already
using AHAM HLD-1 to evaluate drying performance. The California IOUs
commented that if there is already a representative load that industry
is using to determine drying performance, measuring energy at the same
time as that test would reduce test burden. (California IOUs, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 179-180) AHAM stated that the test
burden associated with using the IEC/AHAM test load for energy and
water testing would not be lower than the burden associated with using
the DOE test load. AHAM stated that manufacturers use the IEC/AHAM test
load for non-energy purposes, but use of the AHAM test procedure is
voluntary and, thus, use of the IEC/AHAM test load for other purposes
is outside of the regulatory context. AHAM also stated that it is not
simple to measure the energy using the IEC/AHAM test load given the
increased variability in test results, which will in turn increase the
burden on manufacturers. AHAM added that it is critical that the DOE
test procedure be as repeatable and reproducible as
[[Page 49620]]
possible, especially given the more stringent standards. (AHAM, No. 17
at p. 15)
AHAM stated that the DOE test load, because it is comprised of
uniform test cloth, produces more repeatable and reproducible results.
AHAM, therefore, agreed with DOE's proposal to continue using the DOE
test load at this time. AHAM stated that should such a change in the
test load be considered in the future, extensive testing would be
required to determine the appropriate test load and the impact of such
a change on measured energy efficiency. AHAM indicated that it would be
impossible to complete this work prior to the January 1, 2015
compliance date of the amended standards, even were it appropriate to
make such a change during the 3-year lead time before the amended
standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) Samsung also supported using the DOE
test load to minimize measurement system uncertainty, based on DOE's
data and internal experience that the IEC/AHAM loads could result in
higher variation. Samsung stated that even though the DOE load is
different from real-world loads, it is expected that the DOE load will
identify relative differences between the test units with higher
precision. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 2)
Hydromatic stated that there is no definition of a real-world test
load. (Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 40-55)
DOE recognizes interested parties concerns regarding the test load
composition and the available field study data that show a variety of
weights, composition, and size of consumer laundry loads. DOE did not
receive any data or information from interested parties that would
alter its determination that the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation
using the current IEC/AHAM test load is sufficiently higher than with
the DOE test load to warrant the continued use of the DOE test load.
Further, DOE concludes that specifying any alternative load with more
variation in weights, composition, and size than the DOE test load
would increase the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation. Repeatable
and reproducible test procedures are necessary to ensure that testing
results are consistent from test to test and lab to lab especially for
compliance and verification testing. In addition, although certain
manufacturers may use AHAM HLD-1 for measuring clothes dryer
performance and these manufacturers may experience reduced testing
burden if DOE specified the IEC/AHAM load in its test procedure, the
use of AHAM HLD-1 is voluntary and thus this benefit may not apply to
all manufacturers. For these reasons, DOE is not adopting amendments to
the DOE test load in today's final rule. In addition, due to a lack of
sufficient information at this time, DOE is not adopting a definition
of a real-world load in today's final rule. DOE may continue collecting
data on clothes dryer test loads and may consider amendments to the
test load in a future rulemaking if data is made available showing that
the variation from test to test and lab to lab can be reduced,
particularly for different batches and lots of test loads.
Test Load Preparation
AHAM requested that DOE provide further definition of what is
considered a ``very fine spray'' and what is meant by ``uniform'' when
adding water to make the final mass adjustments. AHAM questioned
whether testers should use a spray bottle, a detergent bottle with
holes in it, or some other method, and that without clarity on these
points, variation could be introduced into the test procedure. AHAM
stated that the method for application of the water could impact the
measured energy use. AHAM suggested that DOE further investigate the
impact this method could have on measured energy use, including
contacting manufacturers for input. AHAM stated that it cannot provide
data on the impact on measured energy efficiency, if any, until DOE
clarifies ``very fine spray.'' (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 12) ALS opposed
tightening the allowable range for the initial RMC to 0.33
percent because it claimed manufacturers and test labs will aim to be
at the low end of this tolerance, and then try to utilize the proposed
technique of ``uniformly'' misting with a ``very fine spray'' the
outside of the test load to achieve the initial RMC. ALS believes that
the sprayed moisture on the outside of the test load is the easiest to
evaporate during the energy test and can skew the test result. (ALS,
No. 16 at pp. 3-4)
DOE does not believe that the method for wetting the test load,
which requires water to be initially extracted to achieve an RMC
between 52.5 percent and 57.5 percent then making final mass
adjustments to obtain a test load with an RMC of 57.5 0.33
percent by adding water uniformly to the load in a very fine spray,
would significantly affect the measured efficiency at the extremes for
the RMC conditions. Because the DOE test cloths are uniform and
relatively thin, the water absorbed when making the final mass
adjustments by adding water uniformly in a very fine spray would be
absorbed relatively equivalently to the water absorbed when initially
dampening the test load. In addition, DOE notes that the allowable
range for the initial RMC of 57.5 0.33 percent would
result in a difference in the amount of water contained in the test
load of only approximately 0.06 lb at the minimum and maximum values.
As a result, DOE does not believe this allowable range for the initial
RMC would measurably affect the efficiency and that further tightening
the tolerances would add testing burden to achieve the initial RMC. DOE
also notes that for the testing conducted for the January 2013 NOPR,
the test technicians did not attempt to control the tolerances for
wetting the test load tighter than the ranges specified in the test
method (i.e., the initial extraction achieve an RMC between 52.5
percent and 57.5 and the final mass adjustments to obtain a test load
with an RMC of 57.5 0.33 percent). As a result, any
effects in the measured efficiency would have been captured in the
test-to-test variation for the automatic termination tests with the DOE
test load (which was on average 1.87 percent). For these reasons, DOE
is adopting the test load requirements proposed in the January 2013
NOPR and discussed above, with the following clarification. To provide
a clear and consistent method, the amendments adopted in today's final
rule specify in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 2.7,
that water added to make the final mass adjustments shall be uniformly
distributed among all of the test cloths in a very fine spray using a
spray bottle.
Automatic Termination Control Dryer Test Cycle
DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to change the clothes dryer
test cycle specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 3.3 to require separate test methods for automatic termination
control dryers and timer dryers. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
For automatic termination control dryers, DOE proposed to amend the
clothes dryer test procedure to require the use of the control settings
discussed in section III.B.2 of this notice. Specifically, DOE proposed
to require that the ``normal'' automatic termination cycle program be
selected for the test cycle, and that for clothes dryers that do not
have a ``normal'' program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer
for drying cotton or linen clothes would be selected. 78 FR 152, 170
(Jan. 2, 2013). Where the drying temperature can be chosen
independently of the program, it would be set to the maximum
[[Page 49621]]
temperature setting. Id. In addition, the proposed amendments would
require that where the dryness level setting can be chosen
independently of the program, the dryness level would be set to the
``normal'' or ``medium'' setting. Id. If such designation is not
provided, then the dryness level would be set at the mid-point between
the minimum and maximum settings. DOE also proposed to require that the
cycle settings used for the test cycle be recorded. Id.
For the reasons explained below, DOE proposed that the clothes
dryer would then be allowed to run until the completion of the cycle,
including any cool-down period. After the cycle is complete, the test
load would be weighed to determine the final RMC. If the final RMC is
below 2 percent, the test would be considered valid. If the RMC is
higher than 2 percent, the test would be considered invalid and would
be re-run using the highest dryness level setting. Id.
DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to measure the full automatic
termination cycle, including any cool-down period, to be more
representative of actual consumer use. DOE determined in the January
2013 NOPR that the proposed provision to include a cool-down period
would result in less testing burden than the January 2011 Final Rule
proposal to stop the test cycle when the heater switches off for the
final time immediately before the cool-down period begins (76 FR 972,
998 (Jan. 6, 2011)), which would require the tester to monitor the
clothes dryer and possibly run multiple test cycles to determine when
the heater has switched off for the final time. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2,
2013).
As discussed above, DOE also proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to
base the calculations for automatic termination control dryers on a
nominal final RMC of 2 percent. This is a change from the existing test
procedure, which requires that the clothes dryer test cycle be stopped
when the final RMC is between 2.5 percent and 5 percent. Based on the
data submitted in the Joint Petition and DOE's analysis, DOE
tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that a final RMC of 2
percent using the DOE test load would be more representative of clothes
dryers currently on the market and representative of the maximum
consumer-accepted final RMC. Id.
NEEA stated that, based on its field study data, consumers select
the medium temperature setting 52 percent of the time. (NEEA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 21) The California IOUs commented that
DOE should update the required temperature settings in the test
procedure to reflect consumer preferences, based on recent field
measurements. The California IOUs stated that DOE should make these
revisions in a new test procedure rulemaking. The California IOUs noted
that the NEEA field data also show that consumers select the high and
low temperature settings 35 percent and 13 percent of the time,
respectively. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17, 20)
DOE does not have information to determine for the clothes dryer
models included in the field study whether the temperature setting can
be selected independently of the cycle program and whether the sample
of clothes dryers in the field study is representative of the optional
temperature settings for all clothes dryer shipments. As a result, DOE
notes that there is uncertainty as to whether the temperature settings
selected by participants in the NEEA field study, which included only
50 households in the Pacific Northwest, are representative of the
selections of the nation as a whole. For these reasons, DOE is not
considering changing the temperature settings for the automatic
termination test cycle proposed in the January 2013 NOPR at this time.
However, DOE notes that according to the provisions for the cycle
settings proposed in the January 2013 NOPR, which specify that the
highest temperature setting be used if the temperature setting can be
chosen independently of the cycle program setting, six of the 14 units
in DOE's test sample that had a temperature setting indicator on the
control panel were unable to select the temperature setting separately
from the cycle program and automatically used the medium temperature
setting for the test cycle. In addition, DOE may continue to collect
and consider available data and information on the temperature settings
to consider whether changes to the temperature settings would be
warranted in a future test procedure rulemaking.
NEEA stated that, based on its field study data, consumers select
the normal dryness setting 57 percent of the time and the very dry
setting 42 percent of the time. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
10 at p. 21) The California IOUs commented that many people use the
very dry setting, and that it is not true that all consumers are
satisfied with the dryness of their clothing when using the normal
dryness setting, based on the study conducted by NRDC in 2011 that
found that real clothing would have to be dried to approximately 2-
percent final RMC in order to feel uniformly dry to the touch. The
California IOUs commented that, since the DOE test cloths are much
easier to dry than real-world loads, the test cloths would need to be
significantly lower than 2-percent final RMC to approximate a 2-percent
final RMC in real clothing. The California IOUs stated that with a test
load that more closely approximates real-world clothing, such as the
AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load, a 2-percent final RMC would be appropriate.
(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 20-21)
DOE notes that the NRDC report prepared by Ecova and referenced by
the California IOUs states that the 2-percent RMC threshold for what
consumers would consider ``dry'' for real-world clothing is an
assertion made by NRDC and Ecova without any empirical basis.\12\ As a
result, DOE is not considering changing the dryness level settings for
the automatic termination test cycle proposed in the January 2013 NOPR.
In addition, for the reasons discussed above, DOE is not considering
changing the DOE test load at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Denkenberger, Serena Mau, Chris Calwell, and Eric Wanless.
2011. Residential Clothes Dryers: A Closer Look at Energy Efficiency
Test Procedures and Savings Opportunities. Ecova and NRDC. p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that the NEEA field
study showed that participants used timed drying 29 percent of the
time, and the auto-termination cycle 71 percent of the time. NEEA &
NPCC and the California IOUs considered 29 percent to be a significant
fraction of total clothes dryer cycles, and therefore stated that the
test procedure should require clothes dryers with automatic cycle
termination to be tested both in the timed drying and auto cycle
termination modes. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 13-14; California IOUs,
No. 22 at p. 11)
Because the field study sample was limited, DOE does not have
sufficient information at this time to determine how frequently all
consumers in the nation use the timed dry function versus the automatic
cycle termination function and, thus, properly weight or apportion the
energy consumption between the two drying modes in the clothes dryer
test procedure. DOE also notes that Whirlpool submitted a comment in
the last test procedure rulemaking asserting that, although the
majority of consumers want timed dry cycle capability, they use it only
10 percent of the time. 76 FR 972, 995 (Jan. 6, 2011). In addition,
requiring the measurement of both the automatic termination cycle and
the timed dry cycle for automatic termination control
[[Page 49622]]
dryers would significantly increase testing burden. As a result, DOE is
not considering amendments in today's final rule to require the
measurement of both the automatic termination cycle and the timed dry
cycle for automatic termination control dryers.
d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer Field Use Factor
DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR that the measured test cycle
energy consumption be multiplied by a field use factor of 0.80 to
calculate the per-cycle energy consumption for automatic termination
control dryers based on the data presented above in section III.B.2.
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that this field use factor would
account for the measured energy consumption at the end of the automatic
termination cycle drying the DOE test load below 2-percent RMC, which
DOE determines to be representative of consumer-acceptable drying
levels with loads of varying weights, composition, and size. 78 FR 152,
170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM and ALS opposed the proposed 0.80 field use factor, asserting
that it is without technical or empirical justification. AHAM added
that the Joint Petition did not include such a factor because it is not
necessary under the proposed test procedure. AHAM and ALS stated that
based on testing, DOE must rely on the proposed field use factor to
justify the determination of a de minimus impact on the measured
efficiency according to DOE's criteria (e.g., less than a 5-percent
impact on measured efficiency). AHAM commented that it is inappropriate
for DOE to include the 0.80 field use factor to avoid adjusting the
standard, and that DOE should either provide a ``crosswalk'' or not
make such significant test procedure changes except as part of a future
standards rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 4; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
Samsung agreed with DOE's proposed field use factor. Samsung
alternatively recommended that the 0.80 field use factor not be
included in the test procedure and that the standard levels be adjusted
to account for the energy increase due to the test procedure change
according to 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3)
NEEA & NPCC, ASAP, ACEEE, SEDI, and the California IOUs commented
that the 0.80 field use factor for automatic termination cycles
inappropriately adjusts per-cycle energy use, significantly
underestimating the annual clothes dryer energy use measured in the
field. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3-4; ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 28, 85-86; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 200-201; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3; California IOUs, No. 22 at
p. 3) NEEA & NPCC stated that, based on its analysis and testing, the
proposed test procedure estimates annual energy use that is
approximately 30 percent lower than what is observed in the field. NEEA
& NPCC commented that their testing demonstrates reasonably close
agreement in energy use between DOE's proposed test procedure, but
without the field use factor, and testing with a more real-world
procedure. NEEA & NPCC stated that average annual clothes dryer energy
use estimated from NEEA's 2012 field study is 920 kWh, and suggests
that the field use factor should be closer to 1.1 or 1.2, assuming all
other test procedure factors are unchanged. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p.
6) NEEA & NPCC strongly recommended that DOE not use a field use factor
less than 1.0 to adjust the actual measured energy use from testing.
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2-3, 12; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 87-92) NPCC added that the proposed field use factor is
not consistent with the original proposal in the Joint Petition. (NPCC,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 104) The California IOUs
commented that the NEEA field study data supports a field use
adjustment factor of 1.0, or it should be removed entirely, since the
field data consistently point to clothes dryers using more energy than
they do under the DOE test procedure. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 6,
17; California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 170-171)
SEDI added that CLASP-funded laboratory testing suggests that clothes
dryers in the field consume more energy than would be measured by the
proposed test procedure even without the field use factor. (SEDI, No.
14 at p. 3)
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that DOE's data show
that the average clothes dryer operating on an automatic termination
cycle uses on the order of 25 percent more energy than it would if it
terminated the cycle at optimum load dryness. NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs commented that the difference between the end-of-cycle
energy use and the energy use upon initially reaching 2-percent RMC
represent an energy savings opportunity that manufacturers should be
encouraged to pursue through modifications to automatic termination
controls. NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs stated that the proposed
field use factor would revise the measured energy use for automatic
termination control dryers that don't terminate at an initial 2-percent
RMC down to a value that might have been achieved if the clothes dryer
terminated properly. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 6; California IOUs, No.
22 at p. 5; California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp.
76-77, 101-102)
The California IOUs noted that in two cases (DOE test units 4 and
17), the adjusted energy consumption is lower than the measured energy
consumption at both 5-percent and 2-percent RMC, and likely represents
the energy consumption at points in the cycle when the test load would
have been damp to the touch. The California IOUs stated that the field-
adjusted values that DOE presented, therefore, are not representative
of field clothes dryer performance. The California IOUs also stated
that DOE's sample of 8 clothes dryer models is not sufficiently large
to provide statistically meaningful information on the field use
factor. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 5-6; California IOUs, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 94-97)
NEEA & NPCC commented that DOE's testing showed, with one
exception, that the final RMC values for the IEC/AHAM test load are
higher than with the DOE test load but the increase in the final RMC
was not consistent from model to model. NEEA & NPCC stated that, as a
result, any single field use factor is problematic. (NEEA & NPCC, No.
21 at p. 5) NEEA & NPCC also noted that the proposed automatic
termination test procedure significantly increases the range of tested
efficiencies, but that this increase is not predictable for a given
clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC stated that the most and least efficient
models using the current DOE test procedure are not the most and least
efficient models using the proposed automatic termination test
procedure but with a more realistic test load. NEEA & NPCC stated that
the proposed field use factor will simply reduce the calculated per
cycle energy use, thereby reducing the differentiation among models.
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 6)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE should adjust the
January 1, 2015 standards to account for the proposed test procedure
amendments without the proposed field use factor. However, the Joint
Efficiency Advocates stated that if DOE concludes that it cannot adjust
the standard levels, DOE should proceed with the proposal in the
January 2013 NOPR. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 2-3)
SEDI objected to the proposed 0.80 field use factor, but commented
that if DOE chooses to retain the field use
[[Page 49623]]
factor, manufacturers should be required to report clothes dryer energy
consumption both with and without the field use factor applied. SEDI
stated that accurate energy consumption information is critical for
energy efficiency programs to be able to evaluate potential for
incentives for more efficient products. (SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3)
Earthjustice commented that DOE should revise the proposed field
use factor for automatic termination control dryers. Earthjustice
stated that DOE's test data show that the load composition has much
less of an impact on the effectiveness of automatic termination
controls than DOE's proposed field use factor assumes. Earthjustice
commented that for nearly all of the 20 clothes dryers that DOE tested,
the difference in CEF between the AHAM and DOE test loads was less than
10 percent, with an average reduction in CEF of about 4 percent.
Earthjustice stated that the adjustment needed for the CEF ratings to
better reflect real world conditions is not only much smaller than DOE
has proposed, it is in the opposite direction, and that DOE's proposal
would lead to CEFs that significantly overstate the energy efficiency
of many automatic termination control dryers. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at
pp. 1-2)
Earthjustice stated that DOE's analysis shows that drying the DOE
test load to 2-percent RMC at the end of the cycle reasonably
approximates drying a test load that is more representative of the
varied composition and heavier fabrics encountered in real world
laundry loads to 5-percent RMC. Earthjustice stated that based on the
test data in the January 2013 NOPR, the only field use factor that
should be applied is a small correction to reflect that drying the AHAM
test load to the end of a cycle achieving 5-percent RMC results in CEF
levels about 4 percent below those measured drying the DOE test cloth
as proposed in the January 2013 NOPR. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 2)
Based on these comments and DOE's review of available data, DOE
agrees that eliminating the field use factor for automatic termination
control dryers will produce test results that are more representative
of consumer use. As a result, in today's final rule, DOE is not
adopting the 0.80 field use factor proposed in the January 2013 NOPR,
but is instead removing the field use factor for automatic termination
control dryers in appendix D2 because the test method directly measures
the over-drying energy consumption. Because DOE is not amending
appendix D or appendix D1 to include the methods for more accurately
measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination, as discussed in
section III.B.3.f, DOE is not amending the current field use factors
specified in section 4.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1.
e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the Determination of the Completion of
the Test Cycle
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed for the automatic cycle
termination test method that the clothes dryer shall be operated until
the completion of the programmed cycle, including the cool-down period.
