Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers and Consumer Clothes Dryers, 87803-87821 [2024-25480]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
regulation have been approved by OMB
and have been assigned OMB control
number 0575–0189. This proposed rule
contains no new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that would
require approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
E-Government Act Compliance
Rural Development is committed to
the E-Government Act, which requires
Government agencies in general to
provide the public the option of
submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible and to promote the use
of the internet and other information
technologies to provide increased
opportunities for citizen access to
Government information and services,
and for other purposes.
USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
In accordance with Federal civil
rights laws and USDA civil rights
regulations and policies, the USDA, its
Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices,
employees, and institutions
participating in or administering USDA
programs are prohibited from
discriminating based on race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, gender
identity (including gender expression),
sexual orientation, disability, age,
marital status, family/parental status,
income derived from a public assistance
program, political beliefs, or reprisal or
retaliation for prior civil rights activity,
in any program or activity conducted or
funded by USDA (not all bases apply to
all programs). Remedies and complaint
filing deadlines vary by program or
incident.
Program information may be made
available in languages other than
English. Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means of
communication to obtain program
information (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, American Sign Language)
should contact the responsible Mission
Area, agency, or staff office; or the 711
Relay Service.
To file a program discrimination
complaint, a complainant should
complete a Form AD–3027, USDA
Program Discrimination Complaint
Form, which can be obtained online at
usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
ad-3027.pdf from any USDA office, by
calling (866) 632–9992, or by writing a
letter addressed to USDA. The letter
must contain the complainant’s name,
address, telephone number, and a
written description of the alleged
discriminatory action in sufficient detail
to inform the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
and date of an alleged civil rights
violation. The completed AD–3027 form
or letter must be submitted to USDA by:
a. Mail: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20250–9410; or
b. Fax: (833) 256–1665 or (202) 690–
7442; or
c. Email: program.intake@usda.gov.
Severability
It is USDA’s intention that the
provisions of this rule shall operate
independently of each other. If this rule
or any portion of this rule is ultimately
declared invalid or stayed as to a
particular provision, it is USDA’s intent
that the rule nonetheless be severable
and remain valid with respect to those
provisions not affected by a declaration
of invalidity or stayed. USDA concludes
it would separately adopt all the
provisions contained in this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3565
Conflict of interest, Credit, Fair
housing, Loan programs—housing and
community development, Low and
moderate-income housing,
Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Rent
subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Agency proposes to
amend 7 CFR part 3565 as follows:
PART 3565—GUARANTEED RURAL
RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 3565
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42
U.S.C. 1480.
Subpart H—Project Management
2. Amend § 3565.352 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 3565.352
housing.
Preservation of affordable
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Use restriction. For the original
term of the guaranteed loan, the housing
must remain available for occupancy by
low- and moderate-income households,
in accordance with subpart E of this
part. This requirement must be included
in a deed restriction in a form
acceptable to the Agency. The deed
restriction must be recorded separately,
before and with priority over other
documents related to the transaction.
The restriction will apply unless the
housing is acquired by foreclosure or an
instrument in lieu of foreclosure, or the
Agency waives the applicability of this
requirement after determining that each
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
87803
of the following three circumstances
exist:
(1) There is no longer a need for lowand moderate-income housing in the
market area in which the housing is
located;
(2) Housing opportunities for lowincome households and minorities will
not be reduced as a result of the waiver;
and
(3) Additional federal assistance will
not be necessary as a result of the
waiver.
*
*
*
*
*
Joaquin Altoro,
Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–25713 Filed 11–4–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2024–BT–TP–0009]
RIN 1904–AF68
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers and
Consumer Clothes Dryers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the
test procedures for residential and
commercial clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers to update the
test cloth specifications. DOE also
proposes to reorganize the test
procedures for improved readability.
DOE is conducting this rulemaking to
address specific issues and to make
minor corrections to the current test
procedures. However, this rulemaking
does not satisfy the statutory
requirement that, at least once every 7
years, DOE review the test procedures
for clothes washers and consumer
clothes dryers. DOE is seeking comment
from interested parties on the proposal.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this proposal no later than
December 5, 2024.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting on this NOPR if one is
requested by November 12, 2024. If a
public meeting is requested, DOE will
announce its date and participation
information on the DOE website and via
email.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
87804
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2024–BT–TP–0009.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2024–BT–TP–0009, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email:
WashersDryers2024TP0009@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE–2024–
BT–TP–0009 in the subject line of the
message.
(2) 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.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. 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 telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
V of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists
and transcripts (if a public meeting is
held), comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2024-BT-TP-0009. The docket web page
contains instructions on how to access
all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section V
of this document for information on
how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
5649. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Uchechukwu ‘‘Emeka’’ Eze, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
4798. Email: uchechukwu.eze@
hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in a public meeting (if one is held),
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standard into 10 CFR
part 430:
AATCC LP1–2021, Laboratory
Procedure for Home Laundering:
Machine Washing, Revised 2023.
Copies of AATCC test methods can be
obtained from the American Association
of Textile Chemists and Colorists
(‘‘AATCC’’), P.O. Box 12215, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549–
3526, or www.aatcc.org.
See section IV.M of this document for
a further discussion of this standard.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Process Rule
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Relevant Historical Background
C. Test Cloth Specifications and
Requirements
1. Cut Orientation
2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count
3. Granite Weave
4. Alternate Test Cloth
5. Uniformity Criteria
6. Variance P-Value Threshold and RootMean-Square Error
D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring Edits
1. Introductory Paragraph
2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions
3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and
Clothes Dryer Test Procedures
4. Restructuring Appendix J3
E. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
F. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866,
13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Consumer (residential) clothes
washers (‘‘RCWs’’), commercial clothes
washers (‘‘CCWs’’), and consumer
clothes dryers are included in the list of
‘‘covered products/equipment’’ for
which DOE is authorized to establish
and amend energy conservation
standards and test procedures. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)–(8); 42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(H)) DOE’s test procedures for
RCWs are currently prescribed at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices J
(‘‘appendix J’’) and J2 (‘‘appendix J2’’).
The test procedures for CCWs must be
the same as those established for RCWs.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)). DOE’s test
procedures for consumer clothes dryers
are currently prescribed at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendices D1
(‘‘appendix D1’’) and D2 (‘‘appendix
D2’’). DOE also prescribes specifications
for the test cloth to be used for testing
clothes washers at appendix J3 to
subpart B (‘‘appendix J3’’). The
following sections discuss DOE’s
authority to establish and amend test
procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers and relevant
background information regarding
DOE’s consideration of test procedures
for these products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317, as codified) Title III, Part B of
EPCA 2 established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles,
which sets forth a variety of provisions
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
designed to improve energy efficiency.
These products include RCWs and
consumer clothes dryers. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(7)–(8)) Title III, Part C of EPCA,3
added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV,
section 441(a), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(H)) RCWs, CCWs, and consumer
clothes dryers are the subject of this
document.
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291; 42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C.
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295;
42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296; 42
U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products/
equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their products
comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a)), and (2) making other
representations about the efficiency of
those consumer products/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/equipment comply with
relevant standards promulgated under
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a))
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products and
equipment established under EPCA
generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b)) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C.
6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and
procedures DOE must follow when
prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered products/equipment. EPCA
3 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
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/equipment during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
product and equipment, including
RCWs, CCWs and consumer clothes
dryers, 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); 6314(a)(1))
If the Secretary determines, on her
own behalf or in response to a petition
by any interested person, that a test
procedure should be prescribed or
amended, the Secretary shall promptly
publish in the Federal Register
proposed test procedures and afford
interested persons an opportunity to
present oral and written data, views,
and arguments with respect to such
procedures. The comment period on a
proposed rule to amend a test procedure
shall be at least 60 days and may not
exceed 270 days. In prescribing or
amending a test procedure, the
Secretary shall take into account such
information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including
technological developments relating to
energy use or energy efficiency of the
type (or class) of covered products
involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a)). If DOE determines that
test procedure revisions are not
appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(ii);
42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE
amend its test procedures for all covered
products to integrate measures of
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other
energy descriptor, unless the current
test procedure already incorporates the
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is
technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
87805
6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)–(ii)) 4 If an integrated
test procedure is technically infeasible,
DOE must prescribe separate standby
mode and off mode energy use test
procedures for the covered product, if a
separate test is technically feasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such
amendment must consider the most
current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Standard 62301 5 and IEC Standard
62087 6 as applicable. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A))
EPCA requires the test procedures for
CCWs to be the same as the test
procedures established for RCWs. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with the test
procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires
that DOE evaluate, at least once every 7
years, the test procedures for CCWs to
determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for
the test procedures to not be unduly
burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE is publishing this notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to
address specific issues and to make
minor corrections to the current test
procedures that are required for
certification of compliance with
applicable energy conservation
standards. However, this rulemaking
does not satisfy the EPCA requirement
that, at least once every 7 years, DOE
review the test procedures for RCWs,
CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 6314(a)(1)(A))
B. Background
As discussed, DOE’s existing test
procedures for clothes washers are
prescribed at appendix J and appendix
J2,7 and DOE’s existing test procedures
for consumer clothes dryers are
4 EPCA does not contain an analogous provision
for commercial equipment.
5 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011–
01).
6 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related
equipment—Methods of measurement for power
consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7:
2018).
7 Manufacturers must use the results of testing
under appendix J2 to determine compliance with
the current relevant standards for RCWs at 10 CFR
430.32(g)(1) and for CCWs at 10 CFR 431.156(b).
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under
appendix J to determine compliance with the
relevant standards for RCWs manufactured on or
after March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR
430.32(g)(2) and with any amended standards for
CCWs provided in 10 CFR 431.156 that are
published after January 1, 2022.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
87806
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
prescribed at appendix D1 and
appendix D2.8
Additionally, DOE’s existing test
procedure at appendix J3 provides
specifications for the test cloth to be
used for testing clothes washers;
procedures for pre-conditioning new
test cloth; procedures for verifying that
new lots 9 of test cloth meet the defined
material specifications; and procedures
for developing a set of correction
coefficients that correlate the measured
remaining moisture content (‘‘RMC’’)
values of each new test cloth lot with a
set of standard RMC values established
as a historical reference point. These
correction coefficients are applied to the
RMC measurements performed during
testing according to appendix J or
appendix J2, ensuring consistency in the
final corrected RMC measurement
across different test cloth lots used for
testing.
Although the test cloth specifications
and qualification procedures in
appendix J3 are nominally applicable to
clothes washer testing, DOE
understands that manufacturers and test
laboratories use the same test cloth for
testing clothes dryers as well. As
discussed further in section III.B of this
document, the test cloth specifications
for clothes washer testing and clothes
dryer testing have historically been
aligned. Furthermore, as discussed
further in section III.D.3 of this
document, test cloth that satisfies the
requirements of appendix J3 for clothes
washer testing also satisfies the
requirements codified in appendices D1
and D2 for clothes dryer testing.
The Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) has
established a Test Cloth Task Force
(‘‘AHAM task force’’) that, among other
responsibilities, reviews and
recommends new lots of test cloth for
industry use; identifies and secures
suppliers for manufacturing test cloth;
conducts research and investigations to
recommend continuous improvements
to the test cloth specifications and
qualification procedures; and addresses
any industry-wide concerns that may
arise regarding the test cloth. DOE
representatives participate in the AHAM
task force.
On May 31, 2024, DOE received a
letter from AHAM (‘‘May 2024 AHAM
Letter’’) urging DOE to allow the use of
alternate test cloth material for clothes
washer and clothes dryer testing. (No. 1
at p. 4) 10 The May 2024 AHAM Letter
also made further requests for DOE to
amend certain test cloth specifications
based on the results of recent
investigations by the AHAM task force.
(Id.) In this document, DOE proposes to
implement changes to its test cloth
specifications to address these concerns.
discussed in the previous section of this
document. For these reasons, DOE finds
it appropriate to deviate from this
provision in the Process Rule by
forgoing publication of a preliminary
document as part of a pre-NOPR stage
for this rulemaking.
Section 8(b)(2) of the Process Rule
states that there will be not less than 60
days for public comment on the NOPR,
with at least one public hearing or
workshop. As stated, DOE will hold a
public meeting on this NOPR if one is
requested; otherwise, DOE finds it
appropriate to forgo a public hearing
given the limited scope of issues
addressed in this NOPR. DOE has also
determined that 30 days is an
appropriate period for providing
comments.
C. Deviation From Process Rule
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
(‘‘Process Rule’’), DOE notes that it is
deviating from certain provisions in the
Process Rule as follows.
Section 8(a) of the Process Rule states
that in determining whether to consider
establishing or amending any test
procedure, DOE will publish one or
more preliminary documents in the
Federal Register (e.g., a request for
information or notice of data
availability) intended to gather
information on key issues. As discussed,
DOE is conducting this rulemaking to
address specific issues rather than
conducting a full review of the clothes
washer and clothes dryer test
procedures that would satisfy the 7-year
lookback requirement prescribed by
EPCA. This proposal seeks to address
known issues regarding test cloth that
have been brought to DOE’s attention, as
In this NOPR, DOE proposes
amendments to its test cloth
specifications as follows:
(1) Specify that fabric weight and
thread count must be measured on
finished goods prior to preconditioning,
(2) Clarify that the test cloth be made
with a ‘‘granite,’’ ‘‘momie,’’ or ‘‘crepe’’
weave,
(3) Allow the use of an alternate test
cloth,
(4) Amend the statistical criteria for a
new test cloth lot to be considered
acceptable for use,
(5) Restructure and renumber certain
sections of appendix J3 for clarity, and
(6) Harmonize the test cloth
specifications for clothes washers and
clothes dryers.
DOE’s proposed actions are
summarized in Table II.1 compared to
the current test procedures as well as
the reason for the proposed change.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURES
Current DOE test procedures
Proposed test procedures
Does not specify at which stage of the process
the fabric weight and thread count of test
cloth are applicable.
Specifies the use of ‘‘granite or momie’’ weave
Specifies that fabric weight and thread count
must be measured on finished goods prior
to pre-conditioning.
Specifies the use of ‘‘granite, momie, or
crepe’’ weave.
Specifies two types of allowable test cloth ......
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Specifies one type of allowable test cloth ..........
8 The test procedures in appendix D1 or appendix
D2 must be used to determine compliance with the
current relevant standards for consumer clothes
dryers at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must
use the test procedure in appendix D2 to determine
compliance with the relevant standards for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
consumer clothes dryers manufactured on or after
March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(4).
9 The term ‘‘lot’’ refers to a quantity of cloth that
has been manufactured with the same batches of
cotton and polyester during one continuous
process. Section 2 of appendix J3.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Attribution
Industry request; improve reproducibility of
test results.
Industry request; clarification of existing requirement.
Industry request; reduce test burden while
maintaining reproducibility and representativeness.
10 A parenthetical reference at the end of a
quotation or paraphrase of an AHAM letter provides
reference for information located in the docket of
this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2024–BT–TP–
0009, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov).
The references are arranged as follows: (docket ID
number at the page of that document).
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
87807
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURES—
Continued
Current DOE test procedures
Proposed test procedures
Specifies that the coefficient of variation across
nine RMC values must be less than or equal
to 1 percent.
Specifies that the P-value of the RMC correction curve must be greater than or equal to
0.1.
Appendix J3 test cloth specifications currently
apply only to clothes washers.
Specifies that the coefficient of variation
across nine RMC values must be less than
or equal to 2.0 percent.
Specifies that the root-mean-square error of
the RMC correction curve must be less
than or equal to 0.015.
Harmonizes test cloth requirements across
both clothes washers and clothes dryers
and extends applicability of appendix J3
test cloth specifications to both clothes
washers and clothes dryers.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the proposed amendments described in
section III of this document would not
alter the measured efficiency of RCWs,
CCWs, or consumer clothes dryers, or
require retesting or recertification solely
as a result of DOE’s adoption of the
proposed amendments to the test
procedures, if finalized. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)) Discussion of DOE’s proposed
actions are addressed in detail in
section III of this document.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE
proposes certain amendments to its test
procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers. For each
proposed amendment, DOE provides
relevant background information,
explains why the amendment merits
consideration, discusses relevant public
comments, and proposes a potential
approach.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to clothes
washers (both RCWs and CCWs, which
use the same test procedures) 11 and
consumer clothes dryers.
DOE has defined a clothes washer as
a consumer product designed to clean
clothes, utilizing a water solution of
soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, that must
be one of the following classes:
automatic clothes washers,12 semi11 The test procedures for CCWs must be the same
as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(8)).
12 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. 10 CFR
430.2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
automatic clothes washers,13 and other
clothes washers.14 10 CFR 430.2.
DOE regulations also define ‘‘electric
clothes dryer’’ and ‘‘gas clothes dryer’’
similarly as a cabinet-like appliance
designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type
drum with forced air circulation, with
blower(s) driven by an electric motor(s)
and either electricity or gas,
respectively, as the heat source. See, 10
CFR 430.2. DOE’s clothes dryer test
procedures are applicable to both
electric and gas clothes dryers.
A commercial clothes washer is defined as
a soft-mount front-loading or soft-mount toploading clothes washer that—
(A) Has a clothes container compartment
that—
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is
not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not
more than 4.0 cubic feet; and
(B) Is designed for use in—
(i) Applications in which the occupants of
more than one household will be using the
clothes washer, such as multi-family housing
common areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452)
DOE is not proposing changes to the
scope of the RCW, CCW, or consumer
clothes dryer test procedures, or the
relevant definitions, in this NOPR.
B. Relevant Historical Background
This section summarizes the
historical background of test cloth
specifications in DOE’s clothes washer
and clothes dryer test procedures that is
relevant to topics discussed in this
NOPR.
DOE first introduced the use of test
cloth into the original clothes dryer test
procedure established by the final rule
published September 14, 1977
13 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.
14 ‘‘Other clothes washer’’ means a class of
clothes washer that is not an automatic or semiautomatic clothes washer. Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Attribution
Reduce test burden while maintaining reproducibility and representativeness.
Reduce test burden while maintaining reproducibility and representativeness.
Industry request; clarify existing requirements
consistent with industry practice.
(‘‘September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final
Rule’’). 42 FR 46145. The test cloth
specifications were a 50-percent cotton
and 50-percent polyester blended
material, representative of the range of
fabrics comprising consumer wash
loads. Id. at 42 FR 46146. The
September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final
Rule also established a maximum use of
25 clothes dryer test cycles for each
piece of test cloth to reduce potential
variability in the test results that may
occur from any change in the
composition of the test cloth due to
continued drying of the same test cloth.
Id.
DOE introduced the use of test cloth
into the original clothes washer test
procedure established by the final rule
published September 28, 1977
(‘‘September 1977 Clothes Washer Final
Rule’’). 42 FR 49802. As discussed in
the September 1977 Clothes Washer
Final Rule, the size and composition of
the test load was chosen to be identical
to the test load that had been specified
for clothes dryers in the September 1977
Clothes Dryer Final Rule. Id. at 49 FR
49805. The number of test runs for each
piece of test cloth was limited to no
more than 25 clothes washer test cycles.
