Friday,

January 12, 2001

Part IX

Department of

Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Clothes Washer

Energy Conservation Standards; Final

Rule

Finding of No Significant Impact; Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products; Notice

3314 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE–RM–94–403]

RIN 1904–AA67

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Clothes Washer

Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE or Department) has determined

that revised energy conservation

standards for clothes washers will result

in significant conservation of energy, are

technologically feasible, and are

economically justified. On this basis,

the Department today amends the

existing energy conservation standards

for standard-size clothes washers as

proposed and as recommended by

stakeholders. The Department also

amends the standards for compact

clothes washers as well as making

minor amendments to the test procedure

for measuring the energy efficiency of

clothes washers.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is

January 1, 2004, except that the effective

date of the amendments to appendix J

to subpart B of part 430 is February 12,

2001.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

as of January 1, 2004, of certain

publications listed in this rule.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Technical

Support Document (TSD) may be read at

the DOE Freedom of Information

Reading Room, U.S. Department of

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E–

190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–3142,

between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Copies of the TSD can

be obtained from the Codes and

Standards Internet site at: http://

www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html

or from the U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,

Mail Station EE–41, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

(202) 586–9127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,

Mail Station EE–41, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–

0121, (202) 586–0371, E-mail:

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov, or Eugene

Margolis, Deputy Assistant General

Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of General Counsel, Forrestal

Building, Mail Station GC–72, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) 586–

9526, E-mail:

Eugene.Margolis@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) is incorporating by

reference, test procedures from the

American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorists (AATCC). These

test procedures are set forth in the

standards publications listed below:

1. American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorists Test Method

118—1997, Oil Repellency:

Hydrocarbon Resistance Test

(reaffirmed 1997).

2. American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorists Test Method

79—2000, Absorbency of Bleached

Textiles (reaffirmed 2000).

Copies of these standards publications

may be viewed at the Freedom of

Information Reading Room, U.S.

Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1E–190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0101, telephone

(202) 586–3142, between the hours of 9

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

Copies of the above standards

incorporated by reference can be

obtained from the American Association

of Textile Chemists and Colorists, P.O.

Box 1215, Research Triangle Park, NC

27709, telephone (919) 549–8141,

telefax (919) 549–8933, or electronic

mail: orders@aatcc.org.

I. Introduction

A. Consumer Overview

1. Background

2. Clothes Washer Features

3. Consumer Benefits

4. National Benefits

B. Authority

C. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Previous Rulemakings

3. Process Improvement

4. Test Procedures

II. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible

Levels

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and

on Consumers

2. Life-Cycle-Costs

3. Energy Savings

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of

Products

5. Impact of Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

E. Standards Incorporated by Reference

III. Methodology

IV. Discussion of Comments

A. Test Procedure

B. Standard

C. Two Standards in One Rulemaking

D. Consumer Information Statement

E. Consumer Input

F. Energy and Economic Analyses

G. Product Classes

H. Incremental Retail Costs

I. Water Savings

J. Detergent Savings

K. Life-Cycle-Costs and Payback

L. Cost Effectiveness

V. Analytical Results and Conclusion

A. Analytical Results

B. Conclusion

1. Trial Standard Level 6—MEF 1.63

2. Trial Standard Level 5—MEF 1.36

3. Trial Standard Level 4—MEF 1.26

4. Trial Standard Level 3—MEF 1.04/1.26

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

E. Review Under Executive Order 12988,

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’

F. Review Under Executive Order 12630,

‘‘Takings’’ Assessment Review

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132,

‘‘Federalism’’

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act

I. Review Under the Treasury and General

Government Appropriation Act of 1999.

J. Review Under the Plain Language

Directives

K. Congressional Notification

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal

Energy Administration Act

I. Introduction

A. Consumer Overview

1. Background

The Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) is directed by the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act, as

amended, to consider establishing

minimum efficiency standards for

various consumer products, including

clothes washers. Today’s standards are

consistent with these requirements of

the law. DOE is amending almost tenyear-old minimum efficiency standards

for new standard-sized residential

clothes washers. These amended

standards take into account a decade of

technological advancements and will

save consumers and the nation money,

significant amounts of energy and water,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3315

1Assumes a $75 incremental manufacturer cost

and a total mark-up of 1.99 (TSD Chapter 5 section

5.4.1 and Chapter 6 section 6.1).

and have substantial environmental and

economic benefits.

Interested parties involved in this

rulemaking, including manufacturers

and energy efficiency advocates, jointly

proposed these clothes washer

efficiency standards to the Department.

The parties believe these to be the

highest standards which are

technologically feasible and

economically justified as required by

law. The standards, as proposed by the

parties, consist of two stages. The first

stage begins on January 1, 2004, and

requires that all new residential clothes

washers manufactured after that date be

22 percent more efficient than today’s

minimally compliant clothes washer.

The second stage begins on January 1,

2007, and requires that all new

residential clothes washers

manufactured after that date be 35

percent more efficient than today’s

minimally compliant clothes washer.

Delaying the standard implementation

date for the higher efficiency level gives

manufacturers more time to research

and develop lower-cost solutions to

achieve higher standards.

The Department has reviewed the

Joint Proposal and agrees the

recommended standard is the highest

efficiency level that is technologically

feasible and economically justified as

required by law. The Department

therefore is amending the energy

conservation standard for the standardsize residential clothes washers as

recommended in the Joint Proposal.

2. Clothes Washer Features

The amended efficiency levels can be

met by either top- or front-loading

designs. In fact, there are vertical-axis

top-loading and horizontal-axis frontloading washers on the market today

that already meet the higher 2007

standard. Thus, consumers will have the

same range of clothes washers as they

have today. Furthermore, the clothes

washer energy efficiency standard will

not impact clothes washer features

valued by consumers such as door

placement, capacity, water temperature

and adjustable load sizes. The

Department does not expect the

cleaning ability or the reliability and

repair costs of washing machines to be

changed by the design changes

anticipated under the clothes washer

amended standards and repair parts will

continue to be available for today’s

washers.

The energy and water savings result

primarily from a variety of innovative

designs such as more efficient use of hot

and cold water by using more accurate

sensors that can detect the clothing load

and use only as much water for washing

as is necessary. The new washers also

use higher spin speeds to remove more

water from the clothes so less time and

energy is needed to dry the clothes.

3. Consumer Benefits

Table 1 summarizes the ‘‘vital

statistics’’ of today’s typical clothes

washer. Table 2 presents the

implications for the average consumer

of the 2004 and 2007 clothes washer

standards.

TABLE 1.—VITAL STATISTICS OF TODAY’S TYPICAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Average price ........................................................................................... $421.

Number of washes per year ..................................................................... 392.

Annual utility bill ........................................................................................ $115.

Life expectance ........................................................................................ 14.1 years.

Energy consumption ................................................................................. 3.23 kWh per wash (1266 kWh per year).

Water consumption ................................................................................... 39.2 gallons per wash (15,366 gallons per year).

TABLE 2.—IMPLICATIONS OF NEW STANDARDS FOR THE AVERAGE CONSUMER

Year standard comes into effect ........................ 2004 (Stage 1) ................................................. 2007 (Stage 2).

New clothes washer price .................................. $474 ................................................................. $670.

Estimated price increase .................................... $53 ................................................................... $249.

Annual utility bill savings .................................... $15 ................................................................... $48.

Median payback period ...................................... 3.5 years .......................................................... 5.0 years.

Average net savings over appliance life ............ $103 ................................................................. $260.

Energy savings per wash ................................... 0.612 kWh ........................................................ 1.361 kWh.

Energy savings per year .................................... 239 kWh ........................................................... 533 kWh.

Water savings per wash ..................................... 4.0 gallons ........................................................ 18.1 gallons.

Water savings per year ...................................... 1568 gallons ..................................................... 7,095 gallons.

Currently, the typical clothes washer

has a price of $421 and costs $115 a year

in energy and water bills. In order to

meet the 2004 standard, the Department

estimates that the price of a washer will

be $474, an increase of $53. This price

increase will be offset by an annual

savings of about $15 on the utility bills.

In order to meet the 2007 standard, the

Department estimates that the price of a

washer will be $670, an increase of

$249. This price increase will be offset

by an annual savings of about $48. It

should be noted that DOE based its

estimate of the incremental retail cost

for the 2007 standards on manufacturer

cost estimates for horizontal-axis

machines submitted to the Department

in 1997. New cost information derived

from vertical-axis washers now in the

market that meet the 2007 standards

indicate that the incremental prices

could be substantially less. Based on the

Department’s analysis, the incremental

price of these high-efficiency verticalaxis washers would be approximately

$150.1

The Department recognizes that few

consumers are actually typical in the

energy and water prices that they pay

and the number of wash loads that they

do per year. Consequently, the

Department has investigated the effects

of the different energy and water prices

across the nation and different clothes

washer usage patterns. The Department

estimates that about 90 percent and 81

percent of all consumers purchasing a

new washer will save money as a result

of the 2004 and 2007 standards,

respectively.

The Department also investigated how

these standards might affect low income

consumers and senior households. The

Department estimates that about 90

percent and 81 percent of all low

income consumers purchasing a new

washer will save money as a result of

the 2004 and 2007 standards,

3316 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, as amended by the National

Energy Conservation Policy Act, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of

1988, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, is referred

to in this rule as the ‘‘Act.’’ Part B of Title III is

codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. Part B of Title III

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as

amended by the National Energy Conservation

Policy Act only, is referred to in this rule as the

National Energy Conservation Policy Act.

respectively. For senior households,

these values are 84 and 72 percent.

4. National Benefits

The standards will provide large

benefits to the nation. DOE estimates the

standards will save 5.52 quads of energy

over 27 years (2004 to 2030). This is

equivalent to the total energy

consumption of all U.S. homes over a

period of approximately 3.3 months. By

2020, the standards will avoid the

construction of four 400 megawatt coalfired plants and eleven 400 megawatt

gas-fired plants. These energy savings

will result in cumulative greenhouse gas

emission reductions of 95.1 million

metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2)

equivalent, or an amount equal to that

produced by three million cars in a year.

Additionally, air pollution will have

cumulative reduction by the elimination

of 253.5 thousand metric tons of nitrous

oxides ( NOX) and 28.1 thousand metric

tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from 2004

to 2030. The cumulative water savings

are estimated at 11 trillion gallons,

enough water to supply the needs of 6.6

million households for 25 years,

meaning less water will be pumped

from America’s aquifers and rivers, and

less strain will be placed on many of the

nation’s water and sewer systems. In

total, we estimate the net economic

benefit to the nation of this standard

will be $15.3 billion from 2004 to 2030.

Please note that you can find

additional information about clothes

washers on the DOE web-site at:

www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html.

B. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94–163,

as amended by the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95–

619, by the National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act (NAECA), Pub. L.

100–12, by the National Appliance

Energy Conservation Amendments of

1988, Pub. L. 100–357, and the Energy

Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102–486 2

(the Act or EPCA) created the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products other than Automobiles. The

consumer products subject to this

program (often referred to hereafter as

‘‘covered products’’) include clothes

washers.

Under the Act, the program consists

essentially of three parts: Testing,

labeling, and Federal energy

conservation standards. The

Department, in consultation with the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, amends or establishes new

test procedures for each of the covered

products. Section 323 of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6293. Test procedures appear at

10 CFR part 430, subpart B.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

prescribes rules governing the labeling

of covered products after DOE publishes

test procedures. Section 324(a) of EPCA,

42 U.S.C. 6294(a). At the present time,

there are Federal Trade Commission

rules requiring labels for clothes

washers.

Any new or amended standard must

be designed so as to achieve the

maximum improvement in energy

efficiency that is technologically

feasible and economically justified.

Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(A).

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), provides that

before DOE determines whether a

standard is economically justified, it

must first solicit comments on a

proposed standard. After reviewing

comments on the proposal, DOE must

then determine that the benefits of the

standard exceed its burdens, based, to

the greatest extent practicable, on a

weighing of the following seven factors:

‘‘(I) The economic impact of the standard

on the manufacturers and on the consumers

of the products subject to such standard;

(II) The savings in operating costs

throughout the estimated average life of the

covered product in the type (or class)

compared to any increase in the price of, or

in the initial charges for, or maintenance

expenses of, the covered products which are

likely to result from the imposition of the

standard;

(III) The total projected amount of energy

savings likely to result directly from the

imposition of the standard;

(IV) Any lessening of the utility or the

performance of the covered products likely to

result from the imposition of the standard;

(V) The impact of any lessening of

competition, as determined in writing by the

Attorney General, that is likely to result from

the imposition of the standard;

(VI) The need for national energy

conservation; and

(VII) Other factors the Secretary considers

relevant.’’

C. Background

1. Current Standards

The existing clothes washer efficiency

standards have been in effect since

1994. Energy efficiency for a clothes

washer is measured in terms of an

energy factor (EF), which measures

overall clothes washer efficiency, in

terms of cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per

cycle, and is determined by the DOE test

procedure. 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B,

Appendix J. The current clothes washer

efficiency standards are as follows:

• top-loading, compact (less than 1.6

cubic feet capacity), EF = 0.90

• top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet

or greater capacity), EF = 1.18

• top-loading, semi-automatic, must

have an unheated rinse option

• front-loading, must have an

unheated rinse option

• suds-saving, must have an unheated

rinse option

2. History of Previous Rulemakings

On November 14, 1994, DOE

published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR). 59 FR

56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE

published a Supplemental ANOPR.