78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
NRDC commented that DOE should clarify the definition of
``completion of test cycle'' for clothes dryers with automatic
termination controls. NRDC noted that many clothes dryers have post-
cycle features, such as additional tumbling designed to prevent
wrinkling, that may run after the clothes dryer has terminated the main
drying cycle. NRDC stated that these features can sometimes be enabled
by the user and sometimes are the default operational mode. NRDC
recommended that DOE modify the proposed test procedure to clarify that
the cycle is complete when the main cycle terminates and the clothes
dryer indicates to the consumer that the load is finished. (NRDC, No.
20 at pp. 1-2; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 129-131)
NRDC also urged DOE to conduct a new rulemaking as soon as possible to
further revise the clothes dryer test procedure to address post-cycle
energy use to better represent real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at
p. 2)
NEEA & NPCC commented that it is unclear whether the current test
procedure is designed to capture the energy use associated with the
wrinkle prevention mode, which is part of the default cycle in some
clothes dryer models. NEEA & NPCC stated that the wrinkle prevention
mode meets DOE's definition of an active mode, and yet DOE's testing
stopped the test at the completion of the cool-down phase. NEEA & NPCC
stated clothes dryers typically use 150-250 watts of power when
rotating the drum (and by default in most models, the fan) and that
over a few hours, the wrinkle prevention mode could use as much as 0.5
kWh depending on how often the feature is activated and for how long at
the end of each cycle. NEEA & NPCC stated that this clothes dryer
feature should be accounted for accurately in the test procedure,
regardless of any increase in the test burden associated with the
measurement. According to NEEA & NPCC, the potential energy use of this
function may be large enough to make the difference as to whether or
not a clothes dryer complies with the standard, and so is not
insignificant. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 14) NEEA added that if a
cyclical wrinkle prevention period goes on indefinitely, it may cause
issues with determining when to measure standby and off mode if the end
of the cycle is not clearly defined. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 154-155)
The California IOUs, Hydromatic, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) also questioned how the wrinkle prevention mode
would be tested and how the end of the cycle would be determined. The
California IOUs stated that it is a relatively new feature, but it is
becoming more prevalent. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 153, 154; Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10
at pp. 124-128, 132-133; EPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp.
122-123)
AHAM stated that the cycle ends when the clothes dryer signals to
the consumer that the cycle is complete, and that wrinkle prevention or
similar functions are selected by the user and should not be included
in the DOE test unless they are activated by default in the condition
as shipped. AHAM stated that this approach will minimize ambiguity for
testers, thus resulting in less variation in the test procedure. (AHAM,
No. 17 at p. 13) ALS similarly recommended testing with the default
settings and not with other optional settings such as a wrinkle
prevention extended cycle. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 4)
DOE conducted a market survey and testing to evaluate the wrinkle
prevention mode. DOE noted that products operate in wrinkle prevention
mode either intermittently or by continuously tumbling for a fixed
period of time or until the user opens the clothes dryer door. Based on
DOE's review of products currently available on the market,
approximately 95 percent of products that are equipped with a wrinkle
prevention feature offer it as a mode that must be manually selected by
the user (i.e., wrinkle prevention is turned off by default).
Approximately 63 percent of products that are equipped with a wrinkle
prevention feature operate in this mode by intermittently tumbling. For
the products in DOE's test sample, the intermittent tumbling consisted
of 3 to 5 seconds of tumbling every 5 to 10 minutes for a fixed period
of time. Such intermittent tumbling was observed for all products on
the market that operated in wrinkle prevention mode automatically by
default after the end of the programmed cycle, with the
[[Page 49624]]
maximum duration among the sample units being 5 hours. DOE estimates
that products that intermittently tumble for 5 hours would consume
approximately 8.3 Wh in the wrinkle prevention mode. In the worst-case
scenario for clothes dryers on the market for which the wrinkle
prevention mode must be selected manually by the user, continuous
tumbling was observed with a duration of up to 45 minutes and a
corresponding energy consumption as much as approximately 188 Wh.
DOE is unaware of consumer usage data on how often consumers select
the wrinkle prevention mode when this feature must be manually selected
or data on the typical elapsed time between the end of the programmed
cycle and when the consumer opens the clothes dryer door to remove the
laundry load. As a result, DOE is not amending the test procedure to
include the measurement of the wrinkle prevention mode when this
feature must be manually selected by the consumer. As discussed in
section III.F.1, DOE is adopting amendments to clarify for automatic
termination control dryers that the test procedures specify
requirements only for the automatic termination cycle program,
temperature setting, and dryness setting, and do not specify
modifications to any other optional settings that do not affect the
automatic termination cycle program, temperature setting, or dryness
setting. As a result, if a product is equipped with a wrinkle
prevention feature that is activated by default in the condition as
shipped by the manufacturer, the wrinkle prevention mode would be
included in the test measurement cycle unless it precluded the
necessary automatic termination cycle program, temperature setting, or
dryness setting. DOE also notes that, based on the requirements that
products be installed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions,
if a manufacturers' user manual specifies that the wrinkle prevention
mode is recommended to be activated for normal use even if it not done
so in the as-shipped condition, the products would be tested with the
wrinkle prevention mode activated as per manufacturer's instructions.
DOE is adopting amendments in today's final rule to clarify in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.3.2, that the drying
cycle is complete when the clothes dryer indicates to the user that the
cycle has finished (by means of a display, indicator light, audible
signal, or other signal) and the heater and drum/fan motor shuts off
for the final time. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle
prevention mode (i.e., that continuously or intermittently tumbles the
clothes dryer drum after the clothes dryer indicates to the user that
the cycle has finished) that is activated by default in the as-shipped
position or if manufacturers' instructions specify that the feature is
recommended to be activated for normal use, the cycle shall be
considered complete after the end of the wrinkle prevention mode.
f. New Appendix D2
With the exception of the field use factor and the compliance date,
AHAM and ALS supported the proposed test procedure for automatic
termination control dryers. In light of its objection to the proposed
field use factor and compliance date, however, AHAM stated that it
cannot support these changes at this time and DOE should instead defer
the changes until compliance with a future standard, subsequent to the
January 1, 2015 standards change. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13; ALS, No. 16
at p. 4)
Samsung supported the proposed automatic termination test method,
including the maximum allowable RMC of 2 percent. Samsung stated that
the proposed test procedure is representative of consumer usage because
it measures the energy use of the most commonly selected cycle (Normal/
Cottons and Linens) and includes the cool-down period. Samsung stated
that the proposed test procedure would encourage manufacturers to
refine their automatic termination feature to terminate drying very
close to the target 2-percent RMC using the DOE test load, without the
over-drying evidenced on some clothes dryer models during DOE testing,
thus reducing real-world energy consumption. (Samsung, No. 13 at pp. 2-
3)
ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC jointly commented (hereafter ``the
Joint Efficiency Advocates'') and SEDI, NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and the
California IOUs commented that they generally support the proposed
automatic termination test procedure amendments. The Joint Efficiency
Advocates, NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and the California IOUs noted that DOE's
test data presented in the January 2013 NOPR show that there is wide
variability among clothes dryers in the effectiveness of automatic
termination controls, and that many clothes dryers waste a significant
amount of energy at the end of the automatic termination cycle (up to
38 percent of energy use). NRDC and SEDI added that the proposed test
procedure will capture this energy use at the end of the cycle and will
result in differentiation of the measured efficiency of individual
clothes dryers. The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that based on
DOE's test data, the current test procedure in appendix D1 is not a
good predictor of the efficiency of the complete automatic termination
cycle. The Joint Efficiency Advocates, NEEA & NPCC, and the California
IOUs stated that the proposed automatic cycle termination test
procedure will encourage manufacturers to adopt improved automatic
termination controls and will provide a significant national energy
savings opportunity. The California IOUs added that DOE's sample is too
small to conclusively estimate this savings opportunity, but a study
conducted by NRDC on 15 clothes dryers concluded that a variety of
energy-saving technologies, including automatic termination, could save
20 percent to 30 percent of overall energy consumption by preventing
over-drying. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 1-2; SEDI, No.
14 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 20 at p. 1; NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2, 4-5;
California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 3-5)
Based on the comments from interested parties and for the reasons
discussed above, DOE is adopting the automatic termination test method
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR with modification as further
discussed above. With regards to AHAM's comments concerning the
compliance date, as discussed in section III.B.3.f and section III.I.3,
DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B to create a new appendix D2 that includes the testing methods
for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle
termination. As discussed in section III.I.3, the newly created
appendix D2 will not be required for use to determine compliance with
the January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers.
DOE is not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include the
amendments associated with automatic termination controls. Appendix D2
is for informational purposes only.
Timed Dry Test Method
For timer dryers, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to use the
test method currently specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D1, section 3.3, but with a revised final RMC requirement. The proposed
test method would require that the clothes dryer be operated using the
highest temperature setting and maximum time setting. The clothes dryer
would then be allowed to run until the final RMC of the load is between
1.0 percent and 2.5
[[Page 49625]]
percent, at which point the test cycle would be stopped without
permitting the clothes dryer to advance into the cool-down period and
the test load would be weighed. DOE also proposed to add a
clarification that the clothes dryer should not be stopped
intermittently in the middle of the test cycle for any reason. DOE
stated that this clarification would ensure that test technicians are
not stopping the clothes dryer intermittently to weigh the test load to
check whether the RMC is within the target range. Such a practice would
alter the measured results because of the heat loss from the clothes
dryer when the cycle is stopped. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to include separate
calculations for the per-cycle energy consumption for timer dryers. The
calculations would be similar to the calculations provided in the
current DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
sections 4.1-4.3, except that the normalization of the per-cycle energy
consumption to represent the energy consumption required to dry the
test load to 4-percent RMC would be changed to represent the new target
RMC of 2 percent. The per-cycle energy consumption calculation in the
current test procedure applies a scaling factor of 53.5, which
represents the RMC percentage point change from the nominal initial RMC
of 57.5 percent to the nominal final RMC of 4 percent. The proposed
amendments would change this scaling factor to 55.5 to reflect the new
final RMC of 2 percent. DOE proposed a range of 1.0 percent to 2.5
percent for the allowable final RMC during the test cycle to reduce
testing burden. DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that
requiring the tester to dry the test load to an exact RMC during the
test cycle would be unduly burdensome because it could require the test
to be repeated a significant number of times until the exact RMC is
achieved. For the test procedure to produce repeatable results, the
measured test cycle energy consumption is normalized to calculate the
energy consumption required to dry the test load from exactly 57.5-
percent RMC to 2-percent RMC, which is representative of clothes dryers
currently on the market and of the maximum consumer-accepted final RMC.
78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR that manufacturers continue
to apply the field use factor needed to account for the energy
consumption of timed drying beyond the 2-percent RMC specified in the
test procedure. DOE did not propose any changes to the 1.18 field use
factor for timer dryers because DOE stated that it is not aware of any
data or studies more recent than the studies on which it was originally
based that would indicate that this value is not currently
representative of consumer use.
DOE did not propose in the January 2013 NOPR to include the cool-
down period as part of the timed dry test cycle because the proposed
test method requires drying the load to a specified RMC, at which point
the test cycle is stopped by the test technician. DOE determined that
specifying a timed dry cycle that includes the cool-down period to
achieve a target final RMC would add significant testing burden on test
technicians to determine and preset the appropriate time setting. DOE
also noted that it would be difficult to ensure that testing results
are repeatable and reproducible because different combinations of timed
dry cycle length and cool-down period may be selected to dry a test
load to the same final RMC.
AHAM commented that it did not oppose the proposed timed dry test
method on a technical basis. AHAM stated, however, because it considers
these changes to be part of the proposed amendments regarding automatic
cycle termination controls, it cannot support these changes at this
time. AHAM commented that DOE should defer the changes until compliance
with future energy conservation standards, subsequent to the January 1,
2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13) ALS also opposed the proposed
timed drying test method because it opposed any test procedure change
with an effective date concurrent with the January 1, 2015 standards.
(ALS, No. 16 at p. 4) As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is adopting
the amendments to more accurately measure the effects of automatic
cycle termination in a new appendix D2 that will not be required for
use to determine compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers. As a result, in today's
final rule, DOE is also adopting the timer dryer test methods presented
above in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.3.2. DOE is
not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include these
amendments.
Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition for
Measuring Standby Mode and Off Mode Power
As discussed in section I of today's final rule, EPCA, as amended
by EISA 2007, requires that test procedures be amended to include
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, taking into consideration
the most current versions of IEC Standards 62301 and 62087. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)) The January 2011 Final Rule incorporated in the test
procedures for clothes dryers relevant provisions from IEC Standard
62301 (First Edition) for measuring standby mode and off mode power. 76
FR 972, 979-80 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE reviewed the IEC Standard 62301
(First Edition) and concluded that it would be generally applicable to
clothes dryers, although some clarification would be needed.
Specifically, DOE adopted amendments for standby mode and off mode
power measurements to provide a stabilization period of 30 to 40
minutes followed by an energy use measurement period of 10 minutes. 76
FR 986 (Jan.6, 2011). With these clarifications in place, the January
2011 Final Rule referenced IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) for the
standby mode and off mode wattage measurements. DOE also incorporated
into the clothes dryer test procedure definitions of ``active mode,''
``standby mode,'' and ``off mode'' based on the definitions provided in
IEC Standard 62301 CDV. 76 FR 76 FR 981-85 (Jan. 6, 2011).
IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) published on January 27, 2011.
Consistent with EPCA requirements for amending test procedures to
include standby and off mode procedures, DOE considered IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition) for amendments to the standby mode and off mode
test procedures for clothes dryers in the January 2013 NOPR. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE determined that IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition)
is an internationally-accepted test procedure for measuring standby
power in residential appliances, and it provides clarification to
certain sections as compared to the First Edition. In the January 2013
NOPR, DOE proposed to update its reference to IEC Standard 62301 by
incorporating certain provisions of IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition), along with clarifying language, into the DOE test procedures
for clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM and ALS commented that they support the incorporation by
reference of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). AHAM stated that the
Second Edition contains a number of important clarifications not
present in the First Edition and that adopting the Second Edition will
allow for optimum international harmonization, which gives clarity and
consistency to the regulated community. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 13-14;
ALS, No. 16 at p. 4)
The suitability of specific clauses from IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition) regarding testing conditions
[[Page 49626]]
and methodology for use in DOE's clothes dryer test procedure are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Section 4, paragraph 4.4 of the Second Edition revises the power
measurement accuracy provisions of the First Edition. A more
comprehensive specification of required accuracy is provided in the
Second Edition, which depends upon the characteristics of the power
being measured. Testers using the Second Edition are required to
measure the crest factor and power factor of the input power, and to
calculate a maximum current ratio (MCR) (paragraph 4.4.1 of the Second
Edition). The Second Edition then specifies calculations to determine
permitted uncertainty in MCR. DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR,
however, that the allowable uncertainty is the same or less stringent
than the allowable uncertainty specified in the First Edition,
depending on the value of MCR and the power level being measured. DOE
determined that this change in the allowable uncertainty, however,
maintains sufficient accuracy of measurements under a full range of
possible measured power levels without placing undue demands on the
instrumentation. These power measurement accuracy requirements were
based upon detailed technical submissions to the IEC in the development
of IEC Standard 62301 Final Draft International Standard (FDIS), which
showed that commonly-used power measurement instruments were unable to
meet the original requirements for certain types of loads. DOE
concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that the incremental testing burden
associated with the additional measurements and calculations is offset
by the more reasonable requirements for testing equipment, while
maintaining measurement accuracy deemed acceptable and practical by
voting members for IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). For these
reasons, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to incorporate by
reference in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.4.7 the
power equipment specifications in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition). 78 FR 152, 171-172 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM commented that it supports incorporating by reference these
provisions. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) For the reasons discussed above,
DOE adopts in today's final rule these amendments to its clothes dryer
test procedure.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that Section 5, paragraph 5.2
of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) maintains the installation and
setup procedures incorporated by reference in the clothes dryer test
procedure in the January 2011 Final Rule from the First Edition. These
provisions require that the appliance be prepared and set up in
accordance with manufacturer's instructions, and that if no
instructions are given, then the factory or default settings shall be
used, or where there are no indications for such settings, the
appliance is tested as supplied. Additionally, IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) adds certain clarifications to the installation and
setup procedures in section 5, paragraph 5.2 of the First Edition
regarding products equipped with a battery recharging circuit for an
internal battery, as well as instructions for testing each relevant
configuration option identified in the product's instructions for use.
DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR that it is not aware of any clothes
dryer with an internal battery, or with a recharging circuit for such a
battery. DOE also determined that a requirement to separately test each
configuration option could substantially increase test burden and
potentially conflicts with the requirement within the same section to
set up the product in accordance with the instructions for use or, if
no such instructions are available, to use the factory or default
settings. Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR
that the portions of the installation instructions in section 5,
paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) pertaining to
batteries and the requirement for the determination, classification,
and testing of all modes associated with every combination of available
product configuration options (which may be more numerous than the
modes associated with operation at the default settings) are not
appropriate for the clothes dryer test procedures. Accordingly, DOE
proposed qualifying language in the test procedure amendments in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.1 to disregard those
portions of the installation instructions. 78 FR 152, 172 (Jan. 2,
2013). AHAM commented that it does not oppose this proposal because it
is also not aware of any clothes dryer with an internal battery or
recharging circuit for such a battery. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14)
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, DOE is amending the clothes dryer
test procedure in today's final rule to incorporate by reference the
installation instructions in section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition) and to include qualifying language to disregard
the portions pertaining to batteries and the requirement for the
determination, classification, and testing of all modes associated with
every combination of available product configuration options.
The Second Edition also contains provisions for the power supply
(section 4.3) and power-measuring instruments (section 4.4). Paragraph
4.3.2 requires that the value of the harmonic content of the voltage
supply be recorded during the test and reported. As described
previously, paragraph 4.4.1 requires the instrument to measure the
crest factor and maximum current ratio. Paragraph 4.4.3 requires the
instrument to be capable of measuring the average power or integrated
total energy consumption over any operator-selected time interval. In
the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of commercially
available power measurement instruments that can perform each of these
required measurements individually. However, DOE is also aware that
certain industry-standard instruments, such as the Yokogawa WT210/WT230
digital power meter and possibly others, are unable to measure harmonic
content or crest factor while measuring average power or total
integrated energy consumption. DOE is concerned that laboratories
currently using power-measuring instruments without this capability
would be required to purchase, at potentially significant expense,
additional power-measuring instruments that are able to perform all
these measurements simultaneously. Therefore, DOE proposed in the
January 2013 NOPR for 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, sections
2.3.1.1 and 2.4.7 that if the power-measuring instrument is unable to
perform these measurements during the actual test measurement, it would
be acceptable to measure the total harmonic content, crest factor, and
maximum current ratio immediately before and immediately after the
actual test measurement to determine whether the requirements for the
power supply and power measurement have been met. 78 FR 152, 172 (Jan.
2, 2013). AHAM commented that it supports this proposal. (AHAM, No. 17
at p. 14) For the reasons discussed, DOE adopts these amendments to its
clothes dryer test procedure in today's final rule.
The other major changes in the Second Edition related to the
measurement of standby mode and off mode power consumption in covered
products involve measurement techniques and specification of the
stability criteria required to measure that power. The Second Edition
contains more detailed techniques to evaluate the stability of the
power consumption and to measure the power consumption for loads with
different
[[Page 49627]]
stability characteristics. According to the Second Edition, the user is
given a choice of measurement procedures, including sampling methods,
average reading methods, and a direct meter reading method. For the
January 2013 NOPR, DOE evaluated these new methods in terms of test
burden and improvement in results as compared to the methods adopted in
the January 2011 Final Rule, which were based on IEC Standard 62301
(First Edition).
In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE adopted provisions requiring
that clothes dryer standby mode and off mode power be measured using
section 5, paragraph 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition),
clarified by requiring the product to stabilize for 30 to 40 minutes
and using an energy use measurement period of 10 minutes. Further, for
any clothes dryer in which the power varies over a cycle, as described
in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the First Edition, the January 2011
Final Rule adopted amendments to require the use of the average power
approach in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2(a), with a 30- to 40-minute
stabilization period and a 10-minute minimum measurement period, as
long as the measurement period comprises one or more complete cycles.
