71624 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 145 and 

146 

Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry 

products, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

parts 145 and 146 as follows: 

PART 145—NATIONAL POULTRY 

IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR BREEDING 

POULTRY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 145 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 2. In § 145.23, paragraph (h)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 145.23 Terminology and classification; 

flocks and products. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) A sample of at least 11 birds must 

be tested and found negative to avian 

influenza within 21 days prior to 

slaughter. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 145.33 is amended in 

paragraph (l) introductory text, by 

revising the second sentence after the 

heading and by revising paragraph (l)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 145.33 Terminology and classification; 

flocks and products. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * It is intended to determine 

the presence of avian influenza in 

multiplier breeding chickens through 

routine surveillance of each 

participating breeding flock. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) During each 90-day period, all 

multiplier spent fowl, up to a maximum 

of 30, must be tested serologically and 

found negative for antibodies for avian 

influenza within 21 days prior to 

movement to slaughter. 

* * * * * 

§ 145.83 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 145.83, paragraph (g)(2) is 

amended by adding the words ‘‘for 

antibodies for avian influenza’’ after the 

word ‘‘negative’’. 

PART 146—NATIONAL POULTRY 

IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR 

COMMERCIAL POULTRY 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 146 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 146.23 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 146.23 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory 

text, by removing the words ‘‘one of’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), by adding the 

words ‘‘and either’’ after the word 

‘‘disposal;’’. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

November 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28439 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0002] 

RIN 1904–AC93 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Commercial Clothes 

Washers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 11, 2014, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to amend the test procedures for 

commercial clothes washers (CCWs). 

That proposed rulemaking serves as the 

basis for today’s action. DOE is issuing 

a final rule making a technical 

correction to the certification reporting 

requirements for CCWs established 

under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), adopting a 

new test procedure to be used to 

determine compliance with any revised 

energy conservation standards for 

CCWs, and clarifying the dates for 

which the current and new test 

procedures must be used to determine 

compliance with existing energy 

conservation standards and any future 

revised energy conservation standards 

for CCWs. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

January 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket for this rulemaking can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-TP0002. The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringers@ee.doe.gov. 

Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: 

Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Early Use of Appendix J2 for Current 

Energy Conservation Standards 

B. Drying Energy Calculation 

C. Water Heating Calculation 

D. Temperature Use Factors 

E. Technical Correction to 10 Code of 

Federal Regulations 429.46 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’), Pub. L. 94–163, 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency.1


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71625 

2 Docket number EERE–2012–BT–STD–0020. For 

more information, see DOE’s CCW rulemaking Web 

page at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/46. 

Part C of title III, which for editorial 

reasons was re-designated as Part A–1 

upon incorporation into the U.S. Code 

(42 U.S.C. 6311–17, as codified), 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment.’’ The program includes 

CCWs, the subject of today’s notice. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for (1) certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of those equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s); 6314(d) and 6316(a)) 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with any relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)) 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT) amended EPCA by adding 

CCWs as one of the covered equipment 

types under Part A–1, among other 

changes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) EPACT 

established the definition and the first 

energy conservation standards for 

CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(21) and 

6313(e)(1)) 

EPACT also directed DOE to conduct 

two rulemakings to determine whether 

the established standards for CCWs 

should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(e)(2)) DOE published its first final 

rule amending CCW standards on 

January 8, 2010 (‘‘January 2010 final 

rule’’), which applies to CCWs 

manufactured on or after January 8, 

2013. 75 FR 1122. EPACT required the 

second final rule to be published by 

January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(e)(2)(B)(i)) Any amended 

standards would apply to CCWs 

manufactured three years after the date 

on which the final amended standard 

would be published. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(e)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE is currently 

conducting its second standards 

rulemaking to satisfy this requirement 

and published a NOPR on March 4, 

2014 (hereafter, the ‘‘March 2014 

standards NOPR’’).2 79 FR 12303. 

The CCW standards established by the 

January 2010 final rule are based on the 

MEF and WF metrics as measured using 

DOE’s clothes washer test procedure at 

10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 430, subpart B, appendix J1 

(‘‘appendix J1’’). On March 7, 2012, 

DOE published a final rule (hereafter, 

the ‘‘March 2012 final rule’’) 

establishing a new clothes washer test 

procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix J2 (‘‘appendix J2’’). 77 FR 

13888. Due to the substantive 

amendments in appendix J2, the 

calculated values of MEF and WF in 

appendix J2 are not equivalent to the 

calculated values of MEF and WF in 

appendix J1. Beginning March 7, 2015, 

manufacturers of residential clothes 

washers will be required to use 

appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance 

with new standards that also become 

effective on that date. This final rule 

adopts appendix J2 for CCWs such that 

manufacturers of commercial clothes 

washers will be required to use 

appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance 

with any future amended standards 

adopted as part of the current CCW 

standards rulemaking. 

