Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers, 31065-31082 [2020-09990]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
compliance decision for this federal
action.
Federal Assistance Programs
The title and number of the Federal
assistance programs, as found in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
to which this NOFA applies is CFAP
and 10.130.
Stephen L. Censky,
Vice Chairman, Commodity Credit
Corporation, and Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2020–11155 Filed 5–20–20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 430 and 431
[EERE–2016–BT–TP–0011]
RIN 1904–AD95
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating a data
collection process through this request
for information (‘‘RFI’’) to consider
whether to amend its test procedures for
clothes washers. As part of this RFI,
DOE seeks comment on whether there
have been changes in product testing
methodology or new products on the
market since the last test procedure
update that may create the need to make
amendments to the test procedure for
clothes washers. DOE also seeks data
and information that could enable the
agency to propose that the current test
procedure produces results that are
representative of an average use cycle
for the product and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct, and therefore
does not need amendment. DOE
requests comment on specific aspects of
the current test procedure, including
product definitions and configurations,
testing conditions and instrumentation,
measurement methods, representative
usage and efficiency factors, and metric
definitions. DOE also seeks comment on
any additional topics that may inform
DOE’s decision whether to conduct a
future test procedure rulemaking,
including methods to ensure that the
test procedure is reasonably designed to
measure energy and water use during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct. DOE welcomes
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
written comments from the public on
any subject within the scope of this
document (including topics not raised
in this RFI).
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 22, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2016–BT–TP–0011, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email:
ResClothesWasher2016TP0011@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2016–BT–TP–0011 in the subject
line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.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.
The docket web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket
Detail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011. The
docket web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section IV for
information on how to submit
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31065
comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
Mr.
Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
0371. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Scope & Definitions
B. Test Procedure
1. Connected Clothes Washers
2. Testing Conditions, Instrumentation,
and Installation
3. Test Cloth
4. Capacity Measurement Alternatives
5. Cycle Selection and Settings
6. Wash/Rinse Temperature Selections for
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
7. Usage Factors
8. Associated Equipment Efficiencies
9. Non-Conventional Features
C. Metrics
1. Energy Efficiency Metric
2. Water Efficiency Metric
3. Annual Energy Calculation
III. Other Comments, Data, and Information
IV. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
Residential clothes washers (‘‘RCWs’’)
are included in the list of ‘‘covered
products’’ for which DOE is authorized
to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) DOE’s
test procedures for RCWs are prescribed
at 10 CFR 430.23(j) and appendices J1,
J2, and J3 to subpart B of 10 CFR part
430. Commercial clothes washers
(‘‘CCWs’’) are included in the list of
‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) The
test procedures for CCWs must be the
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31066
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
same as those for established for RCWs.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) The following
sections discuss DOE’s authority to
establish and amend test procedures for
RCWs and CCWs, as well as relevant
background information regarding
DOE’s consideration of test procedures
for these products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’) 1
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy
efficiency of a number of consumer
products and certain industrial
equipment, among other things. (42
U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of
EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles,
which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
These consumer products include
RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) Title III,
Part C 3 of EPCA, added by Public Law
95–619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment. This equipment includes
CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) Both
RCWs and CCWs are the subject of this
RFI.
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of the
Act specifically include definitions (42
U.S.C. 6291; 42 U.S.C. 6311), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295;
42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require
information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296; 42
U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products and
covered equipment established under
EPCA generally supersede State laws
and regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b)) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(October 23, 2018).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
3 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products and
covered equipment must use as the
basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their
products or equipment comply with the
applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), and
(2) making representations about the
efficiency of those covered products or
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the products or equipment comply with
relevant standards promulgated under
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a))
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 requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
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))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE
amend its test procedures for all covered
products, including RCWs, to integrate
measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall
energy efficiency, energy consumption,
or other energy descriptor, taking into
consideration the most current versions
of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the
International Electrotechnical
Commission (‘‘IEC’’), unless the current
test procedure already incorporates the
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is
technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)) 4 5 If an integrated test
procedure is technically infeasible, DOE
must prescribe separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test procedures
for the covered product, if a separate
test is technically feasible. (Id.) As
described in the following sections,
DOE’s current clothes washer test
procedure includes provisions for
4 IEC Standard 62087 addresses the methods of
measuring the power consumption of audio, video,
and related equipment and is not relevant to clothes
washers.
5 EPCA does not contain an analogous provision
for commercial equipment.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
measuring energy consumption in
standby mode and off mode.
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
product, including clothes washers, to
determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for
the test procedures to not be unduly
burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary
determines, on his own behalf or in
response to a petition by any interested
person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary
shall promptly publish in the Federal
Register proposed test procedures and
afford interested persons an opportunity
to present oral and written data, views,
and arguments with respect to such
procedures. The comment period on a
proposed rule to amend a test procedure
shall be at least 60 days and may not
exceed 270 days. In prescribing or
amending a test procedure, the
Secretary shall take into account such
information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including
technological developments relating to
energy use or energy efficiency of the
type (or class) of covered products
involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions
are not appropriate, DOE must publish
its determination not to amend the test
procedures. DOE is publishing this RFI
to collect data and information to
inform its decision pursuant to the 7year review requirement specified in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
Additionally, EPCA requires the test
procedures for CCWs to be the same as
the test procedures established for
RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with
the test procedures for RCWs, EPCA
requires that DOE evaluate, at least once
every 7 years, the test procedures for
CCWs to determine whether amended
test procedures would more accurately
or fully comply with the requirements
for the test procedures to not be unduly
burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) This
document also seeks input from the
public to assist in a determination as to
whether amendments to test procedures
are necessary in the context of CCWs.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
B. Rulemaking History
DOE originally established its clothes
washer test procedure, codified at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J
(‘‘Appendix J’’), in a September 1977
final rule. 42 FR 49802 (Sept. 28, 1977).
Since that time, the test procedure has
undergone a number of amendments. In
August 1997, DOE published a final rule
(‘‘August 1997 Final Rule’’) amending
Appendix J to include a measurement of
remaining moisture content (‘‘RMC’’) to
account for more efficient water
extraction and to reflect changes in
clothes washer features and consumer
usage patterns, among other changes. 62
FR 45484 (Aug. 27, 1997). The August
1997 Final Rule also established an
appendix J1 at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B (‘‘Appendix J1’’), which included a
new definition of the energy test cycle,
new energy test cloth pre-conditioning
requirements, the use of a third load
size (average load) for adaptive water fill
control systems, a load size table for all
clothes washers (including clothes
washers with manual water fill control
systems), and a simplified Temperature
Use Factor (‘‘TUF’’) 6 table, among other
minor technical changes. Id.
In the January 2001 Final Rule, DOE
provided further minor technical
amendments to Appendix J and
Appendix J1, as well as a sunset
provision specifying that the provisions
of Appendix J would expire on
December 31, 2003. 66 FR 3313.
Additional amendments to Appendix J1
included, among other things, a
methodology for developing correction
factors for each new lot of test cloth to
reduce variability in the RMC
measurement due to differences in test
cloth lots. Id.
In March 2012, DOE published a final
rule (‘‘March 2012 Final Rule’’)
amending Appendix J1 to expand the
load size table to accommodate clothes
washers with capacities up to 6 cubic
feet (‘‘cu.ft.’’) as well as some other
minor changes. 77 FR 13887 (March 7,
2012). The March 2012 Final Rule also
established a new test procedure at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2
(‘‘Appendix J2’’), which incorporated
the following amendments: (1)
Provisions for measuring energy
consumption in standby mode and off
mode; (2) a more comprehensive
efficiency metric for water
consumption; (3) a more accurate
reflection of consumer usage patterns;
(4) revisions to the energy test cycle
6 As described in more detail later in this
document, TUFs are weighting factors that
represent the percentage of wash cycles for which
consumers choose a particular wash/rinse
temperature selection.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
definition; (5) revisions to the capacity
measurement method; (6) revisions
related to the test cloth, including the
preconditioning detergent and test
equipment; (7) clarification of certain
testing conditions and certain
provisions of the test procedure; and (8)
revisions to the calculation for annual
operating cost. 77 FR 13887, 13891. The
March 2012 Final Rule also removed the
obsolete Appendix J. 77 FR 13887,
13892.
On August 5, 2015, DOE published a
final rule (‘‘August 2015 Final Rule’’)
that provided clarifying edits to
Appendix J1 and Appendix J2. 80 FR
46729. The August 2015 Final Rule also
moved the test cloth qualification
procedures from Appendix J1 and
Appendix J2 to a new test procedure at
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J3
(‘‘Appendix J3’’). The test cloth
qualification procedure specifies a
standard extractor RMC test to evaluate
the moisture absorption and retention
characteristics, and to develop a unique
correction curve for each new lot of test
cloth, which helps ensure that a
consistent RMC measurement is
obtained for any test cloth lot used
during testing. This procedure is
performed for each new lot of test cloth
before the cloths can be used in the test
procedure provisions that measure
clothes washer performance; it is not
performed as part of the testing required
for any particular unit under test.
Therefore, DOE moved the test cloth
qualification procedure to the new
Appendix J3 as a standalone test
method to improve the clarity and
overall logical flow of the Appendix J1
and Appendix J2 test procedures. Id.
The correction factors developed for
each new cloth lot are used to adjust the
RMC measurements obtained when
performing an Appendix J1 or Appendix
J2 test on an individual clothes washer
unit.
The current version of the test
procedure at Appendix J2 includes
provisions for determining modified
energy factor (‘‘MEF’’) and integrated
modified energy factor (‘‘IMEF’’) in
cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle
(‘‘cu.ft./kWh/cycle’’); and water factor
(‘‘WF’’) and integrated water factor
(‘‘IWF’’) in gallons per cycle per cubic
feet (‘‘gal/cycle/cu.ft.’’). RCWs
manufactured on or after January 1,
2018 must meet current energy
conservation standards, which are based
on IMEF and IWF, as determined using
Appendix J2. 10 CFR 430.23(j)(2)(ii) and
(4)(ii); 430.32(g)(4) CCWs manufactured
on or after January 1, 2018 must meet
energy conservation standards for this
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31067
equipment based on MEF 7 and IWF,
which are also determined using
Appendix J2. 10 CFR 431.154 and 10
CFR 431.156(b)
II. Request for Information and
Comments
As an initial matter, DOE seeks
comment on whether there have been
changes in product testing methodology
or new products on the market since the
last test procedure update. DOE also
seeks data and information that could
enable the agency to propose that the
current test procedure produces results
that are representative of an average use
cycle for the product and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct, and therefore
does not need amendment. DOE also
seeks information on whether an
existing private-sector developed test
procedure would produce such results
and should be adopted by DOE rather
than DOE establishing its own test
procedure, either entirely or by adopting
only certain provisions of one or more
private-sector developed tests.
In the following sections, DOE has
also identified a variety of issues on
which it seeks input to determine
whether amended test procedures for
clothes washers would more accurately
or fully comply with the requirements
in EPCA that test procedures: (1) Be
reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy use during
a representative average use cycle, and
(2) not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3),
6314(a)(2))
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this process that may not
be specifically identified in this
document. In particular, DOE notes that
under Executive Order 13771,
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,’’ Executive Branch
agencies such as DOE are directed to
manage the costs associated with the
imposition of expenditures required to
comply with Federal regulations. 82 FR
9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that
Executive Order, DOE also encourages
the public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its
regulations applicable to RCWs and
CCWs, consistent with the requirements
of EPCA.
7 For CCWs, the energy conservation standards at
10 CFR 431.156 refer to MEF as ‘‘MEFJ2’’ to
distinguish MEF as calculated using Appendix J2
from MEF as calculated from Appendix J1, which
was the basis for energy conservation standards
prior to January 1, 2018. Due to several differences
(e.g., the capacity measurement and the drying
energy calculation), the MEF metrics in Appendices
J1 and J2 are not equivalent.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31068
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
A. Scope & Definitions
DOE defines ‘‘clothes washer’’ as a
consumer product designed to clean
clothes, utilizing a water solution of
soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, and must
be one of the following classes:
Automatic clothes washers, semiautomatic clothes washers, and other
clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2
An ‘‘automatic clothes washer’’ is a
class of clothes washer that has a
control system that is capable of
scheduling a preselected combination of
operations, such as regulation of water
temperature, regulation of the water fill
level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the
need for user intervention subsequent to
the initiation of machine operation.
Some models may require user
intervention to initiate these different
segments of the cycle after the machine
has begun operation, but they do not
require the user to intervene to regulate
the water temperature by adjusting the
external water faucet valves. Id.
A ‘‘semi-automatic clothes washer’’ is
a class of clothes washer that is the
same as an automatic clothes washer
except that user intervention is required
to regulate the water temperature by
adjusting the external water faucet
valves. Id.
‘‘Other clothes washer’’ means a class
of clothes washer that is not an
automatic or semi-automatic clothes
washer. Id.
‘‘Commercial clothes washer’’ is
defined as a soft-mount front-loading or
soft-mount top-loading clothes washer
that—
(A) has a clothes container
compartment that—
(i) for horizontal-axis clothes washers,
is not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and
(ii) for vertical-axis clothes washers, is
not more than 4.0 cubic feet; and
(B) is designed for use in—
(i) applications in which the
occupants of more than one household
will be using the clothes washer, such
as multi-family housing common areas
and coin laundries; or
(ii) other commercial applications.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452).
B. Test Procedure
1. Connected Clothes Washers
DOE is currently aware of several
‘‘connected’’ RCW models on the
market, from at least four major
manufacturers. These products offer
optional wireless network connectivity
to enable features such as remote
monitoring and control via smartphone,
as well as limited demand response
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
features 8 available through partnerships
with a small number of local electric
utilities. In addition, connected features
are available via certain external
communication modules for CCWs.
However, DOE is not aware of any CCW
models currently on the market that
incorporate connected features directly
into the unit.
DOE recently published an RFI on the
emerging smart technology appliance
and equipment market. 83 FR 46886
(Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought
information to better understand market
trends and issues in the emerging
market for appliances and commercial
equipment that incorporate smart
technology. DOE’s intent in issuing the
RFI was to ensure that DOE did not
inadvertently impede such innovation
in fulfilling its statutory obligations in
setting efficiency standards for covered
products and equipment.
Issue II.B.1. DOE seeks comments,
data and information on the issues
presented in the ‘‘smart products’’ RFI
as they may be applicable to RCWs and
CCWs.
Issue II.B.2. DOE requests feedback on
its characterization of connected RCWs,
and any CCWs, currently on the market.
Specifically, DOE requests input on the
types of features or functionality
enabled by connected clothes washers
that exist on the market or that are
under development.
Section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 specifies
using the manufacturer default settings
for any cycle selections except
temperature selection, wash water fill
level, or spin speed; and section 3.9.1 of
Appendix J2 specifies performing the
combined low-power mode testing
without changing any control panel
settings used for the active mode wash
cycle. With regard to the measurement
of network mode energy use, however,
DOE stated in its 2012 rule (a
conclusion not affected by the 2015
amendments), that ‘‘DOE cannot
thoroughly evaluate these [IEC Standard
62301 (Second Edition)] network mode
provisions, as would be required to
justify their incorporation into DOE’s
test procedures at this time. DOE notes
that although an individual appliance
may consume some small amount of
power in network mode, the potential
exists for energy-related benefits that
more than offset this additional power
consumption if the appliance can be
controlled by the ‘‘smart grid’’ to
consume power during non-peak
8 ‘‘Demand response features’’ refers to product
functionality that can be controlled by the ‘‘smart
grid’’ to improve the overall operation of the
electrical grid, for example by reducing energy
consumption during peak periods and/or shifting
power consumption to off-peak periods.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
periods. Although DOE is supportive of
efforts to develop smart-grid and other
network-enabled technologies in clothes
washers, this final rule does not
incorporate the network mode
provisions due to the lack of available
data that would be required to justify
their inclusion.’’ 77 FR 13888, 13900
(Mar. 7, 2012). Consistent with the goals
of the ‘‘smart products’’ RFI, DOE will
ensure that it does not impede
innovation in the development of smart
or connected products in considering
any amendments to the test procedure
for clothes washers with regard to
measuring the energy use of connected
features.
Issue II.B.3. DOE requests comment
on whether changes to the current
clothes washer test procedure would
advance the goal of the ‘‘smart
products’’ RFI. In particular, DOE seeks
comment on adding a clarifying
provision that would require testing to
be conducted with any network
functionality turned off, or without
measuring or reporting the energy use of
the clothes washer in network mode.
Issue II.B.4. DOE requests data on the
percentage of users purchasing
connected RCWs who activate the
connected capabilities, and, for those
users, the percentage of the time when
the connected functionality of the RCW
is activated and using additional energy.
DOE seeks to understand the potential
effects of connected functionality as it
relates to a clothes washer’s energy use
or energy efficiency, including the
following:
• Hardware or software-related
energy use implications of such
features; for example, whether including
communication chips on a circuit board
could affect a product’s energy
consumption in standby mode.
• Consumer behavioral energy use
implications of such features; for
example, allowing the consumer to
remotely activate a ‘‘wrinkle
prevention’’ feature that periodically
tumbles the drum after completion of a
wash cycle would increase that cycle’s
energy use.
• Utility grid-level benefits enabled
by such features; for example, using
demand response capabilities to shift
power loads from peak periods to offpeak periods and possibly automating
cycle starts to coincide with periods of
off-peak pricing.
Issue II.B.5. DOE requests data on the
amount of additional or reduced energy
use by connected clothes washers. DOE
also requests data on the pattern of
additional or reduced energy use; for
example, whether it is constant,
periodic, or triggered by the user.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Issue II.B.6. DOE requests information
about which existing modes (e.g., active,
standby, off) are affected by connected
functionality.
Issue II.B.7. DOE requests information
on any existing testing protocols that
account for connected features of
clothes washers.
2. Testing Conditions, Instrumentation,
and Installation
a. Hot Water Supply Temperature
Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 requires
maintaining the hot water supply
temperature between 130 degrees
Fahrenheit (‘‘°F’’) (54.4 degrees Celsius
(‘‘°C’’)) and 135 °F (57.2 °C), using
135 °F as the target temperature.
DOE has revised the hot water supply
temperature requirements several times
throughout the history of the clothes
washer test procedure to remain
representative of household water
temperatures at the time of its analysis.
When establishing the original clothes
washer test procedure at Appendix J in
1977, DOE specified a hot water supply
temperature of 140 °F ± 5 °F. In the
August 1997 Final Rule, DOE specified
in Appendix J1 that for clothes washers
in which electrical energy consumption
or water energy consumption is affected
by the inlet water temperature,9 the hot
water supply temperature cannot exceed
135 °F (57.2 °C); and for other clothes
washers, the hot water supply
temperature is to be maintained at
135 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C). 62 FR
45484, 45497. DOE maintained these
same requirements in the original
version of Appendix J2. In the August
2015 Final Rule, DOE adjusted the
allowable tolerance of the hot water
supply temperature in section 2.2 of
Appendix J2 to between 130 °F (54.4 °C)
and 135 °F (57.2 °C) for all clothes
washers, but maintained 135 °F as the
target temperature. 80 FR 46729, 46734.
DOE most recently analyzed
household water temperatures as part of
the consumer water heater test
procedure rulemaking. In the July 11,
2014, consumer water heater test
procedure final rule, DOE revised the
hot water delivery temperature from
135 °F to 125 °F. 79 FR 40541, 40554.
This change was primarily based on
data available in DOE’s analysis for the
April 16, 2010, consumer water heater
energy conservation standards final
rule, which found that the average set
point temperature for consumer water
heaters in the field is 124.2 °F (51.2 °C).
75 FR 20111. Additionally, a 2011
compilation of field data across the
9 For example, water-heating clothes washers or
clothes washers with thermostatically controlled
water valves.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
United States and southern Ontario by
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(‘‘LBNL’’) 10 found a median daily outlet
water temperature of 122.7 °F (50.4 °C).
79 FR 40541, 40554. Further, DOE noted
in the consumer water heater energy
conservation standards final rule that
water heaters are commonly set with
temperatures in the range of 120 °F to
125 °F. Id.
Additionally, DOE’s consumer
dishwasher test procedure, codified at
10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix
C1, specifies a hot water supply
temperature of 120 °F ± 2 °F for waterheating dishwashers designed for
heating water with a nominal inlet
temperature of 120 °F, which includes
nearly all consumer dishwashers
currently on the U.S. market.
Issue II.B.8. DOE requests comments
on whether DOE should consider
updating the hot water supply
temperature for the clothes washer test
procedure. DOE also requests
information on the use of the current
hot water supply temperature for
clothes washers in relation to the
consumer water heater and dishwasher
test procedures. Specifically, DOE is
interested in data and information on
the hot water temperature used in
practice, any potential impact to testing
costs that may occur by harmonizing
temperatures between the clothes
washer and dishwasher test procedures,
and the impacts on manufacturer
burden associated with any changes to
the hot water supply temperature.
Based on experience working with
third-party test laboratories, as well as
its own testing experience, DOE
recognizes that maintaining 135 °F as
the target temperature for the hot water
supply may be difficult given that the
target temperature of 135 °F lies at the
edge, rather than the midpoint, of the
allowable temperature range of 130 °F to
135 °F. On electronic temperature
mixing valves typically used by test
laboratories, the output water
temperature is maintained within an
approximately two-degree tolerance
above or below a target temperature
programmed by the user (e.g., if the
target temperature is set at 135 °F, the
controller may provide water
temperatures ranging from 133 °F to
137 °F). To ensure that the hot water
inlet temperature remains within the
allowable range of 130 °F to 135 °F, such
a temperature controller would need to
be programmed to 132.5 °F, the
midpoint of the range, which conflicts
10 Lutz, JD, Renaldi, Lekov A, Qin Y, and Melody
M., ‘‘Hot Water Draw Patterns in Single Family
Houses: Findings from Field Studies,’’ LBNL Report
number LBNL–4830E (May 2011). Available at
https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31069
with the test procedure requirement to
use 135 °F as the target temperature. An
analogous difficulty exists for the cold
water inlet temperature. Section 2.2 of
appendix J2 specifies maintaining a cold
water temperature between 55 °F and
60 °F, using 60 °F as the target.
Issue II.B.9. DOE requests comments
on whether it should consider any
changes to the target temperature or
allowable range of temperatures
specified for the hot and cold water
inlets, and if so what alternate
specifications should be considered.
Changing the hot water supply
temperature could change the relative
hot and cold water usage of clothes
washers with thermostatically
controlled mixing valves, which
includes nearly all clothes washers in
the current market. If DOE were to
update the supply water temperature,
DOE would also investigate what
impact, if any, such a change would
have on a clothes washer’s measured
IMEF value. DOE seeks comment on
such impact in response to this RFI.
Issue II.B.10. DOE requests comments
on how any changes to the hot water
supply temperature would impact a
clothes washer’s measured IMEF value.
b. Measuring Wash Water Temperature
In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE
amended section 3.3 of Appendix J2,
‘‘Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse,’’ to allow
the use of non-reversible temperature
indicator labels to confirm that a wash
temperature greater than 135 °F has been
achieved. 80 FR 46729, 46753. Since the
publication of the August 2015 Final
Rule, DOE has become aware that some
third-party laboratories measure wash
temperature using self-contained
temperature sensors in a waterproof
casing placed inside the clothes washer
drum.