76 FR 972, 979-980, 985-986 (Jan. 6, 2011).
For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE analyzed the potential impacts of
referencing methodology from IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) rather
than from the First Edition by comparing the provisions allowed by each
under different scenarios of power consumption stability. Based on its
analysis, DOE concluded that the use of the Second Edition would
improve the accuracy and representativeness of power consumption
measurements and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. As a
result, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to incorporate by
reference the relevant paragraphs of section 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) in the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.6. 78 FR 152, 172-174 (Jan. 2,
2013).
AHAM commented that it does not oppose the proposed requirement to
use the sampling method in section 5.3.2 of the Second Edition. (AHAM,
No. 17 at p. 14) For the reasons discussed above, DOE amends the
clothes dryer test procedure in today's final rule to require in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.6 the use of the sampling
method in section 5.3.2 of the Second Edition for all standby mode and
off mode power measurements.
DOE also amends the reference in 10 CFR 430.3 to add IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition). DOE is not replacing the reference to the First
Edition in 10 CFR 430.3, because several test procedures for other
covered products not addressed in today's notice incorporate provisions
from it. In addition, there are a number of editorial changes necessary
in appendix D1 to allow for the correct referencing to the Second
Edition. For example, the definition section in appendix D1 must define
the IEC Standard 62301 as the Second Edition instead of the First
Edition. Also, there are certain section numbering differences in the
Second Edition that impact the text of the measurement provisions of
the relevant test procedures in appendix D1. In addition, the
definition and section references discussed above are incorporated in
appendix D2.
E. Technical Correction to the Calculation of the Per-cycle Combined
Total Energy Consumption
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D1, section 4.6, regarding the calculation of the per-cycle
combined total energy consumption contains a reference to an incorrect
section number. The per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, ETSO, which is contained in section 4.5, is
incorrectly referenced in the per-cycle combined total energy
consumption as section 4.7. DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to
correct this section number reference. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE did not receive any comments on this topic in response to the
January 2013 NOPR. In today's final rule, DOE adopts this amendment to
its clothes dryer test procedure in appendix D1, and includes the
correct calculation in newly adopted appendix D2.
F. Clarifications to Test Conditions
DOE noted in both the January 2013 NOPR and the February 2013 SNOPR
that it had received a number of inquiries requesting clarification on
testing according to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2, 2013); 78 FR
8992 (Feb. 7, 2013). As discussed in the following sections, based on
these inquiries, DOE is adopting amendments in today's final rule to
clarify certain provisions in the DOE clothes dryer test procedure.
1. Cycle Settings
Section 3.3 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D specifies
that the maximum temperature setting and, if a tested unit is equipped
with a timer, the maximum time setting must be used for the drying test
cycle. DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that it received an inquiry
regarding how to test a clothes dryer that has timed dry cycle length
settings, but no temperature settings on the control panel. DOE
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to clarify in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D, section 3.3, that if the clothes dryer does not
have a separate temperature setting selection on the control panel, the
maximum time setting should be used for the drying test cycle. DOE also
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to include the clarification
discussed above in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D1, for the timer dryer test method. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2,
2013).
AHAM commented that it does not oppose these clarifications for the
cycle settings, nor does it oppose these changes becoming effective
prior to the January 1, 2015 standards compliance date. (AHAM, No. 17
at p. 17) Because DOE did not receive any comments objecting to this
proposal in response to the January 2013 NOPR and for the reasons
discussed above, DOE adopts this clarification to its clothes dryer
test procedure in appendix D and appendix D1 in today's final rule.
Because DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in today's
final rule to create a new appendix D2 for informational purposes only
that includes the methods for more accurately measuring the effects of
automatic cycle termination, which includes a separate method for timer
dryers, DOE is also including the same cycle settings clarification in
section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, for the timer
dryer test method.
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that it also received an
inquiry regarding how to test a clothes dryer that has an optional
cycle setting, other than the temperature and time settings, that is
activated by default in the condition as shipped by the manufacturer.
DOE proposed to clarify in both 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D,
section 3.3, and appendix D1, section 3.3.1, that the test procedures
specify requirements only for the temperature setting and time setting,
and do not specify modifications to any other optional settings that do
not alter the temperature setting and time setting. Similarly, in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.3.2, DOE proposed to
clarify for automatic termination control dryers that any other
optional cycle settings that do not affect the automatic termination
cycle program, temperature setting, or dryness setting shall be tested
in the as-shipped position. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2, 2013).
[[Page 49628]]
AHAM commented that it does not oppose the clarifications for the
optional cycle settings because they are consistent with its position
that units should be tested in the as-shipped condition. AHAM stated
that if other settings are activated by default when the appropriate
temperature and time settings are selected, the unit should be tested
with those settings activated. AHAM noted, however, that because it
opposes the amendments related to automatic termination controls at
this time, it supports incorporating these clarifications in the
current appendix D and appendix D1. Should DOE finalize the automatic
termination control methodology and related amendments, but make them
mandatory for compliance with some future standard (beyond 2015), AHAM
stated it would support these clarifications in that test procedure as
well. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 17-18)
For the reasons discussed above, DOE amends section 3.3 in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D and D1 and section 3.3.1 in 10 CFR part
430 subpart B, appendix D2, to clarify that any other optional cycle
settings that do not affect the temperature or time settings shall be
tested in the as-shipped position. In addition, DOE amends section
3.3.2 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, which will not be
required to demonstrate compliance with the 2015 standards, to clarify
for automatic termination control dryers that any other optional cycle
settings that do not affect the automatic termination cycle program,
temperature setting, or dryness setting shall be tested in the as-
shipped position.
2. Gas Supply Requirements
Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1, specifies that gas supply to the clothes dryer should be
maintained at a normal inlet test pressure at 7 to 10 inches of water
column, and that the hourly British thermal unit (Btu) rating of the
burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating
specified by the manufacturer. DOE discussed in the January 2013 NOPR
that it received an inquiry noting that during testing of a gas clothes
dryer, the unit under test did not meet the requirement to maintain the
Btu rating within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer
under the allowable range in gas inlet test pressure. DOE proposed in
the January 2013 NOPR to add a clarification in both 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 that if the requirement to
maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within 5
percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer cannot be achieved
under the allowable range in gas inlet test pressure, the orifice of
the gas burner should be modified as necessary to achieve the required
Btu rating. 78 FR 152, 174-175 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM and ALS opposed the proposal to change the orifice of the gas
burner or any other hardware to meet the 5 percent
requirement. AHAM added that the burner Btu rating is based on a test
gas value intended to ensure product safety and that the average
heating value and typical heating value during consumer use may be
lower than the heating value of the test gas. AHAM commented that
because the intent of the test procedure is to be representative of
actual consumer use, DOE should not go forward with this proposal
because the consumer would never and should never modify the orifice.
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at pp. 4-5)
DOE notes that the proposed requirement to modify the gas burner
orifice if the hourly Btu rating specified by the manufacturer cannot
be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet pressure ensures
that the burner output is reproducible from lab to lab for testing
purposes. DOE notes that removing the gas supply requirements specified
in the test procedure and allowing a wider range in the burner output
could affect the measured efficiency and reproducibility of results
because of the resulting variation in the heat input into the air
entering the clothes dryer drum. In addition, DOE notes that the test
procedure for gas water heaters similarly specifies that the burner
should be adjusted as necessary to achieve the hourly Btu rating
specified by the manufacturer. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix E,
section 5.1.3) To ensure that test results are repeatable and
reproducible, in today's final rule, DOE amends the clothes dryer test
procedure in section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D
and appendix D1 to include this clarification for the gas supply
requirements. In addition, because DOE is also amending the clothes
dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also
including this clarification for the gas supply requirements in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 2.3.2.
Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1 specifies that if a clothes dryer is equipped with a gas
appliance pressure regulator, the regulator outlet pressure at the
normal test pressure shall be approximately that recommended by the
manufacturer. DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that the test
procedures for similar gas heating products, such as gas water heaters,
specify that the regulator outlet pressure must be within
10 percent of the value specified by the manufacturer. DOE proposed to
clarify the term ``approximately'' by specifying that the regulator
outlet pressure shall be within 10 percent of the value
specified by the manufacturer. 78 FR 152, 175 (Jan. 2, 2013).
ALS supported DOE's proposal to clarify the outlet pressure range
for the gas regulator. (ALS, No. 16, at p. 5) AHAM commented that the
regulator outlet pressure should be as close as possible to that
specified by the manufacturer. AHAM stated that this manufacturer
recommendation helps ensure the safety of the product and, thus, the
outlet pressure should not be altered. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 18) Because
DOE did not receive any comments objecting to this proposal in response
to the January 2013 NOPR and for the reasons discussed above, DOE
amends section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and
appendix D1 in today's final rule to include the clarification that the
regulator outlet pressure shall be within 10 percent of
the value recommended by the manufacturer in the installation manual,
on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes such a
recommendation for the basic model. In addition, because DOE is also
amending the clothes dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2,
DOE is also including this clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D2, section 2.3.2.
3. Console Lights
In the February 2013 SNOPR, DOE noted that it received an inquiry
requesting clarification on section 2.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D and appendix D1, which specifies for the installation
conditions that all console lights or other lighting systems that do
not consume more than 10 watts shall be disconnected during the clothes
dryer active mode test cycle. 78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013). DOE
noted that this provision was originally adopted in the September 1977
Final Rule. 42 FR 46145, 46146, 46150. DOE intended this provision to
apply to an older generation of clothes dryers existing at the time of
the September 1977 Final Rule that used task lights to illuminate the
area of the clothes dryer for consumers doing the laundry that did not
provide any function related to the drying process during the drying
cycle. Newer-generation clothes dryers equipped with electronic
controls may have control setting indicators such as indicator lights
showing the cycle
[[Page 49629]]
progression, temperature or dryness settings, or other cycle functions.
In contrast to the task lighting of older-generation clothes dryers,
these indicator lights associated with cycle settings or the drying
operation are fully integrated into the clothes dryer control printed
circuit boards (PCBs). Disconnecting such lights would require
extracting the control PCB from the clothes dryer and either physically
cutting off the indicator lights or destroying their electrical signal
traces etched on the PCB.
As a result of these differences, DOE proposed in the February 2013
SNOPR to clarify in section 2.1 in both appendix D and appendix D1 that
``console lights or other lighting systems'' refers to task lights that
do not provide any function during the drying cycle related to the
drying process, rather than the control setting indicators in newer-
generation clothes dryers with electronic controls. DOE also proposed
to clarify that control setting indicators such as indicator lights
showing the cycle progression, temperature or dryness settings, or
other cycle functions should not be disconnected during the active mode
test cycle. 78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013).
AHAM and ALS commented that they do not oppose the proposed
clarification for the installation conditions of console lights. AHAM
added that because this is not different than current industry
practice, this proposal would not impact measured efficiency. (AHAM,
No. 17 at p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) Because DOE did not receive any
comments objecting to this proposal and for the reasons discussed
above, DOE amends the section 2.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D and appendix D1 in today's final rule to include this
clarification to the installation requirements for console lights or
other lighting systems. In addition, because DOE is also amending the
clothes dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also
including this clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D2, section 2.1.
4. Drum Capacity Measurements
Section 3.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and appendix
D1 specifies that when measuring drum capacity, the drum shall be
filled with water to a level determined by the intersection of the door
plane and the loading port. In addition, section 3.1 specifies that
volume should be added or subtracted as appropriate depending on
whether the plastic bag used for the measurement protrudes into the
drum interior. DOE noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that it received an
inquiry requesting clarification of this requirement. DOE proposed to
amend section 3.1 to clarify that, for the measurement of the drum
capacity, the intersection of the door plane and the loading port
refers to the uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with the
door seal and that volume should be added or subtracted from the
measured water fill volume to account for any space in the drum
interior not measured by water fill (e.g., space occupied by the door
protruding into the drum interior). 78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013).
ALS supported DOE's proposal to clarify the drum capacity
measurement. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) AHAM commented that it opposes the
change for the drum capacity measurements in appendix D due to a lack
of information and data on the impact, if any, on measured energy
efficiency. AHAM stated that it does not have such data. AHAM also
commented that the proposed amendments could impact manufacturers'
reported capacities and that it would be burdensome to require such a
change during the transition to the January 1, 2015 standards. AHAM
suggested that DOE make this change only to appendix D1, and only if
DOE determines that there would be no impact on measured energy
efficiency. Otherwise, AHAM requested that any changes DOE made not be
mandatory for compliance with the January 1, 2015 standards. According
to AHAM, this would allow any impact on measured energy efficiency to
be evaluated in the future. AHAM commented that it is possible that
manufacturers have information on whether there is an impact on
measured energy efficiency, and, thus, AHAM suggested that DOE contact
manufacturers to understand the potential impact. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp.
18-19)
DOE notes that the amendment for the drum capacity measurement
proposed in the February 2013 SNOPR would clarify the measurement
method (i.e., the level to which water is filled in the drum and the
amount of volume added or subtracted from the measurement), but not
change the measurement results. Therefore, the amendments to clarify
the drum capacity measurement would not affect the measured drum volume
or energy efficiency. In today's final rule, DOE amends section 3.1 in
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 to include this
clarification to the drum capacity measurement. In addition, because
DOE is also amending the clothes dryer test procedure to include a new
appendix D2, DOE is also including this clarification in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.1.
The California IOUs commented that the current method for measuring
drum capacity requires a technician to line the clothes dryer drum with
a plastic bag and then fill the lined drum with water while the clothes
dryer rests on its side on a scale. The California IOUs stated that
this procedure is burdensome, presents a risk of very large water
spills, and can introduce measurement errors because it is often
difficult for technicians to ensure that the plastic bag has completely
filled every extrusion inside the drum, particularly those just inside
the drum opening. The California IOUs stated that DOE should consider
the IEC method for drum volume measurement. (California IOUs, No. 22 at
p. 24)
DOE notes that the drum volume measurement method in annex E of IEC
Standard 61121 requires that the clothes dryer be placed on its side
with the door leveled horizontally. The drum is then filled with
specifically-sized table tennis balls without preventing the door
closing. In addition, the table tennis balls are stirred occasionally
to achieve the closest packing of balls possible and to eliminate void
spaces. The number of table tennis balls are then counted and used to
calculate the drum volume. DOE notes that this method could result in
variation due to test technicians stirring the table tennis balls
differently, and thus ending up with a different number of total balls
in the drum. DOE also notes that counting the table tennis balls may be
burdensome depending on the size of the drum. DOE notes that, if
conducted properly, the drum capacity measurement using water is not
significantly more burdensome that the drum volume measurement method
in IEC Standard 61121. As a result, DOE is not considering such
amendments to the drum capacity measurement method in today's final
rule.
5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range
Section 2.4.1 in appendix D and appendix D1 specifies that the
weighing scale for the test cloth shall have a range of 0 to a maximum
of 30 lb with a resolution of at least 0.2 ounces and a maximum error
no greater than 0.3 percent of any measured value within the range of 3
to 15 lb. Similarly, section 2.4.1.2 in appendix D and appendix D1
specifies that the weighing scale for drum capacity measurements should
have a range of 0 to a maximum of 500 lb with resolution of 0.50 lb and
a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the measured value. DOE
noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that it received an inquiry requesting
clarification of this requirement. DOE recognizes that scales for
weighing the
[[Page 49630]]
test cloth may have maximum capacity higher than 30 lb, but still meet
the requirements for resolution and maximum error within the range of 3
to 15 lb, as specified in the test procedure. DOE also recognizes that
a clothes dryer, when filled with water for the drum capacity
measurement, could exceed 500 lb. As a result, DOE proposed in February
2013 SNOPR to allow a higher maximum scale range, 60 lb for weighing
the test cloth and 600 lb for drum capacity measurements. DOE also
noted that the resolution and maximum error requirements would remain
unchanged. 78 FR 8992, 8993-8994 (Feb. 7, 2013).
AHAM stated that it did not oppose the proposal to increase the
maximum allowable scale range while retaining the resolution and
maximum error requirements. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 19) ALS opposed DOE's
proposal for the weighing scales, especially for the 600 lb maximum
range for the weighing scale used for drum capacity measurements. ALS
commented that a larger maximum range would be acceptable provided that
the scale's accuracy in the range where the measurement is being made
is calibrated to ISO 17025. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 5-6) As discussed
above, DOE is maintaining the resolution and accuracy requirements in
the range where the measurement is being made that are specified in the
current test procedure. DOE does not believe it is necessary to require
a calibration to a specific standard as long as the resolution and
accuracy requirements have been properly certified. For the reasons
discussed above, in today's final rule, DOE adopts the amendments to
sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D
and appendix D1 to allow a higher maximum scale range, 60 lb for
weighing the test cloth and 600 lb for drum capacity measurements,
while maintaining the current resolution and maximum error
requirements. In addition, because DOE is also amending the clothes
dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also
incorporating these provisions for the weighing scale in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D2, sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2.
6. Relative Humidity Meter
Section 2.4.4 in appendix D and appendix D1 specifies that the dry
and wet bulb psychrometer used for measuring the ambient humidity shall
have an error no greater than 1 degree Fahrenheit ([deg]F).
DOE noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that it received an inquiry
requesting clarification of this provision. DOE recognizes that
relative humidity meters may be an acceptable means to measure the
ambient humidity. DOE also recognizes that some humidity meters may
express error tolerances in terms of the dry and wet bulb temperatures,
while others express error tolerances in terms of percent relative
humidity. As a result, DOE evaluated how the 1 [deg]F
tolerance for the dry and wet bulb temperatures translates to relative
humidity. DOE determined in the February 2013 SNOPR, based on the
allowable range in ambient temperature (72 to 78 [deg]F) and ambient
humidity (40 to 60 percent relative humidity) specified in the DOE test
procedure, that a 1 [deg]F tolerance for the dry and wet
bulb temperatures would translate to a tolerance between 2
percent and 4 percent relative humidity. As a result, DOE
proposed that a relative humidity meter with a maximum error tolerance
expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements for the dry and wet
bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error tolerance of 2
percent relative humidity would be acceptable for testing. 78 FR 8992,
8993-8994 (Feb. 7, 2013).
ALS supported DOE's proposed requirements for the relative humidity
meter. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 6) Because DOE did not receive any comments
objecting to this proposal in response to the February 2013 SNOPR and
for the reasons discussed above, DOE adopts in today's final rule the
amendments to section 2.4.4 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D
and appendix D1 specifying that a relative humidity meter with a
maximum error tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the
requirements for the dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum
error tolerance of 2 percent relative humidity would be
acceptable for testing. In addition, because DOE is also amending the
clothes dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also
including this clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
D2, section 2.4.4.
G. Additional Test Procedure Issues
DOE received comments in response to the January 2013 NOPR and
February 2013 SNOPR regarding a number of additional issues related to
the clothes dryer test procedure. These issues are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Consumer Usage Patterns and Capabilities
DOE received a number of comments regarding changes to reflect
current consumer usage patterns and capabilities. NEEA and the
California IOUs commented that based on the NEEA field use data, the
drying energy consumption per-cycle in the field is different than what
is measured in the DOE test procedure. NEEA stated that real-world
drying times are longer and the energy used per load is greater.
According to NEEA, their field use data indicates that the average
annual energy use is 1134 kWh/year, which is nearly double what the DOE
test procedure produces. According to the California IOUs, the typical
annual energy use using DOE's proposed amendments to appendix D1 is 30
percent lower than values observed in the NEEA field study, which
ranged from approximately 830 to 1,100 kWh/year. The California IOUs
stated that the estimated clothes dryer energy use is 967 kWh/year when
using the appendix D test procedure, which closely approximates the
trends observed in the field data. The California IOUs stated that the
proposed number of clothes dryer loads per year reduces the estimated
annual energy use to 641 kWh/year, which is too low. (NEEA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 15-16, 17, 18; California IOUs, No.