Id. at 49 FR 49808.
Since introducing the use of test cloth
into the originally established clothes
dryer and clothes washer test
procedures, DOE has periodically
updated the test cloth specifications and
requirements. The following paragraphs
summarize some of these changes to test
cloth specifications and requirements
that are relevant to the amendments
proposed in this document.
In a final rule published May 19, 1981
(‘‘May 1981 Final Rule’’), DOE amended
the clothes dryer test procedure to,
among other changes, establish test
cloth pre-conditioning requirements to
improve test repeatability by ensuring
that the test cloth not contain any watersoluble sizing or finishing agents that
could affect the moisture performance of
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87808
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
test cloth. 46 FR 27324. The May 1981
Final Rule also established a weight
tolerance on the test cloth. Id.
In a final rule published August 27,
1997, DOE amended its test cloth
requirements in the clothes washer test
procedure by adding a new requirement
to prewash (i.e., pre-condition) new test
cloth prior to first use for energy
consumption testing. 62 FR 45484.
DOE published a final rule on January
12, 2001 (‘‘January 2001 Final Rule’’)
that, among other changes to the clothes
washer test procedure, introduced the
modified energy factor descriptor,
which incorporated an estimate of
clothes drying energy into the clothes
washer efficiency descriptor through
consideration of the RMC of the clothes
leaving the clothes washer. 66 FR 3314.
As discussed in the January 2001 Final
Rule, it had been discovered that the
test cloth to be used for determining the
RMC was giving inconsistent results. Id.
at 66 FR 3317. DOE investigated
possible causes for the inconsistent test
results and summarized the results in a
report published in May 2000 titled
Development of a Standardized Energy
Test Cloth for Measuring Remaining
Moisture Content in a Residential
Clothes Washer (‘‘May 2000 Test Cloth
Report’’).15
In particular, relevant to topics
discussed in this NOPR, the May 2000
Test Cloth Report documented the
difficulty of relating specifiable test
cloth characteristics—fiber content,
weight, etc.—to RMC measurements.
(See section 4 of May 2000 Test Cloth
Report). On this basis, DOE concluded
that tighter test cloth specifications
alone would not necessarily lead to
comparably consistent RMC
measurements. To provide more
consistent RMC measurements from lot
to lot, the May 2000 Test Cloth Report
proposed a new method for developing
a ‘‘correction factor’’ for each new lot of
test cloth. The correction factor would
be applied to the RMC measurement to
normalize the RMC results to match the
RMC performance of a designated
‘‘standard lot.’’
The May 2000 Test Cloth Report also
concluded that a viable approach to
minimize the effects of test cloth
variation on RMC would be to
consistently specify a single type of
fabric that is produced frequently by
one mill to a consistent set of
specifications. The report recommended
the use of a 50-percent cotton/50percent polyester momie weave fabric
from one particular mill as a suitable
15 The May 2000 Test Cloth Report is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD0064-0277.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
choice, noting that this cloth (at the
time) was produced in high volume, had
been produced to a consistent
specification for many years, and was
likely to continue to be produced on
this basis for the foreseeable future. (See
section 6 of May 2000 Test Cloth
Report)
The May 2000 Test Cloth Report
recommended a set of test cloth
specifications and an RMC correction
factor approach that could be adopted
into the DOE test procedure. The
January 2001 Final Rule incorporated
into the clothes washer test procedures
many of the recommendations of the
May 2000 Test Cloth Report, including
the recommended updates to the test
cloth specifications and the RMC
correction factor procedure. The January
2001 Final Rule also increased the
number of allowable test runs for each
piece of test cloth to no more than 60
clothes washer test cycles (from 25
previously). 66 FR 3314, 3320.
DOE published a direct final rule on
October 31, 2003 (‘‘October 2003 Final
Rule’’) that, among other changes to the
clothes washer test procedure, added as
a testing requirement the use of a
statistical analysis approach to qualify
any interactive effect between different
lots of test cloth and spin speeds to
further improve consistency of the RMC
measurement. 68 FR 62198.
On March 7, 2012, DOE published a
final rule (‘‘March 2012 Final Rule’’)
that, among other changes, updated
certain test cloth specifications for
clothes washer testing based on
recommendations provided by AHAM.
77 FR 13888, 13920–13921. Specifically,
the March 2012 Final Rule adopted
definitions for cloth ‘‘lot’’ and ‘‘roll’’
and established test cloth weight
tolerances. Id. at 77 FR 13921–13922.
The March 2012 Final Rule also
updated pre-conditioning wash
requirements and incorporated
American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists (‘‘AATCC’’) test
methods for verifying the absence of
water-repellent finishes on the test
cloth. Id. at 77 FR 13922.
In a final rule published on August 5,
2015 (‘‘August 2015 Final Rule’’), DOE
moved the standard extractor RMC
procedure for developing the correction
factors for each new test cloth lot from
appendix J2 to the newly created
appendix J3. 80 FR 46730.
In a final rule published on June 1,
2022 (‘‘June 2022 Final Rule’’), among
other changes, DOE further consolidated
clothes washer test cloth-related
provisions into appendix J3 (from
appendix J2) to improve the overall
logical flow of both test procedures. Id.
at 87 FR 33367. DOE additionally
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
codified in appendix J3 a test cloth
material verification procedure that had
historically been used by the AHAM
task force when evaluating new lots of
test cloth. Id. at 87 FR 33368.
C. Test Cloth Specifications and
Requirements
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to
update its test cloth specifications and
requirements to (1) further improve
consistency in test results across
different lots of test cloth, (2) clarify
certain requirements consistent with
textile industry nomenclature, (3) allow
the use of an alternate type of test cloth
that has been shown to exhibit
consistent performance with the current
test cloth, and (4) reevaluate appropriate
thresholds for certain statistical
requirements specified for new lots of
test cloth.
Each of the proposed changes are in
line with DOE’s historical practice of
regularly updating its test cloth
specifications to improve the
consistency of test results and adapt to
changes in material specifications and
availability of commercially available
textiles.
In this section, DOE addresses clothes
washer specifications in appendix J3
specifically. In section III.D.3 of this
document, DOE proposes harmonizing
the clothes washer and clothes dryer
test cloth specifications such that the
edits proposed in this section would
apply to both product types.
1. Cut Orientation
Section 3.1 of appendix J3 specifies
that the test cloth material should come
from a roll of material with a width of
approximately 63 inches, although other
sizes may be used if the test cloth
material meets the specifications listed
in sections 3.2 through 3.6 of appendix
J3. Section 3.7.1 of appendix J3 specifies
the dimensions of the individual energy
test cloths—nominally 24 inches by 36
inches prior to hemming.16
Furthermore, section 5 of appendix J3
specifies that the maximum shrinkage
requirements for the energy test cloth
after pre-conditioning 17 must not be
more than 5 percent of the length and
width.
Appendix J3 does not specify the
orientation of the rectangular
16 Section 3.7.2 of appendix J3 specifies
dimensions of smaller energy ‘‘stuffer’’ cloths,
which are nominally 12 inches by 12 inches prior
to hemming. Since the energy stuffer cloths are
square, the consideration of cut orientation in this
section of the document pertains only to the
rectangular energy test cloths.
17 The pre-conditioning process is specified in
section 5 of appendix J3 and consists of five washrinse-spin cycles, with the load bone-dried between
each of the five cycles.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
dimensions (i.e., lengthwise versus
widthwise) for cutting individual energy
test cloths from the roll of fabric. As
such, the cut orientation of the
rectangular energy test cloths can be
optimized to minimize wasted fabric
(e.g., a lengthwise cut of 36 inches
adjacent to a widthwise cut of 24 inches
could be patterned on a 63-inch width
roll of material with minimal waste).
The May 2024 AHAM Letter
recommended that appendix J3 specify
that the energy test cloth be cut in a
specific orientation relative to the fabric
roll. (No. 1 at p. 4) Specifically, the May
2024 AHAM Letter suggested that the
24-inch dimension be cut from the
lengthwise (i.e., ‘‘warp’’) direction of the
roll and the 36-inch dimension be cut
from the widthwise (i.e., ‘‘weft’’)
direction of the roll, as depicted in
Figure III.1. (Id. at p. 23)
Fabric Roll
+I
+I
0.
ro
~
s
..._
<1>
tlO
"'O
<1>
~
<1>
V')
87809
)
0.
~
ro
s
..._
36"
<1>
tlO
"'O
<1>
~
<1>
V')
36"
Cut Edge/Weft
DOE understands through discussions
of the AHAM task force that differences
in cut orientation can impact the
relative shrinking of cloth in each
direction after repeated wash and dry
cycles, which could potentially affect its
water absorption and retention
properties—characteristics that are
particularly relevant to the RMC
measurement.18 The May 2024 AHAM
Letter did not, however, provide any
data or quantitative evaluation of
whether, or to what extent, the direction
of cut orientation could affect the
shrinkage of the energy test cloth, or the
RMC measurement in the clothes
washer test procedure. DOE notes that
even if the cut orientation could impact
the relative shrinkage of the length and
width of the energy test cloth, section 5
of appendix J3 already specifies a
18 As discussed, RMC is a measure of the
remaining water content of the clothes washer load
at the end of the wash cycle and is used to
incorporate an estimate of clothes drying energy
into the clothes washer efficiency descriptor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
maximum allowable shrinkage of 5
percent in each direction. DOE has no
information to suggest that any variation
in shrinkage within this 5 percent
tolerance would have a substantive
impact on the resulting RMC
measurement in the clothes washer test
procedure.
Furthermore, DOE is concerned about
potential unintended consequences of
requiring a specific cut orientation for
each energy test cloth. Depending on the
width of the fabric roll, specifying a cut
orientation as suggested by AHAM
could prevent the optimization of cut
patterns as described previously (i.e., a
36-inch lengthwise cut adjacent to a 24inch widthwise cut on a 63-inch width
roll of material), resulting in increased
fabric waste and a corresponding
increase in material cost. For instance,
a 63-inch-wide roll as specified by
section 3.1 of appendix J3 would only
be able to accommodate a single 36-inch
wide cut as suggested by AHAM,
resulting in nearly 40 percent of the roll
material being wasted. And although
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
section 3.1 of appendix J3 permits the
use of other size rolls, DOE understands
that textiles are typically woven in
standardized widths and is concerned
that fabricating rolls with a custom
width for DOE test cloth could increase
the material cost.
In summary, DOE is uncertain as to
whether, or to what extent, the energy
test cloth cut orientation could impact
the RMC measurement in the clothes
washer test procedure, and whether
specifying a particular cut orientation
could result in fabric waste that would
lead to an increase in material cost. As
such, DOE requests comment to clarify
these uncertainties, as provided at the
end of this section. If DOE were to be
provided with additional information
that alleviates these uncertainties and
concerns, DOE would consider
establishing a cut orientation
requirement in a final rule.
Irrespective of its determination
regarding the specification of a cut
orientation requirement, DOE has
tentatively determined that section 3.1
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
EP05NO24.000</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Figure 111.1 Energy Test Cloth Cut Orientation Diagram Adapted from the May
2024 AHAM Letter
87810
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
of appendix J3 is superfluous, given that
the suggested parameters regarding the
width and length dimensions of the roll
(i.e., a roll width of approximately 63
inches and approximately 500 yards per
roll) are rendered moot by the
accompanying provision allowing for
rolls of other sizes to be used. As such,
DOE proposes to remove section 3.1 of
appendix J3 and renumber the
subsequent sections accordingly.
DOE requests comment on the roll
dimensions and cut orientations that are
currently used to fabricate DOE test
cloth.
DOE requests comment as to whether,
or to what extent, the energy test cloth
cut orientation could impact the RMC
measurement in the clothes washer test
procedure.
DOE requests comment on its concern
that establishing a cut orientation
requirement could lead to fabric waste,
depending on the dimensions of the
fabric roll.
DOE requests comment on its
tentative determination not to specify a
cut orientation requirement. DOE
further seeks comment on whether it
should adopt the cut orientation
requirement specified by AHAM or any
other cut orientation requirement.
DOE requests comment on its
tentative determination that section 3.1
of appendix J3 is superfluous and its
proposal to remove the requirements in
section 3.1 of appendix J3.
2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count
Section 3.3 of appendix J3 specifies
that the fabric weight of the test cloth
must be 5.60 ± 0.25 ounces per square
yard, but it does not specify at what
point in the fabrication process this
specification applies. Similarly, section
3.4 of appendix J3 specifies that the
thread count of the test cloth must be 65
× 57 threads per inch ± 2 percent, but
it does not specify at what point in the
fabrication process this specification
applies. The May 2024 AHAM Letter
requested that DOE amend these
specifications to clarify that fabric
weight and thread count specifications
apply to ‘‘finished goods’’ test cloth
prior to pre-conditioning. (No. 1 at pp.
4, 22) Through its participation in the
AHAM task force, DOE understands the
term ‘‘finished goods’’ to mean after the
cloth has been hemmed into energy test
cloth and energy stuffer cloths, but prior
to any pre-conditioning.
DOE further understands through its
participation in the AHAM task force
that specifying that these requirements
apply to finished goods (as opposed to
prior to the cloth having been
processed, de-starched, and hemmed),
but prior to any pre-conditioning, is the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
most appropriate point in the cloth
fabrication process because these
dimensional properties can change
during certain stages of the cloth
fabrication process. Applying these
specifications to finished goods
therefore ensures the consistency of
each test cloth lot at the state in which
the test cloth is purchased by a
manufacturer or test laboratory.
Consistent with AHAM’s
recommendation, DOE proposes to
specify within section 3 of appendix J3
that fabric weight and thread count
specifications apply to finished goods
prior to pre-conditioning.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal
to specify in appendix J3 that fabric
weight and thread count specifications
apply to finished goods prior to preconditioning.
3. Granite Weave
Section 3.2 of appendix J3 states that
the test cloth used for clothes washer
testing must be a pure finished bleached
cloth, made with a momie or granite
weave. As discussed in the May 2024
AHAM Letter, recent lots 25A and
25B 19 were woven with a different type
of granite weave—a ‘‘crepe’’ weave—
than the ‘‘momie’’ type of granite weave
that has historically been used for DOE
test cloth. (No. 1 at p. 3)
To evaluate whether using a crepe
weave would impact test results
compared to the historical momie
weave, DOE conducted comparative
testing of RCWs and consumer clothes
dryers using lot 25A (made with a crepe
weave) and previous test cloth lot 23
(made with a momie weave). The results
of DOE’s testing are presented in a
Technical Appendix published in the
docket for this rulemaking.20 This
testing shows no substantive variation
in RMC, integrated modified energy
factor (‘‘IMEF’’), or integrated water
factor—the reported metrics for RCWs—
or in combined energy factor—the
reported metric for consumer clothes
dryers—between the different granite
weave types (i.e., traditional momie
versus crepe weave). Although DOE’s
test sample did not include any CCWs,
DOE expects that the trends in RMC
values, energy use, and water use that
it observed in RCWs would apply to
CCWs, given that RCWs and CCWs are
19 The AHAM task force designated the two most
recent lots of test cloth ‘‘25A’’ and ‘‘25B’’ to reflect
that these two lots were manufactured at the same
time using the same continuous weaving process,
although they were finished in separate batch
processes.
20 The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP0009.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
designed and operate similarly and are
tested using the same test procedure.
Through its participation in
discussions with the AHAM task force,
DOE understands that very few textile
mills maintain the capability to fabricate
cloth using the type of momie weave
that has traditionally been used to
produce DOE test cloth. Instead, the
type of crepe weave used for lot 25A is
expected to be more readily available
going forward. In recognition of this,
DOE is proposing to add the term
‘‘crepe’’ to the list of allowable
weaves—specifically, to revise newly
renumbered section 3.1.1.1 of appendix
J3 to specify that the test cloth be made
with a momie, granite, or crepe weave.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal
to add the term ‘‘crepe’’ to the list of
allowable weaves in appendix J3.
Appendix J3 currently does not define
the terms momie or granite weave. In
the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM
suggested that DOE establish definitions
for these terms in appendix J3.21 (No. 1
at pp. 21–22) Through its participation
in the AHAM task force, DOE
understands that momie, granite, and
crepe weave types are generally
understood terms of art within the
textile industry, but there is not a
definitive source for definitions of these
terms. DOE is concerned that creating
its own definitions for these terms could
inadvertently conflict with the range of
weave styles that are generally
understood by the textile industry to be
granite weaves. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined not to establish a
definition for these terms within the
appendix J3 test procedure. DOE would
consider establishing definitions for one
or more of these terms—including the
definitions suggested by AHAM—if
interested parties were to demonstrate
sufficient justification that would
alleviate the concerns expressed herein.
DOE requests feedback on its tentative
determination not to establish
definitions for ‘‘crepe,’’ ‘‘granite,’’ or
‘‘momie’’ weave in appendix J3.
4. Alternate Test Cloth
DOE is required to ensure that the test
procedure is reasonably designed to
produce test results that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product/equipment during a
21 AHAM suggested defining ‘‘granite weave’’ as
a broad classification of weave producing a small,
irregular, pebbled surface similar to crepe fabrics;
fabrics made with a granite weave are generally
interlaced tightly, and warp and filling yarns appear
on the face. AHAM suggested defining ‘‘momie/
granite weave fabric’’ as test cloth made with
granite weave fabric as specified in the suggested
definition of granite weave.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
representative average use cycle or
period of use and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In
establishing the current test cloth
specifications, DOE considered the
representativeness of the range of fabrics
comprising consumer wash loads, the
manufacturability of the fabric, the
consistency in test cloth production,
and the consistency in test results from
the fabric. 66 FR 3314, 3318 (Jan. 12,
2001).
As discussed, the current test cloth
specifications were recommended by
the May 2000 Test Cloth Report, which
noted that this cloth (at the time) was
produced in high volume, had been
produced to a consistent specification
for many years, and was likely to
continue to be produced on this basis
for the foreseeable future. (See section 6
of May 2000 Test Cloth Report.) The
May 2000 Test Cloth Report also
highlighted the benefits of specifying a
single type of fabric that is produced
frequently by one mill to a consistent set
of specifications.
However, while the test cloth
specified in appendix J3 continues to be
produced by a single supplier, DOE
understands through its participation in
the AHAM task force that this cloth is
produced exclusively for use in
conducting the DOE test procedure (i.e.,
this specific cloth is not used to any
significant extent by any other industry
bodies or for any other regulatory or
research and development purposes). As
such, it is no longer the case that this
cloth is produced in high volume
(beyond the volume needed for DOE
testing purposes), leading to uncertainty
as to whether this cloth is likely to
remain readily available on a consistent
basis for the foreseeable future.