Issue II.B.11. DOE requests comments
on manufacturers’ or test laboratories’
experience with these or any other
methods for determining the
temperature during a wash cycle that
may reduce manufacturer burden,
including any information regarding the
reliability and accuracy of those
methods.
c. Water Meter Resolution
Appendix J2 requires the use of water
meters to measure water flow and/or
water consumption. Section 2.5.5 of
Appendix J2 requires a resolution no
larger than 0.1 gallons for the water
meters, and a maximum error no greater
than 2 percent of the measured flow
rate. DOE has observed that some
clothes washers use very small amounts
of hot water on some temperature
selections, on the order of 0.1 gallons or
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31070
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
less. For example, some clothes washers
have both Cold and Tap Cold
temperature selections, and the Cold
selection may use a fraction of a gallon
of hot water. DOE believes that
Appendix J2 may not provide the
necessary resolution to accurately and
precisely measure the hot water usage of
such temperature selections.
Issue II.B.12. DOE requests comments
on the benefits and test burden of
requiring a water meter with a
resolution more precise than 0.1 gallons.
Additionally, DOE requests comments
on manufacturers’ and testing
laboratories’ experiences in testing with
a water meter with a resolution more
precise than 0.1 gallons, including
information on related testing burden
and benefits.
d. Installation of Single-Inlet Clothes
Washers
Section 2.10 of Appendix J2 provides
specifications for installing a clothes
washer, referencing both the hot water
and cold water inlets. Additionally,
section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 specifies
that a water meter must be installed in
both the hot and cold water lines.
DOE is aware of RCWs on the market
that have a single water inlet rather than
separate hot and cold water inlets. DOE
has observed two types of single-inlet
RCWs: (1) Automatic clothes washers
intended to be connected only to a cold
water inlet, and which regulate the
water temperature through the use of
internal heating elements to generate
any hot water used during the cycle;
and (2) semi-automatic clothes washers
that are intended to be connected to a
kitchen or bathroom faucet, and which
require user intervention to regulate the
water temperature by adjusting the
external water faucet valves.
Issue II.B.13. DOE requests input on
whether any other types of single-inlet
clothes washers exist on the market
today or are under development.
For a single-inlet automatic clothes
washer (i.e., the first example described
above), DOE understands that a ‘‘Y’’shaped hose connector or other similar
device may be provided by the
manufacturer on some models to allow
both water supply lines to be connected
to the single inlet on the unit; however,
other models may not include such a
connector. DOE is considering whether
testing single-inlet automatic clothes
washers installed to only the cold water
supply line during the test would be
representative of the energy used during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use.
Issue II.B.14. DOE requests comments
or information on how single-inlet
automatic clothes washers are typically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
installed by customers. Specifically,
DOE requests information on the
percentage of single-inlet automatic
clothes washers sold with a Y-shaped
hose connector or similar such device;
the extent that consumers use any
provided device; and in instances in
which no device is provided, whether it
is typical for customers to connect the
water inlet to a cold or hot water supply
line.
For single-inlet semi-automatic
clothes washers (i.e., the second
example described above), DOE has
observed that these clothes washers are
most often designed to be connected to
a kitchen or bathroom faucet, with a
single hose connecting the faucet to the
single inlet on the clothes washer (i.e.,
both cold and hot water are supplied to
the clothes washer through a single
hose). The user regulates the water
temperature externally by adjusting the
faucet to provide cold, warm, or hot
water temperatures for the wash and
rinse portions of the cycle. Appendix J2
specifies the use of two separate water
supply connections, one for cold water
and one for hot water. Connecting a
single-inlet semi-automatic clothes
washer to only a single water supply
would limit the available water
temperature to either 60 °F (provided by
the cold water supply) or 135 °F
(provided by the hot water supply). In
effect, only Cold Wash/Cold Rinse or
Hot Wash/Hot Rinse could be tested
with a single-hose installation.
Appendix J2 does not provide explicit
direction on how to connect a singleinlet semi-automatic clothes washer to
allow testing at other wash/rinse
temperatures. DOE seeks data on
whether, and if so how, consumers
using this type of clothes washer adjust
the water temperature for the wash and
rinse portions the cycle. Section II.B.6 of
this document provides further details
on wash/rinse temperature selections
for semi-automatic clothes washers.
DOE also seeks comment on how such
clothes washers are currently tested.
Issue II.B.15. DOE requests comments,
data, and information on the typical
connection and representative average
use of single-inlet semi-automatic
clothes washers. Additionally, DOE
requests information on how
manufacturers are currently testing
single-inlet semi-automatic clothes
washers under Appendix J2.
e. Discarding Test Data Due to
Anomalous Behavior of Unit Under Test
Section 3.2.9 of appendix J2 specifies
to ‘‘discard the data from a wash cycle
that provides a visual or audio indicator
to alert the user that an out-of-balance
condition has been detected, or that
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
terminates prematurely if an out-ofbalance condition is detected, and thus
does not include the agitation/tumble
operation, spin speed(s), wash times,
and rinse times applicable to the wash
cycle under test.’’ Aside from out-ofbalance conditions, DOE seeks input on
whether the test procedure should also
require discarding data for wash cycles
in which any other anomalous behavior
may be observed. DOE also requests
information on whether the test
procedure should be clarified to
explicitly require that any wash cycle
for which data was discarded due to
anomalous behavior must also be
repeated to obtain data without the
anomalous behavior to be included in
the energy test cycle.
Issue II.B.16. DOE requests comment
on whether the test procedure should
exclude data from wash cycles in which
any other type of anomalous behavior
aside from out-of-balance conditions is
observed. If so, DOE requests further
comment on how such anomalies could
be defined in the test procedure and
detected by the testing party,
particularly when testing only a single
unit of a basic model (i.e., with no basis
for comparison against other units of the
same basic model to determine whether
the observed behavior is anomalous).
DOE additionally requests comment on
whether the test procedure should
clarify that any wash cycle for which
data was discarded due to anomalous
behavior must be repeated to obtain
valid data for that wash cycle without
such anomalous behavior.
3. Test Cloth
a. Specifications
DOE originally developed the energy
test cloth specifications as part of the
January 2001 Final Rule, based on the
results of a detailed investigation of the
cloth material used for testing.11 In
particular, DOE observed that the
material properties of the energy test
cloth had a significant effect on the
RMC measurement,12 which was added
to Appendix J1 to measure the
effectiveness of the final spin cycle in
11 Development of a Standardized Energy Test
Cloth for Measuring Remaining Moisture Content in
a Residential Clothes Washer. U.S. Department of
Energy: Buildings, Research and Standards. May
2000. Available online at https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2006STD-0064-0277.
12 The RMC measurement is an important aspect
of DOE’s clothes washer test procedure because the
RMC value determines the drying energy, which is
the biggest contributor to IMEF. Based on the
Technical Support Documents from the March 2012
Final Rule, the drying energy represents 65 percent
of the total energy for a 2015 baseline-level toploading standard RCW, and 72 percent for a 2015
baseline-level front-loading standard RCW.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
removing moisture from the wash load.
As described in the test cloth report, the
final specifications for the energy test
cloth were developed to provide for the
representativeness of the test cloth to a
consumer load: A 50-percent cotton/50percent polyester blended material was
specified to approximate the typical mix
of cotton, cotton/polyester blend, and
synthetic articles that are machinewashed by consumers. DOE also
considered:
• Manufacturability: A 50/50 cottonpolyester momie weave was specified
because at the time, such cloth was
produced in high volume, had been
produced to a consistent specification
for many years, and was expected to be
produced on this basis for the
foreseeable future.
• Consistency in test cloth
production: The cloth material
properties were specified in detail,
including fiber content, thread count,
and fabric weight; as well as
requirements to verify that water
repellent finishes are not applied to the
cloth.
• Consistency of the RMC
measurement among different lots: A
procedure was developed to generate
correction factors for each new ‘‘lot’’
(i.e., batch) of test cloth to normalize test
results and ensure consistent RMC
measurements regardless of which lot is
used for testing.
DOE understands that the
qualification process for new test cloth
lots may be burdensome and that delays
in the process may periodically lead to
shortages of test cloth available for
purchase. Furthermore, it is possible
that different energy test cloth
specifications could more optimally
balance the various factors addressed by
the test cloth specification.
Issue II.B.17. DOE requests comments
on manufacturers’ and testing
laboratories’ experience using the
current test cloth specifications and
whether DOE should consider any
changes to the energy test cloth
specifications to reduce burden and
improve testing results. DOE also seeks
comment on whether it is necessary to
specify any qualification procedure that
must be conducted on all new lots of
energy test cloth prior to use of such test
cloths, as opposed to simply providing
requirements for the test cloth without
specifying in DOE’s regulations the
procedure for achieving those
requirements. Industry could then
continue with its current prequalification process, making changes as
it determined necessary to improve that
process, without the need to seek
permission from DOE and participate in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
a rulemaking proceeding to make such
improvements.
b. Uniformity Test
Appendix J3 specifies a qualification
procedure that must be conducted on all
new lots of energy test cloth prior to use
of such test cloths. This qualification
procedure provides a set of correction
factors that correlate the measured RMC
values of the new test cloth lot with a
set of standard RMC values established
as the historical reference point. These
correction factors are applied to the
RMC test results in section 3.8.2.6 of
appendix J2 to ensure the repeatability
and reproducibility of test results
performed using different lots of test
cloth. The measured RMC of each
clothes washer has a significant impact
on the final IMEF value.
Industry has developed a process in
which this qualification test is
performed by a third-party laboratory,
and the results are reviewed and
approved by the AHAM Test Cloth Task
Force, after which the new lot of test
cloth is made available for purchase by
manufacturers and test laboratories.
DOE has received a request from
members of the AHAM Test Cloth Task
Force to add to Appendix J3 an
additional qualification procedure that
has historically been performed on each
new lot of test cloth to ensure
uniformity of RMC test results on test
cloths from the beginning, middle, and
end of each new lot. Industry practice
is to perform this uniformity test before
conducting the procedure to develop the
RMC correction factors currently
specified in the DOE test procedure, as
described above. Specifically, the
uniformity test involves performing an
RMC measurement on nine bundles of
sample cloth representing the
beginning, middle, and end locations of
the first, middle, and last rolls of cloth
in a new lot. The coefficient of variation
across the nine RMC values must be less
than or equal to 1 percent for the test
cloth lot to be considered acceptable for
use.
Issue II.B.18. DOE requests comments
on whether it is necessary to incorporate
the aforementioned test cloth uniformity
test into Appendix J3, or whether the
current regulations, with the existing
requirements for test cloth and
qualification procedure, are sufficient to
ensure the quality of the test cloth. DOE
requests comment on any burden that
results from the current qualification
procedure, or would result from
incorporating the discussed uniformity
test, particularly for small businesses.
As noted above, DOE also seeks
comment on whether it is necessary to
specify any qualification procedure that
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31071
must be conducted on all new lots of
energy test cloth prior to use of such test
cloths, as opposed to simply providing
requirements for the test cloth without
specifying in DOE’s regulations the
procedure for achieving those
requirements. Industry could then
continue with its current prequalification process, making changes as
it determined necessary to improve that
process, without the need to seek
permission from DOE and participate in
a rulemaking proceeding to make such
improvements.
c. Consolidation Into Appendix J3
Several provisions within Appendix
J2 that pertain to the energy test cloth
are applicable to each new lot of test
cloth, but are not required to be
conducted again for each individual
clothes washer test performed under
Appendix J2. For example, section
2.7.4.6 of Appendix J2 specifies
performing American Association of
Textile Chemists and Colorists
(‘‘AATCC’’) Test Method 118–2007 and
AATTCC Test Method 79–2010
(incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
430.3) to verify that water-repellent
finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain
resistant finishes, are not applied to the
test cloth.
Based on discussions with the AHAM
Test Cloth Task Force, DOE is aware
that these AATCC test methods, among
other test cloth provisions in section 2.7
of Appendix J2, are performed by a
third-party laboratory on each new lot of
test cloth, along with the RMC tests
described previously. Once the absence
of water-repellent finishes has been
verified for the new lot of test cloth, the
AATCC tests do not need to be
conducted again for each individual
Appendix J2 clothes washer test
performed by manufacturers or test
laboratories.
Issue II.B.19. DOE requests comments
on whether to consolidate into
Appendix J3 provisions from section 2.7
of Appendix J2 that relate only to the
testing of the manufactured test cloth,
and are not required to be performed for
each individual Appendix J2 clothes
washer test. DOE also seeks comment on
whether to remove these provisions
entirely (see Issues II.B.17 and II.B.18).
4. Capacity Measurement Alternatives
Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides
the procedure for measuring the clothes
container capacity, which represents the
maximum usable volume for washing
clothes. In the March 2012 Final Rule,
DOE revised the clothes container
capacity measurement to better reflect
the actual usable capacity compared to
the previous measurement procedures.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31072
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
77 FR 13887, 13917. In the August 2015
Final Rule, DOE further clarified the
capacity measurement procedure by
incorporating a revised description of
the maximum fill volume for frontloading clothes washers, as well as
illustrations of the boundaries defining
the uppermost edge of the clothes
container for top-loading vertical-axis
clothes washers and the maximum fill
volume for horizontal-axis clothes
washers. 80 FR 46729, 46733.
Measuring the clothes container
capacity involves filling the clothes
container with water and using the
weight of the water to determine the
volume of the clothes container. For
front-loading clothes washers, this
procedure requires positioning the
clothes washer on its back surface such
that the door opening of the clothes
container faces upwards and is leveled
horizontally.
DOE is aware that for some frontloading clothes washers, positioning the
clothes washer on its back surface may
be impractical or unsafe, particularly for
very large or heavy clothes washers or
those with internal components that
could be damaged by the procedures
outlined in section 3.1 of Appendix J2.
On other clothes washers, filling the
clothes container volume as described
could be difficult or impractical,
particularly for clothes washers with
concave or otherwise complex door
geometries.
Recognizing these challenges, DOE is
considering whether to allow
manufacturers to determine the clothes
container capacity by performing a
calculation of the volume based upon
computer-aided design (‘‘CAD’’) models
of the basic model in lieu of physical
measurements of a production unit of
the basic model. DOE allows a CADbased approach for consumer
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers, as specified at 10 CFR
429.27(c).13
Issue II.B.20. DOE requests comments
on whether to allow CAD-based
determination of clothes container
capacity for clothes washers in lieu of
physical measurements of a production
unit of the basic model. DOE requests
comments on the impacts on
manufacturer burden associated with
13 Under this approach, any value of total
refrigerated volume of a basic model reported to
DOE in a certification of compliance in accordance
with § 429.14(b)(2) must be calculated using the
CAD-derived volume(s) and the applicable
provisions in the test procedures in 10 CFR part 430
for measuring volume, and must be within two
percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 cubic feet for compact
products), whichever is greater, of the volume of a
production unit of the basic model measured in
accordance with the applicable test procedure in 10
CFR part 430. See 10 CFR 429.72(c)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
any such change to the capacity
measurement procedure.
As the clothes washer market evolves
to include clothes washers with
increasingly larger capacities, DOE
understands that for larger-capacity
clothes washers, the capacity value as
measured by Appendix J2, which is
intended to reflect the maximum usable
volume, may not necessarily result in a
test method that measures the energy
efficiency and water use of the clothes
washer during a representative average
use cycle or period of use.
In addition, DOE understands that in
Europe and elsewhere (e.g., the United
Arab Emirates, Australia, and New
Zealand), clothes washer capacity is
represented in terms of the weight of
clothing (e.g., kilograms or pounds) that
may be washed, rather than the physical
volume of the clothes container.
Furthermore, some international test
procedures allow for the clothes washer
capacity to be declared by the
manufacturer, representing the
maximum weight of clothing that the
clothes washer is designed to
successfully clean.
Some of the alternate representations
of clothes washer capacity that DOE
could consider include:
• A weight-based capacity, such as
pounds of clothing, which could be
derived from the measured volume of
the clothes container in a similar
manner to the way that the maximum
test load is currently specified in Table
5.1 of Appendix J2 based on the
measured clothes container volume.
• A clothes container capacity that is
declared by the manufacturer using an
industry-standard methodology. For
example, IEC Standard 60456, ‘‘Clothes
washing machines for household use—
Methods for measuring the
performance’’ Edition 5.0 (‘‘IEC
Standard 60456 Edition 5.0’’) provides
two optional methodologies for
determining test load mass, using either
table tennis balls or water.14
Issue II.B.21. DOE requests comment
on whether to consider any changes to
the representation of clothes washer
capacity, including, but not limited to,
a weight-based capacity or
manufacturer-declared capacity based
on an industry-standard methodology.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on
whether the two methodologies
provided in IEC Standard 60456 Edition
5.0 provide capacity measurements that
result in a test method that measures the
14 For the table tennis ball approach, the clothes
container is filled with specified table tennis balls,
and an empirically determined equation is provided
to convert the number of balls into a capacity value.
The water approach is similar to the approach
provided in section 3.1 of Appendix J2.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
energy use of the clothes washer during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use.
5. Cycle Selection and Settings
a. Representative Average Use
DOE recently issued an RFI to seek
more information on whether its test
procedures are reasonably designed, as
required by EPCA, to produce results
that measure the energy use or
efficiency of a product during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use. 84 FR 9721 (Mar. 18,
2019). DOE seeks comment on this issue
as it pertains to the test procedure for
clothes washers, and specifically to all
of the issues and comment requests set
forth in the following paragraphs.
b. Load Sizes for Available Minimum
and Maximum Fill Levels
Table 2.8 within section 2.8 of
Appendix J2 requires that, for clothes
washers with manual water fill control
systems, each temperature selection that
is part of the energy test cycle be tested
using both the minimum and maximum
water fill levels, using the minimum
and maximum load sizes,
respectively.15 Section 3.2.6 of
Appendix J2 describes these water fill
levels as the minimum and maximum
water levels available for the wash cycle
under test. DOE has observed at least
one clothes washer with electronic
controls in which the maximum water
fill level on the unit cannot be selected
(i.e., is ‘‘locked out’’) with one of the
temperature selections required for
testing; on that temperature setting, the
maximum water fill that can be selected
is one of the intermediate fill levels on
the unit. The resulting water fill level
(which is a significantly lower fill level)
is thus misaligned with the maximum
load size required for that particular
cycle under test. Using a maximum load
size with an intermediate water fill level
may not provide results that measure
energy efficiency and water use during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use, since the locking out of
the maximum water fill level indicates
that the particular temperature selection
is not intended to be used with a
maximum load size. More generally,
electronic controls on such a clothes
washer could lock out either the
minimum or maximum water fill level
available on the unit from any of the
15 In calculating the weighted energy
consumption of a clothes washer with a manual
water control system, load usage factors are applied
to the minimum test loads (0.28) and maximum test
loads (0.72), as described further in section II.B.7.b
of this RFI. The load usage factors were based on
Procter & Gamble field usage data when Appendix
J was initially established. 42 FR 49802, 49809
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
temperature selections required for
testing under Appendix J2, rendering
the resulting water fill level for that
temperature selection inappropriate for
the maximum (or minimum) load size
defined for the unit.
DOE previously addressed the issue of
locked-out water fill levels in a notice
of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’)
published on May 24, 1995. 60 FR
27442, 27444. At that time, three
manufacturers expressed concern about
the possibility of a maximum water
level being locked out. DOE stated that
it was not aware of any products
employing such lockout designs at that
time, but should such designs emerge,
they could be addressed in a future
rulemaking. Id.
DOE welcomes input from interested
parties on how the test procedure
should accommodate locked-out water
fill levels required for testing. As
discussed, the current test procedure
requires that the maximum load size be
tested with the maximum water fill
level available in combination with the
selected temperature selection, which
may be a lower fill level than the
maximum available on the machine and
not intended for maximum size clothing
loads. DOE would consider other
approaches that would produce results
that measure energy efficiency or water
use during a representative average use
cycle or period of use for this category
of clothes washer.
Issue II.B.22. DOE requests comments
on how clothes washers with locked-out
water fill levels could be tested. DOE
also requests data on the water level that
consumers use on this type of clothes
washer when a specific water level is
locked-out.
c. Locked-Out Spin Settings
Section 3.8.4 of Appendix J2 requires
that for clothes washers that have
multiple spin settings 16 available
within the energy test cycle that result
in different RMC values, the maximum
and minimum extremes of the available
spin settings must be tested on the Cold/
Cold temperature selection. The final
RMC is the weighted average of the
maximum and minimum spin settings,
with the maximum spin setting
weighted at 75 percent and the
minimum spin setting weighted at 25
percent. DOE is aware of clothes
washers on the market that offer
multiple spin settings, but which offer
only the maximum spin setting on the
Cold/Cold temperature selection; i.e.,
the minimum spin setting is locked out
16 The term ‘‘spin settings’’ refers to spin times or
spin speeds. The maximum spin setting results in
a lower (better) RMC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
of the Cold/Cold temperature selection.
This results in the lower spin setting not
being factored into the RMC calculation,
despite being available at other
temperature selections in the energy test
cycle. According to the TUF Table 4.1.1
in Appendix J2, the Cold/Cold
temperature selection represents 37
percent of consumer temperature
selections, with the other available
temperature selections, for which the
lower spin settings are available,
representing a combined 63 percent of
clothes washer cycles.
Issue II.B.23. DOE requests comment
on testing for clothes washers that offer
only the maximum spin setting on the
Cold/Cold temperature selection but
provide lower spin settings on other
temperature selections. For example,
RMC could be measured at the default
spin setting for each temperature
selection, and averaged using the TUFs.
DOE requests data on the extent to
which this or any other suggested
approach measures the energy use of the
clothes washer during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. DOE
also seeks data on the burden that may
be added or reduced as a result of these
other testing configurations.
Issue II.B.24. DOE requests input on
whether any changes to the RMC
measurement are warranted to address
the issue of locked-out spin settings,
taking into account the requirements
that the test procedure must be
reasonably designed to measure the
energy use of the clothes washer during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct.
d. Four or More Warm/Cold
Temperature Selections
Section 3.5 of Appendix J2 states that
for a clothes washer that offers four or
more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse
temperature selections, either all
discrete selections shall be tested, or the
clothes washer shall be tested at the 25percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent
positions of the temperature selection
device between the hottest hot (≤135 °F
(57.2 °C)) wash and the coldest cold
wash. If a selection is not available at
the 25, 50 or 75-percent position, in
place of each such unavailable
selection, the next warmer temperature
selection shall be used. Hereafter in this
document, DOE refers to the latter
provision as the ‘‘25/50/75 test.’’
DOE introduced the 25/50/75 test in
the original version of Appendix J1, as
established by the August 1997 Final
Rule, out of concern regarding the test
burden for clothes washers that offer a
large number of intermediate warm
wash temperature selections, if the test
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31073
procedure were to require testing all
intermediate warm temperature
selections. 62 FR 45484, 45497. DOE
had originally proposed a similar
method 17 in the April 22, 1996
supplemental NOPR (‘‘April 1996
SNOPR’’) preceding the August 1997
Final Rule, for clothes washers having
infinite warm wash selections that are
non-uniformly distributed. 61 FR 17589,
17599. In the August 1997 Final Rule,
DOE agreed with a suggested option to
consider clothes washers with more
than three warm wash temperatures to
be clothes washers with infinite warm
wash temperature selections, therefore
allowing them to also use the 25/50/75
test. 62 FR 45484, 45498. DOE
concluded at that time that testing at the
various test points of the temperature
range, with a requirement to test to the
next higher selection if a temperature
selection is not available at a specified
test point, would provide data
representative of the warm wash
temperature selection offerings. Id.