22 at pp. 1-2)
The California IOUs commented that in terms of load size, typical
drying times, and the measurement of automatic termination, NEEA's
field study and the proposed test procedure in the January 2013 NOPR
are in fairly close agreement. However, the California IOUs stated that
the initial RMC, number of annual use cycles, field use factor,
temperature settings, load composition, and duct restriction are
substantively different, and as a result, a number of values derived
from these parameters (i.e., the adjusted per-cycle energy use, energy
factor, and estimated annual energy use) are significantly different as
well. The California IOUs commented that changes to the initial RMC,
field use factor, and number of annual use cycles are feasible to
include in the current test procedure rulemaking. (California IOUs, No.
22 at p. 6)
NRDC also commented that there are several aspects of the test
procedure that remain inconsistent with real-world use, including the
number of annual clothes dryer use cycles and the initial RMC, as
demonstrated by the recent NEEA field study, testing by Ecos for NRDC,
and more recent testing by Ecova. NRDC commented that, while these
issues are beyond the scope of the current rulemaking, DOE should
conduct a new rulemaking as soon as possible to address these issues to
better represent real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at p. 2) NEEA &
NPCC similarly commented that if DOE is unable to make appropriate
changes to the
[[Page 49631]]
proposed test procedures in the current rulemaking that would bring
tested energy use in closer agreement with a more representative
average use cycle as indicated by the NEEA field data, DOE should
initiate another round of test procedure and standards rulemaking as
soon as possible. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 4)
The following sections discuss the specific issues related to
consumer use.
a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles
The DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1,
section 4.5, specifies that the representative number of clothes dryer
average-use cycles is 283 cycles per year. NEEA presented data at the
February 2013 public meeting from a field study that it conducted in
the Pacific Northwest for a four- to five-week period during the winter
of 2012 indicating that the number of clothes dryer annual use cycles
is 428, and that the amendment in the January 2011 Final Rule to change
the number of cycles per year to 283 is not representative. (NEEA,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 17-18, 194-195) The California
IOUs also commented that the number of loads being dried per year is
greater than specified in appendix D1. The California IOUs commented
that, as a result, real-world energy consumption is higher, with a
greater potential for absolute energy savings. (California IOUs, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 196-198) NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs commented that the clothes dryer annual use cycles
should be adjusted upward to 337 based on the NEEA field study data.
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 13; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 10)
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that the RECS data alone
are not precise enough to use as the basis for the annual use cycles of
clothes dryers. NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that RECS
data are based on self-reporting of survey participants, who were asked
to recall and report on their typical laundry habits, rather than
relying on precisely metered laundry loads. NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs also stated that the ranges allowed for the responses
are too wide to produce accurate data on average use, and that the
clothes dryer data are qualitative and categorical in nature, further
introducing room for interpretation. NEEA & NPCC and the California
IOUs commented that the estimate of the fraction of clothes washer
loads that are dried is 124 percent based on NEEA data and not the 84
percent or 91 percent that DOE estimated. NEEA & NPCC stated that the
matching process between the monitored clothes dryer cycles and the
hand-written log entries for each load can lead to ambiguity in the
results of their analysis of the field data, but that the NEEA data
also show that people are often splitting loads that come out of the
clothes washer into two or more clothes dryer loads. (NEEA & NPCC, No.
21 at p. 13; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 7-8)
The California IOUs stated that they conducted a sensitivity
analysis on the RECS data to establish high, intermediate, and low
estimates of annual clothes dryer usage, using the distribution of
responses for each question to establish weighted averages of clothes
washer and clothes dryer use. The California IOUs commented that their
analysis showed that the RECS data could yield values as high as 363
and as low as 199 clothes dryer loads per year. The California IOUs
commented that DOE should consider existing field measurements of
residential laundry behavior to determine an appropriate estimate for
the number of annual clothes dryer use cycles, noting a number of
surveys with estimates for the average annual use cycles ranging from
224 loads per year to 545 loads per year. (California IOUs, No. 22 at
p. 9) The California IOUs stated that the NEEA field study, which
estimated 338 annual use cycles, is more reflective of the average U.S.
homeowner usage than the RECS data are for several reasons: (1) The 50
participants were metered for a longer period than other field studies
(including a total of 903 valid clothes dryer runs); (2) the NEEA study
was specifically designed to examine the energy use and behaviors
associated with laundry care in the Northwest region, including written
logs of clothes washer and clothes dryer use to corroborate metered
clothes dryer data; (3) NEEA captured a diverse sample of homes in its
study, whereas one earlier study was dominated by homes already
participating in energy efficiency programs that show a tendency to use
equipment less frequently; and (4) the estimates of annual clothes
dryer loads per year from the NEEA study fall in the middle of the
range of possible clothes dryer use estimates resulting from analysis
of RECS data. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 10) The California IOUs
commented that although a comprehensive study of typical U.S.
residential laundry behavior does not yet exist, the existing studies
provide a sounder basis for calculating clothes dryer cycles per year
than RECS survey data. The California IOUs requested that DOE adjust
its current assumption of 283 clothes dryer loads per year up to 336
clothes dryer loads per year, which both reflects findings of the NEEA
study and serves as a compromise point between current and pre-2011 DOE
duty cycle values. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 10-11)
AHAM opposed a change to the number of clothes dryer annual use
cycles. AHAM stated that DOE just completed a rulemaking in which it
determined that it was appropriate to decrease the number of annual use
cycles. AHAM commented that DOE should not reverse that determination
now, at least, not without further study and the opportunity for full
notice and comment rulemaking on the issue. In addition, AHAM stated
that it is not appropriate to make this change at this time given that
it will impact test results, thus necessitating an adjustment to the
standard, which should not be done during the 3-year lead time to the
January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 16)
DOE notes that the 283 clothes dryer annual use cycles specified in
appendix D1 was based on data from the 2005 RECS, which is a national
sample survey of housing units that collects statistical information on
the consumption of, and expenditures for, energy in housing units along
with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and
occupants. In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE estimated that the
fraction of clothes washer loads that go into the clothes dryer is 91
percent (not the 84 percent suggested by NEEA & NPCC). In addition, DOE
noted in the January 2011 Final Rule that the 283 annual use cycles is
fairly consistent with data provided by AHAM that referenced a study
conducted by Procter & Gamble (which estimated 279 annual use cycles),
as well as data from Whirlpool (which estimated 288 annual use cycles).
76 FR 972, 1010 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE also notes that the NEEA field
study does not appear to take into account users that may line-dry
certain laundry loads, which could potentially be due to the timing
(winter) and location (Pacific Northwest) of the survey. DOE recognizes
interested parties' concerns regarding the number of annual use cycles
based on the available field use data. However, DOE does not have
sufficient information at this time to make a definitive conclusion
regarding the number of clothes dryer annual use cycles. As a result,
DOE is not amending the number of clothes dryer annual use cycles at
this time in the limited scope of this test procedure rulemaking. DOE
may continue collecting and considering
[[Page 49632]]
available data on clothes dryer use and may consider amendments to the
number of annual use cycles in a future rulemaking.
b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content and Moisture Removed During Test
Cycle
The DOE test procedure in appendix D1 specifies that the initial
RMC of the test load shall be 57.5 percent. (10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D1, section 2.7) NEEA presented data at the February 2013
public meeting from a field study that it conducted showing that real-
world initial RMC is 80 percent. In addition, NEEA commented that based
on its field use data, the drying cycle times in the field are
different than what is measured in the DOE test procedure. (NEEA,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 15, 16, 194-195) The
California IOUs also commented that, based on the NEEA field data,
clothes are wetter when they come out of the clothes washer than DOE
estimates. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp.
196-197)
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that, based on the
NEEA field study data, initial RMC values below 60 percent are not
being realized in the field, and that their average (from a sample of
50 households that comprised 30-percent top-loaders and 70-percent
front-loaders) is estimated to be 62 percent. NEEA & NPCC stated that
this results in greater energy use and longer cycle times in the field
than is produced using the DOE test procedure. NEEA & NPCC added that
the initial RMC is largely independent of the dry weight of the test
load because: (1) Clothes washer users are not always selecting the
cycles that utilize the highest spin speeds available on their
equipment; and (2) if consumers do select those cycles, the clothes
washers are not always successfully balancing the loads sufficiently to
actually spin at the highest speeds. NEEA & NPCC commented that in many
cases, the machine is unable to balance the load after a long period
and simply spins at the highest speed that the suspension allows, and
they believe that this speed may decrease over time as the drum
suspension components wear. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3-4, 7-8, NPCC,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 114) NEEA & NPCC stated that
the RMC values seen in the field result in more time and energy to dry
a typical load than DOE's current test procedures would suggest.
According to NEEA & NPCC, the estimated average drying cycle time from
the field testing was 58 minutes. NEEA & NPCC also stated that there is
a positive linear trend between average drying time versus average
total moisture removed. Based on field data, NEEA & NPCC and the
California IOUs recommended that DOE change the initial RMC value to 62
percent 0.33 percent. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 8-10;
California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6-7)
AHAM opposed a change to the initial RMC currently specified in the
DOE test procedure at appendix D1. AHAM stated that DOE just completed
a rulemaking in which it determined that it was appropriate to decrease
the initial RMC. AHAM commented that DOE should not now reverse that
determination, at least not without further study and the opportunity
for full notice and comment rulemaking on the issue. In addition, AHAM
stated that it is not appropriate to make this change at this time
given that it will impact test results, thus necessitating an
adjustment to the standard, which should not be done during the 3-year
lead time to the January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 12-13)
DOE noted in the January 2011 Final Rule that the 57.5-percent
initial RMC was based on AHAM shipment-weighted clothes washer RMC
data, which was representative of all products on the market. In
addition, DOE notes that there is uncertainty in the initial RMC
estimates from the NEEA field study data because each laundry load was
not dried to determine the bone-dry weight, which is then used to
calculate the RMC of the test load. Instead, a fixed correction was
used to estimate the RMC of laundry loads from the NEEA field study.
DOE also notes that NEEA & NPCC's comment that initial RMCs below 60
percent are not being realized in the field appears to be contrary to
the data presented in their comments, which show that a large number of
laundry loads metered in the NEEA field study had initial RMCs of 60
percent or less (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 7). After considering this
information, DOE determined it is not sufficient at this time to make a
definitive conclusion regarding the value of the initial RMC of the
test load. As a result, DOE is not amending the initial RMC in this
test procedure rulemaking. DOE may continue collecting and considering
available data on clothes dryer use and may consider amendments to the
initial RMC in a future rulemaking.
The California IOUs stated that the amount of moisture being
removed better describes the work being done by a clothes dryer than
the dry weight of clothing in the load, and that the proposed test
procedure does not require the clothes dryer under test to remove as
much moisture as the field data suggests is typical. The California
IOUs stated that, as a result, the DOE test procedure underestimates
field clothes dryer energy use by 30 percent. The California IOUs
presented data showing that the amount of water removed during the
proposed automatic cycle termination test procedure is 4.6 lb, whereas
the NEEA field study data show an average of 4.5 lb of water removed
during the drying cycle. The California IOUs stated that the test
procedure will not be representative of field conditions unless the
total moisture being removed per load is greater, as suggested by the
field data. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 18-19)
DOE notes that the amount of moisture removed is controlled by the
weight, initial RMC, and final RMC of the test load. For the reasons
discussed in this section, DOE is not considering changes to the test
load weight and initial RMC in today's final rule. In addition, as
discussed in section III.B.3, the 2-percent final RMC threshold for the
automatic cycle termination test method was based on the data presented
in the Joint Petitioners' comment regarding RMC levels acceptable to
consumers. DOE also notes that the amount of water removed during the
proposed automatic termination test cycle for standard-size clothes
dryers must be at a minimum 4.7 lb to dry the load to just 2-percent
RMC (not 4.6 lb as suggested by the California IOUs), and thus most
clothes dryers will dry more than 4.7 lb of water during the test
cycle. DOE also notes that the data from the NEEA field study cited by
the California IOUs showing that on average 4.5 lb of water was removed
during the drying cycle appears to be contrary to the California IOUs'
comment that the total moisture being removed per load should be
greater. For these reasons, DOE is not considering changes to these
values that would revise the amount of moisture removed during the test
cycle.
c. Test Load Weight
The DOE test procedure at appendix D1 specifies test load bone-dry
weights of 8.45 lb and 3.00 lb for standard-size and compact-size
clothes dryers, respectively. As part of the test procedure amendments
in the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE changed the load bone-dry weights
for standard-size dryers from 7.00 lb to 8.45 lb based on the
historical trends of clothes washer tub volumes and the corresponding
percentage increase in clothes washer test load sizes (as specified by
the DOE
[[Page 49633]]
clothes washer test procedure). 76 FR 972, 977 (Jan. 6, 2011).
NEEA commented that the dry weight of real-world test loads, as
determined from its field study, is on average 7.4 lb. (NEEA, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 17) As discussed above, DOE notes that
there is uncertainty in the test load bone-dry weight estimates from
the NEEA field study data because each laundry load was not dried to
determine the bone-dry weight. Instead, a fixed correction was used to
estimate the dry weight of laundry loads based on the weight
measurements after the drying cycle from the NEEA field study. In
addition, it is unclear whether the NEEA field study included both
standard-size and compact-size clothes dryers and whether the
capacities of the clothes dryer models in the 50 households selected in
the survey are representative of all U.S. clothes dryer shipments. DOE
recognizes NEEA's concerns regarding the test load bone-dry weight
based on the available field use data. However, DOE does not have
sufficient information at this time to make a definitive conclusion
regarding the test load bone-dry weight. As a result, DOE is not
amending the test load bone-dry weight at this time in this test
procedure rulemaking. DOE may continue collecting and considering
available data on clothes dryer use and may consider amendments to the
test load bone-dry weight in a future rulemaking.
d. Exhaust Conditions
The DOE test procedure specifies in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D and appendix D1, section 2.1, that the clothes dryer exhaust
shall be restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator described in
section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1-2009.
The California IOUs commented that DOE should update the test
procedure in a new rulemaking to modify the exhaust cap diameter to
better reflect the duct restriction and airflow from recent NEEA field
measurements. According to the California IOUs, typical clothes dryers
operate with less-than-ideal venting and have greater duct blockage,
lower airflow, and correspondingly longer drying times than those
measured under DOE test conditions. The California IOUs stated that
this is due to lint accumulation in ducts, failure of users to clean
lint filters routinely, unsecured ducting, and long venting distances
in older homes. The California IOUs stated that NEEA's field study
confirms a wide range of air flow rates from clothes dryers,
representing various levels of duct restriction. The California IOUs
noted that air flow rates at the output of the vent were found to be as
low as 6 cubic feet per minute (CFM) and as high as 146 CFM, with an
average of 79 CFM. The California IOUs stated that this is
significantly lower than air flow rates of approximately 96 CFM that
they measured in the laboratory when a set of clothes dryers similar to
those metered in the field were tested under the current DOE test
procedure. The California IOUs developed a correlation of air flow rate
with the size of hole in an end cap, as allowed by the 2010 AHAM
procedure, and found that the NEEA field study average air flow rate
was reproduced for the average of four representative clothes dryers in
the laboratory with a hole diameter of 2\11/16\ inches versus the
current DOE value of 2\7/8\ inch diameter. The California IOUs stated
that DOE should update its airflow restriction in a new rulemaking to
better reflect conditions documented in the field. (California IOUs,
No. 22 at pp. 17, 19-20, 21)
DOE first notes that the exhaust simulator specified in section
3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1-2009, which is required for use in the DOE test
procedure, requires a hole diameter of 2\9/16\ inches, not the 2\7/8\-
inch diameter referenced by the California IOUs. As a result, DOE notes
that it is unclear whether the correlation between air flow rates with
the size of the hole was developed correctly to take into consideration
the 2\9/16\-hole diameter required in the DOE test procedure. In
addition, drum volume and shipments information were not made available
for the four clothes dryers used in the limited testing conducted by
the California IOUs, to determine whether airflow rates would be
representative of all clothes dryer shipments and household venting
configurations. Therefore, DOE does not have sufficient information at
this time to make a definitive conclusion regarding the exhaust
conditions. As a result, DOE is not amending the exhaust conditions at
this time in this test procedure rulemaking. DOE may continue
collecting and considering available data on clothes dryer use and may
consider amendments to the exhaust conditions in a future rulemaking.
2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight Measurement
DOE notes that 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2
and appendix D1, section 1.5 specify that the bone-dry weight means the
condition of a load of test clothes which has been dried in a clothes
dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, removed and
weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10-minute periods
until the final weight change of the load is 1 percent or less.
The California IOUs commented that DOE should clarify its
requirements for bone-dry weight measurements. The California IOUs
stated that the process for obtaining bone-dry weight is considerably
labor intensive, requiring technicians to iteratively dry test cloths
until their run-to-run weight variation is less than a particular
percentage. The California IOUs added that for a laboratory conducting
large numbers of clothes dryer measurements, the repeated bone drying
of test cloths can be burdensome. The California IOUs commented that
the current wording of the test procedure appears to require that
testers obtain new bone-dry cloth measurements for every clothes dryer
test. According to the California IOUs, test cloths shed very little
mass through the drying process (about 0.01 lb for every 10 drying
cycles) and so they question whether it may be acceptable for bone
drying to occur at a less frequent interval as long as the same test
cloths are used for every drying cycle. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p.
24)
DOE notes that if a commercial clothes dryer is used, bone-drying
test loads should only take two to three 10-minute drying cycles to
achieve a bone-dry state. In addition, DOE notes that the current DOE
clothes dryer test procedure does not require multiple test runs. As a
result, DOE does not consider the bone-drying process to be unduly
burdensome to conduct and, therefore, is not amending the bone-drying
process in today's final rule.
Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning
DOE notes that the current clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.8.2, specifies that for
ventless clothes dryers, before any test cycle, the steady-state
machine temperature must be equal to the room ambient temperature.
Section 2.8.2 also specifies that this may be done by leaving the
machine at ambient room conditions for at least 12 hours between tests.
The California IOUs commented that for testing laboratories
conducting a high volume of testing with limited test stations, the
requirement for ventless clothes dryers to leave the machine at ambient
conditions for 12 hours between tests when conducting repeated tests
can be burdensome and effectively means that only one test may be
performed per day. The California IOUs requested that DOE consider
alternate language that might enable shorter turnaround times when
testing ventless
[[Page 49634]]
clothes dryers. The California IOUs stated that, for example, drum or
cabinet air temperature measurements could be conducted after an
initial 6-hour period to determine whether a clothes dryer's internal
temperature is within 5 [deg]F of ambient conditions. If
internal temperatures are within the given range of ambient conditions,
testing would proceed. Otherwise, test technicians would need to wait
the full 12 hours until conducting another test. The California IOUs
stated that such provisions would greatly reduce the testing burden for
ventless clothes dryers. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 24)
As discussed above, the provisions specify that the steady-state
temperature may be achieved by leaving the machine at ambient room
conditions for at least 12 hours between tests. DOE notes, however,
that a 12-hour period is not required and, as discussed in the January
2011 Final Rule, other means used to achieve a steady-state machine
temperature would be acceptable under the test procedure provisions. 76
FR 972, 1007 (Jan. 6, 2011). As a result, DOE is not changing the pre-
conditioning requirements for ventless clothes dryers in today's final
rule.
Room Ambient Humidity Requirements
The DOE test procedures specify in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D, section 2.2 and appendix D1, section 2.2.1, that the room
relative humidity must be maintained at 50 10 percent
relative humidity.
The California IOUs also commented that the lab-to-lab variation
from DOE's testing with the DOE and IEC/AHAM test loads may be largely
attributed to the variation in ambient humidity. The California IOUs
commented that if the DOE were to change the test load composition such
that reproducibility and repeatability were lessened, DOE could change
other conditions in the test procedure to compensate, such as
specifying a tighter tolerance for the allowable humidity. The
California IOUs noted that it is relatively harder for the air coming
in to the clothes dryer to evaporate the moisture in the load if the
air has more water in it. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at pp. 70-72)
The California IOUs commented that they tested one clothes dryer
with moisture sensors near the extremes of environmental conditions for
temperature and humidity. The California IOUs stated that the high-
temperature, low-relative humidity scenario was only 1-percent more
efficient than the low-temperature, high-relative humidity scenario.