On February 11, 2014, DOE published 

a NOPR to revise its test procedures and 

certification reporting requirements for 

CCWs (hereafter, the ‘‘February 2014 

NOPR’’). 79 FR 8112. DOE proposed 

amending the certification requirements 

for CCWs to allow the use of either 

appendix J1 or appendix J2, in 

conjunction with conversion equations, 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

current energy conservation standards 

established by the January 2010 final 

rule. 75 FR 1122; 79 FR 8112, 8113– 

8114. The proposal included the 

numerical equations for translating MEF 

and WF values as measured using 

appendix J2 into equivalent appendix J1 

values. CCW manufacturers using 

appendix J2 would be required to use 

the conversion equations to translate the 

measured efficiency metrics into 

equivalent appendix J1 values. The use 

of appendix J2 would be required to 

demonstrate compliance with any 

amended energy conservation standards 

for CCWs to be published in a final rule 

by January 1, 2015, and the conversion 

equations would no longer be used at 

that time. 

Today’s rule does not adopt the 

February 2014 NOPR proposal to 

include numerical equations for 

translating MEF and WF values as 

measured using appendix J2 into 

equivalent appendix J1 values until a 

final rule amending energy conservation 

standards is published. Today’s rule 

clarifies that CCW manufacturers must 

use appendix J1 to demonstrate 

compliance with the current energy 

conservation standards. In addition, 

DOE is adopting appendix J2 for CCWs 

such that CCW manufacturers must use 

appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance 

with any future amended energy 

conservation standards (to be published 

in a final rule by January 1, 2015). 

Today’s rule fulfills DOE’s obligation to 

periodically review its test procedures 

under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A). DOE 

anticipates that its next evaluation of 

this test procedure will occur in a 

manner consistent with the timeline set 

out in this provision. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Manufacturers of CCWs must use 

appendix J1 to demonstrate compliance 

with the current standards established 

by the January 2010 final rule. However, 

manufacturers of CCWs must use 

appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance 

with any amended energy conservation 

standards that would be published in a 

final rule by January 1, 2015. 

In addition, this final rule amends 10 

CFR 431.152 to provide definitions for 

the appendix J1 and appendix J2 energy 

and water metrics: (1) IWF, defined as 

the integrated water factor value 

calculated using appendix J2; (2) MEF, 

defined as the modified energy factor 

value calculated using appendix J1; (3) 

MEFJ2, defined as the modified energy 

factor value calculated using appendix 

J2; and (4) WF, defined as the water 

factor value calculated using appendix 

J1. 

DOE also amends the test procedures 

for CCWs at 10 CFR 431.154 to specify 

that appendix J1 must be used to 

determine compliance with existing 

energy conservation standards and 

appendix J2 must be used to determine 

compliance with any future revised 

energy conservation standards for 

CCWs. 

This final rule also corrects a 

technical error in the certification and 

reporting requirements for CCWs at 10 

CFR 429.46 by listing the water factor as 

one of the measures of energy or water 

consumption for which consumers 

would favor a lower value. 

III. Discussion 

A. Early Use of Appendix J2 for Current 

Energy Conservation Standards 

As discussed above, DOE proposed in 

the February 2014 NOPR to provide 

equations for translating MEF and WF 

values as measured using appendix J2 

into their equivalent values as measured 

using appendix J1. This would enable 

manufacturers to use appendix J2 to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

current energy conservation standards, 

which are based on appendix J1. 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
71626 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket for DOE’s test 

procedure rulemaking for CCWs (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–TP–0002), which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that 

AHAM’s statement preceding the reference can be 

found in document number 4 in the docket, and 

appears at page 1 of that document. 

4Whirlpool Corporation submitted a written 

comment stating that it worked closely with AHAM 

in the development of AHAM’s submitted 

comments, and that Whirlpool strongly supports 

the positions taken by AHAM. Throughout this 

final rule, reference to AHAM’s written comments 

should be considered reflective of Whirlpool’s 

position as well. 

5ALS submitted a written comment stating that 

it supports AHAM’s public comments for this 

NOPR. Throughout this final rule, reference to 

AHAM’s comments should be considered reflective 

of ALS’ position as well. 