DOE notes that the 25/50/75 test was
adopted before the widespread use of
electronic controls, which now allow for
the assignment of wash water
temperatures that may not reflect the
physical spacing between temperature
selections on the control panel. For
example, with electronic controls, the
25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent
positions on the dial may not
necessarily correspond to 25-percent,
50-percent, and 75-percent temperature
differences between the hottest and
coldest selections. DOE is aware of
clothes washers on the market with four
or more warm wash temperature
selections, in which the temperature
selections located at the 25, 50, and 75percent positions are low-temperature
cycles that have wash temperatures only
a few degrees higher than the coldest
wash temperature; whereas the
temperature selection labeled ‘‘Warm’’
is located beyond the 75 percent
position on the temperature selection
dial and is therefore not included for
testing under the 25/50/75 test.
Issue II.B.25. DOE requests feedback
on the representativeness of using the
25/50/75 test on clothes washers with
electronic controls; particularly for
clothes washers in which the 25percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent
positions on the dial do not correspond
to 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75percent temperature increments
between the hottest and coldest
selections.
17 The originally proposed test would have
required testing at the 20/40/60/80 percent
positions.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31074
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Issue II.B.26. DOE also seeks
information on alternative approaches
for testing clothes washers with four or
more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse
temperature selections that would
ensure that the test procedure is
reasonably designed to measure the
energy use of the clothes washer during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use, and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct. Specifically,
DOE requests comment on whether
there is a less burdensome means for the
test procedure to be reasonably designed
to measure energy use or efficiency of
the clothes washer during a
representative average use cycle.
e. Clothes Washers That Generate All
Hot Water Internally
DOE is aware of clothes washers on
the market that draw only cold water
and internally generate all hot water
that may be required for a cycle by
means of internal heating elements. As
observed on the market, these clothes
washers offer cold, warm, hot, and extra
hot temperature selections. As part of
determining the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse
temperature selection, the instruction
box in the flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of
Appendix J2 refers to ‘‘. . . multiple
wash temperature selections in the
Normal cycle [that] do not use any hot
water for any of the water fill levels or
test load sizes required for testing . . .’’
DOE is considering rephrasing the text
in Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 to say
‘‘. . . use or internally generate any
heated water . . .’’ (emphasis added) so
that the wording of the Cold Wash/Cold
Rinse flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of
Appendix J2 explicitly addresses these
clothes washers. This change would
reflect DOE’s interpretation of the
current Cold Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart
and subsequent flowcharts for the Warm
Wash and Hot Wash temperature
selections for this type of clothes
washer.
Issue II.B.27. DOE requests input on
revising the phrasing of Figure 2.12.1 of
Appendix J2 to specifically address the
test method for clothes washers that
internally generate all hot water used for
a cycle by means of internal heating
elements. DOE also seeks comment on
whether and if so, to what extent, this
change would affect the measured
energy use of these clothes washers as
compared to the current test procedure.
f. Non-Conventional Water Fill Control
Systems
Classification of Water Fill Control
Systems
Table 2.8 of Appendix J2 prescribes
the required test load sizes based on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
type of water fill control system
(‘‘WFCS’’) on the clothes washer.
Appendix J2 defines two main types of
WFCS: Manual WFCS and automatic
WFCS, which includes adaptive WFCS
and fixed WFCS. Section 3.2.6.2 of
Appendix J2 further distinguishes
between user-adjustable and not-useradjustable automatic WFCSs.
Additionally, section 3.2.6.3 of
Appendix J2 accommodates clothes
washers that have both an automatic
WFCS and an alternate manual WFCS.
As electronic control panels become
more sophisticated, determining which
type of WFCS is used in a particular
clothes washer can be difficult.
Furthermore, the use of an electronic
control panel enables a clothes washer
to have combinations of WFCSs that
were previously unforeseen and
therefore not addressed in the test
procedure (e.g., multiple different
adaptive WFCSs, or both adaptive and
fixed WFCSs). The following are
examples of such clothes washers that
DOE has observed on the market:
Example #1: A clothes washer that
uses an adaptive WFCS but includes an
optional cycle modifier, most typically
in the form of a control panel button,
that affects the water level by adding
either more or less water than would
otherwise be used by the adaptive
WFCS. DOE has observed several types
of such optional cycle modifiers, such
as ‘‘deep fill’’ and ‘‘water plus,’’ which
use more water than the default
adaptive WFCS; and ‘‘eco,’’ which uses
less water than the default adaptive
WFCS.
Example #2: A clothes washer that
defaults to a fixed maximum water level
if the user takes no action (i.e., a fixed
WFCS), and that offers a single optional
button that provides a lower fill level
than the default fill level if activated.
Example #3: A clothes washer with a
control panel that allows the user to
choose between two separate automatic
WFCSs: One of which is an adaptive
WFCS, and the other is a fixed WFCS
that provides the maximum fill level
regardless of load size (e.g., ‘‘deep fill’’).
Example #4: A clothes washer with a
control panel that allows the user to
choose between two separate adaptive
WFCSs: One that provides more
efficient performance; and the other that
provides higher fill levels, both of
which adapt to the size of the clothing
load.
Example #5: A clothes washer with a
separate cycle labeled ‘‘deep fill,’’ as an
alternative to the Normal cycle.
Issue II.B.28. DOE requests input on
whether any changes are warranted for
the definitions of automatic WFCS,
manual WFCS, adaptive WFCS, and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fixed WFCS, specifically in the context
of clothes washers currently on the
market, and whether the current
definitions appropriately reflect the
products currently available. DOE also
requests input on whether a definition
of user-adjustable automatic WFCS
should be considered, and if so, how it
could be defined to best reflect the type
of user-adjustable WFCSs currently on
the market. Comments are also welcome
on whether a less complex method of
WFCS differentiation could be used that
would still result in the test procedure
being reasonably designed to measure
energy efficiency and water use of
clothes washers during a representative
average use cycle or period of use, and
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Issue II.B.29. As an alternative to
considering revisions to the definitions
of each type of WFCS, DOE could
consider alternate approaches, such as
using a flow chart—similar to the energy
test cycle flowcharts in section 2.12 of
Appendix J2—to guide the
determination of which type of WFCS is
available on a clothes washer. DOE
requests comment on such an approach.
Issue II.B.30. DOE requests input on
an approach that would result in a
measurement of energy and water use
during a representative average use
cycle for clothes washers with
unconventional WFCSs, such as in the
examples provided, including the
impacts on manufacturer burden
associated with any such approach.
Test Cycles and Calculations
Section 3.2.6.3 of Appendix J2 states
that if a clothes washer with an
automatic WFCS allows consumer
selection of manual controls as an
alternative, both the manual and
automatic modes are tested. The energy
and water consumption values are
measured separately under each mode
and then averaged; the average values
are then used in the final calculations in
section 4 of Appendix J2. The averaging
of each value implies a 50-percent usage
factor for each of the available WFCSs
on the clothes washer.
Section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2
provides instructions for a clothes
washer with a user-adjustable automatic
WFCS. For this type of WFCS, four tests
are conducted: (1) The first test uses the
maximum test load and the automatic
WFCS set in the setting that will give
the most energy intensive result; (2) the
second test uses the minimum test load
and the automatic WFCS set in the
setting that will give the least energy
intensive result; (3) the third test uses
the average test load and the automatic
WFCS set in the setting that will give
the most energy intensive result for the
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
given test load; and (4) the fourth test
uses the average test load and the
automatic WFCS set in the setting that
will give the least energy intensive
result for the given test load. The energy
and water consumption for the average
test load are the average of the third and
fourth tests’ results.
Issue II.B.31. DOE requests comment
on whether the above test procedure
requiring four separate tests meets the
EPCA requirements of measuring the
energy and water use during a
representative average use cycle and not
being unduly burdensome to conduct,
and whether an approach that required
less than four tests would meet this
EPCA requirement.
Issue II.B.32. DOE requests comments
on the representativeness of the WFCS
setting and load size combinations
tested for clothes washers with both
automatic and manual WFCSs, as well
as clothes washers with user-adjustable
automatic WFCSs.
g. Wash Time Setting
Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 defines
how to select the wash time setting on
a clothes washer. If no one wash time
is prescribed for the wash cycle under
test, the wash time setting is the higher
of either the minimum or 70 percent of
the maximum wash time available,
regardless of the labeling of suggested
dial locations. Hereafter in this
document, DOE refers to this provision
as the ‘‘70-percent test.’’
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE
added instructions to the wash time
section of Appendix J1 and Appendix J2
that specified the direction of rotation of
electromechanical dials, and that the 70percent test applies regardless of the
labeling of suggested dial locations. 77
FR 13887, 13927. In the August 2015
Final Rule, DOE specified that, if 70percent of the maximum wash time is
not available on a dial with a discrete
number of wash time settings, the nexthighest setting greater than 70-percent
must be chosen. 80 FR 46729, 46745.
DOE is considering, as described in the
following sections, whether additional
changes to section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2
are warranted to provide further clarity,
particularly with regard to how the
wash time setting should be interpreted
for electronic control dials.
Clarification for Electronic Cycle
Selection Dials
DOE has observed on the market
clothes washers that have an electronic
cycle selection dial designed to visually
simulate a conventional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
electromechanical dial.18 In particular,
DOE has observed clothes washers with
an electronic dial that offers multiple
Normal cycle selections; for example,
‘‘Normal-Light,’’ ‘‘Normal-Medium,’’
and ‘‘Normal-Heavy,’’ with the
descriptor referring to the soil level of
the clothing. On such clothes washers,
the only difference between the three
Normal cycles apparent to consumers
when performing each cycle may be the
wash time, although other less
observable parameters may also differ.
Although the electronic dial simulates
the visual appearance of an
electromechanical dial, the electronic
dial is programmed with a preestablished set of wash cycle
parameters, including wash time, for
each of the discrete cycle selections
presented on the machine. For this type
of cycle selection dial, each of the
discrete cycle selection options
represents a selectable ‘‘wash cycle’’ as
referred to in section 3.2.5 of Appendix
J2, and a wash time is prescribed for
each available wash cycle. Therefore, for
clothes washers with this type of
electronic dial, the wash cycle selected
for testing must correspond to the wash
cycle that meets the definition of
Normal cycle in section 1.25 of
Appendix J2. The wash time setting
thus would be the prescribed wash time
for the selected wash cycle; i.e., the 70percent test would not apply to this type
of dial. DOE is considering whether any
changes to section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2
are warranted to qualify further which
type of dial would be subject to the 70percent test.
Issue II.B.33. DOE requests feedback
on whether section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2
should be further clarified regarding
electronic cycle selection dials that
visually simulate conventional
electromechanical dials.
Direction of Dial Rotation
Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 also
states that, for clothes washers with
electromechanical dials controlling
wash time, the dial must be turned in
the direction of increasing wash time to
reach the appropriate wash time setting.
DOE is aware that not all
electromechanical dials currently on the
market can be turned in the direction of
increasing wash time. On such models,
the dial can only be turned in the
18 On most electromechanical dials, the rotational
position of the dial corresponds to the desired wash
time. The user rotates the dial from the initial ‘‘off’’
position to the desired wash time position, and after
starting the wash cycle, the dial rotates throughout
the progression of the wash cycle until it reaches
the off position at the end of the cycle. In contrast,
an electronic dial contains a fixed number of
selectable positions, and the dial remains in the
selected position for the duration of the wash cycle.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31075
direction of decreasing wash time. DOE
believes that the direction of rotation
need only be prescribed on a clothes
washer with an electromechanical dial
that can rotate in both directions.
Therefore, DOE is considering further
amending section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2
to clarify that the requirement to rotate
the dial in the direction of increasing
wash time applies only to dials that can
rotate in both directions.
Issue II.B.34. DOE requests comment
on its understanding of the functioning
of dials currently on the market,
specifically with regard to the
direction(s) of rotation and whether the
wording of section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2
warrants revision to clarify that the
requirement to rotate the dial in the
direction of increasing wash time
applies only to dials that can rotate in
both directions.
‘‘Wash Time’’ Terminology
Finally, DOE is considering whether
to state that the phrase ‘‘wash time’’ in
section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 refers to
the period of agitation or tumble. This
clarification would be consistent with
the historical context of this section of
the test procedure. In Appendix J as
established by the September 1977 Final
Rule, section 2.10 Clothes washer
setting defined ‘‘wash time’’ as the
‘‘period of agitation.’’ As part of the
January 2001 Final Rule, DOE amended
section 2.10 of Appendix J by renaming
it Wash time (period of agitation or
tumble) setting.19 66 FR 3313, 3330.
When establishing Appendix J1 in the
August 1997 Final Rule, DOE did not
include reference to ‘‘period of
agitation’’ in section 2.10 of Appendix
J1. 62 FR 45484, 45510. DOE did not
address this difference from Appendix J
in the preamble of the August 1997
Final Rule or the NOPRs that preceded
that final rule, but given the continued
reference to ‘‘wash time’’ in Appendix
J1, did not intend to change the general
understanding that wash time refers to
the wash portion of the cycle, which
includes agitation or tumble time. DOE
has since further amended section 2.10
of both Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 as
part of the March 2012 Final Rule and
August 2015 Final Rule (in which
section 2.10 was renumbered as section
3.2.5), with no discussion in these final
rules of the statement that remained in
Appendix J, where wash time referred to
agitation or tumble time. DOE further
notes that in current RCW models on
the market, agitation or tumble may be
19 In this context, ‘‘agitation’’ refers to the wash
action of a top-loading clothes washer, whereas
‘‘tumble’’ refers to the wash action of a frontloading clothes washer.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31076
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
periodic or continuous during the wash
portion of the cycle.
Issue II.B.35. DOE requests feedback
on whether DOE should consider
reincorporating language into section
3.2.5 of Appendix J2 to clarify that the
term ‘‘wash time’’ refers to the wash
portion of the cycle, including agitation
or tumble time.
h. Optional Cycle Modifiers
Section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 states
that for clothes washers with electronic
control systems, the manufacturer
default settings must be used for any
cycle selections, except for (1) the
temperature selection, (2) the wash
water fill levels, or (3) if necessary, the
spin speeds on wash cycles used to
determine RMC. Specifically, the
manufacturer default settings must be
used for wash conditions such as
agitation/tumble operation, soil level,
spin speed on wash cycles used to
determine energy and water
consumption, wash times, rinse times,
optional rinse settings, water heating
time for water-heating clothes washers,
and all other wash parameters or
optional features applicable to that wash
cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature
or setting (other than wash/rinse
temperature, water fill level selection, or
spin speed on wash cycles used to
determine RMC) that is activated by
default on the wash cycle under test
must be included for testing unless the
manufacturer instructions recommend
not selecting this option, or recommend
selecting a different option, for washing
normally soiled cotton clothing.
Issue II.B.36. DOE seeks comment on
whether testing of cycle settings other
than the manufacturer default settings
would measure the energy efficiency
and water use of the clothes washer
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. DOE also seeks
comment on whether the non-default
selections required by the current DOE
test procedure meet this requirement.
DOE has observed a trend towards
increased availability of optional cycle
modifiers such as ‘‘deep fill,’’ as
described previously in this document,
and ‘‘extra rinse,’’ among others. These
optional settings may significantly
impact the water and/or energy
consumption of the clothes washer
when activated. DOE has observed that
the default setting of these optional
settings on the Normal cycle is most
often in the off position; i.e., the least
energy- and water-intensive setting. The
growing presence of such features may,
however, be indicative of an increase in
consumer demand and/or usage of these
features.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
Issue II.B.37. DOE requests
information regarding how frequently
consumers use ‘‘deep fill,’’ ‘‘extra
rinse,’’ or other cycle modifiers, as well
as whether (and if so, by how much)
such modifiers may increase the energy
or water consumption of a wash cycle
compared to the default settings on the
Normal cycle. DOE also requests
comment on whether testing these
features in the default settings would
produce test results that measure energy
efficiency and water use of clothes
washers during a representative average
use cycle or period of use, and the
burden of such testing on
manufacturers.
6. Wash/Rinse Temperature Selections
for Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
Section II.B.2.d of this document
discussed the installation of single-inlet
semi-automatic clothes washers. This
section discusses the wash/rinse
temperature selections and TUFs
applicable to all semi-automatic clothes
washers. Semi-automatic clothes
washers are defined at 10 CFR 430.2 as
a class of clothes washer that is the
same as an automatic clothes washer
except that user intervention is required
to regulate the water temperature by
adjusting the external water faucet
valves. DOE’s test procedure
requirements at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(2)(ii)
state that the use of Appendix J2 to
determine IMEF is required for both
automatic and semi-automatic clothes
washers. Similarly, the IWF
measurement requirements at 10 CFR
430.23(j)(3)(ii) apply to ‘‘clothes
washer[s],’’ which is defined in 10 CFR
430.2 to include semi-automatic clothes
washers.
Semi-automatic clothes washers do
not provide wash/rinse temperature
selections on the control panel, and any
combination of cold, warm, and hot
wash temperatures and rinse
temperatures can be implemented by
the user. The following discussion
provides relevant historical context on
this issue.
Section 6.1 of Appendix J–1977 20 and
Appendix J–1997 provided TUFs for the
following wash/rinse temperature
combinations for semi-automatic clothes
washers: Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold,
Warm/Warm, Warm/Cold, and Cold/
Cold. The definition of these TUFs
indicated that these six wash/rinse
temperature combinations were
20 Throughout this section, to distinguish
different versions of each test method, DOE uses the
following nomenclature: Appendix [letter]-[year of
amendment]. For example, the original version of
Appendix J is referred to as Appendix J–1977. The
version as amended by the August 1997 Final Rule
is referred to as Appendix J–1997, and so forth.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
required for testing. Section 3.2.2.6 of
Appendix J–1977 and Appendix J–1997
and section 3.2.3.1.6 of Appendix J1–
1997 and Appendix J1–2001 provided a
table indicating the following external
water faucet valve positions required to
achieve each wash and rinse
temperature selection:
• Hot: Hot valve completely open,
cold valve closed;
• Warm: Hot valve completely open,
cold valve completely open; and
• Cold: Hot valve closed, cold valve
completely open.
Under Appendix J–1977 and
Appendix J–1997, the Hot/Hot, Warm/
Warm, and Cold/Cold temperature
combinations were tested for semiautomatic clothes washers without
regulating the water temperature
between the wash and rinse portions of
the cycle. However, for the Hot/Warm,
Hot/Cold, and Warm/Cold temperature
combinations to be tested, Appendix J–
1977 and Appendix J–1997 required the
test administrator to manually regulate
the water temperature in between the
wash and rinse portions of the cycle by
adjusting the external water faucet
valves. As reflected in DOE’s definition
of semi-automatic clothes washer, user
intervention is required to regulate the
water temperature of all semi-automatic
clothes washers (i.e., user regulation of
water temperature is the distinguishing
characteristic of a semi-automatic
clothes washer).
When it established Appendix J1–
1997, DOE combined all of the TUF
tables—for both automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers—that were
also provided in section 5 and section
6 of Appendix J–1997 into a single
condensed table in Table 4.1.1 of
Appendix J1–1997. 62 FR 45484, 45512.
In contrast to Appendix J–1997, which
provided separate TUF tables for every
possible set of available wash/rinse
temperature selections, the new
simplified table in Appendix J1–1997
was organized into columns based on
the number of wash temperature
selections available on a clothes washer.
Warm rinse was considered separately
within each column of the table. Id. In
the current version of Appendix J2,
Table 4.1.1 remains a single simplified
table, although in the August 2015 Final
Rule, DOE clarified the column
headings by listing the wash/rinse
temperature selections applicable to
each column. 80 FR 46729, 46782.
The simplified Table 4.1.1 in
Appendix J2 does not state which
column(s) of the table are applicable to
semi-automatic clothes washers. In the
May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE stated
that it was not aware of any semiautomatic clothes washers on the
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
market. 77 FR 32307, 32317. However,
DOE is currently aware of several semiautomatic clothes washer model
available in the U.S. market.
Issue II.B.38. DOE requests input on
whether the test procedure should be
amended with regard to the specificity
of wash/rinse test combinations for
semi-automatic clothes washers in
Appendix J2, and whether those
updates would provide test results that
measure energy efficiency and water use
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use, and whether they
would be unduly burdensome to
conduct.
7. Usage Factors
DOE requests information on whether,
in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3),
the consumer usage factors incorporated
into the test procedure produce test
results that measure energy efficiency
and water use of clothes washers during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use. DOE also seeks comment
on whether testing cycle configurations
with usage factors below a certain
percentage would be unduly
burdensome to conduct and would not
be considered to be reasonably designed
to measure energy and water use during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use because they are rarely
used by consumers.
a. Temperature Usage Factors
As described in section II.B.6 of this
document, TUFs are weighting factors
that represent the percentage of wash
cycles for which consumers choose a
particular wash/rinse temperature
selection. The TUFs in Table 4.1.1 of
Appendix J2 are based on the TUFs
introduced in Appendix J1–1997 by the
August 1997 Final Rule. As described in
the April 1996 SNOPR, DOE established
the TUFs in Appendix J1–1997 based on
an analysis of consumer usage data
provided by Procter & Gamble (‘‘P&G’’),
the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’), General
Electric Company (‘‘GE’’), and
Whirlpool Corporation (‘‘Whirlpool’’),
as well as linear regression analyses
performed by P&G and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(‘‘NIST’’). 61 FR 17589, 17593. DOE
understands that consumer usage
patterns may have changed since the
introduction of Table 4.1.1 in Appendix
J1–1997.
DOE recognizes that some possible
combinations of wash/rinse temperature
selections that could be offered on a
clothes washer are not represented in
Table 4.1.1 (e.g., the current table would
not accommodate a clothes washer that
offers only Extra-Hot/Cold and Cold/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
Cold wash/rinse temperature
selections).
Issue II.B.39. DOE requests data on
current consumer usage frequency of the
wash/rinse temperature selections
required for testing in Appendix J2.
Issue II.B.40. DOE requests input on
whether requiring measurement of cycle
selections with low TUFs (for example,
the current Table 4.1.1 lists TUFs
including 5, 9, and 14 percent) is
consistent with the EPCA requirement
that the test procedure be reasonably
designed to measure the energy use or
efficiency of the clothes washer during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use, and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct.
Issue II.B.41. DOE requests
information on whether any
combinations of wash/rinse temperature
selections not currently represented in
Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2 exist. DOE
also seeks data to support how the TUFs
for such combinations could be defined
to ensure that the test procedure
measures energy and water
consumption during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. DOE
also seeks comments on whether any of
the combinations in Table 4.1.1 should
be removed as not reasonably designed
to measure the energy use of the clothes
washer during a representative average
use cycle or period of use.
For semi-automatic clothes washers,
DOE is considering whether
amendments with regard to the
specificity of wash/rinse temperature
combinations and associated TUFs for
semi-automatic clothes washers in
Appendix J2 would provide test results
that are reasonably designed to measure
energy and water consumption during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use. As discussed in section
II.B.6 of this RFI, Appendix J specified
TUFs for semi-automatic clothes
washers for six wash/rinse temperature
combinations. Appendix J2 does not
currently provide separate TUFs for
semi-automatic clothes washers.