The California IOUs noted that other studies, such as data provided by
Whirlpool in chapter 5 of the 2011 DOE Final Rule Technical Support
Document, have shown the measured efficiency has a greater sensitivity
to ambient temperature and relative humidity. The California IOUs
stated their limited data to date on this topic do not suggest that the
range of allowable environmental conditions needs to be narrowed, but
they encouraged DOE to investigate this issue more thoroughly in a new
rulemaking as it seeks ways of minimizing run-to-run variability while
increasing the representativeness of the test procedure. (California
IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 22-23)
DOE notes that, in its tests, it did not require the ambient
conditions to be controlled any more tightly than required by the
current test procedure and that variations in the ambient humidity
would also have been present from test to test within a given test lab.
As a result, the effects of variations in the ambient humidity would be
equally present in both the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation. As a
result, DOE considers the difference in lab-to-lab reproducibility for
the DOE test load (3.0 percent) and the IEC/AHAM test load (4.7
percent) to be primarily attributable to the variation in test loads
from lot to lot. DOE notes that further tightening the room temperature
and humidity conditions may require testing to be conducted in an
environmental chamber to maintain the required conditions, which would
significantly increase testing burden. Based on the information and
test data available regarding the effects of the ambient humidity on
the measured efficiency, DOE is not amending the room relative humidity
requirements in today's final rule.
Measurement of Drying Cycle Time
The California IOUs commented that DOE should include a measurement
of drying time in its test procedure. The California IOUs indicated
that test labs can already determine drying time for timed dry and
automatic termination cycles from their data logs of power consumption
over time, but the DOE test procedure does not require it to be
reported. The California IOUs stated that various U.S. clothes dryer
manufacturers currently make widely different claims about drying times
for various models, each employing different assumptions about the size
and composition of the load being dried and the initial RMC. According
to the California IOUs, some manufacturers have made claims that
particular clothes dryer models can achieve energy savings of 40
percent or more, or can dry laundry in as little as 14 minutes, but
these results may not have been achieved under representative
conditions. The California IOUs stated that in the absence of
standardized guidelines for how to report drying times and energy
savings, manufacturers developed their own guidelines for marketing
purposes. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 11-12)
The California IOUs further stated that the link between energy
efficiency and drying times in clothes dryers has already been
established in laboratory testing. The California IOUs stated that, all
else being equal, a clothes dryer that reduces the heating element
temperature and modestly extends average drying times can save energy,
which is the basis for the optional ``eco-modes'' now being offered in
many new clothes dryers. The California IOUs stated that this will not
affect consumer satisfaction for loads that are not time-critical, but
that it may be an unacceptable tradeoff to many consumers. The
California IOUs stated that having an accurate measure of drying times
will help users purchase those models that can achieve energy savings
without sacrificing performance, and will help programs such as
ENERGYSTAR establish a reasonable upper bound for allowable drying
times for labeled products. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 12)
The California IOUs stated that recording and reporting drying time
will also encourage manufacturers to automatically terminate the drying
cycle promptly and as close as possible to 2-percent RMC, since any
additional over-drying would take more time and produce no consumer
benefit. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 12)
DOE notes that requiring the measurement of the drying time is
inconsistent with the EPCA requirement that a test procedure measure
the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost
of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As a result, DOE is not
adopting amendments to require the measurement and reporting of the
clothes dryer cycle time in today's final rule.
Effects of Proposed Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With
Standards
In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to
what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines
that the amended test procedure would alter the
[[Page 49635]]
measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable
energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In
determining the amended energy conservation standard, the Secretary
shall measure, pursuant to the amended test procedure, the energy
efficiency, energy use, or water use of a representative sample of
covered products that minimally comply with the existing standard. The
average of such energy efficiency, energy use, or water use levels
determined under the amended test procedure shall constitute the
amended energy conservation standard for the applicable covered
products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) If DOE were to amend an energy
conservation standard under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2), models of covered
products in use before the date on which the amended energy
conservation standard becomes effective (or revisions of such models
that come into use after such date and have the same energy efficiency,
energy use or water use characteristics) that comply with the energy
conservation standard applicable to such covered products on the day
before such date shall be deemed to comply with the amended energy
conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)) DOE's authority to amend
energy conservation standards does not affect DOE's obligation to issue
any final standards as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(4))
Active Mode
As discussed in section III.F, DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430
subpart B, appendix D in today's final only to clarify the cycle
settings used for testing, the requirements for the gas supply, the
installation conditions for console lights, the method for measuring
the drum capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the allowable
use of a relative humidity meter. Because the amendments to appendix D
would not change the actual testing method, DOE determined that these
amendments would not affect the measured efficiency according to
appendix D and would not affect a manufacturer's ability to demonstrate
compliance with the current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(h)(2).
As part of the January 2013 NOPR, because the January 1, 2015
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers are based on CEF as
measured according to 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix D1, DOE
investigated how the proposed amendments for automatic cycle
termination would affect the measured CEF. For the January 2013 NOPR,
DOE conducted testing on 20 clothes dryers according to the DOE clothes
dryer test procedure in existing appendix D1 and then according to the
proposed automatic cycle termination test procedure.\13\ The results of
this testing showed that specific models resulted in either a lower or
higher measured CEF as compared to the measured CEF using the existing
test procedure, ranging from a 27.4-percent decrease to a 20.4-percent
increase in CEF with an average of a 3.8-percent increase. DOE also
evaluated the effects of the proposed amendments for the products in
DOE's test sample that minimally comply with the existing energy
conservation standards (based on rated EF). The results for the 10
minimally compliant units in DOE's test sample showed a 27.4-percent
decrease to a 16.9-percent increase in CEF as compared to the CEF using
the existing test procedure, with an average of a 4.1-percent increase.
78 FR 152, 175-176 (Jan. 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ As discussed in section III.B.III.B.3, the proposed
amendments in the January 2013 NOPR included the 0.80 field use
factor for automatic termination control dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these results and consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) and
(2), DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that the
proposed amendments to the active mode test procedure will on average
not impact the measured efficiency as compared to the current test
procedure for models currently available on the market. As a result,
DOE did not consider amendments to the energy conservation standards
that will be required on January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176 (Jan. 2,
2013).
AHAM disagreed with DOE's determination that the proposed test
procedure's impact on measured efficiency is de minimus and that an
adjustment to the standards is unnecessary. AHAM stated that DOE's data
shows that the impact of the proposed test procedure amendments is
significant enough that it would be inappropriate for DOE to make the
proposed test procedure amendments effective until a future standards
change (i.e., subsequent to the January 1, 2015 standards). (AHAM, No.
17 at pp. 2-3, 11; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 172-
173)
AHAM commented that DOE's approach does not meet either the test
procedure ``crosswalk'' and lead time requirements for amended
standards or the procedural and substantive requirements and criteria
under 42 U.S.C. 6295. AHAM stated that the provisions in 42 U.S.C.
6293(e) do not contain the same rigorous economic and technical
criteria as in the standards provisions because changes in standards
stringency are intended to occur in a standards rulemaking only, not in
a stand-alone test procedure rulemaking. AHAM stated that in a future
joint standards and test procedure rulemaking, the basic criteria of
technical feasibility and economic justification, and the many sub-
economic and technical considerations, can be reviewed fully. (AHAM,
No. 17 at p. 3)
AHAM commented that test procedures should not be used to tighten
or loosen standards. AHAM stated that DOE must comply with 42 U.S.C.
6293(e), and if that would result in unlawful attenuating of lead time
and lock-in periods, then DOE should wait until a future standards
rulemaking is complete and integrate the regulatory processes. AHAM
stated that, should DOE proceed as proposed in the January 2013 NOPR
despite AHAM's opposition, AHAM would prefer that DOE include the 0.80
field use factor rather than exclude it because it would mitigate the
burden to manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 5)
AHAM commented that DOE's evaluation of the impacts of the proposed
test procedure revisions on the measured efficiency was not conducted
pursuant to any formal policy or guidance on how the evaluation under
42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is to be conducted. AHAM commented that without some
establishment of these policies and procedures, it is difficult to
evaluate whether the analysis was conducted properly or to determine
how to interpret its results. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 5)
AHAM members conducted testing on vented electric standard, vented
electric compact (240V), vented gas, and ventless electric compact
(240V) clothes dryers under existing appendix D1 and the proposed
appendix D1. AHAM stated that its test data, applying the 0.80 field
use factor, showed similar results to DOE's testing. In particular,
AHAM's testing under the proposed test procedure showed a 28.1-percent
decrease to a 13.1-percent increase in CEF as compared to the CEF using
appendix D1, with an average 0.63-percent increase in CEF. However,
AHAM stated that without a protocol for choosing which models to test,
a focus on individual product classes rather than clothes dryers as a
whole, and criteria for what is significant versus de minimus, the DOE
and the AHAM processes are both arbitrary. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 5-6)
AHAM disagreed with DOE's determination that an average 3.8-
[[Page 49636]]
percent (based on all tested models) or an average 4.1-percent (based
on minimally compliant models only) increase in CEF is de minimus, and,
thus, does not constitute an ``impact'' on measured efficiency. AHAM
stated that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)-(2) requires DOE to determine to what
extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured
energy efficiency and it does not say ``significantly alter.'' AHAM
noted that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) specifies that if DOE determines that
the amended test procedure will alter the measured efficiency, the
Secretary shall (not ``may'' or ``shall under certain circumstances'')
amend the applicable energy conservation standard during the rulemaking
carried out with respect to such test procedure. AHAM noted that the
statute provides for an averaging process--which DOE has failed to
further define or clarify--that is required to determine the amended
standard. AHAM stated that there is no process to determine when not to
change the standard and that even if such de minimus determinations are
statutorily permitted, these data--even if accepted as an appropriate
sampling--do not support a de minimus determination. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 7)
AHAM commented that because the January 1, 2015 standards are 5
percent more stringent than the existing standard, it is not reasonable
to conclude that a 3.8-4.1 percent change in measured efficiency will
on average not impact the measured efficiency. AHAM and ALS commented
that the field use factor seems to have been selected to allow DOE to
meet what it considers a de minimus threshold. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 7;
ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
AHAM stated that it is improper to consider just an average impact
on measured efficiency, across all product classes combined, and that
DOE should instead assess the range of impacts. AHAM commented that
every clothes dryer, not just the average clothes dryer, must comply
with the standards and, thus, ranges of impact must not be ignored as
DOE assesses whether there is an impact on measured efficiency under 42
U.S.C. 6293(e)(1). AHAM commented that DOE and AHAM data under the
proposed test procedure show a wide range of effects on the measured
CEF as compared to the appendix D1 test results. AHAM commented that
even if DOE determined that the proposed test procedure changes impact
measured efficiency, it is unclear whether DOE should adopt test
procedure changes that would have this range of impacts during a 3-year
lead time or any time other than coincident with a standards
rulemaking. In this particular case, AHAM stated that it does not
believe it is appropriate to make such a standards change. (AHAM, No.
17 at pp. 7-8) According to ALS, it is unacceptable to have certain
models that cannot be certified or sold after January 1, 2015 because
Congress intended under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3) that every model that is
compliant before a test procedure change would be compliant after the
test procedure change. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) The California IOUs also
commented that there is a wide range in measured efficiency under the
proposed test procedure, and that although the effects on the measured
efficiency on average may be small, clothes dryers must qualify
individually. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at
pp. 169-171)
AHAM commented that DOE should assess the impact on measured
efficiency by product class. AHAM stated that product classes exist for
energy conservation standards because of important design, use, and
utility differences between products that impact energy use, and those
differences should not be ignored when assessing the impact a test
procedure change will have on measured energy efficiency. AHAM
commented that based on DOE's data, there are certain product classes
for which the de minimus argument does not hold, even if such
determinations are permitted and even if the field use factor is
applied (e.g., vented electric compact (120V) clothes dryers).
Furthermore, comparing the DOE and AHAM data by product class, AHAM
noted that the product class average impacts differ. For example, DOE's
test data show a 7.4-percent change for vented gas clothes dryers,
whereas AHAM's data show a 2.5-percent change in average CEF under the
proposed test procedure as compared to appendix D1 results. Thus, AHAM
stated that the overall averages are not comparable. (AHAM, No. 17 at
p. 8)
AHAM and ALS opposed the 0.80 field use factor for automatic
termination control dryers and noted that without that field use factor
applied, the data show that an adjustment under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is
necessary. AHAM noted that DOE and AHAM's data, when the field use
factor is removed, show an average impact on measured energy efficiency
of -16.9 percent and -19.5 percent, respectively, for the proposed test
procedure as compared to the appendix D1 test results. In addition,
AHAM again noted that for certain product classes, the average impact
is even more significant. AHAM noted that, for example, the impact on
measured efficiency for vented electric compact (120V) clothes dryers
in DOE's sample (of which there is only one) without the field use
factor applied is -42.0 percent as compared to the appendix D1 test
results. In addition, according to AHAM's data, without the field use
factor applied, the average impact on measured efficiency for vented
electric standard clothes dryers is -20.0 percent and the average
impact on measured efficiency for vented gas clothes dryers is -18.0
percent as compared to the appendix D1 test results. Furthermore, AHAM
stated that though the overall average impact on measured efficiency is
similar between the DOE data (-16.9 percent) and AHAM data (-19.5
percent), AHAM believes this is coincidental because the individual
product class averages which factor in to the overall average are quite
different. AHAM noted, for example, that the percent change for vented
gas clothes dryers is -14.0 percent based on DOE's data, whereas AHAM's
data show a -18.0-percent change as compared to appendix D1. (AHAM, No.
17 at pp. 8-10; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
Samsung stated that it conducted testing on units to evaluate the
effects of the proposed test procedure change on the measured
efficiency. Samsung stated that, in general, its test results are
within the data range of the DOE tests. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 4)
AHAM commented that DOE does not have sufficient data or a
transparent model selection process upon which to base either: 1) A
determination as to whether the proposed test procedure amendments
impact measured efficiency, or 2) a standards adjustment under 42
U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). AHAM stated that the basic models on the market
today are not necessarily the basic models that will be on the market
when compliance with the January 1, 2015 standards is required.
According to AHAM, many of those models are still in the design phase
and may have different platforms than those in current production. AHAM
stated, however, that its own data are similarly limited and did not
suggest how DOE could adjust the standard. As a result, AHAM
recommended that DOE work together with stakeholders to develop a
process for that adjustment. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 11)
AHAM and NEEA & NPCC commented that the anti-backsliding provision
in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) is not intended to apply to standards
adjustments done per 42 U.S.C. 6293(e). AHAM stated that, otherwise,
DOE could never address the
[[Page 49637]]
consequences of test procedure changes between standards changes. AHAM
also stated that if DOE does not apply these test procedure amendments
until the underlying standards changes in the future, this would no
longer be an issue. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 11; NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p.
15) NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice added that if DOE chooses not to
adjust the January 1, 2015 standards based on the proposed changes to
the test procedure, not only will it violate the provisions in section
42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1), but also the 5-percent energy savings estimated
for the January 1, 2015 standards could largely be lost. NEEA & NPCC
and Earthjustice stated that the 4-percent difference in energy use
when applying the proposed test procedure might be enough to allow most
of the models now in production to meet the standards and would be a de
facto weakening of the January 1, 2015 standards. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21
at p. 15; Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 3) ASAP also commented that a 4-
percent increase in CEF is not insignificant considering that the
January 1, 2015 standards will reduce energy use by about 5 percent
compared to the current standards. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 10 at p. 169) NEEA & NPCC commented that it is not clear whether or
not the testing conducted by DOE required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is
sufficient to properly calculate an appropriate adjustment to the
standard. NEEA & NPCC disagreed with DOE's determination that no
adjustment is needed. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 15)
Earthjustice commented that the January 2013 NOPR asserts that the
proposed test procedure amendments will not alter the measured energy
efficiency of clothes dryers, but this conclusion is contrary to DOE's
own findings that the proposed amended test procedure resulted in an
average increase in CEF of 3.8 percent and a 4.1-percent increase when
only considering the minimally compliant clothes dryers in DOE's
sample. Earthjustice stated that because DOE's testing confirms that
the amendments to the test procedures will alter the measured energy
efficiency of clothes dryers, EPCA requires that DOE adjust the
standards for these products. Earthjustice stated that nothing in 42
U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) suggests that DOE is authorized to determine that the
extent of any such alteration is insufficient to trigger the obligation
to adjust the standards and that the ``extent'' of any such alteration
determines the amount of adjustment required under 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2). Earthjustice noted that a final rule published on October
17, 1990 (55 FR 42162) reduced the required energy factor levels for
electric storage water heaters by 0.02 to account for the impact of
revisions to the water heater test procedure. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at
pp. 3-4)
Earthjustice commented that the need to adjust the standards might
be different if adjusting the standards under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would
have no impact on covered products. Earthjustice noted examples of the
dishwasher, boiler, and refrigerator test procedure amendments where
the change in the measured energy efficiency is so small that any
adjustment to the standard would not impact the compliance of any
covered products. Earthjustice commented that DOE has not suggested
that a 4-percent change in the level of the clothes dryer standards
would have no impact on the compliance status of covered models.
Earthjustice stated that DOE cannot conclude that a 4-percent reduction
in the stringency of the clothes dryer standards would have a de
minimus impact, given that DOE determined in the final rule adopting
the January 1, 2015 standards that a significant share of the clothes
dryers currently on the market perform just below the adopted
standards. Earthjustice stated that adding 4-percent to the January 1,
2015 standard for electric standard[hyphen]size clothes dryers would
enable many of the clothes dryers meeting the efficiency level below
the standards to then comply with the standards, reducing the energy
savings that the January 1, 2015 standards would otherwise have
delivered. To avoid this weakening of the standards, Earthjustice
stated that DOE must adjust them as 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) requires.
(Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 4-5)
NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice commented that anti-backsliding
provisions would not preclude amending the energy conservation
standards based on the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic
cycle termination. Earthjustice added that such an adjustment is
required to avoid backsliding. Earthjustice also noted that 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(4) provides that DOE's authority to adjust energy conservation
standards under this subsection shall not affect the Secretary's
obligation to issue final rules as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295.
According to Earthjustice, this provision means that any adjustments to
standards that DOE makes under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) do not count as
amendments to the standards that satisfy DOE's rulemaking obligations
under 42 U.S.C. 6295. Earthjustice stated that the adjustment process
established under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is designed to avoid de facto
reductions (or increases) in the stringency of standards by ensuring
that the impacts of test procedure amendments on measured energy
efficiency are reflected in the level of the standard and that
application of section 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) preserves the integrity of the
standards, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21
at pp. 14-15; Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 2-3)
NPCC commented that if the automatic termination field use factor
is not applied, more units in DOE's test sample would fail to meet the
January 1, 2015 standard than would pass. (NPCC, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 166-167) ASAP questioned whether, if DOE did
not adopt the field use factor, the standards would be adjusted so
that, on average, a clothes dryer that just complies with the January
1, 2015 standards under the current test procedure would still comply
with those standards under the new test procedure. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 168)
As discussed in section III.B.3 and section III.I.3, DOE is
amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B
to create a new appendix D2 that includes the testing methods for more
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. As
discussed in section III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2 will not be
required for use to determine compliance with the January 1, 2015
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE is not amending
appendix D1 in today's final rule to include these amendments for
automatic cycle termination. As a result, DOE determined that the
amendments for automatic cycle termination adopted in today's final
rule would not affect a manufacturer's ability to comply with the
January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers in 10
CFR 430.32(h)(3).
DOE is only amending the active mode test procedures in 10 CFR part
430 subpart B, appendix D1 in today's final to correct the calculation
of the per-cycle combined total energy consumption and to clarify the
cycle settings used for testing, the requirements for the gas supply,
the installation conditions for console lights, the method for
measuring the drum capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the
allowable use of a relative humidity meter. Because these amendments to
appendix D1 do not change the actual testing method, DOE has determined
that these amendments will not affect the measured efficiency according
to appendix D1 and will not affect a manufacturer's ability to
[[Page 49638]]
demonstrate compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3).