6 DOE guidance, ‘‘When may an amended test 

procedure be used to test, rate and certify products 

prior to the compliance date for new standards?’’ 

available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/ 

detail_search.aspx?IDQuestion=658 

&pid=2&spid=1. 

7 In the March 2014 standards NOPR, DOE 

proposed amended standards for CCWs based on 

the MEF and IWF metrics as measured using 

appendix J2. 

Corporation (Whirlpool), and Alliance 

Laundry Systems (ALS) strongly oppose 

DOE’s proposal to permit early 

compliance with Appendix J2, through 

the use of the proposed translation 

equations, three years before it becomes 

mandatory for CCWs. (AHAM, No. 2 at 

pp. 2–3; Whirlpool, No. 3 at p. 1; ALS, 

No. 4 at p. 1) 345 AHAM stated that 

although it had sought early compliance 

with regard to residential refrigerator/

freezers and residential clothes washers, 

it did so with the limited purpose of 

easing the burden associated with 

manufacturers transitioning their full 

product lines to comply with amended 

standards on one date. Accordingly, 

AHAM stated that it strongly supported, 

and continues to support, DOE’s 

guidance permitting early compliance 

with new or amended test procedures 

for satisfying applicable new or 

amended standards.6 (AHAM, No. 2 at 

p. 2) 

AHAM added that it believes that 

permitting manufacturers to 

demonstrate early compliance with an 

applicable standard using two different 

test procedures is contrary to the intent 

of the EPCA, as amended. AHAM stated 

that the major value of test procedures, 

labeling, and the restrictions on energyrelated representations inconsistent 

with the required test procedure is to 

provide consumers with accurate, 

credible, and comparative energy 

information. AHAM believes that value 

would be undermined if manufacturers 

are authorized to provide energy 

information under more than one test 

procedure, particularly if the energy 

descriptor stays the same. (AHAM, No. 

2 at p. 2) 

AHAM stated that its concerns are 

most acute when the amended test 

procedure impacts measured energy, in 

which case, a manufacturer could 

choose the test procedure that will 

permit CCWs to meet the standard and 

make more advantageous energy-related 

claims. AHAM believes that this 

concern does not disappear if DOE 

requires a translation equation or 

‘‘crosswalk’’ from one standard to 

another because such a translation 

equation, at best, provides an estimate 

of a CCW’s measured energy use, but it 

cannot accurately represent the 

measured energy of every CCW. AHAM 

noted that the translation equations 

represent an average approximation, but 

that approximation is only based on the 

test results from a subset of models on 

the market. According to AHAM, EPCA 

does not contemplate the use of 

approximate values to make energyrelated representations. (AHAM, No. 2 

at p. 2) 

Finally, AHAM stated it believes that 

DOE’s permitted use of different test 

procedures to demonstrate compliance 

with standards presents challenges for 

verification. Because third parties could 

also test with either test procedure, and 

a translation equation only provides an 

approximation, third parties may get 

different results than the manufacturers 

if the third parties use a different 

procedure. AHAM stated that should 

DOE proceed, over AHAM’s strong 

objection, to permit early compliance 

with appendix J2 through the use of 

translation equations, AHAM requests 

that DOE specify that third party testing 

and verification testing must be done 

using the same test procedure that was 

used for certification purposes. (AHAM, 

No. 2 at p. 3) 

ALS also strongly objected to allowing 

the early use of appendix J2 before it 

will become mandatory in 2018. (ALS, 

No. 4 at p. 1) ALS also stated that it 

strongly objects to the use of translation 

equations developed by DOE, which are 

based on testing of limited numbers of 

existing models, but may not have 

included all existing compliant models. 

ALS believes that EPCA does not allow 

using translation equations, which may 

not guarantee that all existing certified 

models, which were certified based on 

tests to appendix J1, would remain in 

compliance to the minimum standard 

when judged by testing to appendix J2 

and employing the translation 

equations. (ALS, No. 4 at p. 1) 

DOE did not receive any comments 

objecting to the translation equations as 

proposed, aside from the issue of 

whether to permit the use of appendix 

J2 in conjunction with the translation 

equations to determine compliance with 

the current standards, as described in 

the previous section. 

In consideration of the comments 

received, DOE has determined it will 

not adopt the translation equations. 

Today’s final rule requires that 

manufacturers of CCWs use appendix J1 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

current standards established by the 

January 2010 final rule. The use of 

appendix J2 will be required to 

demonstrate compliance with any 

amended energy conservation standards 

to be published in a final rule by 

January 1, 2015. 