Because the wash and rinse
temperatures on a semi-automatic
clothes washer are controlled directly
by the consumer by adjusting the hot
and cold water faucets, DOE
understands that the appropriate TUFs
for semi-automatic clothes washers that
best reflect energy and water
consumption during a representative
average use cycle or period of use may
be different from those of automatic
clothes washers.
Issue II.B.42. DOE requests input on
whether to specify TUFs for semiautomatic clothes washers in Appendix
J2, and if so, how the TUFs should be
defined to be reasonably designed to
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31077
measure energy and water consumption
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use for semiautomatic clothes washers.
b. Load Usage Factors
Load Usage Factors (‘‘LUFs’’) are
weighting factors that represent the
percentage of wash cycles that
consumers run with a given load size.
Table 4.1.3 of Appendix J2 provides two
sets of LUFs based on whether the
clothes washer has a manual WFCS or
automatic WFCS.
For a clothes washer with a manual
WFCS, the two LUFs represent the
percentage of wash cycles for which
consumers choose the maximum water
fill level and minimum water fill level,
regardless of the actual load size. For a
clothes washer with an automatic
WFCS, the three LUFs represent the
percentage of cycles for which the
consumer washes a minimum-size,
average-size, and maximum-size load.
The values of these LUFs are intended
to approximate a normal distribution
that is slightly weighted towards the
minimum load size. This distribution is
based on consumer load size data
provided by P&G in support of the
development of Appendix J1–1997.21
Issue II.B.43. DOE requests data on
current consumer usage as related to the
LUFs and whether any updates to the
LUFs in Table 4.1.3 of Appendix J2 are
warranted to reflect current consumer
usage patterns. DOE specifically
requests comment on whether the use of
certain LUFs in the test procedure is
consistent with the EPCA requirement
that the test procedure be reasonably
designed to measure energy and water
use during a representative average use
cycle or period of use without being
unduly burdensome to conduct, because
certain load sizes may be rarely used by
consumers.
c. Load Size Table
Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 provides the
minimum, average, and maximum load
sizes to be used for testing based on the
measured capacity of the clothes
washer. The table defines capacity
‘‘bins’’ in 0.1 cu.ft. increments. The load
sizes for each capacity bin are
determined as follows:
• Minimum load is 3 pounds (‘‘lb’’)
for all capacity bins;
• Maximum load (in lb) is equal to
4.1 times the mean clothes washer
21 The P&G load size data are provided on pages
13–20 in legacy Docket EE–RM–94–230A Comment
25, which is archived on the regulations.gov
website under Docket EERE–2006–TP–0065
Comment 27. Available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2006-TP0065-0027.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31078
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
capacity of each capacity bin (in cu.ft.);
and
• Average load is the arithmetic mean
of the minimum load and maximum
load.
DOE originally introduced the load
size table in Appendix J1 in the August
1997 Final Rule, which accommodated
clothes container capacities up to 3.8
cu.ft. This load size table was provided
by AHAM as part of AHAM’s
recommended test procedure changes
for Appendix J1, as described in the
April 1996 SNOPR. 61 FR 17589, 17595.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE
expanded Table 5.1 to accommodate
clothes container capacities up to 6.0
cu.ft. 77 FR 13887, 13910. DOE
extrapolated the load sizes to 6.0 cu.ft.
using the same equations to define the
maximum and average load sizes as
described previously.
On May 2, 2016 and April 10, 2017,
DOE granted waivers to Whirlpool and
Samsung Electronics America Inc.,
respectively, for testing RCWs with
capacities between 6.0 and 8.0 cu.ft.,22
by further extrapolating Table 5.1 using
the same equations to define the
maximum and average load sizes as
described previously. 81 FR 26215, 82
FR 17229. DOE’s regulations in 10 CFR
430.27 contain provisions allowing any
interested person to seek a waiver from
the test procedure requirements if
certain conditions are met. A waiver
allows manufacturers to use an
alternative test procedure in situations
where the DOE test procedure cannot be
used to test the product or equipment,
or where use of the DOE test procedure
would generate unrepresentative results.
10 CFR 430.27(a)(1) DOE’s regulations at
10 CFR 430.27(l) require that as soon as
practicable after the granting of any
waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal
Register a NOPR to amend its
regulations so as to eliminate any need
for the continuation of such waiver. As
soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will
publish in the Federal Register a final
rule. Therefore, DOE will consider
amending its test procedure to
accommodate RCWs with capacities up
to 8.0 cu.ft. as part of a future
rulemaking.
Note that section II.B.4 of this
document provides additional
discussion regarding potential
alternative approaches for representing
clothes container capacity that DOE
could consider, which might suggest a
different solution for addressing largercapacity clothes washers than
extrapolation of the existing Table 5.1.
22 As noted, CCWs are limited under the statutory
definition to a maximum capacity of 3.5 cubic feet
for horizontal-axis CCWs and 4.0 cubic feet for
vertical-axis CCWs. 42 U.S.C. 6311(21).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
Issue II.B.44. DOE requests comment
on whether Table 5.1 of Appendix J2
should be extrapolated to accommodate
RCW capacities up to 8.0 cu.ft., and if
so, appropriate methods for
extrapolation. More generally, DOE also
requests data and information on
whether the minimum, average, and
maximum load size definitions in Table
5.1 are representative of the range of
load sizes used by consumers for each
capacity bin in the table, particularly for
larger-capacity RCWs.23
d. Dryer Usage Factor
The dryer usage factor (‘‘DUF’’)
represents the percentage of clothes
washer loads dried in a clothes dryer.
The DUF is used in section 4.3 of
Appendix J2 in the equation for
calculating the per-cycle energy
required to remove the remaining
moisture of the test load (i.e., ‘‘drying
energy’’).
DOE first introduced the drying
energy equation in Appendix J1 as part
of the August 1997 Final Rule. DOE
originally established a DUF value of
0.84, which was based in part on data
provided by P&G, as described in the
April 1996 SNOPR. 61 FR 17589, 17592;
62 FR 45484, 45489.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE
revised the DUF in Appendix J2 to 0.91
based on updated consumer usage data
from the Energy Information
Administration (‘‘EIA’’) 2005
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(‘‘RECS’’). 77 FR 13887, 13913.
Issue II.B.45. DOE specifically
requests comment on whether the DUF
in the test procedure is consistent with
the EPCA requirement that the test
procedure be reasonably designed to
measure energy and water use during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use without being unduly
burdensome to conduct, because certain
drying cycles may be rarely used by
consumers. DOE also requests data and
information on whether any further
adjustments to the DUF are warranted to
reflect current consumer usage patterns.
e. Spin Speed Usage Factors
Section 3.8.4.1 of Appendix J2
provides weighting factors for
calculating the RMC value for clothes
washers that have options such as
multiple spin speeds or spin time
settings that result in different RMC
values, and that are available within the
energy test cycle. The equation in
section 3.8.4.1 of Appendix J2 assigns a
75-percent usage factor to the maximum
23 DOE notes that the load size definitions could
be considered independently from, or in
conjunction with, the LUFs, as described in the
previous section of this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
spin setting and a 25-percent usage
factor to the minimum spin setting. In
originally establishing the spin setting
usage factors in Appendix J–1997, DOE
considered P&G usage factor data for
normal/regular cycle usage (in which
maximum water extraction is assumed)
as compared to delicate and permanentpress cycle usage (in which minimum
water extraction is assumed). 62 FR
45484, 45489; see also AHAM comment
in docket EE–RM–94–230A, pp. 2 and
8.24 DOE determined that the consumers
washing less durable articles of clothing
would refrain from using a higher spin
cycle to prevent possible fabric damage,
and that the spin setting usage factors
correlated to the use of normal/regular
cycle usage as compared to delicate and
permanent-press cycle usage. Id.
Note that section II.B.5.c of this
document provides additional
discussion regarding potential
alternative approaches that DOE could
consider for clothes washers with
multiple spin speeds, which might
suggest a different solution than
maintaining the existing spin speed
usage factors.
Issue II.B.46. DOE requests data and
information on whether current
consumer usage patterns warrant any
adjustments to the spin speed usage
factors. In particular, DOE requests
consumer usage data regarding the
selection of spin speeds on clothes
washers that offer multiple spin speeds,
and particularly the percentage of wash
cycles for which consumers use the
default spin settings. DOE also requests
comment on whether the use of certain
spin speed usage factors in the test
procedure is consistent with the EPCA
requirement that the test procedure be
reasonably designed to measure energy
and water use during a representative
average use cycle or period of use
without being unduly burdensome to
conduct, because certain spin speeds
may be rarely used by consumers.
f. Annual Number of Wash Cycles
Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 provides
the representative average number of
annual clothes washer cycles for the
purpose of translating the annualized
inactive and off mode energy
consumption measurements into a percycle value applied to each active mode
wash cycle. Separately, the number of
annual wash cycles is also referenced in
DOE’s test procedure provisions at 10
CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i)(A) and (B),
(j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B), and (j)(3)(i) and (ii)
for the purpose of calculating annual
24 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2006-TP-0065-0011.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
operating cost and annual water
consumption of a clothes washer.
In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE
estimated the representative number of
annual wash cycles per RCW to be 392,
which represented the average number
of cycles per year from 1986 through
1994, based on P&G survey data
provided to DOE as described in a
NOPR published on March 23, 1995. 60
FR 15330, 15335; 62 FR 45484, 45501.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE
updated the representative number of
wash cycles per year to 295 based on an
analysis of the 2005 RECS data. 77 FR
13887, 13909. More recently, analysis of
the 2009 RECS data suggests 284 cycles
per year, and analysis of the 2015 RECS
data (the most recent available) suggests
234 cycles per year.
Issue II.B.47. DOE requests data and
information on whether any further
adjustments to the number of annual
wash cycles are warranted to reflect
current RCW consumer usage patterns,
as suggested by RECS data.
g. Low-Power Mode Usage Factors
Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 allocates
8,465 combined annual hours for
inactive and off modes. If a clothes
washer offers a switch, dial, or button
that can be optionally selected by the
user to achieve a lower-power inactive/
off mode than the default inactive/off
mode, section 4.4 assigns half of those
hours (i.e., 4,232.5 hours) to the default
inactive/off mode and the other half to
the optional lowest-power inactive/off
mode. This allocation is based on an
assumption that if a clothes washer
offers such a feature, consumers will
select the optional lower-power mode
half of the time. 77 FR 13887, 13904.
The allocation of 8,465 hours to
combined inactive and off modes is
based on an assumption of 295 active
mode hours (assuming one hour per
active mode wash cycle), for a total of
8,760 hours per year for all operating
modes.
Issue II.B.48. DOE requests input on
whether the annual hours allocated to
combined inactive and off modes, as
well as the assumed 50-percent split
between default inactive/off mode and
any optional lower-power inactive/off
mode, result in a test method that
measures the energy efficiency of the
clothes washer during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct.
8. Associated Equipment Efficiencies
hot water energy consumption for all
water fill levels tested. The hot water
energy consumption is calculated by
multiplying the measured volume of hot
water by a constant fixed temperature
rise of 75 °F and by the specific heat of
water, defined as 0.00240 kilowatthours per gallon per degree Fahrenheit
(kWh/gal-°F). No efficiency or loss
factor is included in this calculation,
which implies an electric water heater
efficiency of 100 percent.
Similarly, section 4.1.4 of Appendix
J2 provides an equation for calculating
total per-cycle hot water energy
consumption using gas-heated or oilheated water, for product labeling
requirements.25 This equation includes
a multiplication factor ‘‘e,’’ representing
the nominal gas or oil water heater
efficiency, defined as 0.75.
These water-heating energy equations
estimate the energy required by the
household water heater to heat the hot
water used by the clothes washer. Percycle hot water energy consumption is
one of the four energy components in
the IMEF metric.
Issue II.B.49. DOE requests input on
whether any updates are warranted to
the water heater efficiency values
implied in section 4.1.2 and provided in
section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2.
b. Drying Energy
Section 4.3 of Appendix J2 provides
an equation for calculating total percycle energy consumption for removal
of moisture from the test load in a
clothes dryer; i.e., the ‘‘drying energy.’’
The drying energy calculation is based
on the following three factors: (1) A
clothes dryer final RMC of 4 percent; (2)
a clothes dryer energy factor (‘‘DEF’’),
which is defined as 0.5 kWh/lb and
represents the nominal energy required
for a clothes dryer to remove moisture
from a pound of clothes; and (3) the
DUF which, as described previously in
this document, is defined as 0.91 and
represents the percentage of clothes
washer loads dried in a clothes dryer.
DOE is soliciting information to
determine whether the final RMC value
after drying and the DEF value should
be revised as a result of recent updates
to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure
and any market changes due to the most
recent energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers.
DOE’s test procedure for clothes
dryers, codified at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D1 (‘‘Appendix
D1’’), prescribes a final RMC of between
a. Water Heater Efficiencies
Section 4.1.2 of Appendix J2 provides
equations for calculating total per-cycle
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
25 The Federal Trade Commission’s EnergyGuide
label for RCWs includes the estimated annual
operating cost using natural gas water heating.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31079
2.5 and 5.0 percent, which is consistent
with the 4-percent final RMC value in
the clothes washer test procedure for
determination of the DEF. However,
DOE’s alternate clothes dryer test
procedure, codified at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix D2 (‘‘Appendix
D2’’), prescribes a final RMC of between
1 and 2.5 percent for timer dryers,
which are clothes dryers that can be
preset to carry out at least one operation
to be terminated by a time, but may also
be manually controlled and do not
include any automatic termination
function. For automatic termination
control dryers, 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, the test cycle is deemed invalid if
the clothes dryer terminates the cycle at
a final RMC greater than 2 percent. In
the final rule establishing Appendix D2,
DOE determined that a clothes dryer
final RMC of 2 percent using the DOE
test load would be more representative
of clothes dryers currently on the
market in that generally consumers
would find a final RMC above this level
unacceptable. Timer dryers are provided
with a range of allowable final RMC
during the test because DOE concluded
that it would be unduly burdensome to
require the tester to dry the test load to
an exact RMC; however, the measured
test cycle energy consumption for timer
dryers is normalized to calculate the
energy consumption required to dry the
test load to 2-percent final RMC. 78 FR
49607, 49612–49624 (Aug. 14, 2013).
Manufacturers may elect to use
Appendix D2 to demonstrate
compliance with the January 1, 2015,
energy conservation standards;
however, the procedures in Appendix
D2 need not be performed to determine
compliance with energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers at this time.
Issue II.B.50. DOE requests input on
whether the final RMC value in the
drying energy calculation in Appendix
J2 should be revised to align with the
DOE clothes dryer test procedure at
Appendix D2 or another value that is
representative of clothes dryers
currently on the market.
Issue II.B.51. DOE requests input on
whether the current value of the DEF is
representative of the nominal energy
required for a clothes dryer to remove
moisture from a pound of clothes, or
whether an alternative value would be
more representative.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31080
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
9. Non-Conventional Features
a. Clothes Washers With an Additional
Wash System
DOE is aware of ‘‘auxiliary’’ or
‘‘supplementary’’ RCWs designed to
accompany a standard-size RCW from
the same manufacturer. In one
configuration, a top-loading wash drum
(i.e., ‘‘auxiliary’’ clothes washer) is
integrated into the top of a standard-size
front-loading clothes washer (i.e.,
‘‘primary’’ clothes washer). The primary
front-loading clothes washer and the
auxiliary top-loading clothes washer are
powered through a single electrical
plug; however, the primary clothes
washer and the auxiliary clothes washer
have separate control systems and can
be operated independently from one
another. Another configuration
comprises a top-loading RCW sold as a
separate product (i.e., ‘‘supplementary’’
clothes washer) with independent
controls and a separate electrical plug,
and which is designed to be installed
underneath certain front-loading RCWs
within the space of a conventional
pedestal or riser.
Because such auxiliary and
supplementary clothes washers are
installed in conjunction with a primary
clothes washer, the presence and
operation of two separate clothes
washers may affect consumer usage
patterns for both the primary and
auxiliary or supplementary clothes
washers, compared to if the consumer
had only a primary clothes washer. For
example, separating certain items from
a clothing load to be washed in the
auxiliary or supplementary clothes
washer would reduce the size of the
clothing load washed in the primary
clothes washer or could result in fewer
cycles being run in the primary clothes
washer.
Additionally, in the case of an
auxiliary clothes washer, which is
integrated with the primary clothes
washer and powered through a single
electrical plug, the standby power might
be ‘‘double counted’’ for both the
primary clothes washer and the
auxiliary clothes washer, since the
standby power consumed by both
clothes washers would be measured
through the single electrical plug during
both independent tests.
Issue II.B.52. DOE requests
information on whether or how the
presence of an auxiliary or
supplementary clothes washer may
affect usage patterns in the primary
clothes washer.
Issue II.B.53. DOE requests input on
the appropriate allocation of combined
low-power mode energy consumption
between auxiliary and primary clothes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
washers that are powered through a
single electrical plug.
b. Clothes Washers With a Pre-Treat
Soaking Basin
DOE is aware of RCWs that contain a
built-in basin that can be used to pretreat and soak clothing before the start
of a wash cycle. As observed among
models currently on the market, the
soaking basin is separate from the main
clothing drum and is filled with water
through an auxiliary water nozzle
separate from the water fill control
system used for the main clothing drum.
As described in the user manual, the
pre-treat and soaking feature is
recommended to be used before the
RCW begins its main wash cycle
operation. As observed among models
currently on the market, use of the builtin basin and auxiliary water nozzle are
not considered part of active washing
mode, as defined by section 1.2 of
Appendix J2.
Issue II.B.54. DOE requests consumer
usage data on built-in pre-treat soak
basins, as well as information on the
amount of energy and water these basins
typically use. DOE also requests
information on whether and to what
extent the energy and water use in the
subsequent wash cycle would be
impacted by the transfer of water and
wet clothing from the pre-treat basin to
the clothes washer drum.
C. Metrics
In addition to adjustments to the
current test procedure to produce MEF,
IMEF, and IWF values that reflect
current clothes washers and consumer
use, DOE may also consider in a future
rulemaking broader changes to key
metrics that would, for example,
harmonize the DOE test procedure with
other industry test methods. In
particular, DOE may consider changes
to the energy efficiency metric and the
water efficiency metric. DOE may also
consider adjustments to the annual
energy calculation.
1. Energy Efficiency Metric
The current energy efficiency
standards for RCWs are based on the
IMEF metric, measured in cu.ft./kWh/
cycle, as calculated in section 4.6 of
Appendix J2. IMEF is calculated as the
capacity of the clothes container (in
cu.ft.) divided by the total clothes
washer energy consumption (in kWh)
per cycle. The total clothes washer
energy consumption per cycle is the
sum of: (a) The machine electrical
energy consumption; (b) the hot water
energy consumption; (c) the energy
required for removal of the remaining
moisture in the wash load; and (d) the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
combined low-power mode energy
consumption.
The current energy efficiency
standards for CCWs are based on the
MEFJ2 metric, measured in cu.ft./kWh/
cycle, as determined in section 4.5 of
Appendix J2. The MEFJ2 metric differs
from the IMEF metric by not including
the combined low-power mode energy
consumption in the total clothes washer
energy consumption per cycle.
DOE could consider changing the
energy efficiency metrics for RCWs or
CCWs to maintain consistency with any
changes to the capacity metric or for
other reasons. For example, the MEFJ2
or IMEF metric could be modified to
incorporate a capacity based on weight
of clothing, as described previously in
this document, which would result in
an MEFJ2 or IMEF expressed in terms of
pounds of clothing per kWh per cycle.
Issue II.C.1. DOE requests feedback on
whether to consider any changes to the
energy efficiency metric defined in the
test procedure, including the drivers for
such a change and the form of a new
metric.
2. Water Efficiency Metric
The current water efficiency
standards for both RCWs and CCWs are
based on the IWF metric, measured in
gal/cycle/cu.ft, as calculated in section
4.2.13 of Appendix J2. IWF is calculated
as the total weighted per-cycle water
consumption (in gallons) for all wash
cycles divided by the capacity of the
clothes container (in cu.ft.). Unlike the
IMEF metric, in which a higher number
indicates more efficient performance, a
lower IWF value indicates more
efficient performance. DOE could
consider inverting the existing
calculation such that a higher value of
IWF would represent more efficient
performance, which would provide
greater consistency with the IMEF
metric.
Issue II.C.2. DOE requests feedback on
whether to consider any changes to the
water efficiency metric defined in the
test procedure to maintain consistency
with any changes to the capacity metric
or for any other purpose, including
those described for the energy efficiency
metric, and whether it would be
appropriate to invert the existing
calculation such that a higher value of
IWF would represent more efficient
performance.
3. Annual Energy Calculation
The annual energy consumption of an
RCW is calculated as part of the
estimated annual operating cost
calculations at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(A)
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
and (B).26 In each equation, annual
energy consumption is calculated by
multiplying the per-cycle energy
consumption 27 by the representative
average RCW use of 295 cycles per year.
The annual operating cost is provided to
the consumer on the Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’) EnergyGuide label
for RCWs.
DOE could consider changes to the
method for calculating annual energy
use to ensure that the calculation results
in a measurement of energy use during
a representative average use cycle. DOE
may also consider changes to the overall
calculation methodology that could
improve the usefulness of the
information presented to the consumer
on the product label.
An increasingly wide range of RCW
capacities are available on the market,
ranging from less than 1 cu.ft. to greater
than 6 cu.ft. When DOE originally
developed the annual energy calculation
methodology at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i),
the test procedure accommodated
clothes washers with capacities up to
3.8 cu.ft.28 According to the current
calculation methodology, all RCWs are
assumed to be used for 295 cycles per
year, while the per-cycle energy reflects
a weighted-average load size based on
the clothes washer capacity. Therefore,
the annual energy calculation reflects an
annual volume of laundered clothing
that scales with clothes washer capacity.
The increasing range of RCW capacities
available on the market may mean that
the total amount of laundered clothing
reflected in the annual energy
calculation is no longer reflective of
energy use during a representative
average use cycle of RCWs of different
sizes. For example, the current annual
energy calculation methodology is based
on an annual laundry volume of 2,258
pounds for a 3-cu.ft. RCW and 4,036
pounds for a 6-cu.ft. RCW.
This potential disparity is particularly
notable when comparing the product
labels of two RCW models with the
same IMEF efficiency rating, but
different capacities. Under the current
annual energy calculation methodology,
the information presented on the
product label would indicate that the
larger-capacity RCW would use
significantly more annual energy than
26 Part (A) provides the calculation when
electrically heated water is used. Part (B) provides
the calculation when gas-heated or oil-heated water
is used.
27 These equations include the machine electrical
energy consumption, hot water energy
consumption, and combined low-power mode
energy consumption; they exclude the energy
consumption for removal of moisture from the test
load (i.e., the ‘‘drying energy’’).
28 The maximum capacity in the original load size
table in Appendix J1–1997 was 3.8 cu.ft.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
the smaller-capacity model; however,
the larger RCW’s label would be based
on a significantly larger amount of
annual laundry than the smaller model,
as illustrated above. If compared on the
basis of an equivalent volume of
laundered clothing, both RCWs could be
expected to use the same amount of
annual energy since they have the same
IMEF efficiency rating. This potential
disparity may limit the ability of an
individual consumer to use the
information presented on the product
label to compare the differences in
expected energy use among RCW
models with the same rated energy
efficiency but different capacities.