During the COVID–19 pandemic, the
laundry industry experienced shortages
in DOE test cloth supply.22 The
specialized nature of the DOE test cloth
(i.e., the fact the cloth is unique to DOE
testing needs and produced in relatively
low volumes) inhibited the ability to
identify alternate sources of supply for
the test cloth. To mitigate this shortage,
AHAM requested that DOE use its
enforcement discretion to allow
extended use of test cloth beyond the
currently defined cycle limits.23 On
September 28, 2023, DOE issued a
statement 24 stating that DOE would
exercise its enforcement discretion and
not impose civil penalties on a clothes
washer, commercial clothes washer, or
clothes dryer manufacturer for certifying
compliance with DOE’s energy
conservation standards based on testing
87811
that exceeds the maximum test cloth
run provision set forth in the DOE test
procedures. Instead, DOE allowed for
usage of test cloth for twice the number
of runs allowed in the relevant test
procedures.
In an effort to further alleviate any test
cloth supply constraints that could limit
energy testing activities for clothes
washers and clothes dryers, the AHAM
task force evaluated the potential merits
of specifying an alternate test cloth that
could be used for DOE testing, as
discussed in the May 2024 AHAM
Letter. (No. 1 at p. 3)
The AHAM task force identified a
commercially available standardized
fabric as a possible alternative to the
current test cloth specification. This
fabric is used as ‘‘ballast’’ for testing
specific material attributes (such as
colorfastness) of textiles and, according
to the May 2024 AHAM Letter, has been
used by the textile industry for over 80
years. (No. 1 at p. 3) Specifically, the
fabric meets the specifications of
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth
specified by industry standard AATCC
LP1–2021, Laboratory Procedure for
Home Laundering: Machine Washing.25
The specifications for Laundering
Ballast Type 3 cloth are provided in
Table III.1.
TABLE III.1—SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAUNDERING BALLAST TYPE 3 CLOTH FROM AATCC LP1–2021
Characteristic
Specification
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Fiber Content .....................................................................
Greige Fabric Yarns ...........................................................
Greige Fabric Construction ................................................
Finished Fabric Weight ......................................................
Edges .................................................................................
Finished Piece Size ...........................................................
Finished Piece Weight .......................................................
50% cotton/50% polyester ±3%.
16/1 or 30/2 ring spun.
52 × 48 ± 5 yarns per inch, plain weave.
155 ± 10 grams per square meter (4.57 ± 0.29 ounces per square yard).
All edges hemmed or over-edged.
920 × 920 ± 30 millimeters (36.0 × 36.0 ± 1 inch).
130 ± 10 grams (4.59 ± 0.35 ounces).
As part of an AHAM task force
investigation, DOE and AHAM members
conducted comparative testing of
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth 26 to
evaluate whether this cloth could be
used to conduct the DOE test
procedures and whether doing so would
produce test results comparable to the
currently specified test cloth. The
results of DOE’s testing are presented in
the Technical Appendix published in
the docket for this rulemaking.
Specifically, DOE tested six RCWs
and eight consumer clothes dryers,
representing eight manufacturers and all
major product classes; AHAM members
additionally conducted testing of eight
RCWs and six consumer clothes dryers,
representing all major product classes.
These products were tested to their
rated appendix (D1, D2, or J2) using
both the current DOE test cloth and the
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth.
DOE’s testing demonstrated no
substantive difference in measured
efficiency compared with historical lots
used for RCW and consumer clothes
dryer testing. In particular for clothes
washers, the Laundering Ballast Type 3
produced RMC results comparable to
existing DOE test cloth using the
currently specified correction factor
approach. Although DOE’s test sample
did not include any CCWs, DOE expects
that the trends in RMC values, energy
use, and water use that it observed in
RCWs would apply to CCWs, given that
RCWs and CCWs are designed and
22 AHAM informed DOE on March 3, 2022 that
there were significant issues with the quality and
availability of the required test cloth material for
the applicable energy tests for clothes washers and
clothes dryers.
23 On August 7, 2023, AHAM informed DOE that
test cloth shortages were persisting and that this
supply shortage could also eventually impact DOE’s
ability to conduct assessment, enforcement, or other
testing.
24 Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
2023-09/Test%20Cloth%20Policy%20for%
20Clothes%20Washers%20and%20Clothes
%20Dryers%20Enforcement%20Policy.pdf.
25 Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021 provides
specifications for various types of cloth, one of
which is designated as Laundering Ballast Type 3.
26 The tested cloth used 16/1 fabric yarns and was
sized to match the DOE energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth dimensions and hemming instructions
(as currently specified in section 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of
appendix J3, respectively) instead of the finished
piece dimensions specified in Table VII of AATCC
LP1–2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
87812
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
operate similarly and are tested using
the same test procedure.
In addition, AHAM presented the
results of its members’ testing in
appendix A to the May 2024 AHAM
Letter. (No. 1 at pp. 6–9) This testing
also demonstrated no substantive
difference in measured efficiency
compared with historical lots used for
RCW and consumer clothes dryer
testing.
Based on this data, DOE has
tentatively determined that the AATCC
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth
provides results that are equally as
representative as results obtained using
the currently specified test cloth. On
this basis, DOE is proposing, consistent
with recommendations from the May
2024 AHAM Letter, to amend appendix
J3 to allow for the use of AATCC
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth, with a
specific yarn size, and cut and hemmed
to the DOE energy test cloth
dimensions. (No. 1 at p. 22) As
discussed in section III.D.3 of this
document, the specifications in
appendix J3 would apply to both clothes
washers and clothes dryers.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference AATCC LP1–
2021 into appendix J3 and to allow the
use of test cloth meeting the
specifications of Laundering Ballast
Type 3, as specified in Table VII of
AATCC LP1–2021, with the following
additional specifications and
substitutions:
• Greige Fabric Yarns: Type 16/1
only 27
• Edges: All edges hemmed only 28
• Finished Piece Size: Dimensions in
accordance with sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2
of appendix J3 for energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths, respectively.29
• Finished Piece Weight: Disregard 30
27 As discussed previously, comparative testing
was conducted only on fabric with 16/1 yarn type,
which is a single-string yarn similar in thickness to
the 15/1 yarn type currently specified in section 3.5
of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on fabric
with 30/2 yarn type—the other fabric yarn option
specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021—which
is a two-string version of yarn with each string
roughly half the diameter of the single-string
version.
28 As discussed previously, comparative testing
was conducted only on fabric matching the
hemming instructions currently specified in
sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing
was conducted on over-edged pieces of test cloth
(i.e., the other edging option specified in Table VII
of AATCC LP1–2021).
29 As discussed previously, comparative testing
was conducted only on fabric matching the
dimensions currently specified in sections 3.7.1 and
3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on
fabric pieces matching the dimensions as specified
in Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021.
30 The Finished Piece Weight specified in Table
VII of AATCC LP1–2021 corresponds to the
Finished Piece Size specified in the same table; as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
DOE requests comment on its
proposal to allow the use of Laundering
Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC
LP1–2021 (with certain additional
specifications) as an alternate test cloth
for conducting clothes washer and
clothes dryer testing.
Consistent with the discussion in
section III.C.3 of this document, DOE
considered whether to propose a
definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ as
specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1–
2021. DOE understands the term ‘‘plain
weave’’ to be a well-understood term of
art and therefore tentatively determines
that adding a definition of ‘‘plain
weave’’ to appendix J3 would not be
warranted.
DOE requests feedback on its tentative
determination not to establish a
definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ in
appendix J3.
5. Uniformity Criteria
In the June 2022 Final Rule, DOE
codified a prequalification procedure to
be performed on each new lot of test
cloth to verify the uniformity of the test
cloth throughout the beginning, middle,
and end of the lot. 87 FR 33316. As
discussed in the June 2022 Final Rule,
DOE had received a request from
members of the AHAM task force to add
to appendix J3 additional steps to the
qualification procedure that have
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. Id. at 87 FR 33368.
Industry practice has been to perform
this ‘‘uniformity check’’ before
conducting the procedure to develop the
RMC correction factors currently
specified in appendix J3. Id.
Specifically, the uniformity check
involves performing an RMC
measurement on nine bundles of sample
test cloth representing the beginning,
middle, and end locations of the first,
middle, and last rolls of test cloth in a
new lot. Id. In the historical procedure
provided by the AHAM task force, the
coefficient of variation (‘‘CV’’) 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. Id.
The amendments codified by the June
2022 Final Rule included the suggested
requirement for the CV of the
‘‘uniformity check’’ procedure to be less
than or equal to 1 percent. Id. at 87 FR
33369.
Shortly after the publication of the
June 2022 Final Rule establishing the
such, this specification does not apply to fabric
pieces matching the proposed finished piece
dimensions.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirement for the CV to be less than
or equal to 1 percent—but prior to its
effective date—lot 24D was produced by
the test cloth supplier and was
measured to have a CV of 1.6 percent.
AHAM developed correction factors for
this lot of test cloth despite its CV over
1 percent, on the basis that the new CV
requirement had not yet become
effective, and that the industry was
facing a test cloth shortage.
Since the effective date of the CV
requirement, the AHAM task force has
developed correction factors for test
cloth lots 25A and 25B 31—both with CV
values of 1.1 percent. AHAM stated in
letters to DOE that it based its
recommendations to proceed with these
test cloth lots on the ongoing test cloth
shortages, DOE’s historical acceptance
of lots with CVs exceeding 1 percent,
and the extensive testing that DOE
performed of lot 25A, as described in
section III.C.3 of this document.
DOE notes that the 1-percent
threshold was originally recommended
by AHAM during a previous test
procedure rulemaking. 87 FR 33316,
33368 (Jun. 1, 2022). DOE further notes
that prior to the codification of the prequalification procedure, the AHAM task
force used its discretion to evaluate the
uniformity of each new test cloth lot.
DOE understands the repeatable
performance of test cloth lots with a CV
slightly higher than 1 percent—as
shown by the testing of lot 25A
described in section III.C.3 of this
document—to be an indication that the
1-percent threshold may be
unnecessarily stringent (i.e., too low). In
this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend
appendix J3 by increasing the allowable
CV threshold to 2 percent.
DOE requests comment on its
proposal to amend the CV threshold
requirement in appendix J3 from 1
percent to 2 percent. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether another
threshold would be more appropriate.
6. Variance P-Value Threshold and
Root-Mean-Square Error
In the October 2003 Final Rule, DOE
adopted a statistical procedure, called
‘‘analysis of variance’’ (or ‘‘ANOVA’’),
as the lot-to-lot interactive-effect
statistical test for screening out lots of
test cloth whose RMC behavior is
inconsistent with the baseline lot. 68 FR
62198, 62201. The ANOVA statistical
test measures the extent of the deviation
of the shape of the RMC compared to
the g-curve for a given lot of the test
cloth from the shape of the RMC
compared to the g-curve for the baseline
31 See letters received by DOE on December 13,
2023 and May 24, 2024.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lot. Id. In the October 2003 Final Rule,
DOE explained that it believed that the
test would catch any unanticipated
deviation in RMC in future lots. Id.
Section 8.8 of appendix J3 specifies
performing the analysis of variance with
replication test using two factors, spin
speed and lot, to determine whether the
interaction of speed and lot is
significant. If the interaction is not
significant (as calculated by the ‘‘Pvalue’’ of the F-statistic being greater
than 0.1), then the lot is considered
acceptable. If the P-value is less than
0.1, the test cloth is deemed
unacceptable. The P-value provides an
indication of any interactive effect
between lots and spin speeds. The lower
the P-value, the stronger the evidence of
such an interaction.
On March 29, 2010, AHAM sent DOE
a letter (‘‘March 2010 AHAM Letter’’)
noting that the lot 17 was measured to
have a P-value that was less than 0.1.
(No. 2 at p. 1) AHAM requested that
DOE approve lot 17 for use on the basis
that the root-mean-square error
(‘‘RMSE’’) was less than 2 percent, the
P-value of the test cloth excluding the
100g test condition was greater than 0.1,
and test cloth supply shortage issues.
(Id. at pp. 1–4)
The more recent lot of AATCC test
cloth evaluated by DOE and AHAM, as
described in section III.C.4 of this
document, had a P-value of 0.072,
which would not meet the requirements
of section 8.8 of appendix J3. However,
the testing conducted by DOE and
AHAM 32 suggests that, despite the low
P-value, the application of the test cloth
correction factors produces corrected
RMC values that are comparable (i.e.,
less than 1 RMC percentage point
difference on average) to the standard
RMC values for each tested extractor
condition. For this reason, DOE has
tentatively determined that a low Pvalue is not necessarily indicative of a
test cloth lot not being acceptable for
use in the clothes washer test
procedures. DOE has further tentatively
determined that a different statistical
measure can provide a better measure of
the acceptability of a new test cloth lot.
Specifically, DOE has evaluated the
usefulness of the RMSE between the
corrected RMC values and the standard
RMC values for the same test conditions
as a potentially more relevant statistical
measure to evaluate a new test cloth lot.
Conceptually, this RMSE value
represents the closeness of fit of the
corrected RMC values to the standard
RMC values. A smaller RMSE value
32 See the Technical Appendix available at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP0009.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
indicates a better closeness of fit.
Recognizing that the corrected RMC
value is used to calculate IMEF, DOE
tentatively determines that RMSE—
which evaluates corrected RMC
values—would provide a better measure
of acceptability than P-value, which
evaluates uncorrected RMC values.
As shown in Table III.2, the RMSE
values of the historical test cloth lots
posted to DOE’s website 33 fall within a
range of 0.004 to 0.014. Additionally,
the AATCC lot of test cloth evaluated by
DOE and AHAM, as described in section
III.C.4 of this document, has an RMSE
of 0.0091.
TABLE III.2—HISTORICAL TEST CLOTH
LOT RMSE VALUES
Lot
RMSE
5 ............................................
6 ............................................
7 ............................................
8 ............................................
9 ............................................
10 ..........................................
11 ..........................................
12 ..........................................
13 ..........................................
14 ..........................................
15 ..........................................
16 ..........................................
17 ..........................................
18 ..........................................
19 ..........................................
20 ..........................................
21 ..........................................
22 ..........................................
23 ..........................................
24A .......................................
24B .......................................
24D .......................................
25A .......................................
25B .......................................
0.004
0.014
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.007
0.005
0.009
0.011
0.009
0.010
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.008
0.011
0.008
0.009
Based on the historical record and its
testing, in this NOPR, DOE tentatively
determines that an RMSE-based
threshold for new test cloth lots would
provide a better measure of the
acceptability of a new test cloth lot.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to replace
the P-value evaluation in section 8.8 of
appendix J3 with a calculation of RMSE
and a requirement that the RMSE be
below 0.015, which represents a
threshold slightly higher than the
maximum RMSE value of 0.014
observed among historical test cloth
lots.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal
to replace the P-value test in appendix
J3 with a root-mean-square error test.
33 DOE maintains a historical record of the
standard extractor test data and final correction
curve coefficients for each approved lot of energy
test cloth at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/
articles/clothes-washer-test-cloth-correction-factorinformation.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
87813
DOE requests feedback on specifying
0.015 as an acceptability threshold for
the RMSE value.
D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring
Edits
1. Introductory Paragraph
Appendix J3 includes test cloth
specifications, procedures for preconditioning test cloth, procedures for
verifying that new lots of test cloth meet
the defined material specifications, and
procedures for developing RMC
correction factors. Appendix J3 contains
an introductory section titled
‘‘Objective’’ that summarizes the key
objectives of the procedure. This
paragraph currently does not reference
the pre-conditioning of test cloth as one
of the key objectives.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to
update the heading to appendix J3 and
its objective paragraph to explicitly
include pre-conditioning of test cloth as
one of its objectives.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal
to update appendix J3 to explicitly
mention pre-conditioning of test cloth.
2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions
Section 5 of appendix J3 provides the
test cloth pre-conditioning instructions.
Currently, this section is organized as a
single paragraph detailing the entire
procedure, whereas other sections of
appendix J3 are organized with sections
that provide a clearer step-by-step
sequence of instructions. DOE proposes
to restructure section 5 of appendix J3
to read as a sequence of instructions
rather than a single paragraph, for
greater clarity and ease of use.
3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and
Clothes Dryer Test Procedures
As previously discussed, in the
August 2015 Final Rule, DOE moved the
test cloth qualification procedures from
appendix J2 to a newly created
appendix J3. Appendix J3 is currently
only referenced by the clothes washer
test procedure. Section 2.7 of
appendices J and J2 reference appendix
J3 generally for test cloth specifications
and section 5 of appendix J3 for test
cloth pre-conditioning instructions.
Whereas, for clothes dryers, section 2.6
of appendices D1 and D2 list each of the
test cloth specifications and detail the
test cloth pre-conditioning
requirements.
Historically, manufacturers and test
laboratories have used the same test
cloth for both clothes washers and
clothes dryers. The May 2024 AHAM
Letter requested that DOE harmonize
specifically the pre-conditioning
procedure for clothes washers and
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
87814
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
clothes dryers. (No. 1 at p. 4) In line
with this recommendation, DOE has
tentatively determined that all aspects
of the test cloth specifications can be
harmonized between clothes washers
and clothes dryers (i.e., not just the preconditioning requirements).
DOE proposes to harmonize test cloth
specifications between appendices J, J2,
D1, and D2 by replacing existing test
cloth specifications in appendices D1
and D2 with references to the analogous
specifications in appendix J3.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to
replace the entirety of section 2.6 in
both appendices D1 and D2 with a
paragraph specifically referencing
sections 3 (Test Cloth Specifications)
and 7 (Test Cloth Material Verification
Procedure) of appendix J3. DOE is also
proposing to update section 2.7 of
appendices J and J2 to specifically
reference sections 3 (Test Cloth
Specifications), 7 (Test Cloth Material
Verification Procedure), and 8 (RMC
Correction Curve Procedure) of
appendix J3.
DOE is further proposing to remove
section 3.8 of appendix J3, which
currently specifies that the test cloth
must be clean, may not be used for more
than 60 clothes washer runs, must be
permanently marked, and may not be
used in mixed lots. These
specifications—which are specific to
clothes washers and do not apply to
clothes dryers—would instead be
included in section 2.7 of appendices J
and J2. Appendices D1 and D2 would
retain the existing requirement that for
clothes dryers the test cloth must not be
used for more than 25 runs, although
this requirement would be relocated to
section 2.6 (from 2.6.1(c) currently).
Finally, DOE is proposing to update
the objective statement and section 5 of
appendix J3 to explicitly reference
clothes dryers alongside clothes
washers.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal
to harmonize test cloth specifications
for clothes washers and clothes dryers.
4. Restructuring Appendix J3
Section 3.2 of appendix J3 specifies
the ‘‘nominal fabric type’’ for the test
cloth as pure finished bleached cloth
made with a momie or granite weave,
which is nominally 50 percent cotton
and 50 percent polyester. Section 3.5 of
appendix J3 contains a duplicative
(although more specific) requirement
specifying a fiber content of 50 percent
± 4 percent cotton, with the balance
being polyester. DOE proposes to
remove the less specific nominal fiber
content specification from section 3.2 of
appendix J3. Accordingly, DOE is
further proposing to update the name of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
section 3.2 of appendix J3 from
‘‘nominal fabric type’’ to ‘‘fabric type.’’