Today’s final rule also amends 10 CFR 

431.152 to provide clarifying definitions 

for the energy and water descriptors for 

CCWs to better differentiate between the 

two test procedures. Consistent with the 

current CCW standards, the 

amendments define MEF and WF as the 

modified energy factor and water factor 

values, respectively, calculated using 

appendix J1. To accommodate any 

future amended standards for CCWs, the 

amendments define MEFJ2 and IWF as 

the modified energy factor and 

integrated water factor values, 

respectively, calculated using appendix 

J2.7 Since the calculated value of 

modified energy factor in appendix J2 is 

not equivalent to the calculated value of 

modified energy factor in appendix J1, 

adding the ‘‘J2’’ subscript to the 

appendix J2 MEF descriptor will avoid 

any potential ambiguity that would 

result from using the same energy 

descriptor for both test procedures. 

B. Drying Energy Calculation 

Section 4.3 of appendix J2 provides 

the calculation of per-cycle energy 

consumption for removal of moisture 

from the test load (i.e., the drying 

energy), which is one of the energy 

components used to calculate MEF. The 

drying energy is calculated as the 

product of: (1) The weighted average 

load size; (2) the remaining moisture 

content minus 4%; (3) the dryer usage 

factor of 0.91; and (4) the nominal 

energy required for a clothes dryer to 

remove moisture from clothing, defined 

as 0.5 kWh/lb. 

In the February 2014 NOPR, DOE 

responded to comments received from 

interested parties as part of the 

concurrent energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for CCWs. 79 FR 

8112, 8116–18. Southern Company had 

requested that DOE incorporate a 

variable DEF, and the National 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and 

the Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) suggested that DOE 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71627 

should account for the percentage of 

market features such as dryer moisture 

sensors or timer-activated termination 

controls in commercial clothes dryers. 

79 FR 8112, 8117. In response, DOE 

explained in the February 2014 NOPR 

that the calculation of drying energy in 

the clothes washer test procedure is 

only intended to provide a nominal 

estimate of associated drying energy that 

can be used to distinguish among 

clothes washer models that provide 

varying degrees of remaining moisture 

in the clothing load, which provides a 

consistent basis of comparison across all 

types of clothes washers. Id. In addition, 

DOE stated that it did not have 

consumer usage data that would 

indicate how consumer usage of 

commercial clothes dryers might differ 

from residential clothes dryers. Id. DOE 

also did not have data indicating the 

prevalence of features in commercial 

clothes dryers, such as moisture sensors, 

that would affect the drying times. Id. 

Such data would be required to support 

any changes in the test procedure 

calculations. Therefore, DOE did not 

propose any changes to the drying 

energy calculation. 

In its comments submitted in 

response to the February 2014 NOPR, 

AHAM agrees that the calculation of 

drying energy in the clothes washer test 

procedure is intended to provide a 

nominal estimate of associated drying 

energy that can be used to distinguish 

clothes washer models by degree of 

remaining moisture in the clothing load, 

which provides a consistent basis on 

which to compare clothes washers. 

AHAM also confirms that consumer 

usage data is not available to indicate 

how consumer usage of commercial 

clothes dryers might differ from 

residential clothes dryers, or the 

prevalence of features in commercial 

clothes dryers, such as moisture sensors, 

that would affect the drying times. 

AHAM agrees that such data would be 

required in order for DOE to amend the 

test procedure and therefore supports 

DOE’s decision not to amend the test 

procedure in the absence of such data. 

(AHAM, No. 2 at p. 3) 

ALS supports DOE’s response that the 

drying energy calculation is intended to 

be a nominal estimate of drying energy. 

ALS also supports DOE’s response that 

data does not exist on the prevalence of 

moisture sensors or other features on 

commercial clothes dryers, which 

would be needed to support the test 

procedure change. (ALS, No. 4 at pp. 1– 

2) 

DOE received no additional 

comments in support of amending the 

dryer energy calculation for CCWs. 

Today’s final rule does not include any 

changes to the drying energy calculation 

for CCWs. 