Given the increasingly wide range of
RCW capacities available on the market,
and the significant changes over time in
estimated annual RCW cycles, DOE may
consider whether any changes are
warranted for the annual energy and
annual water calculations to ensure that
the results continue to reflect
representative average use for all clothes
washer sizes, to harmonize with any
changes to other metrics within the DOE
test procedures, and to continue to
provide useful comparative information
to consumers. For example:
• Revising the annual energy and
annual water calculation methodology
from being based on a fixed number of
annual cycles to a fixed number of
annual pounds of clothing.
• Varying the annual number of wash
cycles based on clothes washer capacity,
rather than a fixed number of annual
cycles for all clothes washers.
Issue II.C.3. DOE requests data and
information regarding whether and how
the annual number of wash cycles varies
as a function of clothes washer capacity.
DOE also requests feedback on whether
DOE should consider any changes to the
annual energy or annual water
calculation methodology and the burden
associated with these potential changes.
III. Other Comments, Data, and
Information
In addition to the issues identified
earlier in this document, DOE welcomes
comment on any other aspect of the
existing test procedures for clothes
washers not already addressed by the
specific areas identified in this
document.
For example, as a general matter, DOE
test procedures are intended to be
performed to completion while a unit is
installed in the test fixture. If a unit
were to be uninstalled or removed from
the test fixture before completion of the
full test procedure, DOE would consider
it a best practice to redo the complete
test once the unit is reinstalled in the
test fixture. Appendix J2 does not
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31081
currently specify that the entire test
procedure should be conducted without
interruption, but DOE could consider
adding such specification if doing so
would lead to more repeatable and
reproducible test results, particularly for
the active mode portion of the test. DOE
recognizes that given the differences in
test conditions between active mode
and inactive/off mode testing,29 that
these two portions of the test could be
performed in separate test fixtures.
DOE recently issued an RFI to seek
more information on whether its test
procedures are reasonably designed, as
required by EPCA, to produce results
that measure the energy use or
efficiency of a product during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use. 84 FR 9721 (Mar. 18,
2019). DOE seeks comment and
information on this issue as it pertains
to the test procedure for clothes washers
along with comments and information
on the following:
Issue III.1. DOE particularly seeks
information regarding whether amended
test procedures would more accurately
or fully comply with the requirement
that they be reasonably designed to
produce test results that measure energy
efficiency and water use of clothes
washers during a representative average
use cycle or period of use.
Issue III.2. DOE requests information
that would ensure that the test
procedure is not unduly burdensome to
conduct. Specifically, DOE requests
comments on whether potential
amendments based on the issues
discussed would result in a test
procedure that is unduly burdensome to
conduct, particularly in light of any new
products on the market since the last
test procedure update.
Issue III.3. DOE requests feedback on
any potential amendments to the
existing test procedures that could be
considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small
businesses.
Issue III.4. DOE requests comment on
the benefits and burdens of adopting
any industry/voluntary consensus-based
or other appropriate test procedure,
without modification.
Issue III.5. DOE seeks information on
how the test procedures could be
amended to reduce the cost of new or
additional features and make it more
29 Specifically, section 3.9 of appendix J2
specifies for combined low-power mode testing
(i.e., inactive/off mode testing) to establish the
testing conditions set forth in sections 2.1 (electrical
energy supply), 2.4 (test room temperature), and
2.10 (clothes washer installation); but does not
require establishing the other test conditions in
section 2 of appendix J2 (e.g., supply water and
water pressure).
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
31082
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 100 / Friday, May 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
likely that such features are included on
clothes washers.
IV. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date specified
in the DATES section, comments and
information on matters addressed in this
document and on other matters relevant
to DOE’s consideration of test
procedures for clothes washers. These
comments and information will aid in
the development of a test procedure
NOPR for RCWs and CCWs if DOE
determines that amended test
procedures may be appropriate for these
products.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Persons viewing comments will see only
first and last names, organization
names, correspondence containing
comments, and any documents
submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 May 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail also will be posted to
https://www.regulations.gov. If you do
not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do
not include it in your comment or any
accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a
cover letter. Include your first and last
names, email address, telephone
number, and optional mailing address.
The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include
any comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery, please
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It
is not necessary to submit printed
copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via email, postal mail, or
hand delivery two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked
confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submit these documents via email to
ResClothesWasher2016TP0011@
ee.doe.gov or on a CD, if feasible. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing test procedures and
energy conservation standards. DOE
actively encourages the participation
and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of this
process. Interactions with and between
members of the public provide a
balanced discussion of the issues and
assist DOE in the process.
Anyone who wishes to be added to
the DOE mailing list to receive future
notices and information about this
process should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at
(202) 287–1445 or via e-mail at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 25,
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE.
For administrative purposes only, and
in compliance with requirements of the
Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register
Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in
electronic format for publication, as an
official document of the Department of
Energy. This administrative process in
no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020–09990 Filed 5–21–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31065-31082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09990]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 430 and 431
[EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011]
RIN 1904-AD95
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating a data
collection process through this request for information (``RFI'') to
consider whether to amend its test procedures for clothes washers. As
part of this RFI, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been changes
in product testing methodology or new products on the market since the
last test procedure update that may create the need to make amendments
to the test procedure for clothes washers. DOE also seeks data and
information that could enable the agency to propose that the current
test procedure produces results that are representative of an average
use cycle for the product and is not unduly burdensome to conduct, and
therefore does not need amendment. DOE requests comment on specific
aspects of the current test procedure, including product definitions
and configurations, testing conditions and instrumentation, measurement
methods, representative usage and efficiency factors, and metric
definitions. DOE also seeks comment on any additional topics that may
inform DOE's decision whether to conduct a future test procedure
rulemaking, including methods to ensure that the test procedure is
reasonably designed to measure energy and water use during a
representative average use cycle or period of use and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on
any subject within the scope of this document (including topics not
raised in this RFI).
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 22, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2016-BT-
TP-0011, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include docket
number EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://www.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.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011. The docket web page contains
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section IV for information on how to
submit comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Scope & Definitions
B. Test Procedure
1. Connected Clothes Washers
2. Testing Conditions, Instrumentation, and Installation
3. Test Cloth
4. Capacity Measurement Alternatives
5. Cycle Selection and Settings
6. Wash/Rinse Temperature Selections for Semi-Automatic Clothes
Washers
7. Usage Factors
8. Associated Equipment Efficiencies
9. Non-Conventional Features
C. Metrics
1. Energy Efficiency Metric
2. Water Efficiency Metric
3. Annual Energy Calculation
III. Other Comments, Data, and Information
IV. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
Residential clothes washers (``RCWs'') are included in the list of
``covered products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(7)) DOE's test procedures for RCWs are prescribed at 10 CFR
430.23(j) and appendices J1, J2, and J3 to subpart B of 10 CFR part
430. Commercial clothes washers (``CCWs'') are included in the list of
``covered equipment'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and
amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(H)) The test procedures for CCWs must be the
[[Page 31066]]
same as those for established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) The
following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test
procedures for RCWs and CCWs, as well as relevant background
information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for these
products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(``EPCA'') \1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment, among
other things. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. These consumer products include RCWs. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) Title III, Part C \3\ of EPCA, added by Public Law
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. This equipment includes CCWs.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) Both RCWs and CCWs are the subject of this RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291;
42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42
U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority
to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296;
42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products and
covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws
and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)) DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products and covered equipment must use as the
basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products or equipment
comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of those covered products or
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must
use these test procedures to determine whether the products or
equipment comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
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 requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
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))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products, including RCWs, to integrate measures of standby
mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor, taking into
consideration the most current versions of Standards 62301 and 62087 of
the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC''), unless the
current test procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off
mode energy consumption, or if such integration is technically
infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 4 5 If an integrated
test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate
standby mode and off mode energy use test procedures for the covered
product, if a separate test is technically feasible. (Id.) As described
in the following sections, DOE's current clothes washer test procedure
includes provisions for measuring energy consumption in standby mode
and off mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ IEC Standard 62087 addresses the methods of measuring the
power consumption of audio, video, and related equipment and is not
relevant to clothes washers.
\5\ EPCA does not contain an analogous provision for commercial
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including clothes
washers, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary
determines, on his own behalf or in response to a petition by any
interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or
amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register
proposed test procedures and afford interested persons an opportunity
to present oral and written data, views, and arguments with respect to
such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule to amend a test
procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed 270 days. In
prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary shall take into
account such information as the Secretary determines relevant to such
procedure, including technological developments relating to energy use
or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of covered products
involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE determines that test procedure
revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not
to amend the test procedures. DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information to inform its decision pursuant to the 7-year
review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
Additionally, EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the
same as the test procedures established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(8)) As with the test procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires that
DOE evaluate, at least once every 7 years, the test procedures for CCWs
to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1)) This document also seeks input from the public to assist in
a determination as to whether amendments to test procedures are
necessary in the context of CCWs.
[[Page 31067]]
B. Rulemaking History
DOE originally established its clothes washer test procedure,
codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``Appendix J''), in
a September 1977 final rule. 42 FR 49802 (Sept. 28, 1977). Since that
time, the test procedure has undergone a number of amendments. In
August 1997, DOE published a final rule (``August 1997 Final Rule'')
amending Appendix J to include a measurement of remaining moisture
content (``RMC'') to account for more efficient water extraction and to
reflect changes in clothes washer features and consumer usage patterns,
among other changes. 62 FR 45484 (Aug. 27, 1997). The August 1997 Final
Rule also established an appendix J1 at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B
(``Appendix J1''), which included a new definition of the energy test
cycle, new energy test cloth pre-conditioning requirements, the use of
a third load size (average load) for adaptive water fill control
systems, a load size table for all clothes washers (including clothes
washers with manual water fill control systems), and a simplified
Temperature Use Factor (``TUF'') \6\ table, among other minor technical
changes. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As described in more detail later in this document, TUFs are
weighting factors that represent the percentage of wash cycles for
which consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature
selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2001 Final Rule, DOE provided further minor
technical amendments to Appendix J and Appendix J1, as well as a sunset
provision specifying that the provisions of Appendix J would expire on
December 31, 2003. 66 FR 3313. Additional amendments to Appendix J1
included, among other things, a methodology for developing correction
factors for each new lot of test cloth to reduce variability in the RMC
measurement due to differences in test cloth lots. Id.
In March 2012, DOE published a final rule (``March 2012 Final
Rule'') amending Appendix J1 to expand the load size table to
accommodate clothes washers with capacities up to 6 cubic feet
(``cu.ft.'') as well as some other minor changes. 77 FR 13887 (March 7,
2012). The March 2012 Final Rule also established a new test procedure
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 (``Appendix J2''), which
incorporated the following amendments: (1) Provisions for measuring
energy consumption in standby mode and off mode; (2) a more
comprehensive efficiency metric for water consumption; (3) a more
accurate reflection of consumer usage patterns; (4) revisions to the
energy test cycle definition; (5) revisions to the capacity measurement
method; (6) revisions related to the test cloth, including the
preconditioning detergent and test equipment; (7) clarification of
certain testing conditions and certain provisions of the test
procedure; and (8) revisions to the calculation for annual operating
cost. 77 FR 13887, 13891. The March 2012 Final Rule also removed the
obsolete Appendix J. 77 FR 13887, 13892.
On August 5, 2015, DOE published a final rule (``August 2015 Final
Rule'') that provided clarifying edits to Appendix J1 and Appendix J2.
80 FR 46729. The August 2015 Final Rule also moved the test cloth
qualification procedures from Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 to a new test
procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J3 (``Appendix J3'').
The test cloth qualification procedure specifies a standard extractor
RMC test to evaluate the moisture absorption and retention
characteristics, and to develop a unique correction curve for each new
lot of test cloth, which helps ensure that a consistent RMC measurement
is obtained for any test cloth lot used during testing. This procedure
is performed for each new lot of test cloth before the cloths can be
used in the test procedure provisions that measure clothes washer
performance; it is not performed as part of the testing required for
any particular unit under test. Therefore, DOE moved the test cloth
qualification procedure to the new Appendix J3 as a standalone test
method to improve the clarity and overall logical flow of the Appendix
J1 and Appendix J2 test procedures. Id. The correction factors
developed for each new cloth lot are used to adjust the RMC
measurements obtained when performing an Appendix J1 or Appendix J2
test on an individual clothes washer unit.
The current version of the test procedure at Appendix J2 includes
provisions for determining modified energy factor (``MEF'') and
integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF'') in cubic feet per
kilowatt-hour per cycle (``cu.ft./kWh/cycle''); and water factor
(``WF'') and integrated water factor (``IWF'') in gallons per cycle per
cubic feet (``gal/cycle/cu.ft.''). RCWs manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018 must meet current energy conservation standards, which
are based on IMEF and IWF, as determined using Appendix J2. 10 CFR
430.23(j)(2)(ii) and (4)(ii); 430.32(g)(4) CCWs manufactured on or
after January 1, 2018 must meet energy conservation standards for this
equipment based on MEF \7\ and IWF, which are also determined using
Appendix J2. 10 CFR 431.154 and 10 CFR 431.156(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For CCWs, the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
431.156 refer to MEF as ``MEFJ2'' to distinguish MEF as
calculated using Appendix J2 from MEF as calculated from Appendix
J1, which was the basis for energy conservation standards prior to
January 1, 2018. Due to several differences (e.g., the capacity
measurement and the drying energy calculation), the MEF metrics in
Appendices J1 and J2 are not equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Request for Information and Comments
As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been
changes in product testing methodology or new products on the market
since the last test procedure update. DOE also seeks data and
information that could enable the agency to propose that the current
test procedure produces results that are representative of an average
use cycle for the product and is not unduly burdensome to conduct, and
therefore does not need amendment. DOE also seeks information on
whether an existing private-sector developed test procedure would
produce such results and should be adopted by DOE rather than DOE
establishing its own test procedure, either entirely or by adopting
only certain provisions of one or more private-sector developed tests.
In the following sections, DOE has also identified a variety of
issues on which it seeks input to determine whether amended test
procedures for clothes washers would more accurately or fully comply
with the requirements in EPCA that test procedures: (1) Be reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect energy use during a
representative average use cycle, and (2) not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2))
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this process that may not be specifically identified in this
document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive
Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated
with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations. 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive
Order, DOE also encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE
could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to RCWs and
CCWs, consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
[[Page 31068]]
A. Scope & Definitions
DOE defines ``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to
clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and
mechanical agitation or other movement, and must be one of the
following classes: Automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes
washers, and other clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2
An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature,
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer that is
not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
``Commercial clothes washer'' is defined as a soft-mount front-
loading or soft-mount top-loading clothes washer that--
(A) has a clothes container compartment that--
(i) for horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic
feet; and
(ii) for vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic
feet; and
(B) is designed for use in--
(i) applications in which the occupants of more than one household
will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common
areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) other commercial applications.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452).
B. Test Procedure
1. Connected Clothes Washers
DOE is currently aware of several ``connected'' RCW models on the
market, from at least four major manufacturers. These products offer
optional wireless network connectivity to enable features such as
remote monitoring and control via smartphone, as well as limited demand
response features \8\ available through partnerships with a small
number of local electric utilities. In addition, connected features are
available via certain external communication modules for CCWs. However,
DOE is not aware of any CCW models currently on the market that
incorporate connected features directly into the unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Demand response features'' refers to product functionality
that can be controlled by the ``smart grid'' to improve the overall
operation of the electrical grid, for example by reducing energy
consumption during peak periods and/or shifting power consumption to
off-peak periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart technology
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that
RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and
issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment
that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was
to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards
for covered products and equipment.
Issue II.B.1. DOE seeks comments, data and information on the
issues presented in the ``smart products'' RFI as they may be
applicable to RCWs and CCWs.
Issue II.B.2. DOE requests feedback on its characterization of
connected RCWs, and any CCWs, currently on the market. Specifically,
DOE requests input on the types of features or functionality enabled by
connected clothes washers that exist on the market or that are under
development.
Section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 specifies using the manufacturer
default settings for any cycle selections except temperature selection,
wash water fill level, or spin speed; and section 3.9.1 of Appendix J2
specifies performing the combined low-power mode testing without
changing any control panel settings used for the active mode wash
cycle. With regard to the measurement of network mode energy use,
however, DOE stated in its 2012 rule (a conclusion not affected by the
2015 amendments), that ``DOE cannot thoroughly evaluate these [IEC
Standard 62301 (Second Edition)] network mode provisions, as would be
required to justify their incorporation into DOE's test procedures at
this time. DOE notes that although an individual appliance may consume
some small amount of power in network mode, the potential exists for
energy-related benefits that more than offset this additional power
consumption if the appliance can be controlled by the ``smart grid'' to
consume power during non-peak periods. Although DOE is supportive of
efforts to develop smart-grid and other network-enabled technologies in
clothes washers, this final rule does not incorporate the network mode
provisions due to the lack of available data that would be required to
justify their inclusion.'' 77 FR 13888, 13900 (Mar. 7, 2012).
Consistent with the goals of the ``smart products'' RFI, DOE will
ensure that it does not impede innovation in the development of smart
or connected products in considering any amendments to the test
procedure for clothes washers with regard to measuring the energy use
of connected features.
Issue II.B.3. DOE requests comment on whether changes to the
current clothes washer test procedure would advance the goal of the
``smart products'' RFI. In particular, DOE seeks comment on adding a
clarifying provision that would require testing to be conducted with
any network functionality turned off, or without measuring or reporting
the energy use of the clothes washer in network mode.
Issue II.B.4. DOE requests data on the percentage of users
purchasing connected RCWs who activate the connected capabilities, and,
for those users, the percentage of the time when the connected
functionality of the RCW is activated and using additional energy.
DOE seeks to understand the potential effects of connected
functionality as it relates to a clothes washer's energy use or energy
efficiency, including the following:
Hardware or software-related energy use implications of
such features; for example, whether including communication chips on a
circuit board could affect a product's energy consumption in standby
mode.
Consumer behavioral energy use implications of such
features; for example, allowing the consumer to remotely activate a
``wrinkle prevention'' feature that periodically tumbles the drum after
completion of a wash cycle would increase that cycle's energy use.
Utility grid-level benefits enabled by such features; for
example, using demand response capabilities to shift power loads from
peak periods to off-peak periods and possibly automating cycle starts
to coincide with periods of off-peak pricing.
Issue II.B.5. DOE requests data on the amount of additional or
reduced energy use by connected clothes washers. DOE also requests data
on the pattern of additional or reduced energy use; for example,
whether it is constant, periodic, or triggered by the user.
[[Page 31069]]
Issue II.B.6. DOE requests information about which existing modes
(e.g., active, standby, off) are affected by connected functionality.
Issue II.B.7. DOE requests information on any existing testing
protocols that account for connected features of clothes washers.
2. Testing Conditions, Instrumentation, and Installation
a. Hot Water Supply Temperature
Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 requires maintaining the hot water
supply temperature between 130 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') (54.4
degrees Celsius (``[deg]C'')) and 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C), using 135
[deg]F as the target temperature.
DOE has revised the hot water supply temperature requirements
several times throughout the history of the clothes washer test
procedure to remain representative of household water temperatures at
the time of its analysis. When establishing the original clothes washer
test procedure at Appendix J in 1977, DOE specified a hot water supply
temperature of 140 [deg]F 5 [deg]F. In the August 1997
Final Rule, DOE specified in Appendix J1 that for clothes washers in
which electrical energy consumption or water energy consumption is
affected by the inlet water temperature,\9\ the hot water supply
temperature cannot exceed 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C); and for other
clothes washers, the hot water supply temperature is to be maintained
at 135 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C 2.8
[deg]C). 62 FR 45484, 45497. DOE maintained these same requirements in
the original version of Appendix J2. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE
adjusted the allowable tolerance of the hot water supply temperature in
section 2.2 of Appendix J2 to between 130 [deg]F (54.4 [deg]C) and 135
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C) for all clothes washers, but maintained 135 [deg]F
as the target temperature. 80 FR 46729, 46734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For example, water-heating clothes washers or clothes
washers with thermostatically controlled water valves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE most recently analyzed household water temperatures as part of
the consumer water heater test procedure rulemaking. In the July 11,
2014, consumer water heater test procedure final rule, DOE revised the
hot water delivery temperature from 135 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F. 79 FR
40541, 40554. This change was primarily based on data available in
DOE's analysis for the April 16, 2010, consumer water heater energy
conservation standards final rule, which found that the average set
point temperature for consumer water heaters in the field is 124.2
[deg]F (51.2 [deg]C). 75 FR 20111. Additionally, a 2011 compilation of
field data across the United States and southern Ontario by Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (``LBNL'') \10\ found a median daily
outlet water temperature of 122.7 [deg]F (50.4 [deg]C). 79 FR 40541,
40554. Further, DOE noted in the consumer water heater energy
conservation standards final rule that water heaters are commonly set
with temperatures in the range of 120 [deg]F to 125 [deg]F. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Lutz, JD, Renaldi, Lekov A, Qin Y, and Melody M., ``Hot
Water Draw Patterns in Single Family Houses: Findings from Field
Studies,'' LBNL Report number LBNL-4830E (May 2011). Available at
https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE's consumer dishwasher test procedure, codified at
10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix C1, specifies a hot water supply
temperature of 120 [deg]F 2 [deg]F for water-heating
dishwashers designed for heating water with a nominal inlet temperature
of 120 [deg]F, which includes nearly all consumer dishwashers currently
on the U.S. market.
Issue II.B.8. DOE requests comments on whether DOE should consider
updating the hot water supply temperature for the clothes washer test
procedure. DOE also requests information on the use of the current hot
water supply temperature for clothes washers in relation to the
consumer water heater and dishwasher test procedures. Specifically, DOE
is interested in data and information on the hot water temperature used
in practice, any potential impact to testing costs that may occur by
harmonizing temperatures between the clothes washer and dishwasher test
procedures, and the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with any
changes to the hot water supply temperature.
Based on experience working with third-party test laboratories, as
well as its own testing experience, DOE recognizes that maintaining 135
[deg]F as the target temperature for the hot water supply may be
difficult given that the target temperature of 135 [deg]F lies at the
edge, rather than the midpoint, of the allowable temperature range of
130 [deg]F to 135 [deg]F. On electronic temperature mixing valves
typically used by test laboratories, the output water temperature is
maintained within an approximately two-degree tolerance above or below
a target temperature programmed by the user (e.g., if the target
temperature is set at 135 [deg]F, the controller may provide water
temperatures ranging from 133 [deg]F to 137 [deg]F). To ensure that the
hot water inlet temperature remains within the allowable range of 130
[deg]F to 135 [deg]F, such a temperature controller would need to be
programmed to 132.5 [deg]F, the midpoint of the range, which conflicts
with the test procedure requirement to use 135 [deg]F as the target
temperature. An analogous difficulty exists for the cold water inlet
temperature. Section 2.2 of appendix J2 specifies maintaining a cold
water temperature between 55 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F, using 60 [deg]F as
the target.
Issue II.B.9. DOE requests comments on whether it should consider
any changes to the target temperature or allowable range of
temperatures specified for the hot and cold water inlets, and if so
what alternate specifications should be considered.
Changing the hot water supply temperature could change the relative
hot and cold water usage of clothes washers with thermostatically
controlled mixing valves, which includes nearly all clothes washers in
the current market. If DOE were to update the supply water temperature,
DOE would also investigate what impact, if any, such a change would
have on a clothes washer's measured IMEF value. DOE seeks comment on
such impact in response to this RFI.