Within section 3 of appendix J3,
which lists the specifications for the test
cloth, sections 3.2 through 3.5 are
currently organized as follows: section
3.2 specifies the nominal fabric type,
section 3.3 specifies the fabric weight,
section 3.4 specifies the thread count,
and section 3.5 specifies the fiber
content of the yarn. This order does not
match the order in which these material
properties are considered throughout
the test cloth fabrication process.
Specifically, the weaving process starts
with spinning yarn of a specific fiber
content, then a specific number of yarn
strands (corresponding to thread count)
are woven into a roll of fabric, resulting
in a specific material density (i.e., fabric
weight). To better match the order in
which these material properties are
considered throughout the test cloth
fabrication process, DOE proposes to
reorder these sections to provide the
fiber content specification first,
followed by thread count specification,
followed by the fabric weight
specification.
Section 3.7 of appendix J3 currently
includes dimensions for the energy test
cloth and energy stuffer cloth 34 and
specifies that the dimensions apply
‘‘before washing.’’ DOE is aware that
this terminology may lead to confusion,
as it is inconsistent with other parts of
the test procedure that use the term
‘‘pre-conditioning’’ rather than
‘‘washing’’ to refer to the process by
which test cloth is washed before its
first use. Consistent with the
recommendations in the May 2024
AHAM Letter, DOE is proposing to
clarify this wording and to specify that
the dimensions listed in section 3.7
apply before pre-conditioning of the test
cloth. (No. 1 at p. 24)
Appendices D1, D2, J, J2, and J3
currently use inconsistent hyphenation
of the word pre-conditioning, using
‘‘pre-conditioning’’ in some cases and
‘‘preconditioning’’ in others. The May
2024 AHAM Letter requested that DOE
standardize the hyphenation of ‘‘preconditioning’’ throughout the appendix.
(No. 1 at p. 4) In this NOPR, DOE is
proposing to standardize the
hyphenation of ‘‘pre-conditioning’’
across all five appendices.
The June 2022 Final Rule renumbered certain sections of appendix
J3 and implemented in section 8.5 of
appendix J3 references to ‘‘sections 8.3.3
and 8.3.4 of this appendix.’’ 87 FR
34 An energy stuffer cloth is made from the same
material as an energy test cloth but is cut to a
smaller size. Test loads must consist of energy test
cloths and no more than five energy stuffer cloths
per load to achieve the specified weight.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33316, 33405. These cross-references
should instead reference sections 8.3
and 8.4 of appendix J3. DOE is therefore
proposing to correct this typographical
error by updating section 8.5 of
appendix J3 to correctly reference
sections 8.3 and 8.4, in place of sections
8.3.3 and 8.3.4.
Finally, DOE is proposing to add a
section 0 to appendix J3 to specify the
industry standards incorporated by
reference in this test procedure.
Specifically, these include AATCC Test
Method 118–2007, AATCC Test Method
79–2010, AATCC Test Method 135–
2010, and, newly, AATCC LP1–2021.
DOE also proposes conforming edits at
each instance where these test methods
are referenced within appendix J3.
DOE requests feedback on its
proposals to clarify and restructure
appendix J3, including the addition of a
new section to specify the industry
standards incorporated by reference.
E. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
EPCA requires that test procedures
proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3); 6314(a)(2)) DOE does not
anticipate that the amendments
proposed in this NOPR would impact
testing costs or the burden of
conducting the test procedure.
DOE’s market research indicates that
the alternate test cloth proposed for use
in this document has approximately the
same cost per pound as the current test
cloth—approximately $40–50 per pound
of unconditioned test cloth.35 Therefore,
using the alternate proposed test cloth
would not impact clothes washer or
clothes dryer testing costs.
Based on an analysis of the test results
presented in the Technical Appendix,
DOE has tentatively determined that
manufacturers would be able to rely on
data generated under the current test
procedures should any of these
additional proposed amendments be
finalized.
DOE requests comments on its
tentative determination that that the
amendments proposed in this NOPR
would not impact testing costs or the
burden of conducting the test
procedure.
F. Compliance Date
As discussed, on September 28, 2023,
DOE issued a statement stating that DOE
would exercise its enforcement
discretion and not impose civil
penalties on a clothes washer,
commercial clothes washer, or clothes
35 These cost estimates are based on DOE’s most
recent purchases of test cloth in relatively small
quantities.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
dryer manufacturer for certifying
compliance with DOE’s energy
conservation standards based on testing
that exceeds the maximum test cloth
run provision set forth in the DOE test
procedures. Instead, DOE allowed for
usage of test cloth for twice the number
of runs allowed in the relevant test
procedures.
In the May 2024 AHAM Letter,
AHAM requested that DOE maintain its
enforcement discretion policy to allow
twice the number of test runs than is
currently specified for test cloth meeting
the current specifications, but not for
any of the alternate test cloth proposed
for use in this NOPR, noting that it does
not have any test data to support an
extended number of cycles on the new
test cloth at this time. (No. 1 at p. 4)
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends
a test procedure, all representations of
energy efficiency and energy use,
including those made on marketing
materials and product labels, must be
made in accordance with that amended
test procedure, beginning 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure
final rule in the Federal Register. (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
If DOE were to publish an amended
test procedure EPCA provides an
allowance for individual manufacturers
to petition DOE for an extension of the
180-day period if the manufacturer may
experience undue hardship in meeting
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To
receive such an extension, petitions
must be filed with DOE no later than 60
days before the end of the 180-day
period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.)
DOE has tentatively determined that
the updated test cloth provisions as
proposed in this NOPR would alleviate
any test cloth shortages that were the
impetus for the enforcement discretion
policy, and that at the time of
compliance of any amended test
procedure, should DOE decide to issue
such an amendment, no need for such
a policy would remain. Therefore, DOE
has tentatively determined that upon
the compliance date of test procedure
provisions of an amended test
procedure (i.e., 180 days after
publication of a test procedure final
rule), should DOE issue such an
amendment, the enforcement discretion
policy would be withdrawn.
DOE requests comments on its
tentative determination that the
enforcement discretion policy allowing
twice the number of test cloth runs
would be withdrawn 180 days after
publication of a test procedure final
rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
87815
In the May 2024 AHAM Letter,
AHAM further requested that DOE
consider allowing immediate use of the
alternate test cloth as a relief to
manufacturers facing test cloth
shortages, rather than waiting for the
completion of the rulemaking. (No. 1 at
p. 5)
DOE recognizes the concern of test
cloth availability. As noted, DOE would
maintain the current enforcement policy
allowing for the extended lifetime of the
current test cloth until 180 days after
publication of a test procedure final
rule. The proposed amendments, if
adopted, could be used as early as their
effective date (i.e., 30 days after
publication of any final rule DOE may
publish regarding these amendments).
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized
that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this proposed
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this proposed
regulatory action does not constitute a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this action was not submitted to OIRA
for review under E.O. 12866.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) and E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing
Regulatory Review,’’ 88 FR 21879 (April
11, 2023), requires agencies, to the
extent permitted by law, to (1) propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some
benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed
this proposed rule under the provisions
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003.
DOE has recently conducted a focused
inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the RCWs, CCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers covered by this
proposed rulemaking. DOE used
available public information to identify
potential small manufacturers. DOE
accessed the Compliance Certification
Database 36 to create a list of companies
that import or otherwise manufacture
the RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes
dryers covered by this proposal.
As detailed in section III.C.4 of this
document, DOE is proposing that an
additional type of test cloth be
permitted for testing. This alternate test
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36 U.S. Department of Energy Compliance
Certification Database, available at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/
products.html.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
87816
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
cloth is approximately the same cost as
the existing test cloth. As a result, DOE
does not expect any increased cost or
burdens to manufacturers from this
proposal.
Therefore, DOE initially concludes
that the impacts of the proposed test
procedure amendments proposed in this
NOPR would not have a ‘‘significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities,’’ and that the
preparation of an IRFA is not warranted.
DOE will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of RCWs, CCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers must certify to
DOE that their products comply with
any applicable energy conservation
standards. To certify compliance,
manufacturers must first obtain test data
for their products according to the DOE
test procedures, including any
amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including
RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes
dryers. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.)
The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This
requirement has been approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1910–1400.
Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35
hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
DOE is not proposing to amend the
certification or reporting requirements
for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes
dryers in this NOPR.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR, DOE proposes
amendments to test procedures that are
used to demonstrate compliance with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
energy conservation standards for
RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes
dryers. DOE has determined that this
rulemaking falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from
review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined
that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of
consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities
identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6.
Accordingly, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed
rule and has determined that it would
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of this
proposed rule. States can petition DOE
for exemption from such preemption to
the extent, and based on criteria, set
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately
defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed
rule according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that
the rulemaking contains neither an
intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not
apply.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any
proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. When developing a
Family Policymaking Assessment,
agencies must assess whether: (1) the
action strengthens or erodes the stability
or safety of the family and, particularly,
the marital commitment; (2) the action
strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education,
nurture, and supervision of their
children; (3) the action helps the family
perform its functions, or substitutes
governmental activity for the function;
(4) the action increases or decreases
disposable income or poverty of families
and children; (5) the proposed benefits
of the action justify the financial impact
on the family; (6) the action may be
carried out by State or local government
or by the family; and whether (7) the
action establishes an implicit or explicit
policy concerning the relationship
between the behavior and personal
responsibility of youth, and the norms
of society. In evaluating the above
factors, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment as none of the
above factors are implicated. Further,
this proposed determination would not
have any financial impact on families
nor any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this proposed
regulation would not result in any
takings that might require compensation
under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB
Memorandum M–19–15, Improving
Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final
%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%
20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed
this proposed rule under the OMB and
DOE guidelines and has concluded that
it is consistent with applicable policies
in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1) is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order, and is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to
amend the test procedures for
measuring the energy efficiency of
RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes
dryers is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, it would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
been designated as a significant energy
action by the Administrator of OIRA.
Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
87817
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The proposed modifications to the
test procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and
consumer clothes dryers would
incorporate fabric specifications from
the following commercial standard:
AATCC LP1–2021. DOE has evaluated
this standard and is unable to conclude
whether it fully complies with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in
a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review).
DOE will consult with both the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition, prior to
prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials
Incorporated by Reference
The test procedure proposed in this
NOPR references AATCC LP1–2021,
‘‘Laboratory Procedure for Home
Laundering: Machine Washing.’’
AATCC LP1–2021 is an industrydeveloped test standard that specifies
standard home laundering conditions.
Specifically, the test procedure
proposed in this NOPR references
AATCC LP1–2021 for specifying
standardized fabric materials. AATCC
LP1–2021 is reasonably available from
AATCC (See, members.aatcc.org/store/
lp001/2212/).
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule.37 Interested parties
37 DOE has historically provided a 75-day
comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
Continued
05NOP1
87818
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
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 itself 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.
Otherwise, 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 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
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.Canada-Mexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32
I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103–
182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at
10 U.S.C.A. § 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA
Implementation Act’’); and Executive Order 12889,
‘‘Implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement,’’ 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However,
on July 1, 2020, the Agreement between the United
States of America, the United Mexican States, and
the United Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30,
2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA),
went into effect, and Congress’s action in replacing
NAFTA through the USMCA Implementation Act,
19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of
E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period
requirement for technical regulations. Thus, the
controlling laws are EPCA and the USMCA
Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA’s public
comment period requirements for consumer
products, the USMCA only requires a minimum
comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE
now provides a 60-day public comment period for
test procedure NOPRs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through 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 www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to
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 in 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 postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (‘‘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 that are
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.
Pursuant 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 two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. 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).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on the roll
dimensions and cut orientations that are
currently used to fabricate DOE test
cloth.
(2) DOE requests comment as to
whether, or to what extent, the energy
test cloth cut orientation could impact
the RMC measurement in the clothes
washer test procedure.
(3) DOE requests comment on its
concern that establishing a cut
orientation requirement could lead to
fabric waste, depending on the
dimensions of the fabric roll.
(4) DOE requests comment on its
tentative determination not to specify a
cut orientation requirement. DOE
further seeks comment on whether it
should adopt the cut orientation
requirement specified by AHAM or any
other cut orientation requirement.
(5) DOE requests comment on its
tentative determination that section 3.1
of appendix J3 is superfluous and its
proposal to remove the requirements in
section 3.1 of appendix J3.
(6) DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to specify in appendix J3 that
fabric weight and thread count
specifications apply to finished goods
prior to pre-conditioning.
(7) DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to add the term ‘‘crepe’’ to the
list of allowable weaves in appendix J3.
(8) DOE requests feedback on its
tentative determination not to establish
definitions for ‘‘crepe,’’ ‘‘granite,’’ or
‘‘momie’’ weave in appendix J3.
(9) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to allow the use of Laundering
Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC
LP1–2021 (with certain additional
specifications) as an alternate test cloth
for conducting clothes washer and
clothes dryer testing.
(10) DOE requests feedback on its
tentative determination not to establish
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
a definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ in
appendix J3.
(11) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to amend the CV threshold
requirement in appendix J3 from 1
percent to 2 percent. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether another
threshold would be more appropriate.
(12) DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to replace the P-value test in
appendix J3 with a root-mean-square
error test.
(13) DOE requests feedback on
specifying 0.015 as an acceptability
threshold for the RMSE value.
(14) DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to update appendix J3 to
explicitly mention pre-conditioning of
test cloth.
(15) DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to harmonize test cloth
specifications for clothes washers and
clothes dryers.
(16) DOE requests feedback on its
proposals to clarify and restructure
appendix J3, including the addition of a
new section to specify the industry
standards incorporated by reference.
(17) DOE requests comments on its
tentative determination that that the
amendments proposed in this NOPR
would not impact testing costs or the
burden of conducting the test
procedure.
(18) DOE requests comments on its
tentative determination that the
enforcement discretion policy allowing
twice the number of test cloth runs
would be withdrawn 180 days after
publication of a test procedure final
rule.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
document.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking and request for comment.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on October 25, 2024,
by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 29,
2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy;
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
part 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code
of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 430.3 by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) as paragraphs (d)(2) through
(4); and
■ b. Adding new paragraph (d)(1).
The addition reads as follows:
■
■
§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) AATCC LP1–2021, Laboratory
Procedure for Home Laundering:
Machine Washing, Revised 2023, IBR
approved for Appendix J3 to Subpart B.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend appendix D1 to subpart B
by:
■ a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2,
and 2.6.3;
■ b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5;
and
■ c. Revising the heading to section 2.8.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Signing Authority
VerDate Sep<11>2014
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.
*
*
*
*
*
2. * * *
2.6 Test cloths.
2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy
test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material
and dimensions must conform to the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
87819
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth
lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth
must conform with the material verification
procedures specified in section 7 of appendix
J3 to this subpart.
2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test
cloth must be clean and permanently marked
identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for
testing a clothes dryer.
2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth
must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as
specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth
must not be used for more than 25 test runs
(after pre-conditioning).
*
*
2.8
*
*
*
Clothes dryer pre-conditioning.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend appendix D2 to subpart B
by:
■ a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2,
and 2.6.3;
■ b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5;
and
■ c. Revising the heading for section 2.8.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
*
*
*
*
*
2. * * *
2.6 Test cloths.
2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy
test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material
and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth
lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth
must conform with the material verification
procedures specified in section 7 of appendix
J3 to this subpart.
2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test
cloth must be clean and permanently marked
identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for
testing a clothes dryer.
2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth
must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as
specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth
must not be used for more than 25 test runs
(after pre-conditioning).
*
*
2.8
*
*
*
Clothes dryer pre-conditioning.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Amend appendix J to subpart B by
revising section 2.7 to read as follows:
■
Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Automatic and
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
*
*
*
*
2. * * *
2.7 Test cloths.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
*
87820
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy
test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material
and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth
lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth
must conform with the material verification
procedures specified in section 7 of appendix
J3 to this subpart.
2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test
cloth lot used for testing must have a
remaining moisture content (RMC) correction
curve determined, according to section 8 of
appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test
cloth must be clean and permanently marked
identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for
testing a clothes washer.
2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth
must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as
specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth
must not be used for more than 60 test runs
(after pre-conditioning).
*
*
*
*
*
6. Amend appendix J2 to subpart B by
revising section 2.7 to read as follows:
■
Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Automatic and
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
*
*
*
*
*
2. * * *
2.7 Test cloths.
2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy
test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material
and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth
lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth
must conform with the material verification
procedures specified in section 7 of appendix
J3 to this subpart.
2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test
cloth lot used for testing must have a
remaining moisture content (RMC) correction
curve determined, according to section 8 of
appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test
cloth must be clean and permanently marked
identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for
testing a clothes washer.
2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth
must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as
specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth
must not be used for more than 60 test runs
(after pre-conditioning).
*
*
*
*
*
7. Amend appendix J3 to subpart B by:
a. Revising the heading for appendix
J3;
■ b. Adding section 0;
■ c. Revising section 1;
■ d. Revising the heading to section 3;
■ e. Revising sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3;
■ f. Removing sections 3.4 through 3.8;
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
g. Revising section 5;
h. Revising sections 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3,
and 7.2.5;
■ i. Revising sections 8.5 through 8.8;
and
■ j. Adding section 8.9.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
Appendix J3 to Subpart B of Part 430—
Test Cloth Specifications and
Procedures for Pre-Conditioning and
Determining Correction Coefficients of
New Test Cloth Lots
*
*
*
*
*
0. Incorporation by Reference.
In § 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference
the entire standard for AATCC Test Method
118–2007, AATCC Test Method 79–2010,
AATCC Test Method 135–2010, and AATCC
LP1–2021; however, only enumerated
provisions of AATCC LP1–2021 are
applicable as follows:
0.1 AATCC LP1–2021
(a) Table VII as referenced in section 3.1.2
of this appendix.
0.2 [Reserved]
1. Objective
This appendix includes the following:
1.1 Specifications for the test cloth to be
used for testing clothes washers and clothes
dryers;
1.2 Procedures for pre-conditioning the
test cloth for use in testing clothes washers
and clothes dryers;
1.3 Procedures for verifying that new lots
of test cloth meet the defined material
specifications; and
1.4 Procedures for developing a set of
correction coefficients that correlate the
measured remaining moisture content (RMC)
values of each new test cloth lot with a set
of standard RMC values established as an
historical reference point. These correction
coefficients are applied to the RMC
measurements performed during testing
according to appendix J or J2 to this subpart,
ensuring that the final corrected RMC
measurement for a clothes washer remains
independent of the test cloth lot used for
testing.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Test Cloth Specifications
*
*
*
*
*
3.1 The test cloth material must be one of
the following two types:
3.1.1 Test cloth meeting all of the
specifications in sections 3.1.1.1 through
3.1.1.4 of this appendix.