(Hereafter referred to as the 1998

Supplemental ANOPR.) 63 FR 64344. In

the 1998 Supplemental ANOPR, DOE

provided interested persons an

opportunity to comment on:

(1) The product classes that we

propose to analyze;

(2) The analytical framework, models

(e.g., the Government Regulatory Impact

Model (GRIM)), and tools (e.g., a Monte

Carlo sampling methodology, and lifecycle-cost (LCC) and national energy

savings (NES) spreadsheets) we used to

perform analyses of the impacts of

standards; and

(3) The results of preliminary analyses

for LCC, payback and national energy

savings contained in the Preliminary

Technical Support Document: Energy

Efficiency Standards for Consumer

Products: Clothes Washers (TSD) dated

October 1998 and summarized in the

1998 Supplemental ANOPR.

On October 5, 2000, DOE published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR

or proposed rule) for energy efficiency

standards. 65 FR 59550. For the NOPR,

we analyzed the energy savings, benefits

and burdens of amended energy

conservation standards for clothes

washers and shared the results of these

analyses with all stakeholders. Based on

these analyses, several of the major

stakeholders, including clothes washer

manufacturers and energy efficiency

advocates, submitted to the Department

a joint proposal for the highest standard

level which they believed to be

technologically feasible and

economically justified (hereafter

referred as the Joint Comment). (Joint

Comment, No. 204). Based on our

review of the Joint Comment, we found

the proposed standards technologically

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3317

feasible and economically justified.

Therefore, we proposed to amend the

energy conservation standard for clothes

washers for residential applications as

recommended in the Joint Comment and

announced a public hearing, which was

held on November 15, 2000.

Included in the NOPR for energy

efficiency standards were revisions to

the clothes washer test procedure. The

test procedure revisions we made were

necessary due to discrepancies

uncovered in the measurement of

remaining moisture content (RMC). The

discrepancies were found to be caused

by variations in the properties of the

energy test cloth. The situation has been

addressed in the test procedure

revisions by adding provisions for cloth

certification based on the results of

extractor testing and the derivation of a

cloth-specific correction factor. In

addition, we incorporated minor

editorial changes to help clarify both

Appendices J and J1 of the test

procedure based on the joint proposal

by stakeholders. These changes, as

proposed in the NOPR, are included in

this final rule.

3. Process Improvement

A moratorium was placed on

publication of proposed or final rules

for appliance efficiency standards as

part of the FY 1996 appropriations

legislation. Pub. L. 104–134. That

moratorium expired on September 30,

1996.

On July 15, 1996, the Department

published a Process Improvement Rule

establishing procedures, interpretations

and policies to guide the Department in

the consideration of new or revised

appliance efficiency standards

(Procedures for Consideration of New or

Revised Energy Conservation Standards

for Consumer Products, 61 FR 36974,

July 15, 1996). DOE has followed the

Process Improvement Rule, to the extent

possible, in developing the clothes

washer standard.

We developed an analytical

framework for the clothes washer

standards rulemaking for our

stakeholders. The analytical framework

described the different analyses (e.g.,

LCC, payback and manufacturing

impact analyses (MIA)) to be conducted,

the method for conducting them, the use

of new LCC and national energy savings

(NES) spreadsheets, and the relationship

between the various analyses. We have

conducted several meetings, workshops

and discussions regarding energy

efficiency standards for clothes washers.

These workshops included discussions

on proposed design options and a

preliminary engineering analysis on

November 15, 1996; development of an

analytical framework for appliance

standards rulemaking on July 23, 1997;

and development of two new

spreadsheet tools for LCC and NES on

March 11, 1998. We conducted public

hearings on December 15, 1998, to

receive additional comments on the

1998 Supplemental ANOPR and on July

22, 1999, to discuss the process,

analytical tools and uncertainties with

the test procedures. We conducted a

public hearing on November 15, 2000,

to receive comment on proposed

efficiency standards addressed in the

NOPR published on October 5, 2000.

In the NOPR, we also incorporated the

recommendations made by the Advisory

Committee on Appliance Energy

Efficiency Standards on April 21, 1998.

(Advisory Committee, No. 96). These

recommendations relate to using the full

range of consumer marginal energy

prices (CMEP) in the LCC analysis

(replacing the use of national average

energy prices), defining a range of

energy price futures for each fuel used

in the economic analyses and defining

a range of primary energy conversion

factors and associated emission

reductions, based on the generation

displaced by energy efficiency standards

for each rulemaking. Marginal energy

prices are used in the LCC, payback and

the NPV portion of the NES analyses.

Because the NES results are inputs to

the analyses for utility, emissions and

employment; these analyses are also

impacted by using marginal rates.

4. Test Procedures

Federal test procedures for clothes

washers were first established in 1977.

Simultaneous with the NOPR for clothes

washer standards, the Department was

also in the process of revising the

clothes washer test procedure. The

Department needed to address a number

of innovative technologies for which

there were no test procedures. A

number of proposals were published,

including one on December 22, 1993,

(58 FR 67710) and another on March 23,

1995, (60 FR 15330). In its comments to

the March 1995 proposed rule, the

Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (AHAM) requested that

DOE adopt an additional new test

procedure, that captures current

consumer habits that affect energy use,

which would be used in considering the

revision of the clothes washer energy

conservation standards, and would go

into effect upon issuance of standards.

On April 22, 1996, the Department

issued a supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking proposing such a

new test procedure, Appendix J1, as

well as certain additional revisions to

the currently applicable test procedure

in appendix J to subpart B of 10 CFR

part 430. 61 FR 17589. The

supplemental notice was published to

seek comments on whether DOE should

adopt the AHAM recommended test

procedure with certain changes. The

final rule, published on August 27,

1997, adopted this recommendation. 62

FR 45484. Appendix J is the current

applicable test procedure, and it will

expire on December 31, 2003. Appendix

J1 is informational and will not become

mandatory until the energy conservation

standards of this rule become effective

on January 1, 2004. The appendix J test

procedure specifies an energy efficiency

descriptor called the energy factor (EF).

The appendix J1 test procedure specifies

an energy efficiency descriptor called

the modified energy factor (MEF) which

replaces the EF. Contrasting with the

previous EF descriptor, the MEF

descriptor incorporates clothes dryer

energy by consideration of the

remaining moisture content (RMC) of

clothes leaving the clothes washer.

Other substantive differences between

the test procedures include using

different water temperatures for testing

and using cloth loads in J1 but not in

J. The issuance of the test procedure

final rule was a major step in

accelerating the development of clothes

washer standards. The test procedure

final rule provided the basis upon

which the energy and water

consumption calculations could be

determined.

During this standards rulemaking, it

was discovered that the test cloth to be

used for determining the RMC was

giving inconsistent results. The

Department investigated possible causes

for the inconsistent test results, and

results are summarized in the DOE

report, ‘‘Development of a Standardized

Energy Test Cloth for Measuring

Remaining Moisture Content in a

Residential Clothes Washer,’’ May 2000.

(DOE, No. 200). As part of our

investigation into the cause of these

discrepancies, we found that various

lots of test cloth will yield inconsistent

RMC results. To understand the effects

of operating variables and cloth

specifications, it was necessary to

conduct laboratory tests to determine

RMC. To insure that test results would

not be influenced or biased by any

manufacturer’s product (clothes

washer), we used an extractor to remove

moisture content. An extractor is a

centrifuge—basically a rotating basket

that has a controllable speed to produce

a variety of centrifugal forces. The speed

was varied to impose different

centripetal accelerations on the test

load. These accelerations are reported in

3318 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

terms of gravitational acceleration (g).

We also soaked the cloth in a tub at

controlled temperature rather than use

the agitated soak cycle provided by a

typical washer. The RMC tests closely

resemble those specified in the clothes

washer test procedure.

An extractor-based test has been

established to examine RMC values at

different gravitational forces (g-forces).

A correction factor is derived by which

the deviation between a new production

batch of test cloth and a standard

reference test cloth is measured. This

deviation is measured as the root mean

square between the set of measured

RMC values and the set of standard

RMC values. If this absolute deviation is

below 2 percent, then no correction

factors are needed in MEF tests using

that batch of cloth. If the absolute rootmean-square (RMS) difference between

the cloth RMC values and standard RMC

values is above 2 percent, then

correction factors must be applied when

using the cloth to test the MEF of a

clothes washer.

As part of this rulemaking, we

included revisions to the test procedure

based on our proposed language

addressed in the May 2000 report

dealing with the energy test cloth, RMC,

extractor testing and the correction

factor and Joint Stakeholders Comment.

(Joint Comment, No. 204). In addition,

we incorporated AHAM’s comments

and Joint Stakeholders Comment

requesting minor editorial changes to

help clarify both appendices J and J1.

(AHAM, Nos. 197 and 199, and Joint

Comment, No. 204). These changes have

been included in their entirety in this

rulemaking pertaining to the test

procedure.

II. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

As addressed in the NOPR for energy

efficiency standards, we included

revisions to the test procedure dealing

with the energy test cloth, RMC,

extractor testing and the correction

factor based on our May 2000 report,

which can be found in appendix C of

the TSD. We also incorporated changes

suggested in AHAM’s comments and in

the Joint Comment requesting minor

editorial changes to help clarify both

appendices J and J1 of the test

procedure. (AHAM, Nos. 197 and 199,

and Joint Comment, No. 204). In

addition, during the public hearing held

on November 15, 2000, and in a written

statement, AHAM requested that the test

procedure be further clarified and

enhanced by incorporating additional

changes. These changes have been

included in their entirety in this final

rule. A more complete discussion of

these comments is found in section IV

of this rule.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

There are top- and front-loading

clothes washers in the market at all of

the efficiency levels prescribed in

today’s final rule. The Department,

therefore, believes all of the efficiency

levels contained in today’s final rule for

both top- and front-loading clothes

washers are technologically feasible as

required by 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, as

amended.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible

Levels

The Act requires the Department, in

considering any new or amended

standards, to consider those that ‘‘shall

be designed to achieve the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency * * *

which the Secretary determines is

technologically feasible and

economically justified.’’ (Section

325(o)(2)(A)). Accordingly, for each

class of product considered in this

rulemaking, a maximum technologically

feasible (max tech) design option was

identified and considered as discussed

in the NOPR. 65 FR 59550, 59555–56

(October 5, 2000). See section V.

Analytical Results and Conclusions for

details of the levels analyzed for this

rulemaking.

The Department considers design

options technologically feasible if they

are already in use by the respective

industry or research has progressed to

the development of a working

prototype. The Process Improvement

Rule sets forth a definition of

technological feasibility as follows:

‘‘Technologies incorporated in

commercially available products or in

working prototypes will be considered

technologically feasible.’’ 10 CFR 430,

subpart C, appendix A(4)(a)(4)(I).

In consultation with interested

parties, the Department developed a list

of design options on all possible energy

saving designs for consideration. The

Department gathered design option

information from previous clothes

washer analyses, trade publications,

industry research organizations, product

brochures from domestic and foreign

manufacturers, and appliance

conferences, including the International

Appliance Technical Conference

(IATC). The ‘‘Draft Report on Design

Options for Clothes Washers’’ and

‘‘Draft Report on the Preliminary

Engineering Analysis for Clothes

Washers’’ provide details on the

potential technologies. The following

designs were considered: Improved fill

control, tighter tub tolerance, added

insulation, increased motor efficiency,

thermostatically controlled mixing

values, improved water extraction,

horizontal-axis, horizontal-axis with

recirculation, advanced control/sensor,

suds-saving, direct drive motor,

automatic fill control, reduced thermal

mass, electrolytic disassociation of

water, ultrasonic washing, bubble

action, and ozonated laundering.

(Clothes Washer Public Workshop, No.

55B and 55C). Based on this information

the Department determined that a 50

percent reduction in the energy use of

the baseline model (corresponding to an

MEF of 1.634) is the maximum

technologically feasible level for both

the Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.3 or

greater capacity) and Front-Loading

classes.

Additionally, under the guidelines in

the Process Improvement Rule, DOE

conducted a screening analysis to

eliminate from consideration, early in

the process, any design option which is

not practicable to manufacture, install,

or service, will eliminate product utility

features, or for which there are safety

concerns that can not be resolved. In

order to conduct the screening analysis,

the Department gathered information

regarding all current technology options

and prototype designs. In consultation

with interested parties, the Department

developed a list of design options for

consideration in the rulemaking. All

technologically feasible design options

were considered in the screening

analysis, and none were rejected.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

The Department forecasted energy

savings through the use of a national

energy savings (NES) spreadsheet as

discussed in the NOPR. 65 FR 59550,

59556, 59563–68 (October 5, 2000).

2. Significance of Savings

Under section 325(o)(3)(B) of the Act,

the Department is prohibited from

adopting a standard for a product if that

standard would not result in

‘‘significant’’ energy savings. While the

term ‘‘significant’’ has never been

defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355,

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), concluded that

Congressional intent in using the word

‘‘significant’’ was to mean ‘‘non-trivial.’’

The savings to the nation are 5.52 quads

of energy over 27 years (2004 to 2030)

which is equivalent to the total energy

consumption of all U.S. homes over a

period of approximately 3.3 months. We

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3319

consider this to be non-trivial and

therefore determine it to be significant.

D. Economic Justification

As noted earlier, Section

325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act provides seven

factors to be evaluated in determining

whether a conservation standard is

economically justified.