2. Standby Mode and Off Mode
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also investigated how the proposed
amendments for standby mode and off mode would affect the measured
efficiency. DOE stated that because the proposed amendments to the DOE
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix D1
for measuring standby mode and off mode energy consumption would not
alter the existing measure of energy consumption for clothes dryers
(EF), the proposed amendments would not affect a manufacturer's ability
to comply with the current energy conservation standards. 78 FR 152,
176 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE's amendments in the January 2011 Final Rule specified that
manufacturers will not be required to use the test procedure provisions
for standby mode and off mode until the mandatory January 1, 2015
compliance date of the amended clothes dryer energy conservation
standards. (10 CFR 430.32(h)(3)) The January 1, 2015 amended energy
conservation standards are based on CEF, which accounts for standby
mode and off mode energy consumption. In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE
investigated how the proposed test procedure amendments for standby
mode and off mode would affect the amended energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). DOE stated that the proposed changes
to the testing methods for measuring standby mode and off mode energy
consumption do not vary significantly from the methods in the amended
DOE clothes dryer test procedure in appendix D1 for measuring standby
power and would not alter the measured efficiency. To confirm this
assertion, DOE conducted testing on four clothes dryers (three of which
minimally comply with the existing energy conservation standards)
according to both the existing appendix D1 and the proposed amendments
to appendix D1 for standby mode and off mode that are based IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition). The results showed that the measured
standby power was the same using both methods. Based on these test
results, DOE stated that the proposed amendments to the clothes dryer
test procedure for standby mode and off mode would not alter the
measured CEF. DOE, therefore, did not consider amendments to the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3) that must be met on
January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176-177 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE did not receive
any comments on this issue. In the absence of comments, and for the
reasons discussed above, DOE concludes that the amendments to the
clothes dryer test procedure for standby mode and off mode adopted in
today's final rule will not alter the measured CEF.
DOE's amendments continue to clarify that manufacturers are not
required to use the provisions relating to standby mode and off mode
energy use in appendix D1 to determine compliance with the energy
conservation standard until the compliance date of the amended energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers addressing standby mode and
off mode energy use on January 1, 2015. As a result, the test procedure
amendments for standby mode and off mode will not affect a
manufacturer's ability to demonstrate compliance with the current
energy conservation standards.
In addition, as discussed in section III.D and section III.I.3, DOE
is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B to create a new appendix D2 that includes the amendments for
standby mode and off mode. For the reasons discussed in section
III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2 will not be required for use to
determine compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers. As a result, DOE determined that the
amendments to appendix D2 for standby mode and off mode adopted in
today's final rule will not affect a manufacturer's ability to comply
with the current energy conservation standards for clothes dryers.
I. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
1. Test Burden
EPCA requires that test procedures shall be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. Test procedures must
also not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that the proposed amendments for
automatic cycle termination would change the test cycle for automatic
termination control dryers to require that a programmed automatic
termination cycle be used for the test instead of using the maximum
timed dry setting. DOE stated that the proposed provision to include
the cool-down period and to allow the clothes dryer to run until the
completion of the programmed dry cycle would likely be less burdensome
than the existing test procedure in which the tester is required to
monitor or make estimates about the RMC of the test load and
potentially run multiple test cycles to determine when to stop the test
to achieve the desired final RMC. For timer dryers, DOE stated that the
proposed amendments would use the same basic test method that is
currently specified in the DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1, except that the test cycle would be stopped
when the final RMC is between 1.0 percent and 2.5 percent instead of
between 2.5 percent and 5.0 percent. DOE noted that this would result
in a slightly longer cycle time, but the additional time would be
minimal compared to the overall time to set up and conduct the test.
For these reasons, DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR that the
proposed amendments to more accurately account for automatic cycle
termination would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE also noted
that the revised test cycle for automatic termination control dryers
would produce a measured energy use that is more representative of
consumer use because it directly measures the energy consumption of the
programmed automatic termination cycle. 78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM commented that the proposed changes to the test procedure
regarding automatic cycle termination controls would add significant
burden to manufacturers if implemented prior to the January 1, 2015
standards. AHAM indicated that manufacturers have already begun
designing products to comply with the January 1, 2015 standards using
the existing appendix D1 and that many manufacturers would have to
redesign their models in order to meet the standards using the proposed
test procedure, which would add an unreasonable burden on manufacturers
during the 3-year lead time. Thus, AHAM urged DOE not to make the test
procedure changes associated with automatic cycle termination controls
effective until compliance with future standards (beyond 2015) is
required so that the impacts on measured energy efficiency can be fully
considered. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 16)
The California IOUs commented that the burden for clothes washers
is greater than for clothes dryers. The California IOUs stated that, in
the past, clothes washers used significantly more energy than clothes
dryers and, thus, more testing to determine the energy use was
justified. The California IOUs commented that clothes washers have
[[Page 49639]]
improved significantly and that clothes dryers now use roughly three
times as much energy as clothes washers use on average, based on the
total average annual energy consumption in the field. The California
IOUs commented that greater test burden would be justified to determine
clothes dryer energy use because the clothes washer test burden has
been justified in the past and accepted by industry for what is now a
much smaller potential energy savings. (California IOUs, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 176-179) In response, AHAM commented that the
test burden of two completely different products (clothes washers and
clothes dryers) cannot be compared. AHAM stated that although clothes
washers and clothes dryers are linked products from a consumer and
product planning perspective, they are not similar products. Thus, AHAM
did not agree that because the clothes washer test procedure takes
longer to conduct, it would be acceptable for the clothes dryer test
procedure to take just as long. AHAM stated that increasing the testing
time for clothes dryers would increase testing burden on manufacturers,
irrespective of what the burden is for testing a different product.
(AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 16-17)
As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is amending the clothes dryer
test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B to create a new appendix
D2 that includes the testing methods for more accurately measuring the
effects of automatic cycle termination. The newly created appendix D2
will not be required for use to determine compliance with the January
1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE is not
amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include these amendments
for automatic cycle termination. As a result, DOE concludes that the
test procedure amendments and the compliance date for the January 1,
2015 energy conservation standards and corresponding use of the
appendix D1 test procedure will not be unduly burdensome. DOE is not
considering additional test procedure amendments that would increase
testing burden for the reasons discussed in sections III.B and III.G.
As discussed in section III.F, DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 in today's final rule to clarify
the cycle settings used for testing, the requirements for the gas
supply, the installation conditions for console lights, the method for
measuring the drum capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the
allowable use of a relative humidity meter. Because the amendments to
clarify the test procedures would not change the actual testing method
and provide additional options for instrumentations while requiring the
same resolution and accuracy, DOE has determined that these amendments
will not result in any added test burden on manufacturers as compared
to the existing DOE clothes dryer test procedures in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1. In addition, DOE is adopting
these same provisions in newly created appendix D2. As discussed above,
the newly created appendix D2 will not be required for use to determine
compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers. For the same reasons discussed above, DOE has
determined that amendments to clarify the cycle settings used for
testing, the requirements for the gas supply, the installation
conditions for console lights, the method for measuring the drum
capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the allowable use of a
relative humidity meter, will not result in any added test burden on
manufacturers.
With regards to the amendments for standby and off mode power
consumption, DOE concluded in the January 2011 Final Rule that the
amended test procedure would produce test results that measure the
standby mode and off mode power consumption of covered products during
a representative average use cycle as well as annual energy
consumption, and that the test procedure would not be unduly burdensome
to conduct.76 FR 972, 1020 (Jan. 6, 2011). The amendments to the DOE
clothes dryer test procedure for standby mode and off mode are based on
an updated version of IEC Standard 62301, IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition), which has been the subject of significant review and input
from interested parties and, thus, continues to be an internationally
accepted test standard for measuring standby mode and off mode power
consumption. In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that the provisions
of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) that it proposed to incorporate
by reference provide a means to measure power consumption with greater
accuracy and repeatability than the provisions from IEC Standard 62301
(First Edition) that were adopted in the January 2011 Final Rule. DOE
tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that the proposed
amendments would also provide measurements representative of average
consumer use of the product under test. 78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013).
DOE also noted that interested parties have commented that the testing
methods in IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) would not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. 77 FR 28805, 28812 (May 16, 2012); 76 FR 58346,
58350 (Sept. 20, 2011); 77 FR 13888, 13893 (March 7, 2012). The
potential for increased test burden for certain power consumption
measurements is also offset by more reasonable requirements for testing
equipment, while maintaining measurement accuracy deemed acceptable and
practical by voting members for IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition).
For these reasons, DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR
that the proposed amendments would produce test results that measure
the standby mode and off mode power consumption during representative
use, and that the test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. 78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013).
AHAM commented that incorporating by reference IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) will allow for optimal international harmonization and
will reduce testing burden. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) DOE concludes,
based on this comment and the discussion above, that the amendments for
standby mode and off mode adopted in today's final rule produce test
results that measure the standby mode and off mode power consumption
during representative use, and that the test procedures will not be
unduly burdensome to conduct.
Certification Requirements
DOE is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 6299 et seq. to enforce
compliance with the energy and water conservation standards established
for certain consumer products. On March 7, 2011, the Department
revised, consolidated, and streamlined its existing certification,
compliance, and enforcement regulations for certain consumer products
and commercial and industrial equipment covered under EPCA, including
clothes dryers. 76 FR 12422. The certification regulations are codified
in 10 CFR 429.12 and 429.21 (residential clothes dryers).
The certification and compliance requirements for residential
clothes dryers consist of a sampling plan for the selection of units
for testing, calculation procedures for determining a basic model's
certified rating, and requirements for the submittal of certification
reports. Because DOE introduced a new metric (CEF) in the January 2011
Final Rule, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to amend the sampling
provisions in 10 CFR
[[Page 49640]]
429.21(a)(2) to include CEF, along with the existing measure of EF, in
the list of metrics for which consumers would favor higher values. DOE
also proposed to amend the dryer-specific certification requirements in
10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to require manufacturers, when using either
appendix D or appendix D1, to provide an indication if the clothes
dryer has automatic termination controls and also to report the hourly
Btu rating of the burner for gas clothes dryers. DOE also proposed to
amend 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to require manufacturers, when using appendix
D1, to include the CEF and to list the cycle setting selections for the
energy test cycle as recorded in the proposed section 3.4.7 of appendix
D1 for each basic model.
ALS supported DOE's proposal to update 10 CFR part 429 to include
CEF. In addition ALS stated that it did not oppose reporting: (1)
Whether the clothes dryer has automatic termination controls, (2) the
hourly Btu rating of the burner, and (3) the cycle setting selections
for the energy test cycle. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) For the reasons
discussed above, and because DOE did not receive any comments objecting
to this proposal, DOE is adopting in today's final rule the amendments
to 10 CFR 429.21 for the additional certification and reporting
requirements presented above. Even though appendix D2 is not required
for compliance and representation purposes for the 2015 energy
conservation standards, DOE is adopting the methodology and allowing
for its voluntary use early at the discretion of the manufacturer.
Consequently, DOE is also adopting amendments to 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to
require manufacturers, when using appendix D2, to list the cycle
setting selections for the energy test cycle.
In addition, DOE is clarifying in 10 CFR 429.21(a)(3) that the
certified capacity of any clothes dryer basic model should be the mean
of the capacities of the units in the sample for the basic model. While
DOE believes this is current practice since the existing test procedure
and sampling plan require testing at least two units and measuring the
drum capacity individually for each, DOE is adopting this provision in
the final rule for clarity.
Compliance date of final amended test procedures
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that it proposed amendments to
the test procedures for clothes dryers in appendix D and appendix D1 in
10 CFR part 430 subpart B. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), effective
180 days after DOE prescribes or establishes a new or amended test
procedure, manufacturers must make representations of energy efficiency
using that new or amended test procedure. DOE stated in the January
2013 NOPR that, therefore, effective 180 days after the promulgation of
any final amendments to the test procedure based on the proposal,
manufacturers must make representations of energy efficiency, including
certifications of compliance, using either appendix D or appendix D1.
Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all representations,
including certifications of compliance, and may not use appendix D for
certain representations and appendix D1 for other representations. 78
FR 152, 177-178 (Jan. 2, 2013). See DOE's existing guidance on this
topic for additional information, available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/tp_faq_2012-06-29.pdf.
DOE stated that compliance with DOE's amended standards for clothes
dryers, and the corresponding use of the test procedures at appendix D1
for all representations, including certifications of compliance, is
required as of January 1, 2015. (76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011), 76 FR
52854 (Aug. 24, 2011))
AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS opposed the January 1, 2015 compliance
date based on the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic
cycle termination. AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS stated that a January 1,
2015 compliance date significantly undercuts the statutory 3-year lead
time provided to manufacturers for compliance with a revised standards
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)). AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS commented that
manufacturers would not have enough time to prepare for the upcoming
January 1, 2015 standards compliance date using a proposed revised
appendix D1 (except for the minor technical corrections), especially
because the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic cycle
termination effectively constitutes a new, revised standard due to its
significant impact on measured efficiency. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 3;
Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1-2; ALS, No. 16 at p. 2; AHAM, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 172-173)
AHAM commented that requiring the test procedure amendments for
automatic cycle termination for the January 1, 2015 compliance date is
problematic because EPCA ensures that compliant models in use prior to
the test procedure change and accompanying standards adjustment remain
in compliance after the change. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)) AHAM stated that
during the 3-year lead time to an amended standard, manufacturers may
have many basic models in the design phase that are not yet ``in use,''
and thus, may not be afforded the protections the statute was designed
to provide. According to AHAM, this will result in stranded investments
for manufacturers and could require manufacturers to redesign some,
many, or even all of the basic models that were already being
redesigned to comply with the January 1, 2015 standards using the
existing appendix D1. AHAM stated that the design process takes time,
and DOE cannot truncate that lead time provided by EPCA by effectively
engaging in a standards revision through the test procedure rulemaking
process. AHAM stated that DOE should not make standards changes that
impact measured energy as significantly as the proposed automatic
termination control amendments would during a lead time to amended or
new standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 3-4)
ALS commented that it has implemented significant design
construction changes to its products towards compliance with the
January 1, 2015 standards based on the current test procedure in
appendix D1. ALS stated that the proposed test procedure for automatic
cycle termination will require it to make significant new design
changes to its clothes dryers, which cannot be completed in the
remaining time before the January 1, 2015 compliance date. ALS
identified numerous preparatory steps that it must take to meet the
January 1, 2015 standards under the proposed test procedure.\14\ ALS
further stated that the investment it has already made may become
stranded because its designs
[[Page 49641]]
will not allow compliance under DOE's new proposed test procedure. ALS
commented that it is the low-volume manufacturer of residential clothes
dryers, and as such, any investment for DOE minimum standard compliance
normally impacts ALS disproportionally compared to the larger market
share manufacturers. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ These preparatory steps include, but are not limited to:
(1) Generate ideas and concepts to meet the minimum standard with
the new measurement method; (2) create prototypes for feasibility
testing; (3) conduct an initial design review to select the best
design path to pursue; (4) secure input from all cross-functional
areas (e.g., consumer marketing, sales, manufacturing, etc.); (5)
create the planned timeline with critical paths identified; (6)
create the output specifications (e.g., drawings, bill of material,
quality and manufacturing plan documents, etc.); (7) identify and
qualify suppliers for new parts; (8) procure prototype parts for a
assembling multiple prototypes of the full dryer for in-house lab
tests to confirm performance and reliability requirements can be
met; (9) conduct full reliability and performance tests in-house (9
months); (10) conduct field tests with consumers, to learn of any
unknown deficiencies; (11) conduct a validation and verification
design review for commitment to procure production tooling &
equipment; (12) procure production tooling and equipment (usually
takes 1 year); (13) react to any unanticipated issues learned from
continued testing; (14) secure all agency approvals; (15) qualify
production tooling and equipment; (16) conduct factory pilot runs
using new tooling and equipment; (17) conduct final design and
safety review; and (18) commit to starting production. (ALS, No. 16
at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool commented that, based on the data presented in the
January 2013 NOPR, the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic
cycle termination will likely require a major switch from
electromechanical to electronic controls for some basic models.
Whirlpool indicated that this is not a simple or low-cost change, and
that even with this significant change in technology, it would not
necessarily ensure that a product would be compliant. Whirlpool stated
that such an upgrade is a complete redesign, in many cases requiring
manufacturers to engage in every phase of the design process.
(Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1-2)
AHAM commented that DOE should not proceed with the proposed test
procedure amendments on the proposed timeline. AHAM commented that if
DOE moves forward with the proposed automatic termination control
amendments, the changes to appendix D1 must not be required for
compliance with the January 1, 2015 standards. Instead, AHAM urged that
the proposed amendments not be required until a future standards
revision, during which the impact on measured efficiency can be more
fully analyzed in an integrated analysis of the effects of both
standards and test procedure changes under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B).
AHAM commented that, given the significant impact on measured
efficiency, compounded by the disparate impact on individual basic
models and product classes as demonstrated by the range of impacts on
measured efficiency, DOE should not require the use of the automatic
termination control test procedure for compliance with the January 1,
2015 standards. Even if DOE were to adjust the standards pursuant to
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)), AHAM stated that the statutory 3-year lead-
time would be undercut. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 4, 10-11)
Samsung suggested that if DOE determines that manufacturers of
units that tested with a lower final RMC and consumed more energy would
require more time to make the required refinements to the drying
algorithm, such units should be covered under the EPCA grandfathering
provision (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)). Samsung stated that DOE should not
delay the proposed automatic cycle termination test procedure until the
next standard change, which could be 2020, thereby potentially delaying
the possible energy savings by 5 years or more. Samsung supported the
compliance date of January 1, 2015, noting that the proposed test
procedure would reflect the real-world energy use of clothes dryers
having automatic cycle termination. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates, NRDC, and SEDI urged DOE to publish
a final rule for this rulemaking as soon as possible so that
manufacturers have adequate lead time before the January 1, 2015
standards. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 20 at
p. 2; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates added that
the consensus standards for clothes dryers were based on the assumption
that significant additional energy savings would be achieved through a
change to the test procedure to capture the effectiveness of automatic
termination controls. The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that it is
important that the proposed test procedure amendments take effect with
the January 1, 2015 standards to realize these additional energy
savings. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3)
DOE is not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include
the amendments for measuring the effects of automatic cycle
termination. DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in
appendix D1 to include the amendments for standby mode and off mode,
the technical correction to the per-cycle combined total energy
consumption, the clarifications to the test conditions, and the
amendments to address the additional test procedure issues, as
discussed in section III.D through section III.G. As discussed in
section III.H, these amendments to appendix D1 will not affect a
manufacturer's ability to comply with the January 1, 2015 standards. As
discussed above, compliance with DOE's amended standards for clothes
dryers, and corresponding use of the test procedures at appendix D1 for
all representations, including certifications of compliance, is
required as of January 1, 2015.
However, DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B to create a new appendix D2 that includes the
testing methods for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic
cycle termination. The newly created appendix D2 will not be required
for use to determine compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE will continue to
evaluate products on the market and collect data on clothes dryer
automatic cycle termination. However, manufacturers may elect to use
appendix D2 early to show compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. 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 (Aug. 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://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
In conducting this review, DOE first determined the potential
number of affected small entities. The Small Business Administration
(SBA) considers an entity to be a small business if, together with its
affiliates, it employs fewer than the threshold number of workers
specified in 13 CFR part 121 according to the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes. The SBA's Table of Size Standards
is available at: https://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. The threshold number for NAICS
classification 335224, Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing, which
includes clothes dryer manufacturers, is 1,000 employees.
DOE determined that most of the manufacturers supplying clothes
dryers
[[Page 49642]]
are large multinational corporations. As part of the most recent energy
conservation standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers, DOE
requested comment on whether there are any manufacturer subgroups,
including potential small businesses, that it should consider for its
analyses. DOE received a comment from one business stating that it
should be considered a small business. 77 FR 22454, 22521 (April 21,
2011).
DOE then conducted a market survey in which it reviewed the AHAM
membership directory, product databases (the Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute; AHAM; California Energy Commission; and
ENERGY STAR databases), individual company Web sites, and the SBA
dynamic small business search \15\ to find potential small business
manufacturers. During manufacturer interviews and at DOE public
meetings for the energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE asked
interested parties and industry representatives if they were aware of
any other small business manufacturers. DOE also contacted various
companies, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA's
definition of a small business manufacturer of covered residential
clothes dryers. DOE screened out companies that did not offer products
covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the definition of a ``small
business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is
available online at: https://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initially identified at least 14 manufacturers of residential
clothes dryers that sold products in the United States. DOE determined
that 13 of these companies exceeded the SBA's maximum number of
employees. Thus, DOE identified only one small business manufacturer of
residential clothes dryers. This small business has developed a drying
technology that it installs on existing clothes dryers. DOE notes that
this small business currently offers for sale two clothes dryer models
with its drying technology installed. Accordingly, DOE considered the
economic impacts of the proposed test procedure amendments on this one
small business manufacturer.
For active mode, as discussed in section III.F, DOE is amending 10
CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 to clarify: (1) The
cycle settings used for the test cycle, (2) the requirements for the
gas supply for gas clothes dryers, (3) the installation conditions for
console lights, (4) the method for measuring the drum capacity, (5) the
maximum allowable scale range, and (6) the allowable use of a relative
humidity meter. DOE determined that because these test procedure
amendments do not change the actual testing method or time required for
testing and provide additional options for instrumentation while
requiring the same resolution and accuracy, these amendments will not
result in any added test burden on manufacturers as compared to the
existing DOE clothes dryer test procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D and appendix D1.
For standby mode and off mode, DOE has determined that the test
procedure amendments adopted in today's final rule, presented in
section III.D, will not represent a significant economic impact. DOE
notes that industry-standard instruments, such as the Yokogawa WT210/
WT230 digital power meter, that meet the standby mode and off mode
requirements of the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, also meet the requirements of the
amendments for standby mode and off mode adopted in today's final rule.
DOE also notes that these tests can be conducted in the same facilities
used for the current standby mode and off mode testing of these
products, so it is anticipated that manufacturers would not incur any
additional facilities costs as a result of the test procedure
amendments. As a result, DOE does not expect any increase in testing
equipment costs based on the standby mode and off mode test procedure
amendments. DOE also notes that the duration of a standby mode or off
mode test period using the current test procedure in appendix D1 is 40
to 50 minutes. As discussed in section III.D, DOE recognizes that the
test duration using the standby and off mode test procedure adopted in
today's final rule may range from 15 minutes to 3 hours depending on
the stability of the measured power consumption. However, based on
DOE's testing of four clothes dryers from four different manufacturers
comprising over 78 percent of the total clothes dryer market share, DOE
expects the test duration using the standby and off mode test procedure
adopted in today's final rule to be approximately 30 to 45 minutes for
the majority of clothes dryers currently available on the market. DOE
also notes that most third party testing laboratories already use these
or similar industry-standard power meters for clothes dryer testing. As
a result, if the small manufacturer decides to use a third party
testing laboratory, DOE does not expect there to be an increase in cost
for standby mode and off mode testing. In addition, as discussed in
section III.I.1, interested parties have commented that incorporating
by reference IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) will allow for optimal
international harmonization and will reduce testing burden.
For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that this final rule
will 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 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).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of clothes dryers must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according
to the DOE test procedures for clothes dryers, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including clothes dryers.
(76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to
average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for residential
clothes dryers. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of
actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
[[Page 49643]]
seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will
not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is
covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D,
which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing
rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations for energy conservation for the products that are the
subject of today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption
from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's
final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2)
[[Page 49644]]
is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it will not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
Today's final rule incorporates testing methods contained in the
commercial standard, IEC Standard 62301, ``Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Edition 2.0, 2011-01. DOE
has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully
complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, i.e.,
whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review. DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has
received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Section 429.21 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 429.21 Residential clothes dryers.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the energy factor, combined energy
factor, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for
which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal
to the lower of:
* * * * *
(3) The capacity of a basic model reported in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be the mean of the capacities
measured for each tested unit of the basic model.
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall
include the following public product-specific information: When using
appendix D, the energy factor in pounds per kilowatt hours (lb/kWh),
the capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for
electric dryers only), an indication if the dryer has automatic
termination controls, and the hourly British thermal unit (Btu) rating
of the burner (for gas dryers only); when using appendix D1, the
combined energy factor in pounds per kilowatt hours (lb/kWh), the
capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for electric
dryers only), an indication if the dryer has automatic termination
controls, and the hourly Btu rating of the burner (for gas dryers
only); when using appendix D2, the combined energy factor in pounds per
kilowatt hours (lb/kWh), the capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the
voltage in volts (V) (for electric dryers only), an indication if the
dryer has automatic termination controls, the hourly Btu rating of the
burner (for gas dryers only), and a list of the cycle setting
selections for the energy test cycle as recorded in section 3.4.7 of
appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430.
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.3 [Amended]
0
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Adding ``and D2'' after ``appendix D1'' in paragraph (h)(4).
0
b. Removing ``appendix D1,'' from paragraph (m)(1); and
0
c. Adding ``D1,'' and ``D2,'' after ``appendices C1,'' in (m)(2).
0
5. Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the Note after the appendix heading;
0
b. Revising sections 2.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.4
in section 2. Test Conditions; and
0
c. Revising sections 3.1 and 3.3 in section 3. Test Methods and
Measurements.
The revisions read as follows:
[[Page 49645]]
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: Effective February 10, 2014, manufacturers must make
representations of energy efficiency, including certifications of
compliance, using appendix D. Compliance with DOE's amended
standards for clothes dryers, and corresponding use of the test
procedures at appendix D1 for all representations, including
certifications of compliance, is required as of January 1, 2015.
Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all representations,
including certifications of compliance, and may not use appendix D
for certain representations and appendix D1 for other
representations. The procedures in appendix D2 need not be performed
to determine compliance with energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers at this time. However, manufacturers may elect to use
the amended appendix D, D1 or D2 early.
* * * * *
2. Testing Conditions
2.1 Installation. Install the clothes dryer in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions as shipped with the unit. If the
manufacturer's instructions do not specify the installation
requirements for a certain component, it shall be tested in the as-
shipped condition. The dryer exhaust shall be restricted by adding
the AHAM exhaust simulator described in 3.3.5 of HLD-1. All external
joints should be taped to avoid air leakage. Disconnect all lights,
such as task lights, that do not provide any information related to
the drying process on the clothes dryer and that do not consume more
than 10 watts during the clothes dryer test cycle. Control setting
indicator lights showing the cycle progression, temperature or
dryness settings, or other cycle functions that cannot be turned off
during the test cycle shall not be disconnected during the active
mode test cycle.
* * * * *
2.3.2 Gas supply.
2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes
dryer at a normal inlet test pressure immediately ahead of all
controls at 7 to 10 inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is
equipped with a gas appliance pressure regulator, the regulator
outlet pressure at the normal test pressure shall be within 10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as
necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The natural gas
supplied should have a heating value of approximately 1,025 Btus per
standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in
Btus per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the
test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the
manufacturer conducting the test using a standard continuous flow
calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of
bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as
accurate a rating as could be obtained from measurements with a
standard continuous flow calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes
dryer at a normal inlet test pressure immediately ahead of all
controls at 11 to 13 inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is
equipped with a gas appliance pressure regulator, the regulator
outlet pressure at the normal test pressure shall be within 10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as
necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The propane gas
supplied should have a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btus per
standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, Hp, in
Btus per standard cubic foot, for the propane gas to be used in the
test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the
manufacturer conducting the test using a standard continuous flow
calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of
bottled gas whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as accurate
a rating as could be obtained from measurement with a standard
continuous calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
* * * * *
2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a
range of 0 to a maximum of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least
0.2 ounces and a maximum error no greater than 0.3 percent of any
measured value within the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity measurements. The scale
should have a range of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with resolution
of 0.50 pounds and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of
the measured value.
* * * * *
2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F. A relative humidity meter with a maximum
error tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements
for the dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error
tolerance of 2 percent relative humidity would be
acceptable for measuring the ambient humidity.
* * * * *
3. Test Procedures and Measurements
3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum capacity by sealing all
openings in the drum except the loading port with a plastic bag, and
ensure that all corners and depressions are filled and that there
are no extrusions of the plastic bag through any openings in the
interior of the drum. Support the dryer's rear drum surface on a
platform scale to prevent deflection of the dryer, and record the
weight of the empty dryer. Fill the drum with water to a level
determined by the intersection of the door plane and the loading
port (i.e., the uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with
the door seal). Record the temperature of the water and then the
weight of the dryer with the added water and then determine the mass
of the water in pounds. Add the appropriate volume to account for
any space in the drum interior not measured by water fill (e.g., the
space above the uppermost edge of the drum within a curved door) and
subtract the appropriate volume to account for space that is
measured by water fill but cannot be used when the door is closed
(e.g., space occupied by the door when closed). The drum capacity is
calculated as follows:
C = w/d +/- volume adjustment
C = capacity in cubic feet.
w = mass of water in pounds.
d = density of water at the measured temperature in pounds per cubic
foot.
* * * * *
3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes dryer at the maximum
temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the maximum
time setting. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect
the temperature or time settings shall be tested in the as-shipped
position. If the clothes dryer does not have a separate temperature
setting selection on the control panel, the maximum time setting
should be used for the drying test cycle. Dry the test load until
the moisture content of the test load is between 2.5 percent and 5.0
percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load, but do not permit
the dryer to advance into cool down. If required, reset the timer or
automatic dry control.
* * * * *
0
6. Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended:
0
a. By revising the Note after the appendix heading;
0
b. In section 1. Definitions, by revising section 1.11;
0
c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by:
0
1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.4.1,
2.4.1.2, 2.4.4, and 2.4.7;
0
2. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3;
0
d. In section 3. Test Methods and Measurements, by revising sections
3.1, 3.3, and 3.6; and
0
e. In section 4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements,
by revising section 4.6.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: Effective February 10, 2014, manufacturers must make
representations of
[[Page 49646]]
energy efficiency, including certifications of compliance, using
appendix D. Compliance with DOE's amended standards for clothes
dryers, and corresponding use of the test procedures at appendix D1
for all representations, including certifications of compliance, is
required as of January 1, 2015. Manufacturers must use a single
appendix for all representations, including certifications of
compliance, and may not use appendix D for certain representations
and appendix D1 for other representations. The procedures in
appendix D2 need not be performed to determine compliance with
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers at this time.
However, manufacturers may elect to use the amended appendix D, D1,
or D2 early.
1. Definitions
* * * * *
1.11 ``IEC 62301'' (Second Edition) means the test standard
published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'')
titled ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby
power,'' Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 430.3).
* * * * *
2. Testing Conditions
2.1 Installation.
2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both conventional clothes dryers and
ventless clothes dryers, as defined in sections 1.7 and 1.19 of this
appendix, install the clothes dryer in accordance with manufacturer's
instructions as shipped with the unit. If the manufacturer's
instructions do not specify the installation requirements for a certain
component, it shall be tested in the as-shipped condition. Where the
manufacturer gives the option to use the dryer both with and without a
duct, the dryer shall be tested without the exhaust simulator described
in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
430.3). All external joints should be taped to avoid air leakage. For
drying testing, disconnect all lights, such as task lights, that do not
provide any information related to the drying process on the clothes
dryer and that do not consume more than 10 watts during the clothes
dryer test cycle. Control setting indicator lights showing the cycle
progression, temperature or dryness settings, or other cycle functions
that cannot be turned off during the test cycle shall not be
disconnected during the active mode test cycle. For standby and off
mode testing, the clothes dryer shall also be installed in accordance
with section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3), disregarding the
provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification,
and testing of relevant modes. For standby and off mode testing, all
lighting systems shall remain connected.
2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers. For conventional clothes dryers,
as defined in section 1.7 of this appendix, the dryer exhaust shall be
restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator described in section
3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3).
2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless clothes dryers, as
defined in section 1.19, the dryer shall be tested without the AHAM
exhaust simulator. If the manufacturer gives the option to use a
ventless clothes dryer, with or without a condensation box, the dryer
shall be tested with the condensation box installed. For ventless
clothes dryers, the condenser unit of the dryer must remain in place
and not be taken out of the dryer for any reason between tests.
* * * * *
2.2.2 For standby and off mode testing, maintain room ambient air
temperature conditions as specified in section 4, paragraph 4.2 of IEC
62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3)
* * * * *
2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. For the clothes dryer standby mode
and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage waveform
indicated in section 4, paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3). If the power measuring
instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record the total
harmonic content during the test measurement period, it is acceptable
to measure and record the total harmonic content immediately before and
after the test measurement period.
2.3.2 Gas supply.
2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes dryer
immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 to 10 inches of
water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas appliance
pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an outlet
pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within 10
percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as necessary
to achieve the required Btu rating. The natural gas supplied should
have a heating value of approximately 1,025 Btus per standard cubic
foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in Btus per standard
cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the test shall be
obtained either from measurements made by the manufacturer conducting
the test using a standard continuous flow calorimeter as described in
section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled natural gas whose Btu
rating is certified to be at least as accurate a rating as could be
obtained from measurements with a standard continuous flow calorimeter
as described in section 2.4.6.
2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes dryer
immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 11 to 13 inches of
water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas appliance
pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an outlet
pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within 10
percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as necessary
to achieve the required Btu rating. The propane gas supplied should
have a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btus per standard cubic
foot. The actual heating value, Hp, in Btus per standard
cubic foot, for the propane gas to be used in the test shall be
obtained either from measurements made by the manufacturer conducting
the test using a standard continuous flow calorimeter as described in
section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating is
certified to be at least as accurate a rating as could be obtained from
measurement with a standard continuous calorimeter as described in
section 2.4.6.
* * * * *
2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a range
of 0 to a maximum of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 0.2 ounces
and a maximum error no greater than 0.3
[[Page 49647]]
percent of any measured value within the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity measurements. The scale
should have a range of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with resolution of
0.50 pounds and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the
measured value.
* * * * *
2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F. A relative humidity meter with a maximum error
tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements for the
dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error tolerance of
2 percent relative humidity would be acceptable for
measuring the ambient humidity.
* * * * *
2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used to
measure standby mode and off mode power consumption shall meet the
requirements specified in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3). If the power
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record
the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio during the
test measurement period, it is acceptable to measure the crest factor,
power factor, and maximum current ratio immediately before and after
the test measurement period.
* * * * *
3. Test Procedures and Measurements
3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum capacity by sealing all
openings in the drum except the loading port with a plastic bag, and
ensuring that all corners and depressions are filled and that there are
no extrusions of the plastic bag through any openings in the interior
of the drum. Support the dryer's rear drum surface on a platform scale
to prevent deflection of the drum surface, and record the weight of the
empty dryer. Fill the drum with water to a level determined by the
intersection of the door plane and the loading port (i.e., the
uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with the door seal).
Record the temperature of the water and then the weight of the dryer
with the added water and then determine the mass of the water in
pounds. Add the appropriate volume to account for any space in the drum
interior not measured by water fill (e.g., the space above the
uppermost edge of the drum within a curved door) and subtract the
appropriate volume to account for space that is measured by water fill
but cannot be used when the door is closed (e.g., space occupied by the
door when closed). The drum capacity is calculated as follows:
C = w/d +/- volume adjustment
C = capacity in cubic feet.
w = mass of water in pounds.
d = density of water at the measured temperature in pounds per cubic
foot.
* * * * *
3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes dryer at the maximum
temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the maximum time
setting. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect the
temperature or time settings shall be tested in the as-shipped
position. If the clothes dryer does not have a separate temperature
setting selection on the control panel, the maximum time setting should
be used for the drying test cycle. Dry the load until the moisture
content of the test load is between 2.5 and 5.0 percent of the bone-dry
weight of the test load, at which point the test cycle is stopped, but
do not permit the dryer to advance into cool down. If required, reset
the timer to increase the length of the drying cycle. After stopping
the test cycle, remove and weigh the test load. The clothes dryer shall
not be stopped intermittently in the middle of the test cycle for any
reason. Record the data specified by section 3.4 of this appendix. If
the dryer automatically stops during a cycle because the condensation
box is full of water, the test is stopped, and the test run is invalid,
in which case the condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run
from the beginning. For ventless dryers, as defined in section 1.19 of
this appendix, during the time between two cycles, the door of the
dryer shall be closed except for loading (and unloading).
* * * * *
3.6 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the testing
conditions set forth in Section 2 ``Testing Conditions'' of this
appendix. For clothes dryers that take some time to enter a stable
state from a higher power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph
5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference;
see Sec. 430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes dryer to reach
the lower power state before proceeding with the test measurement.
Follow the test procedure specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of
IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each possible mode as
described in sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of this appendix.
* * * * *
4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements
* * * * *
4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy consumption expressed in
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the per-cycle combined total energy
consumption, ECC, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and
defined for an electric clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ece + ETSO
Where:
Ece = the energy recorded in section 4.1 of this appendix,
and
ETSO = the energy recorded in section 4.5 of this appendix,
and defined for a gas clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ecg + ETSO
Where:
Ecg = the energy recorded in section 4.4 of this appendix,
and
ETSO = the energy recorded in section 4.5 of this appendix.
* * * * *
0
7. Appendix D2 is added to Subpart B of Part 430 to read as follows:
Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: The procedures in appendix D2 need not be performed to
determine compliance with energy conservation standards for clothes
dryers at this time. Manufacturers may elect to use the amended
appendix D2 early to show compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy
conservation standards. Manufacturers must use a single appendix for
all representations, including certifications of compliance, and may
not use appendix D1 for certain representations and appendix D2 for
other representations.
1. Definitions
1.1 ``Active mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is
connected to a main power source, has been activated and is
performing the main function of tumbling the clothing with or
without heated or unheated forced air circulation to remove moisture
from the clothing, remove wrinkles or prevent wrinkling of the
clothing, or both.
1.2 ``AHAM'' means the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers.
1.3 ``AHAM HLD-1'' means the test standard published by the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, titled ``Household
Tumble Type Clothes Dryers,'' (2009), AHAM HLD-1-2009 (incorporated
by reference; see Sec. 430.3).
1.4 ``Automatic termination control'' means a dryer control
system with a sensor which monitors either the dryer load
temperature or its moisture content and with a controller which
automatically terminates the drying process. A mark, detent, or
other visual indicator or detent which indicates a preferred
automatic termination control setting must be present if the dryer
is to be classified as having an ``automatic
[[Page 49648]]
termination control.'' A mark is a visible single control setting on
one or more dryer controls.
1.5 ``Automatic termination control dryer'' means a clothes
dryer which can be preset to carry out at least one sequence of
operations to be terminated by means of a system assessing, directly
or indirectly, the moisture content of the load. An automatic
termination control dryer with supplementary timer or that may also
be manually controlled shall be tested as an automatic termination
control dryer.
1.6 ``Bone dry'' means a condition of a load of test clothes
which 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.
1.7 ``Compact'' or ``compact size'' means a clothes dryer with a
drum capacity of less than 4.4 cubic feet.
1.8 ``Conventional clothes dryer'' means a clothes dryer that
exhausts the evaporated moisture from the cabinet.
1.9 ``Cool down'' means that portion of the clothes drying cycle
when the added gas or electric heat is terminated and the clothes
continue to tumble and dry within the drum.
1.10 ``Cycle'' means a sequence of operation of a clothes dryer
which performs a clothes drying operation, and may include
variations or combinations of the functions of heating, tumbling,
and drying.
1.11 ``Drum capacity'' means the volume of the drying drum in
cubic feet.
1.12 ``IEC 62301'' (Second Edition) means the test standard
published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'')
titled ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby
power,'' Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 430.3).
1.13 ``Inactive mode'' means a standby mode that facilitates the
activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote
control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous
status display.
1.14 ``Moisture content'' means the ratio of the weight of water
contained by the test load to the bone-dry weight of the test load,
expressed as a percent.
