[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 972-1036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32118]



[[Page 971]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



10 CFR Part 430



Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for 
Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 972]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0010]
RIN 1904-AC02


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test 
Procedures for Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) amends its test procedures 
for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The amendments provide for 
measurement of standby mode and off mode power use by these products 
and also amend the active mode test procedures for these products. For 
standby and off mode energy use, these amendments incorporate into the 
DOE test procedures relevant provisions from the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, ``Household 
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' (first edition 
June 2005), including language to clarify application of these 
provisions for measuring standby mode and off mode power consumption in 
clothes dryers and room air conditioners. In addition, DOE is adopting 
definitions of modes based on the relevant provisions from IEC Standard 
62301 Second Edition Committee Draft for Vote. For active mode energy 
use, DOE adopts testing methods for ventless clothes dryers, test cloth 
preconditioning requirements for clothes dryer energy tests, test 
conditions for gas clothes dryers, test conditions for clothes dryer 
drum capacity measurement, amendments to clarify current clothes dryer 
usage patterns and capabilities and to update the references to 
industry standards in the room air conditioner and clothes dryer test 
procedures.

DATES: This rule is effective February 7, 2011. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register on February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of all materials related to this 
rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the 
Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 
Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at the above telephone number for additional information regarding 
visiting the Resource Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Subid Wagley, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1414. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5b690878c81cbb2848289809ca58080cb818a80cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="095a7c6b606d275e686e656c70496c6c276d666c276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02476e6b78636067766a2c496d6a6e426a732c666d672c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ca8fa6a3b0aba8afbea2e481a5a2a68aa2bbe4aea5afe4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into part 430 the following industry standards:
    (1) AHAM HLD-1-2009 (``AHAM HLD-1''), ``Household Tumble Type 
Clothes Dryers,'' (2009).
    Copies of AHAM HLD-1 are available from the Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th Street, NW., Suite 402, Washington, 
DC 20036, (202) 872-5955, or http://www.aham.org/.
    (2) ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-2008 (``ANSI/AHAM RAC-1''), ``Room Air 
Conditioners,'' (2008; ANSI approved July 7, 2008).
    Copies of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1 are available from the American National 
Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036, 
(212) 642-4936, or http://webstore.ansi.org/.
    (3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16'') (RA 2009), 
(Reaffirmation of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 [RA 1999]), ``Method of 
Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air 
Conditioners,'' ASHRAE approved October 18, 1988, and reaffirmed June 
20, 2009; ANSI approved October 20, 1998 and reaffirmed June 25, 2009.
    Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 are available from the American National 
Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036, 
(212) 642-4936, or http://webstore.ansi.org/.
    (4) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 
(``IEC 62301''), ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power (first edition June 2005).''
    Copies of IEC 62301 are available from the American National 
Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036, 
(212) 642-4936, or http://webstore.iec.ch/.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Authority
II. Summary of the Proposal
III. Discussion
    A. Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes
    B. Clothes Dryer and Room Air Conditioner Standby Mode and Off 
Mode Test Procedures
    1. Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard 62301 for Measuring 
Standby Mode and Off Mode Power in Clothes Dryers and Room Air 
Conditioners
    2. Determination of Modes To Be Incorporated
    3. Adding Specifications for the Test Methods and Measurements 
for Clothes Dryer and Room Air Conditioner Standby Mode and Off Mode 
Testing
    a. Clothes Dryers
    b. Room Air Conditioners
    4. Calculation of Energy Use Associated With Standby Modes and 
Off Mode
    a. Clothes Dryers
    b. Room Air Conditioners
    5. Measures of Energy Consumption
    a. Clothes Dryers
    b. Room Air Conditioners
    C. Clothes Dryer and Room Air Conditioner Active Mode Test 
Procedures
    1. Correction of Text Describing Energy Factor Calculation for 
Clothes Dryers
    2. Automatic Cycle Termination for Clothes Dryers
    3. Test Procedure for Ventless Clothes Dryers
    4. Detergent Specifications for Clothes Dryer Test Cloth 
Preconditioning
    5. Changes To Reflect Current Usage Patterns and Capabilities
    a. Clothes Dryer Number of Annual Cycles
    b. Clothes Dryer Initial Remaining Moisture Content
    c. Clothes Dryer Test Load Weight
    d. Room Air Conditioner Annual Operating Hours
    e. Room Air Conditioner Part-Load Performance
    f. Room Air Conditioner Ambient Test Conditions
    6. Room Air Conditioner Referenced Test Procedures
    7. Clothes Dryer Referenced Test Procedure
    8. Technical Correction for the Per-Cycle Gas Dryer Continuously 
Burning Pilot Light Gas Energy Consumption
    9. Clarification of the Gas Supply Test Conditions for Gas 
Clothes Dryers
    10. Other Clothes Dryer Test Procedure Issues
    a. Test Cloth Specifications
    b. Relative Humidity Measurement Specifications
    c. Calculations of EF and CEF
    d. Measurement of Kilowatt Electricity Demand
    e. Clarifications to the Measurement of Drum Capacity
    f. Test Procedure Language
    D. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
    1. Test Burden
    2. Integration of Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption 
Into the Energy Efficiency Metrics
IV. Effects of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards
    A. Standby Mode and Off Mode

[[Page 973]]

    B. Active Mode--Clothes Dryers
    C. Active Mode--Room Air Conditioners
V. Procedural Requirements
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background and Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') sets forth 
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B 
of Title III, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) 
establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other Than Automobiles,'' a program covering most major household 
appliances including clothes dryers and room air conditioners (all of 
which are referred to below as ``covered products'').\1\ (42 U.S.C. 
6291(1)-(2) and 6292(a)(2) and (8))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended 
including through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 
Public Law 110-140. For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 
U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Act, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) 
Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy 
conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for 
labeling, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. The testing 
requirements consist of test procedures that, pursuant to EPCA, 
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with applicable energy conservation 
standards adopted under EPCA and for representations about the 
efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test 
requirements to determine whether the products comply with EPCA 
standards. Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth criteria and 
procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of such test procedures. 
EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this 
section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which 
measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating 
cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or 
period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3))
    In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must also 
determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would 
alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as 
determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If 
DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured 
efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard accordingly. In determining the amended energy 
conservation standard, the Secretary shall measure, pursuant to the 
amended test procedure, the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use 
of a representative sample of covered products that minimally comply 
with the existing standard. The average of such energy efficiency, 
energy use, or water use levels determined under the amended test 
procedure shall constitute the amended energy conservation standard for 
the applicable covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) EPCA also 
states that models of covered products in use before the date on which 
the amended energy conservation standard becomes effective (or 
revisions of such models that come into use after such date and have 
the same energy efficiency, energy use, or water use characteristics) 
that comply with the energy conservation standard applicable to such 
covered products on the day before such date shall be deemed to comply 
with the amended energy conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)) 
EPCA also states that the Secretary's authority to amend energy 
conservation standards under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) shall not affect the 
Secretary's obligation to issue final rules as described in 42 U.S.C. 
6295. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(4))
    DOE's test procedures for clothes dryers are found at 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix D. DOE established its test procedure for 
clothes dryers in a final rule published in the Federal Register on 
September 14, 1977 (the September 1977 TP Final Rule). 42 FR 46145. On 
May 19, 1981 DOE published a final rule (the May 1981 TP Final Rule) to 
amend the test procedure by establishing a field-use factor for clothes 
dryers with automatic termination controls, clarifying the test cloth 
specifications and clothes dryer preconditioning, and making editorial 
and minor technical changes. 46 FR 27324. The existing clothes dryer 
test procedure incorporates by reference two industry test standards: 
(1) The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard 
HLD-1-1974, ``AHAM Performance Evaluation Procedure for Household 
Tumble Type Clothes Dryers'' (AHAM Standard HLD-1-1974); and (2) AHAM 
Standard HLD-2EC, ``Test Method for Measuring Energy Consumption of 
Household Tumble Type Clothes Dryers'' December 1975 (AHAM Standard 
HLD-2EC). The test procedure includes provisions for determining the 
energy factor (EF) for clothes dryers, which is a measure of the total 
energy required to dry a standard test load of laundry to a ``bone 
dry'' \2\ state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Bone dry'' is defined in the DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure as ``a condition of a load of test clothes which has been 
dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, 
removed and weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10-
minute periods until the final weight change of the load is 1 
percent or less.'' (10 CFR subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's test procedures for room air conditioners are found at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix F. DOE established its room air 
conditioner test procedure on June 1, 1977, and redesignated and 
amended it on June 29, 1979. 42 FR 27898; 44 FR 37938. The existing 
room air conditioner test procedure incorporates by reference two 
industry test standards: (1) American National Standard (ANS) (since 
renamed American National Standards Institute (ANSI)) Z234.1-1972, 
``Room Air Conditioners;'' \3\ and (2) American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 16-69, 
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners.'' \4\ The DOE 
test procedure includes provisions for determining the energy 
efficiency ratio (EER) of room air conditioners, which is the ratio of 
the cooling capacity in British thermal units (Btu) to the power input 
in watts (W).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ANSI standards are available at http://www.ansi.org.
    \4\ ASHRAE standards are available at http://www.ashrae.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As currently drafted, the test procedures for the products at issue 
in this rulemaking do not account for standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, except in one narrow product class. Specifically, for gas 
clothes dryers with constant burning pilot lights, DOE's current test 
procedure for clothes dryers addresses the standby energy use of such 
pilot lights. EPCA, however, states that gas clothes dryers shall not 
be equipped with a constant burning pilot for

[[Page 974]]

products manufactured on or after January 1, 1988. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(g)(3)) As discussed in section III.C.8, DOE amends the clothes 
dryer test procedure in today's final rule to remove any provisions for 
measuring constant burning pilot lights.
    EPCA directs DOE to amend its test procedures to include measures 
of standby mode and off mode energy consumption. EPCA further directs 
DOE to amend the test procedures to integrate such energy consumption 
into a single energy descriptor for that product. If that is 
technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and 
off mode energy-use test procedure, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A)) Any such amendment must consider the most current 
versions of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 
Standard 62301 [``Household electrical appliances--measurement of 
standby power,'' First Edition 2005-06 (IEC Standard 62301)] 
<SUP>5 6</SUP> and IEC Standard 62087 [``Methods of measurement for the 
power consumption of audio, video, and related equipment,'' Second 
Edition 2008-09]. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ IEC standards are available at: http://www.iec.ch.
    \6\ Multiple editions of this standard are referenced in this 
final rule. Unless otherwise indicated, the terms ``IEC Standard 
62301'' or ``IEC Standard 62301 First Edition'' refer to ``Household 
electrical appliances--measurement of standby power,'' First Edition 
2005-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA also provides that amendments to the test procedures to 
include standby mode and off mode energy consumption will not determine 
compliance with previously established standards. (U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(C)) The test procedure amendments regarding provisions for 
standby mode and off mode in today's final rule shall become effective 
30 days after the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. DOE 
notes, however, that the procedures and calculations for standby mode 
and off mode energy consumption need not be performed at this time to 
determine compliance with the current energy conservation standards. 
Manufacturers would be required to use the amended test procedures' 
standby mode and off mode provisions starting on the compliance date of 
any final rule establishing amended energy conservation standards for 
clothes dryers and room air conditioners that address standby mode and 
off mode energy consumption. In addition, starting 180 days after 
publication of today's test procedure final rule, any representations 
as to the standby mode and off mode energy consumption must be based 
upon results generated under the applicable provisions of this test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
    DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on December 9, 
2008 (the December 2008 TP NOPR), in which it proposed a number of 
revisions and additions to its test procedures for clothes dryers and 
room air conditioners. These consisted largely of provisions to address 
the new statutory requirement to expand test procedures to incorporate 
a measure of standby mode and off mode energy consumption. 73 FR 74639. 
DOE also proposed amendments to correct text describing the EF 
calculation for clothes dryers and the text referencing room air 
conditioner industry test standards. 73 FR 74650. The proposals in the 
NOPR were addressed at a public meeting on December 17, 2008 (the 
December 2008 Public Meeting). In addition, DOE invited written 
comments, data, and information on the December 2008 TP NOPR through 
February 23, 2009.
    DOE received oral comments from interested parties at the December 
2008 Public Meeting and subsequently received four written comments. 
The principal test procedure issues on which interested parties 
commented were: (1) Establishing multiple low power or standby modes 
for both clothes dryers and room air conditioners; (2) the number of 
annual hours associated with active, standby, and off modes for the 
calculation of energy use; (3) considering an additional standby mode 
(a ``network mode''); (4) clarifying the definitions of standby and off 
mode; (5) harmonizing mode definitions and testing procedures with 
international standards, in particular IEC Standard 62301 Second 
Edition, Committee Draft 2 (IEC Standard 62301 CD2); and (6) 
integrating of standby and off mode energy use and active mode energy 
use into a single energy-use metric.
    DOE determined after the December 2008 TP NOPR was published that 
it would consider a revised version of IEC Standard 62301, i.e., IEC 
Standard 62301 Second Edition, which at that time was expected to be 
published in July 2009. DOE anticipated, based on review of drafts of 
the updated IEC Standard 62301, that the revisions could include 
different mode definitions. Subsequently, DOE received information that 
IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition would not be published until late 
2010. To allow for the consideration of standby and off mode power 
consumption in the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking, 
DOE published a SNOPR on June 29, 2010 (hereafter referred to as the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR), proposing mode definitions based on the new mode 
definitions from the most recent draft version of IEC Standard 62301 
Second Edition which, at that time, was designated as IEC Standard 
62301 Second Edition Committee Draft for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV). 
75 FR 37594. The IEC circulated IEC Standard 62301 CDV on August 28, 
2009. IEC Standard 62301 CDV contained the most recent proposed 
amendments to IEC Standard 62301, including new mode definitions, at 
the time the June 2010 TP SNOPR was issued. IEC Standard 62301 CDV 
revised the proposed mode definitions from previous draft versions of 
IEC Standard 62301 and addressed comments received by interested 
parties in response to those drafts. As a result, DOE stated in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR that the mode definitions in IEC Standard 62301 CDV 
represent the best definitions available for the supporting analysis. 
Id.
    DOE also determined after publication of the December 2008 TP NOPR 
to conduct a rulemaking to amend the active mode test procedure for 
clothes dryers and room air conditioners. As part of this rulemaking, 
DOE intended to address issues on which it requested comment in the 
concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking, discussed below. 
In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed the following test procedure 
amendments for the measurement of active mode energy consumption for 
clothes dryers and room air conditioners: (1) Procedures for more 
accurately measuring the effects of different automatic termination 
technologies in clothes dryers; (2) provisions for ventless clothes 
dryers, which are being considered under an amended energy conservation 
standard; (3) updated detergent specifications for clothes dryer test 
cloth preconditioning; (4) changes to better reflect current usage 
patterns and capabilities for the covered products; (5) updated 
references to external test procedures; and (6) clarifications to the 
test conditions for gas clothes dryers. 75 FR 37594 (June 29, 2010).
    The proposals in the SNOPR were addressed at a public meeting on 
July 14, 2010 (July 2010 Public Meeting). In addition, DOE invited 
written comments, data, and information on the June 2010 TP SNOPR 
through August 30, 2010. DOE received oral comments from interested 
parties at the July 2010 Public Meeting and subsequently received 13 
written comments. The principal test procedure issues on which 
interested parties commented were: (1) The consideration of the most 
recent draft IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition, Final Draft 
International

[[Page 975]]

Standard (IEC Standard 62301 FDIS); (2) the settings used for standby 
and off mode testing; (3) the allocation of hours to different standby 
and off modes; (4) the clothes dryer cycle settings selected for 
automatic cycle termination testing methods; (5) the inclusion of the 
cool-down period for clothes dryer automatic cycle termination tests; 
(6) revisions to the water temperature for clothes dryer test load 
preparation; (7) test conditions for ventless clothes dryers; (8) the 
consideration of the effects of clothes dryers on HVAC energy use; (9) 
the initial remaining moisture content (RMC) value for clothes dryers; 
(10) the number of room air conditioner annual operating hours; and 
(11) the consideration of fan-only active mode for room air 
conditioners.
    Test procedure amendments for the measurement of active mode energy 
consumption for clothes dryers and room air conditioners will become 
effective 30 days after the publication of today's final rule in the 
Federal Register. In addition, DOE also notes that as of 180 days after 
the publication of today's test procedure final rule, any 
representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency or cost of 
energy consumed of the products that are the subject of this rulemaking 
must be based upon results generated under the applicable provisions of 
these amended test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
    This test procedure rulemaking fulfills the 7-year review 
requirement prescribed by EPCA. At least once every 7 years, the 
Secretary shall review test procedures for all covered products and 
amend test procedures with respect to any covered product or publish 
notice in the Federal Register of any determination not to amend a test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
    DOE is also conducting a concurrent energy conservation standards 
rulemaking for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners. 
For clothes dryers, EPCA establishes prescriptive standards for clothes 
dryers, requiring that gas dryers manufactured on or after January 1, 
1988 not be equipped with a constant burning pilot and further 
requiring that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if 
more stringent standards are justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3) and (4)) 
On May 14, 1991, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register 
establishing the first set of performance standards for residential 
clothes dryers (56 FR 22250); the new standards became effective on May 
14, 1994. 10 CFR 430.32(h). DOE has initiated the second cycle of 
clothes dryer standards rulemakings by publishing a notice of 
availability of a framework document, discussed in more detail below. 
72 FR 57254 (October 9, 2007).
    For room air conditioners, EPCA establishes performance standards 
that became effective on January 1, 1990, and directs DOE to conduct 
two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1) and (2)) On March 4, 1994, DOE 
published a NOPR for several products, including room air conditioners. 
59 FR 10464. On September 24, 1997, DOE published a final rule 
establishing an updated set of performance standards, with an effective 
date of October 1, 2000. 62 FR 50122; 10 CFR 40.32(b). DOE initiated 
the second cycle of room air conditioner standards rulemakings 
concurrent with the clothes dryer rulemaking. 72 FR 57254 (October 9, 
2007).
    As stated above, DOE initiated the second cycle of residential 
clothes dryer and room air conditioner energy conservation standards 
rulemakings by publishing a notice in the Federal Register announcing 
the availability of a framework document to initiate a rulemaking to 
consider amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes 
dryers and room air conditioners on October 9, 2007 (hereafter the 
October 2007 Framework Document). 72 FR 57254. In the October 2007 
Framework Document, DOE identified specific ways in which it could 
revise its test procedures for these two products and requested comment 
from interested parties on whether it should adopt such revisions. 
Specifically, DOE sought comment on potential amendments to the clothes 
dryer test procedure to: (1) Reflect lower remaining moisture content 
(RMC) \7\ in clothes loads; (2) account for fewer annual use cycles; 
and (3) add the capability to test ventless clothes dryers. (Framework 
Document, STD No. 1 at pp. 4-6) \8\ DOE received comments in response 
to the October 2007 Framework Document that it should consider changes 
to the clothes dryer test load size. For room air conditioners, DOE 
requested input on potential amendments to the test procedure to: (1) 
Incorporate the most recent ANSI and ASHRAE test standards; (2) reduce 
the annual operating hours; and (3) measure part-load performance. 
(Framework Document, STD No. 1 at pp. 6-7) DOE received comments in 
response to the October 2007 Framework Document that it should consider 
changes to the ambient test conditions for room air conditioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ RMC is the ratio of the weight of water contained by the 
test load to the bone-dry weight of the test load, expressed as a 
percent.
    \8\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers and room air conditioners 
(Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010), which is maintained in the 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. This notation 
indicates that the statement preceding the reference was made in 
DOE's Framework Document, which is document number 1 in the docket 
for the clothes dryer and room air conditioner energy conservation 
standards rulemaking, and appears at pages 4-6 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA directs DOE to incorporate standby and off mode energy use 
into any final rule establishing or revising a standard for a covered 
product adopted after July 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) DOE is 
required by consent decree to publish a final rule setting forth any 
revised efficiency standards for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners by June 30, 2011. As result, this final rule must 
incorporate standby and off mode energy use.

II. Summary of the Proposal

    In today's final rule, DOE amends its test procedures for clothes 
dryers and room air conditioners to: (1) Use in the concurrent 
development of energy conservation standards that address the energy 
use of these products when in standby mode and off mode, as well as in 
the implementation of any amended standards; (2) address the statutory 
requirement to expand test procedures to incorporate measures of 
standby mode and off mode power consumption; (3) adopt changes to the 
water temperature for clothes dryer test load preparation; (4) expand 
the clothes dryer test procedures to accommodate ventless clothes 
dryers being considered for coverage under an amended energy 
conservation standard; (5) adopt technical changes to better reflect 
current usage patterns and capabilities for the covered products; (6) 
update detergent specifications for clothes dryer test cloth 
preconditioning; (7) update the references to external test procedures; 
(8) clarify the test conditions for gas clothes dryers; and (9) clarify 
the test conditions for clothes dryer drum capacity measurements. As 
discussed in this section, DOE is not adopting the technical changes 
and procedures to more accurately measure the effects of different 
automatic cycle termination technologies in clothes dryers proposed in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR. The following paragraphs summarize the 
amendments.

Standby and Off Mode

    In today's final rule, DOE incorporates by reference into both the 
clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedures specific clauses 
from IEC

[[Page 976]]

Standard 62301 regarding test conditions and test procedures for 
measuring standby mode and off mode power consumption. DOE also 
incorporates into each test procedure the definitions of ``active 
mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off mode'' based on the definitions 
provided in IEC Standard 62301 CDV. Further, DOE adopts additional 
language in each test procedure to clarify how clauses from IEC 
Standard 62301 and the mode definitions from IEC Standard 62301 CDV are 
to be applied when measuring standby mode and off mode power 
consumption.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EISA 2007 directs DOE to also consider IEC Standard 62087 
when amending its test procedure to include standby mode and off 
mode energy consumption. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A). As explained 
subsequently in this notice, because IEC Standard 62087 addresses 
the methods of measuring the power consumption of audio, video, and 
related equipment, it is inapplicable to the products at issue in 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For reasons discussed in section III.B.2 for clothes dryers, DOE 
adopts a definition and testing procedures for a single standby mode, 
rather than the multiple standby modes--``inactive'' mode, ``cycle 
finished'' mode, and ``delay start'' mode--as proposed in the December 
2008 TP NOPR. 73 FR 74639, 74645 (December 9, 2008). DOE also adopts 
new methods to calculate clothes dryer standby mode and off mode energy 
use, as well as a new measure of energy efficiency--Combined Energy 
Factor (CEF)--that includes energy use in standby mode and off mode. 
The standby mode and off mode amendments do not change the method to 
calculate the existing clothes dryer energy efficiency metric for 
active mode, the energy factor (EF).
    Similarly, for reasons discussed in section III.B.2 for room air 
conditioners, DOE adopts a definition and testing procedures for a 
single standby mode, rather than the multiple standby modes--
``inactive'' mode, ``delay start'' mode, and ``off-cycle'' mode--as 
proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR. 73 FR 74639, 74645. DOE also 
adopts new methods to calculate room air conditioner standby mode and 
off mode energy use and a new measure of energy efficiency--Combined 
Energy Efficiency Ratio (CEER)--that includes energy use in the standby 
mode and the off mode. The standby mode and off mode amendments do not 
change the method used to calculate the existing room air conditioner 
energy efficiency metric for active mode, the energy efficiency ratio 
(EER).
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed that standby mode 
and off mode testing be conducted with room-side air temperature at 74 
<plus-minus> 2 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), with a temperature control 
setting of 79 [deg]F. 73 FR 74639, 74646. Upon further consideration, 
however, DOE determined that, because the proposed test procedure would 
be limited to measuring a single standby mode and an off mode, the 
proposed close tolerance on ambient temperature and the proposed 
temperature setting of 79 [deg]F, which were relevant only for an off-
cycle standby mode measurement, would not be required. Therefore, DOE 
is not adopting those requirements for testing conditions in today's 
final rule.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed that standby mode and off 
mode testing for both clothes dryers and room air conditioners be 
conducted at the settings that produce the highest power consumption 
level, consistent with the particular mode definition under test. 75 FR 
37594, 37604 (June 29, 2010). Upon further consideration, however, DOE 
believes that provisions for testing in the settings that produce the 
highest power consumption level would not be representative of consumer 
usage. For the reasons discussed in section III.B.2, DOE believes the 
provisions in section 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 that specify the 
appliance be installed and set up in accordance with manufacturers' 
instructions, or if no instructions are given, the appliance be tested 
at factory or ``default'' settings, is more representative of consumer 
usage. Therefore, DOE amends the test procedure in today's final rule 
to incorporate by reference section 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 for 
standby and off mode testing for both clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners in today's final rule.
    For the reasons discussed in section III.B.5, DOE revises the 
estimated annual operating cost calculation for both clothes dryers and 
room air conditioners (Estimated Annual Operating Cost and Annual 
Energy Cost, respectively) to integrate the cost of energy use in the 
standby mode and off mode.

Amendments to the Water Temperature for Clothes Dryer Test Load 
Preparation

    The existing DOE clothes dryer test procedure requires that the 
test load be agitated in water whose temperature is 100 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 5 [deg]F. In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE stated that it did not 
have data indicating whether a different water temperature for clothes 
dryer test load preparation would be more representative of current 
consumer usage, but that if consumer usage data is made available that 
indicates a 60 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F water temperature is more 
representative of consumer use, DOE may adopt this alternate approach. 
75 FR 37594, 37615 (June 29, 2010). As discussed in section III.C.2, 
DOE believes that the cold water rinse cycle is more representative of 
typical consumer use based on the rinse temperature use factors in the 
DOE clothes washer test procedure and the Energy Information 
Administration (EIA) 2005 ``Residential Energy Consumption Survey'' 
(RECS) <SUP>10 11</SUP> data reporting the percentage of clothes washer 
cycles for which consumers use cold water for the rinse cycle. 
Therefore, DOE amends the clothes dryer test procedure in today's final 
rule to change the water temperature for clothes dryer test load 
preparation to 60 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F. This temperature is 
more representative of the clothes load temperature after a cold rinse 
cycle at the end of the wash cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2005 Public 
Use Data Files, 2005. Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
    \11\ EIA's 2005 RECS is the latest available version of this 
survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions for Testing Ventless Clothes Dryers

    In today's final rule, DOE amends the current clothes dryer test 
procedure to include provisions for testing ventless clothes dryers. 
These provisions are based upon an alternate test procedure developed 
by DOE and proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that provide separate 
definitions for a ``conventional clothes dryer'' and a ``condensing 
clothes dryer.'' These provisions also qualify the requirement for an 
exhaust simulator so that it would apply only to conventional clothes 
dryers. Further, DOE includes in the test procedure additional language 
based on provisions from European Standard EN 61121, ``Tumble dryers 
for household use--Methods for measuring the performance,'' Edition 3 
2005 (the EN Standard 61121). These provisions clarify the alternate 
test procedure developed by DOE. EN Standard 61121 is an 
internationally-accepted test standard that specifies methods for 
testing ventless clothes dryers. The clarifications require that if a 
ventless clothes dryer is equipped with a condensation box, the clothes 
dryer shall be tested with such condensation box installed as specified 
by the manufacturer. A condensation box stores condensed moisture 
removed from the air exiting the drum. The box is later emptied by the 
user. In addition, the clarifications also state that if the clothes 
dryer stops the test cycle because the condensation box is full, the

[[Page 977]]

test is not valid because the unit would not be operating as intended 
by the manufacturer to condense moisture in the air exiting the clothes 
dryer drum. In such cases, the condensation box must be emptied and the 
test re-run from the beginning. The clarifications also state that the 
condenser heat exchanger cannot be taken out of the clothes dryer 
between tests to clarify the test procedure and ensures that all 
manufacturers are testing products under the same conditions. Finally, 
DOE adopts clarifications that address clothes dryer preconditioning 
for ventless clothes dryers, as discussed in section III.C.3.

Amendments To Reflect Current Usage Patterns and Capabilities

    DOE amends the test procedure for clothes dryers to reflect current 
usage patterns and capabilities. These amendments are based on DOE's 
analysis of consumer usage patterns data. As proposed in the June 2010 
SNOPR, DOE revises the number of annual use cycles from the 416 cycles 
per year currently specified by the DOE test procedure to 283 cycles 
per year for all types (that is, product classes) of clothes dryers. 
This revision is based on DOE's analysis of data from the 2005 RECS for 
the number of laundry loads (clothes washer cycles) washed per week and 
the frequency of clothes dryer use. In addition, as proposed in the 
2010 SNOPR, DOE changes the 7-pound (lb) clothes dryer test load size 
specified by the current test procedure for standard-size clothes 
dryers to 8.45 lb. This revision is based on the historical trends of 
clothes washer tub volumes and the corresponding percentage increase in 
clothes washer test load sizes (as specified by the DOE clothes washer 
test procedure). DOE assumes these historical trends proportionally 
impact clothes dryer load sizes. DOE believes most compact clothes 
dryers are used in conjunction with compact-size clothes washers, 
however, and DOE does not have any information to suggest that the tub 
volume of such clothes washers has changed significantly. Therefore, 
DOE is not changing the 3-lb test load size currently specified in its 
clothes dryer test procedure for compact clothes dryers in today's 
final rule.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to revise the 70-
percent initial RMC required by the test procedure to 47 percent so as 
to accurately represent the condition of a laundry load after a wash 
cycle. This proposal was based on analysis of shipment-weighted RMC 
data for clothes washers submitted by AHAM and a distribution analysis 
of RMC data for clothes washer models listed in the December 22, 2008 
California Energy Commission (CEC) directory. 75 FR 37594, 37599 (June 
29, 2010). In response to comments from interested parties on the June 
2010 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that an initial clothes dryer RMC of 57.5 
percent more accurately represents the moisture content of laundry 
loads after a wash cycle for the purposes of clothes dryer testing. As 
discussed in section III.5.b, this RMC is derived from the 47-percent 
shipment-weighted RMC for clothes washers, but was derived without 
applying an RMC correction factor as required by the DOE clothes washer 
test procedure. For these reasons, DOE revises the initial clothes 
dryer RMC from 70 percent to 57.5 percent in today's final rule.

Clothes Dryer Automatic Cycle Termination

    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to revise its clothes dryer 
test procedure to include definitions of and provisions for testing 
both timer dryers and automatic termination control dryers using 
methodology provided in Australia/New Zealand (AS/NZS) Standard 2442.1: 
1996, ``Performance of household electrical appliances--Rotary clothes 
dryers, Part 1: Energy consumption and performance'' (AS/NZS Standard 
2442.1) and AS/NZS Standard 2442.2: 2000, ``Performance of household 
electrical appliances--Rotary clothes dryers, Part 2: Energy labeling 
requirements'' (AS/NZS Standard 2442.2). 75 FR 37594, 37598 (June 29, 
2010). DOE proposed to incorporate the testing methods from these 
international test standards, along with a number of clarifications, to 
measure the energy consumption for both timer dryers and automatic 
termination control dryers. The measurement would account for the 
amount of over-drying energy consumption, that is, the energy consumed 
by the clothes dryer after the load reaches an RMC of 5 percent. 75 FR 
37594, 37599 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE conducted testing of representative clothes dryers using the 
automatic cycle termination test procedure proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR; however, the test results showed that all of the clothes dryers 
tested significantly over-dried the DOE test load to near bone dry. In 
addition, the measured EF values were significantly lower than EF 
values obtained using the existing DOE test procedure, and the test 
data indicated that clothes dryers equipped with automatic termination 
controls were less efficient than timer dryers. DOE believes the test 
procedure amendments for automatic cycle termination proposed in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR do not adequately measure the energy consumption of 
clothes dryers equipped with such systems using the test load specified 
in the DOE test procedure. DOE believes that clothes dryers with 
automatic termination sensing control systems, which infer the RMC of 
the load from the properties of the exhaust air such as temprature and 
humidity, may be designed to stop the cycle when the consumer load has 
a higher RMC than the RMC obtained using the proposed automatic cycle 
termination test procedure in conjunction with the existing test 
load.\12\ Manufacturers have indicated, however, that test load types 
and test cloth materials different than those specified in the DOE test 
procedure do not produce results as repeatable as those obtained using 
the test load as currenty specified. In addition, DOE presented data in 
the May 1981 TP Final Rule from a field use survey conducted by AHAM as 
well as an analysis conducted by the National Bureau of Standards (now 
known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)) of 
field test data on automatic termination control dryers. Analysis of 
this data showed that clothes dryers equipped with an automatic cycle 
termination feature consume less energy than timer dryers by reducing 
over-drying. 46 FR 27324 (May 19, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To investigate this, DOE conducted additional testing using 
a test load similar to that specified in AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009, 
which consists of cotton bed sheets, towels, and pillow cases. For 
tests using the same automatic cycle termination settings as were 
used in the testing described earlier (i.e., normal cycle setting 
and highest temperature setting, the alternate test load was dried 
to 1.7 to 2.2 percent final RMC, with an average RMC of 2.0 percent. 
In comparison, the same clothes dryer under the same cycle settings 
dried the DOE test load to 0.3 to 1.2 percent RMC, with an average 
RMC of 0.7 percent. Thus, DOE concluded that the proposed automatic 
cycle termination control test procedures may not stop at an 
appropriate RMC when used with the current test load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, DOE believes the test procedure 
amendments for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR do not adequately measure the energy consumption of clothes 
dryers equipped with such systems. As a result, DOE is not adopting the 
amendments for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37598-99 (June 29, 2010). If data is made available 
to develop a test procedure that accurately measures the energy 
consumption of clothes dryers equipped with automatic termination 
controls, DOE may consider revised amendments in a future rulemaking.

[[Page 978]]

    DOE received comments in response to the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it 
should revise the definition of ``automatic termination control'' in 
the current clothes dryer test procedure. Commenters felt the 
definition should more clearly account for electronic controls by 
specifying that a preferred automatic termination control setting can 
also be indicated by any other visual indicator (in addition to a mark 
or detent). DOE agrees this clarification should be added and is 
amending the definition of ``automatic termination control'' in the 
clothes dryer test procedure to include it.
    DOE also received comments stating that the field-use factor for 
clothes dryers with automatic cycle termination applied in the per-
cycle energy consumption calculation excludes sensing technologies that 
do not meet the definitions of ``temperature sensing control'' or 
``moisture sensing control,'' which are narrowly defined to require 
that the control system use either a temperature sensor that monitors 
the exhaust air or a moisture sensor contained within the drum. DOE 
believes the definition of ``automatic termination control'' more 
broadly applies to any sensing system that monitors either the dryer 
load temperature or its moisture content and that this definition would 
not limit the emergence of any new sensor technologies that monitor the 
moisture content or temperature in other ways from applying the field 
use factor for automatic cycle termination. For these reasons, DOE 
amends the test procedure to specify that the field use factor applies 
to clothes dryers that meet the requirements for the definitions of 
``automatic termination control.''

Other Changes

    For clothes dryers, DOE also revises the detergent specifications 
for test cloth preconditioning to update the detergent specified in the 
test procedure, eliminates an unnecessary reference to an obsolete 
industry clothes dryer test standard, and amends the test conditions 
for gas clothes dryers to specify the required gas supply pressure.
    DOE also received comments related to clothes dryers from 
interested parties on issues not addressed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 
Commenters suggested that DOE clarify the provisions for the 
measurement of drum capacity to specify that the clothes dryer's rear 
drum surface be supported on a platform scale to ``prevent deflection 
of the drum surface * * *'' instead of ``prevent deflection of the 
dryer.'' As discussed in section III.C.10.e, DOE agrees with these 
comments and adopts that provision in today's final rule. In addition, 
DOE received comments in response to the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it 
should expressly state the equations for EF and CEF in the test 
procedure to provide optimal clarity for the regulated industry. DOE 
agrees with comments that the equations for EF and CEF should be 
included in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 for completeness. 
Therefore, DOE amends the clothes dryer test procedure in today's final 
rule to include those calculations and to clarify in 10 CFR part 
430.23(d)(2) and (3) that the EF and CEF must be determined in 
accordance with the appropriate sections in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D1.
    For room air conditioners, DOE updates the references in its 
current room air conditioner test procedure to incorporate the most 
recent ANSI and ASHRAE test standards--ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-R2008, ``Room 
Air Conditioners,'' (ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-R2008) and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
16-1983 (RA 2009) ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners 
and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners'' (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 
(RA 2009)). DOE has also determined that the 750 annual operating hours 
specified by the current DOE test procedure is representative of 
current usage patterns, based upon its interpretation of data from the 
2005 RECS. Therefore, DOE is not amending the annual usage hours 
specified by the current DOE test procedure for room air conditioners.
    As noted in section I, EPCA requires that DOE determine to what 
extent, if any, test procedure amendments would alter the measured 
energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the 
existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that 
the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a 
covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation 
standard. In determining the amended energy conservation standard, DOE 
must measure, pursuant to the amended test procedure, the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or water use (as applicable) of a 
representative sample of covered products that minimally comply with 
the existing standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(C), EPCA provides that amendments to the test procedures 
that include standby mode and off mode energy consumption will not 
determine compliance with previously established standards. (U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(C))
    These amended clothes dryer and room air conditioner test 
procedures are effective 30 days after the publication of today's final 
rule in the Federal Register. Because the amendments to the test 
procedures for measuring standby mode and off mode energy consumption 
do not alter the existing measures of energy consumption or efficiency 
for clothes dryers and room air conditioners, the amendments do not 
affect a manufacturer's ability to comply with current energy 
conservation standards. Manufacturers will not be required to use the 
amended test procedures' standby mode and off mode provisions until the 
mandatory compliance date of any amended clothes dryer and room air 
conditioner energy conservation standards. All representations related 
to standby mode and off mode energy consumption of both clothes dryers 
and room air conditioners made 180 days after the publication of 
today's final rule must be based upon the standby and off mode 
requirements of the amended test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) DOE 
examines how each of the amendments to the active mode provisions in 
its clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedures in today's 
final rule will affect the measured efficiency of products in section 
IV.

III. Discussion

A. Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes

    Today's amendments to DOE's clothes dryer test procedure cover both 
electric and gas clothes dryers, DOE defines a clothes dryer to mean a 
cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum 
with forced air circulation, with blower(s) driven by an electric 
motor(s) and either gas or electricity as the heat source.
    Porticos Inc. (Porticos) commented in response to the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR that DOE's definition for an electric clothes dryer excludes 
every possible alternative from consideration. Porticos stated that any 
alternate innovative clothes dryer technology, such as microwave, 
radio-frequency, vacuum, desiccant, and vapor-compression, would not 
meet the current electric clothes dryer definition, and direct 
comparisons would not be possible. Porticos commented that a better 
definition would be ``an electrical appliance for drying clothes'' and 
that any more limiting verbiage serves only to exclude new entrants 
from the marketplace. (Porticos, No. 23 at p. 1) Porticos also 
commented that DOE should reexamine the test procedures to remove any 
explicit or implicit reference to a particular technology or

[[Page 979]]

approach to clothes drying. (Porticos, No. 23 at p. 2)
    DOE notes that the definition of a clothes dryer in the CFR does 
not prohibit other products (that is, those that do not fall under the 
definition of a clothes dryer) from being introduced to the market. For 
example, spin dryers or drying cabinets that do not use a heat source, 
forced air circulation, or a tumble-type drum are currently 
commercially available. Under the product definition suggested by 
Porticos, DOE notes that blow dryers, fans, or heat lamps could be 
considered covered products. DOE is also not aware of any commercially 
available microwave, radio-frequency, vacuum, desiccant, or vapor-
compression clothes dryers. As a result, no data is available by which 
DOE could develop standards for such dryers. For these reasons, DOE is 
not revising the definition of a clothes dryer in today's final rule.
    DOE's regulations define a room air conditioner as a consumer 
product which is powered by a single-phase electric current and which 
is an encased assembly designed as a unit for mounting in a window or 
through the wall for the purpose of providing delivery of conditioned 
air to an enclosed space. It includes a prime source of refrigeration 
and may include a means for ventilating and heating. It does not 
include packaged terminal air conditioners.\13\ This definition and the 
amendments discussed below cover room air conditioners designed for 
single- or double-hung windows with or without louvered sides and with 
or without reverse cycle, as well as casement-slider and casement-only 
window-type room air conditioners. DOE is not changing the definition 
for room air conditioners in today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DOE's regulations define a packaged terminal air 
conditioner as a wall sleeve and a separate encased combination of 
heating and cooling assemblies specified by the builder and intended 
for mounting through the wall. It includes a prime source of 
refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and 
heating availability energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clothes Dryer and Room Air Conditioner Standby Mode and Off Mode 
Test Procedures

1. Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard 62301 for Measuring Standby 
Mode and Off Mode Power in Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners
    As noted in the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE considered, pursuant to 
EPCA, the most current versions of IEC Standard 62301 and IEC Standard 
62087 for measuring power consumption in standby mode and off mode. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 73 FR 74639, 74643-44 (December 9, 2008).\14\ 
DOE noted that IEC Standard 62301 provides for measuring standby power 
in electrical appliances, including clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners, and, therefore, is applicable to the proposed amendments 
to the clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedures. 73 FR 
74643-44 (December 9, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DOE notes that IEC Standard 62087 specifies methods of 
measuring the power consumption of TV receivers, videocassette 
recorders (VCRs), set top boxes, audio equipment, and multi-function 
equipment for consumer use. IEC Standard 62087 does not include 
measurement for the power consumption of electrical appliances such 
as clothes dryers and room air conditioners. Therefore, IEC Standard 
62087 is not applicable to the amendments to the clothes dryer and 
room air conditioner test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to incorporate by 
reference into the DOE test procedures for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners specific clauses from IEC Standard 62301 for measuring 
standby mode and off mode power: from section 4 (``General conditions 
for measurements''); paragraph 4.2, ``Test room''; paragraph 4.4, 
``Supply voltage waveform''; and paragraph 4.5, ``Power measurement 
accuracy''; as well as from section 5 (``Measurements''); paragraph 
5.1, ``General''; and paragraph 5.3, ``Procedure.'' DOE also proposed 
to reference these same provisions in the DOE test procedure for room 
air conditioners, as well as section 4, paragraph 4.3, ``Power 
supply.'' 73 FR 74639, 74644 (December 9, 2008).
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE noted that EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A)) requires that in developing any amended test 
procedures, DOE consider the most current version of IEC Standard 
62301. The IEC is currently developing an updated version of this 
standard, IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition. 73 FR 74639, 74644 
(December 9, 2008). At the time of publication of the December 2008 TP 
NOPR, however, IEC Standard 62301 was the ``current version, which DOE 
was required by EPCA to consider. DOE incorporated sections from IEC 
Standard 62301 in the proposed amendments to the test procedure in the 
December 2008 TP NOPR. 73 FR 74639, 74644 (December 9, 2008).
    DOE did not receive any objections to the proposed testing methods 
and procedures referenced in IEC Standard 62301 in response to the 
December 2008 TP NOPR. As a result, the June 2010 TP SNOPR did not 
affect DOE's proposal in the December 2008 TP NOPR to incorporate by 
reference the clauses presented above from IEC Standard 62301. 75 FR 
37594, 37602 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE anticipated, based on review of draft versions of IEC Standard 
62301 Second Edition, that the revisions to IEC Standard 62301 could 
include different mode definitions. DOE received information, however, 
that IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition would not be available until 
late 2010. To allow for consideration of standby and off mode power 
consumption in the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking, 
DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR the new mode definitions from 
the most recent draft version of IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition, IEC 
Standard 62301 CDV. The definitions of standby mode, off mode, and 
active mode in IEC Standard 62301 CDV expand upon the EPCA mode 
definitions and provide additional guidance as to which functions are 
associated with each mode. 75 FR 37594, 37602 (June 29, 2010). The 
comments received by IEC on IEC Standard 62301 CD2, and the resulting 
amended mode definitions proposed in IEC Standard 62301 CDV, 
demonstrate significant participation of interested parties in the 
development of definitions that represent a substantial improvement 
over those in IEC Standard 62301. Id. These definitions are discussed 
in detail in Section III.B.2.
    In response to the June 2010 TP SNOPR, AHAM, Alliance Laundry 
Systems (ALS), and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) commented in 
support of referencing the most recent draft version of IEC Standard 
62301 Second Edition, designated as IEC Standard 62301 FDIS, for test 
methods and mode definitions rather than IEC Standard 62301 First 
Edition and IEC Standard 62301 CDV. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 20 at pp. 18, 26-27; AHAM, No. 27 at p. 2; ALS, No. 24 at p. 1; 
Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1)
    AHAM and Whirlpool commented that IEC Standard 62301 FDIS will soon 
be formally adopted by IEC, and it contains a number of clarifications 
to the definitions and test procedures not present in IEC Standard 
62301 CDV. According to AHAM and Whirlpool, this will allow for optimum 
international harmonization, giving clarity and consistency to the 
regulated community and decreasing testing burden. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
2; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1) Additionally, AHAM commented that no 
technical edits can be made to the standard after the FDIS version, so 
most countries allow a legal reference to this version. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 14-15)
    AHAM commented that IEC Standard 62031 FDIS incorporates comments 
from energy efficiency advocates,

[[Page 980]]

including the addition of an uncertainty power measurement section that 
would limit the possibility for different measurement results from 
different test labs. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 
16, 18, 26-27) AHAM also noted that IEC Standard 62301 FDIS includes a 
new sampling measurement method and an average reading measurement 
method. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 13-18) AHAM 
commented that if DOE chooses not to adopt the IEC Standard 62301 FDIS, 
AHAM supports the use of IEC Standard 62301 CDV as the main referenced 
document. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 2) Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), Southern California 
Edison (SCE), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (hereafter 
``the California Utilities/NRDC''), stated in a jointly filed comment 
that they support harmonization with international standards and 
support the use of the definitions and test procedures in IEC Standard 
62301 CDV. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 2)
    According to publicly available information, the IEC currently 
anticipates that the final version of IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition 
will likely be published in early 2011. Therefore, the second edition 
is not available for DOE's consideration or incorporation by reference. 
DOE is aware that there are significant differences between IEC 
Standard 62301 First Edition and IEC Standard 62301 FDIS, which is the 
latest draft version of IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition. DOE notes 
that these changes in methodology were first introduced only at the IEC 
Standard 62301 FDIS stage. These changes have not been the subject of 
significant comment from interested parties, nor has DOE had the 
opportunity to conduct a thorough analysis of those provisions. 
Consequently, the merits of these latest changes have not been fully 
vetted to demonstrate that they are preferable to the existing 
methodological provisions in the current version of the IEC standard. 
For these reasons, DOE has decided to base the test procedure 
amendments (other than the mode definitions, which are discussed in 
Section III.B.2) on the provisions of IEC Standard 62301 First Edition. 
DOE based the mode definitions on the language from IEC Standard 62301 
CDV to address specific concerns raised by interested parties, as 
discussed above in this section. As discussed in section III.B.2, DOE 
notes that the mode definitions in IEC Standard 62301 CDV are 
essentially the same as the definitions provided in IEC Standard 62301 
FDIS, with only minor editorial changes.
    For the reasons discussed above and in the December 2008 NOPR and 
June 2010 SNOPR, DOE amends its test procedures for clothes dryers and 
room air conditioners in today's final rule to incorporate by reference 
the clauses from IEC Standard 62301 First Edition and the mode 
definitions from IEC Standard 62301 CDV. 73 FR 74639 (December 9, 
2008); 75 FR 37594, 37602 (June 29, 2010). DOE may consider 
incorporating by reference clauses from IEC Standard 62301 Second 
Edition when that version has been published.
2. Determination of Modes To Be Incorporated

December 2008 TP NOPR

    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate into the 
clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedure the definitions 
of ``active mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off mode'' specified by 
EPCA. 73 FR 74639, 74644 (December 9, 2008). EPCA defines ``active 
mode'' as ``the condition in which an energy-using product --
    (I) Is connected to a main power source;
    (II) has been activated; and
    (III) provides 1 or more main functions.''

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(i))

    EPCA defines ``standby mode'' as ``the condition in which an 
energy-using product--
    (I) Is connected to a main power source; and
    (II) offers 1 or more of the following user-oriented or protective 
functions:
    (aa) To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other 
functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including remote 
control), internal sensor, or timer.
    (bb) Continuous functions, including information or status displays 
(including clocks) or sensor-based functions.''

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) This definition differs from IEC 
Standard 62301 First Edition, which defines standby mode as the 
``lowest power consumption mode which cannot be switched off 
(influenced) by the user and that may persist for an indefinite time 
when an appliance is connected to the main electricity supply and used 
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.'' The EPCA 
definition permits the inclusion of multiple standby modes.

    EPCA defines ``off mode'' as ``the condition in which an energy-
using product--
    (I) Is connected to a main power source; and
    (II) is not providing any standby mode or active mode function.'' 
\15\

    \15\ DOE notes that some features that provide consumer utility, 
such as displays and remote controls, are associated with standby 
mode and not off mode. A clothes dryer or room air conditioner is 
considered to be in ``off mode'' if it is plugged in to a main power 
source, is not being used for an active function such as drying 
clothing or providing cooling, and is consuming power for features 
other than a display, controls (including a remote control), or 
sensors required to reactivate it from a low power state. For 
example, a clothes dryer with mechanical controls and no display or 
continuously-energized moisture sensor, but that consumes power for 
components such as a power supply when the unit was not activated, 
would be considered to be in off mode when not providing an active 
function. For room air conditioners, a unit with mechanical controls 
and no display or remote control but with a power supply that 
consumes energy could be considered to be in off mode while not 
providing an active function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))

    DOE recognized, however, that the EPCA definitions for ``active 
mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off mode'' were developed to be broadly 
applicable for many energy-using products. For specific products with 
multiple functions, these broad definitions could lead to certain 
features being considered part of standby mode or off mode instead of 
active mode depending on the interpretation of the meaning of ``main 
functions.'' 73 FR 74639, 74644-45 (December 9, 2008). As a result, DOE 
further proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to amend the clothes 
dryer and room air conditioner test procedures to clarify the range of 
main functions that would be classified as active mode functions and 
clarify standby and off mode definitions as follows:
    For clothes dryers--
    ``Active mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is 
performing the main function of tumbling the clothing with or without 
heated or unheated forced air circulation to remove moisture from the 
clothing and/or remove or prevent wrinkling of the clothing;
    ``Inactive mode'' means a standby mode other than delay start mode 
or cycle finished mode that facilitates the activation of active mode 
by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer, 
or provides continuous status display;
    ``Cycle finished mode'' means a standby mode that provides 
continuous status display following operation in active mode;
    ``Delay start mode'' means a standby mode that facilitates the 
activation of active mode by timer; and

[[Page 981]]

    ``Off mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is not 
performing any active or standby function. 73 FR 74645.
    For room air conditioners--
    ``Active mode'' means a mode in which the room air conditioner is 
performing the main function of cooling or heating the conditioned 
space, or circulating air through activation of its fan or blower, with 
or without energizing active air-cleaning components or devices such as 
ultraviolet (UV) radiation, electrostatic filters, ozone generators, or 
other air-cleaning devices;
    ``Inactive mode'' means a standby mode other than delay start mode 
or off-cycle mode that facilitates the activation of active mode by 
remote switch (including remote control) or internal sensor or provides 
continuous status display;
    ``Delay start mode'' means a standby mode in which activation of an 
active mode is facilitated by a timer;
    ``Off-cycle mode'' means a standby mode in which the room air 
conditioner: (1) Has cycled off its main function by thermostat or 
temperature sensor; (2) does not have its fan or blower operating; and 
(3) will reactivate the main function according to the thermostat or 
temperature sensor signal; and
    ``Off mode'' means a mode in which a room air conditioner is not 
performing any active or standby function. 73 FR 74645.

June 2010 TP SNOPR and Today's Final Rule--Active Mode.

    As discussed in section III.B.1, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR to amend the DOE clothes dryer and room air conditioner test 
procedures to define active mode as a mode that ``includes product 
modes where the energy using product is connected to a mains power 
source, has been activated and provides one or more main functions'' 75 
FR 37594, 37603 (June 29, 2010). The definition of active mode proposed 
in the June 2010 TP SNOPR is the same as the definition proposed for 
the December 2008 TP NOPR, with minor editorial changes to conform with 
the definition in IEC Standard 62301 CDV. 73 FR 74639, 74644 (December 
9, 2008). DOE noted that IEC Standard 62301 CD2 provided additional 
clarification that ``delay start mode is a one off user initiated short 
duration function that is associated with an active mode.'' (IEC 
Standard 62301 CD2, section 3.8) IEC Standard 62301 CDV removed this 
clarification; however, in response to comments on IEC Standard 62301 
CD2 that led to IEC Standard 62301 CDV, IEC states that delay start 
mode is a one off function of limited duration.\16\ DOE inferred this 
to mean that delay start mode would not be considered a standby mode, 
although no conclusion is made as to whether it would be considered 
part of active mode. 75 FR 37594, 37603 (June 29, 2010). Delay start 
mode is discussed later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Compilation of comments on 59/523/CD: IEC 62301 Ed 2.0: 
Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power.'' 
August 7, 2009. p. 6. IEC Standards are available online at http://www.iec.ch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in section III.B.1, the California Utilities/
NRDC commented that it supports the use of the mode definitions in IEC 
Standard 62301 CDV. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 2) Also 
discussed above in section III.B.1, AHAM and Whirlpool supported the 
use of the mode definitions in IEC Standard 62301 FDIS. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 18; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 2; Whirlpool, 
No. 27 at p. 1) DOE notes that the definition of active mode in IEC 
Standard 62301 FDIS is essentially the same as the definition provided 
in IEC Standard 62301 CDV, with only minor editorial changes. For the 
reasons stated above, DOE is adopting in today's final rule the active 
mode definition proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE did not change the additional 
clarifications discussed above for the range of main functions that 
would be classified as active mode functions, which were proposed in 
the December 2008 TP NOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37603 (June 29, 2010). DOE did 
not receive any comments objecting to the clarifications for the range 
of main functions that would be classified as active mode functions for 
each product. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, DOE adopts the 
amendments to clarify the range of main functions that would be 
classified as active mode functions as proposed in the December 2008 TP 
NOPR. Id.
    For clothes dryers, DOE also investigated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR 
whether certain operating cycles providing a steam function should be 
covered under active mode, and whether measurement of energy 
consumption for such cycles should be incorporated into the DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure. 75 FR 37594, 37603 (June 29, 2010). The current 
DOE test procedure does not contain any provisions that would account 
for the energy and water use of steam cycles. DOE's analysis of a 
preliminary market survey of products available on the market conducted 
for the June 2010 TP SNOPR suggests that, at this time, steam cycles 
represent a very small fraction of overall product use nationwide. DOE 
also stated that it is unaware of energy and water consumption or 
consumer usage data with respect to steam. For these reasons, DOE did 
not propose amendments to include measurement of steam cycles for 
clothes dryers in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. Id. DOE did not receive any 
comments regarding the determination to not include measurement of 
steam cycles for clothes dryers. For these reasons, DOE is not amending 
its clothes dryer test procedure to include measurement of steam 
cycles.

June 2010 TP SNOPR and Today's Final Rule--Standby Mode

    As discussed in section III.B.1, DOE proposed in the June 2010 
SNOPR to amend the DOE test procedure for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners to define standby mode based on the definitions provided 
in IEC Standard 62301 CDV. 75 FR 37604. DOE proposed to define standby 
mode as a mode that ``includes any product modes where the energy using 
product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of 
the following user oriented or protective functions which may persist 
for an indefinite time: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The actual language for the standby mode definition in IEC 
Standard 62301 CDV describes `` * * * user oriented or protective 
functions which usually persist'' rather than ``* * * user oriented 
or protective functions which may persist for an indefinite time.'' 
DOE notes, however, that section 5.1 of IEC Standard 62301 CDV 
states that ``a mode is considered persistent where the power level 
is constant or where there are several power levels that occur in a 
regular sequence for an indefinite period of time.'' DOE believes 
that the proposed language, which was originally included in IEC 
Standard 62301 CD2, encompasses the possible scenarios foreseen by 
section 5.1 of IEC Standard 62301 CDV without unnecessary 
specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> To facilitate the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including 
remote control), internal sensor, timer;
    <bullet> Continuous function: information or status displays 
including clocks;
    <bullet> Continuous function: sensor-based functions.'' Id.
    DOE also proposed an additional clarifiction that ``a timer is a 
continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a 
display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g., switching) and 
that operates on a continuous basis.'' Id. This defintion was developed 
based on the definitions provided in IEC Standard 62301 CDV, and 
expands upon the EPCA mode definitions to provide additional 
clarifications as to which functions are associated with each mode.
    ALS supported DOE's proposed definition of standby mode. (ALS, No.

[[Page 982]]

24 at p. 1) Whirlpool commented that DOE should reference IEC 62301 
FDIS for the standby mode definition. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1) AHAM 
commented that DOE should define a timer function under the standby 
mode definition to exclude limited duration situations where the 
appliance is in a higher power state, for example in delay start mode. 
(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 35-36) DOE notes that 
the definition of standby mode in IEC Standard 62301 FDIS is 
essentially the same as the definition provided in IEC Standard 62301 
CDV, with only minor editorial changes. DOE also notes the definition 
of standby mode specifies that it must be a mode that may persist for 
an indefinite time, which would exclude limited duration situations. 
Therefore, DOE does not believe that any additional clarification in 
the definition of standby mode is necessary. For these reasons, DOE is 
adopting in today's final rule the standby mode definition proposed in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37604 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that given these proposed 
definitions, delay start mode and cycle-finished mode for clothes 
dryers and delay start mode and off-cycle mode for room air 
conditioners are not modes that persist for an indefinite time, and 
would therefore not be considered as part of a standby mode. 75 FR 
37604. DOE's analysis of annual energy use in specific clothes dryer 
and room air conditioner modes presented in the December 2008 TP NOPR 
showed that delay start mode and cycle-finished mode for clothes 
dryers, and delay start mode and off-cycle mode for room air 
conditioners, each represent a negligible portion (0.1 percent or less) 
of the annual energy use for those products. 73 FR 74639, 74647, 74649 
(December 9, 2008). Therefore, an integrated energy efficiency metric 
for either clothes dryers or room air conditioners would not be 
measurably affected by the exclusion of the energy use in any of these 
modes. Further, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the benefit 
of incorporating the energy use of these modes into the overall energy 
efficiency metric is outweighed by the burden that would be placed on 
the manufacturers to measure power consumption in each of these modes. 
For these reasons, DOE did not propose amendments to the test 
procedures to define delay start, cycle finished, and off-cycle modes 
or to measure power consumption in delay start mode for either product, 
cycle finished mode for clothes dryers, and off-cycle mode for room air 
conditioners in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. DOE included in the proposed 
clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedures amendments in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR provisions for measuring energy consumption only 
in the inactive mode and off mode. 75 FR 37594, 37604 (June 29, 2010).
    The California Utilities/NRDC, AHAM, ALS, and Whirlpool agreed that 
delay start and cycle finished modes for clothes dryers would not be 
considered standby modes. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 2; 
AHAM, No. 31 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1; ALS, No. 24 at p. 1) 
AHAM and Whirlpool added that delay start and cycle finished modes 
should instead be considered part of active mode. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
3; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1) Whirlpool also commented that any 
function begun by the user when initiating the operating mode includes 
all power consumed until the full conclusion of that operation. 
(Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1)
    DOE continues to believe that delay start, cycle finished, and off-
cycle modes for clothes dryers and room air conditioners are not modes 
that persist for an indefinite time and, therefore, would not be 
considered standby modes. For the reasons discussed above, DOE 
continues to believe that the benefit of incorporating the energy use 
of these modes into the overall energy efficiency is outweighed by the 
burden that would be placed on the manufacturers to measure power 
consumption in each of these modes. As discussed in section III.B.4, 
however, DOE determined that the power consumption of clothes dryers 
and room air conditioners operating in such modes approximates the 
power levels in inactive/off modes. Therefore, DOE amends the test 
procedure in today's final rule to specify that all non-active mode 
hours be allocated to the inactive and off modes for both clothes 
dryers and room air conditioners. Thus, the amended test procedure 
accounts for the energy use in delay start, cycle finished, and off-
cycle modes. For these reasons, DOE is not adopting amendments to the 
test procedures to define delay start, cycle finished, and off-cycle 
modes or to measure power consumption in delay start mode for either 
product, cycle finished mode for clothes dryers, and off-cycle mode for 
room air conditioners.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that it received comments from 
interested parties in response to the December 2008 TP NOPR that the 
as-shipped factory or ``default'' settings should be used for standby 
and off mode testing. 75 FR 37594, 37605 (June 29, 2010). DOE stated in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR that provisions for setting up the appliance for 
standby mode and off mode testing should be specified in the test 
procedure. However, DOE stated that setting up the appliance in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions or in the as-shipped 
factory or ``default'' settings would allow manufacturers to ship 
appliances set in a low power mode that consumers may switch out of 
during typical standby or off mode use. Therefore, DOE proposed in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR that the appliance be set up with the settings that 
produce the highest power consumption level, consistent with the 
particular mode definition under test, for standby and off mode 
testing. Id.
    AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS objected to the proposal that the clothes 
dryer be set up at the highest energy consumption level consistent with 
the particular standby or off mode. They felt such an approach does not 
reflect consumer use, increases test burden to determine such settings, 
and lacks conformity, consistency, and repeatability across 
manufacturers. AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS commented that the clothes 
dryer should instead be set up in factory or ``default'' cycle 
settings, and that this procedure is consistent with consumer usage and 
will result in repeatable, reproducible results. AHAM and Whirlpool 
stated that should there be no indicators for the default settings, the 
appliance should be tested as shipped. AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS stated 
that such an approach would ensure uniformity among the different 
laboratories that may run the test. They also stated that DOE's 
proposal would introduce unnecessary variability into the test and add 
to the test burden because manufacturers would need to run several 
tests on every model to determine which cycle is the highest-energy 
cycle. (AHAM, No. 31 at pp. 4-5; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1; ALS, No. 24 
at pp. 1-2) Whirlpool added that repeatable results are of increasing 
importance for verification processes. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1)
    AHAM commented that incentivizing manufacturers to ship products 
with the lowest power settings is a better way to save energy than 
shipping with the highest power settings, because most consumers do not 
change the settings. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 56) 
AHAM stated that products may have provisions for the consumer to add 
or delete product functions that alter the as-shipped standby energy 
mode, and that the power consumption in these user-selected modes may 
exceed the power consumption in the

[[Page 983]]

lowest-power consumption mode. AHAM stated that the user must be 
informed as to how to make these selections and that the selection(s) 
will override the lowest-power consumption mode. According to AHAM, 
testing the appliance in the factory settings or ``default'' settings 
provides a clear and simple way to define standby mode and allow new 
functions that may be developed to be added to the appropriate mode 
without requiring the test procedure be revised. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 3)
    The California Utilities/NRDC supported DOE's proposed approach to 
use the settings that produce the highest power consumption for standby 
and off mode testing. They felt this approach would remove a potential 
opportunity for ``gaming'' appliance testing and would ensure that the 
standby mode and off mode testing would measure the highest energy-
consuming combination of modes. The California Utilities/NRDC stated 
that there is no data that indicates that the factory default settings 
are uniform, or that they are typically used by consumers. In addition, 
the California Utilities/NRDC stated that DOE's proposed approach would 
standardize the standby mode and off mode testing among manufacturers, 
because how a factory default setting is used during testing may not be 
consistent from manufacturer to manufacturer. (California Utilities/
NRDC, No. 33 at p. 2) Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) also 
commented that using the default settings for testing would give 
manufacturers an incentive to ship products in a very low-power mode 
that consumers may never use because they can easily adjust the 
settings. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 55)
    DOE agrees with AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS that the proposed 
provisions for testing standby and off mode using the settings that 
produce the highest power consumption level consistent with the 
particular mode definition under test would not be representative of 
consumer use. If manufacturers were to ship products in a very low-
power mode, DOE does not believe that consumers would likely modify the 
settings so that the product is in the highest power settings, but 
would instead use what would have been the as-shipped factory or 
``default'' settings during typical standby or off mode use. DOE agrees 
that, because newer products offer more consumer related features and 
thus more display or settings configurations, requiring laboratories to 
determine the settings that produce the highest power consumption 
levels would make it more difficult to ensure that test results are 
repeatable. DOE notes that section 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301, 
``Selection and preparation of appliance or equipment,'' includes 
provisions for installing and setting up the appliance as specified by 
manufacturers instructions. Section 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 also 
specifies that if no instructions are given, the appliance shall be 
tested at factory or default settings, and where there are no 
indications for such settings, the appliance shall be tested as 
supplied. DOE believes that section 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 clarifies 
the installation requirements for standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption testing and provides additional guidance regarding 
specifications for test setup that would result in a measure of standby 
and off mode energy consumption that best replicates actual consumer 
usage. For these reasons, DOE is incorporating by reference section 5.2 
of IEC Standard 62301 for standby and off mode testing in today's final 
rule.

June 2010 TP SNOPR and Today's Final Rule--Standby Mode or Active Mode, 
Network Mode

    For the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE also considered whether it should 
adopt amendments for network mode. 75 FR 37594, 37605 (June 29, 2010). 
Section 3.7 of IEC Standard 62301 CDV defines network mode as a mode 
category that ``includes any product modes where the energy using 
product is connected to a main power source and at least one network 
function is activated (such as reactivation via network command or 
network integrity communication) but where the primary function is not 
active.'' Section 3.7 of IEC Standard 62301 CDV also provides a note 
stating, ``Where a network function is provided but is not active and/
or not connected to a network, then this mode is not applicable. A 
network function could become active intermittently according to a 
fixed schedule or in response to a network requirement. A `network' in 
this context includes communication between two or more separate 
independently powered devices or pieces of equipment. A network does 
not include one or more controls, which are dedicated to a single piece 
of equipment. Network mode may include one or more standby functions.'' 
However, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it is unaware of any 
clothes dryers or room air conditioners currently available on the 
market that incorporate a networking function. Further, DOE stated that 
it is unaware of any data regarding network mode that would enable it 
to determine appropriate testing procedures and mode definitions for 
clothes dryers and room air conditioners. In particular, DOE stated 
that it is unaware of data and methods for the appropriate 
configuration of networks; whether network connection speed or the 
number and type of network connections affects power consumption; or 
whether wireless network devices may consume power differently when the 
device is looking for a connection as opposed to when the network 
connection is actually established. DOE stated that it is also unaware 
of how the energy consumption for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners in a network environment might be affected by their 
product design, user interaction, or network interaction. For example, 
DOE is unaware of what affects might result should the network function 
become active intermittently according to a fixed schedule or in 
response to a network requirement. For these reasons, the proposed 
amendments in the June 2010 TP SNOPR did not include network mode. Id.
    AHAM commented that there are not enough products currently 
available on the market from which to gather data regarding network 
mode. AHAM stated that, in the event DOE decides to address network 
mode, AHAM does not support including network mode in standby or off 
mode. AHAM commented that network mode and the energy use associated 
with ``Smart Appliances'' \18\ should be treated as a distinctive 
energy use that enhances electrical grid system efficiencies that save 
energy and reduce carbon emissions, adding that this is consistent with 
IEC Standard 62301 FDIS. AHAM also commented that when sufficient data 
exists, AHAM would be willing to work with DOE to define where and how 
to address network mode. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4) AHAM also added that if 
network mode is considered part of standby mode, it would be a major 
difficulty in the development of ``Smart Appliances'' and the ``Smart 
Grid.'' \19\ (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 38-39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A ``Smart Appliance'' is a product equipped with network 
mode capabilities.
    \19\ A ``Smart Grid'' is an automated electric power system that 
monitors and controls electrical grid activities and is capable of 
real-time two-way digital communications between utilities and 
consumers. Information on Smart Grid is available online at http://www.oe.energy.gov/smartgrid.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool commented that network mode will become a vital mode in 
the future development of appliances capable of interacting with the 
Smart Grid, but that such products do not exist today outside of 
development laboratories. Whirlpool urged DOE to

[[Page 984]]

retain network mode as a separate mode as distinct from any other mode. 
Whirlpool urged that no standard or test procedure be adopted for this 
mode until manufacturers have sufficient quantities of Smart Grid 
models in production that comprehensive testing and measurement can 
take place. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at pp. 1-2)
    The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), ASAP, 
and NRDC stated in a jointly filed comment (hereafter the ``Joint 
Efficiency Advocates Comment'') that if network mode is a mode the 
appliance would be in at all times, it should be classified as standby; 
if it is an intermittent or user-activated condition, it should be 
considered active mode. The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment 
suggested that DOE's definition of network mode be aligned with the IEC 
definition and recommended creating a test method for network mode. 
This test method would be similar to the standby test method, but 
network connectivity would be enabled. The Joint Efficiency Advocates 
Comment stated that units could be tested without actually connecting 
to a network; simply enabling the network capabilities should be enough 
to test energy consumption while in a simulated networking state. The 
Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment recommended that DOE consider 
incorporating network mode into energy consumption ratings as the 
market for network-enabled devices developed. In the meantime, network 
mode should be tested on available appliances, and that research and 
analysis should be conducted on predicted or actual consumer usage in 
advance of a future revision to the test procedure. (Joint Efficiency 
Advocates Comment, No. 28 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that, in the absence of data on the operation and 
functionality of network mode, it is unable to define appropriate 
testing conditions and procedures for accurately measuring the energy 
use of clothes dryers and room air conditioners capable of functioning 
in network mode. This lack of data also prevents DOE from evaluating 
how these products will develop in the future. Also, because DOE does 
not have sufficient data on the operation and functionality of network 
mode, it is not making a determination as to whether network mode would 
be included as part of standby or active mode. DOE may consider 
amendments to the clothes dryer and room air conditioner test 
procedures when products capable of functioning in network mode are in 
production and commercially available. At that time, comprehensive 
analysis can determine appropriate testing conditions and procedures 
for accurately measuring network mode energy use.

June 2010 TP SNOPR and Today's Final Rule--Off Mode

    As discussed in section III.B.1, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR to amend the DOE test procedure for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners to define off mode based upon the definition in IEC 
Standard 62301 CDV. DOE proposed to define off mode as a mode category 
which ``includes any product modes where the energy using product is 
connected to a mains power source and is not providing any standby mode 
or active mode function and where the mode may persist for an 
indefinite time.\20\ An indicator that only shows the user that the 
product is in the off position is included within the clasification of 
off mode.'' This defintion was developed based on the definitions 
provided in IEC Standard 62301 CDV, and expands upon the EPCA mode 
definitions to provide additional clarifications as to which functions 
are associated with each mode. 75 FR 37594, 37605 (June 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As with the definition for standby mode, IEC Standard 62301 
CDV qualifies off mode as one that ``* * * usually persists'' rather 
than one that ``* * * may persist for an indefinite time.'' For the 
same reasons as discussed for standby mode, DOE is proposing the 
latter definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that the off mode definition proposed in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR, which is based on IEC Standard 62301 CDV, is identical 
to the definition included in IEC Standard 62301 FDIS. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 41) For the reasons stated above, DOE 
is adopting in today's final rule the off mode definition proposed in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37605 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE also stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that under the proposed 
mode definitions, a clothes dryer or room air conditioner equipped with 
a mechanical on/off switch that can disconnect power to the display, 
control components, or both would be considered as operating in the off 
mode when the switch is in the ``off'' position, provided that no other 
standby or active mode functions are energized. DOE also stated that an 
energized LED or other indication that only shows the user the product 
is in the off position would be considered part of off mode under the 
proposed definition, provided that no other standby or active mode 
functions were energized. If energy is consumed by the appliance in the 
presence of a one-way remote control, however, the unit would be 
operating in standby mode pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)). DOE clarified that the unit would be operating in 
standby mode if energy is consumed in the presence of a remote control 
that facilitates the activation or deactivation of other functions 
(including active mode). 75 FR 37594, 37605-06 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM and Whirlpool commented that they do not support including 
one-way remote control energy in the definition of standby mode. AHAM 
and Whirlpool stated that although EPCA defines standby mode to include 
activation by remote control, one-way remotes do not meet the intent of 
the statute. AHAM and Whirlpool further commented that when a standard 
remote powers a product ``off,'' the remote actually powers the product 
down, not off, such that it can be turned on again via remote control, 
and that this would be classified as a standby mode under the EPCA 
standby mode definition. According to AHAM and Whirlpool, a one-way 
remote turns the product completely off such that it cannot be turned 
on again by the remote. Therefore, a one-way remote does not put the 
product into a standby mode and should not be incorporated into standby 
mode. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 3; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at 
pp. 32-33; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1) AHAM added that there are 
currently few, if any, one-way remotes in the United States. AHAM 
stated that including one-way remotes in the off mode instead of in the 
standby mode will encourage manufacturers to design products with one-
way remotes, which could result in decreased energy use. (AHAM, No. 31 
at p. 3) AHAM also noted that a number of other governments and 
organizations consider one-way remotes as exempt from standby mode 
because such remotes save power. AHAM stated that DOE should take the 
same approach. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 33-34)
    DOE notes the definition of standby mode proposed in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR states that standby mode includes user-oriented or protective 
functions to facilitate the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including 
remote control), internal sensor, or timer. DOE believes that if the 
product is consuming energy to power an infrared sensor used to receive 
signals from a remote control (while not operating in the active mode), 
such a function would be considered part of standby mode, regardless of 
whether the remote is classified as ``one-way'' or ``two-way.'' This is 
because the function to facilitate the deactivation of another mode by

[[Page 985]]

remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer is 
still active. However, if a ``one-way'' remote control powers the 
product down, including turning off any infrared sensors to receive 
signals from a remote control, the product would be operating in the 
off mode once it is powered down, given that no other standby mode 
functions within the product are energized. Depending on whether the 
product is capable of operating in both a standby mode and off mode or 
just the off mode, the annual hours associated would be allocated as 
appropriate, as discussed in section III.B.4.
    DOE also notes that section 3.9 of IEC Standard 62301 CDV provides 
a definition of ``disconnected mode,'' which is ``the status in which 
all connections to mains power sources of the energy using product are 
removed or interrupted.'' IEC Standard 62301 CDV also adds a note that 
common terms such as ``unplugged'' or ``cut off from mains'' also 
describe this mode and that this mode is not part of the low power mode 
category. DOE believes there would be no energy use in a ``disconnected 
mode'' and therefore is not adopting a definition or testing methods 
for such a mode in the DOE test procedure for clothes dryers or room 
air conditioners in today's final rule.
3. Adding Specifications for the Test Methods and Measurements for 
Clothes Dryer and Room Air Conditioner Standby Mode and Off Mode 
Testing
    DOE proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to establish test 
procedures for measuring all standby and off modes associated with 
clothes dryers and room air conditioners. 73 FR 74639, 74645 (December 
9, 2008). As discussed in section III.B.2, DOE believes that the mode 
identified as inactive mode in the December 2008 TP NOPR is the only 
significant standby mode for clothes dryers and room air conditioners. 
This section discusses product-specific clarifications of the 
procedures of IEC Standard 62301 when used to measure standby and off 
mode energy use for clothes dryers and room air conditioners.
a. Clothes Dryers
    DOE understands that displays on clothes dryers may reduce power 
consumption by automatically dimming or powering down after a certain 
period of user inactivity. For those clothes dryers for which the power 
input in inactive mode varies in this fashion during testing, DOE 
proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR that that the test be conducted 
after the power level has dropped to its lower-power state. 73 FR 
74639, 74645 (December 9, 2008).
    As part of the residential clothes dryer energy conservation 
standards rulemaking preliminary analyses, DOE conducted standby mode 
and off mode testing on 11 representative residential clothes dryers. 
All of the units with electronic controls automatically dimmed or 
powered down after a period of user inactivity. Table III.1 shows the 
measured duration of the higher-power state for clothes dryers in DOE's 
test sample. DOE observed during this testing that the higher-power 
state in inactive mode may persist for approximately 5-7 minutes of 
user inactivity after the user interface display has been energized for 
all products tested.

                 Table III.1--Clothes Dryer Standby Mode Testing: Duration of Higher-Power State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Duration of
           Product class               Test unit        Control type        Automatic power-down?   higher-power
                                                                                                     state (min)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric, Standard..........             1  Electromechanical....  N                         ............
                                                2  Electromechanical....  N                         ............
                                                3  Electronic...........  Y                                    5
                                                4  Electromechanical....  N                         ............
                                                5  Electromechanical....  N                         ............
Vented Electric, Compact (120 V)...             6  Electromechanical....  N                         ............
Vented Gas.........................             7  Electromechanical....  N                         ............
                                                8  Electronic...........  Y                                    5
                                                9  Electronic...........  Y                                    5
                                               10  Electronic...........  Y                                    7
                                               11  Electronic...........  Y                                    7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph 5.3.1 of section 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301 specifies, for 
products in which the power varies by not more than 5 percent from a 
maximum level during a period of 5 minutes, that the user wait at least 
5 minutes for the product to stabilize and then measure the power at 
the end of an additional time period of not less than 5 minutes. 
Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC Standard 62301 contains provisions for measuring 
average power in cases where the power is not stable. In such cases, it 
requires a measurement period of no less than 5 minutes, or one or more 
complete operating cycles of several minutes or hours. Based on its 
testing results shown in Table III.1, however, DOE noted that some 
clothes dryers may remain in the higher-power state for the duration of 
a 5-minute stabilization period and 5-minute measurement period, and 
then drop to the lower-power state that is more representative of 
inactive mode. In contrast to IEC Standard 62301, IEC Standard 62301 
CDV specifies for each testing method that the product be allowed to 
stabilize for at least 30 minutes prior to a measurement period of not 
less than 10 minutes. DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that this 
clarification would allow sufficient time for displays that 
automatically dim or power down after a period of user inactivity to 
reach the lower-power state prior to measurement. DOE stated that based 
on its observation of the automatic power-down time periods during its 
testing, the 30-minute stabilization and 10-minute measurement periods 
provide a clearer and more consistent testing procedure than the 
corresponding times specified in IEC Standard 62301. A testing 
procedure using these stabilization and measurement periods would 
result in representative measurements among products that may have 
varying times before the power drops to a low level. 75 FR 37594, 37607 
(June 29, 2010).
    DOE also noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that allowing a test 
period of ``not less than'' or ``at least'' a specified amount of time, 
as provided in both IEC

[[Page 986]]

Standard 62301 and IEC Standard 62301 CDV, may result in different test 
technicians testing the same product for different periods of time. To 
ensure the testing procedures for standby and off mode are clear and 
consistent such that different test technicians test the product using 
the same procedures, DOE proposed the stabilization period be 30 to 40 
minutes, and the test period be 10 minutes. Id.
    ALS and AHAM supported DOE's proposal to require a stabilization 
period of 30 minutes and a test period of 10 minutes for clothes 
dryers. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4) AHAM commented that 
the purpose of the stabilization period is to reach a steady-state 
condition with a power state that may last for an indefinite period of 
time. AHAM stated that IEC Standard 62301 includes provisions to wait 
to reach the lowest power state without specifying a time to allow an 
accurate measurement for all products, so that all products are tested 
in the same manner. AHAM noted that this will result in some power 
consumption in the higher energy state not being measured, but this 
amount is likely to be small due to the small amount of time products 
spend in this mode. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 45-
48) AHAM also commented that a note in section 3.4 of IEC Standard 
62301 FDIS states that a transition between modes would not be 
considered a mode, and that none of the 123 countries involved with the 
IEC process commented on this note. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 20 at pp. 48-49)
    DOE agrees with AHAM's comments that any transition between modes 
would not be considered a mode. Therefore, DOE does not intend to 
include the measurement of energy consumption for any stabilization or 
transition phases when the product is powering down to a lower-power 
state. For the reasons stated above, DOE adopts in today's final rule 
the requirement that the stabilization period be 30 to 40 minutes and 
the test period be 10 minutes, as proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 
75 FR 37594, 37607 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to adopt the test room 
ambient temperature of 73.4 <plus-minus> 9 [deg]F specified by IEC 
Standard 62301 for standby mode and off mode testing. 73 FR 74639, 
74645-46 (December 9, 2008). This test room ambient temperature is 
slightly different from the ambient temperature currently specified for 
DOE's drying performance tests of clothes dryers (75 <plus-minus> 3 
[deg]F). However, the proposed test room ambient temperature conditions 
would permit manufacturers who opt to test active, standby, and off 
modes in the same test room to use the current ambient temperature 
requirements for drying tests, because the latter temperatures are 
within the limits specified by IEC Standard 62301. Alternatively, the 
proposed temperature specifications would allow a manufacturer who opts 
to conduct standby mode and off mode testing separately from drying 
tests more flexibility in ambient temperature.
    In comments submitted on the June 2010 TP SNOPR, AHAM, ALS, and 
Whirlpool supported the proposed test room ambient temperature for 
clothes dryer standby and off mode testing. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4; ALS, 
No. 24 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2) For the reasons stated 
above, and in the absence of any comments on this proposal, DOE adopts 
the test room ambient temperature of 73.4 <plus-minus> 9 [deg]F 
specified by IEC Standard 62301 for standby mode and off mode testing.
b. Room Air Conditioners
    A room air conditioner with a temperature display may use varying 
amounts of standby power depending on the digit(s) being displayed. DOE 
proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to require that test room 
temperature be maintained at 74 <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F, and that the 
temperature control setting be 79 [deg]F. 73 FR 74639, 74646 (December 
9, 2008). These conditions differ from the cooling performance testing 
conditions in the current DOE room air conditioner test procedure. The 
cooling performance test conditions are specified as 80 [deg]F on the 
indoor side of the test chamber and 95 [deg]F on the outdoor side. In 
addition, the cooling performance test conditions do not specify a 
temperature control setting. DOE proposed the different test room 
conditions in the December 2008 TP NOPR because such conditions would 
assure a consistent display configuration, and thus a representative 
power consumption, for all room air conditioners under test, 
particularly during the off-cycle operation defined in the December 
2008 TP NOPR as a standby mode. 73 FR 74646.
    As part of the room air conditioner energy conservation standards 
rulemaking preliminary analyses, DOE conducted standby mode and off 
mode testing on representative room air conditioners. During its 
preliminary tests, DOE determined that room air conditioner displays 
among the units it tested do not provide any user information in 
inactive mode. In addition, DOE determined that the displays among the 
units it tested provide indication of time delay or time until start 
rather than temperature when the air conditioners are in delay start 
mode. As a result, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the 
proposed test chamber ambient conditions would be relevant only for 
off-cycle mode. DOE also stated that if the test procedure were limited 
to measurement of inactive mode as the single standby mode and an off 
mode as discussed in section III.B.2, the proposed close tolerance on 
ambient temperature would not be required. 75 FR 37594, 37608 (June 29, 
2010). DOE therefore proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to provide 
flexibility in the room air conditioner test procedure amendments by 
allowing standby mode and off mode testing either in a test chamber 
used for measurement of cooling performance or in a separate test room 
that meets the specified standby mode and off mode test conditions. The 
proposed amendments to the room air conditioner test procedure in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR specify maintaining the indoor test conditions at 
the temperature required by section 4.2 of IEC Standard 62301 if tested 
in a cooling performance test chamber. The proposed amendments also 
specify maintaining the room ambient test conditions at the temperature 
required by section 4.2 of IEC Standard 62301 if tested in a separate 
test room. Further, if the unit is tested in the cooling performance 
test chamber, the proposed amendments in the June 2010 TP SNOPR allow 
the manufacturer to maintain the outdoor test conditions either as 
specified for the DOE cooling test procedure or according to section 
4.2 of IEC Standard 62301 for standby and off mode testing. DOE also 
noted that the indoor temperature conditions required by the DOE 
cooling performance test procedure fall within the temperature range 
specified by section 4.2 of IEC Standard 62301. Id.
    AHAM supported DOE's proposed test room ambient temperature for 
room air conditioner standby and off mode testing. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
4) ASAP questioned whether DOE has conducted any testing to determine 
if there are any differences in the power measurements between the two 
temperature conditions. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 
60) DOE is not aware of any data indicating that the ambient 
temperature would affect the measured standby or off mode power. For 
the reasons stated above, DOE is adopting in today's final rule the 
test room ambient temperature proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR for 
room air conditioner standby and off mode

[[Page 987]]

testing. 75 FR 37594, 37608 (June 29, 2010).
    Similar to clothes dryers, DOE proposed in the December 2008 TP 
NOPR (73 FR 74639, 74646 (December 9, 2008)) that standby and off modes 
for room air conditioners, other than delay start mode, be tested with 
a stabilization period of no less than 5 minutes and a measurement 
period of no less than 5 minutes for units with stable power, 
consistent with paragraph 5.3.1 of section 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301. 
In cases where the power was unstable, the provisions of paragraph 
5.3.2 would apply, in which the measurement period would be no less 
than 5 minutes or one or more complete operating cycles. DOE stated in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it does not have any information or data 
that would suggest that a 30-minute stabilization period followed by a 
10-minute measurement period would produce more representative or 
consistent standby and off mode power measurements than the times 
proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37608 (June 29, 
2010).
    DOE also noted, however, that allowing a test period of ``not less 
than'' or ``at least'' a specified amount of time, as provided in IEC 
Standard 62301, may result in different test technicians testing the 
same product for different periods of time. To ensure that the testing 
procedures for standby and off mode are clear and consistent, such that 
different test technicians are testing the product using the same 
procedures, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to require that the 
stabilization period be 5 to 10 minutes, and the test period be 5 
minutes. 75 FR 37594, 37608 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM supported DOE's proposed stabilization period for room air 
conditioners. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4) For the reasons stated above, DOE 
adopts the requirement that the stabilization period be 5 to 10 minutes 
and the test period be 5 minutes, as proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37608 (June 29, 2010).
4. Calculation of Energy Use Associated With Standby Modes and Off Mode
    Measurements of power consumption associated with each standby and 
off mode for clothes dryers and room air conditioners are expressed in 
W. The annual energy consumption in each of these modes for a clothes 
dryer or room air conditioner is the product of the power consumption 
in W and the time spent in that particular mode.
a. Clothes Dryers
    Energy use for clothes dryers is expressed in terms of total energy 
use per drying cycle. As discussed in section III.D.3, DOE has 
determined that it is technically feasible to incorporate measures of 
standby and off mode energy use into the overall energy-use metric. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Therefore, DOE has examined standby and off mode 
energy consumption in terms of annual energy use apportioned on a per-
cycle basis. Energy used during a drying cycle (active mode) is 
directly measured in the DOE test procedure, although adjustments are 
made to the directly measured energy to account for differences between 
test and field conditions.
    DOE proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to adopt a similar 
approach for measuring energy consumption during standby and off modes 
for clothes dryers. Specifically, to measure energy consumption during 
standby and off modes for clothes dryers, DOE proposed in the December 
2008 TP NOPR to adopt the current 140 hours associated with drying 
(that is, the active mode) and to associate the remaining 8,620 hours 
of the year with the standby and off modes. Table III.2 presents the 
comparison of the approximate wattages and annual energy use associated 
with all modes that DOE proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR. 73 FR 
74639, 74647-48 (December 9, 2008).

                      Table III.2--DOE Estimate of Annual Energy Use of Clothes Dryer Modes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Annual energy use kilowatt-
                  Mode                        Hours            Typical power W                hours (kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active.................................             140  6,907......................  967.
Delay Start............................            * 34  3..........................  0.1.
Cycle Finished.........................          ** 429  3..........................  1.
Off and Inactive.......................  [dagger] 8,157  0.5 to 3...................  4 to 24.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 5 minutes per cycle x 416 cycles per year.
** 5 percent of remaining time (0.05 x (8,760 - 140 - 34) = 429).
[dagger] 95 percent of remaining time (0.95 x (8,760 -140 - 34) = 8,157).

    DOE reviewed comments from interested parties on the December 2008 
TP NOPR and stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that under the proposed 
definitions of standby and off modes, the allocation of annual hours to 
inactive and off modes is appropriate. DOE also stated that the June 
2010 TP SNOPR did not affect DOE's proposal in the December 2008 TP 
NOPR for this allocation of hours. 75 FR 37594, 37609 (June 29, 2010).
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed an alternative 
simplified methodology for allocating annual hours. 73 FR 74639, 74648 
(December 9, 2008). The comparison of annual energy use of different 
clothes dryer modes shows that delay start and cycle finished modes 
represent a negligible percentage of total annual energy consumption. 
In addition, for clothes dryers currently on the market, power levels 
in these modes are similar to those for off/inactive modes. Therefore, 
DOE proposed that all of the non-active hours (which total 8,620) would 
be allocated to the inactive and off modes. 73 FR 74648. As discussed 
in section III.B.2, DOE determined in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that delay 
start and cycle finished modes are not standby modes according to the 
proposed definitions. Because the power consumption of clothes dryers 
operating in such modes approximates the power levels in off/inactive 
modes, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it would be more 
appropriate under a simplified approach to allocate the hours 
associated with delay start and cycle finished modes to off/inactive 
modes. Therefore, and because DOE did not propose amendments to the 
clothes dryer test procedure to measure delay start and cycle finished 
power consumption given the negligible power consumption in these 
modes, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to maintain the estimate 
of 8,620 hours as the non-active hours that would be allocated to 
inactive and off modes for clothes dryers. 75 FR 37594, 37601 (June 29, 
2010).

[[Page 988]]

    ALS objected to retaining the allocation of clothes dryer hours 
proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. ALS stated that the estimates were 
based on 416 cycles per year and supported a revision to the hours so 
that they are consistent with DOE's proposed 283 cycles per year and 
other proposed cycle definition changes. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 2) DOE 
notes that the estimate of delay start mode hours developed in the 
December 2008 TP NOPR was based on the number of cycles per year in the 
existing test procedure (that is, 416 cycles per year). DOE estimated 
in the December 2008 TP NOPR that 5 minutes per cycle are spent in 
delay start mode. 73 FR 74639, 74647 (December 9, 2008). Under the 
amended test procedure in today's final rule, the number of cycles per 
year is revised from 416 to 283 cycles per year. Thus, DOE now 
estimates that clothes dryers would be in delay start mode 
approximately 24 hours per year. DOE also notes that the estimate for 
active mode hours presented in the December 2008 TP NOPR was fixed 
based on the number of such hours specified in the existing test 
procedure (140 hours). 73 FR 74646-7. DOE acknowledges that its 
estimate of the number of cycles per year has decreased. As discussed 
later in this section, DOE notes that other proposed amendments in 
today's final rule, including the changes to the initial RMC, test load 
size, and specified water temperature for test load preparation, may 
also affect cycle time and the number of active mode hours per year. 
DOE is not aware, however, of any data indicating that the number of 
active mode hours has changed and, if so, what a more accurate number 
might be. Therefore, DOE is not proposing amendments to the number of 
active mode hours. In the December 2008 TP NOPR DOE estimated 5 percent 
of the remaining hours (that is, not including active mode hours and 
delay start mode hours) would be associated with cycle finished mode 
and 95 percent associated with inactive/off modes (73 FR 74647). This 
would result in revised values of 430 hours for cycle finished mode and 
8,166 hours for inactive/off modes. DOE acknowledges that the estimates 
for hours in each standby and off mode would change based on the number 
of annual clothes dryer cycles. Because DOE is not proposing to measure 
delay start and cycle finished modes for clothes dryers, however, and 
is instead allocating those hours to inactive/off modes (as discussed 
in section III.B.2), the aforementioned revisions to the standby and 
off mode hours would not change the total hours allocated to inactive/
off mode because the number of active mode hours is fixed.
    ALS commented that DOE must also take into account the active mode 
cycle length change if DOE accepts commenters' support for testing the 
complete cycle including cool-down in the automatic termination test 
cycle. DOE's studies indicated that the cool-down in the automatic 
termination test cycle would be required to be tested on 100 percent of 
clothes dryers on the market. ALS commented that the Whirlpool-supplied 
estimate presented in the June 2010 TP SNOPR indicates an active drying 
cycle length of 20 minutes, which ALS stated is far too short if cool-
down period is included. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 2) AHAM also questioned 
whether including the cool-down period would change the number of hours 
allocated to each mode in the calculations. (AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 99-100) AHAM further commented that it could 
be difficult to assign a typical time to cool-down mode because there 
are significant differences between clothes dryers in the amount of 
time spent in this mode. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at 
pp. 100-101) AHAM also commented, however, that cycle times are very 
dependent on the initial RMC used and that reducing the initial RMC 
value and accounting for cool-down may end up equaling out to the 
current 140 hours. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 103-
104)
    As discussed in section III.C.2, DOE is not adopting the amendments 
to the clothes dryer test procedure to better account for automatic 
cycle termination that were proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 
Therefore, DOE is not amending the test procedure to include the cool-
down period as part of any automatic cycle termination tests. For this 
reason, DOE does not believe the estimates for the annual hours spent 
in each mode should be revised on the basis of the inclusion of a cool-
down period. With regard to AHAM's comments concerning the reduction in 
initial RMC and the effect on cycle times, DOE addresses how that 
amendment, along with the other amendments in today's final rule, 
affect the clothes dryer cycle time later in this section.
    ALS objected to DOE's proposal of 429 hours of ``cycle finished'' 
mode. ALS commented that while clothes dryers may include an option 
alerting the user that the cycle has finished via an alert signal 
emitting periodically for up to an hour, ALS does not believe a user 
would avoid responding to the alert for an hour each and every cycle. 
According to ALS, most users will attend their dried garments within 
only a few minutes after the end of the drying cycle, because users 
want to complete their laundry chores as quickly as they can. 
Additionally, ALS commented that users would utilize this feature for 
only one third of clothes dryer cycles if cycle finished mode is an 
option. Therefore, ALS stated that ``cycle finished mode'' hours should 
be no more than one third of the ``active mode'' hours. ALS further 
suggested that DOE conduct consumer studies on user habits for ``cycle 
finished'' mode. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 2)
    DOE analysis suggests that a cycle finished mode feature (that is, 
a status display following operation in active mode indicating to the 
user that the cycle is complete) is activated by default at the end of 
the drying cycle for most clothes dryers. For this reason, DOE believes 
consumers use the cycle finished mode feature for more than one third 
of clothes dryer cycles. In addition, DOE does not have any consumer 
usage data suggesting that most consumers attend to their laundry 
within only a few minutes after the end of the drying cycle. In the 
absence of such data, DOE maintains for today's final rule its estimate 
from the December 2008 TP NOPR that cycle finished mode represents 5 
percent of the remaining time outside of active mode and delay start 
mode. This estimate was based on a household survey conducted in 2000 
in Australia. 73 FR 74639, 74647 (December 9, 2008). DOE is not aware 
of any other consumer usage data regarding cycle finished mode hours. 
DOE also notes it is not proposing to measure delay start and cycle 
finished modes for clothes dryers and is instead allocating those hours 
to inactive/off modes, as discussed in section III.B.2. Therefore, any 
revisions to the number of cycle finished mode hours would not change 
the total hours allocated to inactive/off mode.
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to allocate the number 
of hours for the combined off and inactive modes entirely to either off 
mode or standby mode, as appropriate, if only one of these modes is 
possible for the clothes dryer. DOE noted in the October 2008 TP NOPR 
that information to guide allocation of the hours for clothes dryers 
that have both inactive and off modes is currently unavailable. DOE is 
aware of two operational scenarios: (1) A clothes dryer reverts to an 
off mode after a specified time in inactive mode; or (2) a clothes 
dryer stays in inactive mode unless the user switches the appliance 
back to off mode. DOE does not have information regarding the 
percentage of clothes dryers being sold

[[Page 989]]

that fall into these categories. Because of this limitation, DOE 
proposed in the October 2008 TP NOPR to allocate half of the hours 
determined for off/inactive modes to each of the two modes. 73 FR 
74648. Because DOE did not receive any comments or additional data 
regarding allocation of hours in response to the December 2008 TP NOPR, 
the SNOPR did not affect DOE's proposal in the December 2008 TP NOPR 
for the allocation of hours between inactive mode and off mode.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment suggested that DOE conduct 
research to determine how inactive and off mode hours are commonly 
divided up in practice for clothes dryers. The Comment stated that off 
mode usage may differ depending on the mode's ``user-friendliness,'' 
but that this is not accounted for in the current test procedure. 
According to the Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, very few consumers 
would take advantage of a ``hidden'' feature such as a small switch on 
the back of the unit. Therefore, crediting 50 percent of non-active 
mode hours to off mode would allow manufacturers to take advantage of 
the energy rating benefit simply by providing the off-mode option, 
regardless of how apparent or user-friendly the option was to the 
consumer. (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at p. 3)
    DOE is unaware of any available data for the allocation of those 
hours. DOE requested data on the annual hours for various modes, 
including the split between standby and off modes in the NOPR (73 FR 
74639, 74654) and the June 2010 TP SNOPR (75 FR 37594, 37643), but it 
did not receive any information. Therefore, in the absence of data 
indicating otherwise, DOE is amending the test procedure in today's 
final rule to allocate half of the hours determined for off/inactive 
modes to each of the two modes, for those products capable of 
functioning in both modes. If data is made available that indicates a 
different allocation of hours between inactive and off mode, DOE may 
consider revising this allocation.
    DOE recognizes that the analysis of the number of annual hours 
allocated to each clothes dryer mode is based, in part, on the number 
of annual use cycles. As discussed in section III.C.5.a, DOE believes 
that the average number of annual cycles is currently 283 rather than 
the 416 cycles specified in the current DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure. DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, however, that it does 
not have any information on whether active mode cycle times may have 
changed accordingly. 75 FR 37594, 37610 (June 29, 2010). It is possible 
that the smaller number of use cycles may correspond to the same amount 
of clothing being dried in larger load sizes and thus, potentially, 
longer drying times. In the absence of any data supporting this 
assumption, however, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR the same 
allocation of hours for inactive mode and off mode that were proposed 
in the December 2008 TP NOPR, even though DOE proposed fewer annual use 
cycles in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. Id.
    The California Utilities/NRDC generally supported DOE's calculation 
method for standby and off mode for clothes dryers and method of 
allocation of yearly clothes dryer hours to standby and off modes 
proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. However, the California Utilities/
NRDC urged DOE to reconsider its allocation of 140 hours to active mode 
for clothes dryers, particularly in light of DOE's proposed adoption of 
283 annual use cycles. The California Utilities/NRDC stated that if DOE 
assumes 140 active mode hours per year and 283 cycles per year, this 
translates to an average cycle time of about 30 minutes, but that DOE 
has not provided any data to support such an assumption. (California 
Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 2)
    The California Utilities/NRDC also stated that if DOE relies on 
Whirlpool's value of 20 minutes per cycle, then under the new test 
procedure, the number of active mode hours would be 94 hours per year 
(283 cycles/year x 20 minutes/cycle). The California Utilities/NRDC 
stated that there is also evidence to indicate the average length of a 
clothes dryer cycle may be higher than 20 minutes, and that therefore 
the assumption of 140 hours should be adjusted upwards. The California 
Utilities/NRDC added that the report by Ecos Consulting (ECOS) 
(prepared for NRDC) summarizes results for four clothes dryers tested 
under a variety of cycles, which showed an average recorded cycle 
length of 46.5 minutes, corresponding to 219 annual hours (assuming 283 
cycles per year). The California Utilities/NRDC noted that these cycles 
do not all represent the typical DOE load, but they represent a wide 
variety of potential consumer loads and modes of operation which may be 
indicative of in-field conditions. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 
at pp. 2-3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment similarly stated 
that according to the ECOS report for NRDC, the average cycle length is 
49.5 minutes for clothes dryers with automatic termination controls, 
which corresponds to 233 hours spent in active mode per year. The Joint 
Efficiency Advocates Comment recommended basing the number of hours 
spent in active mode annually on the cycle length multiplied by the 
average number of cycles per year. (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, 
No. 28 at p. 4)
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment and the California 
Utilities/NRDC both commented that DOE should try to obtain data from 
AHAM or manufacturers on average clothes dryer cycle length and average 
yearly hours. (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at p. 4; 
California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 3) The Joint Efficiency 
Advocates Comment also added that DOE should test a representative 
sample of clothes dryers to develop an accurate estimate of average 
cycle length, which could then be multiplied by the revised number of 
cycles per year to calculate the annual active mode hours. (Joint 
Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at p. 4)
    Whirlpool commented that 140 active mode hours is reasonably 
consistent with consumer use and practices, and was not opposed to the 
continuing with this known and well-understood estimate. (Whirlpool, 
No. 27 at p. 2)
    DOE first notes that it is not relying on the 20 minutes per cycle 
estimate provided by Whirlpool, for which the testing procedure is not 
specified, to estimate the annual active mode hours. DOE notes that the 
estimate of 46.5 minutes per cycle, as suggested by the California 
Utilities/NRDC and based on data from the ECOS report, uses automatic 
termination cycles with clothes loads composed of cotton towels with 
initial RMCs ranging from 70 to 100 percent. As discussed below in 
section III.C.5.b, DOE amends the test procedure to change the initial 
RMC to 57.5 percent, which will result in a cycle time shorter than 
that estimated by the California Utilities/NRDC because less moisture 
must be removed during the drying cycle. DOE also notes that the Joint 
Efficiency Advocates Comment's estimate of 49.5 minutes per cycle was 
also based on data from the ECOS report. The estimate differs from the 
California Utilities/NRDC's estimate because it included data from an 
air dry cycle with a length of 120 minutes, which would not be 
appropriate for developing an estimate of clothes dryer cycle time. 
This is because an air dry cycle would not be representative of 
consumer use. Based on the amendment to the number of annual use 
cycles, DOE notes that the cycle length would be approximately 30 
minutes (140 annual active mode hours/283 active mode cycles per year). 
DOE is unaware, however, of consumer usage data

[[Page 990]]

indicating that the annual active mode hours have changed. For these 
reasons, DOE is not amending the test procedure in today's final rule 
to revise the number of active mode hours per year.
    In summary, DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 
today's final rule to calculate clothes dryer energy use per cycle 
associated with inactive and off modes by: (1) Calculating the product 
of wattage and allocated hours for inactive and off modes, depending on 
which of these modes are possible; (2) summing the results; (3) 
dividing the sum by 1,000 to convert from watt-hours (Wh) to kilowatt-
hours (kWh); and (4) dividing by 283 cycles per year. The 8,620 hours 
for off/inactive modes shall be allocated entirely to either off mode 
or inactive mode, as appropriate, if only one of these modes is 
possible for the clothes dryer. If both modes are possible, the hours 
shall be allocated to each mode equally as discussed in this section, 
and each shall be allocated 4,310 hours.
b. Room Air Conditioners
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE stated it was not aware of 
reliable data for hours spent in different standby and off modes in 
room air conditioners. Therefore, DOE estimated the annual hours for 
standby and off modes and the relative magnitude of annual energy use 
in standby and off modes in an example for a representative 8,000 Btu/
hour (Btu/h), 9 EER unit that has delay start, off-cycle, and inactive 
modes. 73 FR 74639, 74648-49 (December 9, 2008). DOE's estimates of 
annual energy use in each mode are shown in Table III.3.

   Table III.3--DOE Estimate of Annual Energy Use of Room Air Conditioner Modes for a Representative Unit With
                                         8,000 Btu/h Capacity and 9 EER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Mode                        Hours           Typical power (W)         Annual energy use (kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Cooling.........................             750  889........................  667.
Delay Start............................              90  2..........................  0.2.
Off-Cycle..............................             440  2..........................  0.9.
Off and Standby........................           4,850  0.5 to 2...................  2.5 to 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed an alternative 
simplified methodology. Similar to the analysis for clothes dryers, 
comparing annual energy use of different room air conditioner modes 
shows that delay start and off-cycle modes represent a small percentage 
of annual energy use in the active mode, and that the power consumption 
in those standby modes is distinct from but comparable to those for 
off/inactive modes. Thus, DOE proposed adopting an alternative approach 
allocating the non-active hours as if the room air conditioner has only 
the inactive standby mode. A total of 5,115 hours would be allocated to 
the standby and off modes (8,760 x 0.75 - 750 - 705 = 5,115).\21\ 73 FR 
74639, 74649 (December 9, 2008). For these reasons, and because DOE did 
not propose amendments to the room air conditioner test procedure to 
measure delay start and off-cycle power consumption given the 
negligible power consumption in these modes, DOE proposed in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR allocating 5,115 non-active hours to inactive and off 
modes for room air conditioners. In addition, for the same reasons as 
discussed for delay start and cycle finished modes for clothes dryers, 
DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the delay start and off-cycle 
hours for room air conditioners should be allocated to inactive and off 
modes even though it has determined that delay start and off-cycle 
modes are not standby modes. 75 FR 37594, 37610-11 (June 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Multiplying by 0.75 eliminates hours associated with 
unplugged hours, assumed for half of the hours of the year for half 
of room air conditioners as described in the December 2008 TP NOPR 
(73 FR 74639, 74648 (Dec. 9, 2008)); 750 = Cooling (active mode) 
hours; 705 = Fan-only (active mode) hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The California Utilities/NRDC supported DOE's proposed calculation 
method for standby mode and off mode annual hours for room air 
conditioners. They added that lacking new data on typical room air 
conditioner operation in standby and off modes, DOE's proposed method 
of allocating hours to standby and off modes is appropriate. 
(California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 3)
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment and ACEEE both commented 
that the 705 fan-only mode hours presented in the June 2010 TP SNOPR 
should be accounted for in the energy consumption calculations. (Joint 
Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at pp. 2-3; ACEEE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 73-74) The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment 
stated that fan-only active mode could be tested by duplicating the 
existing cooling-mode test method with the exception of running the 
compressor. The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment further stated that 
there is no data to support the assumption that consumers generally run 
their room air conditioners in fan-only mode for 705 hours a year. 
Although the Joint Efficiency Advocates cannot find any data on the 
number of hours typically used in fan-only mode, they commented that 
the lack of data indicates that this mode is not used as commonly as 
assumed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. The Joint Efficiency Advocates 
Comment stated that because of DOE's allocation, their second 
recommendation is that the 705 hours be reallocated in such a way as to 
represent the current consumer usage of fan-only mode. The Joint 
Efficiency Advocates Comment also noted that due to the lack of data on 
the use of this mode, DOE should perform additional research and data 
collection. If no data collection is able to be performed, DOE should 
reallocate these hours to active cooling and/or inactive modes, which 
would reflect the lack of data supporting the average consumer use of 
any fan-only mode. (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at pp. 
2-3)
    The California Utilities/NRDC stated that fan-only operation should 
be included in active mode, but that it is not clear whether fan-only 
mode is accounted for in the proposed active mode test procedure. The 
California Utilities/NRDC stated that if fan-only mode is considered a 
portion of active mode, and if energy use in fan-only mode is measured 
in the current test procedure, then the number of hours in active mode 
should be revised to include fan-only mode. The California Utilities/
NRDC stated that if fan-only mode is considered separate from active 
mode, and DOE allocates a portion of yearly hours to fan-only mode, 
then DOE must account for the energy use in this mode and incorporate 
it into its

[[Page 991]]

calculation of CEER. The California Utilities/NRDC requested that DOE 
clarify its approach towards fan-only mode, provide a test procedure to 
measure or otherwise account for fan-only energy use, and incorporate 
the energy use of this mode in the CEER. (California Utilities/NRDC, 
No. 33, at pp. 3-4)
    Earth Justice (EJ) commented that not measuring energy consumption 
when operating in fan[hyphen]only mode would violate EPCA's minimum 
standards for test procedures (42 U.S.C. Sec.  6293(b)(3)) EJ commented 
that by proposing to ignore energy consumption in fan[hyphen]only mode, 
DOE has proposed to ignore nearly half the active mode operating hours 
of room air conditioner units. EJ added that because fan[hyphen]only 
mode accounts for such a large percentage of total active mode 
operating hours, a test procedure that ignores fan[hyphen]only 
operation would not depict ``a representative average use cycle or 
period of use'' for room air conditioners. (EJ, No. FDMS D0039 at p. 2)
    DOE understands that a fan-only active mode could include two 
different kinds of modes: (1) A mode in which the room air conditioner 
does not turn off the fan when the thermostat automatically cycles the 
compressor off during cooling mode; and (2) a user-selected 
``ventilation'' mode that does not include the cooling. DOE recognizes 
that the energy use associated with fan-only mode is not insignificant. 
As noted in the December 2008 TP NOPR, however, DOE is not aware of any 
reliable consumer usage data for hours spent in different room air 
conditioner modes, including fan-only mode. 73 FR 74639, 74648 
(December 9, 2008). DOE requested data in the December 2008 TP NOPR on 
the estimate of hours for different room air conditioner modes, but did 
not receive any such data. DOE notes that developing a test procedure 
to accurately measure the contribution of fan-only active mode would 
require additional testing and analysis to determine appropriate 
testing conditions and measurement methods for both types of fan-only 
modes described above. In addition, field use surveys of consumer usage 
patterns over multiple cooling seasons and a climate-based load 
analysis to develop an estimate of fan-only mode hours that is 
representative of consumer use would need to be conducted. DOE may 
consider amendments to address fan-only active mode in a future 
rulemaking as data becomes available. DOE welcomes information on 
appropriate testing procedures for accurately measuring fan-only active 
mode and data on consumer usage habits.
    Typically, room air conditioners with remote control can be 
controlled whenever they are plugged in; hence, these units do not have 
provision for an off mode in addition to inactive mode. However, if a 
room air conditioner allows the user to switch off remote control 
operation, such a product would be capable of both off and inactive 
modes. DOE notes that information to guide allocation of the hours for 
room air conditioners that have both inactive and off modes is 
currently unavailable. For these units, DOE proposed in the December 
2008 TP NOPR that the off/inactive hours be allocated equally to the 
off and inactive modes for such a product. Otherwise, for units that 
are capable of operation in only off or inactive mode, DOE proposed 
that all of the hours be allocated to the appropriate mode. 73 FR 
74649. In the absence of comments on or additional data regarding 
allocation of hours, the June 2010 TP SNOPR did not affect DOE's 
proposal in the December 2008 TP NOPR for the allocation of hours 
between inactive mode and off mode. 75 FR 37594, 37611 (June 29, 2010).
    Similar to the comment noted above for clothes dryers, the Joint 
Efficiency Advocates Comment suggested that DOE conduct research to 
determine how consumers allocate inactive and off mode hours for room 
air conditioners. The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment stated they 
are concerned that off-mode usage may be affected by the mode's ``user-
friendliness,'' but that this is not accounted for in the current test 
procedure. (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at p. 3)
    DOE requested consumer usage data on the split of hours between 
inactive mode and off mode if both modes are possible for a product but 
did not receive any data. In the absence of data indicating that an 
equal split of hours is not representative of consumer usage habits, 
DOE adopts in today's final rule the allocation of inactive/off mode 
hours proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. The number of hours will be 
allocated equally to the inactive and off modes for a product capable 
of both modes. If data are made available indicating a different number 
of hours spent in inactive and off modes, DOE may consider amending the 
test procedure.
    In summary, DOE amends the room air conditioner test procedure in 
today's final rule to calculate room air conditioner annual energy use 
associated with inactive and off modes by: (1) Calculating the products 
of wattage and allocated hours for inactive and off modes, depending on 
which of these modes is possible; (2) summing the results; and (3) 
dividing the sum by 1,000 to convert from Wh to kWh. The 5,115 hours 
for off/inactive modes shall be allocated entirely to either off mode 
or inactive mode, as appropriate, if only one of these modes is 
possible for the room air conditioner. If both modes are possible, the 
hours shall be allocated to each mode equally as discussed in this 
section, and each shall be allocated 2,557.5 hours.
5. Measures of Energy Consumption
    The DOE test procedures for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners currently provide for the calculation of several measures 
of energy consumption. For clothes dryers, the test procedure 
incorporates various measures of per-cycle energy consumption, 
including: (1) Total per-cycle electric dryer energy consumption; (2) 
per-cycle gas dryer electrical energy consumption; (3) per-cycle gas 
dryer gas energy consumption; and (4) total per-cycle gas dryer energy 
consumption expressed, which includes both the electrical and gas 
energy consumption for gas clothes dryers. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D, sections 4.1-4.6 The test procedure also provides an EF, 
which is equal to the clothes load in pounds divided either by the 
total per-cycle electric dryer energy consumption or by the total per-
cycle gas dryer energy consumption expressed in kWh. 10 CFR 430.23(d) 
For room air conditioners, the test procedure calculates annual energy 
consumption in kWh and an EER. 10 CFR 430.23(f)
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A), EPCA directs that the test 
procedures for all covered products be amended pursuant to section 323 
to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption, with such 
energy consumption integrated into the overall energy efficiency, 
energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered 
product, unless DOE determines that--(i) the current test procedures 
for a covered product already fully account for and incorporate the 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the covered product; or 
(ii) such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a 
particular covered product, in which case DOE must prescribe a separate 
standby mode and off mode energy-use test procedure for the covered 
product, if technically feasible.
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE explored whether the existing 
measures of energy consumption for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners can be combined with standby mode and off mode energy use 
to form a single metric. DOE tentatively determined in the

[[Page 992]]

December 2008 TP NOPR that it is technically feasible to integrate 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy 
consumption metrics for clothes dryers and room air conditioners. 73 FR 
74639, 74650 (December 9, 2008). For the reasons presented in the 
December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE proposed integrated metrics addressing 
active, standby, and off modes for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners, as discussed below.
a. Clothes Dryers
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to establish the 
following measures of energy consumption for clothes dryers that 
integrate energy use of standby and off modes with active mode energy 
use of the products. ``Per-cycle integrated total energy consumption 
expressed in kWh'' would be defined as the sum of per-cycle standby and 
off mode energy consumption and either total per-cycle electric dryer 
energy consumption or total per-cycle gas dryer energy consumption 
expressed in kWh, depending on which type of clothes dryer is involved. 
``Integrated energy factor'' (IEF) would be defined as the (clothes 
dryer test load weight in lb)/(per-cycle integrated total energy in 
kWh). 73 FR 74639, 74650 (December 9, 2008).
b. Room Air Conditioners
    In the December 2008 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to establish the 
following measures of energy consumption for room air conditioners that 
integrate energy use of standby and off modes with active mode energy 
use of the products. ``Integrated annual energy consumption'' would be 
defined as the sum of annual energy consumption and standby and off 
mode energy consumption. ``Integrated energy efficiency ratio'' (IEER) 
would be defined as (cooling capacity in Btu/hr x 750 hours average 
time in cooling mode)/(integrated annual energy consumption x 1,000 Wh 
per kWh). Id.
    DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the Air-Conditioning, 
Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 340/360-2007, 
``Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' (AHRI Standard 340/360) and the 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings,'' (ASHRAE 90.1) both published in 2007, 
included an IEER metric. This metric, also named ``Integrated Energy 
Efficiency Ratio,'' is meant to rate the part-load performance of the 
air-conditioning equipment under test. 75 FR 37594, 37612 (June 29, 
2010). Manufacturers of the equipment covered by these standards 
currently list IEER ratings in their product literature and in the AHRI 
certified product directory. This IEER metric does not integrate 
standby mode and off mode energy use, unlike the IEER metric that was 
proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR. The IEER metric used in AHRI 
Standard 340/360 and ASHRAE 90.1 was established prior to the IEER 
proposed in this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE proposed for the June 2010 
TP SNOPR to revise the name of the integrated metrics incorporating 
standby mode and off mode energy use to ``combined'' metrics for both 
clothes dryers and room air conditioners. Id.
    DOE has received no comments objecting to this proposal. Therefore, 
for the reasons stated above, DOE incorporates into the DOE test 
procedures the ``per-cycle combined total energy consumption expressed 
in kWh'' and ``combined energy factor'' (CEF) for clothes dryers and 
``combined annual energy consumption'' and ``combined energy efficiency 
ratio'' (CEER) for room air conditioners in today's final rule as 
proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. Id.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE did not propose to amend the annual 
energy cost calculations in 10 CFR 430.23 for clothes dryers and room 
air conditioners to include the cost of energy consumed in standby and 
off modes. The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment stated that DOE 
should include standby and off mode energy costs in the annual energy 
cost calculation in order to better represent actual energy costs. The 
Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment noted that minimum and maximum 
energy costs prescribed for the EnergyGuide label will need to be 
revised when new energy conservation standards go into effect. They 
suggested that the energy consumed in standby and off modes should be 
able to be incorporated into the revised minimum and maximum energy 
costs. (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at p. 4)
    EPCA states that any amended test procedures shall be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy 
use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) EPCA also directs DOE to amend its test 
procedures to include measures of standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption and to integrate such energy consumption into a single 
energy descriptor for that product. If that is technically infeasible, 
DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy-use test 
procedure, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) As 
discussed in section I, EPCA requires that all representations related 
to standby mode and off mode energy use or efficiency or cost of energy 
consumed of both clothes dryers and room air conditioners made 180 days 
after today's final rule be based upon the standby and off mode 
requirements of the amended test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) 
Additionally, EPCA requires that any revisions to the labels for room 
air conditioners include disclosure of the estimated annual operating 
cost (determined in accordance with DOE's test procedures prescribed 
under section 6293 of EPCA), unless the Secretary determines that 
disclosure of estimated annual operating cost is not technologically 
feasible, or the FTC determines that such disclosure is not likely to 
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically 
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1)) DOE understands that the FTC would 
develop any revised labeling requirements for referencing a revised 
annual energy cost calculation that integrates the cost of energy 
consumed in standby and off modes.
    For these reasons, DOE agrees with interested parties that the 
annual energy cost calculations in 10 CFR 430.23 for clothes dryers and 
room air conditioners should be amended to include the cost of energy 
consumed in standby and off modes. Therefore, DOE amends the clothes 
dryer test procedure to revise the estimated annual operating cost 
calculation to integrate standby and off mode energy use, and to 
require that the estimated annual operating cost be obtained by 
multiplying the average number of annual use cycles by the sum of the 
per-cycle active mode energy consumption and the per-cycle standby and 
off mode energy consumption and by the representative average unit cost 
of electrical energy, natural gas, or propane, as appropriate, in 
dollars per kWh or Btu, as provided by DOE. Similarly, DOE amends the 
room air conditioner test procedure to revise the annual energy cost 
calculation to integrate standby and off mode energy use, and to 
require that the annual energy cost be obtained by multiplying the 
combined annual energy consumption by the representative average unit 
cost of electrical energy in dollars per kWh, as provided by DOE.

[[Page 993]]

C. Clothes Dryer and Room Air Conditioner Active Mode Test Procedures

1. Correction of Text Describing Energy Factor Calculation for Clothes 
Dryers
    DOE proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to correct errors in 
specific references used in the current DOE test procedure. 73 FR 
74639, 74650 (December 9, 2008). In particular, the reference to 
sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D in 
the calculation of EF for clothes dryers found at section 430.23(d)(2) 
should refer instead to sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. Section 2.6 provides 
instructions for the test clothes to be used in energy testing of 
clothes dryers, whereas section 2.7 provides instructions on test 
loads. The EF of clothes dryers is measured in lb of clothes per kWh. 
Because the EF calculation requires the weight of the test load, DOE 
proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR to correct these references in 10 
CFR 430.23(d)(2). DOE did not receive any comments opposing this 
correction. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, DOE adopts the 
correction as proposed in the December 2008 TP NOPR.
2. Automatic Cycle Termination for Clothes Dryers
    DOE considered amendments to the clothes dryer test procedure to 
accurately measure the benefits of automatic cycle termination. DOE 
considered industry and international clothes dryer test procedures and 
conducted testing and analysis to develop proposed amendments to the 
definitions of product types, test load preparation, the test 
measurement cycle and settings, and the calculation of results.
October 2007 Framework Document
    In the October 2007 Framework Document, DOE stated that it believes 
that the clothes dryer test procedure may not adequately measure the 
benefits of automatic cycle termination, in which a sensor monitors 
either the exhaust air temperature or moisture in the drum to determine 
the length of the drying cycle. (Framework Document, STD No. 1 at p. 5) 
The calculation of EF in the current clothes dryer test includes a 
field use scaling factor applied to the per-cycle drying energy 
consumption to account for the over-drying energy consumption 
associated with different termination technologies. Gas or electric 
clothes dryers with time termination control (in other words, those 
clothes dryers equipped with only a timer to determine the end of a 
drying cycle) are assigned an field use of 1.18. Clothes dryers with 
automatic termination are assigned an field use of 1.04. DOE 
established the 1.18 field use factor for clothes dryers with time 
termination control in the September 1977 TP Final Rule based on 
analysis of data from a field use survey conducted by Oklahoma Gas and 
Electric Company involving 64 homes as well as data provided by AHAM on 
the measured energy consumption per-cycle under the DOE test procedure 
to account for the differences between the energy consumption 
measurements derived from laboratory test procedures and those obtained 
from actual consumer use. 42 FR 46145, 46146 (September 14, 1977). DOE 
established the field use factor of 1.04 for clothes dryers with 
automatic termination in the May 1981 TP Final Rule based on analysis 
of data from a field use survey conducted by AHAM involving 72 homes as 
well as an analysis conducted by NIST of field test data on automatic 
termination control dryers. Analysis of this data showed that clothes 
dryers equipped with an automatic cycle termination feature consume 
less energy than timer dryers by reducing over-drying. 46 FR 27324 (May 
19, 1981). Based on these field use factors, clothes dryers with 
automatic cycle termination control are determined to reduce energy 
consumption by 12 percent compared to a similar clothes dryer with time 
termination control, which consume more energy due to over- or under-
drying. (Under-drying can result in consumers running an additional 
drying cycle.) Currently, the test procedure specifies a single field 
use factor for clothes dryers equipped with automatic termination. 
However, it does not distinguish between the type of sensing control 
system (for example, temperature-sensing or moisture-sensing controls) 
and the sophistication and accuracy of the control system.
Consideration of Industry and International Clothes Dryer Test 
Procedures
    DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the benefit of 
automatic cycle termination should be accurately measured to account 
for any over- or under-drying. Therefore, DOE considered potential 
amendments to the DOE test procedure to account for automatic cycle 
termination. For the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE investigated industry and 
international clothes dryer test procedures for measuring the 
effectiveness of automatic cycle termination and conducted limited 
testing to analyze over-drying energy consumption and the applicability 
of such procedures to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure. 75 FR 
37594, 37613 (June 29, 2010). DOE reviewed AHAM's most recently update 
to its industry test standard, AHAM HLD-1-2009, ``Household Tumble Type 
Clothes Dryers'' (AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009). The update contains 
provisions for measuring the over-drying energy consumption for clothes 
dryers that use automatic cycle termination and provides separate 
testing procedures timer dryers. DOE also reviewed the international 
test standards EN Standard 61121 \22\ and AS/NZS Standard 2442.1, both 
of which address methods for testing clothes dryers with automatic 
termination sensor technologies. 75 FR 37594, 37613 (June 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EN Standard 61121 is used by European Union (EU) member 
countries. DOE believes this test standard is functionally 
equivalent to IEC Standard 61121, which is used by China, among 
other countries. Both test procedures contain identical testing 
methods and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it believes that AHAM 
Standard HLD-1-2009 does not provide an appropriate method for 
comparing the amount of over-drying for a timer dryer to that of an 
automatic termination-sensing dryer. This is because the timer dryer 
test allows only for drying the test load to as low as 4-percent RMC, 
whereas the automatic cycle termination test allows for drying the test 
load to any value below 6-percent RMC, including lower than 4-percent 
RMC. 75 FR 37613-14. If the automatic termination control dryer were to 
dry the test load to a value lower than 4-percent, the measured energy 
consumption may be greater than the energy consumption measured for the 
same clothes dryer using the timer dryer test cycle which only measures 
the energy required to dry the load to 4-percent RMC. However, as 
discussed above in this section, DOE believes that automatic 
termination control dryers reduce energy consumption compared to timer 
dryers based on analysis of data from the AHAM field use survey and 
analysis of field test data conducted by NIST. 46 FR 27324 (May 19, 
1981).
    DOE also stated in the June 2010 NOPR that although EN Standard 
61121 provides test methods to use for both timer dryers and automatic 
termination control dryers, it does not provide any methodology to 
measure the energy consumed over- or under-drying the test load beyond 
a certain RMC for each type of clothes dryer. The provisions in EN 
Standard 61121 require the test load be dried to the same allowable 
range for both timer dryers and automatic termination dryers. According 
to the test procedures in EN Standard 61121, if the

[[Page 994]]

test load for either a timer dryer or an automatic termination control 
dryer is dried to the same RMC, the clothes dryers consume the same 
amount of energy and would be rated as using the same amount of energy 
in real-world use. 75 FR 37594, 37614 (June 29, 2010). However, for the 
same reasons discussed above in this section, DOE believes that 
automatic termination control dryers reduce energy consumption compared 
to timer dryers.
    DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that AS/NZS Standard 2442 
provides testing methods and procedures that account for the amount of 
over-drying beyond a specified RMC associated with automatic 
termination control dryers by measuring any additional energy consumed 
drying the test load beyond the specified RMC. DOE also stated that AS/
NZS Standard 2442 effectively takes into consideration the accuracy of 
different automatic termination sensor technologies by not providing a 
fixed field use factor in the energy consumption calculation for 
automatic cycle termination. Because the test procedure measures the 
energy consumed drying the test load beyond the specified RMC, a 
clothes dryer with an accurate automatic termination sensor technology 
that dries the clothes load to close to the specified RMC would consume 
less energy than a clothes dryer with a sensor technology that dries 
the load well beyond the specified RMC (that is, close to bone dry). 
DOE also stated that it believes that the testing methods provide an 
accurate and representative method for comparing the energy consumption 
between timer dryers and automatic termination control dryers by 
providing methods for measuring energy use that account for over-drying 
for both types of clothes dryers. For these reasons, DOE proposed to 
amend the DOE test procedure for clothes dryers to incorporate the 
individual test procedures for timer dryers and automatic termination 
control dryers in AS/NZS Standard 2442, with modifications as 
appropriate for the DOE test procedure. 75 FR 37594, 37615 (June 29, 
2010).
    After the June 2010 TP SNOPR was published, AHAM, ACEEE, NRDC, 
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), 
ASAP, Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), Northeast Energy 
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), Consumer Federation of America (CFA), 
and National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) (hereafter the ``Joint 
Petitioners'') jointly submitted the ``Agreement on Minimum Federal 
Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related 
Matters for Specified Appliances,'' (Joint Petitioners, No. 25, 
hereinafter the ``Joint Petition'') and the ``Joint Stakeholders 
Comments On The Supplementary Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking On Test 
Procedures For Clothes Dryers And Room Air Conditioners'' (Joint 
Petitioners, No. 30). The Joint Petitioners, AHAM, the Joint Efficiency 
Advocates Comment, and the California Utilities/NRDC supported DOE's 
proposal to account for the effectiveness of automatic termination 
controls. (Joint Petitioners, No. 25 at p. 14; Joint Petitioners, No. 
30 at p. 5; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 5; Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, 
No. 28 at p. 1; California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 4) The 
Consumers Union (CU) concurred with this comment. (CU, No. 29 at pp. 1-
2, 3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment added that data presented 
by DOE show that over-drying energy consumption can be significant (as 
much as 0.6 kWh per cycle). (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 
at p. 1; California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 4) The Joint 
Petitioners and AHAM commented that if DOE decides to adopt the AS/NZS 
Standard 2442 as proposed, they request that DOE identify the specific 
sections it is adopting. (Joint Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 6; AHAM, No. 
31 at p. 6)
Product Definitions
    Based on the definitions in EN Standard 61121 and AS/NZS Standard 
2442, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to define ``timer dryer'' 
as ``a dryer which can be preset to carry out at least one sequence of 
operations to be terminated by a timer, but may also be manually 
controlled.'' It also proposed to define ``automatic termination 
control dryer'' as ``a dryer which can be preset to carry out at least 
one sequence of operations to be terminated by means of a system 
assessing, directly or indirectly, the moisture content of the load. An 
automatic termination control dryer with supplementary timer shall be 
tested as an automatic termination control dryer.'' 75 FR 37594, 37615 
(June 29, 2010).
    AHAM suggested that the definition of a timer dryer may need to 
specify that it is a clothes dryer that ``does not include any 
automatic termination function.'' AHAM commented that almost any 
automatic termination dryer is also going to have a timer function 
because of consumer demands, and this extra explanation would make it 
clear that it refers to only a timer dryer. (AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 84, 85-86) AHAM also commented that the last 
sentence of the automatic termination dryer definition should be 
modified and used to clarify the timer dryer definition. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 86) ALS also commented that it offers 
a product with both an automatic termination function and a timer 
function that uses only electromechanical controls. (ALS, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 81)
    As discussed later in this section, DOE is not adopting in today's 
final rule the amendments for automatic cycle termination proposed in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR. Therefore it is not adopting the definitions 
for timer dryer and automatic termination dryer presented above. DOE 
agrees, however, that the reference to timer dryers in the test 
procedure (in the application of field use factors in section 4, 
``Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements'') should 
clarify that clothes dryers with time termination control systems do 
not include any automatic termination control functions. DOE also 
believes the reference to clothes dryers with automatic control systems 
in the application of the field use factors should clarify that clothes 
dryers with automatic control systems that also have a supplementary 
timer control receive the 1.04 field use factor. For these reasons, DOE 
amends section 4 of the clothes dryer test procedure to specify that 
the field use factor equals 1.18 for clothes dryers with time 
termination control systems only, without any automatic termination 
control functions and 1.04 for clothes dryers with automatic control 
systems that meet the requirements of the definition for automatic 
control systems in 1.4, 1.14 and 1.18, including those that also have a 
supplementary timer control.
    The Joint Petitioners and AHAM also commented that DOE should 
revise section 1.11 of 10 CFR 430 subpart B, appendix D. The amendment 
would more clearly account for electronic controls by specifying that a 
preferred automatic termination control setting (that is, a setting 
recommended by manufacturers) can also be indicated by a visual 
indicator (in addition to the mark or detent), and would read ``* * * 
mark, visual indicator or detent which indicates a preferred * * *'' 
(Joint Petitioners, No. 25 at p. 14; Joint Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 8; 
AHAM, No. 31 at p. 11) DOE agrees a clarification should be added to 
the definition of ``automatic termination control'' that a mark, 
detent, or other visual indicator which indicates a preferred automatic 
termination control setting must be present if the dryer is to be 
classified as having an automatic termination

[[Page 995]]

control. Therefore, DOE amends this definition in today's final rule to 
make this revision.
    NRDC commented that most new clothes dryers have both automatic and 
timer termination functions, so the test procedure should test both of 
these drying modes rather than only the automatic termination mode. 
(NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 86-87) The Joint 
Petitioners and AHAM commented that for clothes dryers that have both 
an automatic termination control cycle and a timer cycle, only the 
auto-termination cycle should be tested. (Joint Petitioners, No. 30 at 
p. 6; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 5) Whirlpool commented that testing the 
automatic termination control cycle is most appropriate, as it 
represents the vast majority of actual consumer use. Although the 
majority of consumers also want a timed dry cycle, they use it only 
about 10 percent of the time. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 3) DOE is not 
aware of any consumer usage data indicating that timed dry cycles on a 
clothes dryer with automatic termination controls are used by consumers 
for a significant portion of their annual use cycles. In addition, as 
discussed below, DOE is not adopting in today's final rule the 
amendments to better account for automatic cycle termination proposed 
in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. For these reasons, DOE is not amending the 
test procedure to measure both automatic termination control and timed 
dry cycles for products capable of both methods.
Test Load Preparation
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend sections 2.7.1, 
``Compact size dryer load,'' and 2.7.2, ``Standard size dryer load'' of 
the DOE test procedure for clothes dryers, which contain provisions for 
test load preparation. The amendment would add at the end of both 
sections the following requirement: ``Make a final mass adjustment, 
such that the moisture content is 47 percent <plus-minus> 0.33 percent 
by adding water uniformly to the load in a very fine spray.'' 75 FR 
37594, 37615 (June 29, 2010). The <plus-minus> 0.33 percent allowable 
RMC range is equivalent to the allowable range specified in AS/NZS 
Standard 2442.1 (190 percent <plus-minus> 0.02 kg of the bone dry 
weight) for a 7-lb test load. DOE believes the specified range produces 
repeatable EF measurements. Allowing a larger allowable range in RMC 
would increase the range in the moisture required to be dried during 
the test cycle and result in increased variability in the measured EF. 
DOE also proposed that the procedure for dampening and extracting water 
from the test load specified in the current test procedure be changed. 
The test procedure would be changed to require that the moisture 
content of the test load be between 42 and 47 percent of the bone-dry 
weight of the test load, and would serve as an initial preparation step 
prior to the final mass adjustments to obtain a test load with an RMC 
of 47 percent proposed above in this paragraph. DOE noted that it 
proposed to use a nominal initial RMC of 47 percent based on the 
proposed amendment to change the initial RMC from 70 percent to 47 
percent, as discussed in section III.C.5.b. DOE noted in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR that if it does not adopt this proposed amendment to change 
the nominal initial RMC, it would instead propose an amendment stating 
to first prepare the test load to 65- to 70-percent RMC and make 
adjustments to the moisture content to get 70-percent <plus-minus> 
0.33-percent initial RMC. 75 FR 37594, 37615 (June 29, 2010). DOE did 
not receive any comments on this alternate proposal.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that section 2.7 of the 
existing clothes dryer test procedure regarding test load preparation 
requires that the test load be agitated in water whose temperature is 
100 [deg] F <plus-minus> 5 [deg] F. DOE recognizes that some 
residential clothes washers may use a default cold rinse cycle at the 
end of the wash cycle, which sections 2.6.1.2.1 and 2.6.3.1 of the 
current DOE clothes washer test procedure specify to be 60 [deg] F 
<plus-minus> 5 [deg] F. DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it 
does not have any data indicating whether a different water temperature 
for clothes dryer test load preparation would be more representative of 
current consumer usage habits, but that if consumer usage data is made 
available that indicates a 60 [deg] F <plus-minus> 5[deg] F water 
temperature is more representative of consumer usage, DOE may adopt an 
alternate approach specifying a 60 [deg] F <plus-minus> 5 [deg] F water 
temperature for test load preparation in section 2.7 of the DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure. In addition, DOE stated that it is unaware of how 
changes to the water temperature for clothes dryer test load 
preparation would affect the measured efficiency as compared to the 
existing test procedure. Id.
    ALS, the California Utilities/NRDC, and the Joint Efficiency 
Advocates Comment all stated that the water temperature for clothes 
dryer test load preparation should be changed to be representative of 
existing national consumer usage. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 4; California 
Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 5; Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 
28 at pp. 1-2)
    ALS commented that the water temperature for clothes dryer test 
load preparation has been lowered in response to clothes washer energy 
conservation standard changes. Manufacturers have eliminated most warm 
rinses and offer the user the option of using all cold rinses. ALS 
stated that it is reasonable to assume that today, most clothes loads 
placed in a clothes dryer are from clothes washers that use cold rinse. 
Therefore, ALS supported revising the clothes dryer test procedure to 
utilize the 60 [deg] F <plus-minus> 5 [deg] F water temperature 
specified in the DOE clothes washer test procedure for the cold water 
supply for the preparation of the clothes dryer test load. (ALS, No. 24 
at p. 4; ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 91)
    The California Utilities/NRDC also stated that lower rinse 
temperatures may be more representative of consumer habits based on 
both anecdotal evidence and consumer data. The California Utilities/
NRDC stated that 2003 California Residential Appliance Saturation 
Survey (RASS) \23\ provides data on general consumer preferences on 
cold, warm, and hot wash cycles (no data was available for rinse 
cycles). The data show there is a general trend among consumers to 
prefer warm and cold wash cycles over hot cycles. Data cited by the 
California Utilities/NRDC from the 2003 California RASS on this topic 
are presented in Table III.4. According to the California Utilities/
NRDC, although the data do not specify cycle temperatures or final 
rinse temperatures, the data may indicate a consumer preference for 
cooler wash and rinse cycles. The California Utilities/NRDC also stated 
that a 60 [deg] F <plus-minus> 5 [deg] F preparation temperature would 
be better aligned and harmonize with the cool rinse temperature 
specified by the clothes washer test procedure. (California Utilities/
NRDC, No. 33 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ KEMA, Inc. 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation 
Study. 2010. California Energy Commission; Sacramento, CA. 
Publication number: CEC-200-2010-004-ES. For more information visit: 
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/.

[[Page 996]]



  Table III.4--2003 California RASS Survey Data on Clothes Washer Cycle Selections (Provided in Comments by the
                                           California Utilities/NRDC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Cold wash       Warm wash       Hot wash
                                                                      cycles          cycles          cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cycles per Week (weighted average)..............................            1.80            2.32            0.94
Cycles per Year (weighted average)..............................           93.7           120.8            49.0
Percent of Cycles Chosen........................................           36              46              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment stated that the 2005 RECS 
gathered information about the rinse water temperature that consumers 
usually use. The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment noted that, of 
respondents that used a clothes washer in their home, 78.5 percent said 
they used cold water for the rinse cycle. The Joint Efficiency 
Advocates Comment also noted that in the current clothes washer test 
procedure, temperature use factors indicate that warm rinse is assumed 
to be used only 27 percent of the time. The Joint Efficiency Advocates 
Comment stated that anecdotal evidence shows that that some clothes 
washers are now being manufactured without a warm rinse option. In 
addition, detergent manufacturers support consumers' increasing use of 
cold wash and cold rinse temperatures, as evidenced by the recent 
introduction of detergents specifically optimized for these conditions. 
The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment encouraged DOE to change the 
water temperature for test load preparation to reflect these consumer 
usage indicators. The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment also stated 
that, at the very least, the test procedure should align with the 
temperatures used in the clothes washer test procedure. According to 
the Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, the washer test procedure 
assumes that a cold rinse is used the majority of the time. Therefore, 
alignment could be achieved by requiring a cold rinse (60 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 5 [deg]F) be used for the clothes dryer test load preparation. 
(Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, No. 28 at pp. 1-2)
    Whirlpool commented that the current load temperature is well 
documented and well understood by manufacturers and independent test 
laboratories. Whirlpool stated that any migration to a different 
temperature would require time consuming ``round-robin'' testing to 
determine the impact that such a new temperature would have on the EF 
calculation. Whirlpool commented that such testing is not compatible 
with DOE's timeframe for this rulemaking nor would it add value 
proportional to the burden required to reformulate EF. (Whirlpool, No. 
27 at pp. 2-3)
    ALS commented that it does not have any data quantifying what 
impact a different test load temperature would have on the clothes 
dryer efficiency test results. ALS stated it is reasonable to expect 
that a colder temperature test load being placed in a dryer will 
require additional energy to achieve evaporation for the moisture from 
the clothes. ALS suggested that DOE test existing clothes dryers to 
assess the impact of the load preparation water temperature change from 
100 [deg]F to 60 [deg]F. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 4; ALS; Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at p. 91) The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment 
stated that the water temperature adjustment would likely have an 
effect on measured dryer energy use. This is because warmer rinse 
water, and hence higher initial load temperature, may result in faster 
drying times and lower energy use, especially if the dryer is equipped 
with moisture sensor technology. (Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment, 
No. 28 at p. 2)
    DOE analyzed 2005 RECS data on the rinse water temperatures 
selected by consumers for clothes washer cycles. The usage data for 
consumers that use a clothes washer in the home, presented below in 
Table III.5, shows that 80 percent of wash cycles per year use a cold 
rinse.

   Table III.5--2005 RECS Consumer Usage Data on Clothes Washer Rinse
                      Cycles Temperature Selections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average      Average
                                                 cycles per     usage
                                                    year        factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Rinse.....................................        5.176        0.018
Warm Rinse....................................       53.638        0.182
Cold Rinse....................................      235.711        0.800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the DOE clothes washer test procedure assumes a warm rinse 
temperature use factor of 27 percent, and the 2005 RECS data shows that 
80 percent of clothes washer cycles use cold water for the rinse cycle, 
DOE believes that the cold water rinse cycle is more representative of 
typical consumer use. (DOE also notes that it sought comment on the 
warm rinse temperature use factor in the recent proposal to amend the 
test procedure for residential clothes washers because it received 
consumer usage survey data from a manufacturer which indicate that, for 
one clothes washer model with no cold rinse option on the cycle 
recommended for cotton clothes and a default cold rinse on all other 
cycles, users participating in the survey reported using warm rinse for 
1.6 percent of all cycles. 75 FR 57556, 57571 (Sept. 21, 2010)) For 
this reason, DOE amends the clothes dryer test procedure to change the 
water temperature for clothes dryer test load preparation to 60 [deg]F 
<plus-minus> 5 [deg]F.
    DOE tested 13 representative clothes dryers to evaluate the 
repeatability and reproducibility of this amendment to the water 
temperature for clothes dryer test load preparation. DOE tested these 
units according to the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure, except 
that the water temperature for clothes dryer test load preparation was 
changed to 60[deg] <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F. For the ventless clothes 
dryer test units, DOE used the proposed testing method for ventless 
dryers presented in section III.C.3. As shown below in Table III.6, the 
test-to-test variation in measured EF with 60 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 
[deg]F test load water temperature ranged from 0 percent to 4.1 
percent, with an average of 1.5 percent. Therefore, DOE believes that 
the amendments to the water temperature for clothes dryer test load 
preparation produce repeatable test results.

[[Page 997]]



    Table III.6--DOE Repeatability Testing for 60[deg] <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F Water Temperature for Test Load
                                                   Preparation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        EF lb/kWh
                        Test unit                        ---------------------------------------   Test-to-test
                                                             Test 1       Test 2       Test 3      variation %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1..............................................         3.00         3.00         3.00              0.0
    Unit 2..............................................         3.01         3.07         3.06              2.0
    Unit 3..............................................         3.10         3.10         3.09              0.3
    Unit 5..............................................         3.18         3.17  ...........              0.3
    Unit 6..............................................         3.04         2.92  ...........              4.1
Vented Gas:
    Unit 7..............................................         2.74         2.70  ...........              1.5
    Unit 9..............................................         2.68         2.61  ...........              2.7
    Unit 10.............................................         2.81         2.73  ...........              2.9
    Unit 11.............................................         2.77         2.78         2.82              1.8
Vented Electric Compact (240V):
    Unit 12.............................................         2.95         2.94  ...........              0.3
    Unit 13.............................................         2.86         2.84         2.82              1.4
Ventless Electric Compact (240V):
    Unit 15.............................................         2.22         2.23  ...........              0.5
Ventless Electric Combo Washer-Dryer:
    Unit 16.............................................         1.94         1.98         1.96              2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test Cycle
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to amend section 3.3, 
``Test cycle,'' in the DOE test procedure for clothes dryers to include 
testing procedures specific to timed dryers and dryers with automatic 
termination controls.
    For timer dryers, the clothes dryer would be operated at the 
maximum temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the 
maximum time setting. The load would be dried to 5-6 percent RMC 
without the dryer advancing into cool-down. The timer would be reset if 
necessary. If the load is not dried to within the specified range, the 
test would not be considered valid. The procedure would then be 
repeated, but instead the test load would be dried to 4-5 percent RMC. 
As discussed later in this section, DOE proposed to use the results 
from the two proposed tests cycles (corresponding to 5-6 and 4-5 
percent final RMCs) to interpolate the value of the per-cycle energy 
consumption required to dry the test load to exactly 5-percent RMC. 75 
FR 37594, 37615 (June 29, 2010). DOE requested comment in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR on whether using the maximum temperature setting is 
representative of current consumer usage habits. DOE also requested 
comment on whether multiple temperature settings should be evaluated 
and averaged, and if so, how testing multiple temperature settings 
would affect the measured efficiency as compared to the existing DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure. That procedure measures the clothes dryer 
only at the maximum temperature setting. Id.
    AHAM stated that DOE should not adopt amendments to the temperature 
setting provisions in the current test procedure because there is no 
justification or evidence to support such a change. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
6) Whirlpool commented that testing and averaging multiple cycles and 
settings, while perhaps more reflective of consumer behavior, would 
dramatically increase the test burden on manufacturers, and that the 
substantial increase in cost would not be justified by a better result. 
Whirlpool added that testing and averaging of multiple cycles and 
settings would introduce opportunities for error and circumvention 
while reducing repeatability and consistency. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 
3) ALS also supported setting the temperature at the ``maximum'' 
temperature setting option available on the dryer. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 
5) DOE agrees that the benefit of testing multiple temperature settings 
would be outweighed by the burden on manufacturers to test multiple 
settings. In addition, DOE agrees that including requirements to test 
multiple settings could potentially create problems with developing a 
consistent test procedure that covers all products. This is because 
various manufacturers offer different settings on their clothes dryers, 
and test technicians would be required to determine the appropriate 
settings for testing. For these reasons, DOE is not amending the test 
procedure in today's final rule to require the testing of multiple 
temperature settings and averaging results.
    ALS stated that, for clothes dryers with only a timed dry cycle, 
the time should be set at the maximum setting. ALS commented that it 
has no data regarding what time setting consumers utilize most often. 
ALS believes, however, that consumers using a timed dry cycle tend to 
select a maximum amount of time to be assured that their load is dry at 
end of the cycle. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 4) ALS also commented that the 
``full time cycle including cool-down period'' should be included for 
timer dryers as well as for automatic cycle termination dryers. 
According to ALS, the benefits for timer dryers are as follows: (1) 
Test accuracy is improved because it avoids the variability of 
technician judgment on when to stop the test; (2) burden is reduced on 
manufacturers and test labs, because no interpolation or test ``re-
run'' is required; and (3) all the energy consumed in a dryer cycle is 
accounted for, and is representative of the manner in which consumers 
utilize the dryer in their homes. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 5)
    DOE does not have any data indicating that the maximum time setting 
would be most representative of consumer usage habits. In addition, 
some manufacturers offer a wide range of timed dry settings for 
different types of loads, and these may require varying periods to dry. 
Therefore, using the maximum time setting could result in energy 
consumption that may not be representative of consumer use. DOE also 
does not believe it would be appropriate to include the cool-down 
period as part of the time dry test cycle because the current clothes 
dryer test procedure requires a timed dry cycle using the maximum time 
setting and maximum temperature setting and drying the load to a 
specified RMC, at which point the test cycle is stopped. DOE believes 
that to specify a timed dry cycle that includes the cool-down

[[Page 998]]

period to achieve a target final RMC would add significant testing 
burden on test technicians to determine the appropriate time setting. 
It would also be very difficult to ensure that testing results are 
repeatable and reproducible because different timed dry cycle lengths, 
and thus different lengths of cool-down period, may be selected to dry 
a test load to the same final RMC. For these reasons, DOE is not 
amending the timed dry test cycle to include the cool-down period in 
today's final rule.
    For dryers with automatic termination controls, as discussed in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE tested a representative gas clothes dryer to 
evaluate test methods for automatic termination control dryers as part 
of the energy conservation standards rulemaking preliminary analyses. 
DOE conducted this additional testing to determine the effects of 
proposed amendments that would require the selection of program 
settings that provide the maximum drying temperature and maximum 
dryness level (that is, lowest final RMC). Table III.7 below shows the 
results from this testing compared to the results of testing the same 
gas clothes dryer according to the current DOE test procedure. 75 FR 
37594, 37615-16 (June 29, 2010).

                            Table III.7--DOE Automatic Cycle Termination Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Per-cycle energy
              Initial RMC (%)                           Test                  Final RMC %       consumption kWh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70........................................  Automatic Cycle Termination.                 0.6               3.018
                                            Current DOE.................               * 3.3             * 2.462
56........................................  Automatic Cycle Termination.                 0.6               2.559
                                            Current DOE.................               * 3.7             * 2.001
47........................................  Automatic Cycle Termination.                 0.5               2.252
                                            Current DOE.................               * 3.4             * 1.754
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Current DOE test procedure normalizes the per-cycle energy consumption equation to represent the energy
  consumption required to dry the test load to 4-percent RMC. In addition, the current DOE test procedure
  multiplies the per-cycle energy consumption by a fixed field-use factor of 1.04 to account for energy
  consumption due to over-drying.

    DOE noted that for all of the test runs, using the maximum 
temperature and dryness level settings resulted in the test load being 
dried to near bone dry (0.4-percent to 0.7-percent RMC). Using the data 
of the estimated RMC of the test load measured continuously during the 
test cycle, DOE also observed that for all of the test runs, the 
estimated RMC of the test load was below 1 percent by the time the 
heater began cycling on/off.\24\ The increased amount of over-drying 
resulted in per-cycle energy consumption that was higher than the value 
obtained using the current DOE test procedure, which uses a fixed field 
use factor to account for over-drying energy consumption. DOE stated 
that different manufacturers may target different final RMCs for their 
highest dryness level setting. Based on analysis of the test results 
for this gas clothes dryer unit, DOE stated that the highest dryness 
level setting may be intended to dry the clothes load to near bone dry, 
beyond the target RMC of the DOE test procedure, and would not be 
appropriate for the proposed test cycle. For this reason, DOE did not 
propose that the highest dryness level be specified for the test cycle. 
DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that a ``normal'' drying program 
would be more representative of consumer usage habits and would more 
likely dry the clothes load to the target range specified in the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure. 75 FR 37616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Towards the end of an automatic termination cycle, a 
clothes dryer heater generally turns on and off multiple times to 
limit the amount of heat applied to the air entering the drum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the results of this additional testing, DOE proposed in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR an approach in which, for automatic termination 
control dryers, a ``normal'' program would be selected for the test 
cycle to be most representative of consumer usage. Where the drying 
temperature can be chosen independently of the program, it would be set 
to the maximum to provide a clear and consistent method. DOE notes that 
``medium'' or ``low'' temperature settings may not be consistent among 
different manufacturers. When the heater switches off for the final 
time at the end of the drying cycle (that is, immediately before the 
cool-down period begins) the dryer would be stopped. If the final RMC 
is greater than 5 percent, the tests would be invalid and a new run 
shall be conducted using the highest dryness level setting. Any test 
cycle in which the final RMC is 5 percent or less would be considered 
valid. DOE also proposed that for automatic termination control dryers, 
the cycle setting selected for the test be recorded. This would include 
settings such as the drying mode, dryness level, and temperature level. 
DOE also requested comment on whether multiple cycles and settings 
should be tested and how the results from those multiple tests should 
be evaluated. Id.
    Bosch and Siemens Home Appliance Group (BSH) expressed concern over 
using the phrase ``normal program'' because no manufacturer offers a 
program called ``normal,'' and the term ``normal'' is ambiguous. BSH 
added that it would be very difficult to achieve reproducibility from 
test lab to test lab. (BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 
93-94) AHAM agreed with BSH regarding the use of ``normal'' program, 
noting that clothes washers have transitioned from a normal cycle to 
specifying settings based on fabric type. (AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 94-95) AHAM also recommended that DOE contact 
manufacturers of dryer usage materials, such as fabric softeners, who 
may have some survey data regarding usage factors or the most commonly 
selected program to avoid the terminology of ``normal program.'' (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 95) ALS supported revising the 
``test cycle'' definition to account for the fact that most dryers no 
longer utilize the term ``normal cycle'' on their controls. ALS 
supported using the same test cycle definition the DOE clothes washer 
test procedure utilizes--``the cycle recommended by the manufacturer 
for washing cotton or linen clothes''--but modified to specify ``for 
drying'' instead of ``for washing.'' (ALS, No. 24 at p. 4)
    ALS commented that it supports testing only one cycle (the cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton and linen clothes) 
for the following reasons: (1) Manufacturers provide other cycles for 
consumers, but many of these other cycles are used infrequently because 
consumers tend to utilize a favorite cycle such as an automatic 
termination cycle, or a default cycle that they can easily initiate and

[[Page 999]]

that doesn't require further manipulation; (2) it would be difficult if 
not impossible to develop any data or a consensus for the weighting 
factors to apply to the other cycles if multiple cycles were tested; 
(3) the burden on manufacturers and test labs to test multiple cycles 
out-weighs any benefit; and (4) the test cycle for cotton and linen 
clothes, at maximum temperature setting, will assess one of the most 
energy-intensive cycles on clothes dryers, so there is no need to 
further complicate the test procedure to assess if other cycles are 
more energy intensive. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 5) ALS also commented that 
dryers with automatic cycle termination should have the temperature for 
the test set at the ``maximum'' temperature setting option available on 
the dryer. This is because the test cycle should be ``the cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton and linen clothes'' 
and as such would normally be a high-temperature heat setting. (ALS, 
No. 24 at p. 5) Whirlpool stated that consumers dry a variety of 
fabrics using a variety of clothes dryer cycles. While no one cycle 
reflects this diverse consumer behavior, performing the energy test at 
the maximum temperature on the normal cycle is a straightforward means 
of representing the highest-cost consumer use of the product. Whirlpool 
commented that, because of the well-established history with this 
approach, a change in the test procedure to test multiple cycles would 
not be warranted. Whirlpool further stated that any change would 
require extensive round-robin testing to determine the impact of the 
new test temperatures on the EF calculation. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 
3)
    The California Utilities/NRDC stated that DOE's proposal to test a 
``normal'' drying program is reasonably appropriate. The California 
Utilities/NRDC stated that they lack additional consumer information on 
typical cycles and settings, and being aware of a potentially large 
testing burden of many different types of dryer tests, they support 
DOE's proposal to test at ``normal'' or ``default'' operation. 
(California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 4) The California Utilities/
NRDC noted that manufacturers expressed concern regarding the use of 
the term ``normal'' cycle, so it is important that this term be 
clarified or defined to prevent a possible loophole in the test 
procedure. The California Utilities/NRDC suggested that DOE collect 
data from manufacturers concerning the conditions of operation for a 
``normal'' dryer cycle to confirm that such cycles are reasonably 
consistent among manufacturers. Alternatively, DOE could use that data 
to define a range of operating conditions for a normal cycle, or 
request that manufacturers suggest such a definition. (California 
Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 4)
Evaluation of Proposed Amendments for Automatic Cycle Termination
    As discussed above, DOE conducted testing to evaluate the proposed 
amendments to the clothes dryer test procedure. As part of this 
testing, DOE tested nine clothes dryers as specified by the amendments 
to the test procedure for automatic cycle termination proposed in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR. The testing consisted of running the dryer on a 
``normal'' automatic termination setting and stopping the dryer when 
the heater switches off for the final time (immediately before the 
cool-down period begins). Three identical tests were conducted for each 
clothes dryer unit, and the results were averaged. The results of this 
testing, presented below in Table III.8, showed that the tested clothes 
dryers had a measured EF between 12.4 percent and 38.8 percent lower 
than the EF measured according to the current DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure. DOE also noted that all of tested units dried the test load 
to final RMCs well below the target RMC of 5 percent, ranging from 0.4 
percent to 1.4 percent RMC, with an average of 0.8 percent. DOE also 
noted that even if the field use factor of 1.18 for a timer dryer is 
applied to the measured EF for a clothes dryer equipped with automatic 
cycle termination using the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure, 
this EF would still be more than the EF measured under the automatic 
cycle termination test procedure amendments proposed in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR. (Applying the field use factor in this way adds the fixed 
estimate of over-drying energy consumption associated with time 
termination control dryers.)

                                            Table III.8--DOE Clothes Dryer Automatic Cycle Termination Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Current DOE  test    Proposed automatic cycle termination test procedure
                                                             Current DOE test    procedure  w/   -------------------------------------------------------
                         Test unit                           procedure EF lb/    modified field
                                                                  kWh *         use factor **EF       EF lb/kWh        Percent change     Final RMC (%)
                                                                                     lb/kWh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 3................................................               3.20               2.82               2.59             - 19.1               1.0
    Unit 4................................................               3.28               2.89               2.59             - 21.2               0.6
Vented Gas:
    Unit 8................................................               2.83               2.50               2.42             - 14.5               0.4
    Unit 9................................................               2.85               2.51               2.38             - 16.3               0.9
    Unit 11...............................................               2.98               2.63               2.40             - 19.5               0.9
Vented Electric Compact 240V:
    Unit 12...............................................               3.19               2.81               2.64             - 17.3               0.5
    Unit 13...............................................               2.93               2.59               2.27             - 22.7               1.4
Vented Electric Compact 120V:
    Unit 14...............................................               3.23               2.85               1.98             - 38.8               0.7
Ventless Electric Compact 240V:
    Unit 15...............................................               2.37               2.09               2.07             - 12.4               1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tests use the appropriate field use factor of 1.04 for clothes dryers with automatic termination.
** Field use factor changed from the nominal 1.04 for clothes dryers with automatic termination to 1.18, which is nominally for timer dryers.


[[Page 1000]]

    These results showed significantly higher measured energy use for 
clothes dryers tested under the DOE test procedure with the proposed 
automatic cycle termination amendments. DOE evaluated possible reasons 
for this difference, and concluded that given the test load specified 
in the current DOE test procedure,\25\ the proposed automatic cycle 
termination control procedures may not adequately measure clothes dryer 
performance. As discussed above in this section, DOE believes that, 
although automatic termination control dryers may be measured as having 
a lower efficiency than a comparable dryer with only time termination 
control if tested according to the proposed test procedure, automatic 
termination control dryers may in fact be drying the clothing to 
approximately 5-percent RMC in real world use. DOE believes that 
automatic termination control dryers reduce energy consumption (by 
reducing over-drying) compared to timer dryers based on analysis of the 
AHAM field use survey and analysis of field test data conducted by 
NIST. 46 FR 27324 (May 19, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The DOE clothes dryer test load is comprised of 22 in x 34 
in pieces of 50/50 cotton/polyester-blend cloth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, DOE believes the test procedure amendments for 
automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR do not 
adequately measure the energy consumption of clothes dryers equipped 
with such systems. Therefore, DOE is not adopting in today's final rule 
the amendments for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37616 (June 29, 2010). If data is made 
available to develop a test procedure that accurately measures the 
energy consumption of clothes dryers equipped with automatic 
termination controls, DOE may consider revised amendments in a future 
rulemaking.
    ALS commented that an automatic cycle termination-equipped dryer 
that produces a final RMC of greater than 5 percent should be required 
to have additional test cycle runs. The insufficiently dried load would 
be placed back into the dryer for an extra cycle, and the extra-cycle 
energy added to the first test cycle results, until the final RMC is 5 
percent or less. ALS commented that this extra cycle energy would be a 
significant penalty and incentive to keep manufacturers from creating 
automatic cycle termination systems that essentially tried to achieve a 
low energy consumption value while not achieving consumer-acceptable 
final RMC levels. ALS also believes that this method represents what 
consumers tend do when a load is not sufficiently dried at the end of 
the cycle--put the load back into the dryer and run another dry cycle 
on the same setting. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 3) The California Utilities/
NRDC supported DOE's proposal to require a re-test at the ``highest 
energy consuming setting'' in the case of a dryer failing to reach 5-
percent RMC or less under a normal drying program. (California 
Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 4)
    For the reasons discussed above, DOE is not adopting in today's 
final rule the amendments proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to better 
account for automatic cycle termination. Therefore, additional 
specifications for such an approach are not relevant.
Dry Clothes Load Testing
    CU commented that an additional test using a dry clothes load 
should be included as part of the test procedure to assess how well a 
sensor detects that a clothes load has been dried to terminate the 
cycle. CU commented that it tested products using a 12-lb dry clothes 
load (less than 5 percent initial RMC) of mixed cottons with the dryer 
at normal/cotton, highest heat, and maximum dryness level settings. CU 
observed notable differences in the performance of different types of 
dryers (that is, those with thermostatic control and those with 
moisture sensors). CU noted that units with moisture sensors stopped 
within a reasonable time, but units with just a thermostat continued 
running, sometimes 20 times longer than a dryer with a moisture sensor. 
CU noted that one dryer with the moisture sensor ran an average of 3 
minutes before shutting off, and in 3 tests, it averaged 162 Wh per 
test. Another dryer with a thermostat ran for an average of about 60 
minutes, and in 3 tests, it averaged 2,335 Wh per test. In addition, CU 
observed significant variation among dryers with moisture sensors and 
those with thermostats, and stated it should not be assumed that these 
results represent performance for all dryers of either type. (CU, No. 
29 at pp. 2-3)
    DOE does not believe running a dry clothes load would be 
representative of consumer usage. It also does not believe that the 
amount of time a clothes dryer operates with such a clothes load would 
necessarily be representative of the effectiveness of a sensor system 
in detecting final RMC for an initially damp clothes load. Further, DOE 
is not aware of how an energy efficiency metric would be established 
that considers the energy consumption of a dry clothes load test cycle. 
Therefore, DOE is not adopting any provisions for measuring the energy 
consumption of a dry clothes load test cycle in today's final rule.
Evaluation of Automatic Termination Technologies
    DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it conducted preliminary 
automatic cycle termination tests to analyze the various automatic 
termination technologies found in DOE's sample of selected dryers. DOE 
selected the AHAM 8-lb test load \26\ instead of the 7-lb load 
specified in the DOE test procedure for standard-size clothes dryers. 
It did so to lengthen the test cycle times and better evaluate the 
function of the dryer controls as the test load approached low RMCs. 
DOE also noted that the independent test lab conducting the clothes 
dryer tests used a data acquisition system to monitor estimated RMC of 
the test load continuously during the test cycle. The automatic 
termination tests conducted by DOE consisted of running the test cycle 
in a user-programmable automatic termination mode and allowing the 
dryer to self-terminate the drying cycle using the various automatic 
termination sensor technologies. DOE monitored the energy consumption 
and estimated RMC of the test load during the test cycle from the 
starting time at 70-percent initial RMC to the time when the heater 
last cycled off (that is, immediately before the cool-down period). The 
specific focus was on analyzing the amount of over-drying energy 
consumed drying the test load to less than 5-percent RMC.\27\ 75 FR 
37594, 37617 (June 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The AHAM 8-lb test load is made up of the following mixed 
cotton items, which are intended to represent clothes items 
regularly laundered: 2 sheets, 1 table cloth, 2 shirts, 3 bath 
towels, 2 ``T'' shirts, 2 pillow cases, 3 shorts, 1 wash cloth, 2 
handkerchiefs.
    \27\ As noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE applied a 
correction factor to the test data to account for the fact that the 
automatic cycle termination tests used the AHAM 8-lb test load 
instead of the DOE 7-lb test load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure III.1 shows the over-drying energy consumption versus the 
final RMC for a number of different units tested, and, in some cases, 
different cycle settings.\28\ The data show that over-drying the test 
load to lower final RMCs requires higher energy consumption, with a 
slightly exponential trend likely because it becomes more difficult to 
remove the final small amounts of moisture remaining in the test load. 
DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it did not observe any 
relationship between the type of automatic cycle termination

[[Page 1001]]

sensor technology used and the amount of over-drying. DOE also noted, 
however, that these tests were conducted using different testing 
methods than the methods proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR (that is, 
various automatic cycle termination settings). Therefore, DOE was 
unable to determine whether one type of sensor technology is more 
accurate, and thus more effective at preventing over-drying. 75 FR 
37618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DOE noted that some of the tested units stopped the test 
cycle at or higher than 5-percent RMC, thereby not producing over-
drying.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JA11.084

    Porticos commented that DOE considered only two possible methods 
for automatic cycle termination (moisture and temperature sensing). 
Porticos commented that these may be the only practical alternatives in 
a vented, forced-convection tumble dryer, but that alternate drying 
technologies may enable alternate methods of determining when the 
drying cycle should be terminated. Ignoring this possibility penalizes 
any appliance that attempts to deploy a different technology. 
(Porticos, No. 23 at p. 1)
    DOE agrees that the test procedure should not exclude alternate 
sensing technologies used for automatic cycle termination controls. DOE 
notes section 3.5 of the test procedure, ``Test for automatic 
termination field use factor credits,'' specifies that the field use 
factor for automatic cycle termination would apply only to clothes 
dryers that meet the requirements for the definitions of ``temperature 
sensing control'' or ``moisture sensing control.'' The test procedure 
defines ``temperature sensing control'' a system that monitors the 
exhaust air temperature to automatically terminate the dryer cycle. The 
test procedure also defines ``moisture sensing control'' as a system 
that uses a moisture sensing element within the drum that monitors the 
amount of moisture in the clothes to automatically terminate the dryer 
cycle. DOE also notes the test procedure defines ``automatic 
termination control'' as a control system with a sensor that monitors 
either the dryer load temperature or its moisture content and with a 
controller that automatically terminates the drying process. DOE 
believes that this definition would not limit the emergence of any new 
sensor technologies that monitor the moisture content or temperature in 
other ways from applying the field use factor for automatic cycle 
termination. For these reasons, DOE amends section 3.5 of the test 
procedure to specify that the field use factor applies to clothes 
dryers that meet the requirements for the definitions of ``automatic 
termination control.''
Target Final RMC
    DOE also noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that AS/NZS Standard 2442 
specifies the maximum allowable final RMC for automatic termination 
control dryers as 6 percent. DOE, however, stated that it is unaware of 
any data indicating that a final RMC of 6 percent would be 
representative of current consumer usage habits. DOE also noted that 
using 5-percent RMC, as proposed in today's June 2010 TP SNOPR, would 
remain within the range specified by the current DOE test procedure, 
which specifies 2.5- to 5-percent final RMC. Id.
    The Joint Petitioners and AHAM commented that a final RMC of 5 
percent is appropriate. (Joint Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 6; AHAM, No. 
31 at p. 6)) ALS stated that the test load final RMC should be no 
greater than 5 percent. ALS stated that if the test cycle continued to 
measure all of the energy including cool-down, manufacturers

[[Page 1002]]

would adopt their own methods to ensure that they do not over-dry the 
test load. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 3) As discussed above, DOE is not 
adopting the amendments to better account for automatic cycle 
termination proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. For these reasons, DOE 
is not amending the test procedure to revise the final RMC.
Cool-Down Period
    DOE also noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that there are at least 
two ways to terminate the drying cycle during the test: (1) Termination 
before cool-down, or (2) termination at the end of the selected test 
cycle, including cool-down. 75 FR 37594, 37616 (June 29, 2010). Section 
4.2 of AS/NZS Standard 2442.1 requires that, for automatic termination 
control dryers, the programmed test cycle be run until immediately 
before the cool-down period begins. Similarly, section 4.5.1 of AHAM-
HLD-1-2009 requires that the automatic termination control dryer test 
cycle not be permitted to advance into the cool-down period. 
Alternatively, section 9.2.1 of EN Standard 61121 requires that the 
selected test cycle program be allowed to run until completion, 
including the cool-down period. In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed 
amendments for automatic cycle termination based on the provisions in 
AS/NZS Standard 2442 because it provides a more representative 
comparison of the energy consumption between automatic termination 
control dryers and timer dryers than EN Standard 61121. In addition, 
the proposed amendments to stop the test cycle immediately before the 
cool-down period would harmonize DOE test methods with AS/NZS Standard 
2442 and AHAM-HLD-1-2009. Id. DOE stated, however, that it was 
considering the alternative method of section 9.2.1 of EN Standard 
61121. DOE recognizes that manufacturers may design products to use the 
residual heat during the cool-down period (that is, immediately after 
the heater has switched off for the final time) to continue to dry the 
clothes load while slowly spinning the drum to achieve a desired 
RMC.\29\ DOE recognizes that including the cool-down period may make it 
possible for some manufacturers to design dryers that attain the 
desired RMC with lower total energy consumption. DOE noted that this 
potential for energy efficiency improvement would not be captured by 
the test methods proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. To capture this 
real-world energy savings potential associated with the additional 
drying using residual heat during the cool-down period, DOE stated in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it could adopt an alternate approach to 
include the measurement of the cool-down period as part of the proposed 
automatic cycle termination test methodology. Under this alternate 
approach, section 3.3.2 of the test procedure for automatic termination 
control dryers, instead of specifying that ``when the heater switches 
off for the final time, immediately before the cool-down period begins, 
stop the dryer,'' would specify to ``run the clothes dryer until the 
programmed cycle has terminated.'' DOE also noted that inclusion of the 
cool-down period under the proposed test method would not affect the 
ability to compare energy consumption test results between automatic 
termination control dryers and timer dryers in DOE's clothes dryer test 
procedure. DOE further stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it is 
unaware of data showing the effects of including the cool-down period 
on the measured efficiency as compared to the existing test procedure. 
75 FR 37616-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The clothes dryer would also consume energy to spin the 
drum during the cool-down period that is currently not accounted for 
by the DOE test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Petitioners, AHAM, Whirlpool and ALS commented that, 
although they generally promote harmonization with international 
standards, they do not agree that AS/NSZ Standard 2442 provides the 
best methods and procedures to account for the amount of over-drying 
associated with automatic termination control dryers beyond a specified 
RMC. The Joint Petitioners, AHAM, Whirlpool, ALS, the California 
Utilities/NRDC, and EJ commented that the test procedure should measure 
the full cycle, including cool-down period, which is more 
representative of consumer usage because it includes all of the energy 
use in a cycle. The Joint Petitioners, AHAM, Whirlpool and ALS stated 
that such an approach is reproducible and repeatable because it does 
not require any ``guesswork'' as to when the cool-down will begin. The 
approach is also less burdensome because it does not require the 
manufacturers to determine the point immediately before cool-down for 
each model. (Joint Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 5; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 5; 
Whirlpool, No. 27 at pp. 2, 3; ALS, No. 24 at p. 3; ALS, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 97-98; California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at 
pp. 4-5; EJ, No. FDMS D0039 at pp. 1-2)
    ALS also commented that the ``default'' cool-down should be set if 
the dryer has selectable cool-down time period options. (ALS, No. 24 at 
p. 6) AHAM commented that the ``as-shipped'' (that is, ``default'') 
cool-down settings should be included in active mode because this 
approach is more representative of actual consumer usage. (AHAM, No. 31 
at p. 6)
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment stated that excluding the 
cool-down period results in a portion of the energy consumed by a 
drying cycle not being measured by the test procedure. In addition, the 
Joint Efficiency Advocates Comment stated that including the cool-down 
period could provide manufacturers with an additional option for 
reducing energy consumption. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 
3) ALS and BSH supported including the cool-down period in the test 
procedure. They feel manufacturers may optimize the point where the 
heating is stopped and the residual heat in the load is used during 
cool-down to complete the drying process to achieve consumer-accepted 
final moisture retention levels, while avoiding ``over drying'' loads 
and potentially wasting energy. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 3; BSH, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 98) EJ commented that a test procedure 
that ignores the additional drying functionality provided by 
cool[hyphen]down mode reduces manufacturers' incentive to provide this 
energy[hyphen]saving feature. (EJ, No. FDMS D0039 at pp. 1-2)
    Whirlpool requested that DOE complete further analysis to adjust EF 
within the test procedure to account for the inclusion of the cool-down 
portion of the cycle. Whirlpool stated that failure to adjust the EF 
requirements will inadvertently result in requirements becoming too 
stringent. Whirlpool commented that it can infer that the cool-down 
portion of the cycle consumes little energy when compared to the drying 
portion as it is relatively short and uses only motor energy, not 
heating element energy. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at pp. 2, 3) Whirlpool also 
commented that the additional energy consumed during cool-down period 
does not follow linear relationship with the RMC of the test load. 
Whirlpool stated that it does not have sufficient data to fully address 
how this would be reflected in total energy consumption. Whirlpool 
commented that if DOE were to make a specific request to AHAM for such 
data, Whirlpool would be willing to gather and supply information to 
AHAM for aggregation and submittal to DOE. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 5) 
ALS commented that it has no data to submit to DOE at this time on how 
the proposed added cool-down period energy consumption would impact the 
measured energy efficiency of existing

[[Page 1003]]

clothes dryers, and suggested that DOE conduct tests to determine the 
impact. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) The California Utilities/NRDC similarly 
commented that they do not have specific data on the impacts this cool-
down period has on dryer per-cycle energy use and calculated EF. 
However, they stated that although the impacts may be small, DOE 
should, for the purposes of completeness and reproducibility, consider 
including the energy use of the cool-down portion of the cycle into the 
active mode test procedure. The California Utilities/NRDC stated that 
DOE should revise the energy conservation standards to reflect this 
test procedure change. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at pp. 4-5)
    As discussed above, DOE is not adopting the amendments to better 
account for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR. For this reason, DOE is not amending the test procedure to 
include the cool-down period for automatic termination test cycles. If 
DOE considers potential amendments for automatic cycle termination in a 
future rulemaking, it may consider provisions that account for the 
cool-down period.
Calculation of Revised Results From Automatic Cycle Termination Test 
Measurements
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to revise section 4, 
``Calculation of Derived Results from Test Measurements,'' of the DOE 
test procedure. DOE proposed to revise the field use factors in the 
current DOE test procedure to more appropriately account for automatic 
termination control dryers' over-drying energy consumption. DOE 
proposed that a field use factor of 1.0 (instead of the 1.04 currently 
provided) would be specified for automatic termination control clothes 
dryers, so that any over-drying energy consumption would be added 
directly to the drying energy consumption to decrement EF. If the 
proposed test methods were used, an automatic termination control dryer 
that is able minimize over-drying by drying the test load to close to 
5-percent RMC would achieve a higher measured efficiency than if it 
over-dried the test load to an RMC of less than 5 percent. The lower 
amount of energy consumed over-drying the test load would be included 
in the per-cycle energy consumption, and would result in a reduction in 
the measured EF. For timer dryers, DOE proposed to use the per-cycle 
energy consumption measurements from the two proposed tests cycles 
discussed above in this section (corresponding to 5-6 and 4-5 percent 
final RMCs) to interpolate the value of the per-cycle energy 
consumption required to dry the test load to exactly 5-percent RMC. The 
1.18 field use factor in the current DOE test procedure would then be 
applied to account for the over-drying energy consumption of timer 
dryers. 75 FR 37594, 37617 (June 29, 2010).
    As discussed above in this section, DOE noted in the September 1977 
TP Final Rule that the 1.18 field use factor in the calculation of EF 
for timer dryers was based on analysis of data from a field use survey 
conducted by Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company involving 64 homes as 
well as data provided by AHAM on the measured energy consumption per-
cycle under the DOE test procedure to account for the differences 
between the values derived from the laboratory test procedures and 
those obtained from actual consumer use. 42 FR 46145, 46146 (September 
14, 1977). DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it was unaware of 
any data or studies indicating the 1.18 field use factor for timer 
dryers used to account for over- or under-drying test loads in real-
world use is inaccurate and not currently representative of consumer 
usage. For this reason, DOE did not propose to revise the 1.18 field 
use factor for timer dryers in the June 2010 TP SNOPR but requested 
data and comment on whether this value is appropriate. Id.
    AHAM, the Joint Petitioners, the California Utilities/NRDC, and ALS 
supported DOE's proposal to change the field use factor from 1.04 to 
1.0 for automatic termination control dryers and not revise the 1.18 
field use factor for timer dryers. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 6; Joint 
Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 6; California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 5; 
ALS, No. 24 at p. 3)
    As discussed above, DOE is not adopting in today's final rule the 
amendments to better account for automatic cycle termination proposed 
in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. For the reasons stated above, DOE is not 
amending the test procedure in today's final rule to include the 
revisions to the energy use calculations or the field use factors 
proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. If DOE considers potential 
amendments for automatic cycler termination in a future rulemaking, it 
may consider such revisions to the energy use calculations and field 
use factors.
3. Test Procedure for Ventless Clothes Dryers
    DOE noted in the October 2007 Framework Document that a potential 
limitation of the clothes dryer test procedure had been identified for 
ventless dryers, which include condensing clothes dryers and 
combination washer/dryers. (Framework Document, STD No. 1 at p. 5) 
Ventless clothes dryers do not vent exhaust air to the outside as a 
conventional clothes dryer does. Instead, they typically use ambient 
air in a heat exchanger to cool the hot, humid air inside the 
appliance, thereby condensing out the moisture. Alternatively, cold 
water can be used in the heat exchanger to condense the moisture from 
the air in the drum.\30\ In either case, the dry air exiting the drum 
is reheated and recirculated in a closed loop. Thus, rather than 
moisture-laden exhaust air that vents outside, ventless clothes dryers 
produce a wastewater stream that can be either collected in an included 
water container or discharged down the household drain. The process of 
condensing out the moisture in the recirculated air results in higher 
energy consumption than a conventional clothes dryer, however, and it 
can significantly increase the ambient room temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ This is a typical approach for combination washer/dryers, 
which wash and dry a load in the same drum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers of condensing clothes dryers have, in the past, 
applied for waivers from the DOE test procedure for these products on 
the basis that the test procedure did not contain provisions for 
ventless clothes dryers. See, e.g., 74 FR 66334 (December 15, 2009); 75 
FR 13122 (Mar. 18, 2010). The current test procedure requires using an 
exhaust restrictor to simulate the backpressure effects of a vent tube 
in an installed condition. Condenser dryers do not have exhaust vents 
because they recirculate rather than exhaust the process air.
    In the October 2007 Framework Document, DOE stated that it intended 
to analyze ventless clothes dryers as a separate product class, 
recognizing the unique utility that ventless clothes dryers offers to 
consumers. That utility is the ability to be installed in conditions in 
which vented clothes dryers would be precluded due to venting 
restrictions. DOE considered two product classes for ventless clothes 
dryers: (1) Ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryers; and (2) 
electric combination washer/dryers.
    In this final test procedure rule, DOE adopts amendments to measure 
the energy use of ventless clothes dryers, as discussed in more detail 
below.

[[Page 1004]]

Effects of Clothes Dryers on HVAC Energy Use
    In response to the October 2007 Framework Document, DOE received 
comments from AHAM that the energy calculations for ventless clothes 
dryers should take a more ``holistic'' approach than those for vented 
clothes dryers. That is because ventless clothes dryers can have an 
effect on energy use oustide of their system (that is, impacts on HVAC 
loads). 75 FR 37594, 37620-21 (June 29, 2010). EPCA requires that any 
test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy 
use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product 
during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3)) DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that accounting for 
the impacts of ventless clothes dryers on HVAC loads and thus on the 
energy use of a household would be inconsistent with the EPCA 
requirement that a test procedure measure the energy use of a covered 
product. DOE also noted that, while the test procedure for heat pump 
water heaters does not account for impacts to HVAC loads, DOE 
considered the effects of heat pump water heaters on house heating 
loads as part of the energy-use characterization in the rulemaking to 
establish energy conservation standards rulemaking for water heaters. 
For these reasons, DOE did not propose to amend its clothes dryer test 
procedure to account for the ambient space conditioning impacts in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR, but stated that it would consider such impacts as 
part of the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking. 75 FR 
37594, 37621 (June 29, 2010).
    In response to the June 2010 TP SNOPR, the California Utilities/
NRDC commented that DOE should consider HVAC impacts as part of the 
concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking. They added that 
the ECOS report showed that space conditioning impacts due to clothes 
dryer intake air may be significant. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 
at pp. 8-9) The California Utilities/NRDC and the Super Efficient Dryer 
Initiative (SEDI) noted that the actual impacts will depend on many 
factors, such as climate, season, and location of the clothes dryer 
within the home. They stated DOE should thoroughly assess this aspect 
of clothes dryer operation and research opportunities for energy 
reduction. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 9; SEDI, No. 34 at 
p. 2)
    Porticos commented that the HVAC load from a vented clothes dryer 
is much higher than that of other household appliances. According to 
Porticos, a vented clothes dryer induces air infiltration equal to the 
exhaust airflow (up to 160 cubic feet per minute (cfm)), enough to 
completely empty a 1200 cubic foot (ft\3\) home of all its conditioned 
air in 1 hour. (Porticos, No. 23 at p. 2) Porticos and SEDI both 
commented that there would be significant HVAC savings associated with 
switching from vented to ventless clothes dryers. (Porticos, No. 23 at 
p. 2; SEDI, No. 34 at p. 2) SEDI added that vented clothes dryers 
operate by drawing supply air from the volume of conditioned space 
within a house. The supply air is heated and used to dry the clothes. 
The air is then exhausted from the home. SEDI stated this process 
wastes both the heating energy put into that air by the dryer itself, 
but also the heating or cooling energy put into that air earlier by the 
home's HVAC system. (SEDI, No. 34 at p. 2) Porticos also added that 
ventless dryers tend to directly heat the living space rather than 
inducing air infiltration. (Porticos, No. 23 at p. 2) The California 
Utilities/NRDC commented that HVAC impacts may be mitigated through 
increased use of ventless dryers, or other technologies for vented 
dryers, such as an outside air intake port, which could provide a 
location to fit an intake air vent. The California Utilities/NRDC 
stated that it is important that DOE gather data on the HVAC impacts of 
clothes dryers to accurately assess the costs and savings impacts of 
such technologies. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 9)
    The California Utilities/NRDC commented that the test procedure 
would be a simple and convenient means for manufacturers to submit 
useful data to DOE on clothes dryer operation that impacts HVAC loads 
(namely intake air). Data on intake air could be gathered by requiring 
the measurement of intake air via a small sensor in the airstream 
during the test. The California Utilities/NRDC added that this 
information would be a valuable indication of the amount of airflow 
caused by clothes dryers, and could form the basis for subsequent DOE 
analysis. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 9) Porticos 
recommended the following modifications to the test procedure to 
evaluate the effects of the clothes dryer on building energy 
consumption:
    1. Directly measure the exhaust airflow (defined as zero for 
ventless appliances);
    2. Directly measure the ambient heat-load represented by the 
appliance during operation (DOE might define this as zero for vented 
appliances);
    3. Calculate the overall HVAC burden due to heat-burden and induced 
infiltration; and
    4. Optionally, modify this figure to account for variations due to 
regional usage (a vented dryer might work quite well in a moderate 
climate, but less-so in colder climates). (Porticos, No. 23 at p. 2)
    Porticos added that there is a precedent for addressing impacts 
external to the clothes dryer because existing DOE test procedures 
penalize clothes washers which do a poor job of spin-drying clothes, 
thus placing an excessive burden on the clothes dryer. Id.
    SEDI commented that both the current and proposed clothes dryer 
test procedures ignore the HVAC impact of vented dryers, and will not 
provide DOE, or SEDI and other energy efficiency program providers, 
with the information necessary to estimate HVAC savings. SEDI commented 
that ideally, testing for all clothes dryers would include measurement 
of the energy content of the air expelled from the home during the 
drying cycle, which would be added to the energy directly consumed by 
the dryer itself. (SEDI, No. 34 at p. 2) SEDI supported the recommended 
modifications for measuring HVAC impacts submitted by Porticos. SEDI 
also recognized, however, that it may be extremely difficult to develop 
HVAC energy consumption algorithms for residential clothes dryers that 
are applicable across the United States. SEDI also recognized that 
pursuing this comprehensive approach could move DOE away from 
harmonization with international standards. SEDI commented that, at a 
minimum, DOE should adopt at least modifications 1 and 2 suggested by 
Porticos, presented above, but with the following change: ``1. Directly 
measure the exhaust air volume (defined as zero for ventless 
appliances) during the entire drying cycle.'' SEDI commented that this 
change would enable the energy use of clothes dryers that have 
different rates of venting at different points during the drying cycle. 
In addition, if the volume of air vented by a clothes dryer from a home 
is measured, the HVAC impacts of that clothes dryer on the home could 
be estimated. (SEDI, No. 34 at p. 2)
    DOE reiterates that accounting for the effects of clothes dryers on 
HVAC energy use is inconsistent with the EPCA requirement that a test 
procedure measure the energy efficiency, energy

[[Page 1005]]

use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE acknowledges its clothes washer test procedure 
measures the RMC at the end of the wash cycle, but notes that in this 
case, the test procedure accounts directly for the additional energy 
use of a clothes washer to remove moisture from a clothes load. For 
these reasons, DOE is not revising the test procedure to account for 
HVAC energy use in today's final rule.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ DOE further notes that to accurately evaluate the HVAC 
impacts of clothes dryers it would need to determine the amount of 
heating and cooling being performed by the HVAC system, which would 
vary by region and time of year. In addition, to determine the 
amount of induced infiltration and heat-load caused by a clothes 
dryer, DOE would need to develop provisions for accurate and 
repeatable measurements, including: test equipment tolerances, 
position of measurement devices in either the exhaust or other 
locations, and determination of representative household air leakage 
rates. Such additional testing provisions for measuring the HVAC 
impacts would also increase the testing burden on manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Petitioners commented that DOE should create a ventless 
clothes dryer test procedure to define a baseline energy consumption 
level for this new product category. Such a procedure would include 
combination washer/dryers. (Joint Petitioners, No. 25 at p. 14; Joint 
Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 6) ALS also supported the addition of test 
procedures for ventless clothes dryers. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) SEDI also 
noted the importance of expanding the test procedure to accommodate 
ventless clothes dryers, such as the energy efficient heat pump clothes 
dryers now gaining market share in Europe. SEDI stated that DOE should 
develop a ventless clothes dryer test procedure as soon as possible, 
while taking care not to inadvertently discourage efforts to increase 
the energy efficiency of clothes dryers in North America. (SEDI, No. 34 
at p. 2)
Ventless Clothes Dryer Test Procedure Amendments
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE examined an alternate test procedure 
for ventless clothes dryers that provided definitions for 
``conventional clothes dryers'' and ``condensing clothes dryers'' and 
would require the exhaust simulator to be used only for vented clothes 
dryers. DOE conducted limited tests of ventless clothes dryers at an 
independent testing laboratory according to those amendments. DOE 
conducted three tests per unit on one ventless electric compact (240V) 
clothes dryer and one ventless combination washer/dryer. Table III.9 
shows the test results. DOE observed no variation in EF from test to 
test of the proposed test procedure for the ventless electric compact 
(240V) dryer, and less than 2-percent variation in EF test-to-test for 
the ventless combination washer/dryer. Based on this testing, DOE 
stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the alternate testing procedures 
appear to produce repeatable results. 75 FR 37594, 37621 (June 29, 
2010).

  Table III.9--Data From DOE Testing of Ventless Clothes Dryers for the
                           June 2010 TP SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    EF (lb/kWh)
                                         -------------------------------
                                             Ventless
                Test run                     electric        Ventless
                                           compact (240     combination
                                                V)         washer/dryer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................            2.37            1.95
2.......................................            2.37            1.96
3.......................................            2.37            1.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also investigated testing conditions and methods for ventless 
or condensing clothes dryers specified in international test standards, 
including those used in Europe, China, Australia, and New Zealand. Id.
    DOE evaluated EN Standard 61121, and identified as relevant the 
test procedures for condensing (ventless) clothes dryers, as well as 
certain test conditions that affect all clothes dryers. In particular, 
DOE noted that section 3 of EN Standard 61121, ``Definitions and 
symbols,'' provides definitions for ``air vented tumble dryer'' and 
``condenser tumble dryer.'' DOE noted that section 6 of EN Standard 
61121, ``General,'' provides general conditions for measurements for 
both types of dryers, in particular for installation without an exhaust 
duct, as well as ambient temperature conditions. DOE noted that section 
9 of EN Standard 61121, ``Performance tests,'' provides the test 
procedures for performance tests for both types of dryers. DOE noted in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR these test procedures provide greater 
specificity than the alternate test procedure discussed above. 75 FR 
37621-22.
    DOE also evaluated AS/NZS Standard 2442.1, which specifically 
includes condenser clothes dryers and the dryer function of combination 
washer/dryers. DOE noted that AS/NZS Standard 2442.1 provides 
definitions for vented and condenser clothes dryers that are 
essentially the same as those provided in EN Standard 61121. DOE also 
noted that AS/NZS Standard 2442.1 provides exhaust conditions for 
installation that are very similar to those provided in EN Standard 
61121. 75 FR 37622.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE also considered comments that 
Whirlpool submitted as part of the residential clothes dryer and room 
air conditioner energy conservation standards rulemaking, providing 
amendments to the DOE test procedure for clothes dryers to include 
methods for the testing of condensing dryers.\32\ These suggested 
amendments were largely based on EN Standard 61121. DOE noted that 
Whirlpool suggested definitions for ``exhausted'' clothes dryers, 
``non-exhausted'' clothes dryers, and ``condensing'' clothes dryers. 
Whirlpool also suggested provisions for the installation conditions for 
ventless clothes dryers, in particular for installation without an 
exhaust simulator. Whirlpool also suggested provisions for ventless 
clothes dryers for pre-conditioning, conditions for a condensation box 
and the condenser unit, as well as test measurement methods for 
ventless clothes dryers. 75 FR 37622-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Whirlpool, 2007. ``U.S Department of Energy Test Procedure 
Change for Condensing Clothes Dryers.'' September 4, 2007. Docket 
No. EE-2007-BT-STD-0010, Comment Number 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE reviewed the definitions in EN Standard 61121 (section 3), AS/
NZS Standard 2442.1 (section 1.4), and Whirlpool's proposed amendments 
to the DOE test procedure. DOE concluded that the proposed definitions 
of ``conventional clothes dryer'' and ``condensing clothes dryer'' are 
essentially the same as the international test standards definitions. 
DOE proposed to define ``conventional clothes dryer'' as ``a clothes 
dryer that exhausts the evaporated moisture from the cabinet.'' It 
proposed to define ``ventless clothes dryer'' as ``a clothes dryer that 
uses a closed-loop system with an internal condenser to remove the 
evaporated moisture from the heated air. The moist air is not 
discharged from the cabinet.'' DOE proposed to use the term 
``ventless'' to reflect the actual consumer utility (that is, no 
external vent required) instead of ``condensing'' because of the 
possibility that vented dryers that also condense are also available on 
the market. 75 FR 37623. AHAM and ALS commented in support of the 
proposed definitions. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 6; ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) 
Whirlpool commented that it supports substituting ``ventless'' for 
``condensing''. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 3) For the reasons stated 
above, DOE adopts the definitions of ``conventional clothes dryer'' and 
``ventless clothes dryer'' proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR.
    DOE evaluated the installation conditions detailed in EN Standard 
61121 (section 6.1), AS/NZS Standard 2442.1 (section 3.4), and 
Whirlpool's

[[Page 1006]]

proposed amendments to the DOE test procedure. DOE stated in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR that the proposed amendments for the exhaust duct 
installation requirements, with clarifications added, are appropriate 
for testing ventless clothes dryers. 75 FR 37594, 37623 (June 29, 
2010). DOE noted the proposed exhaust duct installation conditions 
remove the requirement for installing an exhaust simulator for a 
clothes dryer without an exhaust duct (that is, a ventless clothes 
dryer). The international test standards noted above also require that 
a clothes dryer without an exhaust duct be tested as such. Those 
standards, however, also provide additional conditions for a clothes 
dryer with an optional exhaust duct, stating that such a clothes dryer 
should be tested without the duct installed. DOE believes these 
installation conditions provide additional clarity and cover all 
possible clothes dryer configurations, as well as harmonizes with 
international test standards. Therefore, DOE proposed in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR to amend section 2.1 of the DOE test procedure for clothes 
dryers, which covers installation conditions. The amendments qualify 
the requirement for an exhaust simulator so that it would apply only to 
conventional clothes dryers. The amendments added the clarification 
that ventless clothes dryers be tested without the exhaust simulator 
installed and, if a dryer is designed to operate with an optional 
exhaust duct, the dryer shall be tested without the duct installed. Id. 
AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS supported the proposed exhaust duct 
installation conditions. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 7; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 
3; ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) In the absence of comments objecting to this 
proposal, DOE adopts the exhaust duct installation conditions proposed 
in the June 2010 TP SNOPR.
    DOE also believes the provisions in EN Standard 61121 regarding a 
condensation box provides additional clarity that the test procedures 
are intended to cover all possible ventless clothes dryer 
configurations. For this reason, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR 
to revise section 2.1, ``Installation,'' of the DOE test procedure for 
clothes dryers. The revision would add this requirement to the 
installation conditions: ``if a manufacturer gives the option to use a 
ventless clothes dryer with or without a condensation box, the clothes 
dryer shall be tested with the condensation box installed.'' In 
addition, DOE proposed to amend the testing cycle measurement in 
section 3.3 to add that if the dryer automatically stops during a cycle 
because the condensation box is full of water, the test is stopped, and 
the test run is invalid. This requirement would ensure efficiency is 
measured consistently. 75 FR 37594, 37623 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM and Whirlpool both supported the proposed change to section 
2.1 of the DOE test procedure. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 7; Whirlpool, No. 27 
at p. 3) For the reasons stated above, and in the absence of comments 
objecting to this proposal, DOE adopts in today's final rule the 
revisions to section 2.1, Installation of the DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure regarding a condensation box as proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37623 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM also commented that DOE should clarify that if the 
condensation box is full and the test is invalid, the re-testing should 
be conducted under the same installation conditions as the original 
test. Those conditions should be those provided in the manufacturer's 
use and care guide so that the test is representative of actual 
consumer use. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 8) Whirlpool similarly recommended 
adding, for clarity, that if the condensation box is full and the test 
is invalid, that the box is to be emptied and the test re-run from the 
beginning. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) DOE agrees that additional 
provisions should be included to clarify the procedure for retesting 
when the condensation box is full of water and the test is considered 
valid. DOE believes that Whirlpool's suggested revision provided 
explicit instructions as to the procedure for re-running the test 
cycle. For these reasons, DOE amends section 3.3 of the DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure to add that ``if the dryer automatically stops 
during a cycle and because the condensation box is full of water, the 
test is stopped and the test run is invalid, in which case the 
condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run from the 
beginning.''
    Also regarding installation conditions, DOE believes that 
Whirlpool's proposal to add a requirement that the condenser unit of 
the clothes dryer must remain in place and not be taken out of the 
clothes dryer for any reason between tests would clarify the test 
procedure and ensures that all manufacturers are testing products under 
the same conditions. For this reason, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR to add in section 2.1 of the DOE clothes dryer test procedure the 
provision that the condenser unit of the dryer must remain in place and 
not be taken out of the dryer between tests. 75 FR 37594, 37623 (June 
29, 2010).
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, Whirlpool supported the proposed 
amendment to require that the condenser unit remain in place and not be 
removed between tests, adding that this is for purposes of 
repeatability. Whirlpool commented that, if needed, the condenser unit 
should be cleaned prior to the first test run so it does not need to be 
cleaned during the test procedure. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) ALS also 
commented in support of DOE's proposed amendments regarding the 
condenser unit. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) AHAM stated that there is no 
rationale for the proposed amendment requiring the condenser unit to 
remain in place and not be taken out of the clothes dryer for any 
reason between tests. AHAM commented that DOE should not include that 
provision. However, if it is included, it needs to be clarified. For 
example, the test procedure should state how many test runs are 
required. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 7)
    DOE agrees that the condenser unit may be cleaned prior to the 
first test run. DOE also believes that requiring the condenser unit to 
remain in place between tests ensures repeatability. As discussed later 
in this section, DOE is not amending the test procedure to require 
multiple test cycles. Because multiple test cycles may be necessary 
under certain conditions, however, such as a requirement that if the 
condensation box is full and must be emptied, the test would be re-run 
from the beginning. For these reasons, DOE amends section 2.1 of the 
clothes dryer test procedure regarding installation to add the 
provision the condenser unit of the dryer must remain in place and not 
be taken out of the dryer between tests, as proposed in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37623 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the methodology in the 
current DOE test procedure for conventional (vented) clothes dryers can 
be applied to ventless clothes dryers, with a number of clarifications 
added. Based on starting test conditions detailed in EN Standard 61121 
(section 9.1) and Whirlpool's proposed amendments, DOE proposed to 
revise section 2.8 to provide a consistent and repeatable approach for 
ventless clothes dryers. 75 FR 37594, 37623 (June 29, 2010). DOE noted 
that this section, which addresses clothes dryer preconditioning, 
currently requires that before any test cycle is initiated the clothes 
dryer must be operated without a test load in the non-heat mode for 15 
minutes or until the discharge air temperature varies less than 1 
[deg]F during a period of 10 minutes, whichever is longer. Because a 
ventless clothes dryer

[[Page 1007]]

does not have discharge air for which the temperature can be measured, 
DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to revise this section. The 
revision would require that, for ventless clothes dryers, the steady-
state temperature must be equal to the ambient room temperature 
specified by section 2.2 of the existing DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure before the start of all test runs. This could be done by 
leaving the machine at ambient room conditions for at least 12 hours 
but not more than 36 hours between tests. DOE also proposed to revise 
section 2.8, ``Test loads,'' of the DOE clothes dryer test procedure to 
add a qualification to the procedure for pre-conditioning that it 
applies only to vented clothes dryers. Id.
    AHAM commented at the public meeting that DOE should remove the 
clause specifying a maximum time between tests because it did not have 
supporting information to define a maximum time between tests. (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 120) AHAM later provided 
written comments revising these initial statements. It stated it 
supported the revisions to section 2.8 of the DOE test procedure 
proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, including the specification that 
steady-state temperature for ventless clothes dryers may be achieved by 
leaving the machine at ambient room temperature between tests for at 
least 12 hours, but not more than 36 hours. (AHAM, No. 31 at pp. 7-8) 
Whirlpool and ALS also supported the revisions to section 2.8 of the 
DOE test procedure proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. (Whirlpool, No. 
27 at p. 4, ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) BSH questioned what method or 
procedure might be used to get the clothes dryer back to a testable 
state after a 36-hour break in testing. BSH also commented that, 
occasionally, there are breaks in testing that are longer than a day 
and a half; some breaks may last weeks. (BSH, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at p. 119) DOE is not aware of any data providing a 
rationale for this 36-hour maximum time limit for leaving the machine 
at ambient room temperature between tests to achieve steady-state 
temperature. As a result, DOE amends section 2.8 of the clothes dryer 
test procedure regarding clothes dryer preconditioning to include the 
revisions proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, as presented above, but 
without the 36-hour maximum time limit for leaving the machine at room 
ambient conditions for ventless clothes dryer preconditioning.
    AHAM also commented that DOE should to insert the word ``machine'' 
before temperature when describing the machine steady-state 
requirements for ventless clothes dryers. (AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 117-118) AHAM stated that for a manufacturer 
running back-to-back tests, waiting 12 hours between tests is a 
significant test burden. AHAM suggested replacing the word ``can'' with 
``may'' regarding the 12-hour requirement to allow manufacturers to 
reach the ambient room temperature by some other means of cooling the 
machine, such as a fan or portable air conditioner. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 118) BSH commented that because 
ventless clothes dryers do not discharge air there needs to be a method 
for determining steady state other than monitoring the discharge air 
temperature. (BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 129-130)
    DOE agrees with AHAM's comments and accepts the clarifications that 
the steady-state ``machine'' temperature must be equal to ambient room 
temperature. It also agrees that an additional note should clarify that 
this ``may'' be done by leaving the machine at ambient room conditions 
for at least 12 hours between tests. Thus, using other means to achieve 
a steady-state machine temperature would be acceptable under the test 
procedure provisions. In response to the comments by BSH, DOE believes 
that the steady-state ``machine'' temperature clarifies that the 
temperature of the actual machine itself should be monitored. For these 
reasons, DOE adopts the amendments to section 2.8 of the DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure for clothes dryer preconditioning proposed in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR, with the additional clarifications discussed above.
    Relatedly, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it agrees with 
the provisions in section 9.2.2 of EN Standard 61121 and Whirlpool's 
proposed amendments. These specify that the first cycle after a period 
of non-operation longer than 36 hours shall not be used for evaluation, 
and that, between test cycles, the door of the clothes dryer shall be 
closed except for loading (and unloading). DOE noted that the first 
requirement makes the first test run on an unused (dry) ventless 
clothes dryer invalid, and the results from it could not be used for 
the energy efficiency calculations. DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR to incorporate these provisions into section 3.3 of the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure. 75 FR 37594, 37623-24 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS commented in support of the proposed 
requirements that after 36 hours of non-operation, the first test run 
is not valid and that the door remain closed between tests except for 
loading and unloading. They felt these requirements would enhance 
repeatability. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 8; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4; ALS, 
No. 24 at p. 6) DOE is not aware of any data providing a rationale for 
why the first test run after a period of non-operation of 36 hours 
would not be valid. As a result, DOE is not adopting amendments that 
specify the first cycle after a period of non-operation longer than 36 
hours shall not be used for evaluation. In the absence of comments 
objecting to the latter proposal, DOE adopts the amendment to the 
clothes dryer test procedure that, between test cycles, the door of the 
tumble dryer shall be closed except for loading (and unloading), as 
proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37623-24 (June 29, 
2010).
    DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that section 9.2.1 of EN 
Standard 61121 requires that at least five valid test cycles be 
performed and the results averaged. DOE's clothes dryer test procedure 
does not specify multiple test cycles to obtain the representative EF, 
and DOE is not aware of data suggesting that test-to-test variation is 
sufficient to warrant a requirement for more than one test cycle. 
Therefore, DOE did not propose amendments addressing the number of 
valid test cycles in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37624.
    ALS supported DOE's recommendation to require only one test cycle 
for a valid clothes dryer test because there is no evidence that 
additional tests are warranted, and additional tests would add burden 
to manufacturers and test labs, without any corresponding benefit. 
(ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) ALS further commented that if condensing clothes 
dryers have a genuine need to run additional test cycles, ALS could 
support such a requirement limited to condensing clothes dryers only. 
(ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) AHAM supported a requirement for more than one 
clothes dryer test cycle, but stated that the number of test cycles 
should not be so high as to create a test burden. AHAM stated that it 
would offer to assist DOE in determining the appropriate number of 
cycles. AHAM commented that increasing the number of test cycles would 
increase the repeatability and reproducibility of the test. AHAM stated 
that the age of the test cloth during any given test was a source of 
inherent variability that could be accounted for by introducing a 
standard deviation into the related energy use calculations. AHAM

[[Page 1008]]

commented that accounting for variability is especially critical as 
regulatory bodies move toward requiring third-party verification, as 
the various test labs must be capable of reproducing results. (AHAM, 
No. 31 at p. 8) Whirlpool recommended that each unit or model be tested 
three times and the results averaged to account for test-to-test 
variation. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) The California Utilities/NRDC 
also commented that it would be more accurate, and good practice, to 
require multiple clothes dryer tests, but that they cannot provide any 
data at this time to indicate that doing so would greatly reduce test-
to-test variation. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 4)
    As discussed above, DOE is not aware of any data indicating that 
the test-to-test variation is sufficient to warrant a requirement for 
more than one test cycle and the averaging of results. DOE is also 
unaware of any data suggesting that variability in the age of the test 
cloth increases the test-to-test variation of measured results for the 
clothes dryer test procedure. In addition, DOE conducted limited 
testing to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the 
amended test procedure in today's final rule. As shown below in Table 
III.10, the test-to-test variation ranged from 0 percent to 2.7 
percent, with an average of 0.9 percent. For these reasons, DOE is not 
amending the test procedure in today's final rule to require multiple 
test cycles. DOE would be open to considering such amendments in a 
future rulemaking if such data is made available showing that test-to-
test variation is large enough to warrant multiple test cycles.

                Table III.10--DOE Repeatability Testing for Amended Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Average EF lb/kWh
                    Test unit                    ------------------------------------------------  Test-to-test
                                                      Test 1          Test 2          Test 3       variation  %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1......................................            3.67            3.70            3.71             1.1
    Unit 2......................................            3.77            3.77  ..............             0.0
    Unit 3......................................            3.84            3.81  ..............             0.8
    Unit 4......................................            3.92            3.92  ..............             0.0
    Unit 5......................................            4.01            3.95            3.93             2.0
    Unit 6......................................            3.74            3.71            3.71             0.8
Vented Gas:
    Unit 7......................................            3.36            3.36  ..............             0.0
    Unit 8......................................            3.38            3.42  ..............             1.2
    Unit 9......................................            3.47            3.38  ..............             2.7
    Unit 11.....................................            3.52            3.49  ..............             0.9
Vented Electric Compact (240V):
    Unit 13.....................................            3.36            3.35            3.35             0.3
Vented Electric Compact (120V):
    Unit 14.....................................            3.74            3.74  ..............             0.0
Ventless Electric Compact (240V):
    Unit 15.....................................            2.71            2.66            2.70             1.9
Ventless Electric Combo Washer-Dryer:
    Unit 16.....................................            2.26            2.27  ..............             0.4
    Unit 17.....................................            2.76            2.74            2.78             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BSH commented that if DOE is proposing single tests rather than 
multiple tests with results averaged, many of the multiple test 
requirements, such as those for not removing a condenser or specifying 
a time period between tests, are irrelevant. BSH commented that if DOE 
decides to require multiple tests, it must define a set of test runs, 
and the condenser must be allowed to be removed and cleaned. Otherwise, 
the total number of test runs on a particular clothes dryer would be 
limited. (BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 122) ACEEE 
commented that it is possible that if only one test cycle is required 
and the unit fails that test, more tests would need to be run on that 
unit. Therefore, provisions concerning multiple cycles would be needed. 
(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 122-123) AHAM 
commented that the DOE test procedure does not have particular 
requirements for multiple test cycles, but in the general CFR there are 
requirements for the manufacturer to obtain repeatable and verifiable 
results. AHAM commented that DOE does not want to specify a minimum 
number of tests required, but a manufacturer may need to modify the 
condenser if they want or need to run multiple tests. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 123-124) BSH further commented that 
if a manufacturer decides it is only comfortable running 5 or 10 tests, 
it would be reasonable to leave the condenser in place for that number 
of tests. (BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 124)
    As discussed above, multiple test runs may be necessary in cases 
when a test run is considered invalid, such as when the drying cycle 
stops because the condensation box is full of water and the test must 
be re-run. Because there are cases in which multiple test cycles may be 
required, DOE adopts the amendments discussed above related to multiple 
test requirements (that is, that the condenser not be removed and that 
the door be kept closed between tests).
    DOE did not propose to measure the water consumption of ventless 
clothes dryers in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37624 (June 29, 
2010). ALS objected to DOE's proposal to not measure the water 
consumption of ventless ``condensing'' clothes dryers. ALS believes 
that if all clothes washers are required to meet strict standards 
regarding the amount of water consumed in a product that requires water 
to provide consumers with adequate utility, then a condensing clothes 
dryer must account for its water consumption as well. ALS commented 
that DOE needs to at least require that water consumption be measured 
and reported so that data is available for any future consideration of 
minimum standards for the water consumption of a condensing clothes 
dryer. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 6) General Electric (GE) commented that it 
does not have data on how much water is consumed by

[[Page 1009]]

ventless clothes dryers that utilize an external water source to 
condense moisture from the dryer steam air. GE believes, however, that 
water consumption could be easily measured by placing a calibrated flow 
meter on the water source. GE believes it would not be burdensome to 
perform the measurement and that such measurements would provide a more 
meaningful, robust measure of water use. (GE, No. 32 at p. 1) Whirlpool 
commented that it is not aware of any ventless clothes dryers in the 
United States that utilize water in the condensing process, and that 
should such products exist, their market share would be so small as to 
be immeasurable. Whirlpool commented that it does not believe that 
measuring water consumption is relevant or necessary. (Whirlpool, No. 
27 at p. 4)
    DOE notes that EPCA allows the establishment of water use metrics, 
but only for certain products. EPCA defines ``energy conservation 
standard'' in relevant part as:
    (A) A performance standard which prescribes a minimum level of 
energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use, or, in the case 
of showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals, water use, for a 
covered product, determined in accordance with test procedures 
prescribed under section 6293 of this title; (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(A))

In addition, DOE regulates the water use of clothes washers based on 
the water conservation standards set by Congress in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(g)(9).
    Clothes dryers do not belong to the group of products specified by 
EPCA for which DOE can set a water use standard. As a result, DOE is 
not amending the clothes dryer test procedure in today's final rule to 
establish a water use metric or to include a requirement to measure the 
water consumption for ventless condensing clothes dryers.
    DOE also stated that the results from DOE's tests at an independent 
laboratory are representative of the repeatability of results that 
would be observed using the testing procedures proposed in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37624 (June 29, 2010). Although DOE's tests 
were conducted using the alternate test procedure that provided 
separate definitions for a ``conventional clothes dryer'' and a 
``condensing clothes dryer'' and that simply required use of the 
exhaust simulator only for vented clothes dryers, DOE stated that the 
additional clarifications proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR would not 
significantly affect these testing results because they do not affect 
the the test cycle measurement method. Therefore, DOE stated that the 
amendments to the test procedure for ventless clothes dryers proposed 
in the June 2010 TP SNOPR would produce accurate and repeatable 
measurements of EF. Id.
    To further support its assertion, after issuance of the June 2010 
TP SNOPR, DOE conducted three identical tests on one ventless electric 
compact (240V) clothes dryer and two identical tests on one ventless 
electric combination washer/dryer to evaluate the repeatability of the 
proposed test procedure for ventless clothes dryers. Testing results, 
presented in Table III.11, showed 0.8-percent and 3.5-percent variation 
in EF from test to test for the ventless electric compact (240V) and 
ventless electric combination washer-dryer, respectively. The test-to-
test variation shown below is comparable to the test-to-test variation 
shown in Table III.10 (conducted according to the alternate test 
procedure that provided separate definitions for a ``conventional 
clothes dryer'' and a ``condensing clothes dryer'' and that simply 
required use of the exhaust simulator only for vented clothes dryers). 
The slightly greater test-to-test variation observed in Table III.11 
may be attributed to other test procedure tolerances, such as the 
allowable ranges in ambient temperature and relative humidity. DOE 
continues to believe that the amendments adopting in today's final rule 
for ventless clothes dryers produce accurate and repeatable 
measurements of EF.

                  Table III.11--DOE Repeatability Testing for Ventless Clothes Dryer Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     EF lb/kWh
                    Test unit                    ------------------------------------------------  Test-to-test
                                                      Test 1          Test 2          Test 3       variation  %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ventless Electric Compact (240V) (Unit 15)......            2.36            2.38            2.37             0.8
Ventless Electric Combo Washer-Dryer (Unit 16)..            2.05            1.98  ..............             3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Detergent Specifications for Clothes Dryer Test Cloth 
Preconditioning
    Section 2.6.3 of the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure 
specifies that the test cloth be preconditioned by performing a 10-
minute wash cycle in a standard clothes washer using AHAM Standard Test 
Detergent IIA. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D, section 2.6.3. 
This detergent is obsolete and no longer available from AHAM or other 
suppliers. The current AHAM standard detergent is identified as AHAM 
standard test detergent Formula 3. Because AHAM Standard detergent IIA 
is no longer available to manufacturers, DOE proposed in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR to amend section 2.6.3 of the clothes dryer test procedure to 
specify the use of AHAM standard test detergent Formula 3 in test cloth 
preconditioning. 75 FR 37594, 37624 (June 29, 2010).
    Clothes washer tests that DOE conducted with AHAM standard test 
detergent Formula 3 suggest the dosage specified in section 2.6.3(2) of 
the DOE clothes dryer test procedure for AHAM Standard detergent IIA 
(6.0 grams (g) per gallon of water) may no longer be appropriate. This 
is because at the end of clothes washer test cloth preconditioning, 
which specifies the same dosage, undissolved clumps of detergent were 
observed in the cloth load. Further, DOE conducted extractor tests that 
indicate that detergent dosage impacts RMC measurements by as much as 
several percent.
    AHAM's clothes dryer test procedure, AHAM HLD-1-2009, specifies a 
standard test detergent Formula 3 dosage of 27 g + 4.0 g/lb of base 
test load for test cloth pre-treatment. For DOE's clothes dryer test 
cloth preconditioning, the current test procedure specifies that 
clothes washer water fill level be set to the maximum level, regardless 
of test load size. In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend the 
test load size for standard-size clothes dryers to 8.45 lb <plus-minus> 
.085 lb (see section III.C.5.c.), which would result in a detergent 
dosage of AHAM standard test detergent Formula 3 of 60.8 g. DOE stated 
that the detergent concentration should be set by the pounds of test 
cloth in this standard-size test load because this load is more closely 
matched to the maximum water fill level than is the compact-size test 
load (3.0 lb <plus-minus> .03 lb). For preconditioning a compact-size 
test load, DOE proposed that the same

[[Page 1010]]

detergent dosage be specified because the water fill level would remain 
the same as for the larger load, resulting in the same concentration of 
the water/detergent mixture. 75 FR 37594, 37624 (June 29, 2010).
    To address the problems associated with the current dosage 
specification in the DOE clothes dryer test procedure, DOE proposed in 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR to amend section 2.6.3 of the clothes dryer test 
procedure. The amendment would require 60.8 g of AHAM standard test 
detergent Formula 3 be used to precondition test cloth. Id.
    AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS supported DOE's proposed detergent 
specifications. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 8; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4; ALS, 
No. 24 at p. 6) Whirlpool also strongly recommended that the test cloth 
be preconditioned in the same way when used in tests for both clothes 
washers and clothes dryers. This would enable test cloth with common 
characteristics to be interchanged between the two products, which 
would result in increased repeatability. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) 
For the reasons stated above and in the absence of comments objecting 
to this proposal, DOE amends its clothes dryer test procedure in 
today's final rule to revise the detergent specifications for test 
cloth preconditioning as proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 
37594, 37624 (June 29, 2010). DOE will address detergent specifications 
for test cloth preconditioning for the clothes washer test procedure in 
the test procedure rulemaking for that product.
5. Changes To Reflect Current Usage Patterns and Capabilities
a. Clothes Dryer Number of Annual Cycles
    As noted above, DOE most recently amended its test procedure for 
residential clothes dryers in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on May 19, 1981. 46 FR 27324. Although DOE has updated its 
test procedure for residential clothes washers since that time,\33\ it 
has not updated its residential clothes dryer test procedure. In the 
revised residential clothes washer test procedure, the average number 
of annual use cycles was revised to reflect current (at the time) 
consumer use patterns. DOE noted in the October 2007 Framework Document 
that the average number of clothes dryer use cycles assumed in the 
revised clothes washer test procedure is different from the number of 
use cycles in the clothes dryer test procedure. (Framework Document, 
STD No. 1 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 62 FR 45484, 45498 (Aug. 27, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE reviewed available data to determine 
the number of annual clothes dryer use cycles so that it could amend 
its test procedure to accurately reflect current consumer usage habits. 
DOE reviewed the 2004 California Statewide RASS, which surveyed 
appliance product usage patterns, including clothes dryers.\34\ The 
study surveyed 7,686 households between 2002 and 2003, asking the 
question ``how many loads of clothes do you dry in your clothes dryer 
during a typical week?'' For the 6,790 of these households that said 
they owned a clothes dryer, average usage was 4.69 loads per week, or 
approximately 244 loads per year. Because this study provides only a 
limited dataset, however, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it 
did not intend to rely only on this data to determine an appropriate 
number of annual use cycles for the clothes dryer test procedure. 75 FR 
37594, 37625 (June 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ KEMA, Inc. op. cit. p. 118. For more information visit: 
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE also reviewed data from the 2005 
RECS to determine the annual usage of clothes dryers. RECS is a 
national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical 
information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in 
housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the 
housing units and occupants. RECS provides enough information to 
establish the type (that is, product class) of clothes dryer used in 
each household, the age of the product, and an estimate of the 
household's annual energy consumption attributable to clothes dryers. 
DOE estimated the number of clothes dryer cycles per year for each 
sample home using data given by RECS on the number of laundry loads 
(clothes washer cycles) washed per week and the frequency of clothes 
dryer use. Based on its analysis of RECS data, DOE estimated the 
clothes dryer usage factor (the percentage of washer loads dried in a 
clothes dryer) to be 91 percent and the calculated average usage to be 
283 cycles per year for all product classes of clothes dryers. DOE also 
noted that the RECS data shows that the number of clothes washer and 
clothes dryer cycles has been decreasing steadily for a number of years 
to the extent that a historical trend has been established. Because 
this dataset is more extensive than that of the RASS, DOE believes 
these numbers are more representative of annual usage patterns. 
Therefore, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to amend the number 
of annual use cycles in its test procedure to 283 cycles for all 
product classes of clothes dryers. 75 FR 37594, 37625 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM supported DOE's proposal to amend the number of annual use 
cycles to 283 cycles for all product classes of clothes dryers. AHAM 
stated, however, that it continues to oppose using 2005 RECS data to 
support this change without verification of the RECS estimates. AHAM 
commented that the results from a recent survey by Procter & Gamble 
(P&G) indicated that 5.2 to 5.35 loads per household with a clothes 
dryer are dried per week, or 279 clothes dryer loads per year. AHAM 
noted this number is similar to that derived from the 2005 RECS data 
and therefore, it supported the change in the number of clothes dryer 
annual use cycles to 283. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 8; AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at p. 137)
    The California Utilities/NRDC, the Joint Petitioners, Whirlpool, 
and ALS also commented in support of DOE's proposal of 283 annual use 
cycles. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 5; Joint Petitioners, 
No. 30 at p. 7; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4; ALS, No. 24 at p. 7) The 
California Utilities/NRDC noted that the California 2005 RASS, which 
indicates a weighted-average for California of 235 annual use cycles is 
fairly consistent with DOE's number and with the overall trend of 
decreasing yearly use cycles. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 
5) Whirlpool also noted that in its April 26, 2010 comments that it 
recommended 288 cycles per year, which is essentially consistent with 
DOE's recommendation of 283 cycles per year. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 
4)
    DOE notes there is close agreement between the estimates provided 
by interested parties and DOE's estimate based on the data reviewed by 
DOE, and there were no comments objecting to its proposal. Therefore, 
DOE amends the clothes dryer test procedure to change the number of 
annual use cycles to 283 cycles for all product classes of clothes 
dryers.
b. Clothes Dryer Initial Remaining Moisture Content
    In the revised residential clothes washer test procedure, a new 
parameter, the RMC of the test cloth, was introduced. 68 FR 62198, 
62199 (October 31, 2003). The clothes washer RMC is the ratio of the 
weight of water contained within the test load at the completion of the 
clothes washer energy test cycle to the bone-dry weight of the

[[Page 1011]]

test load, expressed as a percent. Correspondingly, the initial RMC of 
a clothes load being dried is a function of RMC at the end of a clothes 
washer cycle. The current DOE clothes dryer test procedure specifies an 
initial RMC of 70 <plus-minus> 3.5 percent. Similar to the discussion 
above of the average number of use cycles per year, the RMC of typical 
clothes loads in the residential clothes washer test procedure should 
be consistent with values defined in the clothes dryer test procedure. 
For the reasons explained below, however, DOE believes that the initial 
RMC in the clothes dryer test procedure may not reflect typical RMCs of 
actual clothes dryer loads.
    DOE notes that the revision to the clothes washer test procedure 
changed the clothes washer energy conservation standards metric to a 
modified energy factor (MEF). This established a method for measuring 
the RMC for clothes washers. This RMC is then used to estimate the 
energy required by a clothes dryer to dry the clothes load. This 
estimate is then factored in to the calculation of MEF to account for 
clothes washers that reduce the estimated energy required to dry the 
clothes load in a clothes dryer. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
J1, section 4.3) Since the clothes dryer test procedure was last 
amended in 1981 (46 FR 27324 (May 19, 1981)), average clothes washer 
RMC has decreased due to the introduction of higher efficiency models 
with higher final spin speeds. Therefore, while clothes dryer energy 
use has decreased with the lower RMC, clothes washer energy use has 
increased somewhat to achieve the higher spin speeds. This energy use 
is accounted for in the residential clothes washer energy conservation 
standards rulemaking. In the clothes washer test procedure final rule 
published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001, DOE estimated 
RMCs at specific efficiency levels. 66 FR 3314. For the residential 
clothes washer standard which became effective January 1, 2007 (1.26 
MEF), DOE estimated a weighted-average RMC of 56 percent.
    As discussed in section I, the EF for clothes dryers is determined 
by measuring the total energy required to dry a standard test load of 
laundry to a ``bone dry'' state. If today's clothes dryer loads have 
initial RMCs lower than the nominal 70 percent specified in the 
existing DOE clothes dryer test procedure, revisions to the test 
procedure to reflect more realistic (that is, lower) RMCs would result 
in the current EF rating increasing for a given clothes dryer. This is 
because the clothes dryer would have less water to remove.
    As part of the preliminary analyses for the residential clothes 
dryer energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE used a distribution 
of values for models listed in the December 12, 2008 CEC product 
database to estimate the RMC of clothes washers. For products for which 
the RMC was listed, DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the RMC 
values ranged from 30 percent to 61 percent, with an average of 46 
percent. 75 FR 37594, 37626 (June 29, 2010).
    As part of the October 2007 Framework Document, DOE requested data 
from AHAM showing the shipments of residential clothes washers for 
which RMC was reported, along with shipment-weighted RMC (See Table 
III.12). These data sets, each including disaggregated data for front-
loading and top-loading clothes washers, as well as reported overall 
values for all units, provide insight into what initial clothes dryer 
RMC would be most representative of current residential clothes 
washers. As noted above, however, AHAM indicated that the data contain 
only shipments for which the RMC was reported, and thus the total will 
not be equal to actual shipments reported for 2000-2008. The data 
indicate that RMC has been decreasing consistently, from about 54 
percent in 2000 to 47 percent in 2008. The data also suggest that the 
initial RMC of nominally 70 percent in the DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure is greater than the current shipment-weighted residential 
clothes washer average RMC.

                   Table III.12--AHAM Shipment-Weighted Clothes Washer RMC Data Submittal \35\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Clothes washer shipments for which         Shipment-weighted RMC (%)
                                               RMC was reported           --------------------------------------
               Year                ---------------------------------------
                                       Front-                                 Front-    Top-loading     Total
                                      loading    Top-loading     Total       loading
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000..............................      232,714      686,440      919,154         43.6         57.4         53.9
2001..............................      235,989      473,629      709,618         41.3         57.7         52.2
2002..............................      280,667      529,265      809,932         41.5         58.1         52.3
2003..............................      351,411    1,676,877    2,028,288         43.1         54.5         52.5
2004..............................    1,179,813    5,270,285    6,450,098         42.2         52.8         50.9
2005..............................    1,563,108    5,394,511    6,957,619         40.8         52.7         50.1
2006..............................    1,851,218    5,628,279    7,479,497         39.3         51.4         48.4
2007..............................    1,973,825    5,371,142    7,344,967         38.3         51.4         47.8
2008..............................    2,043,024    4,492,059    6,535,083         38.1         51.0         47.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ AHAM, 2009. AHAM Weighted RMC for Front Load and Top Load 
Units, 2000-2008--DOE Clothes Dryer Rulemaking, Secondary Data 
Request. July 7, 2009. Docket No. EE-2007-BT-STD-0010, Comment 
Number 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its analysis of the shipment-weighted RMC data submitted 
by AHAM, as well as its own review of the CEC residential clothes 
washer database, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that an initial 
RMC of 47 percent is representative of current residential clothes 
dryer initial test load characteristics. Therefore, DOE proposed to 
amend section 2.7, ``Test loads,'' of the clothes dryer test procedure 
to require the initial RMC be changed from 70 <plus-minus> 3.5 percent 
to 47 percent. DOE further proposed to eliminate the <plus-minus> 3.5 
percent allowable range in RMC. This is because the proposed amendments 
to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure for automatic cycle 
termination, detailed in section III.C.2, would require that the test 
load be initially prepared to between 42- and 47-percent RMC. The 
proposed amendments would also require final adjustments be made to the 
RMC to achieve 47-percent <plus-minus> 0.33-percent RMC to account for 
over-drying energy consumption. 75 FR 37594, 37627 (June 29, 2010).
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed that if it does not adopt 
the proposed amendments for testing automatic cycle termination, but 
adopts only these aforementioned proposed

[[Page 1012]]

amendments to change the initial RMC, it could specify an initial RMC 
of 47 <plus-minus> 3.5 percent. In that case, the tolerance of <plus-
minus> 3.5 percent on the nominal initial RMC, as currently specified 
in DOE's test procedure, would allow the same flexibility in test cloth 
preparation as is currently allowed. 75 FR 37594, 37627 (June 29, 
2010).
    DOE also noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the current test 
procedure contains a provision in the calculation of per-cycle energy 
consumption intended to normalize EF by the reduction in RMC over the 
course of the drying cycle. A scaling factor of 66 is applied, 
representative of the percentage change from the nominal initial RMC of 
70 percent to the nominal ending RMC of 4 percent. DOE noted, however, 
that the proposed changes to account for automatic cycle termination, 
as presented above in section III.C.2, would require amending the 
calculations for the per-cycle energy consumption to remove the need 
for this scaling factor. Therefore, DOE did not propose to amend the 
scaling factor in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37627 (June 29, 
2010). DOE proposed that if it does not adopt the proposed amendments 
for testing automatic cycle termination, but adopts only these 
aforementioned proposed amendments to change the initial RMC, it could 
change the scaling factor to 43 to reflect a starting RMC of 47 
percent. Id.
    AHAM, the California Utilities/NRDC, and the Joint Petitioners all 
supported an initial RMC of 47 percent. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 9; 
California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 5; Joint Petitioners, No. 30, 
at p. 7) AHAM provided data to support this approach in their April 26, 
2010 comments. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 9) Whirlpool also commented that 
DOE's proposal of 47 <plus-minus> 1 percent RMC is consistent with its 
recommendation from its April 26, 2010 comments. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at 
p. 4)
    ALS objected to DOE's proposal to utilize 47-percent initial RMC. 
ALS commented that the current clothes dryer test procedure uses 
``raw'' non-correction factored RMC values, unlike the values DOE used 
to arrive at the national average of 47-percent RMC. The data DOE used 
was based on shipment-weighted average clothes washer data supplied by 
AHAM that had a correction factor applied to account for extraction. 
(ALS, No. 24 at p. 7; ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 141) 
ALS commented that DOE should be using raw RMC values from the clothes 
washer, because the current clothes dryer test uses raw values and 
there is a significant difference between ``raw'' RMC values and 
``correction-factored'' RMC values. ALS stated that it conducted tests 
on front-load washers (both its own and those of its competition) that 
resulted in raw RMC values of around 50 percent, compared to the 41-
percent RMC derived when the correction factor is applied. This is a 
difference of 9 RMC percentage points, which is a 18-percent relative 
difference. ALS added that it is apparent that if ``raw'' values of 
washer RMC were analyzed by DOE, the national average would be closer 
to 53-55 percent. ALS acknowledged that no database exists of ``raw'' 
shipment-weighted average RMC values for clothes washers. ALS suggested 
DOE perform limited clothes washer tests to confirm the ALS results 
regarding the ``raw'' versus ``correction-factored'' RMC values, and 
adjust the proposed 47-percent value to align more closely to the ALS-
suggested value of 53 percent. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 7) ALS also commented 
that manufacturers prefer to utilize their own production front-loading 
clothes washers to prepare test loads per the DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure. However, they would find it more difficult to achieve DOE's 
proposed 47-percent RMC when the front-loader in their labs can only 
achieve raw values at 50-percent RMC in default DOE test program 
cycles. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 7) ALS did not recommend adding in 
correction factors to the clothes dryer test procedure to raise the 
initial RMC higher to reflect the uncorrected value. (ALS, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 143)
    DOE first notes that it proposed an initial RMC of 47 percent 
<plus-minus> 3.5 percent, not <plus-minus>1 percent as commented by 
Whirlpool. DOE agrees with ALS that the clothes dryer test procedure 
should be using a ``raw'' uncorrected RMC value and not the corrected 
RMC values in the data submitted by AHAM. DOE understands that in the 
clothes washer test procedure, an RMC correction factor curve is 
applied to account for the different extraction rates of different test 
cloth lots in order to calculate a corrected RMC value. The correction 
factor curve uses the following equation: RMC<INF>corrected</INF> = A x 
RMC<INF>measured</INF> + B, where RMC<INF>measured</INF> is the 
measured RMC after the clothes washer spin cycle and A and B are 
coefficients based on extraction testing using a linear least-squares 
fit to relate the standard RMC to the measured extraction RMC value. 
(The standard RMC is provided in table 2.6.6.1 of the clothes washer 
test procedure.) DOE notes that in 2008, the latest year for which 
shipment-weighted average corrected RMC values were provided in the 
AHAM data, the most recent test cloth lot was lot 16. DOE acknowledges, 
however, that manufacturers and testing labs were likely using previous 
test cloth lots for the RMC values reported in the AHAM data. For this 
reason, DOE estimated the 2008 uncorrected RMC value by using the RMC 
correction factor curves from lots 12 through 16 and averaging the 
results. As shown in Table III.13, the results showed an average 
uncorrected RMC value of 57.5 percent.

            Table III.13--DOE Clothes Washer Test Procedure Test Cloth Lot RMC Correction Factor Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  2008 Shipment-
                                                                                                     weighted
                                               Lot <greek-i>    Coefficient A    Coefficient B       average
                                                                                                 uncorrected RMC
                                                                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               2008 Shipment-                             12           0.7165           0.0505             65.5
                  Weighted                                13           0.8828           0.0015             53.2
                   Average                                14           0.8970           0.0014             52.4
                Corrected RMC                             15          0.89904         -0.04284             52.3
                   = 47.0%                                16          0.73478          0.03174             63.9
                                                     Average   ...............  ...............            57.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To validate this estimate, DOE examined the uncorrected RMC data 
from tests of 17 residential clothes washer (9 front-loading and 8 top-
loading units) it conducted for the residential clothes washer energy 
conservation standards rulemaking preliminary analyses. The results 
from DOE's testing are shown below in Table III.14. Taking the average 
RMC for each product class (that is, front-loading and top-loading) and 
weighting the average

[[Page 1013]]

RMCs by the shipments for each product class resulted in a shipment-
weighted average uncorrected RMC of 58.1 percent, which is in close 
agreement with the 57.5-percent uncorrected RMC estimated by DOE using 
the RMC correction factor curves.

    Table III.14--DOE Clothes Washer Testing Uncorrected RMC Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Uncorrected
                        Test unit                              RMC %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front-Loading Clothes Washers (2008 Shipments =
 3,022,077):
  Unit 1................................................            43.7
  Unit 2................................................            58.9
  Unit 3................................................            55.9
  Unit 4................................................            49.3
  Unit 5................................................            49.5
  Unit 6................................................            38.5
  Unit 7................................................            50.7
  Unit 8................................................            45.3
  Unit 9................................................            45.4
Top-Loading Clothes Washers (2008 Shipments =
 5,269,625):
  Unit 10...............................................            67.7
  Unit 11...............................................            94.3
  Unit 12...............................................            48.4
  Unit 13...............................................            60.5
  Unit 14...............................................            65.2
  Unit 15...............................................            67.1
  Unit 16...............................................            54.2
  Unit 17...............................................            50.3
  Shipment-Weighted Average.............................            58.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the uncorrected RMC value using shipment-weighted 
average corrected RMC data submitted by AHAM and the RMC correction 
factor curves for test cloth lots 12 through 16. Based on that 
estimate, DOE believes an initial RMC of 57.5 percent more accurately 
represents the moisture content of a load entering the clothes dryer 
after the wash cycle for the purposes of clothes dryer testing. As a 
result, DOE amends the clothes dryer test procedure in today's final 
rule to change the initial RMC to 57.5 percent <plus-minus> 3.5 
percent. In addition, DOE changes the scaling factor in the calculation 
of the per-cycle energy consumption that is intended to normalize EF by 
the reduction in RMC over the course of the drying cycle from a value 
of 66 to 53.5 (That value is the difference of 57.5-percent initial RMC 
minus 4-percent nominal final RMC).
    DOE tested 13 representative clothes dryers to evaluate the affect 
of this amendment to the initial RMC for clothes dryer test load 
preparation on test repeatability. DOE tested these units according to 
the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure, except that the initial 
RMC was changed to 57.5 percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent. For the 
ventless clothes dryer test units, DOE additionally used the proposed 
testing method for ventless dryers presented in section III.C.3. As 
shown below in Table III.15, the test-to-test variation ranged from 0.3 
percent to 1.8 percent, with an average of 0.9 percent. For this 
reason, DOE believes that the amendments to the initial RMC for clothes 
dryer test load preparation produce repeatable test results.

                      Table III.15--DOE Repeatability Testing for 57.5 Percent Initial RMC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Average EF lb/kWh           Test-to-
                             Test unit                             ---------------------------------     test
                                                                      Test 1     Test 2     Test 3   variation %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1........................................................       3.68       3.67  .........          0.3
    Unit 3........................................................       3.84       3.81       3.82          0.8
    Unit 4........................................................       3.79       3.80       3.78          0.5
    Unit 5........................................................       3.93       3.88       3.92          1.3
    Unit 6........................................................       3.70       3.71  .........          0.3
Vented Gas:
    Unit 7........................................................       3.32       3.32       3.31          0.3
    Unit 8........................................................       3.41       3.44  .........          0.9
    Unit 9........................................................       3.23       3.21       3.25          1.2
    Unit 10.......................................................       3.27       3.31       3.28          1.2
    Unit 11.......................................................       3.38       3.41       3.43          1.5
Vented Electric Compact (240V):
    Unit 12.......................................................       3.61       3.62       3.61          0.3
    Unit 13.......................................................       3.46       3.48       3.42          1.8
Ventless Electric Combo Washer-Dryer:
    Unit 16.......................................................       2.35       2.31       2.34          1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Clothes Dryer Test Load Weight
    The current DOE clothes dryer test procedure requires a 7.00 lb 
<plus-minus> .07 lb test load for standard-size clothes dryers and a 
3.00 lb <plus-minus> .03 lb test load for compact-size clothes dryers. 
In response to comments it received on the October 2007 Framework 
Document, DOE investigated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR whether the 
average test load weight for standard-size clothes dryers is valid for 
use in light of the capacities of the current generation of clothes 
washer. 75 FR 37594, 37631 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE contacted detergent manufacturers to obtain data on average 
residential clothes washer load sizes. P&G conducted an internal study 
in 2003 on household laundry habits on a representative set of the 
population across the United States, from which P&G provided relevant 
summary data to DOE for this rulemaking. The clothes washer load weight 
data, based on a sample size of 3367 loads of laundry from a total of 
510 respondents, showed that the average load size for top-loading and 
front-loading clothes washers was 7.2 lb and 8.4 lb, respectively. 
(P&G, No. 15 at p. 1) Based on the average shipment-weighted market 
share for top-loading and front-loading clothes washers between 2000 
and 2008 from data submitted by AHAM (shown in Table III.12), the 
shipment-weighted average clothes washer load size would be 
approximately 7.5 lb. DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, however, 
that clothes washer capacities were likely to have increased since the 
survey was conducted in 2003. Therefore, DOE factored into its analysis 
these capacity changes to estimate a more current

[[Page 1014]]

average load size. 75 FR 37594, 37631 (June 29, 2010).
    Table III.16 shows the trends of the shipment-weighted average tub 
volume for residential clothes washers from 1981 to 2008, based on data 
from the AHAM Trends in Energy Efficiency 2008. The shipment-weighted 
average tub volume has increased from 2.52 ft\3\ in 1981 to 3.22 ft\3\ 
in 2008.

 Table III.16--Residential Clothes Washer Shipment-Weighted Average Tub
                           Volume Trends \36\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Shipment-
                                                  weighted
                     Year                       average tub    % Change
                                                   volume     since 1990
                                                   (ft3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981..........................................         2.52  ...........
1990..........................................         2.63  ...........
1991..........................................         2.72          3.4
1992..........................................         2.71          3.0
1993..........................................         2.71          3.0
1994..........................................         2.69          2.3
1995..........................................         2.72          3.4
1996..........................................         2.80          6.5
1997..........................................         2.83          7.6
1998..........................................         2.85          8.4
1999..........................................         2.89          9.9
2000..........................................         2.92         11.0
2001..........................................         2.96         12.5
2002..........................................         2.96         12.5
2003..........................................         3.01         14.4
2004..........................................         3.05         16.0
2005..........................................         3.08         17.2
2006..........................................         3.13         19.2
2007..........................................         3.16         20.3
2008..........................................         3.22         22.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 2.7, ``Test Load Sizes,'' in the DOE clothes washer test 
procedure provides the minimum, maximum, and average test load size 
requirements for the clothes washer test, which are based on the 
clothes container capacity. Table III.17 shows the minimum, maximum, 
and average test load sizes for 2.52 ft\3\ and 3.22 ft\3\ container 
capacities according to Table 5.1 in the DOE clothes washer test 
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Trends in 
Energy Efficiency 2008. p. 3. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.aham.org/ht/d/Store.

Table III.17--DOE Clothes Washer Test Load Size Requirements (From Table
                5.1 of 10 CFR 430 Subpart B, Appendix J1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Minimum    Maximum    Average
          Container volume ft3            load lb.   load lb.   load lb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>= 2.50 to < 2.60......................       3.00      10.50       6.75
>= 3.20 to < 3.30......................       3.00      13.30       8.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the average load size in the clothes washer test 
procedure increases by about 21 percent when the container volume 
increases in capacity, which DOE believes is the degree to which 
container volume impacts clothes dryer load sizes. Applying this ratio 
of average clothes washer test load sizes to the clothes dryer test 
load size would result in an increase from 7.00 lb to 8.45 lb for 
standard-size clothes dryers currently available. For these reasons, 
DOE proposed to amend the clothes dryer test load size to 8.45 lb for 
standard-size clothes dryers in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 
37632 (June 29, 2010). DOE proposed to amend the test load size based 
on the change in average load size for clothes washers rather than the 
maximum load size because data from the 2005 RECS indicates that not 
all clothes that are washed are machine dried. Therefore, DOE believes 
that average clothes washer load size would be more representative of 
clothes dryer load size. DOE also proposed to maintain the 1-percent 
tolerance in load sizes specified by the current DOE test procedure for 
standard-size clothes dryers (8.45 lb <plus-minus> .085 lb). Id.
    ALS commented that the clothes dryer test procedure amendments are 
related to the clothes washer test procedure. It stated that if there 
are any changes to the clothes washer test procedure in an upcoming 
rulemaking, especially to the average load size or the load size chart, 
the effect of those changes on the clothes dryer test procedure must be 
considered. (ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 171) DOE 
recently published a NOPR proposing amendments to the test procedure 
for clothes washers and welcomes comments on that proposal as stated in 
the NOPR. 75 FR 57556 (September 21, 2010). Because DOE has not 
published a final rule amending the clothes washer test procedure, 
however, the issue of how any such amendments might influence 
conditions for the final amended clothes dryer test procedure is not 
relevant at this time. DOE may consider this issue in a future 
rulemaking.
    AHAM, Whirlpool, ALS, the California Utilities/NRDC, and the Joint 
Petitioners commented in support of the proposed amendment to change 
the clothes dryer load size to 8.45 <plus-minus> 0.085 lb for standard-
size clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 9; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 5, 
ALS, No. 24 at p. 7, California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 5, Joint 
Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 7) For the reasons stated above and in the 
absence of comment objecting to this proposal, DOE amends the clothes 
dryer test procedure in today's final rule to change the clothes dryer 
load size to 8.45 <plus-minus> 0.085 lb for standard-size clothes 
dryers.
    DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that most compact clothes 
dryers are used with compact-size clothes washers, and that DOE does 
not have any information to suggest that the tub volume of such clothes 
washers has changed significantly. Therefore, DOE did not propose to 
change the 3-lb test load size currently specified in the test 
procedure for compact clothes dryers in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. DOE 
sought data on the historical trends of compact-size clothes washer 
average tub volumes or any other data that would suggest a change in 
the clothes dryer test load size for compact clothes dryers.
    AHAM and the Joint Petitioners commented in support of maintaining 
the 3-lb load size for compact clothes dryers until there is sufficient 
data upon which to base a change. (AHAM, No. 31

[[Page 1015]]

at p. 9; Joint Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 7) For these reasons, DOE is 
not amending the test procedure to change the load size for compact 
clothes dryers.
    DOE tested 8 representative clothes dryers to evaluate the affect 
of this amendment to the test load weight for standard-size clothes 
dryers on test repeatability. DOE tested these units according to the 
current DOE clothes dryer test procedure, except that the test load 
size was changed to 8.45 lb <plus-minus> .085 lbs for standard-size 
clothes dryers. As shown below in Table III.18, the test-to-test 
variation ranged from 0.0 percent to 2.9 percent, with an average of 
1.6 percent. For this reason, DOE believes that the amendments to the 
test load weight in the clothes dryer test procedure produce repeatable 
test results.

Table III.18--DOE Repeatability Testing for 8.45 lb <plus-minus> .085 lb
               Test Load for Standard-Size Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Average EF lb/kWh     Test-to-
              Test unit               ----------------------     test
                                         Test 1     Test 2   variation %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1...........................       3.13       3.13          0.0
    Unit 4...........................       3.20       3.27          2.2
    Unit 6...........................       3.53       3.47          1.7
    Unit 7...........................       3.33       3.34          0.3
    Unit 8...........................       3.18       3.09          2.9
Vented Gas:
    Unit 10..........................       2.85       2.86          0.4
    Unit 11..........................       2.96       2.89          2.4
    Unit 13..........................       2.81       2.73          2.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Room Air Conditioner Annual Operating Hours
    The DOE test procedure currently assumes room air conditioners have 
an average annual use of 750 hours. DOE's technical support document 
from September 1997, issued in support of the most recent room air 
conditioner energy conservation standards rulemaking, shows that the 
average annual operational hours are closer to 500 hours.\37\ That 
average would yield approximately 33-percent lower annual energy 
consumption than the annual energy consumption determined using the 750 
operational hours assumed in the current test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ U.S. Department of Energy--Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Technical Support Document for Energy Conservation 
Standards for Room Air Conditioners. September 1997. Chapter 1, 
section 1.5. Washington, DC. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/room_ac.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledged the uncertainty regarding room air conditioner 
usage patterns and investigated the annual hours of usage from a range 
of information sources to develop an updated estimate of annual 
operating hours for the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37633 (June 
29, 2010). DOE's investigation revealed a lack of metered and survey 
data for the operating hours of individual room air conditioners. DOE 
found that estimates of the annual operating hours of use were often 
based on regional climatic data rather than actual room air conditioner 
use. DOE did find two sources of survey data on room air conditioner 
use in the EIA's 2005 RECS (and previous versions) and the CEC 
California Statewide RASS. The CEC survey contained only aggregated 
residential data, which limited any analysis pertaining to the annual 
operating hours. EIA's 2005 RECS provides extensive data on individual 
residences, while providing a more expansive and representative sample 
of households. Thus, DOE continued its analysis using EIA's 2005 RECS. 
Id.
    The 2005 RECS provides enough information to establish the type 
(that is, product class) of room air conditioner used in each 
household, the age of the product, and an estimate of the household's 
annual energy consumption attributable to the room air conditioner. 
Using this data, DOE developed an estimate of the annual hours of use 
of a room air conditioner in a household. This estimate was used to 
calculate a weighted national average of room air conditioner usage 
hours. The data in the 2005 RECS indicates that the estimated room air 
conditioner average annual usage is 810 hours. DOE noted in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR that this number of hours is higher than the current 750 
hours specified in the test procedure. It is also significantly higher 
than the approximately 500 hours suggested by the previous energy 
conservation standard rulemaking analysis. Id.
    An investigation of the 2005 cooling season covered by RECS 
indicates that there were roughly 12-percent more cooling degree days 
(CDD) in 2005 than the 30-year 1971 to 2000 average.\38\ The Annual 
Energy Outlook projections of CDD for the future suggest that the 
higher level of CDD will continue.\39\ Hence, the predictions of annual 
hours based on the 2005 RECS can be considered representative of future 
usage. Further, DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, however, it does 
not consider the increase of 60 hours from 750 hours to 810 hours to be 
significant. This is because that increase does not exceed the 
uncertainty level associated with the RECS-based approach for 
estimation of this value. Hence, DOE did not propose a change in the 
annual operating hours used in the test procedure in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37633 (June 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ CDD is a sum of the difference between ambient temperature 
in [deg]F and 65 [deg]F for every hour of the year that the ambient 
temperature is higher than 65 [deg]F for a given location, divided 
by 24 to convert from hours to days; DOE used data on CDD from the 
National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB). National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, National Solar Radiation Database 1991-2005 Update: 
User's Manual, 2007. Golden, CO. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41364.pdf.
    \39\ Energy Information Administration, 2006 State Energy 
Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS),
    2006. Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that it strongly opposes relying on the RECS data. 
(AHAM, No. 31 at pp. 9-10) AHAM stated that it is becoming more 
difficult to get survey data on room air conditioners as more people 
rely on central air conditioning and because room air conditioners are 
being used more for space cooling or assistance cooling rather than 
primary cooling. AHAM also commented that consumers tend to buy room 
air conditioners that are oversized for the cooling space, resulting in 
fewer use-hours than if they had purchased a unit that was sized 
appropriately. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 151-152) 
AHAM believes data are available, and that DOE should use such data for 
its

[[Page 1016]]

analysis. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 152-154) AHAM 
also supported maintaining the current 750 annual operating hours used 
in the test procedure for room air conditioners until or unless 
additional reliable surveys or testing are completed that determine a 
more representative number of use hours for room air conditioners 
exists. (AHAM, No. 31 at pp. 9-10; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
20 at p. 150) The California Utilities/NRDC also supported DOE's 
allocation of 750 hours per year to active cooling, adding that this 
allocation seems reasonable given available data. However, the 
California Utilities/NRDC stated that DOE may need to revise this 
allocation in light of its proposed treatment of fan-only energy. 
(California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 4)
    DOE understands the uncertainties associated with RECS data, but 
believes that the estimates using such data generally support 
maintaining the current 750 annual operating hours. As discussed in 
section III.B.4, DOE is not amending the test procedure in today's 
final rule to account for fan-only active mode energy use, but may 
consider amendments to address fan-only active mode in a future 
rulemaking as data become available. For these reasons, DOE maintains 
the current 750 annual operating hours used in the test procedure for 
room air conditioners. DOE may consider revising this number of annual 
operating hours if data are made available indicating that a change in 
this value is warranted.
e. Room Air Conditioner Part-Load Performance
    DOE noted in the October 2007 Framework Document that the current 
DOE room air conditioner test procedure measures full-load performance 
and does not assess energy savings associated with technologies that 
improve part-load performance. DOE concluded in the June 2010 TP SNOPR 
that widespread use of part-load technology in room air conditioners is 
not likely to be stimulated by the development of a part-load metric at 
this time, and therefore, the significant effort required to develop an 
accurate part-load metric is not likely to be warranted by the expected 
minimal energy savings. 75 FR 37594, 37633-34 (June 29, 2010). A part-
load metric would measure efficiency of a product when operating at 
conditions other than maximum capacity, with outdoor or indoor 
conditions cooler than currently used in the DOE active mode energy 
test, or both. In field use of room air conditioners using currently 
available technologies, when enough cooling is provided to the space, 
any number of events can occur to prevent over-cooling. For example, 
the user may turn off the unit or adjust fan speed; or the controls 
might turn off the compressor, turn off both the compressor and the 
fan, or reduce fan speed. Delivery of cooling might be done more 
efficiently with part-load technologies, such as a compressor that can 
adjust its capacity rather than cycling on and off, but sufficient 
information is not available at this time regarding use of room air 
conditioner features to assess whether those alternative technologies 
would be cost effective. DOE notes that the key design changes that 
improve full-load efficiency also improve part-load efficiency, so the 
existing EER metric is already a strong indication of product 
efficiency over a wide range of conditions. DOE concludes that 
development of an additional test for part load, or a change of the 
room air conditioner metric to a part-load metric is not supported by 
the information available to DOE at this time. Therefore, DOE did not 
consider amendments to its room air conditioner test procedure to 
measure part-load performance in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 
37634 (June 29, 2010). For these reasons and in the absence of comments 
objecting to this determination, DOE is not amending its room air 
conditioner test procedure to measure part-load performance at this 
time. DOE may amend the test procedure to account for part-load 
performance in a future rulemaking if information becomes available on 
part-load technologies that are likely to result in significant energy 
savings during actual use by consumers.
f. Room Air Conditioner Ambient Test Conditions
    DOE also considered whether the ambient test conditions in its test 
procedure for room air conditioners are representative of typical 
installations. DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it received a 
comment in response to the October 2007 Framework Document that 
recommended increasing the ambient temperature of the DOE energy test 
procedure from 95 [deg]F to 115 [deg]F. The commenters stated that room 
air conditioners are generally operated when the outdoor temperatures 
are the highest, and that they are often located on the south or west 
side of residences where the sun can shine on them during operation. 75 
FR 37594, 37634 (June 29, 2010). DOE stated that it did not receive 
further information to support the specification of the higher 
temperature, and, therefore, did not consider an amendment to the 
ambient test conditions specified in the room air conditioner test 
procedure in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. Id.
    AHAM supported maintaining the current specifications regarding 
ambient test conditions for room air conditioners. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
10; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 155) In the absence 
of data to support a change to the ambient test conditions, DOE is not 
amending the ambient test conditions specified in the room air 
conditioner test procedure.
6. Room Air Conditioner Referenced Test Procedures
    The room air conditioner test procedure cites two test standards: 
(1) ANS Z234.1-1972 and (2) ASHRAE Standard 16-69. Both the ANS (since 
renamed ANSI) and ASHRAE standards have been updated since DOE last 
revised its room air conditioner test procedure. The current standards 
are ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-R2008 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2009), 
respectively. Because it is likely that any manufacturer rating it 
products is using the most recent test standards, DOE suggested in the 
October 2007 Framework Document that it consider updating its test 
procedure to incorporate by reference the most recent test standards.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE reviewed the differences between the 
test standards currently referenced by the DOE test procedure and the 
latest versions of these standards to determine if amendments to 
reference the latest ANSI and ASHRAE test standards are appropriate. 
DOE noted the sections that would be referenced in ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-
R2008 by the DOE test procedure do not introduce any new changes in the 
measurement of cooling capacity or power input. DOE also noted the 
sections that would be referenced in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 
2009) by the DOE test procedure would introduce changes to the 
determination of capacity, four new temperature measurements, and 
changes to the test tolerances. In particular, DOE noted in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR that section 6.1.3 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 
2009) introduces a correction factor based on the test room condition's 
deviation from the standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches (in.) 
of mercury (Hg) (101 kilopascal (kPa)). Section 6.1.3 of ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 16-1983 (RA 2009) states that the cooling capacity may be 
increased 0.8 percent for each in. Hg below 29.92 in. Hg (0.24 percent 
for each kPa below 101 kPa). DOE noted the capacity correction factor 
provides manufacturers with more

[[Page 1017]]

flexibility in the test room conditions while normalizing results to 
standard conditions. On November 26, 2010, 75 FR 72739, DOE published 
notice of a petition submitted by AHAM concerning use of the proposed 
correction factor for room air conditioner testing. While DOE seeks 
comment on the petition until December 27, 2010, DOE believes that the 
correction factor resolves the issues presented in the AHAM petition. 
DOE also noted the referenced section numbers from the old and current 
test standards are identical. 75 FR 37594, 37634-35 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE determined that incorporation by reference of these updated 
versions provides more accurate and repeatable measurements of capacity 
while providing greater flexibility to manufacturers in selecting 
equipment and facilities, and does not add any significant testing 
burden because the time required for testing would not change. 
Furthermore, these revisions would not impact the measurement of EER 
for this equipment because the methodology used for this measurement is 
the same. DOE also stated that it believes that manufacturers may 
already be using these updated standards in their testing. Therefore, 
DOE proposed amending the DOE test procedure to reference the relevant 
sections of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-R2008 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 
2009). 75 FR 37634-35.
    AHAM agreed that DOE should reference the latest standards for room 
air conditioners. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 10) For the reasons stated above 
and in the absence of comments objecting to amending the DOE test 
procedure to reference the relevant sections of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-R2008 
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2009), DOE adopts these 
amendments.
7. Clothes Dryer Referenced Test Procedure
    The DOE clothes dryer test procedure currently references the 
industry test standard AHAM Standard HLD-1-1974. Specifically, the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure requires that the clothes dryer under test 
add the AHAM exhaust simulator described in section 3.3.5 of AHAM 
Standard HLD-1-1974. The AHAM test standard has been updated since DOE 
established its clothes dryer test procedure. The current standard is 
designated as AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009. Because it is likely that any 
manufacturer rating it products is using the most recent test standard, 
DOE considered potential amendments to its clothes dryer test procedure 
to reference AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009 in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. DOE 
noted that section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009 regarding 
exhausting conditions provides the same requirements for the exhaust 
simulator as required by AHAM Standard HLD-1-1974. For this reason, DOE 
proposed to amend the DOE test procedure to reference AHAM Standard 
HLD-1-2009. DOE stated that because the requirements for the exhaust 
simulator would be the same, the proposed amendments would not affect 
the EF rating of residential clothes dryers and would not require that 
the existing energy conservation standards for these products be 
revised. 75 FR 37594, 37636 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS commented in support of updating the test 
procedure to reference AHAM standard HLD-1-2009. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
10, AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 158, Whirlpool, No. 
27 at p. 5, ALS, No. 24 at p. 8) For these reasons and in the absence 
of comments objecting to amending the DOE test procedure to reference 
AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009, DOE adopts these amendments in today's final 
rule.
    DOE also acknowledges that AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009 allows for the 
optional use of a modified exhaust simulator, which is included as a 
more convenient option than the exhaust simulator originally specified 
for testing vented clothes dryers. The requirements for the modified 
exhaust simulator are presented in section 3.3.5.2 of AHAM Standard 
HLD-1-2009. The test standard notes that only limited testing has been 
done to compare results using the two exhaust simulators, and that 
users are invited to submit results and comments for both options. 
Because this modified exhaust simulator is recent, and limited data 
exist to compare the effects of using different exhaust simulators, DOE 
stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it will continue to require the 
standard exhaust simulator currently referenced by the DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure. 75 FR 37594, 37636 (June 29, 2010). However, DOE 
requested data from manufacturers comparing the effects of the two 
exhaust simulators on the drying efficiency using the DOE test 
procedure. DOE also invited comment on whether the test procedure 
should be amended to allow for the optional modified exhaust simulator.
    AHAM commented that there may be more data available concerning the 
modified exhaust simulator, which gained ANSI approval in 2009. (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 159-160) AHAM stated that DOE 
should allow for the optional use of a modified exhaust simulator. AHAM 
added that the AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009 was developed after an 
extensive standards-making process, which fully vetted issues related 
to optional use of a modified exhaust simulator, and as such there is 
no reason for DOE to deviate from that standard. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
10).
    DOE is not aware of any data comparing the effects of the two 
exhaust simulators on the drying efficiency using the DOE test 
procedure. DOE notes that it requested such data in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR, but did not receive any data. In the absence of such data, DOE 
will continue to require the standard exhaust simulator currently 
referenced by the DOE clothes dryer test procedure. If data are made 
available showing that the test results using the modified exhaust 
simulator produce repeatable results, as well as comparing the effects 
of the different exhaust simulators on the measured EF, DOE may 
consider such revisions to its clothes dryer test procedure in a future 
rulemaking.
    Section 1.8 in the ``Definitions'' section of the DOE clothes dryer 
test procedure also references an obsolete AHAM clothes dryer test 
standard, AHAM Standard HLD-2EC. No provisions of this test standard 
are currently used in DOE's test procedure, and DOE therefore proposed 
to remove this reference in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 75 FR 37594, 37636 
(June 29, 2010). AHAM and Whirlpool both commented in support of 
removing the reference to AHAM Standard HLD-2EC. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 
10, Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 5) For this reason and in the absence of 
comments objecting to this proposal, DOE amends the test procedure to 
remove this reference.
8. Technical Correction for the Per-Cycle Gas Dryer Continuously 
Burning Pilot Light Gas Energy Consumption
    The equation provided under section 4.4 Per-cycle gas dryer 
continuously burning pilot light gas energy consumption of the current 
DOE clothes dryer test procedure contains a technical error in the 
equation for calculation of the per-cycle gas dryer continuously 
burning pilot light gas energy consumption (E<INF>up</INF>), in Btus 
per cycle. E<INF>up</INF> is the product of the following three 
factors: (A) The cubic feet of gas consumed by the gas pilot in hour; 
(B) the total number of hours per year the pilot is consuming gas while 
the clothes dryer is not operating in active mode (8,760 total hours 
per year minus 140 hours per year the clothes dryer operates in active 
mode) divided by the representative average number of

[[Page 1018]]

clothes dryer cycles in a year (416); and (C) the corrected gas heat 
value. Part (B) of this equation is currently incorrect, reading (8760 
- 140/416) and missing the appropriate parentheses. The equation should 
correctly subtract the total number of hours per year the pilot is 
consuming gas while the clothes dryer is not operating in active mode 
from the number of hours per year the clothes dryer operates in active 
mode, before dividing by the average number of clothes dryer cycles in 
a year. The equation should read ((8760 - 140)/416) to correctly 
calculate the per-cycle gas dryer continuously burning pilot light gas 
energy consumption. Therefore, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR 
to amend the equation to correctly calculate the per-cycle gas dryer 
continuously burning pilot light gas energy consumption. 75 FR 37594, 
37636 (June 29, 2010).
    AHAM and Whirlpool supported the technical correction to the per-
cycle gas dryer continuously burning pilot light gas energy consumption 
calculation. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 10; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 5) ALS 
commented that it supported DOE's proposed technical correction. 
However, ALS believes this an unnecessary addition to the test 
procedure. ALS believes the proper way to address the issue is to 
revise the minimum energy conservation standard during its current 
standards rulemaking to add back into the minimum standard the design 
prescription banning constant burning pilot lights. ALS noted that the 
original 1987 standard included the design prescription, but it was 
removed in the first review of the standard effective May 14, 1994 
because it was perceived that the revised minimum standard of 1994 
would continue to effectively eliminate continuously burning pilot 
lights. ALS noted that no clothes dryer with continuously burning gas 
pilot lights exists on the market at this time. Therefore, it is a 
wasted effort to add text to the test procedure for something that does 
not exist and can be more effectively dealt with by a simple revision 
to the clothes dryer minimum standard. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 8) AHAM also 
commented that it is not aware of any clothes dryer on the market that 
uses a constant burning pilot light, and doubts any such dryers will be 
introduced soon. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 162)
    As discussed in section I, EPCA establishes prescriptive standards 
for clothes dryers, requiring that gas dryers manufactured on or after 
January 1, 1988 not be equipped with a constant burning pilot (42 
U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)). Because constant burning pilot lights are precluded 
by EPCA, DOE agrees with ALS that any provisions for measuring constant 
burning pilot light energy use in gas clothes dryers are no longer 
necessary. As a result, DOE amends the clothes dryer test procedure to 
remove all provisions for measuring the constant burning pilot light 
energy use.
9. Clarification of Gas Supply Test Conditions for Gas Clothes Dryers
    Section 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2 of the DOE clothes dryer test procedure 
specifies maintaining ``the gas supply to the clothes dryer at a normal 
inlet test pressure immediately ahead of all controls at'' 7 to 10 
inches of water column for natural gas or 11 to 13 inches of water 
column for propane gas. DOE believes that the references to ``normal 
inlet test pressure'' in sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2 of its clothes 
dryer test procedure may be confusing because the term ``normal'' is 
not defined. DOE believes that such language is not necessary because 
the gas supply pressure immediately ahead of all controls is explicitly 
stated. Therefore, DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to revise the 
test pressure conditions in sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2 of the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure to specify maintaining ``the gas supply to 
the clothes dryer immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of'' 
7 to 10 inches of water column for natural gas and 11 to 13 inches of 
water column for propane gas. 75 FR 37594, 37636 (June 29, 2010). AHAM, 
Whirlpool, and ALS supported DOE's proposed clarification. (AHAM, No. 
31 at pp. 10-11; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 5; ALS, No. 24 at p. 8) For 
these reasons and in the absence of comments objecting to this 
proposal, DOE amends its clothes dryer test procedure to revise the 
test pressure conditions as discussed above.
    DOE also believes the specifications for a gas pressure regulator 
in sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2 of its clothes dryer test procedure 
should clarify that the outlet pressure for a clothes dryer equipped 
with a pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an 
outlet pressure should be approximately that recommended by the 
manufacturer. DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to make these 
minor revisions these sections. 75 FR 37594, 37636 (June 29, 2010). In 
the absence of comments objecting to this proposal, DOE is amending its 
clothes dryer test procedure to revise the test pressure conditions for 
clothes dryers equipped with a gas pressure regulator as discussed 
above.
10. Other Clothes Dryer Active Mode Issues
    DOE received a number of comments on issues related to the active 
mode for clothes dryers not identified in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. The 
following sections discuss each of these issues.
a. Test Cloth Specifications
    ALS commented in response to the June 2010 TP SNOPR that DOE should 
consider if the number of test runs allowed on test cloth after pre-
conditioning should be equal to the number of allowable runs for 
clothes washer test cloth. ALS commented that, currently, the clothes 
dryer test cloth can be used for only 25 test runs, while the clothes 
washer test cloth is allowed to be used for 60 test runs. (ALS, No. 24 
at p. 6) Whirlpool commented that both the clothes washer and clothes 
dryer test procedures should be modified to allow for 50 cycles of test 
cloth use, because this would be easier to manage and reduce the cost 
of cloth used in clothes dryers. Whirlpool commented that beyond 50 
wash cycles, the load-to-load variability increases significantly, 
adversely impacting repeatability. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 6) DOE is 
not aware of any data showing the repeatability of clothes dryer test 
results for test cloth after 25 runs. DOE is also not aware of any data 
indicating that the wear on test cloth from a drying cycle is 
equivalent to that of a washing cycle. Thus, there is no evidence that 
warrants changing the test procedures to specify the same number of 
allowable test runs on clothes washer and clothes dryer test cloths. 
For these reasons, DOE is not amending the clothes dryer test procedure 
in today's final rule to change the number of test runs allowed on 
clothes dryer test cloth.
    Whirlpool commented that the lot-to-lot test cloth correction 
factors used in the clothes washer test procedure are not used in the 
clothes dryer test procedure. Whirlpool stated that it is increasingly 
the case that clothes dryer test results are not repeatable across test 
cloth lots. Whirlpool stated its research suggests that adding the 
washer correction factors to the clothes dryer test procedure would 
substantially address this problem. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 6) DOE is 
not aware of any data indicating variations in test results across 
different test cloth lots is significant enough to warrant amending the 
clothes dryer test procedure to include correction factors. In 
addition, DOE notes that the clothes washer RMC correction factor is 
based on extractor testing (spinning water out of the clothes load). 
Extractor testing can have

[[Page 1019]]

very different moisture removal characteristics than the applied heated 
air and slower tumbling to evaporate moisture during a clothes dryer 
cycle. DOE is not aware of any data indicating that the same correction 
factor from the clothes washer test procedure can be applied to the 
clothes dryer test procedure. For these reasons, DOE is not amending 
the clothes dryer test procedure to include a lot-to-lot test cloth 
correction factor in today's final rule. If data is made available 
documenting such lot-to-lot variation as well as validating that the 
RMC correction factor in the clothes washer test procedure can be 
applied to the clothes dryer test procedure, DOE may consider such 
amendments.
b. Relative Humidity Measurement Specifications
    ALS commented that section 2.4.4 Dry & Wet Bulb Psychrometer of the 
DOE clothes dryer test procedure should be updated. ALS stated that DOE 
may want to remove any reference to a dry and wet bulb psychrometer, 
because electronic digital sensors exist that directly report the 
relative humidity and test labs should be allowed to utilize them. ALS 
commented that DOE needs to research humidity measurement electronic 
digital sensors and propose new limits for their accuracy and 
reporting. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 9)
    DOE notes section 2.2.4 specifies that the dry and wet bulb 
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than <plus-minus> 1 [deg]F. 
DOE acknowledges that the dry and wet bulb psychrometer specifications 
for determining the relative humidity were developed in 1981 when the 
clothes dryer test procedure was last amended. Since that time, more 
advanced digital equipment has been developed for measuring relative 
humidity. DOE also acknowledges that the DOE test procedure for central 
air conditioners and heat pumps specifies the allowable error in the 
measurement of wet bulb temperature for determining the psychrometric 
state of air (the wet bulb temperature sensor must be accurate within 
<plus-minus> 0.2 [deg]F). That test procedure also specifies the 
allowable error for an alternative option of directly measuring the 
relative humidity (such a meter must be accurate to within <plus-minus> 
0.7 nominal percent relative humidity). 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix M, Sec.  2.5.6 DOE is not aware of data or information on how 
the allowable dry and wet bulb psychrometer measurement error of no 
greater than <plus-minus> 1 [deg]F would translate to measurement error 
specifications for relative humidity measurement equipment that could 
be used to determine an appropriate allowable error for the DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure. For these reasons, DOE is not adopting amendments 
to the dry bulb and wet bulb psychrometer specifications for 
determining the relative humidity. If data are made available 
indicating an appropriate range for the allowable error for relative 
humidity measurement equipment, however, DOE may consider amendments to 
the clothes dryer test procedure.
c. Calculations of EF and CEF
    ALS commented that DOE needs to add the calculation for the EF, the 
newly proposed IEF,\40\ or both to the clothes dryer test procedure. 
According to ALS, the clothes washer test procedure displays the 
calculation for the minimum energy efficiency descriptor (the modified 
energy factor). ALS stated the clothes dryer test procedure should 
likewise show how to calculate the value of clothes dryer minimum 
energy efficiency descriptor EF and/or IEF. (ALS, No. 24 at p. 9) AHAM 
also requested that DOE expressly state the equation for EF in the test 
procedure to provide optimal clarity for the regulated industry. (AHAM, 
No. 31 at p. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ DOE proposed to use the term Integrated Energy Factor (IEF) 
in the December 2008 TP NOPR. 73 FR 74639, 74650 (December 9, 2008). 
However, in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to revise the name 
of the metric to Combined Energy Factor (CEF). 75 FR 37594, 37612 
(June 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the calculation for EF (and the proposed CEF) for 
clothes dryers can be found at 10 CFR 430.23(d). However, DOE 
acknowledges that other test procedures in the appendices of 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B also include the calculations of the energy 
efficiency metric. For example, the clothes washer test procedure (10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1) includes the calculation, as 
noted by ALS. Including such calculations would help test technicians 
find the proper calculation for EF and CEF. For these reasons, DOE 
believes that the calculation for EF and CEF should be included in 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1. Therefore, DOE amends the clothes 
dryer test procedure in today's final rule to include those 
calculations. DOE also amends 10 CFR part 430.23(d)(2) and (3) in 
today's final rule to clarify that the EF and CEF are to be determined 
in accordance with the appropriate sections in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
B, appendix D1.
d. Measurement of Kilowatt Electricity Demand
    SEDI recommended that kW electricity demand, in addition to kWh 
energy consumption, also be measured during the test procedure. SEDI 
added that different clothes dryer technologies can have very different 
electricity demand profiles. Typical electric clothes dryers available 
in North America today have powerful heating elements and may 
significantly contribute to system peak demand. SEDI commented that a 
more efficient clothes dryer with a lower contribution to peak demand 
may be even more cost-effective from perspective of electric utilities. 
(SEDI, No. 34 at p. 3) As discussed previously, EPCA provides that any 
test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy 
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost 
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or 
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE believes that measuring the 
electricity demand profile of a clothes dryer to account for designs 
options that may reduce utility peak load demand would be inconsistent 
with the EPCA requirement for a test procedure to measure the energy 
use of a product. For this reason, DOE is not amending the clothes 
dryer test procedure to measure the electricity demand profile of a 
clothes dryer to account for the peak load demand of a clothes dryer.
e. Clarifications to the Measurement of Drum Capacity
    The Joint Petitioners and AHAM commented that DOE should clarify 
section 3.1 of the clothes dryer test procedure regarding the 
measurement of drum capacity. The clarification would specify that the 
clothes dryer's rear drum surface be supported on a platform scale to 
``prevent deflection of the drum surface * * *'' instead of ``prevent 
deflection of the dryer.'' (Joint Petitioners, No. 25 at p. 14; Joint 
Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 8; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 11) DOE agrees with the 
comments that the reference to deflection of the ``dryer'' is unclear 
and should be clarified to specify that the clothes dryer's rear drum 
surface should be supported on a platform scale to prevent deflection 
of the drum surface. For this reason, DOE amends the clothes dryer test 
procedure to reflect this change.
f. Test Procedure Language
    AHAM commented that manufacturers are having a difficult

[[Page 1020]]

time using the proposed test procedure because it is not written in a 
way that can be easily followed when running a test. AHAM commented 
that the extraneous portions derived from the IEC and Australia/New 
Zealand procedures create a confusing amalgam of testing situations 
that makes the procedure extremely difficult to conduct. AHAM stated 
that the test procedure itself needs to be evaluated, and they would 
like to see a more sequenced and applicable test procedure. (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 88-89, 126-127) AHAM commented 
that the AHAM HLD-1 committee will likely consider whether the test 
procedure amendments should be added as modifications to AHAM HLD-1, 
which is written in the test procedure format. AHAM stated that it 
would be helpful for DOE to identify explicitly how the proposed 
changes to the DOE test procedure could be reflected in AHAM HLD-1. 
AHAM added that manufacturers could test on a version of AHAM HLD-1 
that incorporated the changes DOE identified and report what changes to 
test results have taken place. AHAM commented that it would also assist 
the AHAM HLD-1 committee in processing the changes because it is 
unlikely that the AHAM HLD-1 committee will want to run tests that are 
different from the DOE test procedure. (AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 127-129)
    DOE notes that its proposed clothes dryer test procedure is similar 
in structure to many other DOE test procedures, and DOE is not aware of 
the particular sections of the test procedure language that may be 
confusing or difficult to interpret. DOE also notes that it is not 
adopting the amendments to more accurately account for automatic cycle 
termination based on the provisions in AS/NZS Standard 2442, as 
discussed in section III.C.2. For these reasons, DOE does not believe 
that the test procedure needs to be restructured or re-written and is 
not including any additional revisions to the test procedure language.

D. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden
Standby Mode and Off Mode
    Section 323(b)(3) of EPCA requires that any test procedures 
prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed 
to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or 
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    For the proposed amendments to measure standby and off mode energy 
use, DOE tentatively concluded in the December 2008 TP NOPR that 
amending the relevant test procedures to incorporate clauses regarding 
test conditions and methods found in IEC Standard 62301 for measuring 
standby mode and off mode power consumption, along with the proposed 
clarifications and text corrections, would satisfy this requirement 
because the test methods and equipment that the amendments would 
require are not substantially different from the test methods and 
equipment in the current DOE test procedures for measuring the products 
energy consumption. Therefore, DOE stated the proposed test procedures 
would not require manufacturers to make major investments in test 
facilities and new equipment. 73 FR 74639, 74650 (December 9, 2008).
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE did not propose amendments to 
measure delay start and cycle finished modes in the clothes dryer test 
procedure. DOE instead proposed a simplified methodology in which the 
energy use associated with delay start and cycle finished modes, 
although determined to not be energy use in a standby mode, would be 
approximately represented by the measured energy in inactive and off 
modes. Therefore, because the proposal in the June 2010 TP SNOPR was 
less burdensome than the December 2008 TP NOPR proposal, DOE 
tentatively concluded that the proposed amendments to the clothes dryer 
test procedures for measuring standby and off modes adopted in June 
2010 TP SNOPR are not unduly burdensome. 75 FR 37594, 37637 (June 29, 
2010).
    DOE proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to provide manufacturers 
flexibility in setting the ambient conditions for standby mode and off 
mode testing for the room air conditioner test procedure. The proposed 
amendments to the room air conditioner test procedure specify 
maintaining the indoor test conditions at the temperature required by 
section 4.2 of IEC Standard 62301. Further, if the unit is tested in 
the cooling performance test chamber, the proposed amendments allow the 
manufacturer to maintain the outdoor test conditions either as 
specified for the DOE cooling test procedure or according to section 
4.2 of IEC Standard 62301. Implementing those two specifications would 
mean that manufacturers would not have to build another facility to run 
the standby and off mode tests. In addition, DOE did not propose 
amendments that would specify measurement of energy use in delay start 
or off-cycle modes to the room air conditioner test procedure. DOE 
instead proposed a simplified methodology in which the energy use 
associated with delay start and off-cycle modes, although determined to 
not be energy use in a standby mode, would be approximately represented 
by the measured energy in inactive and off modes. For these reasons, 
DOE tentatively concluded that the test conditions proposed in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR are not unduly burdensome and would result in 
representative standby mode and off mode energy consumption 
measurements. 75 FR 37594, 37637 (June 29, 2010).
    As discussed in section III.B.2, AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS commented 
that the requirement proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR to conduct 
standby and off mode testing for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners in the settings that produce the highest power consumption 
level would result in extra test burden. This is because manufacturers 
will need to run several tests on every model in order to determine 
which cycle is the highest energy cycle (AHAM, No. 31 at pp. 4-5; 
Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1; ALS, No. 24 at pp. 1-2) DOE is not adopting 
the provisions for conducing standby and off mode testing in the 
settings that produce the highest power consumption level in today's 
final rule. DOE is instead incorporating by reference section 5.2 of 
IEC Standard 62301, which requires that the appliance be installed and 
set up in accordance with manufacturers instructions; if no 
instructions are given, then the appliance shall be tested at factory 
or ``default'' settings; and where there are no indications for such 
settings, the appliance shall be tested as supplied. DOE believes that 
such provisions would not require manufacturers to run several tests on 
every model to determine the appropriate mode, and therefore would not 
represent a testing burden.
    For the reasons stated above and in the absence of additional 
comments, DOE concludes that the standby and off mode testing 
conditions for clothes dryers and room air conditioners adopted in 
today's final rule are not unduly burdensome, yet still produce 
representative standby mode and off mode energy consumption 
measurements.
Active Mode
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that the proposed amendments 
to

[[Page 1021]]

its test procedure for clothes dryers to test automatic termination 
control dryers are based upon an international testing standard used to 
determine compliance with energy conservation standards for clothes 
dryers in Australia. A number of manufacturers that sell clothes dryers 
in the United States also sell clothes dryers in Australia, and 
therefore likely already test clothes dryers according to this test 
standard. DOE stated the proposed amendments would not require testing 
methods and equipment that are substantially different from the test 
methods and equipment in the current DOE test procedures. Therefore, 
manufacturers would not be required to make a major investment in test 
facilities and new equipment. 75 FR 37594, 37637 (June 29, 2010). As 
discussed in section III.C.2, DOE is not adopting in today's final rule 
the amendments for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE also noted that the proposed 
amendments to its test procedure for residential clothes dryers to test 
ventless clothes dryers are based on an international test standard 
used throughout the EU to determine compliance with energy conservation 
standards. A number of manufacturers that sell clothes dryers in the 
United States also sell clothes dryers in the EU, and therefore likely 
already test clothes dryers according to this test standard. DOE stated 
the proposed amendments would not require testing methods and equipment 
that are substantially different from the test methods and equipment in 
the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure. 75 FR 37594, 37637 (June 
29, 2010).
    DOE noted that its proposed amendments to the clothes dryer test 
procedure to reflect current usage patterns and capabilities in the 
June 2010 TP SNOPR do not substantially change the testing procedures 
and methods. DOE noted that its proposed amendments to change the 
number of annual use cycles affects only the calculation of the 
estimated annual operating cost. The number of annual use cycles does 
not impact the testing procedures because the value is only used in the 
calculation of results. DOE also noted that the proposed amendments to 
change the initial RMC from 70 percent to 47 percent are intended to 
reflect current clothes loads after a wash cycle. DOE believes that 
such a change would likely require only a moderately longer spin time 
during test load preparation to achieve the proper lower moisture 
content. Finally, DOE noted that the proposed amendment to change the 
test load size for standard-size clothes dryers from 7.00 lb <plus-
minus> .07 lb to 8.45 lb <plus-minus> .085 lb would not significantly 
impact the testing procedures because it only affects the amount of 
test cloth required to be used for the test cycle. The amendment also 
would not require manufacturers to make any significant new investment 
in test facilities and equipment. DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR 
that these proposed amendments to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure 
would produce test results that measure energy use of clothes dryers 
during a representative average use cycle. 75 FR 37594, 37637 (June 29, 
2010).
    DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the proposed amendments to 
update the references to external standards in the DOE room air 
conditioner test procedure are based on the availability of revised 
standards representing current industry practices and methods. The 
proposed amendments to reference ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-R2008 do not introduce 
any new changes in the measurement of cooling capacity or power input. 
The proposed amendments to reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-69 would 
introduce four new temperature measurements, provide increased test 
tolerances, and allow additional flexibility in the methodology for 
measuring capacity. DOE notes the four new temperature measurements 
would be measured simultaneously with the other measurements already 
required by the test procedure, and therefore would not require 
additional time to conduct the test. DOE stated in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR that these proposed amendments would not require manufacturers to 
make any significant new investment in test facilities and equipment, 
nor require significant changes in the testing methodology. 75 FR 
37594, 37637 (June 29, 2010).
    For the reasons noted above, DOE tentatively concluded that the 
amendments to the active mode test procedures would produce 
representative test results for both residential clothes dryers and 
room air conditioners, and that testing under the test procedures would 
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 75 FR 37594, 37638 (June 29, 
2010).
    ALS commented that there could be a test burden associated with the 
revised initial RMC requirements. ALS stated that it might not be able 
to achieve the 47 percent RMC proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR in one 
of their residential clothes washers due to the disconnect between the 
actual RMC and the corrected RMC values. (ALS, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 166-167) AHAM commented that extracting 
moisture to the 47 percent RMC level would cause test cloth to 
deteriorate more quickly. Also, extracting moisture to the 47 percent 
RMC level would cause other problems. For example, to achieve the level 
it would be necessary to use an extractor, which would require spending 
significant sums of money. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at 
pp. 167-168)
    DOE notes that the tests conducted for the June 2010 TP SNOPR at an 
independent test lab prepared the clothes dryer test cloth with an RMC 
of 47 percent using a commercially available clothes washer. For the 
reasons discussed in section III.C.5.b, however, DOE adopts an initial 
RMC of 57.5 percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent for the clothes dryer test 
procedure in today's final rule. As a result, DOE believes that there 
would be no significant test burden associated with reaching this 
higher initial RMC value.
    For the reasons stated above and in the absence of additional 
comments, DOE concludes that the amendments to the active mode test 
procedures in today's final rule would produce representative test 
results for both residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners, 
and that testing under the test procedures would not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct.
2. Integration of Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption Into the 
Efficiency Metrics
    Section 325(gg)(2)(A) requires that standby mode and off mode 
energy consumption be ``integrated into the overall energy efficiency, 
energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered 
product'' unless the current test procedures already fully account for 
the standby mode and off mode energy consumption or if such an 
integrated test procedure is technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A)) For clothes dryers, today's final rule does not affect 
DOE's proposal in the December 2008 TP NOPR to incorporate the standby 
and off mode energy consumption into a ``per-cycle combined total 
energy consumption expressed in kilowatt-hours'' and into an CEF, as 
discussed in section III.B.5 of this notice. For room air conditioners, 
today's final rule does not affect DOE's proposal in the December 2008 
TP NOPR to incorporate the standby and off mode energy consumption into 
a metric for ``combined annual energy consumption'' and into an CEER, 
as discussed in section III.B.5. In addition, DOE is amending the 
clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedures in

[[Page 1022]]

today's final rule to incorporate standby and off mode energy 
consumption into the annual energy cost calculations, as discussed in 
section III.B.5.

IV. Effects of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards

    As noted in section I, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, 
the proposed test procedures would alter the measured energy efficiency 
of covered products as determined under the existing test procedures. 
If DOE determines that an amended test procedure would alter the 
measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable 
energy conservation standard during the rulemaking carried out with 
respect to such test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e))

A. Standby Mode and Off Mode

    As noted in section II, EPCA provides that amendments to the test 
procedures to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption will 
not determine compliance with previously established standards. (U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(C)) Because the proposed amended test procedures for 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption would not alter existing 
measures of energy consumption or efficiency for active mode, these 
amendments would not affect a manufacturer's ability to demonstrate 
compliance with previously established standards.

B. Active Mode--Clothes Dryers

    DOE reviewed the amendments to the DOE clothes dryer active mode 
test procedure to evaluate the effects on the measured EF. The 
following sections discuss DOE's evaluation of each active mode 
amendment individually, as well as DOE's evaluation of the fully 
amended test procedure.
Automatic Cycle Termination
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE analyzed how the proposed changes to 
the DOE clothes dryer test procedure for automatic cycle termination 
controls discussed above in section III.C.2 would affect the measured 
EF of residential clothes dryers, as required by EPCA. 75 FR 37594, 
37618 (June 29, 2010). As part of DOE's preliminary analyses for the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking for clothes dryers, DOE 
concluded that virtually all clothes dryers currently available on the 
U.S. market that are covered under the current energy conservation 
standards are equipped with some form of automatic cycle termination 
sensing. Therefore, DOE analyzed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR how the 
proposed changes to the clothes dryer test procedure for automatic 
termination control dryers would affect the measured EF of residential 
clothes dryers with such a feature. 75 FR 37594, 37618 (June 29, 2010).
    DOE noted in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that the proposed amendment to 
change the field use factor from 1.04 to 1.0 for automatic termination 
control dryers would result in a 4-percent increase in EF for a dryer 
that has an automatic cycle termination setting capable of drying the 
test load to 5-percent RMC. In addition, DOE noted the proposed target 
final RMC of 5 percent or lower would result in an increase in EF of 
about 2.4 percent (assuming a starting RMC of 47 percent). This is as 
compared to the current DOE test procedure, which uses a correction 
factor in order to determine the energy consumption required to dry the 
test load to a final RMC of 4 percent. DOE also stated in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR that a clothes dryer that is only minimally compliant with 
current energy conservation standards would likely use a less accurate 
automatic termination control system. DOE stated that such a dryer 
would possibly over-dry the test load below 5-percent RMC such that the 
energy consumption and measured EF would be equivalent to that measured 
by the existing DOE clothes dryer test procedure. As a result, DOE 
stated that it does not believe that any changes to the current energy 
conservation standards as a result of the proposed amendments to the 
test procedure to account for automatic cycle termination would be 
warranted. 75 FR 37619-20. Because DOE did not have data regarding how 
the proposed changes to the clothes dryer test procedure for automatic 
termination control dryers would affect the measured EF of residential 
clothes dryers with such a feature, however, DOE requested comment on 
this tentative conclusion in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. Id.
    The Joint Petitioners and AHAM commented that if the full cycle 
test (including cool-down) is adopted, DOE must also revise the 
relevant energy conservation standards to reflect the new test 
procedure, ensuring no change in the stringency of the standards for 
clothes dryers with effective automatic termination controls, as per 
section 323 of EPCA. The Joint Petitioners and AHAM stated that, 
specifically, the procedures in section 323(e)(2) should be used, with 
the clarification that for the purposes of establishing a 
representative sample of products, DOE should choose a sample of 
minimally compliant clothes dryers that automatically terminate the 
drying cycle at no less than 4-percent RMC. The Joint Petitioners and 
AHAM also stated that there will be additional energy savings by 
improving the effectiveness of automatic termination controls. (Joint 
Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 6; AHAM, No. 31 at pp. 30-31)
    The California Utilities/NRDC commented that they are very 
concerned with DOE's proposal to not revise the current energy 
conservation standard levels as a result of its analysis of the test 
procedure amendments to account for automatic cycle termination. They 
are also concerned about DOE's interpretation of the definition of a 
``minimally compliant'' clothes dryer in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. The 
California Utilities/NRDC noted that clothes dryers with less accurate 
automatic termination controls may actually over-dry beyond the 
specified RMC in the field. They also stated that clothes dryers with 
less accurate automatic termination controls will not exhibit 
equivalent energy consumption and measured EF under the new test 
procedure; should not be used as a basis for DOE's analysis; and should 
not be considered automatically compliant under the new test procedure. 
(California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at pp. 6-7)
    The California Utilities/NRDC further stated that clothes dryers 
with operational automatic cycle termination controls will dry the 
clothes to an appropriate range of RMC without over-drying (between 
2.5- and 5-percent RMC). They also stated that such clothes dryers 
should have about the same measured per-cycle energy use under both the 
current and proposed test procedures. The California Utilities/NRDC 
stated, however, that by changing the calculation for per-cycle energy 
use, and changing the field use factor to 1.0, the calculated final 
per-cycle energy use for automatic termination control dryers will 
decrease. The California Utilities/NRDC stated that the new test 
procedure would make these clothes dryers with operational controls 
appear to be more efficient and have a higher EF than under the current 
test procedure. The EF for these clothes dryers would increase by 4-
percent through the change in the field use factor alone. The 
California Utilities/NRDC stated that, based on their calculations, all 
clothes dryers that dry to between 2.5- and 5-percent RMC would have a 
higher measured EF. They stated that the energy conservation standards 
should be revised to reflect this measured higher EF. The California 
Utilities/NRDC commented that for dryers with less accurate automatic 
termination controls, EF would decrease because of

[[Page 1023]]

the over-drying energy consumption mesaured using the the new test 
procedure. The California Utilities/NRDC stated that adjustments to EF 
would be required to account for the new test procedure, per-cycle 
energy use calculation, and change in the field use factor. (California 
Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at pp. 7-8)
    The California Utilities/NRDC stated they are concerned that by not 
changing the clothes dryer standards accordingly DOE's current approach 
may qualify as backsliding prohibited by EPCA's ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision. The California Utilities/NRDC stated that under DOE's 
proposed approach, many compliant clothes dryers could test with lower 
per-cycle energy use and higher EF, than currently. By not adjusting 
the maximum allowable energy use (and minimum allowable EF) for such 
dryers, DOE risks effectively weakening the standard. (California 
Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 8) The California Utilities/NRDC proposed 
that DOE adjust its proposed candidate standard levels to a level 
consistent with the performance of a selection of dryers that are 
``minimally compliant'' under both the current and proposed test 
procedure. The California Utilities/NRDC also recommended that when DOE 
selects a representative sample of minimally compliant clothes dryers, 
it choose models that automatically terminate at between 2.5- and 5-
percent RMC. They explained that this approach would remove clothes 
dryers with less accurate automatic termination controls that comply 
under the current testing procedure and ensure that new standards are 
appropriately adjusted, so that the standard is not overly weak. Id.
    As discussed in section III.C.2, DOE is not adopting the amendments 
to better account for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR. For this reason, DOE is not revising the energy 
conservation standards based on the amendments for automatic cycle 
termination proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. If DOE considers 
potential amendments for automatic cycle termination in a future 
rulemaking, it will consider any necessary revisions to the energy 
conservation standards.
Water Temperature for Clothes Dryer Test Load Preparation
    DOE tested the 17 clothes dryers to evaluate the effects on 
measured EF to change the water temperature for clothes dryer test load 
preparation from 100 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F to 60 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 5 [deg]F, as discussed in section III.C.2. DOE tested these 
units according to the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure, first 
with a water temperature for clothes dryer test load preparation of 100 
[deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F, and then with a water temperature of 60 
[deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F. For the ventless clothes dryer test 
units, DOE additionally used the proposed testing method for ventless 
dryers presented in section III.C.3. For each water temperature, DOE 
conducted up to three tests for each test unit and the results were 
averaged. Table IV.1 below shows the results from this testing, which 
indicate that, on average, measured EF decreases by about 2.9 percent 
when the water temperature for clothes dryer test load preparation is 
reduced from 100 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F to 60 [deg]F <plus-minus> 
5 [deg]F. DOE also notes the variation in the percentage change in EF 
from model to model due to the change in water temperature may also be 
due to other test condition tolerances in the test procedure, such as 
the specified ranges for ambient temperature and relative humidity.

  Table IV.1 DOE Test Results To Evaluate the Effects of Changes to the
        Water Temperature for Clothes Dryer Test Load Preparation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average EF lb/kWh
                              --------------------------------
                               100[deg] <plus- 60[deg] <plus-
          Test unit               minus> 5        minus> 5      % Change
                                [deg]F Water    [deg]F Water
                                    temp            temp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1...................            3.07            3.00       -2.2
    Unit 2...................            3.14            3.05       -3.1
    Unit 3...................            3.20            3.10       -3.2
    Unit 4...................            3.28            3.22       -1.9
    Unit 5...................            3.24            3.17       -2.0
    Unit 6...................            3.12            2.98       -4.6
Vented Gas:
    Unit 7...................            2.78            2.72       -2.4
    Unit 8...................            2.83            2.92        3.1
    Unit 9...................            2.85            2.64       -7.2
    Unit 10..................            2.80            2.69       -3.7
    Unit 11..................            2.98            2.79       -6.4
    Vented Electric Compact
     (240V):.................
    Unit 12..................            3.19            2.95       -7.7
    Unit 13..................            2.93            2.84       -3.2
Vented Electric Compact
 (120V):
    Unit 14..................            3.23            3.11       -4.0
Ventless Electric Compact
 (240V):
    Unit 15..................            2.37            2.22       -6.1
Ventless Electric Combo
 Washer-Dryer:
    Unit 16..................            2.01            1.96       -4.0
    Unit 17..................            2.50            2.60        3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test Procedure for Ventless Clothes Dryers
    The amendments for ventless clothes dryers are applicable to 
products not covered under the current DOE test procedure. For this 
reason, the amendments in today's final rule for ventless clothes 
dryers discussed in section III.C.3 would not affect the existing EF 
ratings of residential clothes dryers. Therefore, no change to the 
current clothes dryer energy conservation standards would be required. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(e))

[[Page 1024]]

Detergent Specifications for Clothes Dryer Test Cloth Preconditioning
    DOE stated in the June 2010 TP SNOPR that it is unaware of any data 
indicating that changes to the detergent specifications for test cloth 
preconditioning discussed in section III.C.4 would affect efficiency 
measurements. DOE stated that the proposed amendments in the June 2010 
TP SNOPR changing the detergent specifications for test cloth 
preconditioning would not affect the EF rating of residential clothes 
dryers and would not require the existing energy conservation standards 
for these products to be revised because DOE is not aware of any data 
indicating the changes to the detergent formula affects the ability of 
the clothes dryer to remove moisture from the clothes load during the 
drying cycle. For the reasons stated above and in the absence of 
comments objecting to this determination, DOE continues to believe that 
the change to the detergent specifications would not affect the EF 
rating of clothes dryers.
Clothes Dryer Number of Annual Cycles
    The amendments for the number of annual use cycles, discussed in 
section III.C.5.a, affect only the estimated annual operating cost for 
all clothes dryers. The EF rating for clothes dryers is expressed in 
terms of the total energy use per drying cycle. Because the EF rating 
is measured on a per-cycle basis, the number of annual use cycles is 
not used in the calculation. For this reason, DOE stated in the June 
2010 TP SNOPR that the proposed amendments to change the number of 
clothes dryer annual use cycles would not affect the EF rating of 
residential clothes dryers. Therefore, the proposed amendments would 
not require the existing energy conservation standards for these 
products to be revised.
    Whirlpool commented that the change in the number of annual use 
cycles has a linear effect ((416-283)/416 = 32 percent), and therefore 
the clothes dryer would be rated as consuming 32 percent less energy 
under the proposed under the proposed test procedure. (Whirlpool, No. 
27 at p. 5) The California Utilities/NRDC supported DOE's proposed 
revisions to the energy conservation standards to account for changes 
to the cycles per year. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 6) DOE 
first notes it did not propose any revisions to the energy conservation 
standards to account for changes to the number of clothes dryer cycles 
per year. DOE notes that the current energy conservation standards for 
clothes dryers are based on EF and that changes to the number of annual 
use cycles does not affect EF for clothes dryers. As a result, DOE 
continues to believe that the amendments to change the number of 
clothes dryer annual use cycles would not affect the EF rating of 
residential clothes dryers. Therefore, the amendments would not require 
the existing energy conservation standards for these products to be 
revised.
Clothes Dryer Initial Remaining Moisture Content
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE evaluated how the amendments to the 
clothes dryer initial RMC discussed in section III.C.5.b affect the 
measured EF. DOE estimated, based on results of testing conducted at an 
independent testing laboratory, that the measured EF increases by 41 
percent when the initial RMC is reduced to 47 percent. DOE stated that 
if the proposed amendments to change the initial RMC from 70 percent 
<plus-minus> 3.5 percent to 47 percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent were 
implemented, current energy conservation standards in terms of EF for 
vented clothes dryer product classes would need to increase by 41 
percent. 75 FR 37594, 37631 (June 29, 2010).
    The California Utilities/NRDC supported DOE's proposed revisions to 
the energy conservation standards to account for changes in the initial 
RMC. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 6) Whirlpool commented 
that the change in RMC is not linear, but that it does not have 
sufficient data to fully address how this would be reflected in total 
energy consumption. Whirlpool recommended that further study regarding 
the impact of changing the RMC on the energy factor be undertaken. 
Whirlpool added that if DOE were to make a specific request to AHAM for 
such data, Whirlpool would be willing to gather and supply information 
to AHAM for aggregation and submittal to DOE. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at pp 
4, 5) The Joint Petitioners and AHAM both supported increasing EF for 
vented clothes dryer product classes to account for the change in 
initial RMC. The Joint Petitioners and AHAM also stated that they do 
not currently have data to quantify the increase, but upon DOE request 
would gather data to determine an appropriate increase. (Joint 
Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 7; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 9) The California 
Utilities/NRDC supported DOE's proposed revisions to the energy 
conservation standards to account for changes in test load weight, 
initial RMC, and cycles per year. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at 
p. 6) ALS supported the manner in which DOE has analyzed the impact of 
its proposed revisions to the test procedure on the minimum standard. 
ALS requested the analysis be conducted using a methodology consistent 
with the ALS proposal of an initial RMC of 53 percent. (ALS, No. 24 at 
p. 8)
    After issuance of the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE conducted additional 
clothes dryer testing on 17 representative clothes dryers to evaluate 
the effects of the proposed amendment to change the initial RMC from 70 
percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent to 57.5 percent <plus-minus> 3.5 
percent for the measured efficiency. DOE tested these units according 
to the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure with an initial RMC of 
70 percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent and with an initial RMC of 57.5 
percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent. For the ventless clothes dryer test 
units, DOE additionally used the proposed testing method for ventless 
dryers presented in section III.C.3. For each initial RMC, DOE 
conducted up to three tests for each test unit and the results were 
averaged Table IV.2 below shows the results from the tests. The results 
indicate that, on average, EF increases by about 17.1 percent when the 
initial RMC is changed from 70 percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent to 57.5 
percent <plus-minus> 3.5 percent.

 Table IV.2--DOE Test Results To Evaluate the Effects of Changes to the
                               Initial RMC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average EF lb/kWh
                              --------------------------------
          Test unit              70% <plus-     57.5% <plus-    % Change
                                 minus> 3.5%     minus> 3.5%
                                     RMC             RMC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1...................            3.07            3.67       19.8
    Unit 2...................            3.14            3.62       15.1
    Unit 3...................            3.20            3.83       19.6
    Unit 4...................            3.28            3.79       15.5

[[Page 1025]]

 
    Unit 5...................            3.24            3.91       20.9
    Unit 6...................            3.12            3.70       18.7
Vented Gas:
    Unit 7...................            2.78            3.32       19.1
    Unit 8...................            2.83            3.43       20.9
    Unit 9...................            2.85            3.23       13.3
    Unit 10..................            2.80            3.29       17.5
    Unit 11..................            2.98            3.40       14.2
Vented Electric Compact
 (240V):
    Unit 12..................            3.19            3.61       13.2
    Unit 13..................            2.93            3.45       17.7
Vented Electric Compact
 (120V):
    Unit 14..................            3.23            4.08       26.1
Ventless Electric Compact
 (240V):
    Unit 15..................            2.37            2.74       15.9
Ventless Electric Combo
 Washer-Dryer:
    Unit 16..................            2.01            2.33       15.8
    Unit 17..................            2.50            2.70        8.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clothes Dryer Test Load Weight
    As noted previously, EF for clothes dryers is the bone-dry test 
load weight divided by the clothes dryer energy consumption per cycle. 
DOE notes that the proposed amendments to the test load size, discussed 
in section III.C.5.c, would increase both the bone-dry test load weight 
and the energy consumption per cycle. For example, for a test in which 
the nominal RMC of the test load is reduced from an initial 70 percent 
to a final 4 percent, an 8.45-lb test load would require about 5.6 lb 
of water to be removed during the drying cycle. However, a 7-lb. test 
load would require only 4.6 lb. of water to be removed. DOE also notes 
that as lower nominal RMCs are reached at the end of the test cycle, 
the rate and efficiency of water removal from the load would be higher 
for the larger test load. This is because there would simply be more 
water in the load, hence making it easier to remove.
    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE reviewed research on the effects of 
changing the load size on the measured efficiency to determine a 
quantifiable estimate of the change in the measured EF. 75 FR 37594, 
37632 (June 29, 2010). NIST conducted testing to investigate the 
effects of changing the clothes dryer load size on the measured 
efficiency of a vented electric standard clothes dryer with a capacity 
of 6.3 ft\3\.\41\ NIST tested the clothes dryer according to the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure, except the test load size varied from 2-
15 lb. Table IV.3 presents the results of the NIST testing, which shows 
an increase in EF when the load size was increased in 7-9 lb. range, 
which for the purpose of analysis corresponds to the 7-8.45 lb. range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ J. Y. Kao. Energy Test Results of a Conventional Clothes 
Dryer and a Condensing Clothes Dryer. pp. 11-21 1999. International 
Appliance Technical Conference, 49th. Proceedings. May 4-6,, 1998.

                 Table IV.3--NIST Vented Electric Standard Clothes Dryer Variable Test Load Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test Number                1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room Temperature, [deg]F........    74.1      74.4      73.8      73.3      73.8      74.1      74.4      74.4
Room Humidity, %................    40        38        38        33        42        38        40        36
Nominal Bone-Dry Weight, lb.....     2         3         5         7         9        11        13        15
Measured Bone-Dry Test Load          1.99      2.99      4.99      7.00      8.99     10.98     13.01     15.01
 Weight, lb.....................
Measured Dry Test Load Weight,       2.05      3.06      5.17      7.99      9.11     11.56     13.57     15.71
 lb.............................
Measured Wet Test Load Weight,       3.40      5.10      8.50     11.89     15.34     18.98     22.04     25.56
 lb.............................
Measured Energy Consumption, kWh     0.953     1.159     1.593     2.112     2.667     3.250     3.796     4.384
Initial RMC, %..................    70.30     70.67     70.52     69.99     70.67     72.81     69.35     70.34
Final RMC, %....................     2.84      2.48      3.73      2.88      1.28      5.27      4.29      4.67
Per-Cycle Energy Consumption,        0.970     1.167     1.637     2.160     2.638     3.303     4.005     4.582
 kWh............................
EF, lb/kWh......................     2.06      2.56      3.04      3.24      3.41      3.33      3.25      3.27
Percentage Change in EF Compared   -36.6     -20.9      -6.0       0.0       5.2       2.7       0.3       1.1
 to 7-lb Test, %................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2010 TP SNOPR, DOE estimated the percentage change in 
EF for an 8.45-lb test load by linearly interpolating the results for 
the 7-lb and 9-lb tests. Estimates based on this method showed the EF 
increase by about 3.8 percent when the test load size increased from 7 
lb. to 8.45 lb. DOE stated that this percentage change in EF can be 
applied to all vented standard-size clothes dryer product classes 
because the moisture removal mechanisms are comparable among them. For 
these reasons, DOE stated that if the proposed amendments to increase 
the test load size to 8.45 <plus-minus> .085 lb for standard-size 
clothes dryers were implemented, the current energy conservation 
standards in terms of EF for vented standard-size clothes dryer product 
classes would need to be

[[Page 1026]]

increased by 3.8 percent. 75 FR 37594, 37632 (June 29, 2010).
    The California Utilities/NRDC supported DOE's proposed revisions to 
the energy conservation standards to account for changes to the test 
load weight. (California Utilities/NRDC, No. 33 at p. 6) Whirlpool 
commented that the change in load size is not linear, but that it does 
not have sufficient data to fully address how this would be reflected 
in total energy consumption. Whirlpool commented that if DOE were to 
make a specific request to AHAM for such data, Whirlpool would be 
willing to gather and supply information to AHAM for aggregation and 
submittal to DOE. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 5) The Joint Petitioners and 
AHAM supported DOE's proposal to revise the relevant energy 
conservation standards to reflect the new test load weight. The Joint 
Petitioners and AHAM stated they do not currently have data that would 
support a specific test load weight, but upon DOE request would gather 
such data. (Joint Petitioners, No. 30 at p. 7; AHAM, No. 31 at p. 9)
    DOE conducted additional clothes dryer testing after issuance of 
the June 2010 TP SNOPR on 11 representative standard size clothes 
dryers to evaluate the effects of the proposed amendment to increase 
the test load size for standard-size clothes dryers on the measured 
efficiency. DOE tested these units according to the current DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure with a 7.00 <plus-minus> .07 lb load and at the 
increased test load size of 8.45 <plus-minus> .085 lb for standard-size 
clothes dryers. For the ventless clothes dryer test units, DOE 
additionally used the proposed testing method for ventless dryers 
presented in section III.C.3. For each test load weight, DOE conducted 
up to three tests for each test unit and the results were averaged. 
Table IV.4 below shows the results from this testing, which indicate 
that, on average, measured EF increases by about 2.6 percent when the 
test load weight is increased to 8.45 <plus-minus> .085 lb for 
standard-size clothes dryers. DOE believes the 2.6 percent increase in 
measured EF represents a more accurate estimate than the 3.8 percent 
increase because the 2.6 percent increase in measured EF is based on 
more extensive testing on a representative sample of clothes dryers.

 Table IV.4--DOE Test Results To Evaluate the Effects of Changes to Test
              Load Weight for Standard-Size Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average EF lb/kWh
                              --------------------------------  Percent
          Test unit              7.00 <plus-     8.45 <plus-     change
                                minus> .07 lb  minus> .085 lb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1...................            3.07            3.13        2.0
    Unit 2...................            3.14            3.21        2.1
    Unit 3...................            3.20            3.28        2.5
    Unit 4...................            3.28            3.50        6.7
    Unit 5...................            3.24            3.34        3.1
    Unit 6...................            3.12            3.13        0.4
Vented Gas:
    Unit 7...................            2.78            2.85        2.5
    Unit 8...................            2.83            2.93        3.3
    Unit 9...................            2.85            3.00        5.2
    Unit 10..................            2.80            2.77       -0.9
    Unit 11..................            2.98            3.02        1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Active Mode Amendments
    DOE also analyzed how the fully amended test procedure would affect 
the measured EF as compared to the existing test procedure. In the June 
2010 TP SNOPR, DOE tested and analyzed minimally compliant clothes 
dryers, and reviewed available research. DOE found that the proposed 
amendments to the initial RMC would increase the measured EF of 
minimally compliant clothes dryers by 41 percent, while the proposed 
amendments to the test load size for standard-size clothes dryers would 
increase the measured EF for standard-size dryers by 3.8 percent. DOE 
also found that because of the proposed amendments in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR, the measured EF of minimally compliant clothes dryers would 
increase by about 41 percent for compact-size clothes dryers and about 
46 percent for standard-size clothes dryers (determined multiplying the 
41 percent increase for the decrease in the initial RMC by the 3.8 
percent increase for the increase in test load size for standard-size 
clothes dryers). 75 FR 37594, 37638 (June 29, 2010).
    The Joint Petitioners stated that the final rule amending the 
clothes dryer test procedure should also amend the standards in their 
Joint Petition. The standards in the Joint Petition would be amended 
according to the procedures in section 323(e)(2), except that to 
establish a representative sample of products, DOE shall choose a 
sample of minimally compliant clothes dryers that automatically 
terminate the drying cycle at no less than 4 percent RMC. (Joint 
Petitioners, No. 25 at p. 6) In conducting the analysis under 42 U.S.C. 
6293(3)(2) for the current clothes dryer energy conservation standards, 
DOE notes that as discussed in section I, EPCA requires that in 
determining the amended energy conservation standard, DOE must measure, 
pursuant to the amended test procedure, the energy efficiency, energy 
use, or water use of a representative sample of covered products that 
minimally comply with the existing standard and that the average of 
such energy efficiency, energy use, or water use levels determined 
under the amended test procedure shall constitute the amended energy 
conservation standard for the applicable covered products. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2)) DOE notes that EPCA requires testing of a representative 
sample of minimally compliant products, and that the measurement of 
only clothes dryers that automatically terminate the drying cycle at no 
less than 4 percent RMC would not constitute a representative sample. 
In addition, for the reasons discussed in section III.C.2, DOE is not 
adopting in today's final rule the amendments for automatic cycle 
termination proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. For these reasons, DOE 
does not intend to consider such limitations for product testing to 
determine the effects of the amended test procedure on the measured 
efficiency.
    DOE conducted clothes dryer testing on a sample of 17 
representative clothes dryers after issuance of the June 2010

[[Page 1027]]

TP SNOPR to evaluate the effects of all of the amendments on the 
clothes dryer test procedure on the measured EF. DOE tested these units 
according to the amended clothes dryer test procedure in today's final 
rule. DOE conducted up to three tests for each test unit and the 
results were averaged. The results from this testing are shown in Table 
IV.5. For vented electric standard-size clothes dryers, the measured EF 
increases by an average of about 20.1 percent as a result of the 
amendments to the test procedure in today's final rule. For vented gas 
clothes dryers, the measured EF increased by an average of about 19.8 
percent. For vented electric compact-size 120V and 240V clothes dryers, 
the measured EF increased by an average of about 15.6 and 12.8 percent, 
respectively. For ventless electric compact 240V clothes dryers and 
ventless electric combination washer/dryers, the measured EF increased 
by an average of about 13.6 and 11.4 percent, respectively. DOE notes 
that the increase in measured EF is greater for the standard-size 
products (that is, for vented electric standard-size and vented gas 
clothes dryers) than for compact-size products due to the additional 
amendments that specify increased test load sizes for standard-size 
products. These measured increases in EF are different from the values 
presented in the June 2010 TP SNOPR, and shown above in this section. 
This is because the initial RMC was changed from 47 percent to 57.5 
percent and the change to the water temperature specified for test load 
preparation. These values are also based on more extensive testing on a 
representative sample of clothes dryers.

    Table IV.5--DOE Test Results To Evaluate the Effects of the Test
                   Procedure Amendments on Measured EF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average EF lb/kWh
                              --------------------------------  Percent
          Test unit             Current test    Amended test     change
                                  procedure       procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard:
    Unit 1...................            3.07            3.69       20.4
    Unit 2...................            3.14            3.77       19.5
    Unit 3...................            3.20            3.83       19.6
    Unit 4...................            3.28            3.92       19.4
    Unit 5...................            3.24            3.96       22.5
    Unit 6...................            3.12            3.72       19.1
Vented Gas:
    Unit 7...................            2.78            3.36       20.6
    Unit 8...................            2.83            3.40       19.9
    Unit 9...................            2.85            3.42       20.2
    Unit 10..................            2.80            3.37       20.5
    Unit 11..................            2.98            3.50       17.6
Vented Electric Compact
 (240V):
    Unit 12..................            3.19            3.56       11.4
    Unit 13..................            2.93            3.35       14.2
Vented Electric Compact
 (120V):
    Unit 14..................            3.23            3.74       15.6
Ventless Electric Compact
 (240V):
    Unit 15..................            2.37            2.69       13.6
Ventless Electric Combo
 Washer-Dryer:
    Unit 16..................            2.01            2.27       12.5
    Unit 17..................            2.50            2.76       10.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.6 shows how the current energy conservation standards 
would be affected by the amendments to the DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure. DOE will consider such changes in the concurrent energy 
conservation standards rulemaking for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners.

  Table IV.6--Energy Factor of a Minimally Compliant Clothes Dryer With
             the Current and Proposed Amended Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Energy factor lb/kWh
                                               -------------------------
                                                               Proposed
                 Product class                    Current      amended
                                                    test         test
                                                 procedure    procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater            3.01         3.62
 capacity)....................................
2. Electric, Compact (120 v) (less than 4.4            3.13         3.62
 ft\3\ capacity)..............................
3. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4            2.90         3.27
 ft\3\ capacity)..............................
4. Gas........................................         2.67         3.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the clothes dryer test procedure amendments for active mode 
would substantially change the existing EF metric, DOE has decided to 
create a new appendix D1 in 10 CFR 430 subpart B. This appendix 
contains a clothes dryer test procedure that manufacturers would be 
required to use on the mandatory compliance date of any

[[Page 1028]]

amended clothes dryer energy conservation standards. DOE is required by 
consent decree to publish the final rule for any amended clothes dryer 
energy conservation standards rulemaking by June 30, 2011, and the 
compliance date of any amended standards is expected to be 3 years 
later. Manufacturers must continue to use appendix D to subpart B of 
part 430 for clothes dryers until compliance with any amended energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h) is required, at which point 
use of the procedures at appendix D1 will be required.

C. Active Mode--Room Air Conditioners

    As discussed in section III.C.6, DOE amends the room air 
conditioner test procedure in today's final rule to update the 
references to the industry test standards, ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-R2008 and 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2009). These amendments provide more 
accurate and repeatable measurements of capacity while providing 
greater flexibility to manufacturers in selecting equipment and 
facilities but do not impact the measurement of EER. Because DOE's 
review of the room air conditioner test procedure amendments 
tentatively concluded that the measured EER would not be affected, 
manufacturers must continue to use appendix F to measure room air 
conditioner active mode energy use. Manufacturers would not be required 
to use the proposed provisions for standby mode and off mode energy use 
(specifically, sections 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, and 5.3) until the mandatory 
compliance date of any amended room air conditioner energy conservation 
standards.
    The Joint Petitioners proposed that the final rule amending the 
room air conditioner test procedure must also amend the standards in 
the Joint Petition according to the procedures in section 323(e)(2). 
(Joint Petitioners, No. 25 at p. 7) As noted above, DOE believes that 
the amendments to the room air conditioner test procedure in today's 
final rule would not affect the measured efficiency of covered 
products, and DOE is not aware of any data indicating otherwise. For 
these reasons, DOE continues to believe that revisions to the energy 
conservation standards for room air conditioners are not warranted.
    All representations related to standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption of both clothes dryers and room air conditioners made 180 
days after the publication of today's test procedure final rule in the 
Federal Register and before the compliance date of amended energy 
conservation standards must be based upon the standby mode and off mode 
requirements of the amended test procedures. The requirements are 
specified in appendix D1 for clothes dryers, and in amended appendix F 
for room air conditioners.

V. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
proposed action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE's procedures 
and policies may be viewed on the Office of the General Counsel's Web 
site (http://www.gc.doe.gov).
    DOE reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. This final rule prescribes amendments to test 
procedures that will be used to test compliance with energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers and room air conditioners 
that are described in detail elsewhere in the preamble. DOE certifies 
that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this 
certification is as follows.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a 
small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a 
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 
thresholds set forth in these regulations are based on size standards 
and codes established by the North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS).\42\ The threshold number for NAICS classification for 
335224, ``Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing,'' which includes 
clothes dryer manufacturers, is 1,000 employees. Additionally, the 
threshold number for NAICS classification for 335415, ``Air-
Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and 
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing,'' which includes room 
air conditioner manufacturers, is 750 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For more information visit: http://www.sba.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the manufacturers supplying clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners are large multinational corporations. As part of the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers 
and room air conditioners, DOE requested comment on whether there are 
any manufacturer subgroups, including potential small businesses, that 
it should consider for its analyses. DOE did not receive any comments 
regarding whether there are any residential clothes dryer or room air 
conditioner manufacturers that would be considered small businesses. 
DOE then conducted a more focused inquiry of the companies that could 
be small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking. 
During its market survey, DOE used all available public information to 
identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research included the 
AHAM membership directory, product databases (the AHRI, AHAM, CEC, and 
ENERGY STAR databases), individual company websites, and the SBA 
dynamic small business search \43\ to find potential small business 
manufacturers. DOE also asked interested parties and industry 
representatives if they were aware of any other small business 
manufacturers during manufacturer interviews conducted and at DOE 
public meetings for the energy conservation standards rulemakings. DOE 
also contacted various companies, as necessary, to determine whether 
they met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of 
covered residential clothes dryers or room air conditioners. DOE 
screened out companies that did not offer products covered by this 
rulemaking, did not meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are 
foreign owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is 
available online at: http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE initially identified at least 14 manufacturers of residential 
clothes

[[Page 1029]]

dryers that sold products in the United States. DOE determined that 13 
of these companies exceeded the SBA's maximum number of employees or 
foreign-owned and operated. Thus, DOE identified only one potential 
small business manufacturer of residential clothes dryers but could not 
locate this manufacturer on the dynamic small business search on the 
SBA website. In addition, upon further review, DOE does not believe 
that the small business is a clothes dryer manufacturer. While the 
manufacturer has developed a highly efficient technology that, while 
not yet commercially available, could be used by other manufacturers to 
increase the efficiency of clothes dryers, it does not produce clothes 
dryers. Because the company plans to produce only a technology for 
clothes dryers that is not yet commercially available, this potential 
small business manufacturer has no market share of the residential 
clothes dryer market.
    For room air conditioners, DOE initially identified at least 11 
manufacturers of room air conditioners that sold products in the United 
States. DOE determined that 10 of these were large or foreign-owned and 
operated. In addition, DOE subsequently determined that the one room 
air conditioner manufacturer that was previously designated as a small 
business manufacturer now exceeds SBA's employment threshold for 
consideration as a small business under the appropriate NAICS code 
specified above.
    DOE received no comments on the certification, and comments on the 
testing burden are discussed elsewhere in the preamble and did not 
result in changes to the certification. For these reasons, DOE 
certifies that the amendments in today's final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Based on the above, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE transmitted the certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of clothes dryers and room air conditioners must 
certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy 
conservation standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 
test their products according to the DOE test procedures for clothes 
dryers and room air conditioners, including any amendments adopted for 
those test procedures. DOE has proposed regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including clothes dryers and room 
air conditioners. 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 16, 2010). The collection-of-
information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public 
reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours 
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Subid 
Wagley at the ADDRESSES above, and e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35765d475c46415c5b506a7f1b6a7e4c585b755a58571b505a451b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a79524853494e53545f65701465714357547a555758145f554a145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE is adopting test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers and room air conditioners. 
DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that 
are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing 
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 
existing rule without changing its environmental effect, and, 
therefore, is covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 1021, 
subpart D, paragraph A5, which applies because this rule establishes 
revisions to existing test procedures that will not affect the amount, 
quality, or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not 
result in any environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' imposes certain requirements 
on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that 
preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. 64 FR 43255 
(August 10, 1999). The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to carefully 
assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also 
requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 
2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in 
developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule 
and determined that it will not preempt State law and will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA 
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to 
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's 
final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption 
to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6297(d)) Therefore, Executive Order 13132 requires no further action.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make

[[Page 1030]]

every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the 
following: (1) The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on 
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and 
(6) 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 whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more 
of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to 
the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant 
standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. 
L. 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess 
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. For a proposed regulatory action 
likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for 
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish 
estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the 
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) UMRA also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect such governments. On March 18, 
1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (The policy is 
also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed today's final 
rule under the statutory requirements and its policy and determined 
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a 
mandate that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more in 
any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's final rule under OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and 
of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory action to 
establish amended test procedures for clothes dryers and room air 
conditioners is not a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866. It has likewise not been designated as a significant 
energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Moreover, it will not have 
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy 
Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). (15 U.S.C. 788) 
Section 32 essentially provides in part that, where a proposed rule 
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the rulemaking must 
inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In 
addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney 
General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 
concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The amendments to the test procedures in today's final rule 
incorporate testing methods contained in the commercial standard, IEC 
Standard 62301. Specifically DOE is incorporating from section 4, 
(``General conditions for measurements''), paragraph 4.2, ``Test 
room,'' paragraph 4.3, ``Power supply,'' paragraph 4.4, ``Supply 
voltage waveform,'' and paragraph 4.5, ``Power measurement accuracy,'' 
and from section 5 (``Measurements''), paragraph 5.1, ``General,'' 
paragraph 5.2, ``Selection and preparation of appliance or equipment,'' 
and paragraph 5.3, ``Procedure'' of IEC Standard 62301. DOE has 
evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully 
complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (that is, 
whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public 
participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with the 
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in this standard, and 
neither

[[Page 1031]]

recommended against incorporation of these standards.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 430 of chapter II of title 
10, of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(9) as (e)(2) through 
(e)(10).
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (e)(1).
0
c. Removing the word ``Standard'' from paragraph (g)(3).
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (g)(3), 
(1), and (4), respectively.
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (g)(2) and (5).
0
d. Removing in paragraph (1)(1), ``Appendix N to Subpart B'', and 
adding in its place, ``Appendix D1, Appendix F and Appendix N to 
Subpart B''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16'') (RA 2009), 
(Reaffirmation of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 [RA 1999]), Method of 
Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air 
Conditioners, ASHRAE approved October 18, 1988, and reaffirmed June 20, 
2009. ANSI approved October 20, 1998 and reaffirmed June 25, 2009. IBR 
approved for Appendix F to Subpart B.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) AHAM HLD-1-2009 (``AHAM HLD-1''), Household Tumble Type Clothes 
Dryers, (2009), IBR approved for Appendix D1 to Subpart B.
* * * * *
    (5) ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-2008 (``ANSI/AHAM RAC-1''), Room Air 
Conditioners, (2008; ANSI approved July 7, 2008), IBR approved for 
Appendix F to Subpart B.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (d) Clothes dryers. (1) The estimated annual operating cost for 
clothes dryers shall be--
    (i) For an electric clothes dryer, the product of the following 
three factors:
    (A) The representative average-use cycle of 283 cycles per year,
    (B) The per-cycle combined total energy consumption in kilowatt-
hours per-cycle, determined according to 4.6 of appendix D1 to this 
subpart, and
    (C) The representative average unit cost of electrical energy in 
dollars per kilowatt-hour as provided by the Secretary, the resulting 
product then being rounded off to the nearest dollar per year, and
    (ii) For a gas clothes dryer, the product of the representative 
average-use cycle of 283 cycles per year times the sum of:
    (A) The product of the per-cycle gas dryer electric energy 
consumption in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to 4.2 of 
appendix D1 to this subpart, times the representative average unit cost 
of electrical energy in dollars per kilowatt-hour as provided by the 
Secretary plus,
    (B) The product of the per-cycle gas dryer gas energy consumption, 
in Btus per cycle, determined according to 4.3 of appendix D1 to this 
subpart, times the representative average unit cost for natural gas or 
propane, as appropriate, in dollars per Btu as provided by the 
Secretary, the resulting product then being rounded off to the nearest 
dollar per year plus,
    (C) The product of the per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to 4.5 of 
appendix D1 to this subpart, times the representative average unit cost 
of electrical energy in dollars per kilowatt-hour as provided by the 
Secretary.
    (2) The energy factor, expressed in pounds of clothes per kilowatt-
hour, for clothes dryers shall be either the quotient of a 3-pound 
bone-dry test load for compact dryers, as defined by 2.7.1 of appendix 
D to this subpart before the date that appendix D1 becomes mandatory, 
or the quotient of a 7-pound bone-dry test load for standard dryers, as 
defined by 2.7.2 of appendix D to this subpart before the date that 
appendix D1 becomes mandatory, as applicable, divided by the clothes 
dryer energy consumption per cycle, as determined according to 4.1 for 
electric clothes dryers and 4.6 for gas clothes dryers of appendix D to 
this subpart before the date that appendix D1 becomes mandatory, the 
resulting quotient then being rounded off to the nearest hundredth 
(.01). Upon the date that appendix D1 to this subpart becomes 
mandatory, the energy factor is determined in accordance with 4.7 of 
appendix D1, the result then being rounded off to the nearest hundredth 
(.01).
    (3) Upon the date that appendix D1 to this subpart becomes 
mandatory, the combined energy factor is determined in accordance with 
4.8 of appendix D1, the result then being rounded off to the nearest 
hundredth (.01).
    (4) Other useful measures of energy consumption for clothes dryers 
shall be those measures of energy consumption for clothes dryers which 
the Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions and which are derived from the application of 
appendix D to this subpart before the date that appendix D1 becomes 
mandatory and appendix D1 upon the date that appendix D1 to this 
subpart becomes mandatory.
* * * * *
    (f) Room air conditioners. (1) The estimated annual operating cost 
for room air conditioners, expressed in dollars per year, shall be 
determined by multiplying the following three factors:
    (i) The combined annual energy consumption for room air 
conditioners, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year, as determined in 
accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this section, and
    (ii) A representative average unit cost of electrical energy in 
dollars per kilowatt-hour as provided by the Secretary, the resulting 
product then being rounded off to the nearest dollar per year.

[[Page 1032]]

    (2) The energy efficiency ratio for room air conditioners, 
expressed in Btus per watt-hour, shall be the quotient of:
    (i) The cooling capacity in Btus per hour as determined in 
accordance with 5.1 of appendix F to this subpart divided by:
    (ii) The electrical input power in watts as determined in 
accordance with 5.2 of appendix F to this subpart, the resulting 
quotient then being rounded off to the nearest 0.1 Btu per watt-hour.
    (3) The average annual energy consumption for room air 
conditioners, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year, shall be determined 
by multiplying together the following two factors:
    (i) Electrical input power in kilowatts as determined in accordance 
with 5.2 of appendix F to this subpart, and
    (ii) The representative average-use cycle of 750 hours of 
compressor operation per year, the resulting product then being rounded 
off to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year.
    (4) The combined annual energy consumption for room air 
conditioners, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year, shall be the sum 
of:
    (i) The average annual energy consumption as determined in 
accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this section, and
    (ii) The standby mode and off mode energy consumption, as 
determined in accordance with 5.3 of appendix F to this subpart, the 
resulting sum then being rounded off to the nearest kilowatt-hour per 
year.
    (5) The combined energy efficiency ratio for room air conditioners, 
expressed in Btu's per watt-hour, shall be the quotient of:
    (i) The cooling capacity in Btus per hour as determined in 
accordance with 5.1 of appendix F to this subpart multiplied by the 
representative average-use cycle of 750 hours of compressor operation 
per year, divided by
    (ii) The combined annual energy consumption as determined in 
accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this section multiplied by a 
conversion factor of 1,000 to convert kilowatt-hours to watt-hours, the 
resulting quotient then being rounded off to the nearest 0.1 Btu per 
watt-hour.
* * * * *

0
4. Appendix D to subpart B of part 430 is amended by adding 
introductory note to read as follows:

Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 430-Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers

    Note: Manufacturers must continue to use appendix D to subpart B 
of part 430 until the energy conservation standards for clothes 
dryers at 10 CFR 430.32(h) are amended to require mandatory 
compliance using appendix D1.

* * * * *

0
5. Appendix D1 is added to subpart B of part 430 to read as follows:

Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430-Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers

    Note: Appendix D1 to subpart B of part 430 is informational 
only. Manufacturers must continue to use appendix D to subpart B of 
part 430 until compliance with any amended energy conservation 
standards for clothes dryers at 10 CFR 430.32(h) is required, at 
which time manufacturers must use appendix D1.

1. Definitions

    1.1 ``Active mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is 
connected to a main power source, has been activated and is 
performing the main function of tumbling the clothing with or 
without heated or unheated forced air circulation to remove moisture 
from the clothing, remove wrinkles or prevent wrinkling of the 
clothing, or both.
    1.2 ``AHAM'' means the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers.
    1.3 ``AHAM HLD-1'' means the test standard published by the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, titled ``Household 
Tumble Type Clothes Dryers'' (2009), AHAM HLD-1-2009 (incorporated 
by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    1.4 ``Automatic termination control'' means a dryer control 
system with a sensor which monitors either the dryer load 
temperature or its moisture content and with a controller which 
automatically terminates the drying process. A mark, detent, or 
other visual indicator or detent which indicates a preferred 
automatic termination control setting must be present if the dryer 
is to be classified as having an ``automatic termination control.'' 
A mark is a visible single control setting on one or more dryer 
controls.
    1.5 ``Bone dry'' means a condition of a load of test clothes 
which has been dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum 
of 10 minutes, removed, and weighed before cool down, and then dried 
again for 10-minute periods until the final weight change of the 
load is 1 percent or less.
    1.6 ``Compact'' or ``compact size'' means a clothes dryer with a 
drum capacity of less than 4.4 cubic feet.
    1.7 ``Conventional clothes dryer'' means a clothes dryer that 
exhausts the evaporated moisture from the cabinet.
    1.8 ``Cool down'' means that portion of the clothes drying cycle 
when the added gas or electric heat is terminated and the clothes 
continue to tumble and dry within the drum.
    1.9 ``Cycle'' means a sequence of operation of a clothes dryer 
which performs a clothes drying operation, and may include 
variations or combinations of the functions of heating, tumbling, 
and drying.
    1.10 ``Drum capacity'' means the volume of the drying drum in 
cubic feet.
    1.11 ``IEC 62301'' means the test standard published by the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC''), titled 
``Household electrical appliances-Measurement of standby power,'' 
Publication 62301 (first edition June 2005) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    1.12 ``Inactive mode'' means a standby mode that facilitates the 
activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote 
control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous 
status display.
    1.13 ``Moisture content'' means the ratio of the weight of water 
contained by the test load to the bone-dry weight of the test load, 
expressed as a percent.
    1.14 ``Moisture sensing control'' means a system which utilizes 
a moisture sensing element within the dryer drum that monitors the 
amount of moisture in the clothes and automatically terminates the 
dryer cycle.
    1.15 ``Off mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is 
connected to a main power source and is not providing any active or 
standby mode function, and where the mode may persist for an 
indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the 
product is in the off position is included within the classification 
of an off mode.
    1.16 ``Standard size'' means a clothes dryer with a drum 
capacity of 4.4 cubic feet or greater.
    1.17 ``Standby mode'' means any product modes where the energy 
using product is connected to a main power source and offers one or 
more of the following user-oriented or protective functions which 
may persist for an indefinite time:
    (a) To facilitate the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch 
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer.
    (b) Continuous functions, including information or status 
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a 
continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a 
display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g., switching) and 
that operates on a continuous basis.
    1.18 ``Temperature sensing control'' means a system which 
monitors dryer exhaust air temperature and automatically terminates 
the dryer cycle.
    1.19 ``Ventless clothes dryer'' means a clothes dryer that uses 
a closed-loop system with an internal condenser to remove the 
evaporated moisture from the heated air. The moist air is not 
discharged from the cabinet.

2. Testing Conditions

    2.1 Installation. Install the clothes dryer in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions. For conventional clothes dryers, as 
defined in 1.7, the dryer exhaust shall be restricted by adding the 
AHAM exhaust simulator described in 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). For ventless clothes 
dryers, as defined in 1.19, the dryer shall be tested without the 
AHAM exhaust simulator. Where the manufacturer gives the option to 
use the dryer both with and without a duct, the dryer shall be 
tested without the exhaust simulator. All external joints should be 
taped to avoid air leakage. If the manufacturer gives the

[[Page 1033]]

option to use a ventless clothes dryer, as defined in 1.19, with or 
without a condensation box, the dryer shall be tested with the 
condensation box installed. For ventless clothes dryers, the 
condenser unit of the dryer must remain in place and not be taken 
out of the dryer for any reason between tests. For drying testing, 
disconnect all console lights or other lighting systems on the 
clothes dryer which do not consume more than 10 watts during the 
clothes dryer test cycle. For standby and off mode testing, the 
clothes dryer shall also be installed in accordance with section 5, 
paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3). For standby and off mode testing, do not disconnect console 
lights or other lighting systems.
    2.2 Ambient temperature and humidity.
    2.2.1 For drying testing, maintain the room ambient air 
temperature at 75 <plus-minus> 3 [deg] F and the room relative 
humidity at 50 <plus-minus> 10 percent relative humidity.
    2.2.2 For standby and off mode testing, maintain room ambient 
air temperature conditions as specified in section 4, paragraph 4.2 
of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.3 Energy supply.
    2.3.1 Electrical supply. Maintain the electrical supply at the 
clothes dryer terminal block within 1 percent of 120/240 or 120/208Y 
or 120 volts as applicable to the particular terminal block wiring 
system and within 1 percent of the nameplate frequency as specified 
by the manufacturer. If the dryer has a dual voltage conversion 
capability, conduct the test at the highest voltage specified by the 
manufacturer.
    2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. For the clothes dryer standby 
mode and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage 
waveform indicated in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.3.2 Gas supply.
    2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes 
dryer immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 to 10 
inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 
appliance pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an 
outlet pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be 
approximately that recommended by the manufacturer. The hourly Btu 
rating of the burner shall be maintained within <plus-minus> 5 
percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. The natural gas 
supplied should have a heating value of approximately 1,025 Btus per 
standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, H<INF>n</INF>2, in 
Btus per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the 
test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the 
manufacturer conducting the test using a standard continuous flow 
calorimeter as described in 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled 
natural gas whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as accurate 
a rating as could be obtained from measurements with a standard 
continuous flow calorimeter as described in 2.4.6.
    2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes 
dryer immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 11 to 13 
inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 
appliance pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an 
outlet pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be 
approximately that recommended by the manufacturer. The hourly Btu 
rating of the burner shall be maintained within <plus-minus> 5 
percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. The propane gas 
supplied should have a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btus per 
standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, H<INF>p</INF>, in 
Btus per standard cubic foot, for the propane gas to be used in the 
test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the 
manufacturer conducting the test using a standard continuous flow 
calorimeter as described in 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled gas 
whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as accurate a rating as 
could be obtained from measurement with a standard continuous 
calorimeter as described in 2.4.6.
    2.4 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the 
following instruments as appropriate.
    2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a 
range of 0 to a maximum of 30 pounds with a resolution of at least 
0.2 ounces and a maximum error no greater than 0.3 percent of any 
measured value within the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
    2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity measurements. The scale 
should have a range of 0 to a maximum of 500 pounds with resolution 
of 0.50 pounds and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of 
the measured value.
    2.4.2 Kilowatt-hour meter. The kilowatt-hour meter shall have a 
resolution of 0.001 kilowatt-hours and a maximum error no greater 
than 0.5 percent of the measured value.
    2.4.3 Gas meter. The gas meter shall have a resolution of 0.001 
cubic feet and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the 
measured value.
    2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb 
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than <plus-minus> 1 
[deg]F.
    2.4.5 Temperature. The temperature sensor shall have an error no 
greater than <plus-minus> 1 [deg]F.
    2.4.6 Standard Continuous Flow Calorimeter. The calorimeter 
shall have an operating range of 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic feet. 
The maximum error of the basic calorimeter shall be no greater than 
0.2 percent of the actual heating value of the gas used in the test. 
The indicator readout shall have a maximum error no greater than 0.5 
percent of the measured value within the operating range and a 
resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading of the indicator 
instrument.
    2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used 
to measure standby mode and off mode power consumption of the 
clothes dryer shall have the resolution specified in section 4, 
paragraph 4.5 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3). The watt meter shall also be able to record a ``true'' 
average power as specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 
62301.
    2.5 Lint trap. Clean the lint trap thoroughly before each test 
run.
    2.6 Test Clothes.
    2.6.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test cloth shall be clean 
and consist of the following:
    (a) Pure finished bleached cloth, made with a momie or granite 
weave, which is a blended fabric of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent 
polyester and weighs within +10 percent of 5.75 ounces per square 
yard after test cloth preconditioning, and has 65 ends on the warp 
and 57 picks on the fill. The individual warp and fill yarns are a 
blend of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester fibers.
    (b) Cloth material that is 24 inches by 36 inches and has been 
hemmed to 22 inches by 34 inches before washing. The maximum 
shrinkage after five washes shall not be more than 4 percent on the 
length and width.
    (c) The number of test runs on the same energy test cloth shall 
not exceed 25 runs.
    2.6.2 Energy stuffer cloths. The energy stuffer cloths shall be 
made from energy test cloth material, and shall consist of pieces of 
material that are 12 inches by 12 inches and have been hemmed to 10 
inches by 10 inches before washing. The maximum shrinkage after five 
washes shall not be more than 4 percent on the length and width. The 
number of test runs on the same energy stuffer cloth shall not 
exceed 25 runs after test cloth preconditioning.
    2.6.3 Test Cloth Preconditioning.
    A new test cloth load and energy stuffer cloths shall be treated 
as follows:
    (1) Bone dry the load to a weight change of <plus-minus> 1 
percent, or less, as prescribed in section 1.5.
    (2) Place the test cloth load in a standard clothes washer set 
at the maximum water fill level. Wash the load for 10 minutes in 
soft water (17 parts per million hardness or less), using 60.8 grams 
of AHAM standard test detergent Formula 3. Wash water temperature is 
to be controlled at 140 [deg] <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F (60 [deg] <plus-
minus> 2.7 [deg]C). Rinse water temperature is to be controlled at 
100 [deg] <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F (37.7 <plus-minus> 2.7 [deg]C).
    (3) Rinse the load again at the same water temperature.
    (4) Bone dry the load as prescribed in section 1.5 and weigh the 
load.
    (5) This procedure is repeated until there is a weight change of 
1 percent or less.
    (6) A final cycle is to be a hot water wash with no detergent, 
followed by two warm water rinses.
    2.7 Test loads.
    2.7.1 Compact size dryer load. Prepare a bone-dry test load of 
energy cloths which weighs 3.00 pounds <plus-minus> .03 pounds. 
Adjustments to the test load to achieve the proper weight can be 
made by the use of energy stuffer cloths, with no more than five 
stuffer cloths per load. Dampen the load by agitating it in water 
whose temperature is 60 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F and consists of 
0 to 17 parts per million hardness for approximately 2 minutes in 
order to saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test 
load by spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is 
between 54.0-61.0 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load.
    2.7.2 Standard size dryer load. Prepare a bone-dry test load of 
energy cloths which weighs 8.45 pounds <plus-minus> .085 pounds.

[[Page 1034]]

Adjustments to the test load to achieve the proper weight can be 
made by the use of energy stuffer cloths, with no more than five 
stuffer cloths per load. Dampen the load by agitating it in water 
whose temperature is 60 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F and consists of 
0 to 17 parts per million hardness for approximately 2 minutes in 
order to saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test 
load by spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is 
between 54.0-61.0 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load.
    2.7.3 Method of loading. Load the energy test cloths by grasping 
them in the center, shaking them to hang loosely, and then dropping 
them in the dryer at random.
    2.8 Clothes dryer preconditioning.
    2.8.1 Conventional clothes dryers. For conventional clothes 
dryers, before any test cycle, operate the dryer without a test load 
in the non-heat mode for 15 minutes or until the discharge air 
temperature is varying less than 1 [deg]F for 10 minutes--whichever 
is longer--in the test installation location with the ambient 
conditions within the specified test condition tolerances of 2.2.
    2.8.2 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless clothes dryers, 
before any test cycle, the steady-state machine temperature must be 
equal to ambient room temperature described in 2.2.1. This may be 
done by leaving the machine at ambient room conditions for at least 
12 hours between tests.

3. Test Procedures and Measurements

    3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum capacity by sealing all 
openings in the drum except the loading port with a plastic bag, and 
ensuring that all corners and depressions are filled and that there 
are no extrusions of the plastic bag through the opening in the 
drum. Support the dryer's rear drum surface on a platform scale to 
prevent deflection of the drum surface, and record the weight of the 
empty dryer. Fill the drum with water to a level determined by the 
intersection of the door plane and the loading port. Record the 
temperature of the water and then the weight of the dryer with the 
added water and then determine the mass of the water in pounds. Add 
or subtract the appropriate volume depending on whether or not the 
plastic bag protrudes into the drum interior. The drum capacity is 
calculated as follows:

C = w/d
C = capacity in cubic feet.
w = weight of water in pounds.
d = density of water at the measured temperature in pounds per cubic 
feet.

    3.2 Dryer Loading. Load the dryer as specified in 2.7.
    3.3 Test cycle Operate the clothes dryer at the maximum 
temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the maximum 
time setting and dry the load until the moisture content of the test 
load is between 2.5 and 5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test 
load, but do not permit the dryer to advance into cool down. If 
required, reset the timer or automatic dry control. If the dryer 
automatically stops during a cycle because the condensation box is 
full of water, the test is stopped, and the test run is invalid, in 
which case the condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run 
from the beginning. For ventless dryers, as defined in 1.19, during 
the time between two cycles, the door of the dryer shall be closed 
except for loading (and unloading).
    3.4 Data recording. Record for each test cycle:
    3.4.1 Bone-dry weight of the test load described in 2.7.
    3.4.2 Moisture content of the wet test load before the test, as 
described in 2.7.
    3.4.3 Moisture content of the dry test load obtained after the 
test described in 3.3.
    3.4.4 Test room conditions, temperature, and percent relative 
humidity described in 2.2.1.
    3.4.5 For electric dryers--the total kilowatt-hours of electric 
energy, E<INF>t</INF>, consumed during the test described in 3.3.
    3.4.6 For gas dryers:
    3.4.6.1 Total kilowatt-hours of electrical energy, 
E<INF>te</INF>, consumed during the test described in 3.3.
    3.4.6.2 Cubic feet of gas per cycle, E<INF>tg</INF>, consumed 
during the test described in 3.3.
    3.4.6.3 Correct the gas heating value, GEF, as measured in 
2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2, to standard pressure and temperature conditions 
in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938.
    3.5 Test for automatic termination field use factor. The field 
use factor for automatic termination can be claimed for those dryers 
which meet the requirements for automatic termination control, 
defined in 1.4.
    3.6 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the testing 
conditions set forth in Section 2 ``Testing Conditions'' of this 
appendix, omitting the requirement to disconnect all console light 
or other lighting systems on the clothes dryer that do not consume 
more than 10 watts during the clothes dryer test cycle in section 
2.1. If the clothes dryer waits in a higher power state at the start 
of standby mode or off mode before dropping to a lower power state, 
as discussed in section 5, paragraph 5.1, note 1 of IEC 62301 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3),wait until the clothes 
dryer passes into the lower power state before starting the 
measurement. Follow the test procedure specified in section 5, 
paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 for testing in each possible mode as 
described in 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, except allow the product to stabilize 
for 30 to 40 minutes and use an energy use measurement period of 10 
minutes. For units in which power varies over a cycle, as described 
in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301, use the average power 
approach described in paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301, except allow 
the product to stabilize for 30 to 40 minutes and use an energy use 
measurement period not less than 10 minutes.
    3.6.1 If a clothes dryer has an inactive mode, as defined in 
1.12, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the 
clothes dryer, P<INF>IA</INF>, in watts.
    3.6.2 If a clothes dryer has an off mode, as defined in 1.15, 
measure and record the average off mode power of the clothes dryer, 
P<INF>OFF</INF>, in watts.

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

    4.1 Total Per-cycle electric dryer energy consumption. Calculate 
the total electric dryer energy consumption per cycle, 
E<INF>ce,</INF> expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined 
as:

E<INF>ce</INF> = [53.5/(W<INF>w</INF>-W<INF>d</INF>)] x 
E<INF>tt</INF> x field use,

Where:

53.5 = an experimentally established value for the percent reduction 
in the moisture content of the test load during a laboratory test 
cycle expressed as a percent.
field use = field use factor.

= 1.18 for clothes dryers with time termination control systems only 
without any automatic termination control functions.
= 1.04 clothes dryers with automatic control systems that meet the 
requirements of the definition for automatic control systems in 1.4, 
1.14 and 1.18, including those that also have a supplementary timer 
control, or that may also be manually controlled.

W<INF>w</INF> = the moisture content of the wet test load as 
recorded in 3.4.2.

W<INF>d</INF> = the moisture content of the dry test load as 
recorded in 3.4.3.

    4.2 Per-cycle gas dryer electrical energy consumption. Calculate 
the gas dryer electrical energy consumption per cycle, E<INF>ge,</INF> 
expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:

E<INF>ge</INF> = [53.5/(W<INF>w</INF>-W<INF>d</INF>)] x E<INF>te</INF> 
x field use,

Where:

E<INF>te</INF> = the energy recorded in 3.4.6.1 field use, 53.5, 
W<INF>w</INF>, W<INF>d</INF> as defined in 4.1.

    4.3 Per-cycle gas dryer gas energy consumption. Calculate the gas 
dryer gas energy consumption per cycle, E<INF>ge.</INF> expressed in 
Btus per cycle as defined as:

E<INF>gg</INF> = [53.5/(W<INF>w</INF> - W<INF>d</INF>)] x 
E<INF>tg</INF> x field use x GEF

Where:

E<INF>tg</INF> = the energy recorded in 3.4.6.2
GEF = corrected gas heat value (Btu per cubic feet) as defined in 
3.4.6.3, field use, 53.5, W<INF>w</INF>, W<INF>d</INF> as defined in 
4.1.

    4.4 Total per-cycle gas dryer energy consumption expressed in 
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the total gas dryer energy consumption per 
cycle, E<INF>cg</INF>, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and 
defined as:

E<INF>cg</INF> = E<INF>ge</INF> + (E<INF>gg</INF>/3412 Btu/kWh)

Where:

E<INF>ge</INF> as defined in 4.2
E<INF>gg</INF> as defined in 4.3

    4.5 Per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy consumption. 
Calculate the dryer inactive mode and off mode energy consumption per 
cycle, E<INF>TSO</INF>, expressed in kWh per cycle and defined as:

E<INF>TSO</INF> = [(P<INF>IA</INF> x S<INF>IA</INF>) + (P<INF>OFF</INF> 
x S<INF>OFF</INF>)] x K/283

Where:

P<INF>IA</INF> = dryer inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in 
section 3.6.1;

[[Page 1035]]

P<INF>OFF</INF> = dryer off mode power, in watts, as measured in 
section 3.6.2.

If the clothes dryer has both inactive mode and off mode, 
S<INF>IA</INF> and S<INF>OFF</INF> both equal 8,620 / 2 = 4,310, 
where 8,620 is the total inactive and off mode annual hours;

If the clothes dryer has an inactive mode but no off mode, the 
inactive mode annual hours, S<INF>IA</INF>, is equal to 8,620 and 
the off mode annual hours, S<INF>OFF</INF>, is equal to 0;

If the clothes dryer has an off mode but no inactive mode, 
S<INF>IA</INF> is equal to 0 and S<INF>OFF</INF> is equal to 8,620

Where:

K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; 
and
283 = representative average number of clothes dryer cycles in a 
year.

    4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy consumption expressed in 
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the per-cycle combined total energy 
consumption, E<INF>CC,</INF> expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and 
defined for an electric clothes dryer as:

E<INF>CC</INF> = E<INF>ce</INF> + E<INF>TSO</INF>

Where:

E<INF>ce</INF> = the energy recorded in 4.1, and
E<INF>TSO</INF> = the energy recorded in 4.7, and defined for a gas 
clothes dryer as:
E<INF>CC</INF> = E<INF>cg</INF> + E<INF>TSO</INF>

Where:

E<INF>cg</INF> = the energy recorded in 4.4, and
E<INF>TSO</INF> = the energy recorded in 4.7.

    4.7 Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatt-hour. Calculate the energy 
factor, EF, expressed in pounds per kilowatt-hour and defined for an 
electric clothes dryer as:

EF = W<INF>bonedry</INF>/E<INF>ce</INF>

Where:

W<INF>bonedry</INF> = the bone dry test load weight recorded in 
3.4.1, and
E<INF>ce</INF> = the energy recorded in 4.1, and

and defined for a gas clothes dryer as:

EF = W<INF>bonedry</INF>/E<INF>cg</INF>

Where:

W<INF>bonedry</INF> = the bone dry test load weight recorded in 
3.4.1, and
E<INF>cg</INF> = the energy recorded in 4.4,

    4.8 Combined Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatt-hour. Calculate 
the combined energy factor, CEF, expressed in pounds per kilowatt-hour 
and defined as:

CEF = W<INF>bonedry</INF>/E<INF>CC</INF>

Where:

W<INF>bonedry</INF> = the bone dry test load weight 3.4.1, and
E<INF>CC</INF> = the energy recorded in 4.6


0
6. Appendix F to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix F to Subpart B of Part 430-Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Room Air Conditioners

    Note:  Manufacturers are not required to use the test procedures 
and calculations that refer to standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, (specifically, sections 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, and 5.3 of this 
appendix F) until the compliance date of any amended energy 
conservation standards for room air conditioners at 10 CFR 
430.32(b).

    1. Definitions.
    1.1 ``Active mode'' means a mode in which the room air 
conditioner is connected to a mains power source, has been activated 
and is performing the main function of cooling or heating the 
conditioned space, or circulating air through activation of its fan 
or blower, with or without energizing active air-cleaning components 
or devices such as ultraviolet (UV) radiation, electrostatic 
filters, ozone generators, or other air-cleaning devices.
    1.2 ``ANSI/AHAM RAC-1'' means the test standard published 
jointly by the American National Standards Institute and the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, titled ``Room Air 
Conditioners,'' Standard RAC-1-2008 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3).
    1.3 ``ANSI/ASHRAE 16'' means the test standard published jointly 
by the American National Standards Institute and the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers 
titled ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and 
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners,'' Standard 16-1983 (RA 2009) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    1.4 ``IEC 62301'' means the test standard published by the 
International Electrotechnical Commission, (``IEC''), titled 
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' 
Publication 62301 (first edition June 2005), (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    1.5 ``Inactive mode'' means a standby mode that facilitates the 
activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote 
control) or internal sensor or which provides continuous status 
display.
    1.6 ``Off mode'' means a mode in which a room air conditioner is 
connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active or 
standby mode function and where the mode may persist for an 
indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the 
product is in the off position is included within the clasification 
of an off mode.
    1.7 ``Standby mode'' means any product modes where the where the 
energy using product is connected to a mains power source and offers 
one or more of the following user oriented or protective functions 
which may persist for an indefinite time:
    (a) To facilitate the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch 
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer.
    (b) Continuous functions, including information or status 
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a 
continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a 
display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g., switching) and 
that operates on a continuous basis.
    2. Test methods.
    2.1 Cooling. The test method for testing room air conditioners 
in cooling mode shall consist of application of the methods and 
conditions in ANSI/AHAM RAC-1 sections 4, 5, 6.1, and 6.5 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 16 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.2 Standby and off modes. The method for testing room air 
conditioners in standby and off modes shall consist of application 
of the methods and conditions in IEC 62301 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), as modified by the requirements of this 
standard. The testing may be conducted in test facilities used for 
testing cooling performance. If testing is not conducted in such a 
facility, the test facility shall comply with IEC 62301 section 4.2.
    3. Test conditions.
    3.1 Cooling mode. Establish the test conditions described in 
sections 4 and 5 of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3) and in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    3.2 Standby and off modes.
    3.2.1 Test room conditions. Maintain the indoor test conditions 
as required by section 4.2 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  430.3). If the standby and off mode testing is conducted 
in a facility that is also used for testing cooling performance, 
maintain the outdoor test conditions either as required by section 
4.2 of IEC 62301 or as described in section 3.1. If the unit is 
equipped with an outdoor air ventilation damper, close this damper 
during testing.
    3.2.2 Power supply. Maintain power supply conditions specified 
in section 4.3 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3). Use room air conditioner nameplate voltage and frequency as 
the basis for power supply conditions. Maintain power supply voltage 
waveform according to the requirements of section 4.4 of IEC 62301.
    3.2.3 Watt meter. The watt meter used to measure standby mode 
and off mode power consumption of the room air conditioner shall 
have the resolution specified in section 4, paragraph 4.5 of IEC 
62301 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). The watt meter 
shall also be able to record a ``true'' average power specified in 
section 5, paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301.
    4. Measurements.
    4.1 Cooling mode. Measure the quantities delineated in section 5 
of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    4.2 Standby and off modes. Establish the testing conditions set 
forth in section 3.2. Prior to the initiation of the test 
measurements, the room air conditioner shall also be installed in 
accordance with section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (incorporated 
by reference; see Sec.  430.3). For room air conditioners that drop 
from a higher power state to a lower power state as discussed in 
section 5, paragraph 5.1, note 1 of IEC 62301, allow sufficient time 
for the room air conditioner to reach the lower power state before 
proceeding with the test measurement.

[[Page 1036]]

Follow the test procedure specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3 of 
IEC 62301 for testing in each possible mode as described in 4.2.1 
and 4.2.2, except allow the product to stabilize for 5 to 10 minutes 
and use an energy use measurement period of 5 minutes. For units in 
which power varies over a cycle, as described in section 5, 
paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301, use the average power approach in 
paragraph 5.3.2(a).
    4.2.1 If a room air conditioner has an inactive mode, as defined 
in 1.5, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the 
room air conditioner, P<INF>IA</INF>, in watts.
    4.2.2 If a room air conditioner has an off mode, as defined in 
1.6, measure and record the average off mode power of the room air 
conditioner, P<INF>OFF</INF>, in watts.
    5. Calculations.
    5.1 Calculate the cooling capacity (expressed in Btu/hr) as 
required in section 6.1 of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) and in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 16 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    5.2 Determine the electrical power input (expressed in watts) as 
required by section 6.5 of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) and in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 16 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    5.3 Standby mode and off mode annual energy consumption. 
Calculate the standby mode and off mode annual energy consumption 
for room air conditioners, E<INF>TSO</INF>, expressed in kilowatt-
hours per year, according to the following:

E<INF>TSO</INF> = [(P<INF>IA</INF> x S<INF>IA</INF>) + 
(P<INF>OFF</INF> x S<INF>OFF</INF>)] x K

Where:

P<INF>IA</INF>= room air conditioner inactive mode power, in watts, 
as measured in section 4.2.1
P<INF>OFF</INF> = room air conditioner off mode power, in watts, as 
measured in section 4.2.2.
If the room air conditioner has both inactive mode and off mode, 
S<INF>IA</INF> and S<INF>OFF</INF> both equal 5,115 / 2 = 2,557.5, 
where 5,115 is the total inactive and off mode annual hours;
If the room air conditioner has an inactive mode but no off mode, 
the inactive mode annual hours, S<INF>IA</INF>, is equal to 5,115 
and the off mode annual hours, S<INF>OFF</INF>, is equal to 0;
If the room air conditioner has an off mode but no inactive mode, 
S<INF>IA</INF> is equal to 0 and S<INF>OFF</INF> is equal to 
S<INF>TOT</INF>;
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours.

[FR Doc. 2010-32118 Filed 1-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>