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers

and on Consumers

We considered the economic impact

on manufacturers and on consumers as

discussed in the NOPR. 65 FR 59550,

59556 (October 5, 2000). The clothes

washer industry would experience a

cumulative NPV loss of between

$421.1–528.4 million representing

between 29.2 and 36.7 percent of base

case industry value. The Department

estimates that about 89 percent and 81

percent of all consumers purchasing a

new washer will save money as a result

of the 2004 and 2007 standards,

respectively. In total, we estimate the

benefit to the nation of this standard

will be $15.3 billion from 2004 to 2030.

2. Life-Cycle-Costs

We considered life-cycle-costs as

discussed in the NOPR. 65 FR 59550,

59556–57 (October 5, 2000). At the 1.04

MEF level, consumers would experience

a savings in LCC of $103, while they

would experience a LCC savings of $260

at the 1.26 MEF level that would go into

effect in 2007. The payback for the 1.04

MEF level is 3.5 years, and 5.0 years for

the 1.26 MEF.

3. Energy Savings

While significant conservation of

energy is a separate statutory

requirement for imposing an energy

conservation standard, the Act requires

DOE, in determining the economic

justification of a standard, to consider

the total projected energy savings that

are expected to result directly from

revised standards. The Department used

the NES spreadsheet results, discussed

earlier, in its consideration of total

projected savings. The savings to the

nation are 5.52 quads of energy over 27

years (2004 to 2030).

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of

Products

This factor cannot be quantified. In

establishing classes of products, the

Department tries to eliminate any

degradation of utility or performance in

the products under consideration in this

rulemaking.

An issue of utility that was

considered in this rule concerns the

consumer utility of vertical-axis (V-axis)

and horizontal-axis (H-axis) machines.

We conducted consumer focus groups

and a conjoint analysis study to address

this issue. A conjoint analysis is a

quantitative method to estimate the

value consumers place on the clothes

washer attributes. The focus group and

conjoint results indicate that price is the

most important attribute when

consumers are purchasing a new clothes

washer, although in each case another

attribute is virtually tied with price in

terms of importance. In the focus

groups, 83 percent of the respondents

included price in their top ten list of

important clothes washer attributes,

while 81 percent included wash tub

capacity in that same list. In the

conjoint analysis, price had the highest

relative importance score (26 percent),

followed closely by the availability of a

wash load size option on the control

panel (25 percent). Of the six attributes

included in the conjoint analysis

survey, door placement was the fifth

most important attribute with a relative

importance score of 11 percent (for

further information, see Chapter 8 and

appendix G of the TSD).

5. Impact of Lessening of Competition

This factor seeks the views of the

Attorney General to determine the

potential impacts on competition

resulting from the imposition of the

proposed energy efficiency standard.

In order to assist the Attorney General

in making such a determination, the

Department provided the Attorney

General with copies of the NOPR and

the Technical Support Document for

review. In a letter responding to the

NOPR, the Attorney General concluded

‘‘that the proposed clothes washer

standard would not adversely affect

competition.’’ (Department of Justice,

No. 233 at 2). The letter is printed at the

end of today’s rule.

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve

Energy

We reported the environmental effects

from today’s final rule in the NOPR. 65

FR 59550, 59557, 59578–79 (October 5,

2000). The energy savings this final rule

will result in cumulative greenhouse gas

emission reductions of 95.1 million

metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2)

equivalent, or an amount equal to that

produced by three million cars every

year. Additionally, air pollution will be

reduced by the elimination of 253.5

thousand metric tons of nitrous oxides

( NOX) and 28.1 thousand metric tons of

sulfur dioxide (SO2) from 2004 to 2030.

7. Other Factors

This provision allows the Secretary of

Energy, in determining whether a

standard is economically justified, to

consider any other factors that the

Secretary deems to be relevant. Section

325(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI).

Under this provision, we considered

the water savings from each standard

level. The Department received

numerous comments asking for the

inclusion of a water factor standard in

addition to the MEF standard. (City of

Austin, Nos. 105 at 1 and 187 at 2; City

of Bellingham, Washington, Department

of Public Works, No. 106 at 1; Lower

Colorado River Authority (LRCA), No.

109 at 1; Amy Vicker and Associates,

Inc., No. 110 at 1; City of San Diego, No.

123 at 1; City of Santa Barbara, Public

Works Department, No. 125 at 1; City of

Seattle, No. 126 at 2; Santa Clara valley

Water District, No. 127 at 1; American

Water Works Association, No. 149 at 1;

City of Redmond, Office of the Mayor,

No. 153 at 1; Massachusetts Water

Resources Authority, No. 152 at 4; State

of New Mexico, Office of the State

Engineer, No. 158 at 1). As stated

previously, the Department considered

water savings as a factor in determining

the economic justification of the clothes

washer standard level. The water

savings are estimated at 11 trillion

gallons, enough water to supply the

needs of 6.6 million households for 25

years, meaning less water will be

pumped from America’s aquifers and

rivers, and less strain will be placed on

many of the nation’s water and sewer

systems. However, the Department does

not have the authority to prescribe a

minimum water factor standard.

The Secretary has also strongly

considered the Joint Comment. This

proposal adopts a two stage

implementation process oriented toward

mitigating financial impacts on

manufacturers and ensuring no loss of

product utility for consumers. Thus, we

are adopting the Joint Comment

proposal.

E. Standards Incorporated by Reference

Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA specifies

that any new or amended energy

conservation standard the Department

prescribes shall be designed to ‘‘achieve

the maximum improvement in energy

efficiency * * * which the Secretary

determines is technologically feasible

and economically justified.’’ Consistent

with the EPCA directive that the

standard achieve maximum

improvement in the energy efficiency, it

follows that the test procedure to

measure efficiency be both valid and

repeatable, in other words, provide

consistent results. During this standards

rulemaking process it was discovered

that the test cloth used for determining

remaining moisture content (RMC) was

3320 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

giving inconsistent results. The effect of

RMC on modified energy factor and

hence energy efficiency can be

substantial. This is discussed in the

proposed rule under section III.A. Test

Procedure, 65 FR 59555 (October 5,

2000). After investigating possible

causes for the inconsistent test results,

we found that various lots of test cloth

had been treated with a stain or water

repellant finish that would affect RMC.

Consequently, the American

Association of Textile Chemists and

Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 118–

1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon

Resistence Test (reaffirmed 1997), and

Test Method 79–2000, Absorbency of

Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed 2000),

were added to the proposed rule, under

appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430, to

determine whether such a finish was

present in a test cloth. Also, a procedure

was added to ‘‘wash out’’ that finish, so

that any test cloth would be equivalent

to any other test cloth and therefore

produce consistent results. Both of the

above procedures were accepted by the

stakeholders under the Joint Comment

recommendation submitted to the

Department by clothes washer

manufacturers and energy conservation

advocates (Joint Comment, No. 204),

and are incorporated by reference in

today’s final rule.

III. Methodology

As discussed in the NOPR, the

Department developed new analytical

tools for this rulemaking. The first tool

was a spreadsheet that calculates LCC

and payback period. The second

calculates national energy savings and

national net present value (NPV). The

Department also completely revised the

methodology used in assessing

manufacturer impacts including the

adoption of the Government Regulatory

Impact Model (GRIM). Additionally,

DOE developed a new approach using

the National Energy Modeling System

(NEMS) to estimate impacts of clothes

washers energy efficiency standards on

electric utilities and the environment.

65 FR 59550, 59557–71 (October 5,

2000).

In general, when information is based

on periodic forecasts and surveys such

as the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

forecasts of energy prices and the

Residential Energy Consumption Survey

(RECS), both from the Energy

Information Administration (EIA), we

try to use the latest available

information. The analysis in support of

the NOPR was performed using

RECS1993 and AEO1999 data. Just prior

to publication of the NOPR both

RECS1997 and AEO2000 data became

available. Although we did not expect a

significant difference in results by

updating to RECS1997 and AEO2000,

we stated our intent to use this updated

information for the final rule. We have

updated the analysis for Trial Standard

Level 3 using RECS1997 and AEO2000

and have included it in appendix R of

the TSD.

IV. Discussion of Comments

A. Test Procedure

During the public hearing held on

November 15, 2000 and in a written

statement, AHAM requested that the test

procedure be further clarified and

enhanced by incorporating the

following additional changes:

(1) Specify that the test cloth can be

used for up to 60 runs in appendix J, as

proposed for J1.

(2) Specify that appendix J1 (currently

informational) is the test procedure to

be used to determine which models

meet Energy Star requirements prior to

implementation of the January 1, 2004

standard requirement.

(3) Require that a permanent marking

be applied to future test cloth lots.

(4) Implement a process to publish the

correction factors on future test cloth

lots (i.e., publish in Federal Register, on

web-site, or by letter). (AHAM, No. 211)

These changes to the test procedure

are proposed by AHAM for clarification

and consistency purposes only. No

objections were raised at the public

hearing or in written comments to this

proposal, and the Department believes

they would clarify the test procedure

without changing any test results.

Therefore, Item #1 will be included in

the final rule for consistency in

Appendices J and J1. Item #2 will be

addressed by letter from DOE to the

stakeholders specifying that Appendix

J1 along with the revisions in this final

rule will be used to determine which

models meet Energy Star requirements

starting January 1, 2001. Item #3 will be

included in the final rule by adding a

statement to require that the test cloth

have a permanent marking identifying

the lot. Item #4 will be addressed by

DOE notifying stakeholders via the

Internet site at: http://

www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html

with the lot number and correction

factors along with the accepted

laboratories and mills to be used.

B. Standard

Since we started work on this

rulemaking following the 1991 standard

final rule, we have had eight public

hearings/workshops and three public

solicitations for comment. As noted

above, DOE published an ANOPR on

November 14, 1994. 59 FR 56423. On

November 19, 1998, DOE published a

Supplemental ANOPR. 63 FR 64344. On

October 5, 2000, DOE published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR).

65 FR 59550. In preparation of the

NOPR, we conducted several analyses

regarding the energy savings, benefits,

and burdens of amended energy

conservation standards for clothes

washers and have shared the results of

these analyses with all stakeholders.

Based on these analyses, several of the

major stakeholders, including clothes

washer manufacturers and energy

efficiency advocates, submitted to the

Department a joint proposal for the

highest standard level which they

believed to be technologically feasible

and economically justified. As a result,

based on the aforementioned, we

proposed to amend the energy

conservation standard for clothes

washers for residential applications as

recommended in the joint proposal. We

announced a public hearing, which was

held on November 15, 2000.

Today’s final rule standards are based

on the joint proposal submitted to the

Department by clothes washer

manufacturers and energy conservation

advocates. (Joint Comment, No. 204).

The joint stakeholders consist of the

following: Alliance Laundry Systems

LLC; Amana Appliances; Asko

Incorporated; Frigidaire Home Products;

General Electric Appliances (GEA);

Maytag Corporation; Miele, Inc.; Fisher

& Paykel Ltd; Whirlpool Corporation;

Alliance to Save Energy; American

Council for an Energy Efficient

Economy (ACEEE); Appliance

Standards Awareness Project; California

Energy Commission (CEC); City of

Austin, Texas; Natural Resources

Defense Council (NRDC); Northwest

Power Planning Council; and Pacific

Gas and Electric (PG&E). The proposal

as submitted in the Joint Comment

consists of four parts as follows:

Clothes Washer Energy Standard. The

clothes washer energy standards for

standard class clothes washers shall be

1.04 modified energy factor (MEF) in 1/

1/2004 and 1.26 MEF in 1/1/2007. The

energy test procedure will be revised to

ensure that variability between test

cloths will not significantly affect

remaining moisture content (RMC)

results. Additional clarifications will

also be made to test procedure.

Energy Star Labeling Program. Energy

Star levels shall be set as follows:

Standard Class Clothes Washers—1.26

MEF in 2001; 1.42 MEF in 2004;

Refrigerator/Freezers—10% better than

the 2001 standard in 2001; change to

15% better than the 2001 in 2004.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3321

Tax Credit for the Production of

Energy Efficient Clothes Washers and

Refrigerator-Freezers. The credit shall

provide for two energy efficiency tiers,

each with separately designated funds.

There is $30 million in each designated

fund per company per efficiency tier.

Cap of $60 million per company for the

two funds or yearly cap with carry

forward. Annual total tax credit cannot

exceed in any taxable year 2% of

corporate gross revenues as determined

by average of 3 prior years.

Standard Class Clothes Washers: Two

tiers coterminous 2001–2006; $50 per

unit for products manufactured with a

1.26 MEF and $100 per unit for

products manufactured with a 1.42

MEF, increasing to 1.5 MEF in 2004.

Includes residential-style ‘‘coinoperated’’ washers.

Refrigerators: First tier effective in

2001. $50 per unit for products

manufactured 10% above 2001

minimum efficiency standard. Credit

runs through 2004. Second tier also

effective in 2001 and runs through 2006.

It is $100 for products manufactured

15% above the 2001 minimum

efficiency standard. Credits apply to

automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers

only, at 16.5 cubic feet internal volume

and above.

Voluntary Industry Water Program.

Water factor reporting shall be part of a

voluntary industry sponsored program.

AHAM members agree to publicly

disclose through AHAM, water factors

for each model that meets Energy Star/

Tax Credit MEF levels, starting

sometime in calendar year 2001. In

calendar year 2002 and each year

thereafter, industry-wide shipment

weighted average water factors for units

shipped in the previous year shall be

reported by AHAM. Water factor

calculations will use appendix J water

factor through 2003 and will use

Appendix J1 thereafter. Starting in 2007,

AHAM members agree to report water

factor for all models. AHAM will

sponsor water conference.’’ (Joint

Comment, No. 204).

This rulemaking only addresses the

clothes washer energy standards of this

proposal. The above standard, based on

this proposal would go into effect in

stages, with the first stage going into

effect on January 1, 2004, and the

second stage going into effect on January

1, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the 2004

standard and 2007 standard,

respectively). The initial standard is a

22 percent reduction in energy

consumption over the current standard

(or a MEF of 1.04). The later, more

stringent standard, is a 35 percent

reduction in energy consumption over

the current standard (or a MEF of 1.26).

Both top-loading vertical-axis and frontloading horizontal-axis design clothes

washers are currently available in retail

appliance stores at these levels.

In response to the NOPR, we received

additional comments supporting the

proposed energy conservation standard

announced from AHAM (representing

Alliance Laundry Systems LLC; Asko

Incorporated; Amana Appliances; AB

Electrolux (Frigidaire Home Products);

GEA, Fisher & Paykel Ltd; Maytag

Corporation; Miele, Inc.; and Whirlpool

Corporation), manufacturers, energy

efficiency advocates, utilities and

consumers. (AHAM, No. 212 at 1;

Amana, No. 223 at 1; Whirlpool, No.

236 at 2; Maytag, No. 230 at 2; ACEEE,

Nos. 214 & 227; NRDC, No. 225 at 2;

AWWA, No. 234; Comment No. 218).

However, Oregon Office of Energy

(OOE) request a standard level at a 40

percent improvement over the baseline

washer or a MEF of 1.36. (OOE, No. 219

at 2).

We also received three comments

from Congress. Representative Ralph

Regula (R–OH) supports this rulemaking

and believes it should be approved

without delay. (Comment No. 220)

Representatives Joe Knollenberg (R–MI)

and Wally Herger (R–CA) are asking for

120- and 90-day extensions of the

comment period, respectively. (Docket

No. EE–RM/STD–98–440, Comment No.

73 at 68 and Comment No. 239). This

rulemaking process for clothes washers

began on November 14, 1994, almost 6

years ago with the publication of the

Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking. 59 FR 56423.

Subsequently, there were eight public

hearings/workshops and three public

solicitations for comment. Thus, DOE is

adopting the proposed rule and does not

plan to extend the comment period.

C. Two Standards in One Rulemaking

The Competitive Enterprise Institute

(CEI) and Consumer Alert (CA)

commented that the statute does not

specifically allow for the creation of two

standards in one rulemaking. (CEI & CA,

No. 207 at 2; CEI, No. 228 at 3). More

specifically, these comments contended

that the 2007 standard, coming only 3

years after the 2004 standard, violates

the requirement in section 325 of the

Act that an amended standard for these

products ‘‘shall apply to products

manufactured after a date which is 5

years after * * * the effective date of

the previous amendment * * * ‘‘ 42

U.S.C. 6395(m).

DOE disagrees with this comment. In

this rulemaking, DOE is complying with

the mandate in section 325(g)(4)(B) of

the Act to determine whether to amend

the standards in effect for clothes

washers. Consistent with section

325(m), section 325(g)(4)(C) of the Act

provides that a second and any

subsequent amendments shall apply to

products manufactured five years after

the effective date of the previous

amendment, except that in no case may

the amended standard apply to products

manufactured within 3 years after

publication of the standard. Today’s

amended final rule will have been

published 61⁄2 years after the effective

date of the previous final rule, in

conformity with the statute, and applies

to products manufactured 3 years or

more after its publication date.

Nothing in the Act precludes DOE, in

carrying out its duty to determine

whether to amend the existing

standards, from promulgating

amendments that take effect in two

stages. In this rulemaking, DOE has

determined that an interim 2004

standard is technologically feasible and

economically justified. This less

stringent interim standard gives

industry sufficient lead time to

depreciate their current assets and plan

a more orderly transition of their

production facilities. Delaying the

implementation date for the higher

efficiency level gives manufacturers

more time to research and develop

lower cost solutions to achieve higher

standards. Under the provisions in the

Act, DOE may not apply subsequent

amendments of these standards to

products manufactured within 5 years

after the effective date of the second or

final stage of this rule (i.e., until 2012).

AHAM and the NRDC both support

DOE’s position that there is nothing in

the statute which prohibits rule

amendments that consist of initial or

interim standards and more stringent or

final standards. (Mr. Samuels of AHAM,

No. 216CC at 23; Mr. Goldstein of

NRDC, No. 216CC at 56).

Thus, DOE is adopting the rule, as

proposed.

D. Consumer Information Statement

The Consumer Federation of America

(CFA) commented that it believes that

the Consumer Overview section could

be improved to include the following

information: Impact on the ‘‘first cost’’

or purchase price, impact on LCC (i.e.

energy costs and water savings),

payback period, impact of a rule on

affordability of product for the average

consumer and especially the low and

moderate income population, and

environmental implications/benefits of

a rulemaking. (CFA, Nos. 210 & 232 at

2). In addition, as it was recommended

by the Appliance Standards Advisory

Committee at its October 24, 2000,

meeting, the consumer information

3322 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

statement (Consumer Overview) should

be in simplified language so that it is

understandable to the consumer.

(Advisory Committee Meeting

Transcripts dated October 24, 2000, at

43). These changes have been made to

the Consumer Overview section of this

final rule.

E. Consumer Input

CEI and CA commented that they

believe there was inadequate consumer

input into the rulemaking process. (CEI

& CA, No. 209). General Electric (GE)

commented that DOE has given

adequate time for consumer input by

holding numerous comment periods

and hearings. (Mr. Jones of GE, No.

216CC at 74). Since we started work on

this rulemaking in 1991 we have had

eight public hearings/workshops and

three public solicitations for comment.

DOE published an ANOPR on

November 14, 1994 with a 75 day

comment period. 59 FR 56423. On

November 19, 1998, DOE published a

Supplemental ANOPR and held a public

hearing on December 15, 1998 with a 75

day comment period. 63 FR 64344. All

of the technical information pertaining

to the Supplemental ANOPR and a copy

of the Supplemental ANOPR were made

available immediately thereafter on our

Internet site. On October 5, 2000 DOE

published a NOPR and held a public

hearing on November 15, 2000 with a 60

day comment period. 65 FR 59550. All

of the technical information pertaining

to the NOPR and a copy of the NOPR

were made available immediately

thereafter on our Internet site.

Since February 1999, the Department

received 10 letters from consumers

opposing the proposed energy efficiency

standards and about 200 comments

opposing a ban on top-loading verticalaxis clothes washers. (Comment No.

217). In addition, we responded to about

200 e-mails and phone calls by sending

in return a fact-sheet and a copy of the

rule. On the other hand, the Department

received over 600 letters from

consumers supporting the energy

conservation standards at a 40 percent

improvement in efficiency (today’s

requirement is for a 35 percent

improvement by 2007). (Comment Nos.

191, 192, 193, 196, & 201). We have also

received comments from consumer

advocate groups such as the Arizona

Consumers Council, Center for

Environmental Citizenship, Coalition

for Consumer Rights, Residential

Providers Association of Oregon, and

others supporting the energy

conservation standards at a 40 percent

improvement in efficiency. (Comment

No. 191). In addition, in selecting

today’s standards, we considered the

results of the consumer focus groups

and a conjoint analysis study we

performed to address the consumer

utility issue pertaining to top-loading

vertical-axis and front-loading

horizontal-axis machines. Based on the

above, DOE concludes that many

consumers are concerned that a new

standard would ban, or have the

unintended effect of banning, toploading vertical-axis clothes washers.

The Department notes that the standard

adopted today mandates a minimum

level of energy efficiency and that at

least three clothes washer

manufacturers currently have toploading clothes washers which meet the

2007 standards.

In conclusion, we believe there has

been ample time and opportunity for

public comment and that consumer

input has been received and consumer

interests represented and considered.

F. Energy and Economic Analyses

The Department received several

comments with respect to various

elements of the energy and economic

analyses. This section addresses product

classes, incremental retail costs, water

savings, detergent savings, LCC and

payback, and cost effectiveness.

G. Product Classes

Currently, DOE divides clothes

washers into classes based on size and

features, such as suds-saving. For the

existing standards, DOE defines

residential clothes washers in the

following classes:

• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6

cubic feet capacity);

• Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic

feet or greater capacity);

• Top-loading, semi-automatic;

• Front-loading; and

• Suds-saving.

In the NOPR, the Department

indicated it would maintain the current

product classes.

The Department received several

comments on its proposal to maintain

separate product classes for top-loading

and front-loading washers and to

establish the same efficiency

requirement for both. OOE commented

that DOE should follow the lead of the

Federal Trade Commission and

establish only two classes of automatic

clothes washers—standard and

compact—as there is no basis for doing

otherwise and to avoid consumer

confusion. (OOE, No. 219 at 8). NRDC

commented that it made more sense to

collapse the V-axis and H-axis classes

into a single class. (Mr. Goldstein of

NRDC, No. 216CC at 57). Whirlpool

commented that it fully supports the

consolidation of the top- and frontloading standard capacity classes.

(Whirlpool, No. 236). Maytag

commented that it fully agrees with the

Department’s conclusion that a single

efficiency standard for standard class

top-and front-loading washers is clearly

justified. (Maytag, No. 230 at 2). Amana

commented that it supports the

Department’s proposal to have the same

energy-efficiency standard for V-axis

and H-axis washers while maintaining

separate classes for these products on

the basis of differences in technology,

cost and utility/performance. It believes,

however, that the Department should

correct the designations from top- and

front-loading to V-axis and H-axis.

(Amana, No. 223 at 5).

The Department agrees that currently

both V-axis and H-axis washers can

achieve the same range of efficiency and

that different efficiency standards are

not warranted based on axis of rotation

or orientation of loading. For this

reason, the Department proposed a

single minimum efficiency for the

existing ‘‘standard’’ size top-loading and

front-loading washers. However DOE is

concerned that in the future these

classes may have a different potential

for efficiency improvement. Therefore,

in today’s final rule, the Department is

maintaining both the Standard TopLoading and Front-Loading product

classes but is requiring a single

efficiency standard level for both the

Standard Top-Loading and FrontLoading classes of washers.

Additionally, Amana requested that

the Department segregate the standard

size washer class into subclasses on the

basis of capacity in cubic feet to

eliminate the potential of confusion and

prevent consumers from being misled in

comparing washers of different sizes

and mistakenly purchasing a smaller

one that consumes more energy.

(Amana, No. 223 at 4). The Department

understands that the FTC labeling could

lead to confusion for the consumer. We

do not believe, however, that this issue

can be addressed by defining additional

efficiency subclasses. The Department

will take up this matter with FTC to

study this issue.

The Department received several

comments on the issue of increasing the

volume definition of the compact class

from 1.6 cubic feet to 2.0 cubic feet.

Maytag commented that it agreed with

the Department’s proposal to maintain

the existing 1.6 cubic feet definition of

the compact product class since it

believes increasing the compact class to

2.0 cubic feet could place manufacturers

who have complied with more stringent

efficiency standards at a competitive

disadvantage. (Maytag, No. 230 at 2).

The OOE commented it was generally

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3323

indifferent to the Department’s decision

to keep the definition of the compact

class at less than 1.6 cubic foot capacity.

However, OOE deplores that the

Department has not examined the

potential to improve the energy

efficiency of these products. (OOE, No.

219 at 7). Whirlpool commented that it

disagrees with the Department’s

proposal to maintain the current less

than 1.6 cubic feet definition for

compact washers and recommends that

the Department redefine the ‘‘compact’’

class to instead be either ‘‘top-loading

units less than 2.0 cubic feet in capacity

with external width not to be in excess

of 22.5 inches OR top-loading units that

are less than 1.6 cubic feet in capacity

and not more than 24 inches in width.’’

(Whirlpool, No. 236 at 3).

The Department appreciates

Whirlpool’s suggested language to

redefine the compact class. However,

given that this proposed change in

definition is new and was not subject to

public notice and comment, the

implications are not fully understood.

Thus, the Department is maintaining the

current classification for the compact

class.

Whirlpool commented that it

disagrees with the MEF value of 0.65 for

the compact class and suggested that,

based on its testing, an MEF of 0.57

more accurately reflects the current EF

standard of 0.9. (Whirlpool, No. 236 at

3). Since the compact class was not

analyzed, it is the Department’s

intention that current clothes washers

for this class qualify under the new MEF

minimum energy efficiency

requirement. The Department has

conducted sample calculations and

testing on both a 1.46 cubic feet washer

and a 1.93 cubic feet washer. Based on

the findings, the Department is

maintaining the 0.65 MEF value.

H. Incremental Retail Costs

The American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy (ACEEE) commented

that DOE based its estimate of

incremental retail cost for the proposed

standards on manufacturer cost

estimates for horizontal-axis machines.

ACEEE adds that manufacturers stated

at the NOPR hearing that incremental

costs may well be less than estimated.

ACEEE further remarks that this

observation is supported by the

Department’s own reverse engineering

analysis, which found mid-point

incremental manufacturer costs for Vaxis machines that meet or exceed the

2007 standard to be approximately $75.

Applying the mark-ups used in the DOE

analysis, ACEEE calculates a $140

incremental retail price which is lower

than the $249 incremental retail price

used by the Department in its analysis.

Based on its analysis of past

rulemakings, ACEEE believes that the

incremental price will be around $50.

To capture the full range of possible

future prices, ACEEE recommends that

DOE state that the incremental price

will be in the range of $50–$239. ACEEE

does not believe DOE should revise its

analysis using this range since the

proposed standards clearly meet the

NAECA criteria at $239 and would

certainly meet these criteria if the costs

were lower. (ACEEE, No. 227 at 1).

The Oregon Office of Energy (OOE)

also commented that the engineering

analysis for washers meeting the

proposed standard (MEF=1.26)

overstates the manufacturing costs of

this level. OOE states that DOE based its

analysis on the assumption that the

standard would only be met with H-axis

clothes washer designs. OOE

commented that in recent months it has

become clear to the Oregon Energy

Office that manufacturers will meet the

proposed new standard with fairly

traditional top-loading, vertical-axis

designs that incorporate programmable

electronic controls. (OOE, No. 219 at 3).

As commented by ACEEE and OOE,

the engineering cost and performance

data used in the DOE analysis for the

proposed standard level is based on Haxis technology. The decision to base

the engineering analysis on H-axis

technology was made in response to

AHAM comments in 1996 (AHAM, No.

67 at 1) and 1998 (AHAM, No. 84 and

86) that manufacturers could not

achieve levels of efficiency

improvement beyond 25 percent with

traditional V-axis clothes washers. More

recently, two manufacturers introduced

high-efficiency V-axis clothes washers

into the U.S. market that meet or exceed

the performance requirements of the

2007 standard. The Department had

efficiency testing performed on three

commercially available high-efficiency

washers and one prototype V-axis

washer. Additionally, the Department

had these washers disassembled and

analyzed to estimate their

manufacturing costs. As commented by

ACEEE, these washers had a lower

estimated cost range then their H-axis

counterparts. Thus, the Department

agrees with ACEEE that the price

estimates used by the Department in its

analysis may be at the high end of what

may be expected and that lower prices

for the proposed efficiency would only

improve the justification of the

standards. The Department notes that in

this period of rapid technological

advances and new product

introductions, assessing the future cost

and performance of clothes washers is

an uncertain exercise. As with any

forecast, there is a range of uncertainty

in the forecasted results.

Additionally, ACEEE reasoned that

given the downward trend in the

Producer Price Index, it was likely that

clothes washer manufacturers would

achieve future productivity gains and

design improvements that would allow

them to have lower costs than submitted

in 1997. (ACEEE, No. 227 at 1). The

Department agrees that the recent

introduction of high efficiency V-axis

designs and the reverse-engineering

results on these designs indicates that

the price impact of the standard on

consumers may be lower than expected.

Consideration of a PPI deflator however

appears to the Department as very

speculative. In order to comply with

NAECA and assure that the standards

that are adopted are economically

justifiable, the Department adopts price

and cost estimates that can be made

with a fairly high degree of certainty.

While historic price data as indicated in

the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and

Producer Price Index (PPI) may indicate

trends or tendency towards real price

decreases, the reasons behind these

trends are unclear. While it is fairly

certain that real prices for appliances

will not increase given the same quality

and type of product, the possibility of a

continuing decrease is far from certain.

The Department therefore utilizes an

analysis that assumes constant real

prices for the same quality and type of

clothes washer.

I. Water Savings

OOE commented that the 35 percent

level of energy reduction can be

achieved by a V-axis design which may

have programmable electronic controls

and, therefore, the assumed water

savings may be less than the level stated

in the analysis. (OOE, No. 219 at 2, 3 &

4).

The Department believes that while

an H-axis washer typically is a design

approach that results in water savings,

there is no guarantee of water savings

with any design approach, at any level

of energy efficiency. Water use may be

increased by, for example, adding more

cold rinses without impacting a

minimum MEF level. The Department

has relied on manufacturer data based

on what manufacturers would build at

each standard level. The water use data

presented by manufacturers estimates

the same water savings at both the 35

percent and 40 percent levels using

horizontal-axis technology and only a

slightly higher water usage level at the

25 percent level using vertical-axis

technology. As we can now observe in

the marketplace, similar V-axis washer

3324 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

technology may be used to achieve a 35

percent level or even a 40 percent level.

J. Detergent Savings

OOE commented that DOE should

include detergent savings that owners of

H-axis machines (and any others that

reliably deliver equivalent water

savings) will experience at the 40

percent improvement and above (MEF

standard levels of 1.36 and above).

(OOE, No. 219 at 6 & 7). Unilever HPC

commented that it is erroneous and

arbitrary to state that you can save

detergent using high efficiency washers

because the amount of detergent used is

a purely discretionary consumer

decision. It further commented that to

include detergent savings is to imply a

cleaning performance standard which

the proposed standard does not actually

address. (Mr. Linard of Unilever, No.

216CC at 84).

The Department believes that while

some consumers may use less detergent

even at MEF levels of 1.26 as estimated

by the OOE in the Pacific Northwest,

others may use currently more

expensive detergents specially

manufactured for H-axis washers. OOE

also states that there is every reason to

expect that detergent manufacturers will

have a difficult time significantly

increasing the price of these detergents

to compensate for reductions in use. No

evidence is provided to support that

statement. There is no conclusive proof

of what price consumers will pay for

detergent in 2007 when the standard

takes effect at levels equivalent to that

achieved by H-axis washers.

K. Life-Cycle-Costs and Payback

The Regulatory Studies Program at the

Mercatus Center at George Mason

University (Center) commented that the

Department used different savings

estimates at different places in the

NOPR and the TSD. (Center, No. 224 at

5). The NOPR presented values based

both on point estimates and also more

detailed estimates based on

distributions of input values. The

primary results used in the analysis of

Payback Periods and life-cycle-costs are

based on a distribution of inputs used

to create a distribution of LCC and

Payback Periods. This methodology

allows consideration of ranges of inputs

(e.g. numbers of loads per year, energy

price) rather than just using typical or

average values. Table 3 presents the

results of a simplified point value

analysis that uses average input values

for each variable and calculates a single

output value. Tables 4 and 5 present the

results of a more detailed simulation of

10,000 households which has input

distributions for each variable and

output distributions for each result.

We calculated the distributed results

using 10,000 individual payback

periods and found their average, rather

than dividing the average retail price

increase by the average annual savings.

These two methods of determining the

average payback period are not

mathematically equivalent. The average

retail price increase and the average

operating cost savings shown are also

determined from distributions to

account for the differences in fuel

prices, how often households do the

wash, etc. (see Chapter 7 of the TSD for

details). To avoid confusion, for this

final rule, the Department has modified

the Consumer Overview to reflect the

more detailed distribution-derived

values for price and operating cost.

TABLE 3.—SINGLE POINT VALUES

MEF level/year

Single point values

(for U.S. mix of fuel types)

Payback period

(Years)

Delta retail price on

most likely based

incremental manufacturer costs

Operating cost

savings,

(Avg. Inputs used)

Mean LCC savings

1.04/2004 ......................................................................... 3.2 $53 $16 $105

1.26/2007 ......................................................................... 4.7 240 51 262

TABLE 4.—DISTRIBUTION-DERIVED VALUES

MEF level/year

Distributions

Payback (years) Delta retail price Annual operating cost savings

Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

1.04/2004 ......................... 4.6 3.5 $53 $47 $15 $13

1.26/2007 ......................... 6.8 5.0 249 177 48 43

TABLE 5.—DISTRIBUTION-BASED LCC SAVINGS

MEF level/year

Distributions

LCC savings

Mean Median

1.04/2004 ..................................................................................................................................................... $103 $81

1.26/2007 ..................................................................................................................................................... 260 208

L. Cost Effectiveness

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

states that at least 90 percent of

consumers should have lower life-cyclecosts under any new standard. EEI then

argues that the proposed clothes washer

standards are not economically justified

since only 80–81 percent of consumers

will have lower life-cycle-costs, and

only 72 percent of senior citizens will

have lower-life-cycle costs.

Additionally, EEI believes that a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3325

payback period of 7 years is too long.

(EEI, No. 209 at 1). The Department

disagrees. First of all, EEI states no

reason why 90 percent should be an

acceptable level. Secondly, EPCA

requires the Department to consider

LCC as just one of the factors in

determining economic justification of a

standard level. In determining economic

justification, EPCA directs the Secretary

to determine whether the benefits of a

standard exceed the burdens. Consumer

LCC and payback, the resulting energy

savings, the need for national energy

conservation and the economic impacts

on manufacturers and consumers are

just a few of the factors that the

Secretary must consider. There is no

mathematical formula given or used for

weighing the benefits and burdens of

the various factors.

Furthermore, because of wide

variations in usage rates and energy

prices across the country, no national

standard can be designed to minimize,

or even reduce, life-cycle-costs for all

consumers. The Department analyzes

the expected impacts of proposed

standards on consumers taking these

differences into account. However, there

will always be some consumers who

will have higher life-cycle-costs under

any national standard. In making its

determination regarding the overall

benefits and burdens of any standard,

the Department considers both the

magnitude of any adverse effects that

are expected on consumers, as well as

the total number or any groupings of

consumers that might be adversely

affected. However, the Department does

not recognize any arbitrary

mathematical threshold for LCC benefits

as suggested by EEI, and the ratio of

consumers with LCC savings versus

those with LCC increases will vary from

rulemaking to rulemaking depending on

the various benefits and burdens of each

unique rulemaking.

The Mercatus Center stated that the

proposed clothes washer standards are

not economically justified. (Center, No.

224 at 17). The Center claimed that the

standard will harm the majority of

consumers and will take away consumer

choice by eliminating top-loading,

vertical-axis clothes washers. The

Center recommended that the

Department not go forward with the

proposed standard and stated that since

the Department believes that consumers

pass up energy efficient washers

because they are misinformed about

operating costs, that the Department

should construct a program to correct

this deficiency. The Center further

stated that consumers do not need to be

coerced into saving money.

Much of the Center’s comment is a

philosophical argument against the use

of Federal energy efficiency standards as

a means of modifying consumer product

choices or behavior. In its comment, the

Center grades the Department on issues

such as whether the Department has

identified a significant market failure,

has identified an appropriate Federal

role, has examined alternative

approaches, has maximized net benefits

and has understood individual choice

and property impacts. Most of these

issues had been resolved by the

Congress when they enacted the

statutory requirements which guide and

limit the Department’s decision-making

process. Furthermore, when tested in

the court in Natural Resources Defense

Council v. Herrington, 768 F. 2d 1355,

1406–07 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the court

stated that ‘‘the entire point of a

mandatory program was to change

consumer behavior.’’ As is stated under

section I.B. Authority at the beginning of

this final rulemaking, the Act requires

the Department to ‘‘establish standards

designed to achieve the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and

economically justified.’’ This emphasis

on maximizing energy savings may or

may not lead to standards that also

maximize economic benefits—although

in this case the proposed clothes washer

standards would produce National and

consumer benefits that are very close

the maximum of the standard levels

analyzed.

Most of the analysis presented by the

Center assumes that the standards

would eliminate top-loading, verticalaxis clothes washers. As is discussed in

the Energy and Economic Analyses

comments, while the original

manufacturer data submitted assumed

that all clothes washers at and above a

35 percent improvement would be

horizontal-axis machines,

manufacturers have already begun

offering top-loading, vertical-axis

clothes washers that would meet the

2007 standard. Thus, a key assumption

made by the Center is incorrect.

In another part of its analysis, the

Center speculated that if consumers

used their clothes washers less than

average, they would experience lower

benefits. This is true, and as discussed

in the response to the EEI comment

above, and the LCC and Payback

discussion, the Department analyzed the

expected impacts of the proposed

standards on consumers taking usage

and other differences into account. As

reported in the Conclusion section of

today’s rule, the Department found that

20 percent of consumers would

experience higher life-cycle-costs under

the 2007 standard, and that the impact

was considered in the decision for

today’s rule.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusion

A. Analytical Results

We examined six trial standard levels.

Table 6 presents the baseline and trial

standard levels, the associated MEF

values and the percentage reduction in

energy use from the baseline achieved at

the trial standard level. Trial Standard

Level 3 contains two stages of standards

which were proposed in the Joint

Comment. (Joint Comment, No. 204).

TABLE 6.—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

Trial standard level MEF

Percent

reduction

in energy use

Baseline ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.817 ................ 0.

1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.021 ................ 20.

2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.089 ................ 25.

3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.04 in 2004 .....

1.26 in 2007 .....

∼22 in 2004

∼35 in 2007.

4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.257 ................ 35.

5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.362 ................ 40.

6 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.634 ................ 50.

3326 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

The Department presented the results

of its analytical analysis in the NOPR

which are unchanged for today’s final

rule. 65 FR 59550, 59571–81 (October 5,

2000).

We also added, for comparative

evaluation purposes, the results of Trial

Standard Level 3 using the RECS97 and

AEO2000 data. These results have been

included as an Appendix R of the TSD.

The rulemaking process is such that

months to years can take place between

the time an analysis is completed and a

final rule is issued. During that time

span, conditions or data are likely to

change and the Department attempts to

insure that any such changes will not

compromise the robustness of the

analysis or lead to a different

conclusion. For example, the NOPR

used the AEO1999 forecast of electricity

prices and electricity generation mix to

determine energy savings and net

present value. Since the analysis was

completed, the AEO2000 forecast

became available. The Department

examined the impact of the AEO2000

forecast on energy savings and net

present value. The energy savings

reported in the NOPR ranged from 2.12

to 7.53 Quads. Using the data from

AEO2000 shows the energy saving

which ranged from 2.09 to 7.44 Quads.

The net present values reported in the

NOPR ranged from 3.66 to 16.88 billion

dollars. Using the data from AEO2000

shows the NPV which ranged from 3.76

to 16.89 billion dollars. The Department

does not consider these changes to be

meaningful or a reason to revise the

analysis. Additionally, it would be

incorrect to select only one portion of

the analysis for revision, such as the

electric price, without also examining

other related inputs, such as equipment

prices, which also might have slightly

changed. While the Department

acknowledges that the analysis

performed for the NOPR does not fully

reflect some of the changes in the

industry and energy markets that have

occurred more recently, the Department

believes that the analysis is still a valid

basis for today’s final rule.

B. Conclusion

The Act specifies that any new or

amended energy conservation standard

for any type (or class) of covered

product shall be designed to achieve the

maximum improvement in energy

efficiency which the Secretary

determines is technologically feasible

and economically justified. Section

325(o)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). In

determining whether a standard is

economically justified, the Secretary

must determine whether the benefits of

the standard exceed its burdens. Section

325(o)(2)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The amended standard

must result in significant conservation

of energy. Section 325(o)(3)(B), 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

We considered the impacts of

standards beginning with the most

efficient level. We have included a

summary of the analysis results in Table

7 to aid the reader in the discussion of

the benefits and burdens for the

different trial standard levels.

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY ANALYSIS RESULTS

Trial Standard Level 654321

MEF .......................................................... 1.63 1.36 1.26 1.04 in 2004,

1.26 in 2007

1.09 1.02

Total Energy Saved (Quads) ................... 7.53 6.03 5.99 5.52 4.04 2.12

Water Savings (trillion gallons) ................ 10.85 12.94 12.94 11.59 9.09 0.53

NPV (Billion $) ......................................... 10.79 16.73 16.88 15.3 14.29 3.66

Emissions:

Carbon Equivalent (Mt) ............................ 134.6 107.3 106.2 95.1 70.9 38.1

Discounted Carbon Equivalent (Mt) 1 ...... 35.6 28.6 28.3 24.1 19.0 10.2

NOX (kt) ................................................... 364 283.1 280.6 253.5 193.6 115.6

Discounted NOX (kt) 1 .............................. 108.3 85.2 84.0 70.8 58.3 33.8

SO2 (kt) 2 .................................................. 31.41 30.31 30.31 28.11 30.31 31.41

Discounted SO2 (kt) 1 ............................... 8.3 8.0 8.1 7.3 8.0 8.3

Manufacturer Impacts:

Cumulative Loss in Industry NPV ($ Million) 3 ..................................................... 474.5–648.9 453.1–524.9 510.1–612.5 421.1–528.4 409.9–566.2 19.2–90.1

% Change in Industry NPV ...................... (33.0)–(45.2) (31.7)–(36.5) (35.4)–(42.5) (29.2)–(36.7) (28.5)–(39.3) (1.3)–(6.3)

Standard Deviation % NPV ..................... 27.7 27.7 17.7 15.8 11.4 11.5

Life-Cycle-Cost ($):

Mean Savings ($) ..................................... 176 243 242 103/260 211 61

Percent Households LCC Less than

Baseline ................................................ 69 80 79 81/90 87 84

Median Payback (years) .......................... 7.0 5.1 5.1 3.5/5.0 4.0 0.6

1The Department makes no effort to monetize the benefits of the emission reductions, but there may be time related differences in the perceived value of the emissions depending on when they occur, as with monetized benefits that accumulate over time. Emission reductions that

occur sooner are often more desirable than equivalent reductions that occur later. Like monetary benefits, the health, recreational and ecosystem

benefits that result from emission reductions are often perceived to have a greater value if they occur sooner, rather than later. To the extent that

the different trial standard levels have slightly different shipment distributions over time, some trial standard levels might have a slightly higher

proportion of earlier emission reductions than another trial standard level. To show the possible effect of the different timing patterns of the emissions, the Department is also presenting discounted emissions. These calculations were done using the same seven percent discount rate as

was used for discounting monetized benefits. 2 Results only include household SO2 emissions reductions because SO2 emissions from power plants are capped by clean air legislation.

Thus, SO2 emissions will only be negligibly affected by possible water heater standards. 3 Includes impacts on dryer and repair business.

1. Trial Standard Level 6—MEF 1.63

First, we considered the most efficient

level (max tech), MEF 1.63, which saves

a total of 7.53 quads of energy through

2030. This is a significant amount of

energy. The cumulative water savings

through 2030 would be 10.85 trillion

gallons. The emissions reductions

through 2030 would total 134.6 Mt of

carbon equivalent, 364 kt of NOX, and

31.41 kt of SO2. At this level, consumers

experience a mean savings in LCC of

$176, with a median payback of 7.0

years.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3327

3Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, Amana

Appliances, Frigidaire Home Products, General

Electric Appliances (GEA), Maytag Corporation, and

Whirlpool Corporation.

4The standard deviation is a measure of how

widely individual companies’ percentage NPV

changes are dispersed from the industry percentage

change in value. Refer to Chapter 11 of the TSD for

a description of the calculation method.

5Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana

Appliances.

6Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana

Appliances.

7Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana

Appliances.

8The Department recognizes that the

Environmental Protection Agency is considering

regulations which could affect the amount of sulfur

in home heating oil.

At Trial Standard Level 6, the clothes

washer industry would experience a

cumulative NPV loss of between

$474.5—648.9 million which represents

between 33.0 and 45.2 percent of the

clothes washer industry value absent

standards ($1,439.1 million—base case).

This impact is not evenly distributed

among the six major manufacturers.3

The large variability of impacts is

attributed to the presence of existing

product for some manufacturers at this

efficiency level which means that some

firms may gain a competitive advantage.

This variability is measured by the

standard deviation of individual

companies’ changes in NPV.4 At this

level, the standard deviation in

individual companies’ percentage

change in NPV is 27.7 percent. Given

the high industry impacts and the

uneven burden on individual firms,

there exists a significant risk of industry

consolidation.

At this trial standard level a small

company with an assumed market share

of 2.1 percent would lose 90.7 to 102.8

percent of its value. A small company

with an assumed market share of 4.2

percent would lose 166 to 178.1 percent

of its value. Based on the major loss in

company value associated with meeting

this standard level, it is likely that one

or both of the two smaller

manufacturers 5 would cease to produce

clothes washers covered by the standard

and might also cease to market

commercial clothes washers. These

values can be found in Chapter 11 in

Table 11.39 of the TSD.

The Department concludes that the

burdens of Trial Standard Level 6

outweigh the benefits. Consequently,

the Department concludes Trial

Standard Level 6 is not economically

justified.

2. Trial Standard Level 5—MEF 1.36

Next, we considered a 1.36 MEF,

which saves a total of 6.03 quads of

energy through 2030, also a significant

amount. The cumulative water savings

through 2030 for this trial standard level

would be 12.94 trillion gallons. The

emissions reductions through 2030

would total 107.3 Mt of carbon

equivalent, 283.1 kt of NOX, and 30.31

kt of SO2. At this level, consumers

experience a mean savings in LCC of

$243, with a median 5.1 year payback.

The clothes washer industry would

experience a cumulative NPV loss of

between $453.1–524.9 million. This

represents between 31.7 and 36.5

percent of industry value absent

standards ($1,439.1 million—base case).

For the same reason in Trial Standard

Level 6, this impact is not evenly

distributed among the six major

manufacturers. At this level the

standard deviation in individual

companies’ percentage change in NPV is

27.7 percent. (Refer to Chapter 11 of the

TSD for a description of the calculation

method for standard deviation.) Given

the high industry impacts and the

uneven burden on individual firms,

there exists a significant risk of industry

consolidation.

At this trial standard level a small

company with an assumed market share

of 2.1 percent would lose 87.7 to 92.7

percent of its value. A small company

with an assumed market share of 4.2

percent would lose 160.3 to 165.3

percent of its value. Based on the major

loss in company value associated with

meeting this standard level, it is likely

that one or both of the two smaller

manufacturers 6 would cease to produce

clothes washers covered by the standard

and might also cease to market

commercial clothes washers. These

values can be found in Chapter 11 in

Table 11.39 of the TSD.

The Department concludes that the

burdens of Trial Standard Level 5

outweigh the benefits. Consequently,

the Department concludes Trial

Standard Level 5 is not economically

justified.

3. Trial Standard Level 4—MEF 1.26

Next, we considered a 1.26 MEF,

which saves a total of 5.99 quads of

energy through 2030, a significant

amount. Just as in the case of the 1.36

MEF, the cumulative water savings

through 2030 would equal 12.94 trillion

gallons. The cumulative emissions

reductions through 2030, however, are

slightly lower for the 1.26 MEF because

the cumulative energy savings is lower

for this standard level than the 1.36

MEF. The 1.26 MEF level would save

106.2 Mt of carbon equivalent, 280.6 kt

of NOX, and 30.31 kt of SO2. At this

level, consumers experience a mean

savings in LCC of $242 with a median

payback of 5.1 years.

Under a 1.26 MEF standard, the

clothes washer industry would

experience a cumulative NPV loss of

between $510.1–612.5 million. This

represents between 35.4 and 42.5

percent of industry value absent

standards ($1,439.1 million—base case).

Compared to Trial Standard Levels 5

and 6, this impact is more evenly

distributed amongst the six major

manufacturers as represented by a

standard deviation in individual

companies’ NPV of 17.7 percent, and

thus there exists less risk of industry

consolidation. Refer to Chapter 11 of the

TSD for a description of the calculation

method for standard deviation. This

lower standard deviation reflects the

greater diversity of designs, approaches

and engineering flexibility to meet this

efficiency level compared to Trial

Standard Levels 5 and 6. However,

given the high level of investment

required to meet this efficiency level

and an inability to spread fixed costs

over large volumes, small manufacturers

are particularly vulnerable. At this trial

standard level a small company with an

assumed market share of 2.1 percent

would lose 91.8 to 98.9 percent of its

value. A small company with an

assumed market share of 4.2 percent

would lose 164.4 to 171.6 percent of its

value. Based on the major loss in

company value associated with meeting

this standard level, it is likely that one

or both of the two smaller

manufacturers 7 would cease to produce

clothes washers covered by the standard

and might also cease to market

commercial clothes washers. These

values can be found in Chapter 11 in

Table 11.39 of the TSD.

The Department concludes that the

burdens of Trial Standard Level 4

outweigh the benefits. Consequently,

the Department concludes Trial

Standard Level 4 is not economically

justified.

4. Trial Standard Level 3—MEF 1.04/

1.26

Next, we considered the two step

1.04/1.26 MEF efficiency level, which

was proposed in the Joint Comment.

(Joint Comment, No. 204). This trial

standard level, Trial Standard Level 3,

has energy savings of 5.52 quads

through 2030, a significant amount. The

cumulative water savings through 2030

would equal 11.59 trillion gallons. The

emissions reductions through 2030

would total 95.1 Mt of carbon

equivalent, 253.5 kt of NOX, and 28.11

kt of SO2.8 At the 1.04 MEF level,

consumers would experience a savings

in LCC of $103, while they would

3328 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

experience a mean LCC savings of $260

at the 1.26 MEF level that would go into

effect in 2007. The median payback for

the 1.04 MEF level is 3.5 years, and 5.0

years for the 1.26 MEF. The clothes

washer industry would experience a

cumulative NPV loss of between

$421.1–528.4 million representing

between 29.2 and 36.7 percent of base

case industry value.

Compared to a single step standard

level of a 1.26 MEF implemented in

2004, the Joint Comment proposal

reduces the impacts of the standards on

manufacturers by delaying the effective

date three years for the 1.26 MEF level.

This allows clothes washer

manufacturers more time to depreciate

their current assets and plan a more

orderly transition of their production

facilities. Delaying the standard

implementation date for the higher

efficiency level gives manufacturers

more time to research and develop

lower-cost solutions to achieve higher

standards.

Since the MIA shows that small

manufacturers suffer the greatest

impact, the Department takes into

consideration that the consensus

proposal was developed in consultation

with, and supported by small

manufacturers.

Furthermore, we consider that the

Joint Comment specifically states that

the proposal is not expected to

eliminate any competitors. (Joint

Comment, No. 204).

Based on the manufacturers’

statement in the Joint Comment, we

believe that these impacts from the

proposal are mitigated and conclude

that, given the benefits, the standards

submitted in the Joint Comment are

economically justified. (Joint Comment,

No. 204).

The Energy Policy and Conservation

Act, as amended, directs the Department

to consider the impact of any lessening

of competition that is likely to result

from the standards, as determined by

the Attorney General. In a letter

responding to the NOPR, the Attorney

General concluded ‘‘that the proposed

clothes washer standard would not

adversely affect competition.’’

(Department of Justice, No. 233 at 2).

See Department of Justice letter, dated

December 4, 2000, which is printed as

the appendix to this rule.

After carefully considering the

analysis and comments, the Department

amends the energy conservation

standards for clothes washers as

proposed by the Joint Comment. (Joint

Comment, No. 204). The Department

concludes this standard saves a

significant amount of energy and is

technologically feasible and

economically justified. In determining

economic justification, the Department

finds that the benefits of energy and

water savings, consumer LCC savings,

national net present value increase, job

creation and emission reductions

resulting from the standard outweigh

the burdens of the loss of manufacturer

net present value, and consumer LCC

increases for some users of clothes

washers covered by today’s notice.

Therefore, the Department today is

amending the energy conservation

standards for clothes washers at Trial

Standard Level 3. The clothes washer

energy efficiency standards for TopLoading, Standard (1.6 ft.3 or greater

capacity) and Front-Loading class

clothes washers shall be 1.04 MEF on

January 1, 2004 and 1.26 MEF on

January 1, 2007.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory

Review

A. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

The Department prepared an

Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/

EA–1344) which is available from: U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE–41,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–

0371. We found the environmental

effects associated with various standard

efficiency levels for clothes washers to

be not significant, and therefore we are

publishing, elsewhere in this issue of

the Federal Register, a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant to

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,

the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts

1500–1508), and the Department’s

regulations for compliance with NEPA

(10 CFR Part 1021).

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’

Today’s regulatory action has been

determined to be an ‘‘economically

significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’ (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today’s

action was subject to review under the

Executive Order by the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and

Budget.

The draft submitted to OIRA and

other documents submitted to OIRA for

review have been made a part of the

rulemaking record and are available for

public review in the Department’s

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, between the

hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, telephone (202) 586–

3142.

The proposed rule contained a

summary of the Regulatory Impact

Analysis which focused on the major

alternatives considered in arriving at the

approach to improving the energy

efficiency of consumer products (65 FR

59582–83). The reader is referred to the

complete ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis,’’

which is contained in the TSD, available

as indicated at the beginning of this

rulemaking. It consists of: (1) A

statement of the problem addressed by

this regulation, and the mandate for

government action; (2) a description and

analysis of the feasible policy

alternatives to this regulation; (3) a

quantitative comparison of the impacts

of the alternatives; and (4) the national

economic impacts of the proposed

standard.

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an

assessment of the impact of regulations

on small businesses. Small businesses

are defined as those firms within an

industry that are privately owned and

less dominant in the market.

To be categorized as a ‘‘small’’ clothes

washer manufacturer, a firm must

employ no more than 1,000 employees.

The clothes washer industry is

characterized by six firms accounting

for nearly 99 percent of sales. By the

above definition none of the six major

U.S. manufacturers of clothes washers

are considered ‘‘small.’’ The Department

is aware of one small domestic

manufacturer of clothes washer, Staber

Industries, that produces a top-loading

horizontal-axis clothes washer. The

energy efficiency of this product already

exceeds the 2007 standard level.

The Department prepared a

manufacturing impact analysis which

was made public and available to all the

clothes washer manufacturers. This

analysis considered the effects on small

manufacturers with a minimum annual

production of 165,000 units

(representing a 2.1 percent market share

for Alliance Laundry Systems LLC). The

Department did not receive any

information or comments indicating that

even smaller manufacturers of clothes

washers would be impacted

differentially from those included in the

small manufacturer analysis performed.

Furthermore, the small manufacturer is

a signer of the Joint Comment.

In view of the foregoing, the

Department has determined and hereby

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3329

certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act that, for

this particular industry, the standard

levels in today’s final rule will not

‘‘have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,’’

and it is not necessary to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

No new information or record keeping

requirements are imposed by this

rulemaking. Accordingly, no Office of

Management and Budget clearance is

required under the Paperwork

Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12988,

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),

imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard and promote simplification

and burden reduction. With regard to

the review required by sections 3(a) and

3(b) of Executive Order 12988, it

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 reviewed today’s final rule

under the standards of section 3 of the

Executive Order and determined that, to

the extent permitted by law, the final

regulations meet the relevant standards.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12630,

‘‘Takings’’ Assessment Review

DOE has determined pursuant to

Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights,’’ 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),

that this regulation would not result in

any takings that might require

compensation under the Fifth

Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

G. Review Under Executive Order

13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

Executive Order 13132 (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.

Agencies are required to examine the

constitutional and statutory authority

supporting any action that would limit

the policy making discretion of the

States and carefully assess the necessity

for such actions. Agencies also must

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. DOE published its

intergovernmental consultation policy

on March 14, 2000. (65 FR 13735). DOE

has examined today’s final 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. State regulations

that may have existed on the products

that are the subject of today’s final rule

were preempted by the Federal

standards established in the NAECA

Amendments of 1987. States can

petition the Department for exemption

from such preemption based on criteria

set forth in EPCA, as amended.

H. Review Under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act

With respect to a proposed regulatory

action that may result in the

expenditure by State, local and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector of $100 million or more

(adjusted annually for inflation), section

202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires a Federal

agency to publish estimates of the

resulting costs, benefits and other effects

on the national economy. 2 U.S.C.

1532(a), (b). UMRA also requires each

Federal agency to develop an effective

process to permit timely input by state,

local, and tribal governments on a

proposed significant intergovernmental

mandate. The Department’s consultation

process is described in a notice

published in the Federal Register on

March 18, 1997 (62 FR 12820). Today’s

final rule may impose expenditures of

$100 million or more on the private

sector. It does not contain a Federal

intergovernmental mandate.

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an

agency to respond to the content

requirements of UMRA in any other

statement or analysis that accompanies

the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The

content requirements of section 202(b)

of UMRA relevant to a private sector

mandate substantially overlap the

economic analysis requirements that

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and

Executive Order 12866. The

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

the Notice of Final Rulemaking and

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of

the TSD for this final rule responds to

those requirements.

Under section 205 of UMRA, the

Department is obligated to identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a written

statement under section 202 is required.

DOE is required to select from those

alternatives the most cost-effective and

least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule

unless DOE publishes an explanation

for doing otherwise or the selection of

such an alternative is inconsistent with

law. As required by section 325(o) of the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)), today’s final rule

establishes energy conservation

standards for clothes washers that are

designed to achieve the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that

DOE has determined to be both

technologically feasible and

economically justified. A full discussion

of the alternatives considered by DOE is

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for today’s

final rule.

I. Review Under the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act of 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. No. 105–277) requires

Federal agencies to issue a Family

Policymaking Assessment for any

proposed rule or policy that may affect

family well-being. Today’s final rule

would 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.

J. Review Under the Plain Language

Directives

Section 1(b)(12) of Executive Order

12866 requires that each agency draft its

regulations to be simple and easy to

understand, with the goal of minimizing

3330 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the potential for uncertainty and

litigation arising from such uncertainty.

Similarly, the Presidential

memorandum of June 1, 1998 (63 FR

31883) directs the heads of executive

departments and agencies to use plain

language in all proposed and final

rulemaking documents published in the

Federal Register.

Today’s rule uses the following

general techniques to abide by Section

1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 and

the Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998:

• Organization of the material to

serve the needs of the readers

(stakeholders).

• Use of common, everyday words in

short sentences.

• Shorter sentences and sections.

K. Congressional Notification

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

submit to Congress a report regarding

the issuance of today’s final rule prior

to the effective date set forth at the

outset of this notice. DOE also will

submit the supporting analyses to the

Comptroller General (GAO) and make

them available to each House of

Congress. The report will state that it

has been determined that the rule is a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

L. Review Under Section 32 of the

Federal Energy Administration Act

The test procedure amendments

finalized today incorporate the

American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test

Methods 118—1997, ‘‘Oil Repellency:

Hydrocarbon Resistance Test’’

(reaffirmed 1997), and 79—2000,

‘‘Absorbency of Bleached Textiles’’

(reaffirmed 2000), to determine whether

a stain resistant or water repellent finish

is present in a test cloth used to measure

remaining moisture content and

therefore the energy consumption of a

clothes washer.

The findings required of DOE by

section 32 of the Federal Energy

Administration Act serve to alert the

public and DOE regarding the use and

background of commercial standards in

the rulemaking process. DOE has

evaluated the promulgation of AATCC

Test Methods 118–1997 (reaffirmed

1997), and 79–2000 (reaffirmed 2000),

in light of the public participation

criteria of section 32(b). The Department

is unable to conclude whether

development of these standards fully

complied with section 32(b) regarding

the manner of public participation.

As required by section 32(c), DOE has

consulted with the Attorney General

and the Chairman of the Federal Trade

Commission concerning the impact of

these standards on competition, prior to

prescribing final test procedures.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

Household appliances, Incorporation by

Reference.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 3,

2001.

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 430 of chapter II of title

10, Code of Federal Regulations is

amended, 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.

Appendix J [Amended]

2. Appendix J to subpart B of part 430

is amended:

a. By adding a new sentence at the

beginning of the introductory paragraph

of this appendix.

b. In section 2, by adding paragraphs

2.3.1 and 2.3.2, and by revising

paragraphs 2.6.1.3, 2.6.2, 2.10, 2.11, and

2.11.1.

c. In section 3, by revising paragraph

3.3.1.

d. By adding a new section 8.

The additions and revisions 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

The provisions of this appendix J shall

apply to products manufactured after

February 12, 2001. * * *

* * * * *

2. * * *

2.3. * * *

2.3.1 Supply water requirements for water

and energy consumption testing. For

nonwater-heating clothes washers not

equipped with thermostatically controlled

water valves, the temperature of the hot and

cold water supply shall be maintained at

100° ± 10°F (37.8°C ± 5.5°C). For nonwaterheating clothes washers equipped with

thermostatically controlled water valves, the

temperature of the hot water supply shall be

maintained at 140°F ± 5°F (60.0°C ± 2.8 °C)

and the cold water supply shall be

maintained at 60°F ± 5F° (15.6°C ± 2.8°C).

For water-heating clothes washers, the

temperature of the hot water supply shall be

maintained at 140°F ± 5°F (60.0°C ± 2.8°C)

and the cold water supply shall not exceed

60°F (15.6°C). Water meters shall be installed

in both the hot and cold water lines to

measure water consumption.

2.3.2 Supply water requirements for

remaining moisture content testing. For

nonwater-heating clothes washers not

equipped with thermostatically controlled

water valves, the temperature of the hot

water supply shall be maintained at 140°F ±

5°F and the cold water supply shall be

maintained at 60°F ± 5°F. All other clothes

washers shall be connected to water supply

temperatures as stated in 2.3.1 of this

appendix.

* * * * *

2.6.1.3 The number of test runs on the

same energy test cloth shall not exceed 60

test runs. All energy test cloth must be

permanently marked identifying the lot

number of the material. Mixed lots of

material shall not be used for testing the

clothes washers.

2.6.2 Energy Stuffer Cloth. The energy

stuffer cloths shall be made from energy test

cloth material and shall consist of pieces of

material that are 12 inches by 12 inches (30.5

cm by 30.5 cm) and have been hemmed to

10 inches by 10 inches (25.4 cm by 25.4 cm)

before washing. The maximum shrinkage

after five washes shall not be more than four

percent on the length and width. The number

of test runs on the same energy suffer cloth

shall not exceed 60 test runs. All energy

stuffer cloth must be permanently marked

identifying the lot number of the material.

Mixed lots of material shall not be used for

testing the clothes washers.

* * * * *

2.10 Wash time (period of agitation or

tumble) setting. If the maximum available

wash time in the normal cycle is greater than

9.75 minutes, the wash time shall be not less

than 9.75 minutes. If the maximum available

wash time in the normal cycle is less than

9.75 minutes, the wash time shall be the

maximum available wash time.

2.11 Agitation speed and spin speed

settings. Where controls are provided for

agitation speed and spin speed selections, set

them as follows:

2.11.1 For energy and water consumption

tests, set at the normal cycle settings. If

settings at the normal cycle are not offered,

set the control settings to the maximum

speed permitted on the clothes washer.

3. * * *

3.3. * * *

3.3.1 The wash temperature shall be the

same as the rinse temperature for all testing.

Cold rinse is the coldest rinse temperature

available on the machine. Warm rinse is the

hottest rinse temperature available on the

machine.

* * * * *

8. Sunset

The provisions of this appendix J expire on

December 31, 2003.

Appendix J1 [Amended]

3. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part

430 is amended:

a. By removing the Note after the

heading and adding a new paragraph.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3331

b. In section 1, by adding paragraphs

1.22 and 1.23.

c. In section 2, by revising paragraphs

2.6.1 and 2.6.2, and adding paragraphs

2.6.3 through 2.6.7.2.

d. In section 4, by revising the

definition of ‘‘ERx, ERa, and ERn’’ in

paragraph 4.1.5.

The additions and revisions read as

follows:

Appendix J1 to Subpart B of Part 430—

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the

Energy Consumption of Automatic and

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

The provisions of this appendix J1 shall

apply to products manufactured beginning

January 1, 2004.

1. * * *

1.22 Cold rinse means the coldest rinse

temperature available on the machine (and

should be the same rinse temperature

selection tested in 3.7 of this appendix).

1.23 Warm rinse means the hottest rinse

temperature available on the machine (and

should be the same rinse temperature

selection tested in 3.7 of this appendix).

2. * * *

2.6. * * *

2.6.1 Energy Test Cloth. The energy test

cloth shall be made from energy test cloth

material, as specified in 2.6.4, that is 24

inches by 36 inches (61.0 cm by 91.4 cm) and

has been hemmed to 22 inches by 34 inches

(55.9 cm by 86.4 cm) before washing. The

energy test cloth shall be clean and shall not

be used for more than 60 test runs (after

preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this

appendix). All energy test cloth must be

permanently marked identifying the lot

number of the material. Mixed lots of

material shall not be used for testing the

clothes washers.

* * * * *

2.6.2 Energy Stuffer Cloth. The energy

stuffer cloth shall be made from energy test

cloth material, as specified in 2.6.4, and shall

consist of pieces of material that are 12

inches by 12 inches (30.5 cm by 30.5 cm) and

have been hemmed to 10 inches by 10 inches

(25.4 cm by 25.4 cm) before washing. The

energy stuffer cloth shall be clean and shall

not be used for more than 60 test runs (after

preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this

appendix). All energy stuffer cloth must be

permanently marked identifying the lot

number of the material. Mixed lots of

material shall not be used for testing the

clothes washers.

2.6.3 Preconditioning of Test Cloths. The

new test cloths, including energy test cloths

and energy stuffer cloths, shall be preconditioned in a clothes washer in the

following manner:

2.6.3.1 Perform 5 complete normal washrinse-spin cycles, the first two with AHAM

Standard detergent 2A 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 6.0

grams per gallon of water of AHAM Standard

detergent 2A. 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). Repeat the cycle

with detergent and then repeat the cycle

three additional times without detergent,

bone drying the load between cycles (total of

five wash and rinse cycles).

2.6.4 Energy test cloth material. The

energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths

shall be made from fabric meeting the

following specifications. The material should

come from a roll of material with a width of

approximately 63 inches and approximately

500 yards per roll, however, other sizes

maybe used if they fall within the

specifications.

2.6.4.1 Nominal fabric type. Pure finished

bleached cloth, made with a momie or

granite weave, which is nominally 50 percent

cotton and 50 percent polyester.

2.6.4.2 The fabric weight shall be 5.60

ounces per square yard (190.0 g/m2), ±5

percent.

2.6.4.3 The thread count shall be 61 × 54

per inch (warp × fill), ±2 percent.

2.6.4.4 The warp yarn and filling yarn

shall each have fiber content of 50 percent ±4

percent cotton, with the balance being

polyester, and be open end spun, 15/1 ±5

percent cotton count blended yarn.

2.6.4.5 Water repellent finishes, such as

fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes shall

not be applied to the test cloth. The absence

of such finishes shall be verified by:

2.6.4.5.1 American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test

Method 118—1997, Oil Repellency:

Hydrocarbon Resistance Test (reaffirmed

1997), of each new lot of test cloth (when

purchased from the mill) to confirm the

absence of ScotchguardTM or other water

repellent finish (required scores of ‘‘D’’

across the board).

2.6.4.5.2 American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test

Method 79–2000, Absorbency of Bleached

Textiles (reaffirmed 2000), of each new lot of

test cloth (when purchased from the mill) to

confirm the absence of ScotchguardTM or

other water repellent finish (time to absorb

one drop should be on the order of 1 second).

2.6.4.5.3 The standards listed in 2.6.4.5.1

and 2.6.4.5.2 of this appendix which are not

otherwise set forth in this part 430 are

incorporated by reference. The material listed

in this paragraph has been approved for

incorporation by reference by the Director of

the Federal Register in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Any

subsequent amendment to a standard by the

standard-setting organization will not affect

the DOE test procedures unless and until

amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as

it exists on the date of the approval and

notice of any change in the material will be

published in the Federal Register. The

standards incorporated by reference are the

American Association of Textile Chemists

and Colorists Test Method 118–1997, Oil

Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test

(reaffirmed 1997) and Test Method 79–2000,

Absorbency of Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed

2000).

(a) The above standards incorporated by

reference are available for inspection at:

(i) Office of the Federal Register,

Information Center, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC;

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Hearings and Dockets, ‘‘Energy Conservation

Program for Consumer Products: Clothes

Washer Energy Conservation Standards,’’

Docket No. EE—RM–94–403, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC.

(b) Copies of the above standards

incorporated by reference can be obtained

from the American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorists, P.O. Box 1215,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, telephone

(919) 549–8141, telefax (919) 549–8933, or

electronic mail: orders@aatcc.org

2.6.4.6 The moisture absorption and

retention shall be evaluated for each new lot

of test cloth by the Standard Extractor

Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) Test

specified in 2.6.5 of this appendix.

2.6.4.6.1 Repeat the Standard Extractor

RMC Test in 2.6.5 of this appendix three

times.

2.6.4.6.2 An RMC correction curve shall

be calculated as specified in 2.6.6 of this

appendix.

2.6.5 Standard Extractor RMC Test

Procedure. The following procedure is used

to evaluate the moisture absorption and

retention characteristics of a lot of test cloth

by measuring the RMC in a standard

extractor at a specified set of conditions.

Table 2.6.5 of this appendix is the matrix of

test conditions. The 500g requirement will

only be used if a clothes washer design can

achieve spin speeds in the 500g range. When

this matrix is repeated 3 times, a total of 48

extractor RMC test runs are required. For the

purpose of the extractor RMC test, the test

cloths may be used for up to 60 test runs

(after preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of

this appendix).

TABLE 2.6.5.—MATRIX OF EXTRACTOR RMC TEST CONDITIONS

‘‘g’’ Force

Warm soak Cold soak

15 min. spin 4 min. spin 15 min. spin 14 min. spin

50 ................................................... ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ..............................

200 ................................................. ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ..............................

350 ................................................. ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ..............................

3332 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2.6.5.—MATRIX OF EXTRACTOR RMC TEST CONDITIONS—Continued

‘‘g’’ Force

Warm soak Cold soak

15 min. spin 4 min. spin 15 min. spin 14 min. spin

500 ................................................. ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ..............................

2.6.5.1 The standard extractor RMC tests

shall be run in a Bock Model 215 extractor

(having a basket diameter of 19.5 inches,

length of 12 inches, and volume of 2.1 ft3),

with a variable speed drive (Bock Engineered

Products, P.O. Box 5127, Toledo, OH 43611)

or an equivalent extractor with same basket

design (i.e. diameter, length, volume, and

hole configuration) and variable speed drive.

2.6.5.2 Test Load. Test cloths shall be

preconditioned in accordance with 2.6.3 of

this appendix. The load size shall be 8.4 lbs.,

consistent with 3.8.1 of this appendix.

2.6.5.3 Procedure.

2.6.5.3.1 Record the ‘‘bone-dry’’ weight of

the test load (WI).

2.6.5.3.2 Soak the test load for 20 minutes

in 10 gallons of soft (<17 ppm) water. The

entire test load shall be submerged. The

water temperature shall be 100°F ± 5°F.

2.6.5.3.3 Remove the test load and allow

water to gravity drain off of the test cloths.

Then manually place the test cloths in the

basket of the extractor, distributing them

evenly by eye. Spin the load at a fixed speed

corresponding to the intended centripetal

acceleration level (measured in units of the

acceleration of gravity, g) ±1 g for the

intended time period ±5 seconds.

2.6.5.3.4 Record the weight of the test

load immediately after the completion of the

extractor spin cycle (WC).

2.6.5.3.5 Calculate the RMC as (WC–WI)/

WI.

2.6.5.3.6 The RMC of the test load shall

be measured at three (3) g levels: 50g; 200g;

and 350g, using two different spin times at

each g level: 4 minutes; and 15 minutes. If

a clothes washer design can achieve spin

speeds in the 500g range than the RMC of the

test load shall be measured at four (4) g

levels: 50g; 200g; 350g; and 500g, using two

different spin times at each g level: 4

minutes; and 15 minutes.

2.6.5.4 Repeat 2.6.5.3 of this appendix

using soft (<17 ppm) water at 60°F ± 5°F.

2.6.6 Calculation of RMC correction

curve.

2.6.6.1 Average the values of 3 test runs

and fill in table 2.6.5 of this appendix.

Perform a linear least-squares fit to relate the

standard RMC (RMCstandard) values (shown in

table 2.6.6.1 of this appendix) to the values

measured in 2.6.5 of this appendix:

(RMCcloth): RMCstandard ∼ A * RMCcloth + B

Where A and B are coefficients of the linear

least-squares fit.

TABLE 2.6.6.1.—STANDARD RMC VALUES (RMCstandard)

G RMC percent

Warm soak Cold soak

15 min. spin 4 min. spin 15 min. spin

50 ................................................... 50.4 ................................ 55.7 ................................ 52.8 ................................ 59.0

200 ................................................. 35.6 ................................ 40.4 ................................ 37.9 ................................ 43.1

350 ................................................. 29.6 ................................ 33.1 ................................ 30.6 ................................ 35.8

500 ................................................. 24.2 ................................ 28.7 ................................ 25.5 ................................ 30.0

2.6.6.2 Check accuracy of linear leastsquares fit using the following method:The root mean square value of

RMC RMC s dard i corr i

i

tan

/

− − ( ) − 















 =  ∑

2

1

12

1 2

10

shall be less than 2 percent, where a sum is

taken over all of the different tests, where

RMCstandard—i is the RMC standard value

measured for the I-th test, and RMCcorr—i is

the corrected RMC value for the I-th cloth

test. This equation is valid only for the use

with three (3) g force values therefore when

using the 500g requirement; replace the 500g

value instead of the 350g value.

2.6.7 Application of RMC correction

curve.

2.6.7.1 Using the coefficients A and B

calculated in 2.6.6.1 of this appendix:

RMCcorr = A * RMC + B

2.6.7.2 Substitute RMCcorr values in

calculations in 3.8 of this appendix.

* * * * *

4. * * *

4. 1 * * *

4.1.5 * * *

ERx, ERa, ERn, are reported electrical energy

consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per

cycle, at maximum, average, and minimum

test loads, respectively, for the warm rinse

cycle per definitions in 3.7.2 of this

appendix.

* * * * *

§ 430.32 [Amended]

4. Section 430.32 is amended by

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation

standards and effective dates.

* * * * *

(g) Clothes washers.

(1) Clothes washers manufactured

before January 1, 2004, shall have an

energy factor no less than:

Product Class Energy factor

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle)

i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6

ft.3 capacity).

0.9.

ii. Top-Loading,

Standard (1.6 ft.3 or

greater capacity).

1.18.

iii. Top-Loading,

Semi-Automatic.

1 Not Applicable.

iv. Front-Loading ....... 1 Not Applicable.

v. Suds-saving .......... 1 Not Applicable.

1 Must have an unheated rinse water option.

(2) Clothes washers manufactured on

or after January 1, 2004, and before

January 1, 2007, shall have a modified

energy factor no less than:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3333

Product Class

Modified energy

factor

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle)

i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6

ft.3 capacity).

0.65.

ii. Top-Loading,

Standard (1.6 ft.3 or

greater capacity).

1.04.

iii. Top-Loading,

Semi-Automatic.

1 Not Applicable.

iv. Front-Loading ....... 1.04.

v. Suds-saving .......... 1 Not Applicable.

1 Must have an unheated rinse water option.

(3) Clothes washers manufactured on

or after January 1, 2007, shall have a

modified energy factor no less than:

Product Class

Modified energy

factor

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle)

i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6

ft.3 capacity).

0.65.

ii. Top-Loading,

Standard (1.6 ft.3 or

greater capacity).

1.26.

iii. Top-Loading,

Semi-Automatic.

1 Not Applicable.

iv. Front-Loading ....... 1.26.

v. Suds-saving .......... 1 Not Applicable.

1 Must have an unheated rinse water option.

* * * * *

Appendix

[The following letter from the Department

of Justice will not appear in the Code of

Federal Regulations.]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530–

0001, (202)514–2401/(202) 696–2645 (i),

Antitrust@justic.usdoj.gov internet, Http://

www.usdoj.gov (World Wide Web).

December 4, 2000.

Mary Anne Sullivan, General Counsel,

Department of Energy, Washington, DC

20585.

Dear General Counsel Sullivan: I am

responding to your October 16, 2000 letter

seeking the views of the Attorney General

about the potential impact on competition of

two proposed energy efficiency standards:

one for clothes washers and the other for

residential central air conditioners and heat

pumps. Your request was submitted pursuant

to Section 325 (o)(2)(B)(i) of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291

(‘‘EPCA’’), which requires the Attorney

General to make a determination of the

impact of any lessening of competition that

is likely to result from the imposition of

proposed energy efficiency standards. The

Attorney General’s responsibility for

responding to requests from other

departments about the effect of a program on

competition has been delegated to the

Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust

Division in 28 CFR 0.40 (g).

We have reviewed the proposed standards

and the supplementary information

published in the Federal Register notices and

submitted to the Attorney General, which

include information provided to the

Department of Energy by manufacturers. We

have additionally conducted interviews with

members of the industries.

We have concluded that the proposed

clothes washer standard would not adversely

affect competition. In reaching this

conclusion, we note that the proposed

standard is based on a joint recommendation

submitted to the Department of Energy by

manufacturers and energy conservation

advocates. That recommendation states that

virtually all manufacturers of clothes washers

who sell in the United States participated in

arriving at the recommendation through their

trade association, that the recommendation

was developed in consultation with small

manufacturers, and that the manufacturers

believe the new standard would not likely

reduce competition. We note further that, as

the industry recommended, the proposed

standard will be phased in over six years,

which will allow companies that do not

already have products that meet the proposed

standard sufficient time to redesign their

product lines.

* * * * *

Sincerely,

A. Douglas Melamed,

Acting Assistant Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 01–611 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P