1.15 ``Moisture sensing control'' means a system which utilizes
a moisture sensing element within the dryer drum that monitors the
amount of moisture in the clothes and automatically terminates the
dryer cycle.
1.16 ``Off mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is
connected to a main power source and is not providing any active or
standby mode function, and where the mode may persist for an
indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the
product is in the off position is included within the clasification
of an off mode.
1.17 ``Standard size'' means a clothes dryer with a drum
capacity of 4.4 cubic feet or greater.
1.18 ``Standby mode'' means any product modes where the energy
using product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or
more of the following user-oriented or protective functions which
may persist for an indefinite time:
(a) To facilitate the activation of other modes (including
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer.
(b) Continuous functions, including information or status
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a
continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a
display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g., switching) and
that operates on a continuous basis.
1.19 ``Temperature sensing control'' means a system which
monitors dryer exhaust air temperature and automatically terminates
the dryer cycle.
1.20 ``Timer dryer'' means a clothes dryer that can be preset to
carry out at least one operation to be terminated by a timer, but
may also be manually controlled, and does not include any automatic
termination function.
1.21 ``Ventless clothes dryer'' means a clothes dryer that uses
a closed-loop system with an internal condenser to remove the
evaporated moisture from the heated air. The moist air is not
discharged from the cabinet.
2. Testing Conditions
2.1 Installation.
2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both conventional clothes dryers
and ventless clothes dryers, as defined in sections 1.8 and 1.21 of
this appendix, install the clothes dryer in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions as shipped with the unit. If the
manufacturer's instructions do not specify the installation
requirements for a certain component, it shall be tested in the as-
shipped condition. Where the manufacturer gives the option to use
the dryer both with and without a duct, the dryer shall be tested
without the exhaust simulator described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM
HLD-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3). All external
joints should be taped to avoid air leakage. For drying testing,
disconnect all lights, such as task lights, that do not provide any
information related to the drying process on the clothes dryer and
that do not consume more than 10 watts during the clothes dryer test
cycle. Control setting indicator lights showing the cycle
progression, temperature or dryness settings, or other cycle
functions that cannot be turned off during the test cycle shall not
be disconnected during the active mode test cycle. For standby and
off mode testing, the clothes dryer shall also be installed in
accordance with section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3), disregarding
the provisions regarding batteries and the determination,
classification, and testing of relevant modes. For standby and off
mode testing, all lighting systems shall remain connected.
2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers. For conventional clothes
dryers, as defined in section 1.8 of this appendix, the dryer
exhaust shall be restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator
described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 430.3).
2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless clothes dryers, as
defined in section 1.21, the dryer shall be tested without the AHAM
exhaust simulator. If the manufacturer gives the option to use a
ventless clothes dryer, with or without a condensation box, the
dryer shall be tested with the condensation box installed. For
ventless clothes dryers, the condenser unit of the dryer must remain
in place and not be taken out of the dryer for any reason between
tests.
2.2 Ambient temperature and humidity.
2.2.1 For drying testing, maintain the room ambient air
temperature at 75 3 [ordm]F and the room relative
humidity at 50 10 percent relative humidity.
2.2.2 For standby and off mode testing, maintain room ambient
air temperature conditions as specified in section 4, paragraph 4.2
of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
430.3).
2.3 Energy supply.
2.3.1 Electrical supply. Maintain the electrical supply at the
clothes dryer terminal block within 1 percent of 120/240 or 120/208Y
or 120 volts as applicable to the particular terminal block wiring
system and within 1 percent of the nameplate frequency as specified
by the manufacturer. If the dryer has a dual voltage conversion
capability, conduct the test at the highest voltage specified by the
manufacturer.
2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. For the clothes dryer standby
mode and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage
waveform indicated in section 4, paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3). If
the power measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure
and record the total harmonic content during the test measurement
period, it is acceptable to measure and record the total harmonic
content immediately before and after the test measurement period.
2.3.2 Gas supply.
2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes
dryer immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 to 10
inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas
appliance pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an
outlet pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within
10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer
in the installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever
the manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model.
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer.
If the requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner
within 5 percent of the rating specified by the
manufacturer cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas
inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be
modified as necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The
natural gas supplied should have a heating value of approximately
1,025 Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual heating value,
Hn2, in Btus per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas
to be used in the test shall be obtained either from measurements
made by the manufacturer conducting the test using a standard
continuous flow calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the
purchase of bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is certified to be
at least as accurate a rating as
[[Page 49649]]
could be obtained from measurements with a standard continuous flow
calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes
dryer immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 11 to 13
inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas
appliance pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an
outlet pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within
10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer
in the installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever
the manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model.
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer.
If the requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner
within 5 percent of the rating specified by the
manufacturer cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas
inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be
modified as necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The
propane gas supplied should have a heating value of approximately
2,500 Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual heating value,
Hp, in Btus per standard cubic foot, for the propane gas
to be used in the test shall be obtained either from measurements
made by the manufacturer conducting the test using a standard
continuous flow calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the
purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating is certified to be at least
as accurate a rating as could be obtained from measurement with a
standard continuous calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
2.4 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the
following instruments as appropriate.
2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a
range of 0 to a maximum of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least
0.2 ounces and a maximum error no greater than 0.3 percent of any
measured value within the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity measurements. The scale
should have a range of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with resolution
of 0.50 pounds and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of
the measured value.
2.4.2 Kilowatt-hour meter. The kilowatt-hour meter shall have a
resolution of 0.001 kilowatt-hours and a maximum error no greater
than 0.5 percent of the measured value.
2.4.3 Gas meter. The gas meter shall have a resolution of 0.001
cubic feet and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the
measured value.
2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F. A relative humidity meter with a maximum
error tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements
for the dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error
tolerance of 2 percent relative humidity would be
acceptable for measuring the ambient humidity.
2.4.5 Temperature. The temperature sensor shall have an error no
greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F.
2.4.6 Standard Continuous Flow Calorimeter. The calorimeter
shall have an operating range of 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot.
The maximum error of the basic calorimeter shall be no greater than
0.2 percent of the actual heating value of the gas used in the test.
The indicator readout shall have a maximum error no greater than 0.5
percent of the measured value within the operating range and a
resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading of the indicator
instrument.
2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used
to measure standby mode and off mode power consumption shall meet
the requirements specified in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3). If
the power measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure
and record the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio
during the test measurement period, it is acceptable to measure the
crest factor, power factor, and maximum current ratio immediately
before and after the test measurement period.
2.5 Lint trap. Clean the lint trap thoroughly before each test
run.
2.6 Test Cloths.
2.6.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test cloth shall be clean
and consist of the following:
(a) Pure finished bleached cloth, made with a momie or granite
weave, which is a blended fabric of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent
polyester and weighs within +10 percent of 5.75 ounces per square
yard after test cloth preconditioning, and has 65 ends on the warp
and 57 picks on the fill. The individual warp and fill yarns are a
blend of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester fibers.
(b) Cloth material that is 24 inches by 36 inches and has been
hemmed to 22 inches by 34 inches before washing. The maximum
shrinkage after five washes shall not be more than 4 percent on the
length and width.
(c) The number of test runs on the same energy test cloth shall
not exceed 25 runs.
2.6.2 Energy stuffer cloths. The energy stuffer cloths shall be
made from energy test cloth material, and shall consist of pieces of
material that are 12 inches by 12 inches and have been hemmed to 10
inches by 10 inches before washing. The maximum shrinkage after five
washes shall not be more than 4 percent on the length and width. The
number of test runs on the same energy stuffer cloth shall not
exceed 25 runs after test cloth preconditioning.
2.6.3 Test Cloth Preconditioning.
A new test cloth load and energy stuffer cloths shall be treated
as follows:
(1) Bone dry the load to a weight change of 1
percent, or less, as prescribed in section 1.6 of this appendix.
(2) Place the test cloth load in a standard clothes washer set
at the maximum water fill level. Wash the load for 10 minutes in
soft water (17 parts per million hardness or less), using 60.8 grams
of AHAM standard test detergent Formula 3. Wash water temperature
should be maintained at 140 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (60 [deg]C
2.7 [deg]C). Rinse water temperature is to be controlled
at 100 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (37.7 [deg]C 2.7
[deg]C).
(3) Rinse the load again at the same water temperature.
(4) Bone dry the load as prescribed in section 1.6 of this
appendix and weigh the load.
(5) This procedure is repeated until there is a weight change of
1 percent or less.
(6) A final cycle is to be a hot water wash with no detergent,
followed by two warm water rinses.
2.7 Test loads.
2.7.1 Compact size dryer load. Prepare a bone-dry test load of
energy cloths that weighs 3.00 pounds .03 pounds. The
test load can be adjusted to achieve proper weight by adding energy
stuffer cloths, but no more than five stuffer cloths may be added
per load. Dampen the load by agitating it in water whose temperature
is 60[emsp14][deg]F 5[emsp14][deg]F and consists of 0
to 17 parts per million hardness for approximately 2 minutes to
saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test load by
spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is between
52.5 and 57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. Make
a final mass adjustment, such that the moisture content is 57.5
percent 0.33 percent by adding water uniformly
distributed among all of the test clothes in a very fine spray using
a spray bottle.
2.7.2 Standard size dryer load. Prepare a bone-dry test load of
energy cloths that weighs 8.45 pounds .085 pounds. The
test load can be adjusted to achieve proper weight by adding stuffer
cloths, but no more than five stuffer cloths may be added per load.
Dampen the load by agitating it in water whose temperature is
60[emsp14][deg]F 5[emsp14][deg]F and consists of 0 to
17 parts per million hardness for approximately 2 minutes to
saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test load by
spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is between
52.5 and 57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. Make
a final mass adjustment, such that the moisture content is 57.5
percent 0.33 percent by adding water uniformly
distributed among all of the test clothes in a very fine spray using
a spray bottle.
2.7.3 Method of loading. Load the energy test cloths by grasping
them in the center, shaking them to hang loosely, and then dropping
them in the dryer at random.
2.8 Clothes dryer preconditioning.
2.8.1 Conventional clothes dryers. For conventional clothes
dryers, before any test cycle, operate the dryer without a test load
in the non-heat mode for 15 minutes or until the discharge air
temperature is varying less than 1[emsp14][deg]F for 10 minutes--
whichever is longer--in the test installation location with the
ambient conditions within the specified test condition tolerances of
2.2.
2.8.2 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless clothes dryers,
before any test cycle, the steady-state machine temperature must be
equal to ambient room temperature described in 2.2.1. This may be
done by leaving the machine at ambient room conditions for at least
12 hours between tests.
3. Test Procedures and Measurements
3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum capacity by sealing all
openings in the drum except the loading port with a plastic bag,
[[Page 49650]]
and ensuring that all corners and depressions are filled and that
there are no extrusions of the plastic bag through any openings in
the interior of the drum. Support the dryer's rear drum surface on a
platform scale to prevent deflection of the drum surface, and record
the weight of the empty dryer. Fill the drum with water to a level
determined by the intersection of the door plane and the loading
port (i.e., the uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with
the door seal). Record the temperature of the water and then the
weight of the dryer with the added water and then determine the mass
of the water in pounds. Add the appropriate volume to account for
any space in the drum interior not measured by water fill (e.g., the
space above the uppermost edge of the drum within a curved door) and
subtract the appropriate volume to account for the space that is
measured by water fill but cannot be used when the door is closed
(e.g., space occupied by the door when closed). The drum capacity is
calculated as follows:
C= w/d +/- volume adjustment
C= capacity in cubic feet.
w= mass of water in pounds.
d= density of water at the measured temperature in pounds per cubic
foot.
3.2 Dryer Loading. Load the dryer as specified in 2.7.
3.3 Test cycle.
3.3.1 Timer dryers. For timer dryers, as defined in section 1.20
of this appendix, operate the clothes dryer at the maximum
temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the maximum
time setting. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect
the temperature or time settings shall be tested in the as-shipped
position. If the clothes dryer does not have a separate temperature
setting selection on the control panel, the maximum time setting
should be used for the drying test cycle. Dry the load until the
moisture content of the test load is between 1 and 2.5 percent of
the bone-dry weight of the test load, at which point the test cycle
is stopped, but do not permit the dryer to advance into cool down.
If required, reset the timer to increase the length of the drying
cycle. After stopping the test cycle, remove and weigh the test
load. The clothes dryer shall not be stopped intermittently in the
middle of the test cycle for any reason. Record the data specified
by section 3.4 of this appendix. If the dryer automatically stops
during a cycle because the condensation box is full of water, the
test is stopped, and the test run is invalid, in which case the
condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run from the
beginning. For ventless dryers, as defined in section 1.21 of this
appendix, during the time between two cycles, the door of the dryer
shall be closed except for loading (and unloading).
3.3.2 Automatic termination control dryers. For automatic
termination control dryers, as defined in section 1.5 of this
appendix, a ``normal'' program shall be selected for the test cycle.
For dryers that do not have a ``normal'' program, the cycle
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes
shall be selected. Where the drying temperature setting can be
chosen independently of the program, it shall be set to the maximum.
Where the dryness level setting can be chosen independently of the
program, it shall be set to the ``normal'' or ``medium'' dryness
level setting. If such designation is not provided, then the dryness
level shall be set at the mid-point between the minimum and maximum
settings. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect the
program, temperature or dryness settings shall be tested in the as-
shipped position. Operate the clothes dryer until the completion of
the programmed cycle, including the cool down period. The cycle
shall be considered complete when the dryer indicates to the user
that the cycle has finished (by means of a display, indicator light,
audible signal, or other signal) and the heater and drum/fan motor
shuts off for the final time. If the clothes dryer is equipped with
a wrinkle prevention mode (i.e., that continuously or intermittently
tumbles the clothes dryer drum after the clothes dryer indicates to
the user that the cycle has finished) that is activated by default
in the as-shipped position or if manufacturers' instructions specify
that the feature is recommended to be activated for normal use, the
cycle shall be considered complete after the end of the wrinkle
prevention mode. After the completion of the test cycle, remove and
weigh the test load. Record the data specified in section 3.4 of
this appendix. If the final moisture content is greater than 2
percent, the test shall be invalid and a new run shall be conducted
using the highest dryness level setting. If the dryer automatically
stops during a cycle because the condensation box is full of water,
the test is stopped, and the test run is invalid, in which case the
condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run from the
beginning. For ventless dryers, during the time between two cycles,
the door of the dryer shall be closed except for loading (and
unloading).
3.4 Data recording. Record for each test cycle:
3.4.1 Bone-dry weight of the test load described in 2.7.
3.4.2 Moisture content of the wet test load before the test, as
described in 2.7.
3.4.3 Moisture content of the dry test load obtained after the
test described in 3.3.
3.4.4 Test room conditions, temperature, and percent relative
humidity described in 2.2.1.
3.4.5 For electric dryers--the total kilowatt-hours of electric
energy, Et, consumed during the test described in 3.3.
3.4.6 For gas dryers:
3.4.6.1 Total kilowatt-hours of electrical energy,
Ete, consumed during the test described in 3.3.
3.4.6.2 Cubic feet of gas per cycle, Etg, consumed
during the test described in 3.3.
3.4.6.3 Correct the gas heating value, GEF, as measured in
2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2, to standard pressure and temperature conditions
in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938.
3.4.7 The cycle settings selected, in accordance with section
3.3.2 of this appendix, for the automatic termination control dryer
test.
3.5 Test for automatic termination field use factor. The field
use factor for automatic termination can be claimed for those dryers
which meet the requirements for automatic termination control,
defined in 1.4.
3.6 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the testing
conditions set forth in Section 2 ``Testing Conditions'' of this
appendix. For clothes dryers that take some time to enter a stable
state from a higher power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph
5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes
dryer to reach the lower power state before proceeding with the test
measurement. Follow the test procedure specified in section 5,
paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each
possible mode as described in sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of this
appendix.
3.6.1 If a clothes dryer has an inactive mode, as defined in
section 1.13 of this appendix, measure and record the average
inactive mode power of the clothes dryer, PIA, in watts.
3.6.2 If a clothes dryer has an off mode, as defined in section
1.16 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power
of the clothes dryer, POFF, in watts.
4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements
4.1 Total per-cycle electric dryer energy consumption. Calculate
the total electric dryer energy consumption per cycle,
Ece, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined
as:
Ece = Et,
for automatic termination control dryers, and,
Ece = [55.5/(Ww- Wd)] x
Et x field use,
for timer dryers
Where:
55.5 = an experimentally established value for the percent reduction
in the moisture content of the test load during a laboratory test
cycle expressed as a percent.
Et = the energy recorded in section 3.4.5 of this
appendix
field use = 1.18, the field use factor for clothes dryers with time
termination control systems only without any automatic termination
control functions.
Ww = the moisture content of the wet test load as
recorded in section 3.4.2 of this appendix.
Wd = the moisture content of the dry test load as
recorded in section 3.4.3 of this appendix.
4.2 Per-cycle gas dryer electrical energy consumption. Calculate
the gas dryer electrical energy consumption per cycle,
Ege, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined
as:
Ege = Ete,
for automatic termination control dryers, and,
Ege = [55.5/(Ww -Wd)] x
Ete x field use,
for timer dryers
Where:
Ete = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.1 of this
appendix.
field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section
4.1 of this appendix.
4.3 Per-cycle gas dryer gas energy consumption. Calculate the gas
dryer gas
[[Page 49651]]
energy consumption per cycle, Ege, expressed in Btus per
cycle and defined as:
Egg = Etg x GEF
for automatic termination control dryers, and,
Egg = [55.5/(Ww -Wd)] x
Etg x field use x GEF
for timer dryers
Where:
Etg = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.2 of this
appendix.
GEF = corrected gas heat value (Btu per cubic foot) as defined in
section 3.4.6.3 of this appendix,
field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section
4.1 of this appendix.
4.4 Total per-cycle gas dryer energy consumption expressed in
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the total gas dryer energy consumption per
cycle, Ecg, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and
defined as:
Ecg = Ege + (Egg/3412 Btu/kWh)
Where:
Ege = the energy calculated in section 4.2 of this
appendix
Egg = the energy calculated in section 4.3 of this
appendix
4.5 Per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy consumption.
Calculate the dryer inactive mode and off mode energy consumption
per cycle, ETSO, expressed in kWh per cycle and defined
as:
ETSO = [(PIA x SIA) +
(POFF x SOFF)] x K/283
Where:
PIA = dryer inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in
section 3.6.1;
POFF = dryer off mode power, in watts, as measured in
section 3.6.2.
If the clothes dryer has both inactive mode and off mode,
SIA and SOFF both equal 8,620 / 2 = 4,310,
where 8,620 is the total inactive and off mode annual hours;
If the clothes dryer has an inactive mode but no off mode, the
inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 8,620 and
the off mode annual hours, SOFF, is equal to 0;
If the clothes dryer has an off mode but no inactive mode,
SIA is equal to 0 and SOFF is equal to 8,620
Where:
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours;
and
283 = representative average number of clothes dryer cycles in a
year.
4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy consumption expressed in
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the per-cycle combined total energy
consumption, ECC, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle
and defined for an electric clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ece + ETSO
Where:
Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of this
appendix, and
ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of this
appendix, and defined for a gas clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ecg + ETSO
Where:
Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of this
appendix, and
ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of this
appendix.
4.7 Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatt-hour. Calculate the
energy factor, EF, expressed in pounds per kilowatt-hour and defined
for an electric clothes dryer as:
EF = Wbonedry/Ece
Where:
Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight recorded in
section 3.4.1 of this appendix, and
Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of this
appendix, and and defined for a gas clothes dryer as:
EF = Wbonedry/Ecg
Where:
Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight recorded in
section 3.4.1 of this appendix, and
Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of this
appendix,
4.8 Combined Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatt-hour.
Calculate the combined energy factor, CEF, expressed in pounds per
kilowatt-hour and defined as:
CEF = Wbonedry/ECC
Where:
Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight recorded in
section 3.4.1 of this appendix, and
ECC = the energy calculated in section 4.6 of this
appendix.
[FR Doc. 2013-18931 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