Issue II.B.10. DOE requests comments on how any changes to the hot
water supply temperature would impact a clothes washer's measured IMEF
value.
b. Measuring Wash Water Temperature
In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE amended section 3.3 of Appendix
J2, ``Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse,'' to allow the use of non-reversible
temperature indicator labels to confirm that a wash temperature greater
than 135 [deg]F has been achieved. 80 FR 46729, 46753. Since the
publication of the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE has become aware that
some third-party laboratories measure wash temperature using self-
contained temperature sensors in a waterproof casing placed inside the
clothes washer drum.
Issue II.B.11. DOE requests comments on manufacturers' or test
laboratories' experience with these or any other methods for
determining the temperature during a wash cycle that may reduce
manufacturer burden, including any information regarding the
reliability and accuracy of those methods.
c. Water Meter Resolution
Appendix J2 requires the use of water meters to measure water flow
and/or water consumption. Section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 requires a
resolution no larger than 0.1 gallons for the water meters, and a
maximum error no greater than 2 percent of the measured flow rate. DOE
has observed that some clothes washers use very small amounts of hot
water on some temperature selections, on the order of 0.1 gallons or
[[Page 31070]]
less. For example, some clothes washers have both Cold and Tap Cold
temperature selections, and the Cold selection may use a fraction of a
gallon of hot water. DOE believes that Appendix J2 may not provide the
necessary resolution to accurately and precisely measure the hot water
usage of such temperature selections.
Issue II.B.12. DOE requests comments on the benefits and test
burden of requiring a water meter with a resolution more precise than
0.1 gallons. Additionally, DOE requests comments on manufacturers' and
testing laboratories' experiences in testing with a water meter with a
resolution more precise than 0.1 gallons, including information on
related testing burden and benefits.
d. Installation of Single-Inlet Clothes Washers
Section 2.10 of Appendix J2 provides specifications for installing
a clothes washer, referencing both the hot water and cold water inlets.
Additionally, section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 specifies that a water meter
must be installed in both the hot and cold water lines.
DOE is aware of RCWs on the market that have a single water inlet
rather than separate hot and cold water inlets. DOE has observed two
types of single-inlet RCWs: (1) Automatic clothes washers intended to
be connected only to a cold water inlet, and which regulate the water
temperature through the use of internal heating elements to generate
any hot water used during the cycle; and (2) semi-automatic clothes
washers that are intended to be connected to a kitchen or bathroom
faucet, and which require user intervention to regulate the water
temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.
Issue II.B.13. DOE requests input on whether any other types of
single-inlet clothes washers exist on the market today or are under
development.
For a single-inlet automatic clothes washer (i.e., the first
example described above), DOE understands that a ``Y''-shaped hose
connector or other similar device may be provided by the manufacturer
on some models to allow both water supply lines to be connected to the
single inlet on the unit; however, other models may not include such a
connector. DOE is considering whether testing single-inlet automatic
clothes washers installed to only the cold water supply line during the
test would be representative of the energy used during a representative
average use cycle or period of use.
Issue II.B.14. DOE requests comments or information on how single-
inlet automatic clothes washers are typically installed by customers.
Specifically, DOE requests information on the percentage of single-
inlet automatic clothes washers sold with a Y-shaped hose connector or
similar such device; the extent that consumers use any provided device;
and in instances in which no device is provided, whether it is typical
for customers to connect the water inlet to a cold or hot water supply
line.
For single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers (i.e., the second
example described above), DOE has observed that these clothes washers
are most often designed to be connected to a kitchen or bathroom
faucet, with a single hose connecting the faucet to the single inlet on
the clothes washer (i.e., both cold and hot water are supplied to the
clothes washer through a single hose). The user regulates the water
temperature externally by adjusting the faucet to provide cold, warm,
or hot water temperatures for the wash and rinse portions of the cycle.
Appendix J2 specifies the use of two separate water supply connections,
one for cold water and one for hot water. Connecting a single-inlet
semi-automatic clothes washer to only a single water supply would limit
the available water temperature to either 60 [deg]F (provided by the
cold water supply) or 135 [deg]F (provided by the hot water supply). In
effect, only Cold Wash/Cold Rinse or Hot Wash/Hot Rinse could be tested
with a single-hose installation. Appendix J2 does not provide explicit
direction on how to connect a single-inlet semi-automatic clothes
washer to allow testing at other wash/rinse temperatures. DOE seeks
data on whether, and if so how, consumers using this type of clothes
washer adjust the water temperature for the wash and rinse portions the
cycle. Section II.B.6 of this document provides further details on
wash/rinse temperature selections for semi-automatic clothes washers.
DOE also seeks comment on how such clothes washers are currently
tested.
Issue II.B.15. DOE requests comments, data, and information on the
typical connection and representative average use of single-inlet semi-
automatic clothes washers. Additionally, DOE requests information on
how manufacturers are currently testing single-inlet semi-automatic
clothes washers under Appendix J2.
e. Discarding Test Data Due to Anomalous Behavior of Unit Under Test
Section 3.2.9 of appendix J2 specifies to ``discard the data from a
wash cycle that provides a visual or audio indicator to alert the user
that an out-of-balance condition has been detected, or that terminates
prematurely if an out-of-balance condition is detected, and thus does
not include the agitation/tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash times,
and rinse times applicable to the wash cycle under test.'' Aside from
out-of-balance conditions, DOE seeks input on whether the test
procedure should also require discarding data for wash cycles in which
any other anomalous behavior may be observed. DOE also requests
information on whether the test procedure should be clarified to
explicitly require that any wash cycle for which data was discarded due
to anomalous behavior must also be repeated to obtain data without the
anomalous behavior to be included in the energy test cycle.
Issue II.B.16. DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure
should exclude data from wash cycles in which any other type of
anomalous behavior aside from out-of-balance conditions is observed. If
so, DOE requests further comment on how such anomalies could be defined
in the test procedure and detected by the testing party, particularly
when testing only a single unit of a basic model (i.e., with no basis
for comparison against other units of the same basic model to determine
whether the observed behavior is anomalous). DOE additionally requests
comment on whether the test procedure should clarify that any wash
cycle for which data was discarded due to anomalous behavior must be
repeated to obtain valid data for that wash cycle without such
anomalous behavior.
3. Test Cloth
a. Specifications
DOE originally developed the energy test cloth specifications as
part of the January 2001 Final Rule, based on the results of a detailed
investigation of the cloth material used for testing.\11\ In
particular, DOE observed that the material properties of the energy
test cloth had a significant effect on the RMC measurement,\12\ which
was added to Appendix J1 to measure the effectiveness of the final spin
cycle in
[[Page 31071]]
removing moisture from the wash load. As described in the test cloth
report, the final specifications for the energy test cloth were
developed to provide for the representativeness of the test cloth to a
consumer load: A 50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester blended
material was specified to approximate the typical mix of cotton,
cotton/polyester blend, and synthetic articles that are machine-washed
by consumers. DOE also considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Development of a Standardized Energy Test Cloth for
Measuring Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes
Washer. U.S. Department of Energy: Buildings, Research and
Standards. May 2000. Available online at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2006-STD-0064-0277.
\12\ The RMC measurement is an important aspect of DOE's clothes
washer test procedure because the RMC value determines the drying
energy, which is the biggest contributor to IMEF. Based on the
Technical Support Documents from the March 2012 Final Rule, the
drying energy represents 65 percent of the total energy for a 2015
baseline-level top-loading standard RCW, and 72 percent for a 2015
baseline-level front-loading standard RCW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturability: A 50/50 cotton-polyester momie weave
was specified because at the time, such cloth was produced in high
volume, had been produced to a consistent specification for many years,
and was expected to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable
future.
Consistency in test cloth production: The cloth material
properties were specified in detail, including fiber content, thread
count, and fabric weight; as well as requirements to verify that water
repellent finishes are not applied to the cloth.
Consistency of the RMC measurement among different lots: A
procedure was developed to generate correction factors for each new
``lot'' (i.e., batch) of test cloth to normalize test results and
ensure consistent RMC measurements regardless of which lot is used for
testing.
DOE understands that the qualification process for new test cloth
lots may be burdensome and that delays in the process may periodically
lead to shortages of test cloth available for purchase. Furthermore, it
is possible that different energy test cloth specifications could more
optimally balance the various factors addressed by the test cloth
specification.
Issue II.B.17. DOE requests comments on manufacturers' and testing
laboratories' experience using the current test cloth specifications
and whether DOE should consider any changes to the energy test cloth
specifications to reduce burden and improve testing results. DOE also
seeks comment on whether it is necessary to specify any qualification
procedure that must be conducted on all new lots of energy test cloth
prior to use of such test cloths, as opposed to simply providing
requirements for the test cloth without specifying in DOE's regulations
the procedure for achieving those requirements. Industry could then
continue with its current pre-qualification process, making changes as
it determined necessary to improve that process, without the need to
seek permission from DOE and participate in a rulemaking proceeding to
make such improvements.
b. Uniformity Test
Appendix J3 specifies a qualification procedure that must be
conducted on all new lots of energy test cloth prior to use of such
test cloths. This qualification procedure provides a set of correction
factors that correlate the measured RMC values of the new test cloth
lot with a set of standard RMC values established as the historical
reference point. These correction factors are applied to the RMC test
results in section 3.8.2.6 of appendix J2 to ensure the repeatability
and reproducibility of test results performed using different lots of
test cloth. The measured RMC of each clothes washer has a significant
impact on the final IMEF value.
Industry has developed a process in which this qualification test
is performed by a third-party laboratory, and the results are reviewed
and approved by the AHAM Test Cloth Task Force, after which the new lot
of test cloth is made available for purchase by manufacturers and test
laboratories.
DOE has received a request from members of the AHAM Test Cloth Task
Force to add to Appendix J3 an additional qualification procedure that
has historically been performed on each new lot of test cloth to ensure
uniformity of RMC test results on test cloths from the beginning,
middle, and end of each new lot. Industry practice is to perform this
uniformity test before conducting the procedure to develop the RMC
correction factors currently specified in the DOE test procedure, as
described above. Specifically, the uniformity test involves performing
an RMC measurement on nine bundles of sample cloth representing the
beginning, middle, and end locations of the first, middle, and last
rolls of cloth in a new lot. The coefficient of variation across the
nine RMC values must be less than or equal to 1 percent for the test
cloth lot to be considered acceptable for use.
Issue II.B.18. DOE requests comments on whether it is necessary to
incorporate the aforementioned test cloth uniformity test into Appendix
J3, or whether the current regulations, with the existing requirements
for test cloth and qualification procedure, are sufficient to ensure
the quality of the test cloth. DOE requests comment on any burden that
results from the current qualification procedure, or would result from
incorporating the discussed uniformity test, particularly for small
businesses. As noted above, DOE also seeks comment on whether it is
necessary to specify any qualification procedure that must be conducted
on all new lots of energy test cloth prior to use of such test cloths,
as opposed to simply providing requirements for the test cloth without
specifying in DOE's regulations the procedure for achieving those
requirements. Industry could then continue with its current pre-
qualification process, making changes as it determined necessary to
improve that process, without the need to seek permission from DOE and
participate in a rulemaking proceeding to make such improvements.
c. Consolidation Into Appendix J3
Several provisions within Appendix J2 that pertain to the energy
test cloth are applicable to each new lot of test cloth, but are not
required to be conducted again for each individual clothes washer test
performed under Appendix J2. For example, section 2.7.4.6 of Appendix
J2 specifies performing American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists (``AATCC'') Test Method 118-2007 and AATTCC Test Method 79-
2010 (incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 430.3) to verify that water-
repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes, are
not applied to the test cloth.
Based on discussions with the AHAM Test Cloth Task Force, DOE is
aware that these AATCC test methods, among other test cloth provisions
in section 2.7 of Appendix J2, are performed by a third-party
laboratory on each new lot of test cloth, along with the RMC tests
described previously. Once the absence of water-repellent finishes has
been verified for the new lot of test cloth, the AATCC tests do not
need to be conducted again for each individual Appendix J2 clothes
washer test performed by manufacturers or test laboratories.
Issue II.B.19. DOE requests comments on whether to consolidate into
Appendix J3 provisions from section 2.7 of Appendix J2 that relate only
to the testing of the manufactured test cloth, and are not required to
be performed for each individual Appendix J2 clothes washer test. DOE
also seeks comment on whether to remove these provisions entirely (see
Issues II.B.17 and II.B.18).
4. Capacity Measurement Alternatives
Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides the procedure for measuring the
clothes container capacity, which represents the maximum usable volume
for washing clothes. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE revised the
clothes container capacity measurement to better reflect the actual
usable capacity compared to the previous measurement procedures.
[[Page 31072]]
77 FR 13887, 13917. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE further
clarified the capacity measurement procedure by incorporating a revised
description of the maximum fill volume for front-loading clothes
washers, as well as illustrations of the boundaries defining the
uppermost edge of the clothes container for top-loading vertical-axis
clothes washers and the maximum fill volume for horizontal-axis clothes
washers. 80 FR 46729, 46733.
Measuring the clothes container capacity involves filling the
clothes container with water and using the weight of the water to
determine the volume of the clothes container. For front-loading
clothes washers, this procedure requires positioning the clothes washer
on its back surface such that the door opening of the clothes container
faces upwards and is leveled horizontally.
DOE is aware that for some front-loading clothes washers,
positioning the clothes washer on its back surface may be impractical
or unsafe, particularly for very large or heavy clothes washers or
those with internal components that could be damaged by the procedures
outlined in section 3.1 of Appendix J2. On other clothes washers,
filling the clothes container volume as described could be difficult or
impractical, particularly for clothes washers with concave or otherwise
complex door geometries.
Recognizing these challenges, DOE is considering whether to allow
manufacturers to determine the clothes container capacity by performing
a calculation of the volume based upon computer-aided design (``CAD'')
models of the basic model in lieu of physical measurements of a
production unit of the basic model. DOE allows a CAD-based approach for
consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as
specified at 10 CFR 429.27(c).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Under this approach, any value of total refrigerated volume
of a basic model reported to DOE in a certification of compliance in
accordance with Sec. 429.14(b)(2) must be calculated using the CAD-
derived volume(s) and the applicable provisions in the test
procedures in 10 CFR part 430 for measuring volume, and must be
within two percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 cubic feet for compact
products), whichever is greater, of the volume of a production unit
of the basic model measured in accordance with the applicable test
procedure in 10 CFR part 430. See 10 CFR 429.72(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.20. DOE requests comments on whether to allow CAD-based
determination of clothes container capacity for clothes washers in lieu
of physical measurements of a production unit of the basic model. DOE
requests comments on the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with
any such change to the capacity measurement procedure.
As the clothes washer market evolves to include clothes washers
with increasingly larger capacities, DOE understands that for larger-
capacity clothes washers, the capacity value as measured by Appendix
J2, which is intended to reflect the maximum usable volume, may not
necessarily result in a test method that measures the energy efficiency
and water use of the clothes washer during a representative average use
cycle or period of use.
In addition, DOE understands that in Europe and elsewhere (e.g.,
the United Arab Emirates, Australia, and New Zealand), clothes washer
capacity is represented in terms of the weight of clothing (e.g.,
kilograms or pounds) that may be washed, rather than the physical
volume of the clothes container. Furthermore, some international test
procedures allow for the clothes washer capacity to be declared by the
manufacturer, representing the maximum weight of clothing that the
clothes washer is designed to successfully clean.
Some of the alternate representations of clothes washer capacity
that DOE could consider include:
A weight-based capacity, such as pounds of clothing, which
could be derived from the measured volume of the clothes container in a
similar manner to the way that the maximum test load is currently
specified in Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 based on the measured clothes
container volume.
A clothes container capacity that is declared by the
manufacturer using an industry-standard methodology. For example, IEC
Standard 60456, ``Clothes washing machines for household use--Methods
for measuring the performance'' Edition 5.0 (``IEC Standard 60456
Edition 5.0'') provides two optional methodologies for determining test
load mass, using either table tennis balls or water.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For the table tennis ball approach, the clothes container
is filled with specified table tennis balls, and an empirically
determined equation is provided to convert the number of balls into
a capacity value. The water approach is similar to the approach
provided in section 3.1 of Appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.21. DOE requests comment on whether to consider any
changes to the representation of clothes washer capacity, including,
but not limited to, a weight-based capacity or manufacturer-declared
capacity based on an industry-standard methodology. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the two methodologies provided in IEC
Standard 60456 Edition 5.0 provide capacity measurements that result in
a test method that measures the energy use of the clothes washer during
a representative average use cycle or period of use.
5. Cycle Selection and Settings
a. Representative Average Use
DOE recently issued an RFI to seek more information on whether its
test procedures are reasonably designed, as required by EPCA, to
produce results that measure the energy use or efficiency of a product
during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 84 FR 9721
(Mar. 18, 2019). DOE seeks comment on this issue as it pertains to the
test procedure for clothes washers, and specifically to all of the
issues and comment requests set forth in the following paragraphs.
b. Load Sizes for Available Minimum and Maximum Fill Levels
Table 2.8 within section 2.8 of Appendix J2 requires that, for
clothes washers with manual water fill control systems, each
temperature selection that is part of the energy test cycle be tested
using both the minimum and maximum water fill levels, using the minimum
and maximum load sizes, respectively.\15\ Section 3.2.6 of Appendix J2
describes these water fill levels as the minimum and maximum water
levels available for the wash cycle under test. DOE has observed at
least one clothes washer with electronic controls in which the maximum
water fill level on the unit cannot be selected (i.e., is ``locked
out'') with one of the temperature selections required for testing; on
that temperature setting, the maximum water fill that can be selected
is one of the intermediate fill levels on the unit. The resulting water
fill level (which is a significantly lower fill level) is thus
misaligned with the maximum load size required for that particular
cycle under test. Using a maximum load size with an intermediate water
fill level may not provide results that measure energy efficiency and
water use during a representative average use cycle or period of use,
since the locking out of the maximum water fill level indicates that
the particular temperature selection is not intended to be used with a
maximum load size. More generally, electronic controls on such a
clothes washer could lock out either the minimum or maximum water fill
level available on the unit from any of the
[[Page 31073]]
temperature selections required for testing under Appendix J2,
rendering the resulting water fill level for that temperature selection
inappropriate for the maximum (or minimum) load size defined for the
unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In calculating the weighted energy consumption of a clothes
washer with a manual water control system, load usage factors are
applied to the minimum test loads (0.28) and maximum test loads
(0.72), as described further in section II.B.7.b of this RFI. The
load usage factors were based on Procter & Gamble field usage data
when Appendix J was initially established. 42 FR 49802, 49809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE previously addressed the issue of locked-out water fill levels
in a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') published on May 24,
1995. 60 FR 27442, 27444. At that time, three manufacturers expressed
concern about the possibility of a maximum water level being locked
out. DOE stated that it was not aware of any products employing such
lockout designs at that time, but should such designs emerge, they
could be addressed in a future rulemaking. Id.
DOE welcomes input from interested parties on how the test
procedure should accommodate locked-out water fill levels required for
testing. As discussed, the current test procedure requires that the
maximum load size be tested with the maximum water fill level available
in combination with the selected temperature selection, which may be a
lower fill level than the maximum available on the machine and not
intended for maximum size clothing loads. DOE would consider other
approaches that would produce results that measure energy efficiency or
water use during a representative average use cycle or period of use
for this category of clothes washer.
Issue II.B.22. DOE requests comments on how clothes washers with
locked-out water fill levels could be tested. DOE also requests data on
the water level that consumers use on this type of clothes washer when
a specific water level is locked-out.
c. Locked-Out Spin Settings
Section 3.8.4 of Appendix J2 requires that for clothes washers that
have multiple spin settings \16\ available within the energy test cycle
that result in different RMC values, the maximum and minimum extremes
of the available spin settings must be tested on the Cold/Cold
temperature selection. The final RMC is the weighted average of the
maximum and minimum spin settings, with the maximum spin setting
weighted at 75 percent and the minimum spin setting weighted at 25
percent. DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market that offer
multiple spin settings, but which offer only the maximum spin setting
on the Cold/Cold temperature selection; i.e., the minimum spin setting
is locked out of the Cold/Cold temperature selection. This results in
the lower spin setting not being factored into the RMC calculation,
despite being available at other temperature selections in the energy
test cycle. According to the TUF Table 4.1.1 in Appendix J2, the Cold/
Cold temperature selection represents 37 percent of consumer
temperature selections, with the other available temperature
selections, for which the lower spin settings are available,
representing a combined 63 percent of clothes washer cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The term ``spin settings'' refers to spin times or spin
speeds. The maximum spin setting results in a lower (better) RMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.23. DOE requests comment on testing for clothes washers
that offer only the maximum spin setting on the Cold/Cold temperature
selection but provide lower spin settings on other temperature
selections. For example, RMC could be measured at the default spin
setting for each temperature selection, and averaged using the TUFs.
DOE requests data on the extent to which this or any other suggested
approach measures the energy use of the clothes washer during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. DOE also seeks data
on the burden that may be added or reduced as a result of these other
testing configurations.
Issue II.B.24. DOE requests input on whether any changes to the RMC
measurement are warranted to address the issue of locked-out spin
settings, taking into account the requirements that the test procedure
must be reasonably designed to measure the energy use of the clothes
washer during a representative average use cycle or period of use and
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
d. Four or More Warm/Cold Temperature Selections
Section 3.5 of Appendix J2 states that for a clothes washer that
offers four or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections, either
all discrete selections shall be tested, or the clothes washer shall be
tested at the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions of the
temperature selection device between the hottest hot (<=135 [deg]F
(57.2 [deg]C)) wash and the coldest cold wash. If a selection is not
available at the 25, 50 or 75-percent position, in place of each such
unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature selection shall be
used. Hereafter in this document, DOE refers to the latter provision as
the ``25/50/75 test.''
DOE introduced the 25/50/75 test in the original version of
Appendix J1, as established by the August 1997 Final Rule, out of
concern regarding the test burden for clothes washers that offer a
large number of intermediate warm wash temperature selections, if the
test procedure were to require testing all intermediate warm
temperature selections. 62 FR 45484, 45497. DOE had originally proposed
a similar method \17\ in the April 22, 1996 supplemental NOPR (``April
1996 SNOPR'') preceding the August 1997 Final Rule, for clothes washers
having infinite warm wash selections that are non-uniformly
distributed. 61 FR 17589, 17599. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE
agreed with a suggested option to consider clothes washers with more
than three warm wash temperatures to be clothes washers with infinite
warm wash temperature selections, therefore allowing them to also use
the 25/50/75 test. 62 FR 45484, 45498. DOE concluded at that time that
testing at the various test points of the temperature range, with a
requirement to test to the next higher selection if a temperature
selection is not available at a specified test point, would provide
data representative of the warm wash temperature selection offerings.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The originally proposed test would have required testing at
the 20/40/60/80 percent positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the 25/50/75 test was adopted before the widespread
use of electronic controls, which now allow for the assignment of wash
water temperatures that may not reflect the physical spacing between
temperature selections on the control panel. For example, with
electronic controls, the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent
positions on the dial may not necessarily correspond to 25-percent, 50-
percent, and 75-percent temperature differences between the hottest and
coldest selections. DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market with
four or more warm wash temperature selections, in which the temperature
selections located at the 25, 50, and 75-percent positions are low-
temperature cycles that have wash temperatures only a few degrees
higher than the coldest wash temperature; whereas the temperature
selection labeled ``Warm'' is located beyond the 75 percent position on
the temperature selection dial and is therefore not included for
testing under the 25/50/75 test.