3.1.1.1 Fabric type. Pure finished
bleached cloth made with a momie, granite,
or crepe weave.
3.1.1.2 Fiber content of warp and filling
yarn. 50 percent ±4 percent cotton, with the
balance being polyester, open end spun, 15/
1 ±5 percent cotton count blended yarn.
3.1.1.3 Thread count. Thread count is
measured on the finished good, prior to preconditioning. 65 × 57 per inch (warp × fill),
±2 percent.
3.1.1.4 Fabric weight. Fabric weight is
measured on the finished good, prior to preconditioning. 5.60 ± 0.25 ounces per square
yard (190.0 ± 8.4 g/m2).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3.1.2 Test cloth meeting the
specifications of Laundering Ballast Type 3,
as specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1–
2021, with the following additional
specifications and substitutions:
3.1.2.1 Greige fabric yarns. Type 16/1
only.
3.1.2.2 Edges. All edges hemmed only.
3.1.2.3 Finished piece size. Dimensions
in accordance with sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2
of this appendix for energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths, respectively.
3.1.2.4. Finished piece weight. Disregard.
3.2 Water repellent finishes, such as
fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes, must
not be applied to the test cloth.
3.3. Test cloth dimensions.
3.3.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test
cloth must be made from test cloth material
that is cut to 24 ± 1⁄2 inches by 36 ± 1⁄2 inches
(61.0 ± 1.3 cm by 91.4 ± 1.3 cm), and
hemmed to 22 ± 1⁄2 inches by 34 ± 1⁄2 inches
(55.9 ± 1.3 cm by 86.4 ± 1.3 cm) before preconditioning.
3.3.2 Energy stuffer cloth. The energy
stuffer cloth must be made from the same test
cloth material as the energy test cloth, cut to
12 ± 1⁄4 inches by 12 ± 1⁄4 inches (30.5 ± 0.6
cm by 30.5 ± 0.6 cm), and hemmed to 10 ±
1⁄4 inches by 10 ± 1⁄4 inches (25.4 ± 0.6 cm
by 25.4 ± 0.6 cm) before pre-conditioning.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Test Cloth Pre-Conditioning Instructions
Use the following instructions for
performing pre-conditioning of new energy
test cloths and energy stuffer cloths as
specified throughout section 7 and section 8
of this appendix, before any clothes washer
testing using appendix J or appendix J2 to
this subpart, and before any clothes dryer
testing using appendix D1 or D2 to this
subpart.
5.1 Perform five complete wash-rinsespin cycles, the first two with current AHAM
Standard detergent Formula 3 and the last
three without detergent. Place the test cloth
in a clothes washer set at the maximum water
level. Wash the load for ten minutes in soft
water (17 ppm hardness or less) using 27.0
grams + 4.0 grams per pound of cloth load
of AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3. The
wash temperature is to be controlled to
135 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C) and the rinse
temperature is to be controlled to 60 °F ± 5 °F
(15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C).
5.2 Dry the load to bone-dry between
each of the five wash-rinse-spin cycles.
5.3 The maximum shrinkage after preconditioning must not be more than 5
percent of the length and width. Measure per
AATCC Test Method 135–2010.
*
*
*
*
*
7. * * *
7.1 * * *
7.1.1 Dimensions. Each hemmed energy
test cloth must meet the size specifications in
section 3.3.1 of this appendix. Each hemmed
energy stuffer cloth must meet the size
specifications in section 3.3.2 of this
appendix.
7.1.2 Oil repellency. Perform AATCC Test
Method 118–2007, to confirm the absence of
ScotchguardTM or other water-repellent
finish. An Oil Repellency Grade of 0 (Fails
Kaydol) is required.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
87821
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
7.1.3 Absorbency. Perform AATCC Test
Method 79–2010, to confirm the absence of
ScotchguardTM or other water-repellent
finish. The time to absorb one drop must be
on the order of 1 second.
7.2 * * *
7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation
(CV) of the nine average RMC values from
each sample load. The CV must be less than
or equal to 2.0% for the test cloth lot to be
considered acceptable and to perform the
standard extractor RMC testing.
8. * * *
8.5 Repeat sections 8.3 and 8.4 of this
appendix an additional two times, so that
three replications at each extractor condition
are performed. When this procedure is
performed in its entirety, a total of 60
extractor RMC test runs are required.
8.6 Calculate RMCcloth-avg for each
extractor test condition by averaging the
values of the 3 replications performed
specified in sections 8.3 and 8.4 of this
appendix.
8.7 Perform a linear least-squares fit to
determine coefficients A and B such that the
standard RMC values shown in table 8.7 of
this appendix (RMCstandard) are linearly
related to the RMCcloth-avg values calculated in
section 8.6 of this appendix:
RMCstandard ∼ A × RMCcloth-avg + B
where A and B are coefficients of the linear
least-squares fit.
TABLE 8.7—STANDARD RMC VALUES
RMC percentage
Warm soak
‘‘g Force’’
15 min. spin
(percent)
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
8.8 Calculate the corrected RMC value for
each extractor test condition, RMCcloth-corr as
follows:
RMCcloth-corr = A × RMCcloth-avg + B
Where:
RMSE
I
Where:
RMCstandard_i = the RMCstandard value in table
8.7 of this appendix for the ith extractor
test condition, expressed as a decimal,
RMCcloth-corr_i = the corrected RMC value, as
calculated in section 8.8 of this appendix
for the ith extractor test condition,
expressed as a decimal, and
i = the 20 extractor test conditions listed in
table 8.7 of this appendix.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–25480 Filed 11–4–24; 8:45 am]
(RMCstandard
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2024–2419; Project
Identifier MCAI–2023–00366–R]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Helicopters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model
AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,
AS350BA, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP,
EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters.
This proposed AD was prompted by a
manufacturer assessment that
determined additional actions are
17:09 Nov 04, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
52.8
43.1
35.8
30.0
28.0
Frm 00021
i )'
20
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
49.7
37.9
30.7
25.5
24.1
4 min. spin
(percent)
8.9 Calculate the root mean square error
of the linear fit, RMSE. The RMSE must be
less than or equal to 0.015 for the test cloth
lot to be considered acceptable. The RMSE is
calculated as follows:
RMCc1oth corr
i -
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
49.9
40.4
33.1
28.7
26.4
15 min. spin
(percent)
20
i=l
*
45.9
35.7
29.6
24.2
23.0
RMCcloth-avg = the average RMC value, as
calculated in section 8.6 of this appendix
for each extractor test condition,
expressed as a decimal, and
A and B are the coefficients of the linear least
squares fit as determined in section 8.7
of this appendix.
=
4 min. spin
(percent)
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
necessary to improve particle detection
for main gearboxes (MGBs) with certain
planet gear bearings installed. This
proposed AD would require repetitively
inspecting the MGB bevel wheel for the
presence of particles, repetitively
inspecting the MGB magnetic plug for
particles, and prohibit installing an
affected MGB unless certain
requirements are met. These actions are
specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
proposed for incorporation by reference.
The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these
products.
The FAA must receive comments
on this NPRM by December 20, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
EP05NO24.001</GPH>
100
200
350
500
650
Cold soak
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87803-87821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25480]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009]
RIN 1904-AF68
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and
Commercial Clothes Washers and Consumer Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers to update the test cloth specifications. DOE
also proposes to reorganize the test procedures for improved
readability. DOE is conducting this rulemaking to address specific
issues and to make minor corrections to the current test procedures.
However, this rulemaking does not satisfy the statutory requirement
that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review the test procedures for
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers. DOE is seeking comment
from interested parties on the proposal.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this proposal no later than December 5, 2024.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on this NOPR if one is
requested by November 12, 2024. If a public meeting is requested, DOE
will announce its date and participation information on the DOE website
and via email.
[[Page 87804]]
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009 in the subject line of the message.
(2) 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.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 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 telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a
public meeting is held), comments, and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, 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) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Uchechukwu ``Emeka'' Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standard into 10 CFR part 430:
AATCC LP1-2021, Laboratory Procedure for Home Laundering: Machine
Washing, Revised 2023.
Copies of AATCC test methods can be obtained from the American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (``AATCC''), P.O. Box
12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or
www.aatcc.org.
See section IV.M of this document for a further discussion of this
standard.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Process Rule
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Relevant Historical Background
C. Test Cloth Specifications and Requirements
1. Cut Orientation
2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count
3. Granite Weave
4. Alternate Test Cloth
5. Uniformity Criteria
6. Variance P-Value Threshold and Root-Mean-Square Error
D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring Edits
1. Introductory Paragraph
2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions
3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and Clothes Dryer Test Procedures
4. Restructuring Appendix J3
E. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
F. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Consumer (residential) clothes washers (``RCWs''), commercial
clothes washers (``CCWs''), and consumer clothes dryers are included in
the list of ``covered products/equipment'' for which DOE is authorized
to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)-(8); 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) DOE's test
procedures for RCWs are currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendices J (``appendix J'') and J2 (``appendix J2''). The
test procedures for CCWs must be the same as those established for
RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)). DOE's test procedures for consumer
clothes dryers are currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendices D1 (``appendix D1'') and D2 (``appendix D2''). DOE also
prescribes specifications for the test cloth to be used for testing
clothes washers at appendix J3 to subpart B (``appendix J3''). The
following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test
procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers and relevant
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures
for these products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions
[[Page 87805]]
designed to improve energy efficiency. These products include RCWs and
consumer clothes dryers. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)-(8)) Title III, Part C
of EPCA,\3\ added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. This equipment includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H))
RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers are the subject of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42
U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products/equipment must use as the basis for:
(1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), and (2) making other representations about
the efficiency of those consumer products/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/equipment comply with relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products and
equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)) DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the
criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products/equipment. 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/
equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use
and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product and equipment,
including RCWs, CCWs and consumer clothes dryers, 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); 6314(a)(1))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).
If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate,
DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)-(ii)) \4\ If an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and
off mode energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a
separate test is technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii))
Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 \5\ and
IEC Standard 62087 \6\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPCA does not contain an analogous provision for commercial
equipment.
\5\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\6\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the same as the
test procedures established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with
the test procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires that DOE evaluate, at least
once every 7 years, the test procedures for CCWs to determine whether
amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to
conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to
address specific issues and to make minor corrections to the current
test procedures that are required for certification of compliance with
applicable energy conservation standards. However, this rulemaking does
not satisfy the EPCA requirement that, at least once every 7 years, DOE
review the test procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 6314(a)(1)(A))
B. Background
As discussed, DOE's existing test procedures for clothes washers
are prescribed at appendix J and appendix J2,\7\ and DOE's existing
test procedures for consumer clothes dryers are
[[Page 87806]]
prescribed at appendix D1 and appendix D2.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix
J2 to determine compliance with the current relevant standards for
RCWs at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1) and for CCWs at 10 CFR 431.156(b).
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix J to
determine compliance with the relevant standards for RCWs
manufactured on or after March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR
430.32(g)(2) and with any amended standards for CCWs provided in 10
CFR 431.156 that are published after January 1, 2022.
\8\ The test procedures in appendix D1 or appendix D2 must be
used to determine compliance with the current relevant standards for
consumer clothes dryers at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must
use the test procedure in appendix D2 to determine compliance with
the relevant standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on
or after March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE's existing test procedure at appendix J3 provides
specifications for the test cloth to be used for testing clothes
washers; procedures for pre-conditioning new test cloth; procedures for
verifying that new lots \9\ of test cloth meet the defined material
specifications; and procedures for developing a set of correction
coefficients that correlate the measured remaining moisture content
(``RMC'') values of each new test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC
values established as a historical reference point. These correction
coefficients are applied to the RMC measurements performed during
testing according to appendix J or appendix J2, ensuring consistency in
the final corrected RMC measurement across different test cloth lots
used for testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The term ``lot'' refers to a quantity of cloth that has been
manufactured with the same batches of cotton and polyester during
one continuous process. Section 2 of appendix J3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the test cloth specifications and qualification procedures
in appendix J3 are nominally applicable to clothes washer testing, DOE
understands that manufacturers and test laboratories use the same test
cloth for testing clothes dryers as well. As discussed further in
section III.B of this document, the test cloth specifications for
clothes washer testing and clothes dryer testing have historically been
aligned. Furthermore, as discussed further in section III.D.3 of this
document, test cloth that satisfies the requirements of appendix J3 for
clothes washer testing also satisfies the requirements codified in
appendices D1 and D2 for clothes dryer testing.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') has
established a Test Cloth Task Force (``AHAM task force'') that, among
other responsibilities, reviews and recommends new lots of test cloth
for industry use; identifies and secures suppliers for manufacturing
test cloth; conducts research and investigations to recommend
continuous improvements to the test cloth specifications and
qualification procedures; and addresses any industry-wide concerns that
may arise regarding the test cloth. DOE representatives participate in
the AHAM task force.
On May 31, 2024, DOE received a letter from AHAM (``May 2024 AHAM
Letter'') urging DOE to allow the use of alternate test cloth material
for clothes washer and clothes dryer testing. (No. 1 at p. 4) \10\ The
May 2024 AHAM Letter also made further requests for DOE to amend
certain test cloth specifications based on the results of recent
investigations by the AHAM task force. (Id.) In this document, DOE
proposes to implement changes to its test cloth specifications to
address these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or
paraphrase of an AHAM letter provides reference for information
located in the docket of this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2024-BT-
TP-0009, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (docket ID number at the page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Process Rule
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE notes that it is deviating from
certain provisions in the Process Rule as follows.
Section 8(a) of the Process Rule states that in determining whether
to consider establishing or amending any test procedure, DOE will
publish one or more preliminary documents in the Federal Register
(e.g., a request for information or notice of data availability)
intended to gather information on key issues. As discussed, DOE is
conducting this rulemaking to address specific issues rather than
conducting a full review of the clothes washer and clothes dryer test
procedures that would satisfy the 7-year lookback requirement
prescribed by EPCA. This proposal seeks to address known issues
regarding test cloth that have been brought to DOE's attention, as
discussed in the previous section of this document. For these reasons,
DOE finds it appropriate to deviate from this provision in the Process
Rule by forgoing publication of a preliminary document as part of a
pre-NOPR stage for this rulemaking.
Section 8(b)(2) of the Process Rule states that there will be not
less than 60 days for public comment on the NOPR, with at least one
public hearing or workshop. As stated, DOE will hold a public meeting
on this NOPR if one is requested; otherwise, DOE finds it appropriate
to forgo a public hearing given the limited scope of issues addressed
in this NOPR. DOE has also determined that 30 days is an appropriate
period for providing comments.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes amendments to its test cloth
specifications as follows:
(1) Specify that fabric weight and thread count must be measured on
finished goods prior to pre-conditioning,
(2) Clarify that the test cloth be made with a ``granite,''
``momie,'' or ``crepe'' weave,
(3) Allow the use of an alternate test cloth,
(4) Amend the statistical criteria for a new test cloth lot to be
considered acceptable for use,
(5) Restructure and renumber certain sections of appendix J3 for
clarity, and
(6) Harmonize the test cloth specifications for clothes washers and
clothes dryers.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedures as well as the reason for the proposed change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedures Relative to
Current Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedures procedures Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not specify at which Specifies that Industry request;
stage of the process the fabric weight and improve
fabric weight and thread thread count must reproducibility of
count of test cloth are be measured on test results.
applicable. finished goods
prior to pre-
conditioning.
Specifies the use of Specifies the use of Industry request;
``granite or momie'' weave. ``granite, momie, clarification of
or crepe'' weave. existing
requirement.
Specifies one type of Specifies two types Industry request;
allowable test cloth. of allowable test reduce test burden
cloth. while maintaining
reproducibility and
representativeness.
[[Page 87807]]
Specifies that the Specifies that the Reduce test burden
coefficient of variation coefficient of while maintaining
across nine RMC values must variation across reproducibility and
be less than or equal to 1 nine RMC values representativeness.
percent. must be less than
or equal to 2.0
percent.
Specifies that the P-value Specifies that the Reduce test burden
of the RMC correction curve root-mean-square while maintaining
must be greater than or error of the RMC reproducibility and
equal to 0.1. correction curve representativeness.
must be less than
or equal to 0.015.
Appendix J3 test cloth Harmonizes test Industry request;
specifications currently cloth requirements clarify existing
apply only to clothes across both clothes requirements
washers. washers and clothes consistent with
dryers and extends industry practice.
applicability of
appendix J3 test
cloth
specifications to
both clothes
washers and clothes
dryers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
described in section III of this document would not alter the measured
efficiency of RCWs, CCWs, or consumer clothes dryers, or require
retesting or recertification solely as a result of DOE's adoption of
the proposed amendments to the test procedures, if finalized. (42
U.S.C. 6293(e)) Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in
detail in section III of this document.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE proposes certain amendments to its
test procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. For each
proposed amendment, DOE provides relevant background information,
explains why the amendment merits consideration, discusses relevant
public comments, and proposes a potential approach.
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to clothes washers (both RCWs and CCWs,
which use the same test procedures) \11\ and consumer clothes dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The test procedures for CCWs must be the same as those
established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has defined a clothes washer as a consumer product designed to
clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and
mechanical agitation or other movement, that must be one of the
following classes: automatic clothes washers,\12\ semi-automatic
clothes washers,\13\ and other clothes washers.\14\ 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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. 10 CFR
430.2.
\13\ 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.
\14\ ``Other clothes washer'' means a class of clothes washer
that is not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE regulations also define ``electric clothes dryer'' and ``gas
clothes dryer'' similarly as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry
fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation, with
blower(s) driven by an electric motor(s) and either electricity or gas,
respectively, as the heat source. See, 10 CFR 430.2. DOE's clothes
dryer test procedures are applicable to both electric and gas clothes
dryers.
A commercial clothes washer is defined as a soft-mount front-
loading or soft-mount top-loading clothes washer that--
(A) Has a clothes container compartment that--
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5
cubic feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0
cubic feet; and
(B) Is designed for use in--
(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one
household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family
housing common areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452)
DOE is not proposing changes to the scope of the RCW, CCW, or
consumer clothes dryer test procedures, or the relevant definitions, in
this NOPR.
B. Relevant Historical Background
This section summarizes the historical background of test cloth
specifications in DOE's clothes washer and clothes dryer test
procedures that is relevant to topics discussed in this NOPR.
DOE first introduced the use of test cloth into the original
clothes dryer test procedure established by the final rule published
September 14, 1977 (``September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final Rule''). 42 FR
46145. The test cloth specifications were a 50-percent cotton and 50-
percent polyester blended material, representative of the range of
fabrics comprising consumer wash loads. Id. at 42 FR 46146. The
September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final Rule also established a maximum use
of 25 clothes dryer test cycles for each piece of test cloth to reduce
potential variability in the test results that may occur from any
change in the composition of the test cloth due to continued drying of
the same test cloth. Id.
DOE introduced the use of test cloth into the original clothes
washer test procedure established by the final rule published September
28, 1977 (``September 1977 Clothes Washer Final Rule''). 42 FR 49802.
As discussed in the September 1977 Clothes Washer Final Rule, the size
and composition of the test load was chosen to be identical to the test
load that had been specified for clothes dryers in the September 1977
Clothes Dryer Final Rule. Id. at 49 FR 49805. The number of test runs
for each piece of test cloth was limited to no more than 25 clothes
washer test cycles. Id. at 49 FR 49808.
Since introducing the use of test cloth into the originally
established clothes dryer and clothes washer test procedures, DOE has
periodically updated the test cloth specifications and requirements.
The following paragraphs summarize some of these changes to test cloth
specifications and requirements that are relevant to the amendments
proposed in this document.
In a final rule published May 19, 1981 (``May 1981 Final Rule''),
DOE amended the clothes dryer test procedure to, among other changes,
establish test cloth pre-conditioning requirements to improve test
repeatability by ensuring that the test cloth not contain any water-
soluble sizing or finishing agents that could affect the moisture
performance of
[[Page 87808]]
test cloth. 46 FR 27324. The May 1981 Final Rule also established a
weight tolerance on the test cloth. Id.
In a final rule published August 27, 1997, DOE amended its test
cloth requirements in the clothes washer test procedure by adding a new
requirement to prewash (i.e., pre-condition) new test cloth prior to
first use for energy consumption testing. 62 FR 45484.
DOE published a final rule on January 12, 2001 (``January 2001
Final Rule'') that, among other changes to the clothes washer test
procedure, introduced the modified energy factor descriptor, which
incorporated an estimate of clothes drying energy into the clothes
washer efficiency descriptor through consideration of the RMC of the
clothes leaving the clothes washer. 66 FR 3314. As discussed in the
January 2001 Final Rule, it had been discovered that the test cloth to
be used for determining the RMC was giving inconsistent results. Id. at
66 FR 3317. DOE investigated possible causes for the inconsistent test
results and summarized the results in a report published in May 2000
titled Development of a Standardized Energy Test Cloth for Measuring
Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes Washer (``May 2000
Test Cloth Report'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The May 2000 Test Cloth Report is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0064-0277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, relevant to topics discussed in this NOPR, the May
2000 Test Cloth Report documented the difficulty of relating
specifiable test cloth characteristics--fiber content, weight, etc.--to
RMC measurements. (See section 4 of May 2000 Test Cloth Report). On
this basis, DOE concluded that tighter test cloth specifications alone
would not necessarily lead to comparably consistent RMC measurements.
To provide more consistent RMC measurements from lot to lot, the May
2000 Test Cloth Report proposed a new method for developing a
``correction factor'' for each new lot of test cloth. The correction
factor would be applied to the RMC measurement to normalize the RMC
results to match the RMC performance of a designated ``standard lot.''
The May 2000 Test Cloth Report also concluded that a viable
approach to minimize the effects of test cloth variation on RMC would
be to consistently specify a single type of fabric that is produced
frequently by one mill to a consistent set of specifications. The
report recommended the use of a 50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester
momie weave fabric from one particular mill as a suitable choice,
noting that this cloth (at the time) was produced in high volume, had
been produced to a consistent specification for many years, and was
likely to continue to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable
future. (See section 6 of May 2000 Test Cloth Report)
The May 2000 Test Cloth Report recommended a set of test cloth
specifications and an RMC correction factor approach that could be
adopted into the DOE test procedure. The January 2001 Final Rule
incorporated into the clothes washer test procedures many of the
recommendations of the May 2000 Test Cloth Report, including the
recommended updates to the test cloth specifications and the RMC
correction factor procedure. The January 2001 Final Rule also increased
the number of allowable test runs for each piece of test cloth to no
more than 60 clothes washer test cycles (from 25 previously). 66 FR
3314, 3320.
DOE published a direct final rule on October 31, 2003 (``October
2003 Final Rule'') that, among other changes to the clothes washer test
procedure, added as a testing requirement the use of a statistical
analysis approach to qualify any interactive effect between different
lots of test cloth and spin speeds to further improve consistency of
the RMC measurement. 68 FR 62198.
On March 7, 2012, DOE published a final rule (``March 2012 Final
Rule'') that, among other changes, updated certain test cloth
specifications for clothes washer testing based on recommendations
provided by AHAM. 77 FR 13888, 13920-13921. Specifically, the March
2012 Final Rule adopted definitions for cloth ``lot'' and ``roll'' and
established test cloth weight tolerances. Id. at 77 FR 13921-13922. The
March 2012 Final Rule also updated pre-conditioning wash requirements
and incorporated American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
(``AATCC'') test methods for verifying the absence of water-repellent
finishes on the test cloth. Id. at 77 FR 13922.
In a final rule published on August 5, 2015 (``August 2015 Final
Rule''), DOE moved the standard extractor RMC procedure for developing
the correction factors for each new test cloth lot from appendix J2 to
the newly created appendix J3. 80 FR 46730.
In a final rule published on June 1, 2022 (``June 2022 Final
Rule''), among other changes, DOE further consolidated clothes washer
test cloth-related provisions into appendix J3 (from appendix J2) to
improve the overall logical flow of both test procedures. Id. at 87 FR
33367. DOE additionally codified in appendix J3 a test cloth material
verification procedure that had historically been used by the AHAM task
force when evaluating new lots of test cloth. Id. at 87 FR 33368.
C. Test Cloth Specifications and Requirements
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to update its test cloth
specifications and requirements to (1) further improve consistency in
test results across different lots of test cloth, (2) clarify certain
requirements consistent with textile industry nomenclature, (3) allow
the use of an alternate type of test cloth that has been shown to
exhibit consistent performance with the current test cloth, and (4)
reevaluate appropriate thresholds for certain statistical requirements
specified for new lots of test cloth.
Each of the proposed changes are in line with DOE's historical
practice of regularly updating its test cloth specifications to improve
the consistency of test results and adapt to changes in material
specifications and availability of commercially available textiles.
In this section, DOE addresses clothes washer specifications in
appendix J3 specifically. In section III.D.3 of this document, DOE
proposes harmonizing the clothes washer and clothes dryer test cloth
specifications such that the edits proposed in this section would apply
to both product types.
1. Cut Orientation
Section 3.1 of appendix J3 specifies that the test cloth material
should come from a roll of material with a width of approximately 63
inches, although other sizes may be used if the test cloth material
meets the specifications listed in sections 3.2 through 3.6 of appendix
J3. Section 3.7.1 of appendix J3 specifies the dimensions of the
individual energy test cloths--nominally 24 inches by 36 inches prior
to hemming.\16\ Furthermore, section 5 of appendix J3 specifies that
the maximum shrinkage requirements for the energy test cloth after pre-
conditioning \17\ must not be more than 5 percent of the length and
width.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Section 3.7.2 of appendix J3 specifies dimensions of
smaller energy ``stuffer'' cloths, which are nominally 12 inches by
12 inches prior to hemming. Since the energy stuffer cloths are
square, the consideration of cut orientation in this section of the
document pertains only to the rectangular energy test cloths.
\17\ The pre-conditioning process is specified in section 5 of
appendix J3 and consists of five wash-rinse-spin cycles, with the
load bone-dried between each of the five cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix J3 does not specify the orientation of the rectangular
[[Page 87809]]
dimensions (i.e., lengthwise versus widthwise) for cutting individual
energy test cloths from the roll of fabric. As such, the cut
orientation of the rectangular energy test cloths can be optimized to
minimize wasted fabric (e.g., a lengthwise cut of 36 inches adjacent to
a widthwise cut of 24 inches could be patterned on a 63-inch width roll
of material with minimal waste).
The May 2024 AHAM Letter recommended that appendix J3 specify that
the energy test cloth be cut in a specific orientation relative to the
fabric roll. (No. 1 at p. 4) Specifically, the May 2024 AHAM Letter
suggested that the 24-inch dimension be cut from the lengthwise (i.e.,
``warp'') direction of the roll and the 36-inch dimension be cut from
the widthwise (i.e., ``weft'') direction of the roll, as depicted in
Figure III.1. (Id. at p. 23)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO24.000
DOE understands through discussions of the AHAM task force that
differences in cut orientation can impact the relative shrinking of
cloth in each direction after repeated wash and dry cycles, which could
potentially affect its water absorption and retention properties--
characteristics that are particularly relevant to the RMC
measurement.\18\ The May 2024 AHAM Letter did not, however, provide any
data or quantitative evaluation of whether, or to what extent, the
direction of cut orientation could affect the shrinkage of the energy
test cloth, or the RMC measurement in the clothes washer test
procedure. DOE notes that even if the cut orientation could impact the
relative shrinkage of the length and width of the energy test cloth,
section 5 of appendix J3 already specifies a maximum allowable
shrinkage of 5 percent in each direction. DOE has no information to
suggest that any variation in shrinkage within this 5 percent tolerance
would have a substantive impact on the resulting RMC measurement in the
clothes washer test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ As discussed, RMC is a measure of the remaining water
content of the clothes washer load at the end of the wash cycle and
is used to incorporate an estimate of clothes drying energy into the
clothes washer efficiency descriptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, DOE is concerned about potential unintended
consequences of requiring a specific cut orientation for each energy
test cloth. Depending on the width of the fabric roll, specifying a cut
orientation as suggested by AHAM could prevent the optimization of cut
patterns as described previously (i.e., a 36-inch lengthwise cut
adjacent to a 24-inch widthwise cut on a 63-inch width roll of
material), resulting in increased fabric waste and a corresponding
increase in material cost. For instance, a 63-inch-wide roll as
specified by section 3.1 of appendix J3 would only be able to
accommodate a single 36-inch wide cut as suggested by AHAM, resulting
in nearly 40 percent of the roll material being wasted. And although
section 3.1 of appendix J3 permits the use of other size rolls, DOE
understands that textiles are typically woven in standardized widths
and is concerned that fabricating rolls with a custom width for DOE
test cloth could increase the material cost.
In summary, DOE is uncertain as to whether, or to what extent, the
energy test cloth cut orientation could impact the RMC measurement in
the clothes washer test procedure, and whether specifying a particular
cut orientation could result in fabric waste that would lead to an
increase in material cost. As such, DOE requests comment to clarify
these uncertainties, as provided at the end of this section. If DOE
were to be provided with additional information that alleviates these
uncertainties and concerns, DOE would consider establishing a cut
orientation requirement in a final rule.
Irrespective of its determination regarding the specification of a
cut orientation requirement, DOE has tentatively determined that
section 3.1
[[Page 87810]]
of appendix J3 is superfluous, given that the suggested parameters
regarding the width and length dimensions of the roll (i.e., a roll
width of approximately 63 inches and approximately 500 yards per roll)
are rendered moot by the accompanying provision allowing for rolls of
other sizes to be used. As such, DOE proposes to remove section 3.1 of
appendix J3 and renumber the subsequent sections accordingly.
DOE requests comment on the roll dimensions and cut orientations
that are currently used to fabricate DOE test cloth.
DOE requests comment as to whether, or to what extent, the energy
test cloth cut orientation could impact the RMC measurement in the
clothes washer test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its concern that establishing a cut
orientation requirement could lead to fabric waste, depending on the
dimensions of the fabric roll.
DOE requests comment on its tentative determination not to specify
a cut orientation requirement. DOE further seeks comment on whether it
should adopt the cut orientation requirement specified by AHAM or any
other cut orientation requirement.
DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that section
3.1 of appendix J3 is superfluous and its proposal to remove the
requirements in section 3.1 of appendix J3.
2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count
Section 3.3 of appendix J3 specifies that the fabric weight of the
test cloth must be 5.60 0.25 ounces per square yard, but
it does not specify at what point in the fabrication process this
specification applies. Similarly, section 3.4 of appendix J3 specifies
that the thread count of the test cloth must be 65 x 57 threads per
inch 2 percent, but it does not specify at what point in
the fabrication process this specification applies. The May 2024 AHAM
Letter requested that DOE amend these specifications to clarify that
fabric weight and thread count specifications apply to ``finished
goods'' test cloth prior to pre-conditioning. (No. 1 at pp. 4, 22)
Through its participation in the AHAM task force, DOE understands the
term ``finished goods'' to mean after the cloth has been hemmed into
energy test cloth and energy stuffer cloths, but prior to any pre-
conditioning.
DOE further understands through its participation in the AHAM task
force that specifying that these requirements apply to finished goods
(as opposed to prior to the cloth having been processed, de-starched,
and hemmed), but prior to any pre-conditioning, is the most appropriate
point in the cloth fabrication process because these dimensional
properties can change during certain stages of the cloth fabrication
process. Applying these specifications to finished goods therefore
ensures the consistency of each test cloth lot at the state in which
the test cloth is purchased by a manufacturer or test laboratory.
Consistent with AHAM's recommendation, DOE proposes to specify
within section 3 of appendix J3 that fabric weight and thread count
specifications apply to finished goods prior to pre-conditioning.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal to specify in appendix J3
that fabric weight and thread count specifications apply to finished
goods prior to pre-conditioning.
3. Granite Weave
Section 3.2 of appendix J3 states that the test cloth used for
clothes washer testing must be a pure finished bleached cloth, made
with a momie or granite weave. As discussed in the May 2024 AHAM
Letter, recent lots 25A and 25B \19\ were woven with a different type
of granite weave--a ``crepe'' weave--than the ``momie'' type of granite
weave that has historically been used for DOE test cloth. (No. 1 at p.
3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The AHAM task force designated the two most recent lots of
test cloth ``25A'' and ``25B'' to reflect that these two lots were
manufactured at the same time using the same continuous weaving
process, although they were finished in separate batch processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate whether using a crepe weave would impact test results
compared to the historical momie weave, DOE conducted comparative
testing of RCWs and consumer clothes dryers using lot 25A (made with a
crepe weave) and previous test cloth lot 23 (made with a momie weave).
The results of DOE's testing are presented in a Technical Appendix
published in the docket for this rulemaking.\20\ This testing shows no
substantive variation in RMC, integrated modified energy factor
(``IMEF''), or integrated water factor--the reported metrics for RCWs--
or in combined energy factor--the reported metric for consumer clothes
dryers--between the different granite weave types (i.e., traditional
momie versus crepe weave). Although DOE's test sample did not include
any CCWs, DOE expects that the trends in RMC values, energy use, and
water use that it observed in RCWs would apply to CCWs, given that RCWs
and CCWs are designed and operate similarly and are tested using the
same test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its participation in discussions with the AHAM task force,
DOE understands that very few textile mills maintain the capability to
fabricate cloth using the type of momie weave that has traditionally
been used to produce DOE test cloth. Instead, the type of crepe weave
used for lot 25A is expected to be more readily available going
forward. In recognition of this, DOE is proposing to add the term
``crepe'' to the list of allowable weaves--specifically, to revise
newly renumbered section 3.1.1.1 of appendix J3 to specify that the
test cloth be made with a momie, granite, or crepe weave.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal to add the term ``crepe'' to
the list of allowable weaves in appendix J3.
Appendix J3 currently does not define the terms momie or granite
weave. In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM suggested that DOE establish
definitions for these terms in appendix J3.\21\ (No. 1 at pp. 21-22)
Through its participation in the AHAM task force, DOE understands that
momie, granite, and crepe weave types are generally understood terms of
art within the textile industry, but there is not a definitive source
for definitions of these terms. DOE is concerned that creating its own
definitions for these terms could inadvertently conflict with the range
of weave styles that are generally understood by the textile industry
to be granite weaves. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined not to
establish a definition for these terms within the appendix J3 test
procedure. DOE would consider establishing definitions for one or more
of these terms--including the definitions suggested by AHAM--if
interested parties were to demonstrate sufficient justification that
would alleviate the concerns expressed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ AHAM suggested defining ``granite weave'' as a broad
classification of weave producing a small, irregular, pebbled
surface similar to crepe fabrics; fabrics made with a granite weave
are generally interlaced tightly, and warp and filling yarns appear
on the face. AHAM suggested defining ``momie/granite weave fabric''
as test cloth made with granite weave fabric as specified in the
suggested definition of granite weave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests feedback on its tentative determination not to
establish definitions for ``crepe,'' ``granite,'' or ``momie'' weave in
appendix J3.
4. Alternate Test Cloth
DOE is required to ensure that the test procedure is reasonably
designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy
use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered
product/equipment during a
[[Page 87811]]
representative average use cycle or period of use and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In
establishing the current test cloth specifications, DOE considered the
representativeness of the range of fabrics comprising consumer wash
loads, the manufacturability of the fabric, the consistency in test
cloth production, and the consistency in test results from the fabric.
66 FR 3314, 3318 (Jan. 12, 2001).
As discussed, the current test cloth specifications were
recommended by the May 2000 Test Cloth Report, which noted that this
cloth (at the time) was produced in high volume, had been produced to a
consistent specification for many years, and was likely to continue to
be produced on this basis for the foreseeable future. (See section 6 of
May 2000 Test Cloth Report.) The May 2000 Test Cloth Report also
highlighted the benefits of specifying a single type of fabric that is
produced frequently by one mill to a consistent set of specifications.
However, while the test cloth specified in appendix J3 continues to
be produced by a single supplier, DOE understands through its
participation in the AHAM task force that this cloth is produced
exclusively for use in conducting the DOE test procedure (i.e., this
specific cloth is not used to any significant extent by any other
industry bodies or for any other regulatory or research and development
purposes). As such, it is no longer the case that this cloth is
produced in high volume (beyond the volume needed for DOE testing
purposes), leading to uncertainty as to whether this cloth is likely to
remain readily available on a consistent basis for the foreseeable
future.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laundry industry experienced
shortages in DOE test cloth supply.\22\ The specialized nature of the
DOE test cloth (i.e., the fact the cloth is unique to DOE testing needs
and produced in relatively low volumes) inhibited the ability to
identify alternate sources of supply for the test cloth. To mitigate
this shortage, AHAM requested that DOE use its enforcement discretion
to allow extended use of test cloth beyond the currently defined cycle
limits.\23\ On September 28, 2023, DOE issued a statement \24\ stating
that DOE would exercise its enforcement discretion and not impose civil
penalties on a clothes washer, commercial clothes washer, or clothes
dryer manufacturer for certifying compliance with DOE's energy
conservation standards based on testing that exceeds the maximum test
cloth run provision set forth in the DOE test procedures. Instead, DOE
allowed for usage of test cloth for twice the number of runs allowed in
the relevant test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ AHAM informed DOE on March 3, 2022 that there were
significant issues with the quality and availability of the required
test cloth material for the applicable energy tests for clothes
washers and clothes dryers.
\23\ On August 7, 2023, AHAM informed DOE that test cloth
shortages were persisting and that this supply shortage could also
eventually impact DOE's ability to conduct assessment, enforcement,
or other testing.