C. Water Heating Calculation 

Section 4.1.3 of appendix J2 provides 

the calculation of total weighted percycle hot water energy consumption 

(i.e., the water heating energy), which is 

one of the energy components used to 

calculate MEF. The water heating 

energy calculations assume a 100% 

efficient electric water heater that 

provides a water heating value of 

0.00240 kWh/gal/°F. Section 4.1.4 of the 

test procedure also provides a 

conversion for gas water heating, 

assuming a gas water heater efficiency 

of 75%. However, the gas water heating 

calculation is not used in any 

calculations within the DOE test 

procedure; rather, it is only used with 

the Federal Trade Commission’s 

EnergyGuide label for calculating the 

estimated yearly cost of a clothes 

washer when used with a natural gas 

water heater. (16 CFR 305, Appendix L). 

As part of the concurrent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

CCWs, Southern Company had 

suggested that the assumed water heater 

efficiencies should be updated as the 

weighted efficiency of installed water 

heaters changes over time, as electric 

heat pump water heaters and gas 

condensing water heaters gain market 

share. DOE responded in the February 

2014 NOPR that, much like the drying 

energy calculation described in the 

previous section of this notice, the 

calculation of water heating energy in 

the clothes washer test procedure is 

only intended to provide a nominal 

estimate of water heating energy that 

can be used to distinguish among 

clothes washer models that use different 

amounts of hot water, which provides a 

consistent basis of comparison across all 

types of clothes washers. Therefore, 

DOE did not propose any changes to the 

water heating calculation for CCWs in 

the February 2014 NOPR. 79 FR 8112, 

8117–8118. 

ALS supports DOE’s response that the 

calculation for water heating is intended 

to provide a nominal estimate of water 

heating energy. ALS noted that the 

existing test procedure uses electric 

water heating for the water heating 

calculation, even though other types of 

water heating (including gas, solar, and 

steam water heating) are in use 

throughout the United States. (ALS, No. 

4 at p. 2) AHAM agrees with DOE’s 

decision not to amend the water heating 

calculation and its reasoning for making 

that determination. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 

3) 

DOE received no comments in 

support of amending the water heating 

calculation for CCWs. Today’s final rule 

does not include any changes to the 

water heating calculation for CCWs. 

D. Temperature Use Factors 

Table 4.1.1 of appendix J2 provides 

the Temperature Use Factors (TUFs), 

which represent the percentage of wash 

cycles performed by end-users at each 

available wash/rinse temperature. For a 

clothes washer with cold, warm, and 

hot wash cycles (all with cold rinse), 

which DOE testing indicates is the most 

common combination found on CCWs, 

the TUFs are assigned as follows: Cold 

wash 37%; warm wash 49%; and hot 

wash 14%. 

As part of the concurrent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

CCWs, NRDC and ASAP had suggested 

that the cold temperature usage factor of 

37% should be corroborated for the 

commercial environment. DOE 

responded that it did not have consumer 

usage data indicating the prevalence of 

cold wash cycles performed on CCWs. 

Such data would be required to consider 

any changes in the test procedure 

calculations. Therefore, DOE did not 

propose any changes to the TUFs. 79 FR 

8112, 8118. 

ALS supports DOE’s response that 

DOE does not have usage data 

indicating the prevalence of cold wash 

cycles being used on CCWs. (ALS, No. 

4 at p. 2) AHAM supports DOE’s 

decision not to amend the TUFs in the 

absence of such necessary data. (AHAM 

No. 2 at p. 4) 

DOE received no comments in 

support of amending the TUFs for 

CCWs. Today’s final rule does not 

include any changes to the TUFs for 

CCWs. 

E. Technical Correction to 10 CFR 

429.46 

Currently, 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(ii) 

includes ‘‘water factor’’ in the list of 

measures of energy or water 

consumption for which consumers 

would favor a higher value. However, a 

higher water factor value indicates 

higher (i.e., less favorable) water 

consumption. Therefore, water factor 

should be listed in 10 CFR 

429.46(a)(2)(i) as one of the measures of 

energy or water consumption for which 

consumers would favor a lower value. 

Today’s final rule corrects this technical 

error. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
71628 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

8A searchable database of certified small 

businesses is available online at: http://

dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. 

9 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is 

available online at: http://www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data. 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FFRA) for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed today’s final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. DOE has concluded that the rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification is 

as follows: 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers a business entity to be 

a small business, if, together with its 

affiliates, it employs less than a 

threshold number of workers specified 

in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards 

and codes are established by the 2007 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The threshold number 

for NAICS classification code 333312— 

which applies to commercial laundry, 

dry cleaning, and pressing machine 

manufacturers—is 500 employees. 