Issue II.B.25. DOE requests feedback on the representativeness of
using the 25/50/75 test on clothes washers with electronic controls;
particularly for clothes washers in which the 25-percent, 50-percent,
and 75-percent positions on the dial do not correspond to 25-percent,
50-percent, and 75-percent temperature increments between the hottest
and coldest selections.
[[Page 31074]]
Issue II.B.26. DOE also seeks information on alternative approaches
for testing clothes washers with four or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse
temperature selections that would ensure that the test procedure is
reasonably designed to measure the energy use of the clothes washer
during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and is not
unduly burdensome to conduct. Specifically, DOE requests comment on
whether there is a less burdensome means for the test procedure to be
reasonably designed to measure energy use or efficiency of the clothes
washer during a representative average use cycle.
e. Clothes Washers That Generate All Hot Water Internally
DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market that draw only cold
water and internally generate all hot water that may be required for a
cycle by means of internal heating elements. As observed on the market,
these clothes washers offer cold, warm, hot, and extra hot temperature
selections. As part of determining the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature
selection, the instruction box in the flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of
Appendix J2 refers to ``. . . multiple wash temperature selections in
the Normal cycle [that] do not use any hot water for any of the water
fill levels or test load sizes required for testing . . .'' DOE is
considering rephrasing the text in Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 to say
``. . . use or internally generate any heated water . . .'' (emphasis
added) so that the wording of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart in
Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 explicitly addresses these clothes
washers. This change would reflect DOE's interpretation of the current
Cold Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart and subsequent flowcharts for the Warm
Wash and Hot Wash temperature selections for this type of clothes
washer.
Issue II.B.27. DOE requests input on revising the phrasing of
Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 to specifically address the test method
for clothes washers that internally generate all hot water used for a
cycle by means of internal heating elements. DOE also seeks comment on
whether and if so, to what extent, this change would affect the
measured energy use of these clothes washers as compared to the current
test procedure.
f. Non-Conventional Water Fill Control Systems
Classification of Water Fill Control Systems
Table 2.8 of Appendix J2 prescribes the required test load sizes
based on the type of water fill control system (``WFCS'') on the
clothes washer. Appendix J2 defines two main types of WFCS: Manual WFCS
and automatic WFCS, which includes adaptive WFCS and fixed WFCS.
Section 3.2.6.2 of Appendix J2 further distinguishes between user-
adjustable and not-user-adjustable automatic WFCSs. Additionally,
section 3.2.6.3 of Appendix J2 accommodates clothes washers that have
both an automatic WFCS and an alternate manual WFCS.
As electronic control panels become more sophisticated, determining
which type of WFCS is used in a particular clothes washer can be
difficult. Furthermore, the use of an electronic control panel enables
a clothes washer to have combinations of WFCSs that were previously
unforeseen and therefore not addressed in the test procedure (e.g.,
multiple different adaptive WFCSs, or both adaptive and fixed WFCSs).
The following are examples of such clothes washers that DOE has
observed on the market:
Example #1: A clothes washer that uses an adaptive WFCS but
includes an optional cycle modifier, most typically in the form of a
control panel button, that affects the water level by adding either
more or less water than would otherwise be used by the adaptive WFCS.
DOE has observed several types of such optional cycle modifiers, such
as ``deep fill'' and ``water plus,'' which use more water than the
default adaptive WFCS; and ``eco,'' which uses less water than the
default adaptive WFCS.
Example #2: A clothes washer that defaults to a fixed maximum water
level if the user takes no action (i.e., a fixed WFCS), and that offers
a single optional button that provides a lower fill level than the
default fill level if activated.
Example #3: A clothes washer with a control panel that allows the
user to choose between two separate automatic WFCSs: One of which is an
adaptive WFCS, and the other is a fixed WFCS that provides the maximum
fill level regardless of load size (e.g., ``deep fill'').
Example #4: A clothes washer with a control panel that allows the
user to choose between two separate adaptive WFCSs: One that provides
more efficient performance; and the other that provides higher fill
levels, both of which adapt to the size of the clothing load.
Example #5: A clothes washer with a separate cycle labeled ``deep
fill,'' as an alternative to the Normal cycle.
Issue II.B.28. DOE requests input on whether any changes are
warranted for the definitions of automatic WFCS, manual WFCS, adaptive
WFCS, and fixed WFCS, specifically in the context of clothes washers
currently on the market, and whether the current definitions
appropriately reflect the products currently available. DOE also
requests input on whether a definition of user-adjustable automatic
WFCS should be considered, and if so, how it could be defined to best
reflect the type of user-adjustable WFCSs currently on the market.
Comments are also welcome on whether a less complex method of WFCS
differentiation could be used that would still result in the test
procedure being reasonably designed to measure energy efficiency and
water use of clothes washers during a representative average use cycle
or period of use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Issue II.B.29. As an alternative to considering revisions to the
definitions of each type of WFCS, DOE could consider alternate
approaches, such as using a flow chart--similar to the energy test
cycle flowcharts in section 2.12 of Appendix J2--to guide the
determination of which type of WFCS is available on a clothes washer.
DOE requests comment on such an approach.
Issue II.B.30. DOE requests input on an approach that would result
in a measurement of energy and water use during a representative
average use cycle for clothes washers with unconventional WFCSs, such
as in the examples provided, including the impacts on manufacturer
burden associated with any such approach.
Test Cycles and Calculations
Section 3.2.6.3 of Appendix J2 states that if a clothes washer with
an automatic WFCS allows consumer selection of manual controls as an
alternative, both the manual and automatic modes are tested. The energy
and water consumption values are measured separately under each mode
and then averaged; the average values are then used in the final
calculations in section 4 of Appendix J2. The averaging of each value
implies a 50-percent usage factor for each of the available WFCSs on
the clothes washer.
Section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 provides instructions for a
clothes washer with a user-adjustable automatic WFCS. For this type of
WFCS, four tests are conducted: (1) The first test uses the maximum
test load and the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the
most energy intensive result; (2) the second test uses the minimum test
load and the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the least
energy intensive result; (3) the third test uses the average test load
and the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the most
energy intensive result for the
[[Page 31075]]
given test load; and (4) the fourth test uses the average test load and
the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy
intensive result for the given test load. The energy and water
consumption for the average test load are the average of the third and
fourth tests' results.
Issue II.B.31. DOE requests comment on whether the above test
procedure requiring four separate tests meets the EPCA requirements of
measuring the energy and water use during a representative average use
cycle and not being unduly burdensome to conduct, and whether an
approach that required less than four tests would meet this EPCA
requirement.
Issue II.B.32. DOE requests comments on the representativeness of
the WFCS setting and load size combinations tested for clothes washers
with both automatic and manual WFCSs, as well as clothes washers with
user-adjustable automatic WFCSs.
g. Wash Time Setting
Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 defines how to select the wash time
setting on a clothes washer. If no one wash time is prescribed for the
wash cycle under test, the wash time setting is the higher of either
the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available,
regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. Hereafter in
this document, DOE refers to this provision as the ``70-percent test.''
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE added instructions to the wash
time section of Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 that specified the
direction of rotation of electromechanical dials, and that the 70-
percent test applies regardless of the labeling of suggested dial
locations. 77 FR 13887, 13927. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE
specified that, if 70-percent of the maximum wash time is not available
on a dial with a discrete number of wash time settings, the next-
highest setting greater than 70-percent must be chosen. 80 FR 46729,
46745. DOE is considering, as described in the following sections,
whether additional changes to section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 are
warranted to provide further clarity, particularly with regard to how
the wash time setting should be interpreted for electronic control
dials.
Clarification for Electronic Cycle Selection Dials
DOE has observed on the market clothes washers that have an
electronic cycle selection dial designed to visually simulate a
conventional electromechanical dial.\18\ In particular, DOE has
observed clothes washers with an electronic dial that offers multiple
Normal cycle selections; for example, ``Normal-Light,'' ``Normal-
Medium,'' and ``Normal-Heavy,'' with the descriptor referring to the
soil level of the clothing. On such clothes washers, the only
difference between the three Normal cycles apparent to consumers when
performing each cycle may be the wash time, although other less
observable parameters may also differ. Although the electronic dial
simulates the visual appearance of an electromechanical dial, the
electronic dial is programmed with a pre-established set of wash cycle
parameters, including wash time, for each of the discrete cycle
selections presented on the machine. For this type of cycle selection
dial, each of the discrete cycle selection options represents a
selectable ``wash cycle'' as referred to in section 3.2.5 of Appendix
J2, and a wash time is prescribed for each available wash cycle.
Therefore, for clothes washers with this type of electronic dial, the
wash cycle selected for testing must correspond to the wash cycle that
meets the definition of Normal cycle in section 1.25 of Appendix J2.
The wash time setting thus would be the prescribed wash time for the
selected wash cycle; i.e., the 70-percent test would not apply to this
type of dial. DOE is considering whether any changes to section 3.2.5
of Appendix J2 are warranted to qualify further which type of dial
would be subject to the 70-percent test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ On most electromechanical dials, the rotational position of
the dial corresponds to the desired wash time. The user rotates the
dial from the initial ``off'' position to the desired wash time
position, and after starting the wash cycle, the dial rotates
throughout the progression of the wash cycle until it reaches the
off position at the end of the cycle. In contrast, an electronic
dial contains a fixed number of selectable positions, and the dial
remains in the selected position for the duration of the wash cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.33. DOE requests feedback on whether section 3.2.5 of
Appendix J2 should be further clarified regarding electronic cycle
selection dials that visually simulate conventional electromechanical
dials.
Direction of Dial Rotation
Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 also states that, for clothes washers
with electromechanical dials controlling wash time, the dial must be
turned in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the
appropriate wash time setting. DOE is aware that not all
electromechanical dials currently on the market can be turned in the
direction of increasing wash time. On such models, the dial can only be
turned in the direction of decreasing wash time. DOE believes that the
direction of rotation need only be prescribed on a clothes washer with
an electromechanical dial that can rotate in both directions.
Therefore, DOE is considering further amending section 3.2.5 of
Appendix J2 to clarify that the requirement to rotate the dial in the
direction of increasing wash time applies only to dials that can rotate
in both directions.
Issue II.B.34. DOE requests comment on its understanding of the
functioning of dials currently on the market, specifically with regard
to the direction(s) of rotation and whether the wording of section
3.2.5 of Appendix J2 warrants revision to clarify that the requirement
to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time applies
only to dials that can rotate in both directions.
``Wash Time'' Terminology
Finally, DOE is considering whether to state that the phrase ``wash
time'' in section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 refers to the period of
agitation or tumble. This clarification would be consistent with the
historical context of this section of the test procedure. In Appendix J
as established by the September 1977 Final Rule, section 2.10 Clothes
washer setting defined ``wash time'' as the ``period of agitation.'' As
part of the January 2001 Final Rule, DOE amended section 2.10 of
Appendix J by renaming it Wash time (period of agitation or tumble)
setting.\19\ 66 FR 3313, 3330. When establishing Appendix J1 in the
August 1997 Final Rule, DOE did not include reference to ``period of
agitation'' in section 2.10 of Appendix J1. 62 FR 45484, 45510. DOE did
not address this difference from Appendix J in the preamble of the
August 1997 Final Rule or the NOPRs that preceded that final rule, but
given the continued reference to ``wash time'' in Appendix J1, did not
intend to change the general understanding that wash time refers to the
wash portion of the cycle, which includes agitation or tumble time. DOE
has since further amended section 2.10 of both Appendix J1 and Appendix
J2 as part of the March 2012 Final Rule and August 2015 Final Rule (in
which section 2.10 was renumbered as section 3.2.5), with no discussion
in these final rules of the statement that remained in Appendix J,
where wash time referred to agitation or tumble time. DOE further notes
that in current RCW models on the market, agitation or tumble may be
[[Page 31076]]
periodic or continuous during the wash portion of the cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In this context, ``agitation'' refers to the wash action of
a top-loading clothes washer, whereas ``tumble'' refers to the wash
action of a front-loading clothes washer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.35. DOE requests feedback on whether DOE should consider
reincorporating language into section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 to clarify
that the term ``wash time'' refers to the wash portion of the cycle,
including agitation or tumble time.
h. Optional Cycle Modifiers
Section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 states that for clothes washers with
electronic control systems, the manufacturer default settings must be
used for any cycle selections, except for (1) the temperature
selection, (2) the wash water fill levels, or (3) if necessary, the
spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine RMC. Specifically, the
manufacturer default settings must be used for wash conditions such as
agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin speed on wash cycles used
to determine energy and water consumption, wash times, rinse times,
optional rinse settings, water heating time for water-heating clothes
washers, and all other wash parameters or optional features applicable
to that wash cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature or setting (other
than wash/rinse temperature, water fill level selection, or spin speed
on wash cycles used to determine RMC) that is activated by default on
the wash cycle under test must be included for testing unless the
manufacturer instructions recommend not selecting this option, or
recommend selecting a different option, for washing normally soiled
cotton clothing.
Issue II.B.36. DOE seeks comment on whether testing of cycle
settings other than the manufacturer default settings would measure the
energy efficiency and water use of the clothes washer during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. DOE also seeks
comment on whether the non-default selections required by the current
DOE test procedure meet this requirement.
DOE has observed a trend towards increased availability of optional
cycle modifiers such as ``deep fill,'' as described previously in this
document, and ``extra rinse,'' among others. These optional settings
may significantly impact the water and/or energy consumption of the
clothes washer when activated. DOE has observed that the default
setting of these optional settings on the Normal cycle is most often in
the off position; i.e., the least energy- and water-intensive setting.
The growing presence of such features may, however, be indicative of an
increase in consumer demand and/or usage of these features.
Issue II.B.37. DOE requests information regarding how frequently
consumers use ``deep fill,'' ``extra rinse,'' or other cycle modifiers,
as well as whether (and if so, by how much) such modifiers may increase
the energy or water consumption of a wash cycle compared to the default
settings on the Normal cycle. DOE also requests comment on whether
testing these features in the default settings would produce test
results that measure energy efficiency and water use of clothes washers
during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and the
burden of such testing on manufacturers.
6. Wash/Rinse Temperature Selections for Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
Section II.B.2.d of this document discussed the installation of
single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers. This section discusses the
wash/rinse temperature selections and TUFs applicable to all semi-
automatic clothes washers. Semi-automatic clothes washers are defined
at 10 CFR 430.2 as a class of clothes washer that is the same as an
automatic clothes washer except that user intervention is required to
regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet
valves. DOE's test procedure requirements at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(2)(ii)
state that the use of Appendix J2 to determine IMEF is required for
both automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers. Similarly, the IWF
measurement requirements at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(3)(ii) apply to ``clothes
washer[s],'' which is defined in 10 CFR 430.2 to include semi-automatic
clothes washers.
Semi-automatic clothes washers do not provide wash/rinse
temperature selections on the control panel, and any combination of
cold, warm, and hot wash temperatures and rinse temperatures can be
implemented by the user. The following discussion provides relevant
historical context on this issue.
Section 6.1 of Appendix J-1977 \20\ and Appendix J-1997 provided
TUFs for the following wash/rinse temperature combinations for semi-
automatic clothes washers: Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm,
Warm/Cold, and Cold/Cold. The definition of these TUFs indicated that
these six wash/rinse temperature combinations were required for
testing. Section 3.2.2.6 of Appendix J-1977 and Appendix J-1997 and
section 3.2.3.1.6 of Appendix J1-1997 and Appendix J1-2001 provided a
table indicating the following external water faucet valve positions
required to achieve each wash and rinse temperature selection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Throughout this section, to distinguish different versions
of each test method, DOE uses the following nomenclature: Appendix
[letter]-[year of amendment]. For example, the original version of
Appendix J is referred to as Appendix J-1977. The version as amended
by the August 1997 Final Rule is referred to as Appendix J-1997, and
so forth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot: Hot valve completely open, cold valve closed;
Warm: Hot valve completely open, cold valve completely
open; and
Cold: Hot valve closed, cold valve completely open.
Under Appendix J-1977 and Appendix J-1997, the Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm,
and Cold/Cold temperature combinations were tested for semi-automatic
clothes washers without regulating the water temperature between the
wash and rinse portions of the cycle. However, for the Hot/Warm, Hot/
Cold, and Warm/Cold temperature combinations to be tested, Appendix J-
1977 and Appendix J-1997 required the test administrator to manually
regulate the water temperature in between the wash and rinse portions
of the cycle by adjusting the external water faucet valves. As
reflected in DOE's definition of semi-automatic clothes washer, user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature of all semi-
automatic clothes washers (i.e., user regulation of water temperature
is the distinguishing characteristic of a semi-automatic clothes
washer).
When it established Appendix J1-1997, DOE combined all of the TUF
tables--for both automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers--that
were also provided in section 5 and section 6 of Appendix J-1997 into a
single condensed table in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J1-1997. 62 FR 45484,
45512. In contrast to Appendix J-1997, which provided separate TUF
tables for every possible set of available wash/rinse temperature
selections, the new simplified table in Appendix J1-1997 was organized
into columns based on the number of wash temperature selections
available on a clothes washer. Warm rinse was considered separately
within each column of the table. Id. In the current version of Appendix
J2, Table 4.1.1 remains a single simplified table, although in the
August 2015 Final Rule, DOE clarified the column headings by listing
the wash/rinse temperature selections applicable to each column. 80 FR
46729, 46782.
The simplified Table 4.1.1 in Appendix J2 does not state which
column(s) of the table are applicable to semi-automatic clothes
washers. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE stated that it was not
aware of any semi-automatic clothes washers on the
[[Page 31077]]
market. 77 FR 32307, 32317. However, DOE is currently aware of several
semi-automatic clothes washer model available in the U.S. market.
Issue II.B.38. DOE requests input on whether the test procedure
should be amended with regard to the specificity of wash/rinse test
combinations for semi-automatic clothes washers in Appendix J2, and
whether those updates would provide test results that measure energy
efficiency and water use during a representative average use cycle or
period of use, and whether they would be unduly burdensome to conduct.
7. Usage Factors
DOE requests information on whether, in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3), the consumer usage factors incorporated into the test
procedure produce test results that measure energy efficiency and water
use of clothes washers during a representative average use cycle or
period of use. DOE also seeks comment on whether testing cycle
configurations with usage factors below a certain percentage would be
unduly burdensome to conduct and would not be considered to be
reasonably designed to measure energy and water use during a
representative average use cycle or period of use because they are
rarely used by consumers.
a. Temperature Usage Factors
As described in section II.B.6 of this document, TUFs are weighting
factors that represent the percentage of wash cycles for which
consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature selection. The
TUFs in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2 are based on the TUFs introduced in
Appendix J1-1997 by the August 1997 Final Rule. As described in the
April 1996 SNOPR, DOE established the TUFs in Appendix J1-1997 based on
an analysis of consumer usage data provided by Procter & Gamble
(``P&G''), the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM''),
General Electric Company (``GE''), and Whirlpool Corporation
(``Whirlpool''), as well as linear regression analyses performed by P&G
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST''). 61
FR 17589, 17593. DOE understands that consumer usage patterns may have
changed since the introduction of Table 4.1.1 in Appendix J1-1997.
DOE recognizes that some possible combinations of wash/rinse
temperature selections that could be offered on a clothes washer are
not represented in Table 4.1.1 (e.g., the current table would not
accommodate a clothes washer that offers only Extra-Hot/Cold and Cold/
Cold wash/rinse temperature selections).
Issue II.B.39. DOE requests data on current consumer usage
frequency of the wash/rinse temperature selections required for testing
in Appendix J2.
Issue II.B.40. DOE requests input on whether requiring measurement
of cycle selections with low TUFs (for example, the current Table 4.1.1
lists TUFs including 5, 9, and 14 percent) is consistent with the EPCA
requirement that the test procedure be reasonably designed to measure
the energy use or efficiency of the clothes washer during a
representative average use cycle or period of use, and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct.
Issue II.B.41. DOE requests information on whether any combinations
of wash/rinse temperature selections not currently represented in Table
4.1.1 of Appendix J2 exist. DOE also seeks data to support how the TUFs
for such combinations could be defined to ensure that the test
procedure measures energy and water consumption during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. DOE also seeks comments on whether
any of the combinations in Table 4.1.1 should be removed as not
reasonably designed to measure the energy use of the clothes washer
during a representative average use cycle or period of use.
For semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE is considering whether
amendments with regard to the specificity of wash/rinse temperature
combinations and associated TUFs for semi-automatic clothes washers in
Appendix J2 would provide test results that are reasonably designed to
measure energy and water consumption during a representative average
use cycle or period of use. As discussed in section II.B.6 of this RFI,
Appendix J specified TUFs for semi-automatic clothes washers for six
wash/rinse temperature combinations. Appendix J2 does not currently
provide separate TUFs for semi-automatic clothes washers. Because the
wash and rinse temperatures on a semi-automatic clothes washer are
controlled directly by the consumer by adjusting the hot and cold water
faucets, DOE understands that the appropriate TUFs for semi-automatic
clothes washers that best reflect energy and water consumption during a
representative average use cycle or period of use may be different from
those of automatic clothes washers.
Issue II.B.42. DOE requests input on whether to specify TUFs for
semi-automatic clothes washers in Appendix J2, and if so, how the TUFs
should be defined to be reasonably designed to measure energy and water
consumption during a representative average use cycle or period of use
for semi-automatic clothes washers.
b. Load Usage Factors
Load Usage Factors (``LUFs'') are weighting factors that represent
the percentage of wash cycles that consumers run with a given load
size. Table 4.1.3 of Appendix J2 provides two sets of LUFs based on
whether the clothes washer has a manual WFCS or automatic WFCS.
For a clothes washer with a manual WFCS, the two LUFs represent the
percentage of wash cycles for which consumers choose the maximum water
fill level and minimum water fill level, regardless of the actual load
size. For a clothes washer with an automatic WFCS, the three LUFs
represent the percentage of cycles for which the consumer washes a
minimum-size, average-size, and maximum-size load. The values of these
LUFs are intended to approximate a normal distribution that is slightly
weighted towards the minimum load size. This distribution is based on
consumer load size data provided by P&G in support of the development
of Appendix J1-1997.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The P&G load size data are provided on pages 13-20 in
legacy Docket EE-RM-94-230A Comment 25, which is archived on the
regulations.gov website under Docket EERE-2006-TP-0065 Comment 27.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue II.B.43. DOE requests data on current consumer usage as
related to the LUFs and whether any updates to the LUFs in Table 4.1.3
of Appendix J2 are warranted to reflect current consumer usage
patterns. DOE specifically requests comment on whether the use of
certain LUFs in the test procedure is consistent with the EPCA
requirement that the test procedure be reasonably designed to measure
energy and water use during a representative average use cycle or
period of use without being unduly burdensome to conduct, because
certain load sizes may be rarely used by consumers.
c. Load Size Table
Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 provides the minimum, average, and maximum
load sizes to be used for testing based on the measured capacity of the
clothes washer. The table defines capacity ``bins'' in 0.1 cu.ft.
increments. The load sizes for each capacity bin are determined as
follows:
Minimum load is 3 pounds (``lb'') for all capacity bins;
Maximum load (in lb) is equal to 4.1 times the mean
clothes washer
[[Page 31078]]
capacity of each capacity bin (in cu.ft.); and
Average load is the arithmetic mean of the minimum load
and maximum load.
DOE originally introduced the load size table in Appendix J1 in the
August 1997 Final Rule, which accommodated clothes container capacities
up to 3.8 cu.ft. This load size table was provided by AHAM as part of
AHAM's recommended test procedure changes for Appendix J1, as described
in the April 1996 SNOPR. 61 FR 17589, 17595.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE expanded Table 5.1 to accommodate
clothes container capacities up to 6.0 cu.ft. 77 FR 13887, 13910. DOE
extrapolated the load sizes to 6.0 cu.ft. using the same equations to
define the maximum and average load sizes as described previously.
On May 2, 2016 and April 10, 2017, DOE granted waivers to Whirlpool
and Samsung Electronics America Inc., respectively, for testing RCWs
with capacities between 6.0 and 8.0 cu.ft.,\22\ by further
extrapolating Table 5.1 using the same equations to define the maximum
and average load sizes as described previously. 81 FR 26215, 82 FR
17229. DOE's regulations in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions allowing
any interested person to seek a waiver from the test procedure
requirements if certain conditions are met. A waiver allows
manufacturers to use an alternative test procedure in situations where
the DOE test procedure cannot be used to test the product or equipment,
or where use of the DOE test procedure would generate unrepresentative
results. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1) DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.27(l)
require that as soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver,
DOE will publish in the Federal Register a NOPR to amend its
regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such
waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the
Federal Register a final rule. Therefore, DOE will consider amending
its test procedure to accommodate RCWs with capacities up to 8.0 cu.ft.
as part of a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ As noted, CCWs are limited under the statutory definition
to a maximum capacity of 3.5 cubic feet for horizontal-axis CCWs and
4.0 cubic feet for vertical-axis CCWs. 42 U.S.C. 6311(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that section II.B.4 of this document provides additional
discussion regarding potential alternative approaches for representing
clothes container capacity that DOE could consider, which might suggest
a different solution for addressing larger-capacity clothes washers
than extrapolation of the existing Table 5.1.
Issue II.B.44. DOE requests comment on whether Table 5.1 of
Appendix J2 should be extrapolated to accommodate RCW capacities up to
8.0 cu.ft., and if so, appropriate methods for extrapolation. More
generally, DOE also requests data and information on whether the
minimum, average, and maximum load size definitions in Table 5.1 are
representative of the range of load sizes used by consumers for each
capacity bin in the table, particularly for larger-capacity RCWs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ DOE notes that the load size definitions could be
considered independently from, or in conjunction with, the LUFs, as
described in the previous section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Dryer Usage Factor
The dryer usage factor (``DUF'') represents the percentage of
clothes washer loads dried in a clothes dryer. The DUF is used in
section 4.3 of Appendix J2 in the equation for calculating the per-
cycle energy required to remove the remaining moisture of the test load
(i.e., ``drying energy'').
DOE first introduced the drying energy equation in Appendix J1 as
part of the August 1997 Final Rule. DOE originally established a DUF
value of 0.84, which was based in part on data provided by P&G, as
described in the April 1996 SNOPR. 61 FR 17589, 17592; 62 FR 45484,
45489.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE revised the DUF in Appendix J2 to
0.91 based on updated consumer usage data from the Energy Information
Administration (``EIA'') 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(``RECS''). 77 FR 13887, 13913.
Issue II.B.45. DOE specifically requests comment on whether the DUF
in the test procedure is consistent with the EPCA requirement that the
test procedure be reasonably designed to measure energy and water use
during a representative average use cycle or period of use without
being unduly burdensome to conduct, because certain drying cycles may
be rarely used by consumers. DOE also requests data and information on
whether any further adjustments to the DUF are warranted to reflect
current consumer usage patterns.
e. Spin Speed Usage Factors
Section 3.8.4.1 of Appendix J2 provides weighting factors for
calculating the RMC value for clothes washers that have options such as
multiple spin speeds or spin time settings that result in different RMC
values, and that are available within the energy test cycle. The
equation in section 3.8.4.1 of Appendix J2 assigns a 75-percent usage
factor to the maximum spin setting and a 25-percent usage factor to the
minimum spin setting. In originally establishing the spin setting usage
factors in Appendix J-1997, DOE considered P&G usage factor data for
normal/regular cycle usage (in which maximum water extraction is
assumed) as compared to delicate and permanent-press cycle usage (in
which minimum water extraction is assumed). 62 FR 45484, 45489; see
also AHAM comment in docket EE-RM-94-230A, pp. 2 and 8.\24\ DOE
determined that the consumers washing less durable articles of clothing
would refrain from using a higher spin cycle to prevent possible fabric
damage, and that the spin setting usage factors correlated to the use
of normal/regular cycle usage as compared to delicate and permanent-
press cycle usage. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2006-TP-0065-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that section II.B.5.c of this document provides additional
discussion regarding potential alternative approaches that DOE could
consider for clothes washers with multiple spin speeds, which might
suggest a different solution than maintaining the existing spin speed
usage factors.
Issue II.B.46. DOE requests data and information on whether current
consumer usage patterns warrant any adjustments to the spin speed usage
factors. In particular, DOE requests consumer usage data regarding the
selection of spin speeds on clothes washers that offer multiple spin
speeds, and particularly the percentage of wash cycles for which
consumers use the default spin settings. DOE also requests comment on
whether the use of certain spin speed usage factors in the test
procedure is consistent with the EPCA requirement that the test
procedure be reasonably designed to measure energy and water use during
a representative average use cycle or period of use without being
unduly burdensome to conduct, because certain spin speeds may be rarely
used by consumers.
f. Annual Number of Wash Cycles
Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 provides the representative average
number of annual clothes washer cycles for the purpose of translating
the annualized inactive and off mode energy consumption measurements
into a per-cycle value applied to each active mode wash cycle.
Separately, the number of annual wash cycles is also referenced in
DOE's test procedure provisions at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i)(A) and (B),
(j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B), and (j)(3)(i) and (ii) for the purpose of
calculating annual
[[Page 31079]]
operating cost and annual water consumption of a clothes washer.
In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE estimated the representative
number of annual wash cycles per RCW to be 392, which represented the
average number of cycles per year from 1986 through 1994, based on P&G
survey data provided to DOE as described in a NOPR published on March
23, 1995. 60 FR 15330, 15335; 62 FR 45484, 45501.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE updated the representative number
of wash cycles per year to 295 based on an analysis of the 2005 RECS
data. 77 FR 13887, 13909. More recently, analysis of the 2009 RECS data
suggests 284 cycles per year, and analysis of the 2015 RECS data (the
most recent available) suggests 234 cycles per year.
Issue II.B.47. DOE requests data and information on whether any
further adjustments to the number of annual wash cycles are warranted
to reflect current RCW consumer usage patterns, as suggested by RECS
data.
g. Low-Power Mode Usage Factors
Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 allocates 8,465 combined annual hours
for inactive and off modes. If a clothes washer offers a switch, dial,
or button that can be optionally selected by the user to achieve a
lower-power inactive/off mode than the default inactive/off mode,
section 4.4 assigns half of those hours (i.e., 4,232.5 hours) to the
default inactive/off mode and the other half to the optional lowest-
power inactive/off mode. This allocation is based on an assumption that
if a clothes washer offers such a feature, consumers will select the
optional lower-power mode half of the time. 77 FR 13887, 13904. The
allocation of 8,465 hours to combined inactive and off modes is based
on an assumption of 295 active mode hours (assuming one hour per active
mode wash cycle), for a total of 8,760 hours per year for all operating
modes.
Issue II.B.48. DOE requests input on whether the annual hours
allocated to combined inactive and off modes, as well as the assumed
50-percent split between default inactive/off mode and any optional
lower-power inactive/off mode, result in a test method that measures
the energy efficiency of the clothes washer during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and would not be unduly burdensome
to conduct.
8. Associated Equipment Efficiencies
a. Water Heater Efficiencies
Section 4.1.2 of Appendix J2 provides equations for calculating
total per-cycle hot water energy consumption for all water fill levels
tested. The hot water energy consumption is calculated by multiplying
the measured volume of hot water by a constant fixed temperature rise
of 75 [deg]F and by the specific heat of water, defined as 0.00240
kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree Fahrenheit (kWh/gal-[deg]F). No
efficiency or loss factor is included in this calculation, which
implies an electric water heater efficiency of 100 percent.
Similarly, section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2 provides an equation for
calculating total per-cycle hot water energy consumption using gas-
heated or oil-heated water, for product labeling requirements.\25\ This
equation includes a multiplication factor ``e,'' representing the
nominal gas or oil water heater efficiency, defined as 0.75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Federal Trade Commission's EnergyGuide label for RCWs
includes the estimated annual operating cost using natural gas water
heating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These water-heating energy equations estimate the energy required
by the household water heater to heat the hot water used by the clothes
washer. Per-cycle hot water energy consumption is one of the four
energy components in the IMEF metric.
Issue II.B.49. DOE requests input on whether any updates are
warranted to the water heater efficiency values implied in section
4.1.2 and provided in section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2.
b. Drying Energy
Section 4.3 of Appendix J2 provides an equation for calculating
total per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the
test load in a clothes dryer; i.e., the ``drying energy.'' The drying
energy calculation is based on the following three factors: (1) A
clothes dryer final RMC of 4 percent; (2) a clothes dryer energy factor
(``DEF''), which is defined as 0.5 kWh/lb and represents the nominal
energy required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture from a pound of
clothes; and (3) the DUF which, as described previously in this
document, is defined as 0.91 and represents the percentage of clothes
washer loads dried in a clothes dryer. DOE is soliciting information to
determine whether the final RMC value after drying and the DEF value
should be revised as a result of recent updates to the DOE clothes
dryer test procedure and any market changes due to the most recent
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers.
DOE's test procedure for clothes dryers, codified at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D1 (``Appendix D1''), prescribes a final RMC
of between 2.5 and 5.0 percent, which is consistent with the 4-percent
final RMC value in the clothes washer test procedure for determination
of the DEF. However, DOE's alternate clothes dryer test procedure,
codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 (``Appendix D2''),
prescribes a final RMC of between 1 and 2.5 percent for timer dryers,
which are clothes dryers that can be preset to carry out at least one
operation to be terminated by a time, but may also be manually
controlled and do not include any automatic termination function. For
automatic termination control dryers, 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, the test cycle is deemed invalid if the clothes dryer terminates
the cycle at a final RMC greater than 2 percent. In the final rule
establishing Appendix D2, DOE determined that a clothes dryer final RMC
of 2 percent using the DOE test load would be more representative of
clothes dryers currently on the market in that generally consumers
would find a final RMC above this level unacceptable. Timer dryers are
provided with a range of allowable final RMC during the test because
DOE concluded that it would be unduly burdensome to require the tester
to dry the test load to an exact RMC; however, the measured test cycle
energy consumption for timer dryers is normalized to calculate the
energy consumption required to dry the test load to 2-percent final
RMC. 78 FR 49607, 49612-49624 (Aug. 14, 2013). Manufacturers may elect
to use Appendix D2 to demonstrate compliance with the January 1, 2015,
energy conservation standards; however, the procedures in Appendix D2
need not be performed to determine compliance with energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers at this time.
Issue II.B.50. DOE requests input on whether the final RMC value in
the drying energy calculation in Appendix J2 should be revised to align
with the DOE clothes dryer test procedure at Appendix D2 or another
value that is representative of clothes dryers currently on the market.
Issue II.B.51. DOE requests input on whether the current value of
the DEF is representative of the nominal energy required for a clothes
dryer to remove moisture from a pound of clothes, or whether an
alternative value would be more representative.
[[Page 31080]]
9. Non-Conventional Features
a. Clothes Washers With an Additional Wash System
DOE is aware of ``auxiliary'' or ``supplementary'' RCWs designed to
accompany a standard-size RCW from the same manufacturer. In one
configuration, a top-loading wash drum (i.e., ``auxiliary'' clothes
washer) is integrated into the top of a standard-size front-loading
clothes washer (i.e., ``primary'' clothes washer). The primary front-
loading clothes washer and the auxiliary top-loading clothes washer are
powered through a single electrical plug; however, the primary clothes
washer and the auxiliary clothes washer have separate control systems
and can be operated independently from one another. Another
configuration comprises a top-loading RCW sold as a separate product
(i.e., ``supplementary'' clothes washer) with independent controls and
a separate electrical plug, and which is designed to be installed
underneath certain front-loading RCWs within the space of a
conventional pedestal or riser.
Because such auxiliary and supplementary clothes washers are
installed in conjunction with a primary clothes washer, the presence
and operation of two separate clothes washers may affect consumer usage
patterns for both the primary and auxiliary or supplementary clothes
washers, compared to if the consumer had only a primary clothes washer.
For example, separating certain items from a clothing load to be washed
in the auxiliary or supplementary clothes washer would reduce the size
of the clothing load washed in the primary clothes washer or could
result in fewer cycles being run in the primary clothes washer.
Additionally, in the case of an auxiliary clothes washer, which is
integrated with the primary clothes washer and powered through a single
electrical plug, the standby power might be ``double counted'' for both
the primary clothes washer and the auxiliary clothes washer, since the
standby power consumed by both clothes washers would be measured
through the single electrical plug during both independent tests.
Issue II.B.52. DOE requests information on whether or how the
presence of an auxiliary or supplementary clothes washer may affect
usage patterns in the primary clothes washer.
Issue II.B.53. DOE requests input on the appropriate allocation of
combined low-power mode energy consumption between auxiliary and
primary clothes washers that are powered through a single electrical
plug.
b. Clothes Washers With a Pre-Treat Soaking Basin
DOE is aware of RCWs that contain a built-in basin that can be used
to pre-treat and soak clothing before the start of a wash cycle. As
observed among models currently on the market, the soaking basin is
separate from the main clothing drum and is filled with water through
an auxiliary water nozzle separate from the water fill control system
used for the main clothing drum. As described in the user manual, the
pre-treat and soaking feature is recommended to be used before the RCW
begins its main wash cycle operation. As observed among models
currently on the market, use of the built-in basin and auxiliary water
nozzle are not considered part of active washing mode, as defined by
section 1.2 of Appendix J2.
Issue II.B.54. DOE requests consumer usage data on built-in pre-
treat soak basins, as well as information on the amount of energy and
water these basins typically use. DOE also requests information on
whether and to what extent the energy and water use in the subsequent
wash cycle would be impacted by the transfer of water and wet clothing
from the pre-treat basin to the clothes washer drum.
C. Metrics
In addition to adjustments to the current test procedure to produce
MEF, IMEF, and IWF values that reflect current clothes washers and
consumer use, DOE may also consider in a future rulemaking broader
changes to key metrics that would, for example, harmonize the DOE test
procedure with other industry test methods. In particular, DOE may
consider changes to the energy efficiency metric and the water
efficiency metric. DOE may also consider adjustments to the annual
energy calculation.
1. Energy Efficiency Metric
The current energy efficiency standards for RCWs are based on the
IMEF metric, measured in cu.ft./kWh/cycle, as calculated in section 4.6
of Appendix J2. IMEF is calculated as the capacity of the clothes
container (in cu.ft.) divided by the total clothes washer energy
consumption (in kWh) per cycle. The total clothes washer energy
consumption per cycle is the sum of: (a) The machine electrical energy
consumption; (b) the hot water energy consumption; (c) the energy
required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load; and
(d) the combined low-power mode energy consumption.
The current energy efficiency standards for CCWs are based on the
MEFJ2 metric, measured in cu.ft./kWh/cycle, as determined in
section 4.5 of Appendix J2. The MEFJ2 metric differs from
the IMEF metric by not including the combined low-power mode energy
consumption in the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle.
DOE could consider changing the energy efficiency metrics for RCWs
or CCWs to maintain consistency with any changes to the capacity metric
or for other reasons. For example, the MEFJ2 or IMEF metric
could be modified to incorporate a capacity based on weight of
clothing, as described previously in this document, which would result
in an MEFJ2 or IMEF expressed in terms of pounds of clothing
per kWh per cycle.
Issue II.C.1. DOE requests feedback on whether to consider any
changes to the energy efficiency metric defined in the test procedure,
including the drivers for such a change and the form of a new metric.
2. Water Efficiency Metric
The current water efficiency standards for both RCWs and CCWs are
based on the IWF metric, measured in gal/cycle/cu.ft, as calculated in
section 4.2.13 of Appendix J2. IWF is calculated as the total weighted
per-cycle water consumption (in gallons) for all wash cycles divided by
the capacity of the clothes container (in cu.ft.). Unlike the IMEF
metric, in which a higher number indicates more efficient performance,
a lower IWF value indicates more efficient performance. DOE could
consider inverting the existing calculation such that a higher value of
IWF would represent more efficient performance, which would provide
greater consistency with the IMEF metric.
Issue II.C.2. DOE requests feedback on whether to consider any
changes to the water efficiency metric defined in the test procedure to
maintain consistency with any changes to the capacity metric or for any
other purpose, including those described for the energy efficiency
metric, and whether it would be appropriate to invert the existing
calculation such that a higher value of IWF would represent more
efficient performance.
3. Annual Energy Calculation
The annual energy consumption of an RCW is calculated as part of
the estimated annual operating cost calculations at 10 CFR
430.23(j)(1)(ii)(A)
[[Page 31081]]
and (B).\26\ In each equation, annual energy consumption is calculated
by multiplying the per-cycle energy consumption \27\ by the
representative average RCW use of 295 cycles per year. The annual
operating cost is provided to the consumer on the Federal Trade
Commission (``FTC'') EnergyGuide label for RCWs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Part (A) provides the calculation when electrically heated
water is used. Part (B) provides the calculation when gas-heated or
oil-heated water is used.
\27\ These equations include the machine electrical energy
consumption, hot water energy consumption, and combined low-power
mode energy consumption; they exclude the energy consumption for
removal of moisture from the test load (i.e., the ``drying
energy'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE could consider changes to the method for calculating annual
energy use to ensure that the calculation results in a measurement of
energy use during a representative average use cycle. DOE may also
consider changes to the overall calculation methodology that could
improve the usefulness of the information presented to the consumer on
the product label.
An increasingly wide range of RCW capacities are available on the
market, ranging from less than 1 cu.ft. to greater than 6 cu.ft. When
DOE originally developed the annual energy calculation methodology at
10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), the test procedure accommodated clothes washers
with capacities up to 3.8 cu.ft.\28\ According to the current
calculation methodology, all RCWs are assumed to be used for 295 cycles
per year, while the per-cycle energy reflects a weighted-average load
size based on the clothes washer capacity. Therefore, the annual energy
calculation reflects an annual volume of laundered clothing that scales
with clothes washer capacity. The increasing range of RCW capacities
available on the market may mean that the total amount of laundered
clothing reflected in the annual energy calculation is no longer
reflective of energy use during a representative average use cycle of
RCWs of different sizes. For example, the current annual energy
calculation methodology is based on an annual laundry volume of 2,258
pounds for a 3-cu.ft. RCW and 4,036 pounds for a 6-cu.ft. RCW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The maximum capacity in the original load size table in
Appendix J1-1997 was 3.8 cu.ft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This potential disparity is particularly notable when comparing the
product labels of two RCW models with the same IMEF efficiency rating,
but different capacities. Under the current annual energy calculation
methodology, the information presented on the product label would
indicate that the larger-capacity RCW would use significantly more
annual energy than the smaller-capacity model; however, the larger
RCW's label would be based on a significantly larger amount of annual
laundry than the smaller model, as illustrated above. If compared on
the basis of an equivalent volume of laundered clothing, both RCWs
could be expected to use the same amount of annual energy since they
have the same IMEF efficiency rating. This potential disparity may
limit the ability of an individual consumer to use the information
presented on the product label to compare the differences in expected
energy use among RCW models with the same rated energy efficiency but
different capacities.
Given the increasingly wide range of RCW capacities available on
the market, and the significant changes over time in estimated annual
RCW cycles, DOE may consider whether any changes are warranted for the
annual energy and annual water calculations to ensure that the results
continue to reflect representative average use for all clothes washer
sizes, to harmonize with any changes to other metrics within the DOE
test procedures, and to continue to provide useful comparative
information to consumers. For example:
Revising the annual energy and annual water calculation
methodology from being based on a fixed number of annual cycles to a
fixed number of annual pounds of clothing.
Varying the annual number of wash cycles based on clothes
washer capacity, rather than a fixed number of annual cycles for all
clothes washers.
Issue II.C.3. DOE requests data and information regarding whether
and how the annual number of wash cycles varies as a function of
clothes washer capacity. DOE also requests feedback on whether DOE
should consider any changes to the annual energy or annual water
calculation methodology and the burden associated with these potential
changes.
III. Other Comments, Data, and Information
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures
for clothes washers not already addressed by the specific areas
identified in this document.
For example, as a general matter, DOE test procedures are intended
to be performed to completion while a unit is installed in the test
fixture. If a unit were to be uninstalled or removed from the test
fixture before completion of the full test procedure, DOE would
consider it a best practice to redo the complete test once the unit is
reinstalled in the test fixture. Appendix J2 does not currently specify
that the entire test procedure should be conducted without
interruption, but DOE could consider adding such specification if doing
so would lead to more repeatable and reproducible test results,
particularly for the active mode portion of the test. DOE recognizes
that given the differences in test conditions between active mode and
inactive/off mode testing,\29\ that these two portions of the test
could be performed in separate test fixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Specifically, section 3.9 of appendix J2 specifies for
combined low-power mode testing (i.e., inactive/off mode testing) to
establish the testing conditions set forth in sections 2.1
(electrical energy supply), 2.4 (test room temperature), and 2.10
(clothes washer installation); but does not require establishing the
other test conditions in section 2 of appendix J2 (e.g., supply
water and water pressure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recently issued an RFI to seek more information on whether its
test procedures are reasonably designed, as required by EPCA, to
produce results that measure the energy use or efficiency of a product
during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 84 FR 9721
(Mar. 18, 2019). DOE seeks comment and information on this issue as it
pertains to the test procedure for clothes washers along with comments
and information on the following:
Issue III.1. DOE particularly seeks information regarding whether
amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirement that they be reasonably designed to produce test results
that measure energy efficiency and water use of clothes washers during
a representative average use cycle or period of use.
Issue III.2. DOE requests information that would ensure that the
test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. Specifically, DOE
requests comments on whether potential amendments based on the issues
discussed would result in a test procedure that is unduly burdensome to
conduct, particularly in light of any new products on the market since
the last test procedure update.
Issue III.3. DOE requests feedback on any potential amendments to
the existing test procedures that could be considered to address
impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue III.4. DOE requests comment on the benefits and burdens of
adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate
test procedure, without modification.
Issue III.5. DOE seeks information on how the test procedures could
be amended to reduce the cost of new or additional features and make it
more
[[Page 31082]]
likely that such features are included on clothes washers.
IV. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified in the DATES section, comments and information on matters
addressed in this document and on other matters relevant to DOE's
consideration of test procedures for clothes washers. These comments
and information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR
for RCWs and CCWs if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be
appropriate for these products.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. Submit these documents via email to
[email protected] or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will
make its own determination about the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process.
Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about this process should contact
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or
via e-mail at [email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February
25, 2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE.
For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-09990 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