\24\ Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Test%20Cloth%20Policy%20for%20Clothes%20Washers%20and%20Clothes%20Dryers%20Enforcement%20Policy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to further alleviate any test cloth supply constraints
that could limit energy testing activities for clothes washers and
clothes dryers, the AHAM task force evaluated the potential merits of
specifying an alternate test cloth that could be used for DOE testing,
as discussed in the May 2024 AHAM Letter. (No. 1 at p. 3)
The AHAM task force identified a commercially available
standardized fabric as a possible alternative to the current test cloth
specification. This fabric is used as ``ballast'' for testing specific
material attributes (such as colorfastness) of textiles and, according
to the May 2024 AHAM Letter, has been used by the textile industry for
over 80 years. (No. 1 at p. 3) Specifically, the fabric meets the
specifications of Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth specified by industry
standard AATCC LP1-2021, Laboratory Procedure for Home Laundering:
Machine Washing.\25\ The specifications for Laundering Ballast Type 3
cloth are provided in Table III.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021 provides specifications for
various types of cloth, one of which is designated as Laundering
Ballast Type 3.
Table III.1--Specifications for Laundering Ballast Type 3 Cloth From
AATCC LP1-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic Specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiber Content..................... 50% cotton/50% polyester 3%.
Greige Fabric Yarns............... 16/1 or 30/2 ring spun.
Greige Fabric Construction........ 52 x 48 5 yarns per
inch, plain weave.
Finished Fabric Weight............ 155 10 grams per square
meter (4.57 0.29
ounces per square yard).
Edges............................. All edges hemmed or over-edged.
Finished Piece Size............... 920 x 920 30
millimeters (36.0 x 36.0 1 inch).
Finished Piece Weight............. 130 10 grams (4.59
0.35 ounces).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of an AHAM task force investigation, DOE and AHAM members
conducted comparative testing of Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth \26\
to evaluate whether this cloth could be used to conduct the DOE test
procedures and whether doing so would produce test results comparable
to the currently specified test cloth. The results of DOE's testing are
presented in the Technical Appendix published in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The tested cloth used 16/1 fabric yarns and was sized to
match the DOE energy test cloth and energy stuffer cloth dimensions
and hemming instructions (as currently specified in section 3.7.1
and 3.7.2 of appendix J3, respectively) instead of the finished
piece dimensions specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, DOE tested six RCWs and eight consumer clothes
dryers, representing eight manufacturers and all major product classes;
AHAM members additionally conducted testing of eight RCWs and six
consumer clothes dryers, representing all major product classes. These
products were tested to their rated appendix (D1, D2, or J2) using both
the current DOE test cloth and the Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth.
DOE's testing demonstrated no substantive difference in measured
efficiency compared with historical lots used for RCW and consumer
clothes dryer testing. In particular for clothes washers, the
Laundering Ballast Type 3 produced RMC results comparable to existing
DOE test cloth using the currently specified correction factor
approach. Although DOE's test sample did not include any CCWs, DOE
expects that the trends in RMC values, energy use, and water use that
it observed in RCWs would apply to CCWs, given that RCWs and CCWs are
designed and
[[Page 87812]]
operate similarly and are tested using the same test procedure.
In addition, AHAM presented the results of its members' testing in
appendix A to the May 2024 AHAM Letter. (No. 1 at pp. 6-9) This testing
also demonstrated no substantive difference in measured efficiency
compared with historical lots used for RCW and consumer clothes dryer
testing.
Based on this data, DOE has tentatively determined that the AATCC
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth provides results that are equally as
representative as results obtained using the currently specified test
cloth. On this basis, DOE is proposing, consistent with recommendations
from the May 2024 AHAM Letter, to amend appendix J3 to allow for the
use of AATCC Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth, with a specific yarn
size, and cut and hemmed to the DOE energy test cloth dimensions. (No.
1 at p. 22) As discussed in section III.D.3 of this document, the
specifications in appendix J3 would apply to both clothes washers and
clothes dryers.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AATCC
LP1-2021 into appendix J3 and to allow the use of test cloth meeting
the specifications of Laundering Ballast Type 3, as specified in Table
VII of AATCC LP1-2021, with the following additional specifications and
substitutions:
Greige Fabric Yarns: Type 16/1 only \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As discussed previously, comparative testing was conducted
only on fabric with 16/1 yarn type, which is a single-string yarn
similar in thickness to the 15/1 yarn type currently specified in
section 3.5 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on fabric with
30/2 yarn type--the other fabric yarn option specified in Table VII
of AATCC LP1-2021--which is a two-string version of yarn with each
string roughly half the diameter of the single-string version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edges: All edges hemmed only \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ As discussed previously, comparative testing was conducted
only on fabric matching the hemming instructions currently specified
in sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted
on over-edged pieces of test cloth (i.e., the other edging option
specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished Piece Size: Dimensions in accordance with
sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3 for energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths, respectively.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ As discussed previously, comparative testing was conducted
only on fabric matching the dimensions currently specified in
sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on
fabric pieces matching the dimensions as specified in Table VII of
AATCC LP1-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished Piece Weight: Disregard \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The Finished Piece Weight specified in Table VII of AATCC
LP1-2021 corresponds to the Finished Piece Size specified in the
same table; as such, this specification does not apply to fabric
pieces matching the proposed finished piece dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow the use of Laundering
Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC LP1-2021 (with certain
additional specifications) as an alternate test cloth for conducting
clothes washer and clothes dryer testing.
Consistent with the discussion in section III.C.3 of this document,
DOE considered whether to propose a definition for ``plain weave'' as
specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021. DOE understands the term
``plain weave'' to be a well-understood term of art and therefore
tentatively determines that adding a definition of ``plain weave'' to
appendix J3 would not be warranted.
DOE requests feedback on its tentative determination not to
establish a definition for ``plain weave'' in appendix J3.
5. Uniformity Criteria
In the June 2022 Final Rule, DOE codified a prequalification
procedure to be performed on each new lot of test cloth to verify the
uniformity of the test cloth throughout the beginning, middle, and end
of the lot. 87 FR 33316. As discussed in the June 2022 Final Rule, DOE
had received a request from members of the AHAM task force to add to
appendix J3 additional steps to the qualification procedure that have
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. Id. at 87 FR 33368. Industry practice
has been to perform this ``uniformity check'' before conducting the
procedure to develop the RMC correction factors currently specified in
appendix J3. Id. Specifically, the uniformity check involves performing
an RMC measurement on nine bundles of sample test cloth representing
the beginning, middle, and end locations of the first, middle, and last
rolls of test cloth in a new lot. Id. In the historical procedure
provided by the AHAM task force, the coefficient of variation (``CV'')
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. Id. The
amendments codified by the June 2022 Final Rule included the suggested
requirement for the CV of the ``uniformity check'' procedure to be less
than or equal to 1 percent. Id. at 87 FR 33369.
Shortly after the publication of the June 2022 Final Rule
establishing the requirement for the CV to be less than or equal to 1
percent--but prior to its effective date--lot 24D was produced by the
test cloth supplier and was measured to have a CV of 1.6 percent. AHAM
developed correction factors for this lot of test cloth despite its CV
over 1 percent, on the basis that the new CV requirement had not yet
become effective, and that the industry was facing a test cloth
shortage.
Since the effective date of the CV requirement, the AHAM task force
has developed correction factors for test cloth lots 25A and 25B \31\--
both with CV values of 1.1 percent. AHAM stated in letters to DOE that
it based its recommendations to proceed with these test cloth lots on
the ongoing test cloth shortages, DOE's historical acceptance of lots
with CVs exceeding 1 percent, and the extensive testing that DOE
performed of lot 25A, as described in section III.C.3 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See letters received by DOE on December 13, 2023 and May
24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the 1-percent threshold was originally recommended
by AHAM during a previous test procedure rulemaking. 87 FR 33316, 33368
(Jun. 1, 2022). DOE further notes that prior to the codification of the
pre-qualification procedure, the AHAM task force used its discretion to
evaluate the uniformity of each new test cloth lot. DOE understands the
repeatable performance of test cloth lots with a CV slightly higher
than 1 percent--as shown by the testing of lot 25A described in section
III.C.3 of this document--to be an indication that the 1-percent
threshold may be unnecessarily stringent (i.e., too low). In this NOPR,
DOE proposes to amend appendix J3 by increasing the allowable CV
threshold to 2 percent.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to amend the CV threshold
requirement in appendix J3 from 1 percent to 2 percent. Specifically,
DOE requests comment on whether another threshold would be more
appropriate.
6. Variance P-Value Threshold and Root-Mean-Square Error
In the October 2003 Final Rule, DOE adopted a statistical
procedure, called ``analysis of variance'' (or ``ANOVA''), as the lot-
to-lot interactive-effect statistical test for screening out lots of
test cloth whose RMC behavior is inconsistent with the baseline lot. 68
FR 62198, 62201. The ANOVA statistical test measures the extent of the
deviation of the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve for a given
lot of the test cloth from the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve
for the baseline
[[Page 87813]]
lot. Id. In the October 2003 Final Rule, DOE explained that it believed
that the test would catch any unanticipated deviation in RMC in future
lots. Id.
Section 8.8 of appendix J3 specifies performing the analysis of
variance with replication test using two factors, spin speed and lot,
to determine whether the interaction of speed and lot is significant.
If the interaction is not significant (as calculated by the ``P-value''
of the F-statistic being greater than 0.1), then the lot is considered
acceptable. If the P-value is less than 0.1, the test cloth is deemed
unacceptable. The P-value provides an indication of any interactive
effect between lots and spin speeds. The lower the P-value, the
stronger the evidence of such an interaction.
On March 29, 2010, AHAM sent DOE a letter (``March 2010 AHAM
Letter'') noting that the lot 17 was measured to have a P-value that
was less than 0.1. (No. 2 at p. 1) AHAM requested that DOE approve lot
17 for use on the basis that the root-mean-square error (``RMSE'') was
less than 2 percent, the P-value of the test cloth excluding the 100g
test condition was greater than 0.1, and test cloth supply shortage
issues. (Id. at pp. 1-4)
The more recent lot of AATCC test cloth evaluated by DOE and AHAM,
as described in section III.C.4 of this document, had a P-value of
0.072, which would not meet the requirements of section 8.8 of appendix
J3. However, the testing conducted by DOE and AHAM \32\ suggests that,
despite the low P-value, the application of the test cloth correction
factors produces corrected RMC values that are comparable (i.e., less
than 1 RMC percentage point difference on average) to the standard RMC
values for each tested extractor condition. For this reason, DOE has
tentatively determined that a low P-value is not necessarily indicative
of a test cloth lot not being acceptable for use in the clothes washer
test procedures. DOE has further tentatively determined that a
different statistical measure can provide a better measure of the
acceptability of a new test cloth lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See the Technical Appendix available at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, DOE has evaluated the usefulness of the RMSE between
the corrected RMC values and the standard RMC values for the same test
conditions as a potentially more relevant statistical measure to
evaluate a new test cloth lot. Conceptually, this RMSE value represents
the closeness of fit of the corrected RMC values to the standard RMC
values. A smaller RMSE value indicates a better closeness of fit.
Recognizing that the corrected RMC value is used to calculate IMEF, DOE
tentatively determines that RMSE--which evaluates corrected RMC
values--would provide a better measure of acceptability than P-value,
which evaluates uncorrected RMC values.
As shown in Table III.2, the RMSE values of the historical test
cloth lots posted to DOE's website \33\ fall within a range of 0.004 to
0.014. Additionally, the AATCC lot of test cloth evaluated by DOE and
AHAM, as described in section III.C.4 of this document, has an RMSE of
0.0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ DOE maintains a historical record of the standard extractor
test data and final correction curve coefficients for each approved
lot of energy test cloth at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/clothes-washer-test-cloth-correction-factor-information.
Table III.2--Historical Test Cloth Lot RMSE Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lot RMSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5....................................................... 0.004
6....................................................... 0.014
7....................................................... 0.007
8....................................................... 0.005
9....................................................... 0.006
10...................................................... 0.007
11...................................................... 0.008
12...................................................... 0.009
13...................................................... 0.009
14...................................................... 0.007
15...................................................... 0.005
16...................................................... 0.009
17...................................................... 0.011
18...................................................... 0.009
19...................................................... 0.010
20...................................................... 0.008
21...................................................... 0.010
22...................................................... 0.010
23...................................................... 0.009
24A..................................................... 0.010
24B..................................................... 0.008
24D..................................................... 0.011
25A..................................................... 0.008
25B..................................................... 0.009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the historical record and its testing, in this NOPR, DOE
tentatively determines that an RMSE-based threshold for new test cloth
lots would provide a better measure of the acceptability of a new test
cloth lot. Therefore, DOE is proposing to replace the P-value
evaluation in section 8.8 of appendix J3 with a calculation of RMSE and
a requirement that the RMSE be below 0.015, which represents a
threshold slightly higher than the maximum RMSE value of 0.014 observed
among historical test cloth lots.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal to replace the P-value test
in appendix J3 with a root-mean-square error test.
DOE requests feedback on specifying 0.015 as an acceptability
threshold for the RMSE value.
D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring Edits
1. Introductory Paragraph
Appendix J3 includes test cloth specifications, procedures for pre-
conditioning test cloth, procedures for verifying that new lots of test
cloth meet the defined material specifications, and procedures for
developing RMC correction factors. Appendix J3 contains an introductory
section titled ``Objective'' that summarizes the key objectives of the
procedure. This paragraph currently does not reference the pre-
conditioning of test cloth as one of the key objectives.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to update the heading to appendix J3
and its objective paragraph to explicitly include pre-conditioning of
test cloth as one of its objectives.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal to update appendix J3 to
explicitly mention pre-conditioning of test cloth.
2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions
Section 5 of appendix J3 provides the test cloth pre-conditioning
instructions. Currently, this section is organized as a single
paragraph detailing the entire procedure, whereas other sections of
appendix J3 are organized with sections that provide a clearer step-by-
step sequence of instructions. DOE proposes to restructure section 5 of
appendix J3 to read as a sequence of instructions rather than a single
paragraph, for greater clarity and ease of use.
3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and Clothes Dryer Test Procedures
As previously discussed, in the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE moved
the test cloth qualification procedures from appendix J2 to a newly
created appendix J3. Appendix J3 is currently only referenced by the
clothes washer test procedure. Section 2.7 of appendices J and J2
reference appendix J3 generally for test cloth specifications and
section 5 of appendix J3 for test cloth pre-conditioning instructions.
Whereas, for clothes dryers, section 2.6 of appendices D1 and D2 list
each of the test cloth specifications and detail the test cloth pre-
conditioning requirements.
Historically, manufacturers and test laboratories have used the
same test cloth for both clothes washers and clothes dryers. The May
2024 AHAM Letter requested that DOE harmonize specifically the pre-
conditioning procedure for clothes washers and
[[Page 87814]]
clothes dryers. (No. 1 at p. 4) In line with this recommendation, DOE
has tentatively determined that all aspects of the test cloth
specifications can be harmonized between clothes washers and clothes
dryers (i.e., not just the pre-conditioning requirements).
DOE proposes to harmonize test cloth specifications between
appendices J, J2, D1, and D2 by replacing existing test cloth
specifications in appendices D1 and D2 with references to the analogous
specifications in appendix J3.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to replace the entirety of section
2.6 in both appendices D1 and D2 with a paragraph specifically
referencing sections 3 (Test Cloth Specifications) and 7 (Test Cloth
Material Verification Procedure) of appendix J3. DOE is also proposing
to update section 2.7 of appendices J and J2 to specifically reference
sections 3 (Test Cloth Specifications), 7 (Test Cloth Material
Verification Procedure), and 8 (RMC Correction Curve Procedure) of
appendix J3.
DOE is further proposing to remove section 3.8 of appendix J3,
which currently specifies that the test cloth must be clean, may not be
used for more than 60 clothes washer runs, must be permanently marked,
and may not be used in mixed lots. These specifications--which are
specific to clothes washers and do not apply to clothes dryers--would
instead be included in section 2.7 of appendices J and J2. Appendices
D1 and D2 would retain the existing requirement that for clothes dryers
the test cloth must not be used for more than 25 runs, although this
requirement would be relocated to section 2.6 (from 2.6.1(c)
currently).
Finally, DOE is proposing to update the objective statement and
section 5 of appendix J3 to explicitly reference clothes dryers
alongside clothes washers.
DOE requests feedback on its proposal to harmonize test cloth
specifications for clothes washers and clothes dryers.
4. Restructuring Appendix J3
Section 3.2 of appendix J3 specifies the ``nominal fabric type''
for the test cloth as pure finished bleached cloth made with a momie or
granite weave, which is nominally 50 percent cotton and 50 percent
polyester. Section 3.5 of appendix J3 contains a duplicative (although
more specific) requirement specifying a fiber content of 50 percent
4 percent cotton, with the balance being polyester. DOE
proposes to remove the less specific nominal fiber content
specification from section 3.2 of appendix J3. Accordingly, DOE is
further proposing to update the name of section 3.2 of appendix J3 from
``nominal fabric type'' to ``fabric type.''
Within section 3 of appendix J3, which lists the specifications for
the test cloth, sections 3.2 through 3.5 are currently organized as
follows: section 3.2 specifies the nominal fabric type, section 3.3
specifies the fabric weight, section 3.4 specifies the thread count,
and section 3.5 specifies the fiber content of the yarn. This order
does not match the order in which these material properties are
considered throughout the test cloth fabrication process. Specifically,
the weaving process starts with spinning yarn of a specific fiber
content, then a specific number of yarn strands (corresponding to
thread count) are woven into a roll of fabric, resulting in a specific
material density (i.e., fabric weight). To better match the order in
which these material properties are considered throughout the test
cloth fabrication process, DOE proposes to reorder these sections to
provide the fiber content specification first, followed by thread count
specification, followed by the fabric weight specification.
Section 3.7 of appendix J3 currently includes dimensions for the
energy test cloth and energy stuffer cloth \34\ and specifies that the
dimensions apply ``before washing.'' DOE is aware that this terminology
may lead to confusion, as it is inconsistent with other parts of the
test procedure that use the term ``pre-conditioning'' rather than
``washing'' to refer to the process by which test cloth is washed
before its first use. Consistent with the recommendations in the May
2024 AHAM Letter, DOE is proposing to clarify this wording and to
specify that the dimensions listed in section 3.7 apply before pre-
conditioning of the test cloth. (No. 1 at p. 24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ An energy stuffer cloth is made from the same material as
an energy test cloth but is cut to a smaller size. Test loads must
consist of energy test cloths and no more than five energy stuffer
cloths per load to achieve the specified weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices D1, D2, J, J2, and J3 currently use inconsistent
hyphenation of the word pre-conditioning, using ``pre-conditioning'' in
some cases and ``preconditioning'' in others. The May 2024 AHAM Letter
requested that DOE standardize the hyphenation of ``pre-conditioning''
throughout the appendix. (No. 1 at p. 4) In this NOPR, DOE is proposing
to standardize the hyphenation of ``pre-conditioning'' across all five
appendices.
The June 2022 Final Rule re-numbered certain sections of appendix
J3 and implemented in section 8.5 of appendix J3 references to
``sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 of this appendix.'' 87 FR 33316, 33405.
These cross-references should instead reference sections 8.3 and 8.4 of
appendix J3. DOE is therefore proposing to correct this typographical
error by updating section 8.5 of appendix J3 to correctly reference
sections 8.3 and 8.4, in place of sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4.
Finally, DOE is proposing to add a section 0 to appendix J3 to
specify the industry standards incorporated by reference in this test
procedure. Specifically, these include AATCC Test Method 118-2007,
AATCC Test Method 79-2010, AATCC Test Method 135-2010, and, newly,
AATCC LP1-2021. DOE also proposes conforming edits at each instance
where these test methods are referenced within appendix J3.
DOE requests feedback on its proposals to clarify and restructure
appendix J3, including the addition of a new section to specify the
industry standards incorporated by reference.
E. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 6314(a)(2)) DOE does not
anticipate that the amendments proposed in this NOPR would impact
testing costs or the burden of conducting the test procedure.
DOE's market research indicates that the alternate test cloth
proposed for use in this document has approximately the same cost per
pound as the current test cloth--approximately $40-50 per pound of
unconditioned test cloth.\35\ Therefore, using the alternate proposed
test cloth would not impact clothes washer or clothes dryer testing
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ These cost estimates are based on DOE's most recent
purchases of test cloth in relatively small quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on an analysis of the test results presented in the Technical
Appendix, DOE has tentatively determined that manufacturers would be
able to rely on data generated under the current test procedures should
any of these additional proposed amendments be finalized.
DOE requests comments on its tentative determination that that the
amendments proposed in this NOPR would not impact testing costs or the
burden of conducting the test procedure.
F. Compliance Date
As discussed, on September 28, 2023, DOE issued a statement stating
that DOE would exercise its enforcement discretion and not impose civil
penalties on a clothes washer, commercial clothes washer, or clothes
[[Page 87815]]
dryer manufacturer for certifying compliance with DOE's energy
conservation standards based on testing that exceeds the maximum test
cloth run provision set forth in the DOE test procedures. Instead, DOE
allowed for usage of test cloth for twice the number of runs allowed in
the relevant test procedures.
In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM requested that DOE maintain its
enforcement discretion policy to allow twice the number of test runs
than is currently specified for test cloth meeting the current
specifications, but not for any of the alternate test cloth proposed
for use in this NOPR, noting that it does not have any test data to
support an extended number of cycles on the new test cloth at this
time. (No. 1 at p. 4)
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
If DOE were to publish an amended test procedure EPCA provides an
allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension
of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship
in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an
extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days
before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.)
DOE has tentatively determined that the updated test cloth
provisions as proposed in this NOPR would alleviate any test cloth
shortages that were the impetus for the enforcement discretion policy,
and that at the time of compliance of any amended test procedure,
should DOE decide to issue such an amendment, no need for such a policy
would remain. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that upon the
compliance date of test procedure provisions of an amended test
procedure (i.e., 180 days after publication of a test procedure final
rule), should DOE issue such an amendment, the enforcement discretion
policy would be withdrawn.
DOE requests comments on its tentative determination that the
enforcement discretion policy allowing twice the number of test cloth
runs would be withdrawn 180 days after publication of a test procedure
final rule.
In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM further requested that DOE
consider allowing immediate use of the alternate test cloth as a relief
to manufacturers facing test cloth shortages, rather than waiting for
the completion of the rulemaking. (No. 1 at p. 5)
DOE recognizes the concern of test cloth availability. As noted,
DOE would maintain the current enforcement policy allowing for the
extended lifetime of the current test cloth until 180 days after
publication of a test procedure final rule. The proposed amendments, if
adopted, could be used as early as their effective date (i.e., 30 days
after publication of any final rule DOE may publish regarding these
amendments).
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and E.O.
14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023),
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE
reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003.
DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers covered by
this proposed rulemaking. DOE used available public information to
identify potential small manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance
Certification Database \36\ to create a list of companies that import
or otherwise manufacture the RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers
covered by this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Database, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed in section III.C.4 of this document, DOE is proposing
that an additional type of test cloth be permitted for testing. This
alternate test
[[Page 87816]]
cloth is approximately the same cost as the existing test cloth. As a
result, DOE does not expect any increased cost or burdens to
manufacturers from this proposal.
Therefore, DOE initially concludes that the impacts of the proposed
test procedure amendments proposed in this NOPR would not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE
will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers must
certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first
obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test
procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures.
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment, including RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. (See
generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to
average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting
requirements for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers in this NOPR.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR, DOE proposes amendments to test procedures that are
used to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards for
RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. DOE has determined that this
rulemaking falls into a class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10
CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test
procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and
industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR
part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
[[Page 87817]]
UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the rulemaking contains neither
an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements
do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. When developing a Family Policymaking Assessment,
agencies must assess whether: (1) the action strengthens or erodes the
stability or safety of the family and, particularly, the marital
commitment; (2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children; (3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or
substitutes governmental activity for the function; (4) the action
increases or decreases disposable income or poverty of families and
children; (5) the proposed benefits of the action justify the financial
impact on the family; (6) the action may be carried out by State or
local government or by the family; and whether (7) the action
establishes an implicit or explicit policy concerning the relationship
between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, and the
norms of society. In evaluating the above factors, DOE has concluded
that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment as
none of the above factors are implicated. Further, this proposed
determination would not have any financial impact on families nor any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order, and is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedures for
measuring the energy efficiency of RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes
dryers is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedures for RCWs, CCWs,
and consumer clothes dryers would incorporate fabric specifications
from the following commercial standard: AATCC LP1-2021. DOE has
evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully
complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e.,
whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of
these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final
rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references AATCC LP1-2021,
``Laboratory Procedure for Home Laundering: Machine Washing.'' AATCC
LP1-2021 is an industry-developed test standard that specifies standard
home laundering conditions. Specifically, the test procedure proposed
in this NOPR references AATCC LP1-2021 for specifying standardized
fabric materials. AATCC LP1-2021 is reasonably available from AATCC
(See, members.aatcc.org/store/lp001/2212/).
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule.\37\ Interested parties
[[Page 87818]]
may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for
test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M.
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended
at 10 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act'');
and Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on
July 1, 2020, the Agreement between the United States of America,
the United Mexican States, and the United Canadian States
(``USMCA''), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to
NAFTA), went into effect, and Congress's action in replacing NAFTA
through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020),
implies the repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period
requirement for technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws
are EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's
public comment period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA
only requires a minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE
now provides a 60-day public comment period for test procedure
NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
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 itself 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. Otherwise, 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 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 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 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 www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to 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 in 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 postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``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 that are 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. Pursuant 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 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. 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).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on the roll dimensions and cut
orientations that are currently used to fabricate DOE test cloth.
(2) DOE requests comment as to whether, or to what extent, the
energy test cloth cut orientation could impact the RMC measurement in
the clothes washer test procedure.
(3) DOE requests comment on its concern that establishing a cut
orientation requirement could lead to fabric waste, depending on the
dimensions of the fabric roll.
(4) DOE requests comment on its tentative determination not to
specify a cut orientation requirement. DOE further seeks comment on
whether it should adopt the cut orientation requirement specified by
AHAM or any other cut orientation requirement.
(5) DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that
section 3.1 of appendix J3 is superfluous and its proposal to remove
the requirements in section 3.1 of appendix J3.
(6) DOE requests feedback on its proposal to specify in appendix J3
that fabric weight and thread count specifications apply to finished
goods prior to pre-conditioning.
(7) DOE requests feedback on its proposal to add the term ``crepe''
to the list of allowable weaves in appendix J3.
(8) DOE requests feedback on its tentative determination not to
establish definitions for ``crepe,'' ``granite,'' or ``momie'' weave in
appendix J3.
(9) DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow the use of
Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC LP1-2021 (with
certain additional specifications) as an alternate test cloth for
conducting clothes washer and clothes dryer testing.
(10) DOE requests feedback on its tentative determination not to
establish
[[Page 87819]]
a definition for ``plain weave'' in appendix J3.
(11) DOE requests comment on its proposal to amend the CV threshold
requirement in appendix J3 from 1 percent to 2 percent. Specifically,
DOE requests comment on whether another threshold would be more
appropriate.
(12) DOE requests feedback on its proposal to replace the P-value
test in appendix J3 with a root-mean-square error test.
(13) DOE requests feedback on specifying 0.015 as an acceptability
threshold for the RMSE value.
(14) DOE requests feedback on its proposal to update appendix J3 to
explicitly mention pre-conditioning of test cloth.
(15) DOE requests feedback on its proposal to harmonize test cloth
specifications for clothes washers and clothes dryers.
(16) DOE requests feedback on its proposals to clarify and
restructure appendix J3, including the addition of a new section to
specify the industry standards incorporated by reference.
(17) DOE requests comments on its tentative determination that that
the amendments proposed in this NOPR would not impact testing costs or
the burden of conducting the test procedure.
(18) DOE requests comments on its tentative determination that the
enforcement discretion policy allowing twice the number of test cloth
runs would be withdrawn 180 days after publication of a test procedure
final rule.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in
this document.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 25,
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
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 October 29, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy;
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
part 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 430.3 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) as paragraphs (d)(2)
through (4); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (d)(1).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) AATCC LP1-2021, Laboratory Procedure for Home Laundering:
Machine Washing, Revised 2023, IBR approved for Appendix J3 to Subpart
B.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend appendix D1 to subpart B by:
0
a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3;
0
b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; and
0
c. Revising the heading to section 2.8.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
* * * * *
2. * * *
2.6 Test cloths.
2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes dryer.
2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 25 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
* * * * *
2.8 Clothes dryer pre-conditioning.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend appendix D2 to subpart B by:
0
a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3;
0
b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; and
0
c. Revising the heading for section 2.8.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
* * * * *
2. * * *
2.6 Test cloths.
2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes dryer.
2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 25 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
* * * * *
2.8 Clothes dryer pre-conditioning.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend appendix J to subpart B by revising section 2.7 to read as
follows:
Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
* * * * *
2. * * *
2.7 Test cloths.
[[Page 87820]]
2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test cloth lot used for testing
must have a remaining moisture content (RMC) correction curve
determined, according to section 8 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes
washer.
2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 60 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
* * * * *
0
6. Amend appendix J2 to subpart B by revising section 2.7 to read as
follows:
Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
* * * * *
2. * * *
2.7 Test cloths.
2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy test cloth and energy
stuffer cloth material and dimensions must conform to the
specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth lot used to
fabricate each piece of test cloth must conform with the material
verification procedures specified in section 7 of appendix J3 to
this subpart.
2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test cloth lot used for testing
must have a remaining moisture content (RMC) correction curve
determined, according to section 8 of appendix J3 to this subpart.
2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test cloth must be clean
and permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material.
Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes
washer.
2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must be pre-conditioned
prior to first use as specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this
subpart.
2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must not be used for
more than 60 test runs (after pre-conditioning).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend appendix J3 to subpart B by:
0
a. Revising the heading for appendix J3;
0
b. Adding section 0;
0
c. Revising section 1;
0
d. Revising the heading to section 3;
0
e. Revising sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3;
0
f. Removing sections 3.4 through 3.8;
0
g. Revising section 5;
0
h. Revising sections 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.2.5;
0
i. Revising sections 8.5 through 8.8; and
0
j. Adding section 8.9.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix J3 to Subpart B of Part 430--Test Cloth Specifications and
Procedures for Pre-Conditioning and Determining Correction Coefficients
of New Test Cloth Lots
* * * * *
0. Incorporation by Reference.
In Sec. 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference the entire
standard for AATCC Test Method 118-2007, AATCC Test Method 79-2010,
AATCC Test Method 135-2010, and AATCC LP1-2021; however, only
enumerated provisions of AATCC LP1-2021 are applicable as follows:
0.1 AATCC LP1-2021
(a) Table VII as referenced in section 3.1.2 of this appendix.
0.2 [Reserved]
1. Objective
This appendix includes the following:
1.1 Specifications for the test cloth to be used for testing
clothes washers and clothes dryers;
1.2 Procedures for pre-conditioning the test cloth for use in
testing clothes washers and clothes dryers;
1.3 Procedures for verifying that new lots of test cloth meet
the defined material specifications; and
1.4 Procedures for developing a set of correction coefficients
that correlate the measured remaining moisture content (RMC) values
of each new test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC values
established as an historical reference point. These correction
coefficients are applied to the RMC measurements performed during
testing according to appendix J or J2 to this subpart, ensuring that
the final corrected RMC measurement for a clothes washer remains
independent of the test cloth lot used for testing.
* * * * *
3. Test Cloth Specifications
* * * * *
3.1 The test cloth material must be one of the following two
types:
3.1.1 Test cloth meeting all of the specifications in sections
3.1.1.1 through 3.1.1.4 of this appendix.
3.1.1.1 Fabric type. Pure finished bleached cloth made with a
momie, granite, or crepe weave.
3.1.1.2 Fiber content of warp and filling yarn. 50 percent
4 percent cotton, with the balance being polyester, open
end spun, 15/1 5 percent cotton count blended yarn.
3.1.1.3 Thread count. Thread count is measured on the finished
good, prior to pre-conditioning. 65 x 57 per inch (warp x fill),
2 percent.
3.1.1.4 Fabric weight. Fabric weight is measured on the finished
good, prior to pre-conditioning. 5.60 0.25 ounces per
square yard (190.0 8.4 g/m\2\).
3.1.2 Test cloth meeting the specifications of Laundering
Ballast Type 3, as specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021, with
the following additional specifications and substitutions:
3.1.2.1 Greige fabric yarns. Type 16/1 only.
3.1.2.2 Edges. All edges hemmed only.
3.1.2.3 Finished piece size. Dimensions in accordance with
sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of this appendix for energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths, respectively.
3.1.2.4. Finished piece weight. Disregard.
3.2 Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain
resistant finishes, must not be applied to the test cloth.
3.3. Test cloth dimensions.
3.3.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test cloth must be made from
test cloth material that is cut to 24 \1/2\ inches by
36 \1/2\ inches (61.0 1.3 cm by 91.4
1.3 cm), and hemmed to 22 \1/2\ inches by
34 \1/2\ inches (55.9 1.3 cm by 86.4
1.3 cm) before pre-conditioning.
3.3.2 Energy stuffer cloth. The energy stuffer cloth must be
made from the same test cloth material as the energy test cloth, cut
to 12 \1/4\ inches by 12 \1/4\ inches
(30.5 0.6 cm by 30.5 0.6 cm), and hemmed
to 10 \1/4\ inches by 10 \1/4\ inches
(25.4 0.6 cm by 25.4 0.6 cm) before pre-
conditioning.
* * * * *
5. Test Cloth Pre-Conditioning Instructions
Use the following instructions for performing pre-conditioning
of new energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths as specified
throughout section 7 and section 8 of this appendix, before any
clothes washer testing using appendix J or appendix J2 to this
subpart, and before any clothes dryer testing using appendix D1 or
D2 to this subpart.
5.1 Perform five complete wash-rinse-spin cycles, the first two
with current AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3 and the last three
without detergent. Place the test cloth in a clothes washer set at
the maximum water level. Wash the load for ten minutes in soft water
(17 ppm hardness or less) using 27.0 grams + 4.0 grams per pound of
cloth load of AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3. The wash
temperature is to be controlled to 135 [deg]F 5 [deg]F
(57.2 [deg]C 2.8 [deg]C) and the rinse temperature is
to be controlled to 60 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C
2.8 [deg]C).
5.2 Dry the load to bone-dry between each of the five wash-
rinse-spin cycles.
5.3 The maximum shrinkage after pre-conditioning must not be
more than 5 percent of the length and width. Measure per AATCC Test
Method 135-2010.
* * * * *
7. * * *
7.1 * * *
7.1.1 Dimensions. Each hemmed energy test cloth must meet the
size specifications in section 3.3.1 of this appendix. Each hemmed
energy stuffer cloth must meet the size specifications in section
3.3.2 of this appendix.
7.1.2 Oil repellency. Perform AATCC Test Method 118-2007, to
confirm the absence of Scotchguard\TM\ or other water-repellent
finish. An Oil Repellency Grade of 0 (Fails Kaydol) is required.
[[Page 87821]]
7.1.3 Absorbency. Perform AATCC Test Method 79-2010, to confirm
the absence of Scotchguard\TM\ or other water-repellent finish. The
time to absorb one drop must be on the order of 1 second.
7.2 * * *
7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) of the nine
average RMC values from each sample load. The CV must be less than
or equal to 2.0% for the test cloth lot to be considered acceptable
and to perform the standard extractor RMC testing.
8. * * *
8.5 Repeat sections 8.3 and 8.4 of this appendix an additional
two times, so that three replications at each extractor condition
are performed. When this procedure is performed in its entirety, a
total of 60 extractor RMC test runs are required.
8.6 Calculate RMCcloth-avg for each extractor test
condition by averaging the values of the 3 replications performed
specified in sections 8.3 and 8.4 of this appendix.
8.7 Perform a linear least-squares fit to determine coefficients
A and B such that the standard RMC values shown in table 8.7 of this
appendix (RMCstandard) are linearly related to the
RMCcloth-avg values calculated in section 8.6 of this
appendix:
RMCstandard ~ A x RMCcloth-avg + B
where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.
Table 8.7--Standard RMC Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMC percentage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warm soak Cold soak
``g Force'' ---------------------------------------------------------------
15 min. spin 4 min. spin 15 min. spin 4 min. spin
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100............................................. 45.9 49.9 49.7 52.8
200............................................. 35.7 40.4 37.9 43.1
350............................................. 29.6 33.1 30.7 35.8
500............................................. 24.2 28.7 25.5 30.0
650............................................. 23.0 26.4 24.1 28.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.8 Calculate the corrected RMC value for each extractor test
condition, RMCcloth-corr as follows:
RMCcloth-corr = A x RMCcloth-avg + B
Where:
RMCcloth-avg = the average RMC value, as calculated in
section 8.6 of this appendix for each extractor test condition,
expressed as a decimal, and
A and B are the coefficients of the linear least squares fit as
determined in section 8.7 of this appendix.
8.9 Calculate the root mean square error of the linear fit,
RMSE. The RMSE must be less than or equal to 0.015 for the test
cloth lot to be considered acceptable. The RMSE is calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO24.001
Where:
RMCstandard_i = the RMCstandard value in table
8.7 of this appendix for the ith extractor test condition, expressed
as a decimal,
RMCcloth-corr_i = the corrected RMC value, as calculated
in section 8.8 of this appendix for the ith extractor test
condition, expressed as a decimal, and
i = the 20 extractor test conditions listed in table 8.7 of this
appendix.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-25480 Filed 11-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