Searches of the SBA Web site 8 to 

identify CCW manufacturers within this 

NAICS classification number did not 

identify any small businesses that 

manufacture CCWs. Additionally, DOE 

checked its own publicly available 

Compliance Certification Database 9 to 

identify manufacturers of CCWs and 

also did not identify any manufacturers 

of CCWs that employ less than 500 

people. In addition, today’s final rule 

does not implement any physical 

changes to the test methods; it merely 

clarifies compliance dates and corrects 

a reporting requirement. 

For these reasons, DOE concludes and 

certifies that today’s final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of CCWs must certify 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedures for CCWs, 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 

CCWs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedure for CCWs. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that is the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71629 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 

(codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) For a 

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined today’s final rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule will not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

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. DOE is not requiring the 

use of any commercial standards in this 

rulemaking, so these requirements do 

not apply. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
71630 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

24, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.46 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 

introductory text, (a)(2)(ii) introductory 

text, and (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 429.46 Commercial clothes washers. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Any represented value of the water 

factor or other measure of energy or 

water consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor lower 

values shall be greater than or equal to 

the higher of: 

* * * * * 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

modified energy factor or other measure 

of energy or water consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor higher values shall be greater than 

or equal to the higher of: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: 

(i) If testing was conducted using 

Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430 of 

this chapter: The modified energy factor 

(MEF) in cubic feet per kilowatt hour 

per cycle (cu ft/kWh/cycle); and the 

water factor (WF) in gallons per cubic 

feet per cycle (gal/cu ft/cycle); 

(ii) If testing was conducted using 

Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 of 

this chapter: The modified energy factor 

(MEFJ2) in cu ft/kWh/cycle and the 

integrated water factor (IWF) in gal/cu 

ft/cycle. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317 

■ 4. Section 431.152 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions for IWF, MEF, MEFJ2, and 

WF to read as follows: 

§ 431.152 Definitions concerning 

commercial clothes washers. 

* * * * * 

IWF means integrated water factor, in 

gallons per cubic feet per cycle (gal/cu 

ft/cycle), as determined in section 4.2.13 

of Appendix J2 to subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 430. 

MEF means modified energy factor, in 

cubic feet per kilowatt hour per cycle 

(cu ft/kWh/cycle), as determined in 

section 4.4 of Appendix J1 to subpart B 

of part 430. 

MEFJ2 means modified energy factor, 

in cu ft/kWh/cycle, as determined in 

section 4.5 of Appendix J2 to subpart B 

of part 430. 

WF means water factor, in gal/cu ft/ 

cycle, as determined in section 4.2.3 of 

Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430. 

■ 5. Section 431.154 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.154 Test procedures. 

The test procedures for clothes 

washers in Appendix J1 to subpart B of 

part 430 of this chapter must be used to 

test commercial clothes washers to 

determine compliance with the energy 

conservation standards at § 431.156(b). 

The test procedures for clothes washers 

in Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 

of this title must be used to determine 

compliance with any amended 

standards based on Appendix J2 

efficiency metrics published after 

December 3, 2014. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28446 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Part 46 

[Docket ID OCC–2014–0015] 

RIN 1557–AD85 

Annual Stress Test—Schedule Shift 

and Adjustments to Regulatory Capital 

Projections 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2014, the Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) 

proposed to adjust the timing of the 

annual stress testing cycle and to clarify 

the method used to calculate regulatory 

capital in the stress tests (proposed 

rule). The OCC is now adopting the 

proposed rule as final (final rule). The 

final rule shifts the dates of the annual 

stress testing cycle by approximately 

three months. The final rule also 

provides that covered institutions will 

not have to calculate their risk-weighted 

assets using the internal ratings-based 

and advanced measurement approaches 

until the stress testing cycle beginning 

on January 1, 2016. 

DATES: The rule is effective January 2, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Scavotto, Deputy Director, 

International Analysis and Banking 

Condition, (202) 649–5477; William 

Russell, National Bank Examiner, Large 

Bank Supervision, (202) 649–7157; Kari 

Falkenborg, National Bank Examiner, 

Midsize and Community Bank 

Supervision, (202) 649–6831; Ron 

Shimabukuro, Senior Counsel, or Henry 

Barkhausen, Attorney, Legislative and 

Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 

649–5490; for persons who are deaf or 

hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction and Background 

Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) 

requires the federal banking agencies to 

issue regulations requiring financial 

companies with more than $10 billion 

in assets to conduct annual stress tests 

(‘‘company-run stress tests’’). In October 

2012, the OCC, the Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System 

(‘‘Board’’), and the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation issued rules 

implementing the company-run stress 

tests required by the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Under these rules, the OCC distributes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES