```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13888-13950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4819]

[[Page 13887]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 45

March 7, 2012

Part IV

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes 
Washers; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 13888]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0021]
RIN 1904-AC08

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential 
Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) establishes new test 
procedures for residential clothes washers under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act. The new test procedures include provisions for 
measuring standby mode and off mode energy consumption, and update the 
provisions for measuring active mode energy and water consumption. This 
final rule also amends the certification, compliance, and enforcement 
requirements for residential clothes washers, amends provisions for 
calculating the estimated annual operating cost for clothes washers, 
eliminates an obsolete clothes washer test procedure, and amends 
certain provisions in the currently applicable test procedure.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 6, 2012. Manufacturers will 
be required to certify compliance using the appendix J2 test procedure 
beginning on the compliance date of any final rule establishing amended 
energy conservation standards that address standby and off mode power 
for residential clothes washers. Before that time, manufacturers may 
continue to certify compliance using the test procedure at appendix J1.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rulemaking is approved by the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register as of April 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework 
documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and 
other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed 
in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is 
exempt from public disclosure. A link to the docket Web page can be 
found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-TP-0021. 
The regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all 
documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Stephen L. Witkowski, 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) 586-7463. Email: Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
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. Email: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into part 430 the following industry test standards:
    (1) AATCC Test Method 79-2010, Absorbency of Textiles, Revised 
2010.
    (2) AATCC Test Method 118-2007, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon 
Resistance Test, Revised 2007.
    (3) AATCC Test Method 135-2010, Dimensional Changes of Fabrics 
After Home Laundering, Revised 2010.
    (4) IEC Standard 62301, Household Electrical Appliances--
Measurement of Standby Power, Edition 2.0, 2011-01.
    Copies of AATCC standards can be obtained from the American 
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists, P.O. Box 12215, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or www.aatcc.org.
    Copies of IEC standards can be obtained from the American National 
Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, 
(212) 642-4900, or http://webstore.ansi.org/.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    B. DOE Test Procedure at Appendix J1
    C. Clothes Washer Test Procedure Updates: Authority and 
Regulatory Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. Standby and Off Mode
    B. Water Consumption
    C. Updated Consumer Usage Patterns
    D. Energy Test Cycle Definition
    E. Capacity Measurement Method
    F. Test Cloth, Detergent, and Preconditioning Test Equipment
    G. Testing Conditions
    H. Clarifications and Corrections
    I. Annual Operating Cost Calculation
    J. Revisions to Appendix J1
    K. Removal of Appendix J
    L. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Requirements
III. Discussion
    A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Final Rule
    B. Standby Mode and Off Mode Test Procedure Provisions
    1. Version of IEC Standard 62301
    2. Determination of Modes To Be Incorporated
    a. Active Mode
    b. Delay Start Mode
    c. Cycle Finished Mode
    d. Self-Clean Mode
    e. Standby Mode
    f. Off Mode
    g. Network Mode
    h. Disconnected Mode
    3. Power Stabilization Criteria and Measurement Methods
    a. Stable, Non-Cyclic Power
    b. Unstable (Varying), Non-Cyclic Power
    c. Cyclic Power
    4. Use of Default Settings
    5. Test Room Ambient Temperature Conditions for Standby Power 
Testing
    6. Power Supply and Power Measuring Instruments
    7. Calculation of Energy Consumption in Each Mode
    8. Integrated Modified Energy Factor (IMEF)
    C. Active Mode Test Procedure Provisions
    1. Integrated Water Consumption Factor (IWF)
    2. Technologies Not Covered by the Current Test Procedure
    a. Steam Wash Cycles
    b. Self-Clean Cycles
    c. Adaptive Control Technologies
    d. Demand Response Technologies
    3. Consumer Usage Patterns
    a. Number of Annual Wash Cycles
    b. Test Load Size Specifications
    c. Load Usage Factors
    d. Temperature Use Factors
    e. Dryer Usage Factor
    f. Load Adjustment Factor
    4. Energy Test Cycle Definition
    a. Part (A) of the Proposed Definition
    b. Part (B) of the Proposed Definition
    c. Part (C) of the Proposed Definition
    d. Part (D) and Part (E) of the Proposed Definition
    e. New Section 2.13
    f. Reporting Requirements
    5. Capacity Measurement Method
    6. Test Cloth, Detergent, and Preconditioning Test Equipment
    a. Test Cloth Definitions
    b. Energy Test Cloth Size and Weight Tolerances
    c. Detergent Specification and Dosage
    d. Test Cloth Preconditioning Wash Requirements
    e. AATCC Test Methods
    f. Required Extractor Tests
    g. Extractor Specification
    h. Bone Dryer Specifications
    i. Procedures for Preparing and Handling Test Cloth Bundles
    j. Clarification of the RMC Nomenclature and Application of the 
RMC Correction Curve
    k. Removal of Redundant Sections
    7. Testing Conditions

[[Page 13889]]

    a. Water Supply Pressure
    b. Water Inlet and Drain Hoses
    8. Clarifications and Corrections
    a. Correction of Cold Rinse Definition
    b. Clarification of Wash Time Setting for Electromechanical 
Dials
    c. Clarification of Cold Wash Definition
    d. Removal of Obsolete Note in Water Factor Calculation Section
    e. Correction of Typographical Error in Hot Water Consumption 
Calculation
    f. Removal of Energy Factor Calculation
    g. Clarification of Waiver Field Test Equation
    h. Clarification of Water Factor Terminology
    9. Test Procedure Performance Specifications
    D. Annual Operating Cost Calculation
    E. Revisions to Appendix J1
    1. Revision of Introductory Text
    2. Correction of Typographical Errors in Materials Incorporated 
by Reference
    3. Correction of Cold Rinse Definition
    4. Removal of Redundant Sections
    5. Detergent Specification and Dosage
    6. Wash Time Setting for Electromechanical Dials
    7. Clarification of Cold Wash Definition
    8. Removal of Obsolete Note in Water Factor Calculation Section
    9. Clarification of Water Factor Terminology
    10. Correction of Typographical Error in Hot Water Consumption 
Calculation
    11. Extension of Test Load Size Table
    12. Clarification of Waiver Field Test Equation
    13. Corrections to Provisions for Calculating the RMC Correction 
Curve
    F. Removal of Obsolete Test Procedure at Appendix J
    G. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
    1. Test Burden
    2. Integration of Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption 
Into the Energy Efficiency Metrics
    3. Impacts on Commercial Clothes Washers
    4. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Requirements
    H. Impacts of the Test Procedure Amendments on EnergyGuide and 
ENERGYSTAR
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'') sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Part B of title III, 
which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon 
incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), establishes the 
``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 
Automobiles.'' These include residential clothes washers, the subject 
of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
    Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) 
Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and 
(4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements 
consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must 
use as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with 
the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and 
for making representations about the efficiency of those products. 
Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether 
the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA 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)) If DOE determines that a test procedure 
amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and 
offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on 
them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))
    DOE is codifying these changes to the clothes washer test procedure 
as a new appendix J2 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B. Manufacturers will 
not be required to use appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance with 
clothes washer energy conservation standards until the compliance date 
of amended energy conservation standards that consider the methods and 
measurements included in the new test procedure. Until that time, 
manufacturers may continue to use appendix J1.
    EPCA requires DOE to review its test procedures at least once every 
seven years to determine whether amendments are warranted. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(1)) This rulemaking satisfies EPCA's periodic review 
requirement. Table I.1 provides a summary of prior key regulatory and 
legislative actions regarding the residential clothes washer test 
procedure and energy conservation standards, which are relevant to this 
final rule. The first column contains the abbreviated names used in 
this preamble to refer to each action.

        Table I.1--Summary of Relevant Regulatory and Legislative Actions for Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Name                         Action             Citation and date         Summary of action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 TEST PROCEDURES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1997 Final Rule.............  Final Rule............  62 FR 45484 (August     Established new test
                                                              27, 1997).              procedure at appendix J1.
September 2010 NOPR................  Notice of Proposed      75 FR 57556 (September  Proposed new appendix J2 to
                                      Rulemaking.             21, 2010).              incorporate standby and
                                                                                      off mode and to amend
                                                                                      certain active mode
                                                                                      provisions; proposed
                                                                                      changes to appendix J1;
                                                                                      proposed removal of
                                                                                      appendix J.
October 2010 public meeting........  Public meeting........  October 28, 2010......  Public meeting to discuss
                                                                                      proposed test procedure
                                                                                      amendments.
August 2011 SNOPR..................  Supplementary Notice    76 FR 49238 (August 9,  Proposed revisions to new
                                      of Proposed             2011).                  appendix J2 to incorporate
                                      Rulemaking.                                     provisions of IEC Standard
                                                                                      62301 (2nd Ed.); proposed
                                                                                      minor amendments to
                                                                                      appendix J1.

[[Page 13890]]

 
November 2011 SNOPR................  Supplementary Notice    76 FR 69870 (November   Proposed amended definition
                                      of Proposed             9, 2011).               of the energy test cycle
                                      Rulemaking.                                     for the proposed new
                                                                                      appendix J2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2001 standards Final Rule..  Final Rule............  66 FR 3314 (January     Required use of appendix J1
                                                              12, 2001).              to demonstrate compliance
                                                                                      with amended energy
                                                                                      conservation standards as
                                                                                      of January 1, 2004;
                                                                                      amended test procedure
                                                                                      provisions related to
                                                                                      remaining moisture content
                                                                                      and test cloth.
August 2009 standards framework      Framework document....  74 FR 44306 (August     Developed to consider
 document.                                                    28, 2009).              amended energy
                                                                                      conservation standards.
September 2009 standards public      Public meeting........  September 21, 2009....  Public meeting to discuss
 meeting.                                                                             energy conservation
                                                                                      standards rulemaking;
                                                                                      included test procedure
                                                                                      issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   LEGISLATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA...............................  Legislation...........  Energy Policy and       Established authority for
                                                              Conservation Act,       energy conservation
                                                              Pub. L. 94-163.         standards and test
                                                                                      procedures.
EISA 2007..........................  Legislation...........  Energy Independence     Required standby and off
                                                              and Security Act of     mode energy to be
                                                              2007, Pub. L. 110-140.  integrated into overall
                                                                                      energy descriptors for
                                                                                      residential clothes
                                                                                      washers, if technically
                                                                                      feasible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. DOE Test Procedure at Appendix J1

    The DOE test procedure for clothes washers currently being 
manufactured is found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1, which 
was adopted by DOE in the August 1997 Final Rule. DOE added the new 
appendix J1 so that appendix J could still be used until DOE amended 
the residential clothes washer conservation standards \1\, which DOE 
published in the January 2001 standards Final Rule. Until the 
compliance date of any amended standards for residential clothes 
washers, manufacturers may continue to use the appendix J1 test 
procedure to demonstrate compliance with current energy conservation 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because appendix J applies only to clothes washers 
manufactured before January 1, 2004, appendix J is now obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test procedure at appendix J1 includes provisions for 
determining the modified energy factor (MEF) and water factor (WF). The 
test procedure at appendix J1 does not address energy use in standby or 
off modes.

C. Clothes Washer Test Procedure Updates: Authority and Regulatory 
Background

    EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require DOE to amend its test procedures 
for all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off 
mode energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy 
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test 
procedure already incorporates standby and off mode energy consumption, 
or if such integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test 
procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate 
standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered 
product, if a separate test is technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A)) Any such amendment must consider the most current 
versions of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 
62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby 
power'' (``IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition)'' or ``Second Edition'') 
and IEC Standard 62087, ``Methods of measurement for the power 
consumption of audio, video, and related equipment.'' \2\ Amendments to 
test procedures to include standby and off mode energy consumption are 
not used to determine compliance with previously-established standards. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ IEC standards are available online at www.iec.ch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is considering amending standards for clothes washers in a 
separate rulemaking, including amendments to the water consumption 
standards established in EISA 2007.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 9295(g)(9) In the 
August 2009 standards framework document, available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/clothes_washers_framework.pdf, DOE requested comments on revising the 
clothes washer test procedure. Issues presented in the framework 
document, including issues related to the test procedure, were 
discussed at the September 2009 standards public meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to revise the 
energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers. The 
revised standards established a maximum water consumption factor 
(WF) of 9.5, effective January 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the August 2009 standards framework document, DOE 
received comments stating that it should consider changes to the active 
mode test procedure for clothes washers. As a result, DOE proposed in 
the September 2010 NOPR to address issues regarding the active mode 
provisions of the test procedure, in addition to proposing the 
inclusion of measures for standby and off mode power. The proposals are 
discussed in greater detail below.
    DOE proposed a number of revisions and additions to the test 
procedure in the September 2010 NOPR, including: (1) Incorporating 
standby and off mode power into a combined energy metric; (2) 
addressing technologies not covered by the appendix J1 test procedure, 
such as steam wash cycles and self-clean cycles; (3) revising the 
number of annual wash cycles; (4) updating use factors; (5) revising 
the procedures and specifications for test cloth; (6) redefining the 
appropriate water fill level for the capacity measurement method; (7) 
establishing a new measure of water consumption; and (8) revising the 
definition of the energy test cycle. DOE requested comment on the 
proposals in the September 2010 NOPR and discussed the proposals at the 
October 2010 public meeting.

[[Page 13891]]

    The August 2011 SNOPR proposed to incorporate certain provisions of 
IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition), as well as additional amendments 
addressing the following: (1) The energy test cycle definition; (2) the 
load adjustment factor; (3) the wash time setting for certain clothes 
washers; (4) the calculation of annual energy cost; (5) extension of 
the test load size table; (6) the definition of cold rinse; (7) 
redundant sections for test cloth specifications; (8) the detergent 
specification; (9) the definition of cold wash; and (10) the 
calculations for per-cycle self-clean water consumption. DOE requested 
comment on the proposals in the August 2011 SNOPR.
    The November 2011 SNOPR proposed a revised definition for the 
energy test cycle. DOE requested additional comment on its proposal.
    In today's final rule, DOE addresses comments it received on the 
September 2010 NOPR that were not previously addressed in the August 
2011 SNOPR, as well as comments received in response to the August 2011 
SNOPR and November 2011 SNOPR. DOE responds to these comments in 
section III.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE establishes a new clothes washer test 
procedure (in a new appendix J2) that integrates measures of standby 
mode and off mode energy consumption, as well as measures of energy 
consumption in certain additional modes determined to be part of active 
mode. This final rule also: (1) Introduces a new efficiency metric for 
water consumption; (2) more accurately reflects current consumer usage 
patterns; (3) revises the energy test cycle definition; (4) revises the 
capacity measurement method; (5) addresses issues related to the test 
cloth, including the preconditioning detergent and test equipment; (6) 
clarifies certain testing conditions; (7) provides additional 
clarifications and corrections to certain provisions of the test 
procedure; (8) revises the calculation for annual operating cost; (9) 
revises and clarifies certain provisions in appendix J1; (10) removes 
the obsolete appendix J to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430; and (11) 
amends the certification, compliance, and enforcement requirements for 
residential clothes washers. The following paragraphs summarize these 
changes.

A. Standby and Off Mode

    The new clothes washer test procedure includes provisions for 
measuring energy consumption in standby and off modes. DOE incorporates 
by reference IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). In the new test 
procedure, DOE includes language to clarify the application of clauses 
from the Second Edition regarding test conditions and test procedures 
for measuring standby mode and off mode energy consumption. The new 
test procedure includes definitions of ``active mode,'' ``standby 
mode,'' and ``off mode'' based on the definitions provided in the 
Second Edition. It also incorporates a simplified measurement approach 
that accounts for energy consumption in all low-power modes--including 
standby, off, delay start, and cycle finished modes--by means of a 
single power measurement. DOE also adopts a new measure of energy 
efficiency, the integrated modified energy factor (IMEF), which 
includes the energy used in the active, standby, and off modes.

B. Water Consumption

    The new test procedure establishes a new measure of efficiency, the 
integrated water consumption factor (IWF), which incorporates the water 
consumption of all wash/rinse test cycles.

C. Updated Consumer Usage Patterns

    The new test procedure updates certain values from the existing 
test procedure to reflect current consumer usage patterns and 
capabilities. This final rule: (1) Updates the number of annual wash 
cycles and incorporates it into the calculation for combined low-power 
mode energy consumption; (2) extends the test load sizes table to 
accommodate test loads for large-capacity clothes washers; (3) updates 
the temperature use factors for the warm/cold and warm/warm temperature 
combinations to accommodate the warm/warm cycle as a complete cycle; 
(4) updates the dryer usage factor; and (5) replaces the current 
representative load size calculation in the drying energy equation, 
which is based on the load adjustment factor, with a weighted-average 
load size based on the minimum, average, and maximum load sizes and the 
load usage factors.

D. Energy Test Cycle Definition

    The new test procedure modifies the definition of the energy test 
cycle to improve clarity, which DOE believes will result in more 
accurate, repeatable, and reproducible results within and among all 
test laboratories.

E. Capacity Measurement Method

    The new test procedure modifies the capacity measurement method to 
improve clarity, repeatability, and reproducibility, and to more 
appropriately represent the usable volume of the clothes washer during 
operation.

F. Test Cloth, Detergent, and Preconditioning Test Equipment

    The new test procedure: (1) Includes new test cloth definitions; 
(2) establishes tolerances for the size and weight of the test cloth; 
(3) updates the detergent specification to reflect the current 
industry-standard detergent; (4) updates the test cloth preconditioning 
wash requirements; (5) updates the industry test methods referenced in 
the test procedure to reflect the current versions of each standard; 
(6) adds a new industry test method for measuring test cloth shrinkage; 
(7) adds a requirement to conduct extractor tests at the 650 g-force 
level; (8) updates the extractor specification; (9) adds specifications 
for the dryer to be used for bone-drying the test cloth; (10) clarifies 
the procedures for preparing and handling test cloth bundles; (11) 
clarifies the remaining moisture content (RMC) nomenclature used 
throughout the test procedure; (12) clarifies the application of the 
RMC correction curve; and (13) removes redundant sections regarding 
test cloth specifications and preconditioning, which were made obsolete 
by the January 2001 standards Final Rule.

G. Testing Conditions

    Today's final rule clarifies the water supply pressure 
specification.

H. Clarifications and Corrections

    This final rule: (1) Corrects the definition of ``cold rinse''; (2) 
clarifies the method for setting the wash time on clothes washers with 
electromechanical dials; (3) clarifies the definition of ``cold wash'' 
for clothes washers that offer multiple cold wash settings; (4) removes 
an obsolete note in the water factor calculation section; (5) corrects 
a typographical error in the equation for calculating per-cycle hot 
water consumption using gas-heated or oil-heated water; (6) removes the 
obsolete calculation of energy factor (EF); (7) clarifies the 
procedures recommended for conducting field tests in support of a test 
procedure waiver; (8) clarifies the water factor metric terminology; 
and (9) corrects typographical errors in materials incorporated by 
reference.

I. Annual Operating Cost Calculation

    Today's final rule amends the annual operating cost calculation in 
10 CFR 430.23(j) to incorporate the cost of energy consumed in standby 
and off

[[Page 13892]]

modes, and to reflect an updated number of annual use cycles.

J. Revisions to Appendix J1

    This final rule revises and clarifies certain provisions in 
appendix J1, some of which are identical to revisions made in appendix 
J2. Manufacturers will continue to use the amended version of appendix 
J1 to certify compliance until use of appendix J2 is required for 
certification.
    Specifically, this final rule: (1) Revises the introductory text to 
appendix J1; (2) corrects typographical errors in materials 
incorporated by reference; (3) corrects the definition of ``cold 
rinse''; (4) removes redundant sections regarding test cloth 
specifications and preconditioning, which were made obsolete by the 
January 2001 standards Final Rule; (5) updates the test cloth 
preconditioning detergent specification to reflect the current 
industry-standard detergent; (6) clarifies the method for setting the 
wash time for clothes washers with electromechanical dials; (7) 
clarifies the definition of ``cold wash'' for clothes washers that 
offer multiple cold wash settings; (8) removes an obsolete note in the 
water factor calculation section; (9) corrects a typographical error in 
the equation for calculating per-cycle hot water consumption using gas-
heated or oil-heated water; (10) extends the load size table to 
accommodate test loads for large-capacity clothes washers; (11) 
clarifies the procedures recommended for conducting field tests in 
support of a test procedure waiver; and (12) corrects and clarifies 
provisions for calculating the RMC correction curve.

K. Removal of Appendix J

    Today's final rule removes appendix J to subpart B of 10 CFR part 
430, which became obsolete when appendix J1 became effective.

L. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Requirements

    Today's final rule modifies the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 
429.20(b)(2) by specifying that a certification report shall include 
publicly available information including MEF, WF, and capacity; as well 
the list of cycle settings comprising the complete energy test cycle 
for each basic model, which would not be made publicly available as 
part of the report. The requirement to provide the list of cycle 
settings comprising the complete energy test cycle will apply only to 
test results obtained using appendix J2.

III. Discussion

A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Final Rule

    Today's final rule covers residential clothes washers, defined as 
follows in 10 CFR 430.2:
    Clothes washer means a consumer product designed to clean clothes, 
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical 
agitation or other movement, and must be one of the following classes: 
Automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other 
clothes washers.
    Automatic clothes washer means a class of clothes washer which has 
a control system which is capable of scheduling a preselected 
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature, 
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse, 
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention 
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may 
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the 
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require 
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting 
the external water faucet valves.
    Semi-automatic clothes washer means a class of clothes washer that 
is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user 
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting 
the external water faucet valves.
    Other clothes washer means a class of clothes washer which is not 
an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer.
    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), existing energy conservation 
standards divide residential clothes washers into five product classes 
(10 CFR 430.32(g)):

 Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity)
 Top-loading, Standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)
 Top-loading, Semiautomatic
 Front-loading
 Suds-saving

    DOE received comments from interested parties regarding clothes 
washer product classes in response to the September 2010 NOPR. BSH Home 
Appliances (BSH) commented that it supports removing the distinction 
between front-loading and top-loading clothes washers. DOE notes that 
the amended test procedure contains provisions for testing both top-
loading and front-loading clothes washers of varying capacities. DOE is 
considering the issue of how clothes washers should be grouped into 
product classes in the separate rulemaking addressing energy 
conservation standards for residential clothes washers (Docket EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0019).
    The People's Republic of China (China) commented that DOE did not 
specifically consider non-detergent types of clothes washers, and that 
DOE should set appropriate energy efficiency requirements for such non-
detergent machines. (China, No. 19 at p. 4) DOE does not have any 
information on residential clothes washers currently available in the 
United States that use cleaning mechanisms other than the combination 
of water, detergent, and mechanical agitation. Therefore, DOE is not 
incorporating any changes to the definitions of covered products in 
today's final rule.

B. Standby Mode and Off Mode Test Procedure Provisions

    This section describes the standby and off mode test procedure 
provisions adopted in today's final rule. DOE received a number of 
comments from interested parties regarding the standby and off mode 
definitions and test procedure provisions in IEC Standard 62301 
proposed in the September 2010 NOPR. DOE responded to many of these 
comments in the August 2011 SNOPR and addresses additional comments 
from the September 2010 NOPR and the August 2011 SNOPR in the 
discussion that follows.
1. Version of IEC Standard 62301
    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to incorporate by reference 
certain provisions from sections 4 and 5 of IEC Standard 62301 (First 
Edition), as well as certain provisions from the Committee Draft for 
Vote (CDV) version and the Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) 
version, developed prior to the issuance of the Second Edition. DOE 
received numerous comments in response to the September 2010 NOPR 
regarding the version of IEC Standard 62301, and provided responses to 
comments in the August 2011 SNOPR.
    Based on comments from interested parties, DOE proposed in the 
August 2011 SNOPR to incorporate by reference the Second Edition of IEC 
Standard 62301 for measuring standby and off mode power. Specifically, 
DOE proposed referencing the following sections in the Second Edition: 
(1) The room ambient air conditions specified in section 4, paragraph 
4.2; (2) the electrical supply voltage waveform specified in section 4, 
paragraph 4.3.2; (3) the power meter requirements specified in section 
4, paragraph 4.4; (4) the note regarding the time required to

[[Page 13893]]

enter a stable power state in section 5, paragraph 5.1, note 1; (5) the 
installation instructions in section 5, paragraph 5.2; and (6) the 
power sampling method specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2.
    DOE received the following comments in response to the August 2011 
SNOPR: The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Alliance 
Laundry Systems (ALS), the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), 
and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) reiterated their support for 
incorporating by reference the Second Edition of IEC Standard 62301. 
AHAM and ALS stated that the Second Edition contains a number of 
important clarifications not present in the First Edition. Furthermore, 
AHAM and ALS stated that adopting the Second Edition will allow for 
international harmonization, which will give clarity and consistency to 
the regulated community. AHAM also stated that the Second Edition 
decreases testing burden. Whirlpool stated that the incorporation of 
the Second Edition should not be applicable until the effective date of 
appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, No. 22 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 26 
at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1)
    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference IEC Standard 
62301 (Second Edition) for the test procedure in appendix J2. DOE 
believes that the new test procedures provide improved accuracy and 
representativeness of the resulting power measurement, and are not 
unduly burdensome to conduct, as described further in sections III.B.6 
and III.G.1.
    This final rule also amends 10 CFR 430.3 by adding a reference to 
IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). DOE retains the reference to the 
First Edition in 10 CFR 430.3 because several test procedures for other 
covered products not addressed in this final rule incorporate 
provisions from the First Edition.
    Today's final rule also corrects the address and telephone number 
listed for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) under the 
newly designated section for IEC standards in 10 CFR 430.3(m). The 
current address and phone number for ANSI is 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th 
Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900. This correction is 
consistent with the address and phone number currently listed for ANSI 
in 10 CFR 430.3(c).
2. Determination of Modes To Be Incorporated
    EPCA provides mode definitions for active mode, standby mode, and 
off mode, but authorizes DOE to amend these mode definitions by taking 
into consideration the most current version of IEC Standard 62301. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B)) In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE noted that the 
mode definitions provided in IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) and 
EPCA (as amended by EISA 2007) were designed to be broadly applicable 
for many energy-using products and could be subject to multiple 
interpretations. Therefore, DOE proposed mode definitions based on 
those provided in IEC Standard 62301 (FDIS), but with added 
clarifications specific to clothes washers.
    In response to the September 2010 NOPR, NEEA commented that DOE's 
proposed modes and definitions would systematically exclude significant 
potential sources of annual energy use in many clothes washers. (NEEA, 
No. 12 at p. 2) NEEA also commented that DOE did not incorporate the 
``Definitions'' section of IEC Standard 62301, and expressed concern 
about possible discrepancies between the modes specified in IEC 
Standard 62301 and the modes that are defined in EPCA. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 22-23) NEEA added that not defining 
the modes identically with the IEC definitions could create 
inconsistencies in the way the modes are measured. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 24) NEEA's comments regarding specific 
modes and definitions are addressed in the relevant sections that 
follow.
    For the reasons stated above, DOE maintained the mode definitions 
proposed in the September 2010 NOPR in the August 2011 SNOPR. DOE 
further proposed an ``alternate approach'' for measuring total energy 
consumption. In the alternate approach, the energy consumption of all 
low-power modes would be measured only in the inactive and off modes, 
and all low-power mode hours would be allocated to the inactive and off 
modes, depending on which of these modes is present.
    In response to the August 2011 SNOPR, AHAM agreed that the Second 
Edition definitions are identical to those in the FDIS version and, 
thus, do not need to be revised. AHAM added that if DOE chooses to 
reference IEC Standard 62301 for those definitions, it should reference 
the Second Edition, not the FDIS, because the Second Edition is the 
final, published, and most current version of the standard. (AHAM, No. 
24 at pp. 2-3)
    DOE also proposed in the August 2011 SNOPR that certain 
installation instructions in IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) 
regarding the determination, classification, and testing of relevant 
modes were not appropriate for the clothes washer test procedure. 
Section 5, paragraph 5.2 of the Second Edition requires that where 
instructions for use provide configuration options, each relevant 
option should be separately tested. As stated in the August 2011 SNOPR, 
DOE is concerned that this requirement to separately test each 
configuration option could substantially increase test burden. It also 
potentially conflicts with the requirement in paragraph 5.2 to set up 
the product in accordance with the instructions for use or, if no such 
instructions are available, to use the factory or default settings. 
Accordingly, DOE proposed qualifying language in the test procedure 
amendments to disregard those portions of the installation 
instructions. For these reasons, DOE adopts language in today's final 
rule to disregard the provisions of paragraph 5.2 regarding the 
determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes.
    The sections below provide additional details regarding the 
definition and inclusion of each specific mode within the revised test 
procedure.
Active Mode
    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to define active mode as a 
mode in which the clothes washer is connected to a main power source; 
has been activated; and is performing one or more of the main functions 
of washing, soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing 
water from the clothing, or is involved in functions necessary for 
these main functions, such as admitting water into the washer or 
pumping water out of the washer. DOE also proposed including three 
additional modes within active mode: Delay start mode, cycle finished 
mode, and self-clean mode.
    AHAM and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern 
California Gas Company (SCG), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and 
Southern California Edison (SCE) (collectively, the ``California 
Utilities'') support the active mode definition proposed in the 
September 2010 NOPR, which would include delay start, cycle finished, 
and self-clean modes. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 4; California Utilities, No 
18 at p. 2) However, AHAM stated that it opposes DOE's proposal to 
measure the energy use in delay start and cycle finished modes 
separately from the energy use of the active washing mode because delay 
start and cycle finished modes represent a very small contribution to 
the annual energy use. (AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 3-4) The California 
Utilities expressed concern

[[Page 13894]]

about how the power in these modes is measured and included in the 
proposed test procedure. (California Utilities, No 18 at p. 2)
    NEEA agreed with the proposal to define delay start and cycle 
finished modes as active modes, but commented that the point at which 
the active washing mode ends and the inactive mode begins is not clear. 
NEEA recommended that DOE define the end of the active washing mode so 
that manufacturers will know when to stop the energy measurement. 
(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 97; NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 
2, 4, 5; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 2, 4-5) NEEA further commented that the 
spin cycle is typically the last element of an active wash mode, and 
access to the clothes washing compartment is prevented until this part 
of the cycle has concluded; thus, the point at which the user can gain 
access to the wash compartment is one possible definition for the end 
of the active washing mode. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 7; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 
6)
    NEEA also suggested that active mode could be defined as starting 
with the activation of the delayed start mode, if any (with the 
duration of delayed start mode specified), and ending with the 
beginning of the inactive mode (with the duration of the cycle finished 
mode, if any, specified, either in minutes or number of cycles or 
both). (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 4-5) NEEA expressed concern that the 
definition of the active washing mode leaves out functions that might 
occur in delay start, cycle finished, or self-clean modes. (NEEA, No. 
12 at p. 4) NEEA further suggested that if delay start and cycle 
finished modes are defined as part of the active mode, DOE could 
include them in the definition of the active mode energy test cycle and 
specify their durations. NEEA noted that while this would lengthen the 
test cycle, it would probably result in an overall reduction in test 
procedure time by eliminating the setup time and separate measurement 
time required for measuring energy consumption in these two modes. 
(NEEA, No. 12 at p. 13-14)
    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) questioned whether the 
active washing mode includes the pre- and post-parts of the active 
cycle. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 96-97)
    DOE notes that the adopted definition of active washing mode 
includes the main function of removing water from the clothing; i.e., 
the final spin cycle, which is typically the last operation of a wash 
cycle. DOE infers from NEEA's comments that its concern about defining 
the end of active washing mode relates to clothes washers in which 
there may be additional energy-consuming functions other than a 
continuous status display in cycle finished mode, such as periodic 
tumbling or air circulation. As discussed in section III.B.2.c, this 
final rule does not require the testing of any cycle-finished activity. 
Thus, for the purpose of measuring energy consumption in the energy 
test cycle, the end of the active washing mode occurs at the end of the 
final spin to remove moisture.
    This final rule also accounts for the energy use of delay start 
mode by allocating the hours not associated with active washing mode 
(which include those associated with delay start mode) to the inactive 
and off modes, as described in section III.B.7. The energy use of delay 
start mode is therefore not separately measured, as discussed in 
section III.B.2.b.
Delay Start Mode
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to define delay start mode 
as an active mode in which the start of the active washing mode is 
facilitated by a timer. Because delay start mode is not a mode that may 
persist for an indefinite time, and is uniquely associated with the 
initiation of a main function (i.e., washing cycle), DOE determined 
that it would not be considered as part of standby mode.\4\ For this 
final rule, DOE has determined that because delay start is of limited 
duration and is uniquely associated with the initiation of a primary 
function, it should be considered part of active mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE noted in the September 2010 NOPR that section 3.8 of IEC 
Standard 62301 Committee Draft 2 (IEC Standard 62301 CD2) provided 
the additional clarification that ``delay start mode is a one-off 
user-initiated short-duration function that is associated with an 
active mode.'' The subsequent IEC Standard 62301 CDV removed this 
clarification based on a comment from a committee member that the 
clarification conflicted with the proposed definition of ``standby 
mode,'' which would include ``activation of * * * active mode by * * 
* timer.'' In its response to that comment, however, the IEC 
reiterated that delay start mode is a one-off function of limited 
duration, even though it took action to delete the clarification in 
IEC Standard 62301 CDV. DOE inferred this to mean that that delay 
start mode should, therefore, be considered part of active mode. DOE 
also notes that Annex A of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) 
classifies delay start as a secondary function and therefore not 
part of active mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to measure delay start mode 
by setting the delay start time to 5 hours, allowing at least a 5-
minute stabilization period, and then measuring and recording the 
average power over a 60-minute measurement period.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed not to adopt provisions to 
measure delay start mode separately or as part of the active washing 
mode. Instead, DOE proposed adopting the ``alternate approach,'' in 
which all low-power mode hours would be allocated to the inactive and 
off modes, and the low-power mode energy consumption would be measured 
only in the inactive and off modes, depending on which of these modes 
is present.
    ALS, AHAM, and Whirlpool supported DOE's proposal to consider delay 
start mode as part of active mode. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 14 
at p. 3; Whirlpool No. 13 at p. 2) BSH supported the proposed delay 
start mode definition, and agreed that this mode should be included in 
the test procedure. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 2) AHAM and ALS supported using 
the ``alternate approach'' for measuring power in low-power modes. AHAM 
opposed separately measuring delay start mode, stating that the 
additional complexities of the test significantly add to the testing 
burden without a corresponding benefit to the public interest. AHAM 
stated that the de minimus amount of energy that will be measured, 0.04 
to 0.2 kWh annually per DOE's data, will not add significantly, or 
possibly at all, to national consumption figures. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 
6; AHAM, No. 24 at p. 3; ALS, No. 22 at p. 2)
    Whirlpool commented that the LED-based technology on which DOE 
proposed a 60-minute delay start mode is rapidly disappearing from new 
product introductions. (Whirlpool No. 13 at p. 3) Whirlpool also 
commented that the 60-minute delay start mode test would add 
substantial test burden (6-7 percent), with little or no impact on 
overall measured energy consumption. Whirlpool believes that this would 
create an unacceptable test burden for manufacturers and strongly urged 
the Department to drop this proposal. (Whirlpool No. 13 at p. 4)
    NEEA agreed that delay start mode is an active mode, but stated 
that the measurement of energy consumption in this mode should be 
folded into the measurements during the active washing mode. (NEEA, No. 
12 at p. 5; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 2, 7) NEEA indicated that it would 
support the proposed methodology of setting a 5-hour delay and 
measuring for one hour if DOE continued with the proposal to measure 
the energy use of delay start mode separately. NEEA also stated that 
the warm-up period should be 10 minutes to be consistent with IEC 
Standard 62301 general procedures, rather than the proposed 5 minute 
warm-up period. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 5) NEEA commented that DOE did not 
fully understand the reasons why delay start mode would be used in a

[[Page 13895]]

household; according to NEEA, in some households the delayed start 
function is used to allow time for stain-removal compounds to work 
before the wash cycle starts. The delayed start time is based on the 
stain-removal compound manufacturer's recommendation for a soak time of 
30 minutes. NEEA suggested that DOE acquire consumer data regarding 
usage of this feature, including the average time spent in delay start 
mode. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 5-6; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 7)
    BSH commented that delay start mode contributes a negligible amount 
of energy consumption to consumers due to low usage and low energy 
consumption during usage. According to BSH, measuring this energy is 
not a valuable use of DOE or manufacturer lab resources. (BSH, No. 17 
at p. 2) However, should measurement of delay start mode be required, 
BSH agrees with the proposed method. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 3)
    Upon consideration of the data and estimates provided in the 
September 2010 NOPR, the uncertainty regarding consumer usage patterns, 
and the additional test burden that would be required, DOE has 
determined that measuring the energy consumption of delay start mode 
separately would introduce significant test burden without a 
corresponding improvement in a representative measure of annual energy 
consumption. Therefore, this final rule adopts the ``alternate 
approach,'' in which the energy use in all low-power modes (including 
delay start mode) is accounted for by allocating all low-power mode 
hours to the inactive and off modes. Low-power mode energy consumption 
is then measured in the inactive and off modes, depending on which of 
these modes is present. Section III.B.7 provides additional information 
regarding the measurement of low-power mode. As a result, this final 
rule does not include provisions to measure delay start mode separately 
as part of the active washing mode.
Cycle Finished Mode
    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to define cycle finished 
mode as an active mode that provides continuous status display 
following operation in the active washing mode. As with delay start 
mode, cycle finished mode is not a mode that may persist for an 
indefinite time. Operation in cycle finished mode occurs only after 
operation in the active washing mode. Therefore, DOE considered cycle 
finished mode as a short-duration function associated with active mode 
and proposed to define cycle finished mode as a part of active mode.
    DOE noted that some clothes washers available at the time of 
publication of the September 2010 NOPR offered energy-consuming 
features other than a continuous status display in cycle finished mode. 
For example, certain models may periodically tumble the clothes to 
prevent wrinkles for up to 10 hours after the completion of the wash 
cycle. Some models may also use a low-power fan to circulate air around 
the damp clothes to prevent odors. These functions, while enabled, 
would use more energy than the continuous display normally associated 
with cycle finished mode. However, DOE research indicated that the 
number of residential clothes washers equipped with such features 
represents less than 10 percent of the residential clothes washer 
market. In addition, review of product literature for the clothes 
washers equipped with such features shows that these features are 
typically consumer-selected options. DOE determined that measuring the 
energy use from these functions would significantly increase the test 
cycle duration to capture a negligible contributor to annual energy 
consumption. Therefore, DOE did not propose to amend the test procedure 
to address these specific cycle finished mode functions.
    DOE received numerous comments in response to the September 2010 
NOPR regarding cycle finished mode. ALS, Whirlpool, and AHAM stated 
that cycle finished mode should be considered a part of active mode. 
(ALS, No. 10 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 14 at p. 3) 
Whirlpool supported DOE's proposal to exclude cycle finished mode 
energy consumption due to air circulation or periodic tumbling because 
these functions are very limited in their application, and the 
measurement burden would substantially outweigh the value. (Whirlpool, 
No. 13 at p. 2) AHAM commented that it does not support measuring cycle 
finished mode separately from the rest of the active mode. (AHAM, No. 
14 at p. 6)
    NEEA disagreed with DOE's proposed cycle finished definition. NEEA 
commented that the proposed cycle finished mode definition comprises 
only a display function, which could exclude other energy-consuming 
features in a cycle finished mode. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 2) Additionally, 
NEEA commented that it did not understand how DOE proposed to measure 
energy consumption in cycle finished mode for clothes washers with 
energy-consuming features other than a continuous status display, such 
as tumbling of the drum or a fan circulating air. (NEEA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 35-36) NEEA stated that, based on information 
from a clothes washer tax credit program conducted in the state of 
Oregon, it is aware of thousands of clothes washers that include 
tumbling after the end of the wash cycle. (NEEA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at p.37)
    To address these concerns, NEEA proposed the following alternate 
definition of cycle finished mode: ``Cycle finished mode means the 
portion of the active mode between the end of the active washing mode 
and the beginning of the inactive mode.'' (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 2; NEEA, 
No. 26 at p. 4) NEEA also suggested that DOE create a methodology to 
measure cycle finished activity, which IEC Standard 62301 is attempting 
to do, so that any energy consumption that occurs during that period 
can be measured. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 40-41) 
NEEA suggested that an appropriate temperature use factor (TUF) should 
be applied to delayed start and cycle finished modes. (NEEA, No. 31 at 
p. 2)
    NRDC, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 
and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), jointly 
(hereafter, the ``Joint Commenters'') suggested that DOE expand the 
definition of cycle finished mode to include any energy-consuming 
features following operation in the active washing mode. The Joint 
Commenters stated that to avoid additional testing burden for clothes 
washers that only have a continuous display in cycle finished mode, DOE 
could specify a separate test procedure and a different number of 
annual hours to cycle finished mode for clothes washers with additional 
energy-consuming features. Additionally, this comment noted that if 
these features are not captured in the test procedure, manufacturers 
will have no incentive to reduce their energy consumption in cycle 
finished mode while providing the additional functionality. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 16 at p. 4) The Joint Commenters and the California 
Utilities also noted that machines having these additional features in 
cycle finished mode are likely to become more available in the 
marketplace in the future, and therefore it is not appropriate to 
exclude the energy consumption from these features in the test 
procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 16 at pp. 3-4; California Utilities, 
No. 18 at p. 2)
    BSH commented that DOE needs to define cycle finished mode more 
clearly. According to BSH, the proposed definition attempts to 
differentiate the

[[Page 13896]]

end-of-cycle signal from a ``left-on mode.'' BSH stated that it is 
unclear what is considered cycle finished mode and what is inactive 
mode, and that more clarity and detail is needed in the definition 
(BSH, No. 17 at p. 2)
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE presented results from additional 
laboratory testing to quantify the energy consumption in cycle finished 
mode. The test results indicated that including specific measurement of 
a cycle finished feature that incorporates intermittent tumbling and 
air circulation would not significantly impact the total annual energy 
consumption. Furthermore, measuring the energy use over the entire 
duration of the cycle finished mode could increase the test duration by 
up to 10 hours, depending on the maximum duration of the cycle finished 
mode provided on the clothes washer. Therefore, DOE proposed not to 
adopt provisions to measure cycle finished mode separately as part of 
the active washing mode.
    In response to the August 2011 SNOPR, Whirlpool agreed with DOE's 
proposal not to adopt measurement of cycle finished mode, stating that 
the test burden would be substantially greater with virtually no 
consumer benefit. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at pp. 1-2)
    NEEA disagreed with the definition of cycle finished mode and 
reiterated its proposal to define cycle finished mode as follows: 
``Cycle finished mode means the portion of active mode between the end 
of the active washing mode and the beginning of the inactive mode.'' 
NEEA opposed ignoring cycle finished mode hours and energy use, and 
stated that the energy associated with cycle finished mode should be 
included as part of active mode. NEEA stated that in the worst case 
scenario, the energy use in cycle finished mode consumes around 20 
percent of the total clothes washer machine energy, when dryer energy 
use is excluded. NEEA stated that cutting the cycle finished energy to 
one-third of the worst-case scenario would still represent 7 percent of 
the total machine energy consumption. NEEA stated that if energy use in 
cycle finished mode is considered to be insignificant, the same logic 
could be applied to standby and off modes, which is an argument 
Congress already rejected. (NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 2-7)
    The Joint Commenters stated that the demonstrated potential 
consumption of energy in cycle finished mode warrants the testing of 
cycle finished mode in the test procedure. The Joint Commenters further 
stated that the amount of energy consumed in cycle finished mode is 
considerable when dryer energy is disregarded. The Joint Commenters 
stated that when dryer energy use is disregarded, inclusion of cycle 
finished mode doubles the amount of energy consumed while in low-power 
mode, causing the energy consumption to approach the energy consumed in 
active mode. The Joint Commenters believe that future clothes washers 
will likely incorporate more features in cycle finished mode, causing 
the energy consumption in that mode to increase to a more significant 
portion of the total per-cycle energy. The Joint Commenters support 
folding cycle finished mode into the existing active mode test cycle by 
either letting the clothes washer run through the completed cycle 
finished mode, or, alternatively, by terminating the test one hour 
after the clothes washer enters cycle finished mode. The Joint 
Commenters do not believe that this would significantly increase the 
test burden, as it would lengthen the test by one hour and would not 
require additional setup or test preparation. Finally, the Joint 
Commenters commented that the uncertainty of consumer usage patterns is 
an invalid argument against its inclusion in the test procedure, and 
that substituting reasonable estimates as proxies would suffice. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2-4)
    The California Utilities suggested requiring separate measurements 
for cycle finished mode. The California Utilities stated that while 
they recognize that cycle finished mode represents a small percentage 
of energy consumption when compared to dryer energy, they believe it is 
a significant amount of energy and similar in magnitude to the 
electrical energy of the washer cycle. The California Utilities further 
commented in response to November 2011 SNOPR that they do not agree 
with DOE's assertion that cycle finished mode is activated only by the 
consumer, and that they possess knowledge that cycle finished mode is 
the default setting for certain clothes washer models, and cannot be 
deactivated or turned off. In addition, the California Utilities stated 
that there are other units that tumble more frequently than the model 
DOE tested. Furthermore, the California Utilities commented that the 
test procedure should measure all low-power modes, and that measuring 
all energy-consuming modes will encourage manufacturers to take 
efficiency into account at the beginning of their research and 
development efforts. (California Utilities, No. 25 at p. 2; California 
Utilities, No. 36 at pp. 1-2)
    Upon consideration of the features that may be energized during the 
time period after the active washing mode and before the clothes washer 
enters inactive or off mode, DOE agrees that the proposed definition 
does not fully describe the possible functions in cycle finished mode. 
DOE concludes that periodic tumbling of the clothing or air circulation 
by means of a fan or blower constitute additional active mode functions 
outside the active washing mode, and thus should be included in the 
definition of cycle finished mode. Therefore, today's final rule adopts 
an expanded definition of cycle finished mode as ``an active mode that 
provides continuous status display, intermittent tumbling, or air 
circulation following operation in active washing mode.''
    However, upon consideration of the data and estimates provided in 
the September 2010 NOPR, the additional energy consumption estimates 
provided in the August 2011 SNOPR, the uncertainty regarding consumer 
usage patterns, and the additional test burden required, today's final 
rule adopts the ``alternate approach'' to account for the energy use in 
cycle finished mode. Under this approach, all low-power mode hours are 
allocated to the inactive and off modes, and the low-power mode power 
is then measured in the inactive and off modes, depending on which of 
these modes is present. Section III.B.7 provides additional information 
regarding the measurement of low-power mode. DOE does not include 
provisions to measure cycle finished mode separately as part of the 
active washing mode.
Self-Clean Mode
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to define self-clean mode 
as an active clothes washer operating mode that is (a) Dedicated to 
cleaning, deodorizing, or sanitizing the clothes washer by eliminating 
sources of odor, bacteria, mold, and mildew; (b) recommended to be run 
intermittently by the manufacturer; and (c) separate from clothes 
washing cycles. DOE considered self-clean mode as a part of the active 
mode because it is a function necessary for the main functions 
associated with washing clothes. A clothes washer with excessive 
bacteria, mildew, or odor cannot wash clothes effectively.
    NEEA supports DOE's proposal to include self-clean mode as a part 
of active mode, and to include energy and water consumption in this 
mode in the test procedure. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 5, 9; NEEA, No. 26 at 
pp. 5-6) However, NEEA suggests the following definition of self-clean 
mode to clarify the proposed version: ``Self-cleaning mode means an 
active clothes washer operating mode that is recommended by

[[Page 13897]]

the manufacturer to be run for the purpose of cleaning, deodorizing, or 
sanitizing the clothes washer by eliminating sources of odor, bacteria, 
mold and mildew.'' (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 5; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 6) NEEA 
stated that the number of self-clean annual cycles should be based on 
the recommendations of the manufacturer because consumers are unlikely 
to use these cycles in a way that is different than recommended. NEEA 
also strongly recommended that whatever cycle is recommended by a 
manufacturer for a self-cleaning function should be the one measured as 
the self-cleaning cycle. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 9) NEEA also urged DOE to 
acquire consumer usage data on how self-clean cycles are actually used. 
(NEEA, No. 12 at p. 9; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 8)
    The Joint Commenters support the inclusion of self-clean mode in 
the test procedure. The Joint Commenters stated that the definition 
should not be limited to machines equipped with an explicitly 
designated self-clean cycle, because self-cleaning may be undertaken 
with an appropriate cleaning compound through the use of a standard 
cycle available for washing clothes. (Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 3; 
Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 5)
    The Joint Commenters also recommended that a usage factor of 12 
cycles per year should not be uniformly applied to all washers, but 
rather should be based on the level of usage recommended by the 
manufacturer, converted as necessary to the appropriate number of 
cycles per year for the test procedure. This would provide further 
encouragement for manufacturers to develop approaches to sanitizing and 
deodorizing issues that are less energy- and water-intensive than 
current practices. (Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 3; Joint Commenters, 
No. 23 at p. 5)
    The California Utilities commented that the proposed definition is 
potentially too restrictive because manufacturers may recommend 
intermittent self-clean cycles on machines without a dedicated self-
clean feature or control. The California Utilities also commented that 
the calculation of self-clean cycles per year should be based on 
manufacturer recommendations in the product literature, rather than on 
a fixed number of annual self-clean cycles for all clothes washers. The 
California Utilities suggested that for clothes washer models that meet 
the definition of self-clean, but for which the manufacturer does not 
recommend a specific usage frequency for the self-clean cycle, the test 
procedure should assume the default value of 12 self-clean cycles per 
year. (California Utilities, No. 18 at p. 3; California Utilities, No. 
25 at p. 3)
    NRDC expressed concern that if a manufacturer recommends a periodic 
sanitizing regimen on a machine with no hardware or software dedicated 
to self-cleaning, these cycles would not be captured by the proposed 
definition. NRDC also commented that self-clean mode should be based on 
the manufacturer's recommendation, and not on design features. (NRDC, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 47-48, 79-80)
    Whirlpool commented that DOE should not include self-clean cycles 
in the clothes washer test procedure. Whirlpool stated that including 
this mode for clothes washers with such functionality, while not 
including it for other machines, disadvantages machines that include a 
self-clean cycle. According to Whirlpool, some consumer publications 
and manufacturers recommend running periodic cleaning cycles with 
baking soda or vinegar, and there is no known data on the consumer use 
of such practice. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 2) Whirlpool proprietary 
data indicates that actual consumer use of a self-clean cycle is 
substantially less than the 12 times per year that DOE proposed, and 
that this data supports exclusion of self-clean energy from the test 
procedure. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 5-6) Whirlpool also commented that 
if the self-clean cycle is included at the frequency of use recommended 
by the manufacturer, this could lead to manufacturers suggesting less 
frequent use. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 5-6) Whirlpool estimated that 
the inclusion of a self-clean cycle in the test procedure would add 
approximately 8 percent to the overall test burden, or 8 hours, and 
that the amount of energy and water used by the average Whirlpool 
clothes washer during such cycles per year would be less than 1 percent 
of annual energy consumption and 3 percent of annual water consumption. 
Whirlpool believes that the added test burden outweighs the added 
benefit of including self-clean cycles in the test procedure. 
(Whirlpool, No. 13 at pp. 2, 6) However, Whirlpool agreed that if self-
clean mode were included in the test procedure, it would be a part of 
active mode. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 2).
    AHAM opposes the inclusion of self-clean mode in the test 
procedure, but stated that if DOE decides to include it, AHAM agrees 
with the proposed definition as the best way to ensure measurement of 
all machines with a self-clean feature. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 4) AHAM 
also notes that self-clean cycles have become necessary in large part 
due to the increasingly stringent energy and water consumption 
standards which, in practice, require many machines to use cold water 
instead of hot or warm water, and to use less water. (AHAM, No. 14 at 
p. 10) AHAM commented that there is no consumer use data to show 
whether and/or how often consumers use self-clean cycles, and that test 
procedures must be representative of actual consumer use, not 
manufacturer recommendations. AHAM believes that DOE should not include 
additional energy measurements in the test procedure without consumer 
data to support its addition and to quantify the energy impact. (AHAM, 
No .14 at p. 10) AHAM also commented that DOE's proposal to include 
self-clean cycles unfairly disadvantages clothes washers with a self-
clean feature, which may dis-incentivize the feature, the result of 
which would not benefit consumers. AHAM stated that it is difficult to 
define an approach that would not encourage test procedure 
circumvention. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 11).
    BSH stated that self-clean mode should include only cycles 
specifically designed and provided for such activities. According to 
BSH, consumers are less likely to perform such activities without a 
dedicated program or option. (BSH, No 17 at p. 2) BSH commented that 
should the self-clean cycle be included, the number of cycles per year 
should be specified to match the manufacturer's suggestion to the 
customer. Otherwise, the motivation to reduce the need for such cycles 
is not present and manufacturers may not pursue innovations to reduce 
this need. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 2) However, BSH commented that it does 
not see the value to the consumer or DOE in assessing self-clean mode 
energy consumption, and suggests that these hours be removed or 
allocated to the active washing mode according to the self-cleaning 
cycles per year specified by the manufacturer. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 3) 
BSH stated that including the self-cleaning cycles will not 
significantly contribute to the annual energy consumption of 
residential washing machines. BSH suggests that instead of testing the 
self-clean cycle, the total number of annual active-mode cycles per 
year in the current energy calculations could be increased by a small 
value. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 2) Additionally, BSH does not agree that 
self-clean modes are necessary for the main functions associated with 
clothes washing, otherwise all clothes washers

[[Page 13898]]

would need such cycles. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 2).
    ALS opposes DOE's proposed definition of self-clean mode as being 
part of active mode, and commented that DOE should not propose an 
energy test measurement without consumer use data to support it. (ALS, 
No. 10 at p. 1) ALS stated that self-clean cycles should not be added 
to the test procedure until there is reliable consumer data and an 
understanding of the energy consumed in self-clean cycles. ALS also 
stated that the test burden on manufacturers outweighs the public 
benefit at this time. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 3).
    China does not support DOE's proposal to include self-clean mode in 
the test procedure. China commented that self-clean functions reduce 
bacteria and mildew that may harm the user, and thus are significant 
for health reasons. China stated that if self-clean mode were included 
in the test procedure, manufacturers might reduce the temperature or 
shorten the cycle time of a self-clean cycle to improve energy 
performance, which would be detrimental to consumers. China also 
expressed concern that this standard would lead to differences in 
energy consumption between units with and without self-cleaning 
functions, and stated that such distinct types of clothes washers 
should not be subject to the same energy standard. China noted that, as 
DOE proposed, self-clean mode represents a very short use time of only 
16 hours per year, or 1.3 hours per month. Because of this minimal use 
time, China recommends not including the energy and water consumption 
during a self-clean cycle in the test procedure. (China, No. 19 at p. 
3).
    GE commented that it does not disagree with DOE's assumption of 12 
self-clean cycles per year, but stated that consumers would be 
dissatisfied to have to use this feature monthly. GE expects that 
manufacturers will be working to reduce the required number of self-
clean cycles per year. GE suggested that DOE use the manufacturer's 
recommendation for the number of self-clean cycles. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 77-78, 107).
    In reviewing these comments, DOE recognizes a lack of consensus 
regarding whether a self-clean mode is uniquely associated with a 
dedicated feature provided on a clothes washer, or whether self-clean 
mode may describe a consumer-initiated function associated with a 
normal wash cycle. DOE recognizes that a cleaning or deodorizing action 
in the clothes container may be achieved in either case, but that it is 
not clear whether such a cycle would be differentiable from a normal 
wash cycle in the event that a self-clean feature is not provided. In 
addition, DOE lacks information on the consumer usage of self-clean 
features or typical cycles run solely for self-clean purposes, 
including whether consumer usage reflects manufacturer recommendations. 
In light of this uncertainty, and considering that the annual energy 
use associated with self-clean mode would be relatively small, DOE has 
determined for today's final rule that self-clean mode should not be 
addressed in the amended test procedure. Therefore, DOE is not adopting 
a definition for a self-clean cycle, and is not adding any provisions 
to the test procedure for measuring self-clean energy and water 
consumption. In addition, today's final rule adds a clarifying 
statement that the energy test cycle shall not include any cycle, if 
available, that is dedicated for cleaning, deodorizing, or sanitizing 
the clothes washer, and is separate from clothes washing cycles.
Standby Mode
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to define standby mode as 
any mode in which the clothes washer 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) and sensor-
based functions.
    DOE proposed an additional clarification that a timer should be 
considered a continuous clock function (which may be associated with a 
display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g., switching) and 
that operates on a continuous basis. This proposed definition was 
developed based on the definition provided in IEC Standard 62301 FDIS.
    As proposed, the definition of standby mode allowed for multiple 
modes to be considered a standby mode. DOE had identified only one mode 
that would be considered a standby mode under the proposed definition. 
DOE proposed to define ``inactive mode'' as 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. Although it identified only this one particular standby 
mode, DOE remained open to consideration of additional standby modes. 
DOE retained this definition of standby mode in the August 2011 SNOPR.
    ALS supported DOE's proposal for inactive mode to be the only 
standby mode. ALS also stated that it is unaware of any modes for 
clothes washers that represent significant energy use, other than those 
proposed by DOE. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 1) AHAM commented that it does not 
support the inclusion of one-way remote control energy in the 
definition of standby mode. According to AHAM, standard remote controls 
power down products rather than powering them off, such that the 
product can be turned on again through use of the remote. AHAM 
contrasted that to one-way remote controls, which turn a product off 
completely, such that it cannot be turned on again through use of the 
remote control. AHAM stated that one-way remote controls should be 
included under the definition of off mode to encourage manufacturers to 
design products with this feature, which could result in decreased 
energy use. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 5).
    Whirlpool stated that the test burden for inactive mode testing is 
significant (approximately an 8 percent increase) with virtually no 
consumer benefit. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 4).
    DOE notes that the definition of standby mode proposed in the 
September 2010 NOPR 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. If the clothes 
washer 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.'' 
However, if a ``one-way'' remote control powers down the clothes 
washer, including turning off any infrared sensors to receive signals 
from a remote control, the unit would transition to off mode once it is 
powered down, if no other standby mode functions within the clothes 
washer are energized. Depending on whether the unit is capable of 
operating in both a standby mode and off mode or just the off mode, the 
annual hours associated with standby and off modes would be allocated 
accordingly.
    In today's final rule, DOE retains the definitions of standby mode 
and inactive mode as proposed in the September 2010 NOPR and August 
2011 SNOPR. Section III.B.7 provides further details on the test method 
for standby

[[Page 13899]]

mode adopted in the revised test procedure. As described further in 
section III.G.1, DOE believes that by adopting the ``alternate 
approach'' for measuring standby and off mode power, this final rule 
will not impose significant additional test burden on manufacturers.
Off Mode
    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to define ``off mode'' as 
any mode in which the clothes washer is connected to a mains power 
source and is not providing any standby mode or active mode function, 
and the mode may persist for an indefinite time. An indicator that only 
shows the user that the product is in the off position would be 
included within the proposed off mode classification. This definition 
was developed based on the definitions provided in IEC Standard 62301 
FDIS. DOE retained this definition of off mode in the August 2011 
SNOPR.
    Under the definitions proposed in the September 2010 NOPR, a 
clothes washer equipped with a mechanical on/off switch that can 
disconnect power to the display and/or control components 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. An energized light-emitting diode (LED) or 
other indicator that shows the user only that 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 are 
energized.
    Other than those comments addressed in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE 
did not receive any additional comments on the proposed definition of 
off mode. Therefore, for the reasons stated above and in the August 
2011 SNOPR, DOE adopts this definition for the amended clothes washer 
test procedure in this final rule.
Network Mode
    DOE noted in the September 2010 NOPR that IEC Standard 62301 FDIS 
provides definitions for network mode that DOE determined were not 
applicable to the clothes washer test procedure. Section 3.7 of IEC 
Standard 62301 FDIS defines network mode as a mode category that 
includes ``any product modes where the energy using product is 
connected to a mains 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.'' IEC Standard 62301 FDIS also provided a note, stating that 
``[w]here 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 products. A network does not include 
one or more controls which are dedicated to a single product. Network 
mode may include one or more standby functions.'' DOE did not propose 
any amendments to include provisions for testing network mode energy 
consumption in clothes washers.
    AHAM, ALS, BSH, and Whirlpool stated that network mode should not 
be included in the test procedure at this time because no products are 
currently available on the market with such a feature. (AHAM, No. 14 at 
pp. 5, 11; ALS, No. 10 at p. 3; BSH, No. 17 at pp. 3-4; Whirlpool, No. 
13 at p. 2) Whirlpool, AHAM, and NRDC further commented that DOE could 
consider network mode by creating a ``placeholder'' for it in the test 
procedure, so that when there is sufficient volume of network-capable 
clothes washers in the market, this mode could be addressed. 
(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 42-43, 46; AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 43-44, 109; NRDC, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 109-110).
    NEEA disagreed with DOE's proposal to not include provisions for 
network mode in the test procedure. NEEA stated that, although no 
clothes washers currently on the market are capable of this mode, it 
has communicated with microprocessor manufacturers who intend to sell 
the hardware that would allow such a mode. According to NEEA, informal 
estimates in these conversations revealed that network mode could 
significantly increase the energy consumption in the inactive mode. 
NEEA suggested that DOE define and allow for measuring the energy use 
of network mode, as defined in IEC Standard 62301, and recommended that 
DOE include network mode under the inactive mode definition. (NEEA, No. 
12 at pp. 2, 4, 10; NEEA Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 38-
41, 45-46; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 4) NEEA supports including the 
definitions and methodology for network mode energy from IEC Standard 
62301 (Second Edition). NEEA also commented that if DOE chooses to 
incorporate a network mode definition different from that in IEC 
Standard 62301, there could be inconsistencies when the test method 
from IEC Standard 62301 is applied using DOE's mode definitions. (NEEA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 22-24; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 9).
    The Joint Commenters stated that clothes washers with a network 
mode may become common by 2015 when the new standards take effect, and 
multiple manufacturers have indicated their plans to introduce these 
features. Therefore, the Joint Commenters believe it is important for 
the test procedure to capture at a minimum the standby energy 
consumption associated with a network mode. The Joint Commenters 
further stated that network mode could require power consumption of 2-5 
Watts, corresponding to 18-44 kWh per year. According to the Joint 
Commenters, if network mode is not captured by the test procedures, 
manufacturers will have no incentive to employ lower-power technologies 
for this feature. (Joint Commenters, No. 16 at pp. 1-2) The Joint 
Commenters and the California Utilities stated that, due to the lack of 
sufficient data associated with development of a test method for 
network mode, DOE should develop a sufficiently broad definition for 
inactive or standby mode to ensure that the standby test method would 
capture any energy consumption associated with network functionality, 
regardless of whether the product is connected to a network. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 16 at p. 2; California Utilities, No. 18 at pp. 1-2; 
California Utilities, No. 25 at p. 2).
    NRDC commented that the AHAM-ACEEE Agreement on Minimum Federal 
Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related 
Matters for Specified Appliances \5\ includes an explicit commitment to 
recognize network functionality for major appliances in the ENERGY STAR 
context, so the test procedure should be prepared to assess whatever 
energy consumption is associated with that functionality. (NRDC, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 41-42) The California Utilities 
further commented that DOE should include the definition of network 
mode to harmonize with the IEC Standard, and that it should act swiftly 
to issue an amendment to include a test method for network mode when it 
becomes aware of clothes washer models with this feature in the 
marketplace. The California Utilities expect network mode to become a 
regular feature in the future. The California Utilities stated that if 
DOE cannot develop a test procedure in this

[[Page 13900]]

rulemaking for products connected to networks, DOE should amend the 
test procedure as soon as it becomes aware of commercially available 
clothes washer models with this feature. (California Utilities, No. 18 
at pp. 1-2; California Utilities, No. 25 at pp. 1-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The AHAM-ACEEE Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency 
Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters 
for Specified Appliances is available at DOE Docket No. EERE-2010-
BT-TP-0021, Comment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE interprets the network mode provisions in IEC Standard 62301 
(Second Edition) to be a forward-thinking attempt by the IEC to 
anticipate and/or promote technological change by industry. DOE is 
unaware, however, of any clothes washers currently on the market with 
network mode capabilities as of the date of today's final rule. 
Consequently, DOE can not thoroughly evaluate these network mode 
provisions, as would be required to justify their incorporation into 
DOE's test procedures at this time. DOE notes that although an 
individual appliance may consume some small amount of power in network 
mode, the potential exists for energy-related benefits that more than 
offset this additional power consumption if the appliance can be 
controlled by the ``smart grid'' to consume power during non-peak 
periods. Although DOE is supportive of efforts to develop smart-grid 
and other network-enabled technologies in clothes washers, today's 
final rule does not incorporate the network mode provisions due to the 
lack of available data that would be required to justify their 
inclusion.
Disconnected Mode
    DOE noted in the September 2010 NOPR that section 3.9 of IEC 
Standard 62301 FDIS provided a definition of ``disconnected mode,'' 
which is ``the state where all connections to mains power sources of 
the energy using product are removed or interrupted.'' IEC Standard 
62301 FDIS also added 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. Since there would be no energy 
use in a disconnected mode, DOE did not propose a definition or testing 
methods for such a mode.
    AHAM agreed with DOE's proposal to not include test procedures for 
disconnected mode, because there would be no energy use in this mode. 
(AHAM, No. 14 at p. 5).
    For the reasons stated in the September 2010 NOPR, DOE is not 
adopting a definition or testing methods for disconnected mode in this 
final rule.
3. Power Stabilization Criteria and Measurement Methods
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to require measurement of 
standby mode and off mode power using section 5, paragraph 5.3 of the 
First Edition, clarified by requiring the product to stabilize for at 
least 30 minutes, and using a measurement period of not less than 10 
minutes for cycle finished mode, inactive mode, and off mode. For 
instances where the power varies over a cycle, as described in section 
5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the First Edition, DOE proposed to require the 
use of the average power approach in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2(a).
    The Second Edition contains more detailed techniques for evaluating 
the stability of the power and measuring the power consumption of loads 
with different stability characteristics. In the Second Edition, the 
user is given a choice of measurement procedures, including a sampling 
method, average reading method, and direct meter reading method. In the 
August 2011 SNOPR, DOE evaluated these new methods in terms of test 
burden and improvement in results as compared to the methods provided 
in the First Edition. Based on this analysis, DOE proposed using the 
sampling method for all measurements of standby mode and off mode 
power. The following sections provide additional details on each power 
stability scenario.
Stable, Non-Cyclic Power
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed measuring stable, non-
cyclic power by allowing the product to stabilize for at least 30 
minutes, followed by a measurement period of at least 10 minutes using 
the test procedure specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3.1 of the First 
Edition. This method defines stable power as varying less than 5 
percent over a 5 minute period. If the load is considered stable, the 
power can be recorded directly from the power-measuring instrument at 
the end of the measurement period.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed measuring stable, non-cyclic 
power by allowing the product sufficient time to reach its low power 
state and then following the test procedure for the sampling method 
specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the Second Edition. The 
sampling method requires measuring and recording the power over a 
period of at least 15 minutes. Data from the first third of the 
measurement period are discarded, and stability is evaluated by a 
linear regression through all power readings in the second two-thirds 
of the data. If the slope of the linear regression satisfies the 
stability criterion, power consumption is calculated as the average of 
the power readings during the second two-thirds of the measurement 
period. If the slope of the linear regression does not satisfy the 
stability criterion, the total period is continuously extended--up to a 
maximum of 3 hours--until the stability criterion is satisfied for the 
second two-thirds of the data taken over the total period.
    In response to the August 2011 SNOPR, NEEA supports DOE's proposal 
to require the use of the sampling method for measuring power 
consumption in the inactive and off modes. (NEEA, No. 26 at p. 2).
    For the reasons stated in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE specifies the 
use of the sampling method in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the Second 
Edition for all measurements of standby and off mode power, including 
stable, non-cyclic power.
Unstable (Varying), Non-Cyclic Power
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed measuring unstable 
(varying), non-cyclic power by allowing the product to stabilize for at 
least 30 minutes, followed by a measurement period of at least 10 
minutes using the average power approach described in section 5, 
paragraph 5.3.2(a) of the First Edition. The average power approach 
requires using an instrument that can measure the true average power 
over a period of at least 5 minutes (which DOE proposed to extend to a 
minimum of 10 minutes). The average power can be recorded directly from 
the power-measuring instrument at the end of the measurement period.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed measuring unstable 
(varying), non-cyclic power by allowing the product sufficient time to 
reach its low power state and then following the test procedure for the 
sampling method specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the Second 
Edition. Using the sampling method, for modes that are known to be non-
cyclic and unstable (varying), the test period must be long enough so 
that the cumulative average of all data points taken during the second 
two thirds of the total period fall within a band of 0.2%.\6\ When testing such modes, the total period must be at 
least 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE interprets this provision as follows: The cumulative 
average is the mean of all data points up to and including the most 
recent data point. Each data point collected has a cumulative 
average associated with it, and the variation of those averages must 
remain within the given band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE specifies the 
use of the sampling method in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the Second 
Edition for all measurements of standby and off mode power, including 
unstable (varying), non-cyclic power.

[[Page 13901]]

Cyclic Power
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed measuring cyclic power by 
allowing the product to stabilize for at least 30 minutes, followed by 
a measurement period of at least 10 minutes using the average power 
approach described in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2(a) of the First 
Edition. The average power approach requires using an instrument that 
can measure the true average power over a period of at least 5 minutes 
(which DOE proposed to extend to a minimum of 10 minutes). The average 
power can be recorded directly from the power-measuring instrument at 
the end of the measurement period. For cyclic power, section 5.3.2(a) 
specifies that the test period shall be one or more complete cycles to 
get a representative average value.
    In response to the September 2010 NOPR, NEEA commented that DOE 
should refer to the relevant sections of IEC Standard 62301 rather than 
try to simplify the language in section 3.11 of appendix J2, which 
could be potentially misleading or confusing. NEEA described a 
potential conflict between the language in DOE's proposed Section 3.11 
of appendix J2 and that in the referenced IEC Standard 62301 test 
procedure: In the case of cycle finished mode, which often may involve 
more than just a display, cyclic power consumption may persist for a 
limited duration, which would require using the ``sampling approach'' 
for power measurement rather than the ``average power approach'' as 
proposed in section 3.11.2 of appendix J2. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 3-4) 
NEEA also stated that IEC Standard 62301 CDV specifications for a 
longer 30-minute stabilization period are superior to the shorter 10-
minute period specified in the FDIS version. In addition, NEEA believes 
that if cyclic power changes are discovered during the stabilization 
period, the power measurement period should extend for at least four 
cycles or one hour, whichever is longer, noting that the sampling 
method in Section 5.3.1 of the IEC Standard 62301 FDIS calls for 
measurement over a minimum of four cycles in such circumstances. (NEEA, 
No.12 at p. 6).
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed measuring cyclic power by 
allowing the product sufficient time to reach its low power state and 
then following the test procedure for the sampling method specified in 
section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the Second Edition. For cyclic power 
modes, the sampling method requires a measurement period of at least 
four complete cycles (for a total of at least 40 minutes), divided into 
two comparison periods. Stability is established by dividing the 
difference in average power measured in each comparison period by the 
time difference of the mid-point of each comparison period. This 
``slope'' must satisfy the specified stability criterion. If the 
appropriate stability criterion is not satisfied, additional cycles are 
added to each comparison period until stability is achieved. Once 
stability has been achieved, the power is calculated as the average of 
all readings from both comparison periods.
    As described in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE believes that the 
methodology for measuring cyclic power in the Second Edition produces 
an improved measurement over the methodology from the First Edition.
    DOE received no comments on this issue in response to the proposal 
in the August 2011 SNOPR. Therefore, for the reasons specified in the 
August 2011 SNOPR, DOE specifies the use of the sampling method in 
section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the Second Edition for all measurements 
of standby and off mode power, including cyclic power.
4. Use of Default Settings
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed that the clothes washer be 
installed according to the manufacturer's instructions, but did not 
propose additional provisions to require the use of default settings 
for testing standby energy consumption because it did not have 
information regarding the likelihood that consumers will alter the 
default display settings.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed incorporating by reference 
the installation instructions in section 5, paragraph 5.2 of the Second 
Edition. The Second Edition adds certain clarifications to the 
installation and setup procedures in section 5, paragraph 5.2 of the 
First Edition. The First Edition required that the product be installed 
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, except if those 
instructions conflict with the requirements of the standard, and that 
if no instructions are given, the factory or default settings must be 
used. The Second Edition adds provisions regarding products equipped 
with battery recharging circuits, as well as instructions for testing 
each relevant configuration option identified in the product's 
instructions for use. DOE is not aware of any clothes washers with a 
battery recharging circuit. DOE agreed with commenters that testing a 
clothes washer for standby mode energy use at the default setting, or 
as-shipped if a default setting is not indicated, would ensure 
consistency of results from test to test and among test laboratories.
    NEEA supported DOE's proposal to disregard the portions of the 
installation instructions in section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 
62301 that are not appropriate for the clothes washer test procedure; 
i.e., those pertaining to batteries and the determination, 
classification, and testing of relevant modes. (NEEA, No. 26 at p. 2).
    For the reasons stated in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE adopts 
language in this final rule to disregard the provisions of paragraph 
5.2 regarding batteries and, as described in section III.B.2, the 
provisions regarding the determination, classification, and testing of 
relevant modes. This final rule incorporates by reference, with 
qualification as discussed above, the installation instructions in 
section 5, paragraph 5.2 of the Second Edition.
5. Test Room Ambient Temperature Conditions for Standby Power Testing
    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR that test room ambient 
temperatures for standby mode and off mode testing be specified 
according to section 4, paragraph 4.2 of IEC Standard 62301 (First 
Edition). The current DOE test procedure includes a test room ambient 
air specification of 75  5 [deg]F, for water-heating 
clothes washers only. This specification is narrower than the range 
specified by IEC Standard 62301 of 73.4  9 [deg]F. The 
September 2010 NOPR proposal would require manufacturers of water-
heating clothes washers to use the more stringent ambient temperature 
range in the current DOE test procedure if all active mode, standby 
mode, and off mode testing is conducted simultaneously in the same test 
room on multiple clothes washers. Alternatively, the temperature 
specifications in IEC Standard 62301 would allow a manufacturer that 
opts to conduct standby and off mode testing separately from active 
mode testing more latitude in maintaining ambient conditions. The test 
room ambient conditions specified in IEC Standard 62301 (Second 
Edition) are identical to those specified in the First Edition.
    BSH and NEEA support DOE's proposals regarding test room ambient 
temperature range. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 6) AHAM, 
ALS, and Whirlpool support using 75  5 [deg]F as the test 
room ambient temperature. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 7; ALS, No. 10 at p. 2; 
Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 3) Whirlpool and AHAM believe that this 
requirement should apply to all clothes washer products, not just those 
that include water-heating capability, because ambient temperature

[[Page 13902]]

significantly impacts test procedure results and should be consistent 
across all machines. Whirlpool and AHAM stated that this tighter 
tolerance will help drive consistency, repeatability and 
reproducibility across machines and laboratories. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at 
p. 3; AHAM, No. 14 at p. 7; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at 
p. 58) AHAM commented further that should DOE proceed with its proposal 
for water-heating clothes washers only, it does not support allowing 
the use of the less stringent IEC range (73  9 [deg]F) 
because the more stringent DOE range (75  5 [deg]F) falls 
within the IEC range. Thus, there is no added test burden when the more 
stringent DOE range is used for testing standby and off modes. (AHAM, 
No. 14 at p. 7).
    Whirlpool and AHAM commented that there appears to be some 
inconsistency between DOE's proposal and the proposed language from 
section 2.11.2 in appendix J2, as to whether DOE is proposing to allow 
use of the more stringent or less stringent ambient temperature range. 
It appears to Whirlpool and AHAM, based on the proposed language in 
section 2.11.2, that DOE's intent is to allow use of the less stringent 
IEC Standard 62301, First Edition ambient air temperature conditions of 
73  9 [deg]F for measurement of standby, off, delay start, 
and cycle finished mode testing. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 3; AHAM, No. 
14 at p. 6) AHAM commented that DOE should reference IEC Standard 62301 
Second Edition, FDIS version rather than the First Edition. (AHAM, No. 
14 at p. 6).
    After considering comments from interested parties, DOE has 
determined that the same ambient test room temperature requirement 
should apply to all clothes washer products, not just those that 
include water-heating capability. Because the temperature of the 
internal clothes washer components will be the same as the ambient room 
air temperature at the start of a test, maintaining the same ambient 
test room temperature would ensure that any heat loss from water in the 
machine during the test would be factored into the measured energy and 
water use in a consistent manner across all machines, both water-
heating and non-water-heating. DOE also concurs with some commenters 
that the more stringent temperature range of 75  5 [deg]F 
will produce more accurate, repeatable, and reproducible results 
compared to the 73  9 [deg]F range. DOE also notes that the 
current test procedure requires a temperature range of 75  
5 [deg]F for active mode testing. Therefore, performing standby and off 
mode testing at 75  5 [deg]F should not result in any 
additional test burden for manufacturers. For these reasons, today's 
final rule includes a test room ambient temperature specification of 75 
 5 [deg]F for both water-heating and non-water heating 
clothes washers. The amended test procedure does not adopt the test 
room ambient temperature range specified in IEC Standard 62031 (Second 
Edition) for standby and off mode testing.
6. Power Supply and Power Measuring Instruments
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference 
the power supply and power-measuring instrument specifications in 
section 4, paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the Second Edition. Specifically, 
paragraph 4.3.2 requires that the value of the harmonic content \7\ of 
the voltage supply be recorded during the test and reported. Paragraph 
4.4.1 requires the crest factor and maximum current ratio (MCR) to be 
determined. The value of MCR determines the maximum permitted 
uncertainty for the power measurement. Paragraph 4.4.3 requires the 
instrument to be capable of measuring the average power or integrated 
total energy consumption over any operator-selected time interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in the Second Edition, harmonic content (or total 
harmonic content) is equivalent to total harmonic distortion (on an 
amplitude, not power, basis; i.e., using the square root of the 
squares of the RMS voltages of the harmonics in the numerator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE believes that the test 
burden associated with the additional measurements and calculations in 
the Second Edition is offset by the more reasonable requirements for 
testing equipment, while maintaining acceptable measurement accuracy. 
DOE also proposed in the August 2011 SNOPR for it to be acceptable to 
measure the total harmonic content, crest factor, and MCR before and 
after the actual test measurement if the power-measuring instrument is 
unable to perform these measurements during the actual test 
measurement.
    AHAM, ALS, Whirlpool, and NEEA support DOE's proposed 
interpretation to allow measurement of the total harmonic content, 
crest factor, and maximum current ratio before and after the actual 
test measurement if the power-measuring instrument is unable to perform 
these measurements during the actual test measurement. (AHAM, No. 24 at 
p. 2; ALS, No. 22 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 27 at 
p. 1) Whirlpool added that individual manufacturers should decide 
whether to measure these parameters during the test, and that measuring 
the power parameters during the test would require some manufacturers 
to purchase new test equipment. Whirlpool believes that such economic 
burden should not be placed on manufacturers where an appropriate 
alternative exists. Whirlpool also commented that these test provisions 
should not be applicable until the effective date of appendix J2. 
(Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1).
    DOE noted in the August 2011 SNOPR that performing the continuous 
linear regression analysis required by the sampling method in the 
Second Edition may require the use of data acquisition software with 
the capability of performing real-time data analysis. DOE requested 
comment on the potential test burden for a laboratory that would be 
required to upgrade its data acquisition system software to enable 
real-time data analysis capabilities.
    AHAM stated that few laboratories currently have the real-time 
statistical analysis capabilities that DOE believed would be required 
to perform the continuous linear regression analysis of the stable, 
non-cyclic power test. AHAM added that several laboratories will need 
to invest both time and money to add a real-time statistical analysis 
capability to their data acquisition systems. AHAM further stated that 
updating data acquisition systems to enable real-time statistical 
analysis capabilities will require a significant upgrade. Whirlpool 
opposes the requirement to perform real-time statistical analysis 
because that such a requirement could require a significant capital 
investment by manufacturers. In addition, Whirlpool stated that the 
phrase ``real-time statistical analysis'' is vague and would require 
clarification if it were to be implemented. ALS stated that it has 
already equipped its lab to measure standby power per IEC Standard 
62301 (First Edition) and understands that only a minimal software 
update expense would be needed to comply with the Second Edition. 
(AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, No. 22 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 1).
    After further testing and examination of the sampling method 
described in the Second Edition, DOE has determined that the analyses 
required by the sampling method could be performed without the need for 
real-time data analysis software. For example, a laboratory could 
acquire data for a discreet period of time and determine afterward 
whether the data satisfied the appropriate stability criteria. If these 
criteria were not satisfied, the laboratory could resume testing for a 
longer discrete period of time, followed by analysis of the data, and 
so on, until the

[[Page 13903]]

stability criteria are satisfied. Therefore, a manufacturer or test 
laboratory could conduct standby and off mode testing using the 
sampling method in the Second Edition without being required to upgrade 
its software with real-time data analysis capabilities. DOE notes, 
however, that having such real-time data analysis capabilities would 
facilitate this testing.
    In today's final rule, DOE specifies the use of the power supply 
and power-measuring instrument specifications in section 4, paragraphs 
4.3.2 and 4.4 of the Second Edition. The amended test procedure also 
includes notes in section 2.2.2 (supply voltage waveform) and section 
2.5.3 (power meter) stating that if the power-measuring instrument used 
for testing is unable to measure the total harmonic content, crest 
factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio during the measurement 
period, it is acceptable to measure and record these properties 
immediately before and after the test measurement period.
7. Calculation of Energy Consumption in Each Mode
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed two possible approaches 
for measuring energy consumption in modes other than active washing 
mode; i.e., inactive (standby) mode, off mode, delay start mode, and 
cycle finished mode \8\ (hereafter, collectively referred to as low-
power modes). For the first approach, DOE proposed allocating 295 hours 
per year to the active washing mode, 16 hours to self-clean mode (if 
applicable), 25 hours per year to delay start mode (if applicable), 15 
hours per year to cycle finished mode (if applicable), and the 
remainder to off and/or inactive mode. Using this approach, the energy 
use per cycle associated with inactive, off, delay start, and cycle 
finished modes would be calculated by (1) calculating the product of 
wattage and allocated hours for all possible inactive, off, delay start 
and cycle finished modes; (2) summing the results; (3) dividing the sum 
by 1,000 to convert from Wh to kWh; and (4) dividing by the proposed 
295 use cycles per year. For clothes washers with electronic controls 
and a mechanical on/off switch, DOE proposed to allocate half of the 
inactive/off mode hours each to inactive and off modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Self-clean mode, delay start mode, and cycle finished mode 
are considered part of the active mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second ``alternate approach,'' for the purpose of 
calculating the total energy consumed in all low-power modes, DOE 
proposed allocating all the hours not associated with active washing 
mode to the inactive and off modes and then measuring power consumption 
for the inactive and off modes. Using this approach, separate 
measurements of delay start and cycle finished mode energy consumption 
would not be required. This approach would allocate one hour to each 
active mode cycle, for a total of 295 active mode hours and 8,465 
inactive/off mode hours. For clothes washers with electronic controls 
and a mechanical on/off switch, half of the inactive/off mode hours 
would be allocated each to inactive and off modes. DOE proposed using 
the alternate approach in the August 2011 SNOPR.
    ALS commented that it supports DOE's proposal to allocate one hour 
to each active mode cycle. ALS also supports DOE's proposal to allocate 
half of the inactive/off hours each to inactive and off modes, for 
machines with electronic controls plus a mechanical on/off switch. 
(ALS, No. 10 at p. 2).
    The Joint Commenters and ASAP support allocating a portion of the 
inactive/off hours to off mode for clothes washers with a mechanical 
on/off switch because of the potential energy-saving benefits that 
allow the consumer to reduce the energy consumption of the washer when 
not in use. The Joint Commenters and ASAP are concerned, however, about 
the lack of a specification regarding where the switch must be placed 
on the machine in order to receive credit. For example, a manufacturer 
could place a switch in a hidden location such as the back of the 
machine, where it would obviously not be intended for consumer use. 
(Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 4; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
20 at p. 82) The Joint Commenters encourage DOE to specify that the 
switch must be placed on the front panel of the machine in order for 
half of the inactive/off mode hours to be allocated to off mode. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 16 at p. 4).
    NEEA supports DOE's proposed alternate approach, with the caveat 
that delay start and cycle finished modes should be measured and 
included as part of the active wash mode. NEEA does not support DOE's 
proposal for using a one-hour average cycle time to determine annual 
active wash mode hours. NEEA stated that DOE's estimate, which was 
based on the behavior of a very limited sample of clothes washers, 
characterizes the behavior and energy use of the ``average'' clothes 
washer available in the market today, rather than measuring the actual 
performance of individual models. NEEA stated that the active washing 
mode hours should be based on the test results of the individual 
clothes washer model being tested. NEEA further commented that the 
energy use calculation could be greatly simplified if the calculation 
simply involved ``active mode'' and ``inactive mode hours,'' as 
measured for each model tested. Furthermore, NEEA does not support 
DOE's proposal to create a new class of modes called ``low-power 
modes,'' and stated that delay start and cycle finished modes should 
only be considered part of active mode and/or active washing mode. 
(NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 6-7; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 2, 4, 6).
    Whirlpool commented that it does not support DOE's proposal to 
split the non-active mode hours in half between inactive and off modes 
for washers with a mechanical or hard on/off switch. Whirlpool stated 
that such a device would add little benefit compared to its additional 
cost. Further, consumers are unlikely to utilize such a device unless 
it automatically defaults to the ``off'' mode at the end of each cycle 
(requiring the consumer to turn it to ``on'' for each new cycle 
initiated). According to Whirlpool, such an approach would be an 
annoyance to consumers and would cause consumers to postpone 
replacement purchases, thereby negating or delaying the resultant 
energy savings. Whirlpool stated that for any washer with a mechanical 
on/off switch, all of the non-active hours should be allocated to 
inactive mode. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 4).
    AHAM commented that it does not oppose using the estimate of one 
hour per cycle because it would be too burdensome and complicated to 
determine a more refined number, and there would be little 
corresponding benefit in accuracy. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 7) AHAM also 
commented that it does not oppose DOE's proposal to allocate half of 
the inactive/off hours each to inactive and off modes for clothes 
washers with electronic controls plus a mechanical on/off switch. AHAM 
proposed that DOE add a requirement that the on/off switch must be 
accessible by the consumer, because a switch that is hidden such that 
the consumer might never find or use it should not be given this 
``credit.'' AHAM further commented that this does not mean that DOE 
should specify product design by dictating where the switch should be 
placed on the machine. Furthermore, AHAM stated that there may be 
situations that warrant allocating all of the inactive/off hours to off 
mode; for example, there are machines that electronically turn off 
certain modes at the end of the active wash cycle and require the 
consumer to manually turn that mode back on to use it. (AHAM, No. 14 at 
p. 8).

[[Page 13904]]

    DOE based its proposal to adopt an estimate of one hour per active 
mode wash cycle on the test data available. DOE concurs with AHAM's 
comment that performing additional testing to determine a more refined 
number would be too burdensome and complicated, with little 
corresponding benefit in overall accuracy. Basing the active washing 
mode hours on test results of the individual clothes washer model being 
tested would not be feasible because the energy test cycle includes 
numerous different wash cycles, each with a different cycle time. 
Calculating the average cycle time across all cycles for an individual 
washer would increase test burden with little or no corresponding 
increase in the accuracy of the results. Therefore, today's final rule 
allocates one hour to each active mode cycle, with 8,465 hours 
allocated to all other non-active mode cycles.
    As described previously in section III.B.2, DOE adopts the 
``alternate approach,'' in today's final rule, in which all low-power 
modes are allocated to the inactive and off modes, depending on which 
of these modes is present. The aggregate power of the low-power modes 
is represented by a single energy metric called ``combined low-power 
mode.'' DOE's analysis indicates that the assumption that the power in 
each low-power mode is similar, which DOE set forth in the September 
2010 NOPR, remains valid, and that measuring the power of each mode 
separately would introduce significant test burden without a 
corresponding improvement in a representative measure of annual energy 
use.
    Regarding the allocation of hours between inactive mode and off 
mode, the proposed definition of off mode as applied to residential 
clothes washers will primarily apply to units with mechanical controls. 
The proposed definition of inactive mode will primarily apply to units 
with electronic controls, in which reactivation of the clothes washer 
occurs through a pushbutton sensor, touch sensor, or other similar 
device that consumes power. DOE is not aware of any clothes washers on 
the market with electronic controls and an additional mechanical on/off 
switch. However, DOE believes that the test procedure should 
accommodate this option because of the potential energy-saving benefits 
provided by a mechanical on/off switch. DOE further notes that for 
units with all hours allocated to either inactive or off mode, the 
power measurement procedure and calculation of low-power mode energy 
consumption are identical. For these reasons, DOE adopts the proposal 
in the August 2011 SNOPR, which allocates 8,465 hours to off mode if no 
inactive mode is possible, 8,465 hours to inactive mode if no off mode 
is possible, and 4,232.5 hours to both inactive mode and off mode if 
both modes are possible.
    DOE believes that manufacturers would be unlikely to install a 
mechanical on/off switch in an inaccessible location, because such a 
device would add little consumer benefit compared to its additional 
cost to the manufacturer. Therefore, today's final rule does address 
the location for an on/off switch.
8. Integrated Modified Energy Factor (IMEF)
    The DOE test procedure for clothes washers currently provides a 
calculation for modified energy factor (MEF), which equals the clothes 
container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kWh, 
of (1) the total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption, (2) 
the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption, and 
(3) the per-cycle energy consumption for removing the remaining 
moisture from a test load. (See section 4.4 of appendix J1). The 
current Federal energy conservation standards for clothes washers are 
expressed in MEF. (10 CFR 430.32(g)(3))
    As described previously in section I.C, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to 
require DOE to amend its test procedures for all covered products to 
integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into 
the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy 
descriptor unless the current test procedure already incorporates 
standby and off mode energy consumption, or such integration is 
technically infeasible.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish an 
``integrated modified energy factor'' (IMEF) for residential clothes 
washers. DOE proposed to calculate IMEF as the clothes container 
capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kWh, of:

     The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy 
consumption;
     The total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy 
consumption;
     The per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture 
from a test load;
     The per-cycle standby, off, delay start, and cycle 
finished mode energy consumption; and
     The per-cycle self-clean mode energy consumption, as 
applicable.

    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed not to allocate the hours 
for delay start and cycle finished modes to the inactive and off modes, 
and not require separate measurements for delay start and cycle 
finished mode energy consumption. Therefore, DOE modified the proposed 
IMEF calculation by incorporating per-cycle combined low-power mode 
energy consumption instead of separate measurements of per-cycle 
standby, off, delay start and cycle finished mode energy consumption.
    NEEA and the California Utilities support the IMEF calculation 
proposed in the September 2010 NOPR. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 8; California 
Utilities, No. 18 at p. 2) The California Utilities further commented 
that although the low-power modes represent a relatively small portion 
of annual energy and water use, they should be measured in the test 
procedure because these loads will become an increasingly significant 
portion of overall energy use as clothes washers and other appliances 
make efficiency gains in their primary active mode. (California 
Utilities, No. 18 at p. 2).
    ALS opposes the IMEF calculation proposed in the September 2010 
NOPR, which separates out per-cycle standby, off, delay start, and 
cycle finished mode energy consumption. ALS noted that there is little 
public benefit to including these modes, and that DOE has no reliable 
consumer use data on which to base the calculations. ALS stated there 
is no need for a new IMEF metric. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 2).
    AHAM also objected to the new IMEF measure of energy consumption 
due to the significant time, resource, and cost impacts associated with 
it. AHAM also stated that the added test burden provides no 
corresponding public benefit. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 8).
    NRDC questioned DOE's decision to retain a metric based on a per-
cycle measure rather than an annual metric, such as for dishwashers. 
(NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 91-92).
    DOE determined in the September 2010 NOPR that it is technically 
feasible to integrate standby mode and off mode energy consumption into 
the overall energy consumption metric for clothes washers, which for 
the current energy conservation standards is based on the per-cycle 
MEF.
    The current test procedure does not provide an additional energy 
descriptor for annual energy consumption. Any new descriptor for annual 
energy consumption would be based on the same per-cycle energy use 
measurements from which MEF or IMEF is calculated, multiplied by the 
number of annual use cycles; therefore, an annual energy use metric 
incorporating standby and off mode energy use would

[[Page 13905]]

not be inherently more accurate or representative than MEF or IMEF. The 
analogous change from a per-cycle metric to annual energy use for the 
energy conservation standards for dishwashers was required by Congress 
in the provisions of EISA 2007.
    As described in section III.B.2.d, this final rule does not adopt a 
definition for a self-clean cycle and is not adding any provisions to 
the test procedure for measuring the energy and water consumption of a 
self-clean cycle. Today's final rule also implements the alternate 
approach for measuring energy consumption in low-power modes. 
Therefore, today's final rule calculates IMEF as the clothes container 
capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kWh, of:

     The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy 
consumption;
     The total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy 
consumption;
     The per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture 
from a test load; and
     The per-cycle combined low-power mode energy 
consumption.

C. Active Mode Test Procedure Provisions

1. Integrated Water Consumption Factor (IWF)
    The existing calculation of water factor (WF) in the appendix J1 
test procedure accounts only for the water consumed during the cold 
wash/cold rinse cycle. Hot water consumption is measured for all wash 
cycles, including warm, hot, and extra-hot washes, but it is used only 
to determine the energy needed to heat the water. If the cold wash 
water consumption is set disproportionately low, while more water is 
used at higher temperatures, the WF metric may not accurately reflect 
the average water consumption of the machine.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed a new water consumption 
metric, integrated water consumption factor (IWF). This proposed metric 
would account for both the hot and cold water consumption of each test 
cycle, including any steam or self-clean cycles. As proposed, IWF would 
equal the sum of the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all 
wash cycles and the per-cycle self-clean water consumption, divided by 
the clothes container volume. As proposed, the total weighted per-cycle 
water consumption for all wash cycles would be calculated as the TUF-
weighted sum of the total per-cycle water consumption for each test 
cycle.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed a correction to the 
calculation for per-cycle self-clean water consumption. The proposed 
calculations in the newly-proposed sections 4.1.8 (per-cycle self-clean 
hot water energy consumption) and 4.2.14 (total per-cycle self-clean 
water consumption) did not contain the numeric multipliers required to 
apportion the total annual self-clean water consumption over the 295 
representative average number of clothes washer cycles in a year. The 
August 2011 SNOPR proposal adjusted the calculations in section 4.1.8 
and 4.2.14 by including a multiplier of 12/295, where 12 represents the 
average number of clothes washer self-clean cycles in a year, and 295 
represents the average number of clothes washer cycles in a year.
    ALS, the Joint Commenters, and NEEA expressed support for the 
proposal to measure water consumption for all active mode energy test 
cycles as part of the IWF metric. NEEA also supported DOE's proposed 
use of TUFs and load usage factors to derive the active mode water 
consumption. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 4; Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 8; 
Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 5; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM, the 
California Utilities, and Whirlpool specifically stated support for the 
inclusion in an IWF metric of hot and cold water measurements from all 
cycles tested. AHAM and the Joint Commenters noted that those values 
are already measured as part of the test procedure, and thus would not 
add to test burden. NEEA similarly commented that the proposed 
methodology for IWF would not add significant new test burden on 
manufacturers. Whirlpool stated that the proposal to include all water 
usage would prevent manufacturers from varying the amount of rinse 
water used at different temperatures, and that this would justify any 
additional test burden. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 15; California Utilities, 
No. 18 at p. 5; Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 8; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 
13; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 13) BSH stated that if the standards are 
adjusted appropriately, cold water consumption from all tests can be 
used in calculations. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 4) NRDC agreed with the IWF in 
concept. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 182-183) The 
California Utilities and NEEA support the inclusion of water use from 
self-clean cycles in the IWF measurement. (California Utilities, No. 18 
at p. 5; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 13) The Joint Commenters stated that DOE's 
proposal would provide a more representative depiction of water 
consumption. (Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 8).
    AHAM, ALS, and Whirlpool do not support including the water use in 
self-clean cycles in the IWF metric. AHAM agrees, however, with the 
proposed correction to adjust the calculation using a multiplier of 12/
295, if DOE determines that self-clean cycles should be included in the 
energy and water calculations. ALS also opposes the inclusion of water 
use in steam cycles in IWF. ALS stated that until DOE has a reliable 
understanding of the consumer usage and water consumed in self-clean 
and steam cycles, it should not include these in the test procedure. 
(AHAM, No. 14 at p. 15; AHAM, No. 24 at p. 5; ALS, No. 10 at pp. 4-5; 
Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 13) According to BSH, inclusion of self-clean 
and steam cycles in the test procedure would lead to minimal 
improvement in IWF but would increase the test burden. (BSH, No. 17 at 
p. 3).
    As described in sections III.B.2.d, III.C.2.a and III.C.2.b, DOE 
did not adopt provisions for measuring the water and energy consumption 
of self-clean cycles or steam cycles. In today's final rule, DOE 
includes an integrated water factor (IWF) metric that is based on the 
total weighted per-cycle water consumption of both hot and cold water 
for all wash cycles comprising the energy test cycle. Because these 
values are already measured as part of the test procedure, and no new 
test equipment would be required to measure these values, manufacturer 
test burden would not increase. DOE believes that an IWF defined in 
this way provides a more representative measure of total water 
consumption for a clothes washer.
2. Technologies Not Covered by the Current Test Procedure
Steam Wash Cycles
    DOE is aware of multiple clothes washer models currently available 
on the market offering steam functions via pre-set cycles, or as an 
optional addition to conventional wash cycles. During these cycles, 
steam is injected into the basket, which manufacturers claim provides 
enhanced cleaning and/or sterilization. The steam is produced in a 
generator that requires a significant amount of energy to heat and 
vaporize the water. The current clothes washer test procedure does not 
account for energy or water consumption during this type of wash cycle.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed amending the test 
procedure to include additional measurement of energy and water 
consumption during a steam wash cycle for clothes washers offering this 
feature. In the proposed amendments, an additional set of steam cycle 
tests would be required for clothes washers that offer such a feature. 
The

[[Page 13906]]

test sections required for clothes washers without a steam wash cycle 
would remain unchanged.
    DOE also proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to include the energy 
and water consumption from steam wash cycles in the final calculations 
for the energy and water use metrics. For clothes washers capable of 
steam wash cycles, the measurements of energy and water consumption 
from the steam wash cycle with the hottest wash temperature would be 
included in the overall energy and water use calculations, based on the 
TUF for steam wash. Table 4.1.1 (Temperature Use Factors) of appendix 
J1 specifies the current weighting factor applied to the consumption 
measurements for the different wash cycles. DOE proposed to update 
Table 4.1.1 to include 0.02 as the TUF of a steam wash cycle, when 
available. DOE assumed these cycles would decrease the use of extra-hot 
cycles, but would leave the use of hot, warm, and cold cycles 
unchanged. DOE believed that the steam wash cycles would be selected 
somewhat fewer times than the extra hot cycle because on some models 
steam is available as an option only on certain settings. DOE therefore 
estimated that the 0.02 TUF associated with steam washes would 
correspond to a 0.02 decrease in the TUFs associated with extra-hot 
cycles, for a steam-capable clothes washer.
    The California Utilities, the Joint Commenters, and NEEA expressed 
qualified support for DOE's proposal to include the energy and water 
use of steam wash cycles in the test procedure, and raised concerns 
about the definition of ``steam wash cycle.'' The California Utilities 
and NEEA commented that DOE may need to refine the definition of steam 
wash cycle for clarity and consistency. The Joint Commenters stated 
that the definition of ``steam wash cycle'' should include not only the 
injection of ``steam'' (vaporized water) but also any superheated water 
injected in the form of mist or fine droplets. The Joint Commenters 
also stated that all energy and water use resulting from steam wash 
cycles should be accounted for, including any injections made after the 
conclusion of the final spin cycle. (California Utilities, No 18 at p. 
3; Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 3; Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 4-
5; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 9; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 7-8) NEEA suggested that 
DOE gather data on steam cycles to more clearly define what constitutes 
a steam cycle. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 9; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 8).
    AHAM, ALS, BSH, and Whirlpool oppose adding measures of the energy 
and water consumption of steam wash cycles to the clothes washer test 
procedure without sufficient data on consumer usage patterns of such 
cycles. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 9; ALS, No. 10 at p. 3; BSH, No. 17 at p. 
3; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 5) ALS, BSH, and Whirlpool also oppose the 
inclusion of steam wash cycles due to the added manufacturer test 
burden, particularly because the energy use in these cycles represents 
such a small amount of the total annual energy. Whirlpool commented 
that the test burden would increase by about 10 percent. (ALS, No. 10 
at p. 3; BSH, No. 17 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 5) AHAM and 
Whirlpool also noted that DOE does not have data on the percentage of 
clothes washers on the market with a steam feature. Whirlpool estimates 
that this percentage is likely in the single digits. (AHAM, No. 14 at 
p. 9; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 5; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 20 at pp. 102-103) BSH further opposes the inclusion of steam wash 
cycles in the energy and water test methods because the longevity of 
these features in the market has yet to be proven. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 
3).
    GE and LG also commented that DOE needs to clarify the definition 
of steam wash cycle. GE suggested modifying the definition of steam 
cycle as: ``Steam cycle means a wash cycle in which water is heated to 
the point of boiling to produce steam and in which that steam is 
injected into the clothes container.'' (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 20 at p. 104; GE, No. 35 at p. 2; LG, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 20 at p. 103).
    AHAM questioned whether a definition of steam wash cycle would 
include a required temperature to which water must be heated for steam 
to be generated in the cycle, a representative duration of time for 
which steam must be injected into the drum, and a definition of the 
term ``injected''. AHAM stated that it would be difficult to define 
``steam wash cycle'' in a clear, repeatable, reproducible, and 
uniformly applicable way. According to AHAM, without a better 
definition of steam wash cycle, there will be confusion among 
manufacturers, which will lead to confusion in the market as consumers 
attempt to compare products. (AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 9-10) Springboard 
Engineering (Springboard) requested clarification as to whether steam 
would be tested at the hottest temperature available in the ``normal'' 
cycle, or whether it would be tested at the hottest temperature 
available on any cycle, such as a sanitize cycle. Springboard also 
noted that some clothes washers have cycles with wash temperatures 
greater than 135[deg]F and steam, and stated that it is not clear how 
these cycles should be tested. (Springboard, No. 11 at pp. 2-3).
    DOE also received comments in response to the proposed TUF for 
steam wash cycles. AHAM, ALS, NEEA, and Whirlpool do not support DOE's 
proposed steam wash cycle TUF. AHAM stated that because it does not 
support the inclusion of steam wash cycles in the DOE test procedure, 
it also opposes the revision of the TUFs to account for steam wash 
cycles. AHAM also questioned the assumption that the steam wash cycle 
TUF affects only the extra-hot TUF. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 12) Similarly, 
NEEA questioned the basis on which DOE assumed that a steam wash cycle 
would mostly or always be associated with a hot wash cycle. According 
to NEEA, some consumers use a hot or extra-hot wash to kill dust mites 
and other allergens, not just for heavily soiled loads, and it is not 
clear whether such users would select a cooler wash cycle with a steam 
feature to accomplish the same thing. ALS, NEEA and Whirlpool objected 
to DOE's assignment of a TUF for steam wash cycles without supporting 
data. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 4; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 9; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 8; 
Whirlpool, No. 13 at pp. 5, 8) Whirlpool also stated that the usage of 
steam wash cycles is quite limited, since they are specialized cycles 
designed for removal of difficult stains. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at pp. 5, 
8) Springboard questioned whether there are machines on the market that 
have a steam wash cycle but do not have a hot wash cycle. (Springboard, 
No. 11 at p. 3).
    DOE notes that the implementation of ``steam cycles'' may vary 
among manufacturers, and that the proposed definition may lead to 
inconsistent interpretations of whether a certain feature constitutes a 
``steam cycle'' to be included in the energy test cycle. In addition, 
consumer usage of steam features is likely to be low. For these 
reasons, DOE does not adopt provisions to measure the energy and water 
use in steam wash cycles, and therefore is not amending the TUFs in the 
clothes washer test procedure to include a TUF for steam wash cycles 
that would occur in place of certain extra-hot wash cycles.
Self-Clean Cycles
    DOE is aware that some residential clothes washers currently on the 
market offer a self-clean cycle. These cycles are used periodically 
with bleach and/or detergent--but no clothes load--to clean, deodorize, 
or sanitize the components that come into contact with water by 
preventing or eliminating the formation of mold, bacteria, and

[[Page 13907]]

mildew. Self-clean cycles may require higher water temperatures and 
greater volumes of water than a normal cycle, and therefore could 
potentially consume a substantial amount of energy. The current test 
procedure does not account for energy or water consumption attributable 
to self-clean cycles.
    As described previously in section III.B.2.d, DOE proposed in the 
September 2010 NOPR to define a ``self-clean mode'' as a clothes washer 
operating mode that:

     Is dedicated to cleaning, deodorizing, or sanitizing 
the clothes washer by eliminating sources of odor, bacteria, mold, 
and mildew;
     Is recommended to be run intermittently by the 
manufacturer; and
     Is separate from clothes washing cycles.

    As described in the September 2010 NOPR, DOE observed that 
manufacturers typically recommended running a self-clean cycle once a 
month. Some manufacturers also recommend a self-clean cycle after a 
defined number of clothes washing cycles. Because these self-clean 
cycles are not accounted for in the proposed 295 wash cycles per year, 
DOE proposed to integrate the energy and water consumption of self-
clean cycles into the overall energy efficiency metrics, under the 
assumption that these cycles are typically run once per month.
    DOE received comments in response to the proposal to account for 
energy and water consumption of self-clean cycles in the overall 
calculations for IMEF and IWF, which are discussed in III.B.2.d, 
III.B.8, and III.C.1. For the reasons presented in those sections, DOE 
is not adopting provisions in today's final rule to include measures of 
self-clean energy and water use in the clothes washer test procedure.
Adaptive Control Technologies
    Adaptive control technologies can adjust parameters such as 
agitation intensity, number of rinses, wash time, and wash and rinse 
temperatures based on the size, fabric mix, and soil level of a wash 
load. The current test procedure accounts for adaptive fill 
technologies, but no other types of adaptive controls.
    DOE is aware that other consumer products employ adaptive controls, 
and that these are addressed in their respective test procedures. For 
example, many dishwashers incorporate adaptive controls by means of a 
turbidity sensor which adjusts the number and duration of wash and 
rinse cycles. The dishwasher test procedure accounts for these models 
through the use of soiled dishware loads. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix C).
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE noted that it was not aware of any 
clothes washers available on the market that incorporate adaptive 
controls using a turbidity sensor. If clothes washers become available 
that offer adaptive controls using a turbidity sensor, DOE could 
consider amending the clothes washer test procedure to measure energy 
and water consumption with a soiled wash load. However, because it was 
not aware of any clothes washers incorporating this technology, DOE did 
not propose to address adaptive controls other than adaptive fill 
control in the test procedure.
    AHAM, BSH, NEEA, and Whirlpool supported DOE's proposal that no 
adaptive control provisions other than the existing adaptive fill 
control methodology be adopted in the clothes washer test procedure at 
this time. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 11; BSH, No. 17 at p. 4; NEEA, No. 12 at 
p. 9; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 8-9; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 6) According to 
BSH and Whirlpool, there are currently no clothes washers on the market 
with soil-sensing technology. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 13 
at p. 6) Whirlpool stated that if a soil-sensing clothes washer were to 
exist, it would require some form of sensor, which in turn would 
require a soiled test load to activate the sensor and properly record 
the energy used (analogous to the test procedure for soil-sensing 
dishwashers). According to Whirlpool, DOE would need to develop a 
uniform, consistent, repeatable, and reproducible soil load, which 
could take 3 or more years. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 6) NEEA agreed 
that turbidity sensors for soil-sensing are unlikely to be found in 
clothes washers, but the increasing complexity of control capabilities 
should not be ignored. NEEA urged DOE to gather enough statistically 
valid data to inform a decision on whether to adopt provisions for 
measuring adaptive control technologies. NEEA further commented that, 
in the absence of information on clothes washer models with adaptive 
control technologies other than adaptive fill control, DOE should state 
how the presence of such technologies might affect the test procedure 
results. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 9-10; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 8-9).
    DOE observes that manufacturers representing approximately 65 
percent of the U.S. clothes washer market stated that they are unaware 
of soil-sensing clothes washers currently available, supporting DOE's 
preliminary conclusion. For this reason, DOE is unable to evaluate any 
technical approaches towards adaptive control outside of adaptive fill 
control, nor can it develop appropriate methodology for evaluating the 
energy use of such features. Therefore, DOE is not adopting new 
provisions addressing adaptive control technologies in today's final 
rule.
Demand Response Technologies
    Demand response technology enables an appliance to shift its 
activity based on interaction with the electric grid, utilities, or 
user programming. Appliances that can communicate with the electric 
grid or any other network would be considered to have a network mode as 
defined by IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition. As described previously 
in section III.B.2.g, the Second Edition defines network mode as a mode 
category that includes ``any product modes where the energy using 
product is connected to a mains 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.'' IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition also provides a note 
stating, ``[w]here 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 products. A network does not include 
one or more controls which are dedicated to a single product. Network 
mode may include one or more standby functions.''
    As discussed in section III.B.2.g, DOE did not propose in the 
September 2010 NOPR to amend the clothes washer test procedure to 
include any provisions for measuring energy consumption in network 
mode, because it was unaware of any clothes washers currently available 
on the market that incorporate a networking function. Additionally, DOE 
was unaware of any data regarding network mode in clothes washers that 
would enable it to determine appropriate testing procedures and mode 
definitions for incorporation into the test procedure.
    AHAM commented that there is currently insufficient data regarding 
demand response features in clothes washers, but that when these 
features become available, DOE should address them in the test 
procedure. AHAM noted that it is currently working with energy and 
water efficiency advocates to develop a definition of ``smart 
appliances,'' including a definition of ``smart'' clothes washers. 
(AHAM, No. 14 at p. 11; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 
109) NEEA

[[Page 13908]]

doubted whether any significant fraction of laundry activities take 
place at peak hours, and thus it is skeptical whether households would 
shift their laundry schedules in response to time-of-use rates or a 
signal from a ``smart grid'' system. Even so, NEEA supported including 
provisions for network mode in the clothes washer test procedure for 
use when machines with such capabilities appear on the market. (NEEA, 
No. 12 at p. 10).
    For the reasons stated in the September 2010 NOPR, this final rule 
does not incorporate provisions for clothes washers with demand 
response technologies. However, DOE is generally supportive of efforts 
to develop smart-grid and other network-enabled technologies in clothes 
washers. Provisions for testing power consumption in network mode could 
be incorporated into the test procedure through future amendments, once 
the appropriate data and testing methodologies become available.
3. Consumer Usage Patterns
    In the September 2010 NOPR and August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed 
updating some of the consumer usage patterns contained in the test 
procedure. General comments on the proposals are discussed immediately 
below, and comments related to the specific consumer usage patterns for 
which DOE proposed changes are discussed in the sections that follow.
    AHAM commented generally that DOE should gather or develop 
information on contemporary laundry practices in the United States for 
incorporation into the test procedure, including temperature settings, 
average cycles per year, special-purpose machine cycles (such as steam 
and self-clean), the size of a minimum laundry load, the size of an 
average load, and the frequency distribution of various laundry loads. 
(AHAM, No. 2 at p. 23; AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 1-2). EarthJustice and NRDC 
support this recommendation. (EarthJustice, No. 3 at p. 1; NRDC, No. 8 
at p. 1) Whirlpool stated that a test procedure proposal would not be 
valid, meaningful, or representative of consumer practices without data 
to validate the underlying assumptions. Whirlpool requests that DOE 
accept input from manufacturers and/or initiate primary research 
efforts of its own to obtain updated consumer usage data, as necessary. 
(Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 1).
    NEEA commented that, because the revised test procedure will not be 
required for use before the effective date of any revised efficiency 
standards, DOE should take the time now to acquire enough statistically 
valid data to properly specify the usage patterns and calculations 
within the test procedure. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 1, 10, 16) NEEA added 
that DOE should consider more systematic efforts to gather field data 
in advance of the start of future rulemakings where test procedure 
changes are expected. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 3) NEEA commented that it is 
currently gathering field data on the laundry habits from households 
participating in the Residential Building Stock Assessment, expected to 
be complete by mid-2013. By June 2012, field data on clothes washer and 
dryer energy use, the nature and size of laundry loads, washer and 
dryer cycle choices, and number of cycles per year will become 
available. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2).
    NEEA also stated that it believes DOE is moving toward a test 
procedure that delivers performance results for an ``average'' product, 
rather than the specific clothes washer models being tested. NEEA 
believes that this approach would undermine the basic intent of the 
test procedure and the standards, which it believes should reasonably 
reflect energy and water use for each model. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 1-2).
    DOE is aware of ongoing and future planned field studies by DOE and 
other parties, which are expected to provide relevant data regarding 
current consumer usage patterns. DOE will consider any relevant data 
resulting from these studies in future test procedure rulemakings.
Number of Annual Wash Cycles
    In the January 2001 standards Final Rule, DOE estimated the 
representative number of annual wash cycles per clothes washer as 392. 
This number is not used in the calculations for the current energy 
efficiency metric, because MEF is calculated on a per-cycle basis. To 
include energy consumption from modes other than active washing mode in 
the energy efficiency metric requires an estimate of the time a typical 
clothes washer spends in active washing and all other non-active 
washing modes. The number of annual wash cycles is used to determine 
the time spent in the active washing mode, and also determines the 
remaining time to be allocated to the other possible modes.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed 295 as the representative 
number of wash cycles per year, based on the 2005 Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (RECS) data. DOE determined preliminarily that this 
was a more representative value than the results of the California 
Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (California RASS), which 
indicated 283 annual cycles, because the RECS survey was nationwide 
rather than limited to a single state. DOE also made a preliminary 
determination that the 2005 RECS value was more representative of 
average use than the value based on a Procter & Gamble (P&G) study, 
which indicated 308 annual cycles, due to the household size 
distributions of the data sets. Overall, however, the relatively small 
variation among the three estimates of annual clothes washer cycles 
supported DOE's conclusion that 295 cycles per year was a reasonable 
value to include in its clothes washer test procedure.
    DOE received multiple comments in response to the proposed value of 
295 annual cycles. ALS, the Joint Commenters, and Whirlpool support the 
proposed number of annual cycles. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 2; Joint 
Commenters, No. 16 at pp. 4-5; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 7) BSH also 
agrees with a value of 295 annual cycles, with the caveat that, if DOE 
decides to include measurement of self-clean energy and water use in 
the test procedure, the number of annual cycles will need to be 
adjusted upwards by the number of self-clean cycles per year suggested 
by the manufacturer in the product's user manual. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 4) 
ALS and AHAM questioned the validity of the 2005 RECS data, and 
requested that DOE work with P&G to secure more recent data. AHAM 
stated that P&G would be updating the clothes washer use study based on 
2010 data. However, AHAM supports the proposed 295 annual cycles 
because it is likely that the number of cycles has decreased since the 
P&G data from 2005. (AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 11-12; ALS, No. 10 at pp. 2-3) 
However, NEEA and the National Institute of Standards and Testing 
(NIST) noted that the RECS and P&G data both dated from about 2005. 
(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 112; NIST, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 112). Whirlpool stated that 295 cycles 
per year is consistent with the reduction in average household size. 
(Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 7) The Joint Commenters stated that they had 
conducted their own analysis using the 2005 RECS data, which also 
resulted in an estimate of 295 annual clothes washer cycles. The Joint 
Commenters believe that the 2005 RECS data provide a reasonably 
accurate value in the absence of better data, and that the 2005 RECS 
data, derived from a national survey, are more representative than the 
California RASS data that captured usage from one state. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 16 at pp. 4-5).

[[Page 13909]]

    NEEA objected to DOE's proposal for 295 annual clothes washer use 
cycles because NEEA believes that the 2005 RECS survey methods are 
flawed. According to NEEA, the relatively large bin sizes provided in 
the survey for the number of laundry loads per week introduces too much 
uncertainty regarding the average weekly number within each bin. NEEA 
further stated that it would not automatically discount California RASS 
data on the basis that the survey represents only one state. NEEA 
added, however, that it is not familiar enough with the California RASS 
data, and can not comment on the suitability of using the data to 
determine average annual use cycles. NEEA commented that it supports 
using P&G data due to P&G's longtime work in this area and the scope 
and detail in its survey. NEEA's interpretation of the P&G data results 
in an estimate of 308 annual clothes washer use cycles, which according 
to NEEA is similar to the approximately 310 annual cycles derived from 
recent data collected by the California Public Utilities Commission 
(CPUC). NEEA noted that while the average household size in the P&G 
sample is larger than those indicated by the U.S. Census and the 
American Housing Survey in 2007, it would be logical for households 
with clothes washers to be larger than average. NEEA also recommended 
that DOE acquire field data itself to determine annual clothes washer 
use cycles. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 10-11; NEEA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 113-114; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 9-10).
    In considering these comments, DOE notes that an independent 
analysis of the 2005 RECS data by the Joint Commenters resulted in 
essentially an identical estimate of the number of annual clothes 
washer cycles as DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR. This suggests 
that DOE's calculation of average annual cycles based on the weekly 
usage data did not introduce any systematic error in the final value of 
annual clothes washer cycles. DOE has also reviewed the clothes washer 
data recently collected in Southern California as part of SDG&E's 
``High Efficiency Clothes Washer Voucher Incentive Program'' and PG&E's 
``Mass Markets Residential Program.'' \9\ Both programs used a 
combination of telephone surveys and onsite metering to determine the 
impact of high efficiency clothes washers on energy and water 
consumption. As part of the telephone surveys, program participants 
were asked to self-report the number of weekly wash loads. The results 
for these surveys, from Table 30 in the CPUC report, are shown in Table 
III.1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The results of these and other 2006-2008 residential energy 
efficiency programs run by the Investor-Owned Utilities in 
California are summarized in a report to the CPUC: ``Residential 
Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report'', The Cadmus Group, 
Inc., Itron, Jai J. Mitchell Analytics, KEMA, PA Consulting Group, 
and Summit Blue Consulting, LLC, February 8, 2010.

   Table III.1--Self-Reported Wash Loads From 2009 Southern California
                            Telephone Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average number
                 Utility                     Number of      wash loads/
                                           participants        week
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E....................................             422            5.84
SDG&E...................................             301            5.80
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................             723            5.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiplying the average self-reported number of wash loads per week 
by 52 weeks per year would result in 303 annual clothes washer use 
cycles. This value can be compared to the results of the onsite 
metering studies conducted under the PG&E and SDG&E programs during the 
spring and early summer of 2009. These programs also recorded the 
actual number of wash loads per week, based on energy and water meter 
data, at 115 residential sites chosen to include both participants and 
non-participants in the utility incentive programs. The results from 
Table 20 in the CPUC report, disaggregated by participant status as 
well as clothes washer efficiency, are presented in Table III.2.

                 Table III.2--Measured Wash Loads From 2009 Southern California Metering Studies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Number. of      Number wash
                   Category                                Efficiency                  sites        loads/week
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Participants..............................  Non-ENERGY STAR.................              24            4.77
                                                ENERGY STAR.....................              17            6.23
                                                Sub-Total.......................              41            5.38
Participants..................................  ENERGY STAR.....................              74            4.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average for all Sites..................................................................            5.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On average, subjects in the metering studies performed (5.01 loads 
per week) x (52 weeks per year) = 261 annual clothes washer loads, 
which is lower than the self-reported annual use cycles. Although in 
general, metering data has a higher confidence level than survey 
results, DOE also notes that the sample size of the onsite study was 
relatively small, and there was significant variation within that 
sample. For example, the annual use cycles for non-participants was 
found to range from 248 for consumers with non-ENERGY STAR clothes 
washers to 324 for consumers with ENERGY-STAR clothes washers. Further, 
the data were also collected in a limited geographical region and over 
only a portion of the year, and may not be fully representative of 
national clothes washer usage over a complete year.
    For these reasons, DOE has determined that the 2005 RECS report is 
the most representative source of information on annual clothes washer 
cycles, and is adopting a value of 295 annual cycles in today's final 
rule.
    ASAP questioned whether the proposed value of 295 annual clothes 
washer cycles corresponds to the number of clothes dryer cycles 
proposed in the amended DOE clothes dryer test procedure, accounting 
for the dryer usage factor. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at 
p. 115) DOE adopted an amended clothes dryer test procedure in a final 
rule published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2011. (76 FR 972) 
In the amended test procedure, DOE revised the number of clothes dryer 
annual use cycles from the 416 cycles per year, previously specified by 
the clothes dryer test procedure, to 283 cycles. (10 CFR 430.23(d)) DOE 
based this revision on analysis of data from the 2005 RECS for the 
number of clothes washer cycles and the frequency of clothes dryer use. 
According to DOE's analysis of 2005 RECS data, for households with both 
a clothes washer and clothes dryer, the percentage of

[[Page 13910]]

clothes washer loads dried in a clothes dryer is 96 percent. Therefore, 
adopting 295 annual clothes washer use cycles in today's final rule is 
consistent with the amended clothes dryer test procedure.
    DOE also notes that the dryer usage factor in the clothes washer 
test procedure adopted in today's final rule is 0.91. This value is 
also based on analysis of 2005 RECS data, but applies to all households 
with a clothes washer, as explained in more detail in section III.C.3.e 
of this rule.
Test Load Size Specifications
    The current DOE clothes washer test procedure specifies the test 
load size for the active washing mode energy tests based on the clothes 
washer's container volume. The table specifying the test load sizes in 
the test procedure, Table 5.1, currently covers clothes washer 
container volumes only up to 3.8 ft\3\. DOE is aware that multiple 
clothes washers available on the market have container volumes 
exceeding 3.8 ft\3\.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed extending Table 5.1 to 
accommodate larger clothes washer capacities, up to 6.0 cubic feet. The 
relationship between test load size and clothes washer volume is linear 
in Table 5.1 in appendix J1; DOE determined preliminarily that these 
values were appropriate, and that using a linear extension for larger 
load sizes would be valid. The proposed amendment extended the linear 
relationship between test load size and clothes washer container volume 
currently in the DOE clothes washer test procedure.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed some minor adjustments to 
the proposed extension of Table 5.1 to correct for inconsistent decimal 
places in the minimum and maximum load size values, which subsequently 
affected the calculation of some of the average load sizes. DOE 
proposed to amend the extension to Table 5.1 by specifying each load 
size value to the hundredths decimal place.
    AHAM, ALS, and Whirlpool support the proposed linear extension of 
the test load size in Table 5.1. AHAM, ALS, EarthJustice, and NRDC 
agreed that DOE should extend Table 5.1 to accommodate clothes 
container volumes up to 6.0 ft\3\. Whirlpool stated that test load size 
has been the subject of several test procedure waivers granted by DOE 
over the last six years, and that DOE's responses have been consistent 
with the proposed extension of Table 5.1. According to Whirlpool, the 
linear relationship remains valid because the majority of clothes 
washers sold today are adaptive fill machines, which use only the 
amount of water required by the load size. Furthermore, consumers 
continue to wash some small loads in the higher-capacity machines. For 
that reason, Whirlpool suggested, for example, that the 7.8 percent 
increase in average test load size from a 3.0 ft\3\ to 3.3 ft\3\ 
clothes washer is reasonable even though capacity increased by 10 
percent. Whirlpool does not believe that the test procedure is biased 
to favor large-capacity clothes washers. AHAM stated that DOE should 
ensure that the test procedure does not contain a bias towards large-
capacity machines. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 23) EarthJustice and NRDC support 
AHAM's statement. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 23; AHAM, No. 4 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 
14 at p. 12; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 122-123; 
AHAM, No. 24 at p. 3; ALS, No. 10 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 7; 
Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4; EarthJustice, No. 3 at p. 1; NRDC, No. 8 at 
p. 1).
    LG stated that it supports DOE's proposal for load sizes, but also 
stated that the maximum load size in Table 5.1 should be the same for 
all clothes container volumes, with annual usage cycles decreased for 
machines with larger volumes to reflect a reduced number of loads per 
year. (LG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 122, 124-126).
    NIST recommended collecting additional load size data, because 
consumers who need to do more laundry may purchase the larger clothes 
washers. (NIST, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 128-129).
    NEEA does not support the proposed linear extension of Table 5.1 up 
to clothes container volumes of 6.0 ft\3\. NEEA commented that there 
are no data to suggest that maximum load sizes would extend to 24 
pounds, and that there is no demonstrable correlation at this time 
between clothes container volume and load weight or load volume. NEEA 
stated that many households do some laundry loads when they run out of 
clean clothes, or particular clothing items, regardless of the load 
size or clothes washer capacity. NEEA recommended that DOE prescribe an 
average test load size that is based on P&G data. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 
11; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 10).
    The California Utilities, Energy Solutions (ES), the Joint 
Commenters, NEEA, and NRDC commented that the test load sizes in Table 
5.1 may create an unwarranted bias towards larger-capacity clothes 
washers. The California Utilities and NRDC objected to the maximum load 
sizes being a fixed percentage of total capacity, while the average 
test load size is calculated as the average of a fixed minimum load and 
the maximum load. The California Utilities, NRDC, and the Joint 
Commenters provided values for the average test load size as a 
percentage of capacity, which ranged from 63-68 percent for smaller-
capacity clothes washers but 54-57 percent for large-capacity machines. 
NRDC commented that the relationship of load size to capacity may be 
linear, but it is not proportionate, suggesting that consumers who 
purchase larger-capacity clothes washers leave more capacity unused. 
NRDC further commented that it is not sure that there is data to 
support this conclusion. The California Utilities commented that the 
average load size is the primary driver of the energy test load due to 
the load usage factors, and that average load sizes increases with 
capacity at a slower rate than the increase in maximum load size 
because the minimum load size remains constant. The California 
Utilities stated it was not aware of any recent consumer usage data on 
test load size. ES also expressed concern about the fixed minimum load 
size for all capacities. (California Utilities, No. 18 at pp. 3-4; 
California Utilities, No. 25 at pp. 2-3; ES, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 20 at p. 124; Joint Commenters, No. 16 at p. 5; Joint Commenters, 
No. 23 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 12; NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 10-11; NRDC, 
No. 8 at p. 1; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 14, 119-
121; 126-127).
    The Joint Commenters provided calculations for the allowably energy 
and water consumed per pound of clothes for clothes washers with 
capacities ranging from 3.0 to 5.5 ft\3\, based on the weighted-average 
test load size and assuming a fixed MEF of 2.0 and a fixed WF of 6.0. 
According to the Joint Commenters' calculations, under those conditions 
a 5.5 ft\3\ clothes washer with MEF = 2.0 is allowed 10 percent more 
energy and water per pound of clothes than a 3.0 ft\3\ clothes washer 
with the same MEF rating. The Joint Commenters stated that this could 
have implications for the ENERGY STAR ratings, if large-capacity 
clothes washers can more easily achieve ENERGY STAR certification 
without ensuring better real-world energy and water use. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 16 at p. 5).
    The California Utilities and the Joint Commenters suggested 
approaches for DOE to revise Table 5.1 to eliminate a possible bias 
towards larger-capacity clothes washers. The California Utilities 
recommended that DOE base average test load size on a fixed percentage 
of clothes container volume, and suggested a value of approximately 65 
percent of capacity. The California Utilities further recommended that 
DOE develop a new

[[Page 13911]]

metric based on energy use per pound of clothing washed, rather than 
energy use as a function of capacity. The California Utilities 
acknowledged the substantial input required from interested parties and 
the attendant significant negative impact on the clothes washer test 
procedure rulemaking schedule, and therefore recommended that DOE 
consider this approach for a future test procedure rulemaking. 
(California Utilities, No. 18 at p. 4).
    The Joint Commenters suggested three possible alternatives for 
revising the test load sizes in Table 5.1:
    1. Base the average test load size for all washers in a particular 
product class on the percentage of capacity used by the average test 
load of the average-sized clothes washer in that product class. The 
Joint Commenters noted that, according to AHAM, the average shipment-
weighted capacity in 2009 was 4.03 ft\3\ for front-loaders and 3.66 
ft\3\ for top-loaders, yielding a capacity utilization (i.e., ratio of 
average test load weight to maximum test load weight) for the average 
test load of 59 percent for front-loaders and 60 percent for top-
loaders. Maximum test load weights for other clothes washer capacities 
would be derived using the scaling factor currently used in Table 5.1, 
approximately 4 pounds per cubic foot of capacity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The comment states that the average test load weight should 
be scaled, but this may be an editing error: In Table 5.1 the 
scaling factor for average test load weight ranges from 3.5 lb/ft\3\ 
for small capacity to 2.3 lb/ft\3\ for large capacity, whereas the 
scaling factor for maximum test load weight is a constant 4.10 
 0.03 lb/ft\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Base the average test load size for all clothes washers on the 
average test load size assumed in the RMC calculation in the test 
procedure (i.e., the average test load size would be 52 percent of the 
maximum load size).
    3. Use the test load sizes in the current Table 5.1, but calculate 
the average test load size for clothes washers with capacities between 
3.8 ft\3\ and 6.0 ft\3\ using the capacity utilization of the largest 
machine in the current table (i.e., the average test load size would be 
fixed at 59.7 percent of the maximum test load size for clothes washers 
in this capacity range.)
    The Joint Commenters requested that DOE test a sample of front-
loading and top-loading clothes washers of various capacities using the 
above-suggested alternatives to compare the resulting energy and water 
factors with the test results obtained using the proposed test 
procedure, and if there are substantial differences, DOE should 
consider revisions to Table 5.1 to reduce the potential for unwarranted 
bias toward large capacity clothes washers. (Joint Commenters, No. 16 
at pp. 6-7).
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE requested additional consumer data 
regarding current test load sizes, but it did not receive any such data 
from interested parties. DOE carefully considered the existing data 
sources for evaluating minimum, maximum, and average test loads. As 
noted above, P&G provided data indicating that, in 2003, average 
consumer load sizes were 7.2 lb for all top-loading clothes washers and 
8.4 lb for all front-loading clothes washers. However, the P&G data 
does not identify average load size as a function of machine capacity, 
and therefore DOE cannot infer that these values are representative of 
average consumer load sizes for clothes washers of all capacities 
available on the market today.
    Under the current formulation of the test load sizes, the average 
load size represents a decreasing percentage of maximum load size as 
the capacity of the clothes washer increases. Larger-capacity machines 
can therefore achieve a given MEF/WF rating using larger amounts of 
water and energy per pound of clothing than smaller-capacity machines 
with the same MEF/WF rating. Information to suggest that this scenario 
does not reflect true consumer usage was not available for this 
rulemaking. Information that would indicate that average consumer 
clothing load sizes are a fixed percentage of clothes container 
capacity (and, thus, maximum clothes load size) was also not available. 
Updated consumer usage data will be necessary to determine whether the 
numerical advantage for large-capacity clothes washers is justified by 
real-world use. DOE is aware of ongoing and future planned field 
studies that are expected to provide updated data regarding the 
relationship between clothes washer capacity and clothing load size. 
DOE will consider using data from these field studies in future clothes 
washer test procedure rulemakings.
    Based on available data, DOE determined that a fixed minimum load 
size is appropriate, given that consumers may desire to wash only a few 
articles of clothing regardless of the size of their clothes washer. In 
considering maximum test load sizes, DOE reviewed user manuals for 
clothes washer models from multiple manufacturers, and noted that the 
instructions generally included a notation that the clothes container 
could, and for some cycles, should, be loaded to the point that the 
clothes container is loosely filled. DOE infers that some consumers 
will follow these instructions, which will result in a maximum test 
load size that is proportional to the volume of the clothes container.
    For these reasons, DOE has determined that the linear extension of 
Table 5.1, including the proportional relationship of maximum test load 
size to clothes washer capacity, a fixed minimum test load size, and 
calculation of average test load size, currently represents the best 
possible approach for determining these load sizes. Therefore, today's 
final rule extends Table 5.1 as proposed in the August 2011 SNOPR in 
appendix J1 and the new appendix J2. If DOE receives new data that 
would lead to a different conclusion for the test load sizes specified 
in Table 5.1, DOE will consider updating the test procedure at that 
time. The extension of Table 5.1 will also address the waivers and 
interim waivers currently granted to several manufacturers for testing 
clothes washers with capacities greater than 3.8 cubic feet.
Load Usage Factors
    The load usage factors in the DOE test procedure represent the 
fraction of all wash cycles a typical consumer runs for the minimum, 
average, and maximum load sizes. At the time of publication of the 
September 2010 NOPR, DOE was not aware of any recent data 
characterizing such usage patterns. Therefore, DOE did not propose any 
changes to the load usage factors.
    NEEA stated that, in the absence of updated data, the existing load 
usage factors are acceptable, but that DOE should acquire contemporory 
data to support a validation of the current numbers. (NEEA, No. 12 at 
p. 10, 12; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 11) AHAM commented that it is not aware 
of recent data characterizing load size usage patterns, and thus it 
supports DOE's proposal not to change the load usage factors. (AHAM, 
No. 14 at p. 12).
    For the reasons stated in the September 2010 NOPR, DOE has 
determined that the load usage factors are the best estimate of usage 
patterns available at this time. Therefore, DOE is not revising the 
load usage factors in today's final rule.
Temperature Use Factors
    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to amend the TUFs in the 
clothes washer test procedure to account for

[[Page 13912]]

steam wash cycles, and to revise the warm rinse TUF. Table III.3 shows 
the TUFs proposed in the September 2010 NOPR.

                                        Table III.3--Temperature Use Factors Proposed in the September 2010 NOPR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Max wash temp available                                  135 [deg]F
                                                                         Steam
                                                                           (57.2 [deg]C)
                                                                     (57.2 [deg]C)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. wash temp selections.....................................     Single      2 Temps      >2 Temps     3 Temps      >3 Temps     3 Temps       >3 Temps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUFs (steam).................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         0.02         0.02
TUFm (extra hot).............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         0.14         0.05         0.12         0.03
TUFh (hot)...................................................  ...........         0.63         0.14  ...........         0.09  ...........         0.09
TUFww (warm/warm)............................................  ...........  ...........       * 0.27       * 0.27       * 0.27       * 0.27       * 0.27
TUFw (warm)..................................................  ...........  ...........         0.22         0.22         0.22         0.22         0.22
TUFc (cold)..................................................         1.00         0.37         0.37         0.37         0.37         0.37         0.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only applicable to machines offering a warm/warm cycle. For machines with no warm/warm cycle, this value should be zero and the warm TUF (TUFw) should
  be increased by 0.27.

    DOE assumed that the steam wash cycle TUF would affect only the 
extra-hot TUF, leaving the other TUFs unchanged. DOE discussed its 
analysis of the data on consumer wash and rinse temperature selections 
from the 2005 RECS and the 2004 California RASS, both of which provide 
information on temperature selections. Because the temperature use 
factors from each source demonstrated general agreement, DOE determined 
that the current TUFs in its test procedure are a reasonable estimate 
of current consumer use. DOE therefore proposed to keep the TUFs for 
cold wash, warm wash, and hot wash unchanged. DOE incorporated the 
steam cycle TUF by decreasing the value of the extra-hot TUF.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE also proposed to revise the methods 
for measuring warm rinse and to incorporate the revised measurement 
into the test procedure's calculations. DOE observed that most clothes 
washers available on the market allow users to select a warm rinse only 
when it is coupled with a warm wash cycle. DOE, therefore, proposed to 
establish a TUF for a full warm wash/warm rinse cycle. DOE also 
proposed to eliminate the incremental use factor attributed to warm 
rinse, requiring instead the measurement of energy and water 
consumption over an entire wash/rinse cycle that utilizes warm rinse. 
DOE proposed using the same warm rinse TUF of 0.27 for the complete 
warm wash/warm rinse cycle. For those clothes washers with such an 
option, DOE also proposed to reduce the warm wash/cold rinse TUF by a 
corresponding amount, lowering it from 0.49 to 0.22. DOE further 
proposed that the warm wash/warm rinse TUF would not be applicable for 
clothes washers with one or two wash temperature settings, because 
those washers would not provide a warm wash/warm rinse cycle. DOE did 
not propose to amend the TUFs for wash temperature selections other 
than the warm wash, except for units offering a steam wash cycle as 
previously described. Additionally, the proposed TUFs for warm/cold and 
warm/warm would sum to the existing warm wash TUF; overall, the warm 
wash temperature selection would receive the same weight in the energy 
and water consumption calculations.
    DOE received multiple comments from interested parties in response 
to the proposed temperature use factors. NEEA expressed concern over 
the lack of recent consumer usage pattern data, but stated that the 
existing data do not support changing the TUFs currently provided in 
the test procedure. NEEA commented that the most important reason to 
acquire more recent data is that ``hot'', ``warm'', and ``cold'' 
designations for the energy test cycle do not reflect the current range 
of options for wash and rinse temperatures. NEEA also expressed concern 
that the California RASS data may be outdated and the fact that it is 
based on survey data rather than field data. However, NEEA stated that 
the most recent California usage data would likely support the current 
TUFs. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 12; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 
at p. 131).
    NEEA also supports the proposed methodology for measuring water and 
energy consumption for warm rinse over a complete cycle, with one 
exception. NEEA does not agree that most clothes washers currently 
available allow users to select a warm rinse only with a warm wash 
cycle. NEEA stated it may be appropriate to specify that a separate TUF 
be established for a hot wash/warm rinse cycle, a hot wash/warm rinse/
steam cycle, or a warm wash/warm rinse/steam cycle. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 
12).
    BSH commented that consumer use is well-represented by measuring 
cold, warm, and possibly hot wash cycles specified for cotton or 
``normal'' fabrics, for the following reasons:
    1. Many customers run one low-energy cycle, such as a ``delicates'' 
or ``hand-wash'' program, per week.
    2. Many customers also run one or more ``permanent press'' or 
similar program per week, which is typically equal to or lower in 
energy than the cotton program.
    3. Other special programs that use more or less energy or water 
than the cotton program are run very infrequently.
    4. Basing MEF on only the cotton or normal programs is already 
over-reporting energy use versus actual consumer behavior.
    (BSH, No. 17 at p. 5).
    Whirlpool commented that DOE must use data that are representative 
of currently manufactured clothes washers rather than data that are 15 
or more years old. Whirlpool stated that it had provided data to DOE 
that suggested a TUF of 0.016 (1.6 percent) for warm rinse, and that 
this percentage is representative of its clothes washers. Whirlpool 
also noted that it is the largest manufacturer of clothes washers in 
the United States, with a 64 percent market share, and it only offers a 
warm rinse option on approximately 9 percent of its clothes washers. 
According to Whirlpool, for the 27 percent TUF for warm rinse to be 
valid, its competitors would have to offer warm rinse on over 60 
percent of their machines and all consumers would have to select warm 
rinse if it were offered. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at pp. 8-11).
    AHAM, ALS, and Whirlpool stated that the proposed warm wash/warm 
rinse TUF of 0.27 is too high, and that a warm rinse option has become 
increasingly rare in clothes washers currently available on the market. 
ALS, AHAM, and Whirlpool further commented that data from Natural

[[Page 13913]]

Resources Canada (NRCan) show that both wash and rinse temperatures are 
decreasing over time. According to AHAM and Whirlpool, for all clothes 
washers in 2007, the NRCan data shows warm rinse to be the most 
frequent selection only 16 percent of the time, which is a decrease 
from 23 percent in 1993. AHAM, ALS, and Whirlpool commented that NRCan 
data is relevant to U.S. consumer usage patterns because Canadian 
clothes washer designs are the same as those in the United States and 
consumer practices are similar. (AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 12-13; ALS, No. 10 
at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 13 at pp. 8-11; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 133-134).
    BSH commented that it supports the use of the NRCan data for 
determining the TUFs, and that the conclusions AHAM has drawn from the 
data agree well with BSH's customer feedback. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 4) LG 
stated that DOE could infer warm rinse usage from the percentage of 
detergent purchases that are cold water formulations. According to LG, 
if, for example, 85 percent of the detergent purchased in the United 
States were cold-water detergent, DOE could assume that the warm rinse 
TUF is very low. (LG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 133) 
China requested that DOE clarify the TUF for steam, extra-hot, hot, 
warm, and cold wash cycles as well as warm wash/warm rinse and other 
wash modes. (China, No. 19 at p. 4).
    DOE re-examined the 2005 RECS data to determine whether the usage 
patterns show a reduction in warm rinse usage for newer machines, of 
which, according to Whirlpool, a smaller percentage are including a 
warm rinse option. As shown in Table III.4, there is no correlation in 
the 2005 RECS data between the age of the clothes washer and the 
percentage of users reporting that they usually select warm rinse. The 
percentage of users reporting that they usually select warm rinse 
ranged from 19.1 to 21.5 percent. These data suggest that the 
introduction of newer models to the installed base did not affect 
consumer usage of warm rinse, at least during the time frame covered by 
the survey (i.e., until 2005).

   Table III.4--2005 RECS Data on the Use of Warm Rinse by Age of the
                             Clothes Washer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage of
                                                            users that
                  Age of clothes washer                     usually use
                                                            warm rinse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 2 years old...................................            21.5
2 to 4 years old........................................            19.1
5 to 9 years old........................................            19.2
10 to 19 years old......................................            19.9
20 years or older.......................................            21.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE further notes that the TUF for warm rinse is applicable only to 
those clothes washers that provide a warm rinse option (i.e., the warm 
rinse TUF represents the percentage of laundry loads for which a 
consumer selects the warm wash/warm rinse temperature combination on 
machines that offer a warm rinse option). Therefore, DOE disagrees with 
Whirlpool's statement that for the 27-percent TUF for warm rinse to be 
valid, its competitors would have to offer warm rinse on over 60 
percent of their machines and all consumers would have to select warm 
rinse if it were offered. The intention of the TUFs is to represent 
typical consumer usage patterns of individual clothes washer models 
with a specific set of temperature options, not the average consumer 
usage patterns across all types of clothes washer models.
    DOE also reiterates that the survey data indicating warm rinse 
usage of 1.6 percent are based on a single clothes washer model from a 
single manufacturer, and that this clothes washer model does not offer 
the warm rinse option on the cycle recommended for cotton or linen 
clothes. Commenters provided no additional data to demonstrate that 
this conclusion would be valid for all clothes washer models offering a 
warm rinse, including clothes washers that offer a warm rinse option on 
the cycle recommended for cotton or linen clothes.
    DOE does not have any information to determine what percentage of 
respondents in either the NRCan or 2005 RECS surveys who stated that 
they usually used cold rinse cycles were using machines equipped with a 
warm rinse option. DOE believes it is reasonable to assume that at 
least some consumers with cold rinse-only clothes washers were included 
in the survey samples, and thus, if those respondents were discounted, 
the percentage of users selecting warm rinse would be even higher than 
the estimates shown above. Given the disparity between the results for 
warm rinse usage from the NRCan and 2005 RECS surveys and the data 
submitted by Whirlpool, DOE concludes that there is a lack of evidence 
on which to base a decrease in the existing TUF value, as suggested by 
Whirlpool.
    As discussed in section III.C.2.a, DOE is not amending the test 
procedure to measure energy and water use in steam wash cycles. Thus, 
in the absence of sufficient data on recent consumer usage patterns to 
warrant changing the TUFs, and because DOE is not adopting provisions 
to measure steam wash cycles, DOE is retaining the TUFs that are 
provided in the existing test procedure at appendix J1, with the 
modification that the warm/warm TUF will be treated as a complete wash/
rinse cycle, and the warm/cold TUF adjusted accordingly when a warm/
warm cycle is available on the clothes washer.
    DOE considered the possibility of requiring measurement of a hot 
wash/warm rinse cycle as part of the energy test cycle, and assigning a 
TUF accordingly. DOE's analysis of 2005 RECS data indicates that the 
percentage of all respondents who usually select a hot wash/warm rinse 
cycle is 1.8 percent. DOE does not believe that this small percentage 
would warrant the additional test burden associated with measuring a 
hot wash/warm rinse cycle and including such energy and water 
consumption in the test procedure calculations. Accordingly, DOE is not 
adopting a TUF for hot wash/warm rinse in today's final rule.
Dryer Usage Factor
    DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to amend its clothes washer 
test procedure to include a dryer usage factor (DUF) of 0.91, based on 
the 2005 RECS. DOE proposed to use the value derived from the 2005 
RECS, rather than the 2004 California RASS, because the 2004 California 
RASS is inconsistent with the proposed number of wash cycles per year 
and because the 2005 RECS data represent the entire country rather than 
one state.
    NEEA agreed with DOE's methodology for deriving the proposed DUF. 
(NEEA, No. 12 at p. 12) AHAM stated that it does not oppose the 
proposed DUF, but commented that DOE should be relying on more 
representative data than that in the 2005 RECS. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 13) 
ALS opposed the proposed DUF, questioning the validity of the 2005 RECS 
data. ALS supports retaining the existing value of 0.84, in the absence 
of other data. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 4) ALS did not provide any further 
information on why it believes the 2005 RECS data may be invalid. DOE 
has determined that 2005 RECS data is the best available data that 
reasonably captures the dryer usage practices of consumers using 
residential

[[Page 13914]]

clothes dryers, and is thus adopting a revised DUF of 0.91 in the 
amended test procedure in this final rule.
Load Adjustment Factor
    The load adjustment factor (LAF) represents the ratio of maximum 
load size to average load size. This ratio is used in the calculation 
of the energy required to remove moisture from the test load. The RMC 
value used in this calculation is based only on tests using the maximum 
test load, and the LAF is used to scale this value down to represent 
the average load size. In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE noted that it 
lacked information warranting adjustment of this value or a change from 
a fixed value to one that varies as a function of average load size, 
and therefore did not propose to amend the LAF in the test procedure.
    In response to the September 2010 NOPR, DOE received numerous 
comments regarding the LAF, which were summarized in the August 2011 
SNOPR. Upon consideration of these comments, DOE determined that the 
LAF is duplicative of, yet inconsistent with, the load usage factors. 
Therefore, for consistency with other relevant provisions of the test 
procedure, DOE proposed in the August 2011 SNOPR that the 
representative load size calculation in the equation for drying energy 
incorporate the load usage factors rather than a separate LAF. DOE 
proposed that the current representative load size calculation be 
replaced by the weighted-average load size calculated by multiplying 
the minimum, average, and maximum load usage factors by the minimum, 
average, and maximum load sizes, respectively, and summing the 
products.
    DOE received the following comments in response to the proposed 
elimination of the LAF in the August 2011 SNOPR:
    AHAM and ALS support the approach of using a weighted-average load 
size in the calculation of dryer energy use, but note that the new 
approach will increase the measured energy. AHAM and ALS added that DOE 
must revise the relevant energy conservation standard to reflect the 
new test procedure, ensuring that there is no change in the stringency 
of the standards based on average energy consumption calculations 
before and after the changes to the test procedure. ALS suggested 
revising only appendix J2 with this change, noting that there is still 
time to consider this impact in the updated minimum efficiency 
standards. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 4; ALS, No. 22 at pp. 2-3).
    Whirlpool stated that it would oppose the proposal to use a 
weighted-average load size for the purposes of calculating drying 
energy if it would require testing for RMC on the average and minimum 
load sizes in addition to the maximum load size. Whirlpool stated that 
such a requirement, if adopted, would triple the RMC testing required, 
adding at least one full day to the test time for each base model. 
Whirlpool added that DOE's proposal would not increase the test burden 
if it requires only testing RMC at the maximum load size. Whirlpool 
also recommended that this amendment be made only to appendix J2. 
(Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 3).
    The Joint Commenters, California Utilities, and NEEA support DOE's 
proposal to replace the representative load size based on the load 
adjustment factor with a weighted-average load size to calculate dryer 
energy use. The Joint Commenters and the California Utilities noted, 
however, that this proposed change would result in a greater increase 
in the representative load size used to calculate dryer energy 
consumption for small capacity washers than for large-capacity washers, 
which would therefore make any potential bias towards large-capacity 
washers more significant. The Joint Commenters added that they are not 
aware of any data indicating that consumers utilize a smaller 
percentage of the washer capacity when using large-capacity machines 
compared to smaller machines, nor of any data indicating it is more 
difficult for larger-capacity machines to achieve high efficiency 
ratings. In the absence of such data, the Joint Commenters recommended 
that the weighted-average load size as a percentage of total capacity 
be kept constant across all washer capacities. (Joint Commenters, No. 
23 at p. 4; California Utilities, No. 25 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 
5).
    For the reasons stated in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE replaces the 
representative load size calculation with the weighted average load 
size calculated using the load usage factors. This change applies only 
to the newly created appendix J2. This approach will not require 
measuring the RMC for any additional load sizes, and therefore will not 
increase manufacturer test burden.
4. Energy Test Cycle Definition
    The ``energy test cycle'' consists of the wash cycles currently 
used in determining the modified energy factor (MEF) and water factor 
(WF) for a clothes washer, and proposed to be used for determining 
integrated modified energy factor (IMEF) and integrated water 
consumption factor (IWF). The energy test cycle is defined in section 
1.7 of the current clothes washer test procedure as follows:

    ``1.7 Energy test cycle for a basic model means (A) the cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, 
and includes all wash/rinse temperature selections and water levels 
offered in that cycle, and (B) for each other wash/rinse temperature 
selection or water level available on that basic model, the 
portion(s) of other cycle(s) with that temperature selection or 
water level that, when tested pursuant to these test procedures, 
will contribute to an accurate representation of the energy 
consumption of the basic model as used by consumers. Any cycle under 
(A) or (B) shall include the agitation/tumble operation, spin 
speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to that cycle, 
including water heating time for water heating clothes washers.''

    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend Part (B) of the 
energy test cycle definition to clarify the wash parameters that should 
be considered to determine which cycle settings should be included 
under Part (B) of the definition.
    In additional testing after the publication of the September 2010 
NOPR, DOE observed that some clothes washers retain in memory the most 
recent options selected for a cycle setting the next time that cycle is 
run. To ensure repeatability of test results, particularly for cycles 
under Part (B) of the energy test cycle definition, DOE proposed in the 
August 2011 SNOPR to provide further clarification that the 
manufacturer default conditions for each cycle setting shall be used, 
except for the temperature selection, if necessary.
    DOE received multiple comments from interested parties regarding 
its proposed changes to the energy test cycle definition. The comments 
generally indicated that the proposed revisions to the definition still 
lacked clarity. In response to the August 2011 SNOPR, Whirlpool, GE, 
and ALS jointly proposed a modified definition of the energy test cycle 
which eliminated what these commenters perceived as a primary source of 
ambiguity in DOE's previously proposed definition. (GE, Whirlpool, & 
ALS, No. 28 at pp. 1-2) Because of the scope of the manufacturers' 
proposed changes, and because the energy test cycle definition is a 
critical component of the test procedure, DOE incorporated the 
manufacturers' suggestions into a new definition, proposed in the 
November 2011 SNOPR. The most notable proposed change involved Part (B) 
of the energy test cycle definition, which DOE proposed as follows:

    ``(B) If the cycle setting described in (A) does not include all 
wash/rinse temperature

[[Page 13915]]

combinations available on the clothes washer, the energy test cycle 
shall also include the alternate cycle setting(s) offering these 
wash/rinse temperature combination(s), tested at the wash/rinse 
temperature combinations not available on the cycle setting 
described in (A).
    Where multiple alternate cycle settings offer a wash/rinse 
temperature combination that is not available on the cycle setting 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, 
the cycle setting certified by the manufacturer to have the highest 
energy consumption, as measured according to section 2.13, shall be 
included in the energy test cycle.''

    DOE stated that this proposed new definition would provide further 
clarity and produce more accurate, repeatable, and reproducible results 
within and among all test laboratories.
    DOE also proposed a new section 2.13, which would provide 
instructions for determining the cycle setting with the highest energy 
consumption in the case where multiple alternate cycle settings offer a 
wash/rinse temperature combination not available on the cycle setting 
recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes.
    In the November 2011 SNOPR, DOE responded to prior comments 
received in response to the September 2010 NOPR and August 2011 SNOPR. 
DOE received the following comments in response to the November 2011 
SNOPR:
    NEEA commented that it supports DOE's decision to keep Part (B) of 
the energy test cycle definition, and stated that all cycle selections 
for which a TUF has been developed should be included in the energy 
test cycle. NEEA recommended that DOE ensure that manufacturer default 
settings are chosen for selections other than water temperature, 
particularly for parameters that would affect RMC, since a large 
fraction of total energy use is derived from RMC. NEEA believes this is 
especially important since DOE proposed to use only machine and hot 
water energy use as the criteria for determining which of the alternate 
cycle settings has the highest energy use. NEEA added that it believes 
DOE adequately evaluated the potential test burden impact on 
manufacturers, and it does not believe that the proposed test procedure 
modifications will create additional test burden on any manufacturers. 
(NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2).
    AHAM commented that the newly proposed energy test cycle definition 
would not provide any further clarity to manufacturers. AHAM and GE 
suggested that further clarification of the language in several areas 
would be necessary to ensure the test procedure is repeatable and 
representative of consumer behavior. In particular, AHAM suggested that 
the definition should explicitly state that all temperature selections 
corresponding to the TUFs, which are available on a product, be tested 
only once, and that they should be tested only during the ``Normal'' 
cycle if possible. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2; GE, No. 35 at p. 1).
    Whirlpool reiterated its comment from the August 2011 SNOPR that 
the language of Part (A) of the current energy test cycle definition in 
appendix J1 is adequate and that Part (B) does not add value. Whirlpool 
also stated, however, that it agrees with DOE that the language in Part 
(B) of the current energy test cycle definition in appendix J1 is 
unclear and subject to varying interpretations. Whirlpool commented 
that as written, DOE's proposal would not reflect real-world consumer 
use and would increase manufacturer test burden by 3-4 times. Whirlpool 
stated that it believes DOE did not intend in its proposed language to 
require testing the maximum energy-consuming cycles for all possible 
temperature combinations on a product; rather, the scope for inclusion 
of test cycles beyond the ``Normal'' cycle should logically be limited 
to temperature selections for which a TUF has been developed. Whirlpool 
added that limiting cycle selection to already-existing TUFs would 
eliminate the need for exhaustive testing, which would reduce test 
burden and be more representative of consumer usage. (Whirlpool, No. 33 
at pp. 1-2).
    After reviewing comments from interested parties, DOE notes that it 
intended its proposed definition to require the testing of all 
temperature selections available on a product for which a TUF has been 
developed. See 76 FR 69870, 69875. DOE also agrees with commenters who 
suggested that each TUF should be tested only once and that each TUF 
should be tested using the ``Normal'' cycle if possible. DOE did not 
intend for the revised definition to require the testing of all 
temperature combinations within all the cycle selections available on a 
machine. DOE concurs that this would have resulted in a significant 
increase in test burden.
    DOE has amended the language of the energy test cycle in today's 
final rule accordingly. These amendments are largely consistent with 
the suggested amendments from manufacturers, as described in more 
detail in the following sections.
    Regarding the use of manufacturer default settings, DOE concurs 
with NEEA that the manufacturer default settings for selections other 
than water temperature should be used, including during testing under 
the new section 2.13 to determine which of the alternate cycle settings 
has the highest energy use. Today's final rule specifies in both the 
energy test cycle definition and in section 2.13 that the manufacturer 
default settings should be used for all wash parameters other than 
temperature selection.
    The following sections describe comments received in regard to each 
of the individual parts of DOE's proposed definition of the energy test 
cycle, as well as comments regarding the new section 2.13 and the 
proposed revision to manufacturer reporting requirements. DOE's 
responses to comments are provided in each section.
Part (A) of the Proposed Definition
    AHAM proposed modifying Part (A) to clarify that it applies only to 
temperature selections for which TUFs have been developed, as follows:

    ``(A) The cycle setting recommended by the manufacturer for 
washing cotton or linen clothes, including all wash/rinse 
temperature selections for each of the temperature use factors 
(TUFs) offered in that cycle setting, and''

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 6)

    DOE believes that AHAM's proposed modification would add clarity to 
the energy test cycle definition while maintaining consistency with the 
intent of DOE's proposed definition. The proposed modification would 
also maintain consistency with the original intent of Part (A) as 
defined in the current test procedure at appendix J1. Therefore, this 
final rule adopts AHAM's proposed clarification for Part (A) of the 
energy test cycle definition in appendix J2.
Part (B) of the Proposed Definition
    AHAM and GE requested clarification of the term ``temperature 
combination'' in the second paragraph of Part (B) in relation to the 
term ``temperature selection'' in Part (A). AHAM proposed maintaining 
consistency in the language in order to avoid ambiguity from using two 
words with the same meaning. AHAM requested that the term ``temperature 
selection'' be used instead, believing that it is clearer and more 
representative. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2; GE, No. 35 at p. 2).
    AHAM, ALS, and GE requested clarification of the phrase ``shall 
also include'' in Part (B) of the energy test cycle definition. ALS 
commented that it is unclear as to whether the phrase ``shall be 
included'' means to directly add the energy of Part (B) to Part (A), or 
to average the energy from Parts (A) & (B), or to apply an unknown 
usage factor to Part (B). (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2; ALS,

[[Page 13916]]

No. 32 at p. 1; GE, No. 35 at p. 2) Whirlpool commented that averaging 
all cycles used by consumers would be unduly burdensome and would not 
provide any appreciable difference in results than would be derived 
from Part (A) of the current energy test cycle definition in appendix 
J1. (Whirlpool, No. 33 at p. 1).
    AHAM proposed modifying Part (B) by specifying that Part (B) 
applies only to temperature selections for which TUFs have been 
developed, and that each TUF available on the product should be tested 
only once. GE commented that it agrees with AHAM's proposed 
modifications. Whirlpool also suggested specifying that Part (B) 
applies only to temperature selections for which TUFs have been 
developed. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 6; GE, No. 35 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 33 
at p. 2).
    AHAM proposed the following language for Part (B), which also 
incorporates the suggested edits of Whirlpool:

    ``(B) If the cycle setting described in Part (A) does not 
include all wash/rinse temperature selections for each of the TUFs 
available on the clothes washer, the energy test cycle shall also 
include the alternate cycle setting(s) offering these remaining 
wash/rinse temperature selection(s), tested at the wash/rinse 
temperature selections for each TUF or TUFs not available on the 
cycle setting described in Part (A).
    Where multiple alternate cycle settings offer a wash/rinse 
temperature selection for which a TUF has been developed and that is 
not available on the cycle setting recommended by the manufacturer 
for washing cotton or linen clothes described in Part (A), the 
alternate cycle setting certified by the manufacturer to have the 
highest energy consumption for that TUF, as measured according to 
section 2.13, shall be included in the energy test cycle so that 
each TUF that is available on the product has been tested once.''

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 6)

    DOE notes that Part (B) of its proposed definition uses the term 
``temperature combination'' instead of the term ``temperature 
selection,'' which is used in Part (A). In addition, the term 
``temperature selection'' implies a setting on the machine that a user 
would select, whereas ``temperature combination'' could be interpreted 
to mean the actual temperature experienced inside the wash drum for a 
given temperature selection. This could create confusion if a 
temperature selection on the machine provides different actual 
temperatures depending on which cycle selection is chosen. For example, 
a hot/cold temperature selection could provide a wash temperature of 
120 [deg]F on the Cottons setting with a 60 [deg]F rinse temperature, 
yet provide a higher wash temperature of 135 [deg]F on the Heavy Duty 
setting with a 60 [deg]F rinse temperature. In this case, ``temperate 
selection'' would refer to the single labeled hot/cold selection on the 
machine, whereas ``temperature combination'' could be interpreted to 
mean both the 120/60 [deg]F wash/rinse temperature combination and the 
135/60 [deg]F temperature combination. The intent of DOE's proposed 
definition of the energy test cycle is to require the testing of each 
wash/rinse temperature selection as labeled on the machine's control 
panel, rather than requiring the testing of every single temperature 
combination that occurs among all the different cycle selections on the 
machine. Therefore, today's final rule uses the term ``temperature 
selection'' consistently throughout the energy test cycle definition.
    Similarly, DOE is concerned that the term ``cycle setting'' could 
also introduce ambiguity into the definition. DOE had proposed to use 
the term ``cycle setting'' rather than the term ``cycle,'' which is 
used in the current appendix J1 definition, to differentiate between 
the labeled cycles on a machine (i.e., Normal, Whites, Colors, Heavy 
Duty, etc.) and a single active mode laundry cycle, which is commonly 
referred to as a ``cycle.'' DOE has observed that user manuals from 
manufacturers representing a significant portion of the market refer to 
the labeled cycles as ``cycles'' (i.e., the ``Normal cycle'', ``Whites 
cycle'', ``Colors cycle,'' etc.). Because of this, a ``cycle setting'' 
could be interpreted to mean a specific temperature, soil level, spin 
speed, or other setting within the labeled cycle. Therefore, to prevent 
this possible ambiguity, today's final rule instead uses the term 
``cycle selection'' to mean the labeled cycle on the machine.
    As discussed previously, DOE intended its proposed definition to 
require the testing of all temperature selections available on a 
product for which a TUF has been developed. DOE also agrees with 
commenters that each TUF should be tested only once and that each TUF 
should be tested using the ``Normal'' cycle if available. Therefore, 
DOE supports AHAM and the manufacturers' suggested modifications to 
Part (B), which specify that Part (B) applies only to temperature 
selections for which TUFs have been developed, and that each TUF 
available on the product should be tested only once. Therefore, today's 
final rule adopts AHAM's proposed clarifications for Part (B) of the 
energy test cycle definition in appendix J2.
    Based on comments from AHAM and manufacturers regarding confusion 
about how the energy results from Part (B) are to be included in the 
energy test cycle, today's final rule replaces the phrase ``shall also 
include * * *'' with the phrase ``shall include, in addition to Part 
(A) * * *.'' DOE believes that this change, coupled with the 
clarification that Part (B) applies only to the TUFs not available in 
the cycle selection used for Part (A), will remove ambiguity about how 
to include the test results for Part (B). Consistent with the current 
appendix J1 test procedure, the energy and water consumption measured 
under Part (B) of the energy test cycle should be weighted by the 
appropriate TUF and added to the weighted energy and water consumption 
measured under Part (A).
Part (C) of the Proposed Definition
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding 
Part (C) of the proposed definition of the energy test cycle. Today's 
final rule modifies DOE's proposed language for Part (C) by revising 
the reference to ``Part (A) and Part (B)'' so that Part (C) reads as 
follows:

    ``All cycle selections included under Part (A) and all cycle 
selections included under Part (B) shall be tested using each 
appropriate load size as defined in section 2.8 and Table 5.1 of 
this appendix.''

    Because Part (A) refers to the specific cycle selection recommended 
by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes, and Part (B) 
refers to other alternate cycle selection(s), none of the cycle 
selections included in the energy test cycle would be tested under both 
Part (A) and Part (B). The revised Part (C) is applicable to the cycle 
selected under Part (A) and all cycles included separately under Part 
(B).
Part (D) and Part (E) of the Proposed Definition
    Whirlpool agrees with DOE's proposal to specify that each cycle 
included as part of the energy test cycle comprises the entire active 
washing mode, and excludes any delay start or cycle finished modes. 
(Whirlpool, No. 33 at p. 2)
    NEEA disagrees with DOE's proposal to exclude delay start and cycle 
finished modes as part of the active mode in the energy test cycle 
definition. NEEA believes that these modes should be tested and 
assigned appropriate usage factors. NEEA stated that certain clothes 
washers offer delayed start and cycle finished mode options not 
available in the normal cycle. NEEA acknowledged, however, the lack of 
available data on delayed start and cycle finished mode, and stated its 
intention to gather data on these modes for inclusion in the energy 
test cycle definition during the next

[[Page 13917]]

opportunity to improve the test procedure. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2).
    For the reasons described previously in sections III.B.2.b and 
III.B.2.c, today's final rule does not require testing of delayed start 
or cycle finished modes. Therefore, today's final rule is consistent 
with DOE's proposal to specify that each wash cycle included as part of 
the energy test cycle comprises the entire active washing mode, and 
excludes any delay start or cycle finished modes. In today's final 
rule, this clarification is provided in a new Part (E) of the energy 
test cycle definition.
    In addition, as described previously in section III.B.2.d, today's 
final rule also does not require the testing of self-clean mode. 
Therefore, today's final clarifies that the energy test cycle shall not 
include any cycle, if available, that is dedicated for cleaning, 
deodorizing, or sanitizing the clothes washer, and is separate from 
clothes washing cycles. This should prevent confusion as to whether the 
self-clean cycle should be considered eligible for testing under Part 
(B) if, for example, the self-clean cycle used one of the temperature 
selections not available in the cycle tested in Part (A) (e.g. extra-
hot). In today's final rule, this clarification is provided in a new 
Part (F) of the energy test cycle definition.
New Section 2.13
    AHAM proposed modifying the language in the newly proposed section 
2.13 by: (1) Using the term ``temperature selection'' instead of 
``temperature combination''; (2) specifying that testing under section 
2.13 applies only to temperature selections for which TUFs have been 
developed and TUFs not represented in the cycle setting represented in 
Part (A) of the energy test cycle definition; and (3) specifying that 
each TUF available on the product should be tested only once. Whirlpool 
also suggested clarifying that section 2.13 applies only to temperature 
selections for which TUFs have been developed. GE commented that it 
agrees with AHAM's proposed modifications for section 2.13. (AHAM, No. 
34 at pp. 6-7; Whirlpool, No. 33 at p. 2; GE, No. 35 at p. 2)
    For the reasons described in the previous sections regarding the 
energy test cycle definition, DOE concurs with AHAM and manufacturers' 
suggestions regarding the term ``temperature selection'' and the need 
to specify that testing under section 2.13 applies only to temperature 
selections for which TUFs have been developed and which are not 
represented in the cycle tested under Part (A).
    DOE has determined that it is unnecessary and potentially confusing 
to modify the language in section 2.13 to specify that each TUF 
available on the product should be tested only once. The provisions set 
forth in Part (B) of the revised definition of energy cycle clarify 
that each TUF shall be tested once. DOE notes, however, that each TUF 
being considered under the exploratory testing provisions of section 
2.13 might need to be tested on different cycle selections to determine 
which cycle selection uses the most energy. For these reasons, DOE does 
not adopt the proposed clarification in section 2.13 that each TUF 
available on the product should be tested only once.
    Today's final rule also modifies the structure of section 2.13 by 
separating the individual provisions into subsections 2.13.1 through 
2.13.5, which should improve the clarity of this section.
Reporting Requirements
    AHAM and GE requested clarification on what specific data will be 
made public with regards to the alternate cycle settings tested in Part 
(B). (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 7; GE, No. 35 at p. 2) Similarly, ALS 
requested clarification regarding the requirement for manufacturers to 
provide a list of all cycle settings comprising the complete energy 
test cycle for each basic model. ALS requested that DOE make this 
information publicly available to all interested parties. (ALS, No. 32 
at p. 1).
    DOE does not intend to make the list of all cycle settings 
comprising the energy test cycle for each clothes washer publicly 
available as part of a manufacturer's certification report. DOE will 
respond to requests for this information pursuant to its Freedom of 
Information Act regulations at 10 CFR part 1004. DOE acknowledges that 
making this list publicly available could reveal a manufacturer's 
proprietary strategies for achieving a competitive advantage over its 
rivals. In addition, the information could be used to reverse-engineer 
the products or test results of competitors. Irrespective of requests 
from the public for this information, DOE notes that it may make this 
information available to third party laboratories that would be 
involved in future DOE-initiated compliance verification and 
enforcement testing.
    Today's final rule modifies the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 
429.20 by specifying that a certification report shall include publicly 
available information including MEF, WF, and capacity. The report would 
also include the list of cycle settings comprising the complete energy 
test cycle for each basic model, which DOE does not intend to make 
publicly available as part of the report. The requirement to provide 
the list of cycle settings comprising the complete energy test cycle 
will apply only to test results obtained using appendix J2.
5. Capacity Measurement Method
    The test procedure in appendix J1 requires measuring clothes 
container capacity as ``the entire volume which a dry clothes load 
could occupy within the clothes container during washer operation.'' 
The procedure involves filling the clothes container with water, and 
determining the volume based on the weight of the added water divided 
by its density. Specifically, the test procedure requires that the 
clothes container be filled manually with either 60 [deg]F  
5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C) or 100 [deg]F  10 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C  5.5 [deg]C) water to its 
``uppermost edge.''
    DOE recognized that this specification of the water fill level 
could lead to multiple interpretations and, in some cases, capacity 
measurements that may not reflect the actual volume in which cleaning 
performance of the clothes could be maintained. After considering 
comments from interested parties on a proposed interpretation of the 
existing methodology in appendix J1, DOE issued guidance on identifying 
the maximum fill level using the appendix J1 test procedure. This 
guidance, issued on July 26, 2010, is available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cw_guidance_faq.pdf, hereafter referred to as the ``capacity 
guidance.'' Figure III.1 and Figure III.2 show the schematics presented 
in the capacity guidance, which indicate possible interpretations of 
the maximum fill level in appendix J1.

[[Page 13918]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR12.017

    Figure  III.1 indicates four possible fill levels for vertical axis 
(top-loading) clothes washers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOE is aware of at least one top-loading, horizontal-axis 
clothes washer on the market. Based on its geometry, the capacity 
guidance for this type of clothes washer would be the same as the 
guidance for front-loading, horizontal-axis clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Fill Level 1'' represents the level immediately below 
the bottom edge of the balance ring, which typically corresponds to the 
recommended maximum fill level according to manufacturer instructions.
     ``Fill Level 2'' represents the uppermost edge of the 
rotating portion of the wash basket, which corresponds to the fill 
level proposed in the September 2010 NOPR.
     ``Fill Level 3'' represents the highest point of the 
inner-most diameter of the tub cover.
     ``Fill Level 4'' represents the highest edge on the tub 
cover.
    For the purpose of issuing guidance, DOE determined that the 
maximum fill level referred to in the appendix J1 test procedure (i.e., 
the ``uppermost edge'') is the highest horizontal plane that a dry 
clothes load could occupy with the clothes container oriented 
vertically. For top-loading clothes washers, this is identified as Fill 
Level 3 in Figure III.1.
    In Figure III.2, the volumes contained within the dotted lines 
indicate the fill volumes for horizontal-axis (both front-loading and 
top-loading) clothes washers with convex doors, concave doors, or top-
loading doors.
    DOE considered whether to amend the fill level specification in 
this rulemaking to provide additional clarity and ensure that the 
capacity is representative of the volume available to achieve real-
world cleaning performance. Prior to publication of the September 2010 
NOPR, DOE conducted capacity tests on a sample of residential clothes 
washers to observe how different interpretations of the maximum fill 
level could lead to different measured capacities for the same machine. 
For top-loading clothes washers, DOE's test sample showed that the 
majority of rated capacity values varied from the Fill Level 3 value, 
some by as much as 0.5 ft\3\. For front-loading clothes washers, the 
majority of rated capacity values closely corresponded to DOE's 
measured values according to the fill volume shown in the capacity 
guidance.
    DOE also tentatively concluded for top-loading clothes washers that 
Fill Level 3, which was specified in the capacity guidance, may not 
reflect the actual usable capacity for washing a load of clothes while 
maintaining cleaning performance. This is because Fill Level 3 may 
include space above the upper surface of the rotating wash tub or 
balance ring. In most cases, if

[[Page 13919]]

clothes were located in that region during a wash cycle, that portion 
of the load would likely not interact with water and detergent 
properly, particularly since wash water cannot be contained between 
Fill Level 2 and Fill Level 3 during operation. Entanglement of the 
clothing could also occur.
    Therefore, in the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed the following 
fill levels to provide for a more representative capacity measurement:
     For top-loading clothes washers, DOE proposed that the 
clothes container be filled to the uppermost edge of the rotating 
portion, including any balance ring. This corresponds to Fill Level 2 
in Figure III.1.
     For front-loading clothes washers, DOE proposed that the 
clothes container be filled to the uppermost edge that is in contact 
with the door seal.
    For both top-loading and front-loading clothes washers, any volume 
within the clothes container that a clothing load could not occupy 
during active washing mode operation would be excluded from the 
measurement.
    BSH, the California Utilities, the Joint Commenters, and NEEA 
support the proposal for measuring the volume of the clothes container. 
BSH stated that if clothing should not occupy an area, that volume 
should be excluded from the clothes container capacity measurement. 
According to BSH, if an area not occupied by clothing were to be 
measured, top-loading washers would have an unfair advantage over 
front-loading washers, which have no such area. According to BSH, due 
to the space needed for agitation, the volume of the clothes container 
can be larger in top-loading washers, yet offer the consumer a smaller 
available space to load clothing. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 4) The California 
Utilities and NEEA agree that the capacity measurement should include 
the entire volume that a dry clothes load could occupy within the 
clothes container during washer operation. NEEA stated that this method 
is an improvement over the previous guidance and will result in 
consistent, accurate measurements for all clothes washer models. 
(California Utilities, No. 18 at pp. 4-5; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 13; NEEA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 177) The Joint Commenters 
stated that the proposed methodology would ensure that only the space 
that is capable of being filled with clothes while maintaining proper 
wash performance is included in the capacity measurement. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 16 at p. 8).
    AHAM, ALS, and Whirlpool oppose the proposed clothes container 
capacity measurement. AHAM stated that the proposed methodology is 
ambiguous and does not provide for a representative, repeatable, or 
reproducible measurement of clothes container volume. AHAM stated that 
DOE appears to be applying a new interpretation to an existing 
definition, as there is no change in the definition of the clothes 
container from the existing appendix J1 to the proposed appendix J2. 
According to AHAM, there is significant harm in DOE continuing to 
change its position on the capacity measurement procedure, as it 
results in a lack of clarity and certainty to the industry, which in 
turn creates confusion for consumers since machines need to be re-
tested and potentially re-rated (and thus, re-labeled) each time the 
capacity measurement changes. AHAM further commented that the cost 
associated with re-testing, re-rating, and re-labeling is significant. 
(AHAM, No. 14 at p. 14) AHAM proposes that DOE codify the final 
capacity guidance on clothes container capacity measurement without 
change. AHAM and Whirlpool noted that a significant amount of work on 
the part of DOE and stakeholders went into the capacity guidance, and 
the result was a clear, repeatable, reproducible method for measuring 
drum volume. AHAM and Whirlpool also stated that the capacity guidance 
addresses the objective that the clothing remain within the clothes 
container for an entire operating cycle, noting that filling the 
clothes container slightly above the balance ring with dry clothing 
will cause the clothing to remain in the clothes container during the 
entire operating cycle, because clothes sink as they are wetted. (AHAM, 
No. 14 at pp. 14-15; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 
165-167; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 12; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 167-168, 173-174) Whirlpool stated that its 
field use studies have shown that customers load the clothes container 
above the fill level specified in the capacity guidance, and that the 
maximum load size specified in the DOE test procedure, when loosely 
loaded, exceeds that fill level. Whirlpool further noted that the 
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) safety test limit for clothes washers is 
an even higher fill level. Whirlpool commented that measurements at the 
fill level specified in the capacity guidance can be as repeatable and 
reproducible as the proposed fill level. Whirlpool suggested that if 
DOE questions repeatability and reproducibility, it could require 
manufacturers to mold a mark at the point on the tub cover at which the 
clothes container capacity measurement is taken. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at 
p. 12) ALS opposes the proposed clothes container capacity measurement, 
stating that manufacturers have based their designs on DOE's capacity 
guidance for appendix J1. According to ALS, top-loading clothes washers 
would be rated as having a lower capacity under DOE's proposal because 
``the uppermost edge of the rotating portion'' is typically below the 
fill level defined in the capacity guidance. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 4).
    DOE believes that the procedure for measuring clothes washer 
capacity should reflect the actual usable capacity for washing clothes 
while maintaining cleaning performance. For front-loading clothes 
washers, interested parties generally support the proposed methodology 
for measuring clothes container capacity. For top-loading clothes 
washers, DOE acknowledges the effort that went into developing the 
capacity guidance for the current appendix J1 test procedure. DOE 
believes that, given the construct of the capacity measurement 
procedure in appendix J1, the capacity guidance provides improved 
clarity, repeatability, and reproducibility to the current test 
procedure. For this rulemaking, however, DOE re-evaluated all aspects 
of the clothes container capacity measurement and concluded that the 
capacity measurement specified in appendix J2 maximizes clarity, 
repeatability, reproducibility, and consumer relevance.
    First, while DOE did not change the definition of ``clothes 
container'', the upper boundary of the ``clothes container'' is not 
explicitly defined in the current clothes washer test procedure at 
appendix J1. Section 3.1 of appendix J1 requires the measurement of 
``the entire volume which a dry clothes load could occupy within the 
clothes container during washer operation.'' DOE did not propose to 
change the language in section 3.1 for appendix J2 in the September 
2010 NOPR. After considering comments on the related proposal to amend 
the fill level in section 3.1.4, however, DOE acknowledges that a 
volume of dry clothing may not correspond to the same volume of wet 
clothing in a clothes washer, because loosely packed clothing often 
compacts once it becomes wet. The maximum volume of a dry clothing load 
could vary considerably based on the density, stiffness, absorption, 
and other properties of the material composition. Therefore, DOE 
concludes that it is not meaningful to base the capacity measurement on 
the volume that dry clothes could occupy. Instead, the revised capacity 
measurement provisions in today's final

[[Page 13920]]

rule, particularly those for top-loading clothes washers, more 
appropriately represent the actual usable volume of the clothes 
container during the active mode portion of washer operation. Today's 
final rule provides revised language in section 3.1 of appendix J2 that 
removes the qualification that the clothes load be dry, and instead 
specifies that the clothes load could occupy the volume during ``active 
mode washer operation.''
    In determining the appropriate fill level for the capacity 
measurement, DOE notes that the current capacity guidance is 
accompanied by a set of diagrams illustrating Fill Level 3 for a 
variety of top-loading clothes washer tub cover designs. DOE has, 
however, observed significant variation in tub cover designs among 
products from different manufacturers, as well as within individual 
manufacturers' product lines, and DOE continues to receive requests for 
clarification on tub cover shapes not included in the diagrams. In 
addition, DOE has observed some tub covers with varying heights around 
the inner-most diameter, and in these cases, the ``highest point of the 
inner-most diameter'' may not be the most appropriate fill height. For 
these machines, determining the maximum fill level can require the 
subjective judgment of the test laboratory. DOE's testing indicates 
that Fill Level 2, as proposed in the September 2010 NOPR and defined 
as ``the uppermost edge of the rotating portion, including any balance 
ring,'' provides a much clearer reference point. DOE has observed 
significantly less variation in balance ring designs among 
manufacturers compared to tub cover designs. For these reasons, DOE has 
determined that Fill Level 2 offers greater clarity than Fill Level 3, 
which would also result in greater repeatability and reproducibility.
    DOE also believes that the proposed Fill Level 2 is more consumer-
relevant than Fill Level 3. DOE acknowledges that if a consumer loaded 
a top-loading machine with clothing as high as Fill Level 3 (or 
higher), the clothing would likely sink to a lower level within the 
clothes container as the load is wetted. DOE has observed, however, 
that virtually all of the clothes washer user manuals it reviewed 
direct the consumer to load clothing no higher than the highest drain 
holes in the wash basket, which typically corresponds to the point at 
which the wash basket meets the lower edge of the balance ring 
(corresponding to Fill Level 1 in Figure III.1). DOE believes that, by 
respecting manufacturer recommendations, Fill Level 1 would best ensure 
wash performance is maintained, and thus is the most consumer-relevant. 
DOE further believes that should clothing occupy the space between Fill 
Level 1 and Fill Level 2 during a wash cycle, the clothing could be 
cleaned sufficiently because water can still be contained within that 
volume. Clothing above Fill Level 2, however, is not likely to be 
cleaned sufficiently because it would be outside the wash basket during 
the wash cycle. Additionally, clothing that occupies space above Fill 
Level 2 risks being damaged if it becomes entangled on stationary 
fixtures such as the tub cover or other mechanical components of the 
washer during the wash cycle.
    Furthermore, certain design changes to the shape of the inner 
diameter of the tub cover (Fill Level 3) can be incorporated that would 
result in an increase of the measured capacity with no corresponding 
increase in real-world usable capacity, because wash water cannot be 
contained between Fill Level 2 and Fill Level 3. Increasing the height 
of the balance ring (Fill Level 2), however, would correspond to a real 
increase in usable capacity from the consumer's perspective, since the 
wash water could be contained up to the top of the balance ring.
    For these reasons, today's final rule adopts the clothes container 
capacity measurement provisions for top-loading clothes washers as 
proposed in the September 2010 NOPR. The change will be incorporated 
into appendix J2, which will not need to be used to demonstrate 
compliance until the compliance date of any amended standards for these 
products.
    Whirlpool stated that, to achieve parity between top-loading and 
front-loading machines using the proposed clothes container capacity 
measurement, the test procedure when applied to front-loading clothes 
washers must (1) require removal of the bellows prior to measurement; 
and (2) require that the shipping bolts remain in place, as was 
specified in the capacity guidance, to prevent sagging of the basket 
when the machine is tipped on its back. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 13; 
Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 178-180) BSH stated 
that the definition of shipping bolts is not clear. (BSH, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 179).
    For front-loading clothes washers, DOE agrees that the shipping 
bolts should remain in place during the capacity measurement to prevent 
the clothes container from sagging downward when filled with water, 
which would stretch the door gasket (also referred to as the bellows), 
creating additional volume that the clothes load could not occupy 
during actual washer operation. Downward sagging could also cause 
damage to the clothes container structure during the test. DOE has also 
determined that the gasket should remain in place for the capacity 
measurement, because some portion of the gasket may occupy the volume 
available for the clothes load when the door is closed, and this volume 
should be excluded from the measured capacity. For these reasons, 
today's final rule adds to the provisions proposed in the September 
2010 NOPR by specifying that the shipping bolts and door gasket shall 
remain in place during the capacity measurement for front-loading 
clothes washers.
    AHAM, the California Utilities, LG, NRDC, and Springboard commented 
that DOE should add diagrams to the test procedure for clarity in 
interpreting the clothes container capacity measurement, similar to 
what was provided in the capacity guidance. LG further stated that the 
diagram for top-loading clothes washers should label the balance ring 
to indicate the fill level. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at 
pp. 174-175; California Utilities, No. 18 at pp. 4-5; LG, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 177-178; NRDC, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at p. 175; Springboard, No. 11 at p. 1) NRDC 
requested clarification as to whether the clothes container capacity 
for front-loading clothes washers should be measured with the door 
opened or closed. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 161-
165).
    DOE has observed a broad range of designs and configurations of the 
key components of the clothes container among products already 
available on the market, and expects that other designs could be 
introduced in future clothes washers. DOE will continue to publish the 
fill level diagrams, updated as necessary for new designs, on its Web 
site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html.
6. Test Cloth, Detergent, and Preconditioning Test Equipment
    Multiple interested parties submitted comments regarding the use of 
test cloth in response to the August 2009 standards framework document. 
Based on these comments, DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR a 
number of amendments related to test cloth, detergent, and other 
preconditioning test equipment.
    DOE received multiple comments that generally responded to DOE's 
proposed test cloth provisions. AHAM submitted recommendations for test 
cloth specifications, and commented that DOE should incorporate them to

[[Page 13921]]

improve reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 23; AHAM, No. 14 at p. 14) 
Some of AHAM's comments reflect the recommendations of the AHAM Energy 
Test Cloth Task Force, which was formed in February 2008 to identify 
and address appliance manufacturers' concerns pertaining to Lot 15 test 
cloth. The specific objectives of the AHAM Energy Test Cloth Task Force 
were to investigate test cloth consistency and RMC measurement process 
variation. The Task Force is comprised of BSH, Electrolux, General 
Electric, Samsung, Whirlpool Corporation, and SDL Atlas. (AHAM, No. 4 
at p. 4) ALS stated that it supports AHAM's test cloth proposal. (ALS, 
No. 10 at p. 4) NEEA commented that the proposed test cloth procedures 
and specifications are reasonable. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 13) Whirlpool 
supports the proposed test cloth changes with additional 
recommendations for extractor testing. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 11-12) 
The sections below provide additional details regarding each proposed 
amendment related to the test cloth, as well as responses to comments 
on specific test cloth provisions proposed in the September 2010 NOPR 
and August 2011 SNOPR.
Test Cloth Definitions
    In response to the September 2010 NOPR, AHAM commented that a test 
cloth ``lot'' should be defined as ``a quantity of cloth that has been 
manufactured with the same batches of cotton and polyester during one 
continuous process. The cotton and polyester for each lot can come from 
only one supplier. The supplier is responsible for manufacturing the 
raw materials consistently to ensure uniformity.'' AHAM also 
recommended that ``roll'' be defined as ``a subset of a lot.'' AHAM 
stated that a requirement should be added to section 2.6.1 that all 
energy test cloth must be permanently marked, identifying the roll 
number as well as lot number of the material, and that in section 
2.6.5.2, ``[t]est loads shall be comprised of randomly selected cloth 
at the beginning, middle, and end of a lot.'' AHAM commented that the 
test procedure should contain test cloth quality control provisions for 
identifying the roll number and evaluating the consistency of the lot 
by means of an advisory board, which would approve the lot of test 
cloth prior to sale, ensuring that the coefficient of variation from 
the average RMC value from each roll would be less than 1 percent. 
According to AHAM, the advisory board would consist of a representative 
from DOE, AHAM, each automatic washer appliance manufacturer, and test 
cloth supplier, and that the board's purpose would be to review and 
approve each new test cloth lot, new cloth suppliers, and correction 
factor test facilities. (AHAM, No. 4 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 14, 
19-20, 23, 26, 28)
    DOE's test procedure is intended to define material properties of 
the test cloth sufficiently narrowly as to ensure accuracy and 
repeatability of the test procedure, and provide procedures to 
normalize test results to account for allowable variations in the test 
cloth properties. DOE notes that a supplier may elect to provide 
additional identifying information, including roll number, on the test 
cloth as it deems appropriate. DOE agrees with AHAM that definitions of 
``lot'' and ``roll'' would clarify the existing provisions regarding 
the energy test cloth, and is adopting in today's final rule the 
definition of lot as ``a quantity of cloth that has been manufactured 
with the same batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous 
process.'' The specification of ``same batches of cotton and polyester 
during one continuous process'' essentially requires these raw 
materials to come from a single supplier; therefore, DOE is not 
including such a qualification in the definition. DOE is also adopting 
in today's final rule the definition of ``roll'' as ``a subset of a 
lot.''
Energy Test Cloth Size and Weight Tolerances
    The existing clothes washer test procedure does not specify any 
tolerances for the size and weight of the energy test cloths. In the 
September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed the following tolerances for the test 
cloth:

     In section 2.6.1, ``Energy Test Cloth,'' the energy 
test cloth shall be 24  \1/2\ inches by 36  
\1/2\ inches (61.0  1.3 cm by 91.4  1.3 cm) 
and hemmed to 22  \1/2\ inches by 34  \1/2\ 
inches (55.9  1.3 cm by 86.4  1.3 cm) before 
washing;
     In section 2.6.2, ``Energy Stuffer Cloth,'' the energy 
stuffer cloth shall be 12  \1/4\ inches by 12  \1/4\ inches (30.5  .6 cm by 30.5  .6 
cm) and hemmed to 10  \1/4\ inches by 10  
\1/4\ inches (25.4  .6 cm by 25.4  0.6 cm) 
before washing; and
     In section 2.6.4.2, the fabric weight specification 
shall be 5.60  0.25 ounces per square yard (190.0  8.4 g/m\2\).

    In addition, DOE proposed to create a new specification for maximum 
shrinkage in section 2.6.4.7 based on the American Association of 
Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 135-2004. DOE 
proposed to increase the previous shrinkage limit from four percent to 
five percent. In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed using the most 
recent version of this standard, AATCC Test Method 135-2010.
    AHAM commented that the test cloth dimensional properties should be 
refined to match supplier capability, including length, width, fabric 
weight, and shrinkage properties. (AHAM, No. 4 at p. 4) DOE notes that 
the size tolerances and test cloth weight proposed in the September 
2010 NOPR are identical to those in AHAM's proposed changes to the DOE 
clothes washer test procedure, which AHAM included as part of its 
written comment. AHAM noted in the written comment that these 
specifications were supported by supplier data, and thus DOE is 
adopting the proposed test cloth dimensions and weight in today's final 
rule.
    AHAM supports DOE's proposal to add the newly referenced AATCC Test 
Method 135 for measuring shrinkage of the energy test cloth, and 
supports increasing the shrinkage limit from four percent to five 
percent. Today's final rule specifies a maximum shrinkage limit of five 
percent, to be measured using AATCC Test Method 135-2010. (AHAM, No., 
14 at p. 16; AHAM, No. 24 at p. 5).
Detergent Specification and Dosage
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed amending the clothes 
washer test procedure to specify the use of the AHAM standard test 
detergent Formula 3 in test cloth preconditioning, at a dosing of 27.0 
g + 4.0 g/lb.
    ALS supported DOE's proposal to specify the use of AHAM standard 
detergent Formula 3 in test cloth preconditioning as well as the 
proposal to follow the instructions included with the detergent, 
because it makes the dosing identical to that of the dryer test load 
preconditioning procedure. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 5) NEEA stated that it 
foresees no problem with, and some benefit from, adopting the AHAM 
detergent specification. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 14) Whirlpool stated that 
the proposed detergent formulation and dosage changes are consistent 
with AHAM Standard HLD-1-2009, which Whirlpool supports. (Whirlpool, 
No. 13 at p. 14; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) AHAM supported DOE's 
proposal to amend the test procedure to specify the use of AHAM 
standard test detergent Formula 3 in test cloth preconditioning at a 
dosing of 27.0 g + 4.0 g/lb (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 15; AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 194-195; AHAM, No. 24 at p. 6).
    For the reasons stated above and in the September 2010 NOPR, 
today's final rule specifies the use of AHAM standard

[[Page 13922]]

test detergent Formula 3 in test cloth preconditioning, at a dosing of 
27.0 g + 4.0 g/lb, in both appendix J1 and the new appendix J2.
Test Cloth Preconditioning Wash Requirements
    Section 2.6.3.1 of the current DOE clothes washer test procedure 
specifies preconditioning the test cloths using a clothes washer in 
which the load can be washed for 10 minutes at the maximum water level 
and a wash temperature of 135 [deg]F  5 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C 
 2.8 [deg]C).
    DOE noted in the September 2010 NOPR that multiple manufacturers 
expressed concern during manufacturer interviews that there are 
currently few clothes washers commercially available that meet these 
requirements. The manufacturers also expressed concern that the more 
stringent energy conservation standards that may result from the 
residential clothes washer standards rulemaking may eliminate such 
clothes washer models from the market entirely. DOE did not propose any 
updates to the preconditioning clothes washer specifications in the 
September 2010 NOPR, but sought information regarding an alternative 
specification for the clothes washer to be used for preconditioning 
that would allow for the use of more recent models.
    DOE received the following information and comments from interested 
parties regarding the clothes washer requirements for test cloth 
preconditioning.
    ALS stated that clothes washers will be available after the next 
DOE minimum efficiency standards for clothes washers take effect that 
can adequately precondition the test cloth. ALS believes there is 
adequate time to learn of any differences that may occur with new 
clothes washer designs. Furthermore, ALS suggested that manufacturers 
and certification test labs could purchase and maintain inventory of 
the current design of agitator-style, vertical-axis clothes washers 
that ALS manufactures. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 5).
    Whirlpool stated that top-loading clothes washers with a deep-fill 
rinse option will continue to be available for quite some time. 
Agitator-based models may no longer be viable at some point in the 
future, but impeller-based models should be available. (Whirlpool, No. 
13 at p. 14).
    AHAM stated that the key attributes for the clothes washer used for 
preconditioning are that it be able to achieve good rinsing and be able 
to get the test cloth to its final size. AHAM stated that there will be 
clothes washers capable of good rinsing and getting the test cloth to 
its final size at least through year 2018. AHAM stated that 
manufacturers may need to select a fabric softener cycle to achieve 
those goals, for example, but the goals are workable with current 
machines. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 16).
    BSH commented that it does not foresee any problems meeting the 
test cloth pre-conditioning method outlined by DOE. The method asks for 
maximum water level and a fixed temperature for wash and rinse water. 
BSH stated that it can internally create a clothes washer that meets 
the specified temperatures. BSH added that since maximum water level is 
not defined as a specific quantity, using the maximum water level for 
washing in BSH clothes washers would meet the standard. (BSH, No. 17 at 
p. 5; BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 198-199) BSH 
commented further that it does not want to see one specific product 
model specified for pre-conditioning, as this would limit the ability 
to keep current equipment in laboratories. As the model is replaced in 
the market by its manufacturer, access and ability to test would be 
affected in all laboratories. BSH supports AHAM's comment that the 
primary goals are to achieve good rinsing and assure that the cloth 
reaches its final size before testing. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 5) As an 
alternative, BSH would support the IEC test cloth pre-conditioning 
method if the Department believes it to be appropriate. (BSH, No. 17 at 
p. 5).
    NEEA commented that participants at the October 2010 public meeting 
generally agreed that the clothes washer characteristics specified for 
test cloth preconditioning may no longer be available, or will soon be 
unavailable. According to NEEA, it was not made clear by manufacturers 
at the meeting exactly which characteristics were a problem, i.e., 
relatively high water temperature, a ten minute wash, or the ability to 
specify the water level. NEEA believes the best course of action would 
be to provide the rationale for the current specifications, and then 
propose an alternative set of clothes washer specifications that 
manufacturers could assure DOE will be commonly available, yet would 
result in preconditioning performance that closely approximates that of 
the current specification. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 14; NEEA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 200-201).
    DOE's intended goals for the test cloth preconditioning are to 
remove any chemical residues or other finishes that may be present on 
the surface of the test cloth and to subject each test cloth to a 
series of wash/rinse/dry cycles to induce any shrinking that may occur, 
so that each test cloth achieves its final size before being used for 
testing. Achieving these goals requires the use of detergent, an 
adequate quantity of hot water for the wash and cold water for the 
rinse, and a minimum temperature in the preconditioning dryer.
    In consideration of comments from interested parties, DOE expects 
that clothes washers capable of meeting the test cloth preconditioning 
requirements will continue to be available after the revised energy 
efficiency standards for clothes washer become effective. Based on the 
recommendations provided by AHAM, DOE amends the test cloth 
preconditioning requirements to specify that a minimum of 20 gallons of 
water be used in each wash/rinse/spin cycle during test cloth 
preconditioning. However, DOE is not otherwise changing the 
preconditioning requirements of section 2.6.3.1.
AATCC Test Methods
    Section 2.6.4.5.3 of the existing test procedure incorporates by 
reference standards for verifying the absence of water repellent 
finishes on the energy test cloth: AATCC Test Method 118-1997, ``Oil 
Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test'' and AATCC Test Method 79-
2000, ``Absorbency of Textiles.'' To be consistent with referenced 
standards in other DOE test procedures, DOE proposed in the September 
2010 NOPR to remove this paragraph from the clothes washer test 
procedure and, instead, include these two AATCC test procedures in 10 
CFR part 430.3, ``Materials Incorporated by Reference.'' In addition, 
DOE proposed adding to 10 CFR part 430.3 the newly-referenced AATCC 
Test Method 135-2004, ``Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after Home 
Laundering'' for measuring shrinkage of the energy test cloth, which is 
referenced in section 2.6.4.7 of the revised test procedure.
    AHAM supports DOE's proposal to move the reference to standards 
incorporated by reference from the test procedure in appendix J1 to the 
regulatory text at 10 CFR 430.3. The reference will also be applicable 
to appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 16)
    For the reasons stated above and in the September 2010 SNOPR, 
today's final rule implements the changes proposed in the September 
2010 NOPR, as described above. Today's final rule also corrects a 
typographical error from the November 2011 SNOPR in the mailing address 
for AATCC. The correct address is P.O. Box 12215. Today's final rule 
also updates the contact telephone number to (919) 549-3526, which is 
listed on the cover page of the current versions of the AATCC 
standards.

[[Page 13923]]

Required Extractor Tests
    The current DOE test procedure uses extractor tests of up to 500 
units of gravitational acceleration (g, or g-force) in determining the 
RMC correlation curve for test cloth lots. DOE is aware of clothes 
washers currently available on the market capable of reaching g-forces 
higher than 500 g.
    DOE therefore proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to include an 
additional set of extraction tests at 650 g. Because of the prevalence 
of higher spin speeds in clothes washers available on the market, DOE 
also proposed to remove the requirement that the 500 g condition be 
required only if a clothes washer can achieve spin speeds in the 500 g 
range. These proposed amendments would result in 60 extractor RMC test 
runs being required for correlation testing rather than the currently-
required 48. DOE also proposed to update Table 2.6.5--Matrix of 
Extractor RMC Test Conditions, and Table 2.6.6.1--Standard RMC Values 
(RMC Standard) in the test procedure to include tests at 650 g. The 
proposed updated Table 2.6.6.1 is shown below as Table III.5, and it 
contains the additional standard RMC values at 650 g that were 
suggested by AHAM and supported by the AHAM Energy Test Cloth Task 
Force.

                Table III.5--Standard RMC Values (RMC Standard)--Proposed in September 2010 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                RMC percentage
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Warm soak                 Cold soak
                         ``g Force''                         ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                15 min.                   15 min.
                                                                  spin     4 min. spin      spin     4 min. spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100.........................................................         45.9         49.9         49.7         52.8
200.........................................................         35.7         40.4         37.9         43.1
350.........................................................         29.6         33.1         30.7         35.8
500.........................................................         24.2         28.7         25.5         30.0
650.........................................................         23.0         26.4         24.1         28.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the September 2010 NOPR, AHAM reiterated its 
recommendation to require the 500 g condition for all test cloth lots 
and to add a 650 g condition to the extractor RMC test runs to reflect 
higher spin speeds in current clothes washers. AHAM also supported the 
standard RMC values proposed for each of these extraction conditions. 
(AHAM, No. 4 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 26-28).
    Today's final rule is consistent with the September 2010 NOPR. It 
requires the 500 g extraction for all test cloth lots and adds a 650 g 
extraction test in Table 2.6.5 and Table 2.6.6.1 of the revised test 
procedure.
Extractor Specification
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the manufacturer 
specified for the extractor from Bock Engineered Products to North Star 
Engineered Products, Inc. DOE also noted that North Star Engineered 
Products, Inc. operates at the same location and supplies the same 
model of extractor as the previously specified Bock Engineered 
Products.
    AHAM and Whirlpool agreed that the standard extractor RMC tests 
should be run in a North Star Engineered Products, Inc. (formerly Bock) 
Model 215 extractor, but added that the basket diameter should be 20 
inches and the basket height should be 11.5 inches. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 
26; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 11) AHAM and Whirlpool stated that the 
extractor should be calibrated to meet the acceleration profiles shown 
in Table III.6 (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 26; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 11):

    Table III.6--AHAM and Whirlpool-Recommended Extractor Calibration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            RPM/S (spin-
                     RPM                      ``g'' Force        up
                                                           acceleration)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
594  5..........................          100     46  3
840  5..........................          200     42  3
1111  5.........................          350     38  3
1328  5.........................          500     36  3
1514  5.........................          650     35  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM and Whirlpool stated that the timers for different extractors 
made by the same manufacturer start measuring time at different 
conditions; i.e., they may start timing immediately when the extractor 
starts or they may start timing only when the requested spin speed is 
attained. AHAM and Whirlpool requested that DOE clarify the start time 
for extractor tests. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 26; Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 
11).
    DOE concurs with AHAM and Whirlpool that the extractor model and 
basket dimensions should be updated to accurately describe the North 
Star Engineered Products Inc., (formerly Bock) Model 215 extractor.
    Regarding AHAM and Whirlpool's suggested extractor calibration, DOE 
agrees that the nominal revolutions per minute (RPM) listed in Table 
III.6 will produce the desired g-force levels for a 20-inch diameter 
basket. However, DOE's analysis indicates that specifying an allowable 
range of 5 RPM would result in too large of a deviation 
from the specified g-force. Section 2.6.5.3.3 in the current test 
procedure allows a 1 g deviation from the intended 
centripetal acceleration level for each extractor test, and today's 
final rule maintains this tolerance in the amended test procedure. DOE 
notes that for an extractor basket with a 20-inch diameter, a deviation 
of 5 RPM at the 100 g-force level would result in a  2 g deviation in g-force level; (i.e., a spin speed of 599 RPM--
instead of the nominal 595 RPM--would result in 102 g-force). Likewise, 
a deviation of 5 RPM at the 650 g-force level would result 
in a 4 g deviation in g-force level. Therefore, today's 
final rule specifies an allowable range of 1 RPM for the 
extractor spin speed. This will ensure that the maximum 1 g 
deviation from the intended g-force level will be maintained for each 
spin speed. Based on DOE's internal extractor testing, DOE has observed 
that the North Star Model 215 extractor is capable of maintaining the 
spin speeds within 1 RPM.
    AHAM and Whirlpool also suggested specifying the allowable spin-up 
time for each test, implicitly determined by the acceleration noted in 
the column labeled RPM/S in Table III.6. This suggestion was coupled 
with another to start the extractor and the test timer simultaneously. 
However, DOE has observed that the user is unable to adjust the spin-up 
time on the North Star Model 215 extractor, and therefore, specifying 
the spin-up time in the test procedure could provide too rigid of a 
constraint. Additionally, because the amount of water extracted depends 
primarily on the g-force exerted on the test cloth, and because the g-
force varies as a function of the square of RPM, the

[[Page 13924]]

period of time spent at full spin speed will affect the amount of water 
extracted much more than the time spent during the extractor spin-up 
and spin-down periods. Therefore, DOE believes that specifying the time 
spent at full spin speed is more important than specifying a total test 
time that would include the spin-up and spin-down time. For these 
reasons, today's final rule specifies that the timer shall begin when 
the extractor reaches the full required spin speed, but does not 
specify an allowable spin-up time for each test. DOE believes that this 
approach will provide the most consistent, repeatable test results 
among all laboratories. DOE is aware that the timer and control system 
on the North Star Model 215 extractor can be upgraded, if necessary, so 
that the timer automatically starts when the extractor reaches full 
speed.
Bone Dryer Specifications
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the requirements 
for bone drying the test cloth in preparation for determining the RMC 
of the test loads in the extractor tests. The proposal included a 
requirement in section 2.12 for using a clothes dryer capable of 
heating the test cloth to above 210 [deg]F (99 [deg]C).
    AHAM and Whirlpool suggested clarifications to the methodology for 
the bone drying procedure used before each extractor test run. 
According to AHAM, the procedure would state, ``Place dry load in a 
dryer and dry for 10 to 40 minutes depending on the load size. Remove 
and weigh before cool down. Continue drying for 10 minute periods until 
the weight change is 1% or less.'' AHAM and Whirlpool commented that 
the dryer performance requirements should state, ``Dryer used for bone 
drying must heat cloth above 210 deg F (99 deg C).'' AHAM added the 
recommendation to ``[r]ecord the end of cycle bone dry test cloth 
temperature at the end of the cycle.'' (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 26; 
Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 11).
    Based on AHAM and Whirlpool's comments in support of DOE's 
proposal, today's final rule adds a requirement that the dryer used for 
bone drying must heat the test cloth above 210 [deg]F (99 [deg]C). DOE 
determined that specifying the duration and methodology of the bone 
drying procedure to be used during the extractor tests, as AHAM 
suggested, would be redundant because the definition of ``bone-dry'' 
already includes this information. Today's final rule specifies the 
bone drying methodology to be used during the extractor tests by 
referring to the definition of ``bone-dry'' in the definitions section 
of the test procedure, which will achieve the same objective as AHAM's 
proposal.
    Today's final rule does not incorporate AHAM's recommendation to 
record the bone-dry test cloth temperature at the end of the cycle. DOE 
believes that this would add additional test burden with little 
corresponding benefit to the overall results of the test procedure. The 
temperature measurement of the test cloth at the end of the dryer cycle 
would need to be performed immediately upon termination of the dryer 
cycle, before the test cloth could begin to cool down. This could 
present a logistical challenge depending on the sequence of tests and 
the number of laboratory technicians performing the tests. In addition, 
AHAM did not specify a method for measuring the temperature of the test 
cloths, which would be necessary to ensure accuracy and repeatability. 
DOE believes that the amended bone dryer temperature specification, 
combined with the definition of ``bone-dry'' already included in the 
test procedure definitions section, provide a sufficient level of 
detail for conducting the test cloth extractor tests.
Procedures for Preparing and Handling Test Cloth Bundles
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed clarifications to the 
requirements for bundling and draining the test cloth prior to 
completing the extractor spin cycles. These clarifications included 
procedures to create loose bundles of four test cloths each, as well as 
time limits of 5 seconds for gravity draining the bundles after soaking 
and 1 minute for overall draining and loading of all bundles into the 
extractor.
    AHAM's comments on the September 2010 NOPR included additional 
recommended specifications for test cloth preparation. Regarding the 
soak period for the test cloth prior to extraction testing, AHAM 
suggested adding the requirement to maintain the temperature ``at all 
times between the start and end of the soak'' to the water soak 
temperature requirement currently in section 2.6.5.3.2 of appendix J1. 
(AHAM, No. 14 at p. 27).
    AHAM further provided recommended clarifications for the test cloth 
used in the extractor tests. According to AHAM, the test load should be 
comprised of randomly selected cloth at the beginning, middle, and end 
of a lot, and that it would be acceptable to use two test loads for 
standard extractor RMC tests, with each load used for half of the total 
of 60 tests. AHAM commented that a testing constraint is the 
approximate 25-minute ``soak and load'' time for the test cloth, which 
results in the standard RMC extractor tests taking a week to complete. 
AHAM stated that with two loads, one load could be soaking while the 
other load was spinning. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 26).
    DOE supports AHAM's suggestion to add a requirement to maintain the 
required temperature at all times between the start and end of the 
soak, which will help eliminate variability in the extractor test 
results. Today's final rule incorporates this requirement. DOE also 
supports AHAM's suggestion that the test loads for the extractor tests 
be comprised of randomly selected cloth from the beginning, middle and 
end of a lot. This requirement will provide more consistent results and 
will reduce variability that could occur as a result of material 
variations within a single test cloth lot. DOE also concurs that 
allowing two test loads would significantly reduce the test burden 
required for performing the standard extractor RMC tests. Therefore, 
today's final rule allows the use of two test loads for the standard 
extractor RMC tests.
    Based on recommendations from the AHAM Energy Test Cloth Task 
Force, DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to specify that it not 
be necessary to dry the test load between extraction runs; however, the 
bone dry weight would need to be checked after every 12 extraction runs 
to ensure the bone dry weight is still within tolerance. In response to 
the September 2010 NOPR, AHAM noted that the first test cloth soak 
after bone drying absorbs less water. Therefore, AHAM suggested that 
the test procedure require the test load to be soaked and extracted one 
time following bone drying, before continuing with the remaining RMC 
tests. This single post-bone-drying extraction would be run at the 
speed currently being tested, and would last for four minutes. (AHAM, 
No. 14 at p. 27).
    Based on AHAM's comment that the first test cloth soak after bone 
drying absorbs less water, DOE agrees that the first soak/extraction 
cycle after bone drying should not be used as a data point in the 
standard extractor RMC tests. Therefore, DOE adopts AHAM's suggestion 
and requires that the test load be soaked and extracted for one time 
following bone drying before continuing with the remaining RMC tests.

[[Page 13925]]

Clarification of the RMC Nomenclature and Application of the RMC 
Correction Curve
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the nomenclature 
used for RMC values that are intermediates in the calculation of a 
final RMC. The proposed change clarified that the RMC values used in 
section 3.8.4 of appendix J1 are the values obtained from either 
section 3.8.2 or 3.8.3. AHAM supports this modification. (AHAM, No. 14 
at p. 16).
    Additionally, during DOE's ENERGY STAR testing and verification 
program \12\ in April 2011, test laboratories raised questions 
regarding the application of the RMC correction factors as described in 
section 2.6.7 of the current appendix J1 test procedure. Specifically, 
the test procedure does not explicitly describe how to apply the RMC 
correction factors in the RMC equations in section 3.8. For example, if 
the calculated value of RMCmax in section 3.8.2.5 is 0.455 
(or 45.5%), a laboratory could incorrectly apply the correction factor 
by applying it to the number 45.5 rather than to the fractional value 
0.455, to which it should be applied. In addition, for clothes washers 
with both cold and warm rinse, or with multiple spin speeds, the test 
procedure does not instruct whether to apply the RMC correction factors 
before or after combining the component RMC values in sections 3.8.3.3 
or 3.8.4 of appendix J1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Details about DOE's ENERGY STAR testing and verification 
program available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/energy_star_testing_verification.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To resolve this ambiguity, DOE clarifies the RMC nomenclature and 
RMC correction calculations throughout section 3.8 of the revised test 
procedure. Specifically, DOE explicitly defines the RMC correction 
equations and clarifies the order in which the RMC corrections should 
be performed for clothes washers with both cold and warm rinse and/or 
multiple spin speeds.
    DOE has also discovered a typographical error in the formula given 
in section 2.6.6.1 of the test procedure. That formula and the 
accompanying text provide the means of deriving the linear least-
squares coefficients A and B, which relate the extractor-measured RMC 
values of section 2.6.5 (RMCcloth) and the standard RMC 
values in Table 2.6.6.1 (RMCstandard). Currently in appendix 
J1, section 2.6.6.1 includes the formula (RMCcloth): 
RMCstandard ~ A * RMCcloth + B. However, the 
notation ``(RMCcloth):'' was incorrectly transcribed from a 
DOE report cited in the January 2001 standards Final Rule.\13\ The 
correct version of the formula should be RMCstandard ~ A * 
RMCcloth + B. Today's final rule corrects this error and 
clarifies that the RMCstandard values are linearly related 
to the RMCcloth values through the coefficients A and B. 
This correction and clarification apply to both appendix J1 and 
appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The January 2001 standards Final Rule cited a DOE report 
titled, ``Development of a Standardized Energy Test Cloth for 
Measuring Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes 
Washer,'' published in May 2000. See 66 FR 3314, 3317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DOE has observed that the description of the analysis 
of variance test to be performed in section 2.6.6.2 is not explicit 
about several key details of the analysis. Currently in appendix J1, 
section 2.6.6.2 states, ``Perform an analysis of variance test using 
two factors * * *''. Because an analysis of variance test can be 
performed in multiple ways, clarification is needed to specify that an 
analysis of variance ``with replication'' test should be performed. 
Additionally, the current provisions state, ``The `P' value in the 
variance analysis shall be greater than or equal to 0.1.'' Because 
several different P-values can be determined, clarification is needed 
to specify that the P-value in question is ``the `P' value of the F-
statistic for interaction between spin speed and lot in the variance 
analysis.'' Finally, the current provisions of 2.6.6.2 state that `` 
`P' is a theoretically based probability of interaction based on an 
analysis of variance.'' This is technically incorrect; while ``P'' does 
represent a measure of interaction between spin speed and lot, it does 
not represent the probability of interaction between the two. DOE makes 
these corrections and clarifications in today's final rule to both 
appendix J1 and appendix J2. DOE notes that these corrections and 
clarifications are for technical accuracy only, and they will not 
change how these provisions of the test procedure are conducted.
Removal of Redundant Sections
    The current test procedure contains redundant sections regarding 
the test cloth specifications and preconditioning. DOE proposed in the 
September 2010 NOPR to remove the redundant sections, currently 
numbered 2.6.1.1-2.6.1.2.4. These sections were made obsolete by the 
January 2001 standards Final Rule, which added sections 2.6.3 through 
2.6.7.2 into appendix J1. However, DOE proposed to maintain the thread 
count specification from deleted section 2.6.1.1(A), of 65 x 57 per 
inch (warp x fill), by moving it to section 2.6.4.3.
    AHAM and Whirlpool support deleting these obsolete sections and 
maintaining the thread count specification of 65 x 57 per inch (warp x 
fill) by moving it to section 2.6.4.3. (AHAM, No. 14, pp. 23-24; AHAM, 
No. 24 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p.4) Therefore, for the reasons 
stated in the September 2010 NOPR, DOE incorporates these changes into 
both appendix J1 and the new appendix J2 test procedure in today's 
final rule, as proposed in the September 2010 NOPR.
7. Testing Conditions
Water Supply Pressure
    Section 2.4 of the current DOE clothes washer test procedure 
provides the water pressure test conditions, as follows: ``The static 
water pressure at the hot and cold water inlet connection of the 
clothes washer shall be maintained at 35 pounds per square inch gauge 
(psig)  2.5 psig (241.3 kPa  17.2 kPa) during 
the test. The static water pressure for a single water inlet connection 
shall be maintained at the 35 psig 2.5 psig (241.3 kPa 
 17.2 kPa) during the test. A water pressure gauge shall be 
installed in both the hot and cold water lines to measure water 
pressure.''
    DOE notes that this description is ambiguous as to whether the 
nominal 35 psig water pressure is to be set under static (non-flow) 
conditions and allowed to drop during flow due to the head losses in 
the line, or whether the 35 psig is to be maintained continuously under 
all flow conditions during the test.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE discussed the test results from a 
sample of front- and top-loading clothes washers that indicated that 
water supply pressure can affect water consumption during a wash cycle, 
and the effect of water supply pressure on total water use can vary 
depending on the temperature settings selected. For tests at 10, 20, 
and 35 psig water supply pressure under flow conditions, water 
consumption varied by 10-30 percent among the different pressure 
conditions for either hot wash/cold rinse or cold wash/cold rinse 
cycles.
    DOE noted that the test procedures for other residential appliances 
specify the 35 psig requirement as being applicable under flow 
conditions. For example, section 2.4 of the DOE test procedure for 
dishwashers (10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix C) specifies to 
``maintain the pressure of the water supply at 35  2.5 
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) when the water is flowing.'' 
Dishwashers and clothes washers would likely have the same water supply 
pressure when installed in a house, so

[[Page 13926]]

the test procedures for these products should include consistent water 
supply pressure specifications. DOE noted, however, that the test data 
suggested a water supply pressure of 20 psig under flow conditions for 
the most consistent water use among different cycles for a given 
clothes washer. DOE's analysis indicated that 20 psig may represent 
typical static pressure under flow conditions that would result from 35 
psig at non-flow conditions, and that these conditions may be more 
representative of water supply conditions that would be found in 
typical residential settings.
    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE did not propose to specify water 
supply pressure more closely. DOE asked for stakeholders to provide any 
relevant information about the conditions under which clothes washers 
are currently tested, and invited comment on the appropriate 
specification of the water supply pressure. DOE received the following 
information and comments from interested parties regarding the water 
supply pressure requirements in the existing clothes washer test 
procedure.
    ALS and AHAM support retaining the current specifications for 
static water supply pressure. ALS and AHAM suggested that DOE specify a 
``dynamic water pressure'' of 35 psi  2.5 psi. AHAM stated 
that dynamic water pressure affects the test results, and ALS stated 
that dynamic water pressure is the most important water supply 
pressure. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 5; AHAM, No. 14 at p. 16).
    Springboard stated that clothes washers with higher flow rates 
could require extra-high water pressure to regulate the pressure to 35 
psi during water fill. (Springboard, No. 11 at p. 3).
    NEEA stated that water pressure should be specified under flow 
conditions (not static pressure), and the value should be the same as 
for the dishwasher test procedure (35 psi). NEEA presented data from 
research conducted by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) that 
indicates a range of average water system static pressures from 45 psi 
to 80 psi, with occasional outliers. According to NEEA, discussions 
with rural water systems contractors suggest normal system pressure 
setpoints of 25 and 55 psi for pump on and pump off, respectively. NEEA 
further stated that studies of municipal water system pressures tend to 
find a static pressure range of 45 to 100 psi, depending on where in 
the system one measures. NEEA stated that because municipal water 
system pressures are designed to maintain pressure under high flow 
rates at fire hydrants and standpipes, communities are unlikely to have 
flowing pressure conditions less than 35 psi. Therefore, NEEA believes 
that 35 psi is a reasonable estimate for most residential households. 
(NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 14-15; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at 
pp. 203-204) Whirlpool commented that it supports 35 psi  
2.5 psi under ``dynamic flow conditions.'' (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 
14).
    The Joint Commenters commented that a static pressure under non-
flow conditions of 35 psi is significantly lower than actual system 
operating pressures. They stated that a test rig calibrated to maintain 
a static pressure of 35 psi will yield a flowing water pressure that is 
significantly less than 35 psi. The Joint Commenters also noted that 
the California-American Water Company reports one small sub-district 
with an operating pressure of 40 psi, while all other service areas 
have average operating pressures of 60 to 80 psi. They also observed 
that the Philadelphia Water Department reported an average operating 
pressure of 55 psi during fiscal year 2008. The Joint Commenters 
believe that a water supply test pressure of 35 psi under flow 
conditions would better represent typical water supply pressures found 
in homes, and would align the clothes washer test procedure with the 
dishwasher test procedure. The Joint Commenters further commented that 
DOE's proposed definition of water pressure contains both ``static'' 
and ``flowing'' in the same sentence. NRDC suggested that the word 
``static'' be removed from the definition to remove ambiguity and a 
potentially significant source of unintended variation in test results. 
(Joint Commenters, No. 16 at pp. 8-9; Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 
5-6).
    The California Utilities recommend that DOE clarify whether the 
water supply pressure specified in the proposed test procedure should 
be maintained at flow or non-flow conditions. The California Utilities 
also recommend that DOE specify that the water supply pressure be 
maintained at 35 psig when the water is flowing, which will maintain 
consistency with the dishwasher test procedure. The California 
Utilities stated that this would be an appropriate water pressure for 
much of the residential sector across the country. (California 
Utilities, No. 18 at p. 5).
    DOE notes that nearly all interested parties recommended specifying 
a water pressure of 35 psi during water flow conditions. DOE further 
notes that the clothes washer water consumption will be most heavily 
affected by the water pressure during flow conditions rather than the 
water pressure during non-flow conditions. Therefore, DOE agrees that 
the water pressure specification should be specified during flow 
conditions.
    DOE recognizes that the term ``pressure'' must be further qualified 
to remove ambiguity regarding the water supply conditions. In referring 
to the pressure in fluid systems, ``static'' does not imply that the 
fluid is stationary; rather, the term ``static'' represents the 
pressure exerted in all directions by the fluid. Static pressure is the 
type of pressure most commonly measured by typical instrumentation. 
When the water is stationary, the static pressure is highest and 
represents the total pressure in the system. As the water begins 
flowing, some of the static pressure is converted to ``dynamic 
pressure,'' which is the kinetic energy of the fluid per unit volume. 
Thus, during flow conditions, the static pressure decreases at the same 
time that dynamic pressure increases.
    Because the intent of the test procedure is to specify the 
typically measured pressure of the water during flow conditions, DOE 
believes that the definition it proposed in the September 2010 NOPR 
correctly specifies measuring the static water pressure while the water 
is flowing. Removing the term ``static water pressure'' could create 
ambiguity about which type of water pressure should be measured (i.e., 
static pressure, dynamic pressure, or total pressure). Similarly, 
replacing the term ``static water pressure'' with ``dynamic water 
pressure'' could result in an incorrect measurement being performed, 
since ``dynamic water pressure'' has a different, specific meaning in 
the context of fluid flow and is not equivalent to the pressure 
typically measured during flow conditions. For these reasons, today's 
final rule incorporates the change to the water pressure specification 
in the new appendix J2 test procedure as proposed in the September 2010 
NOPR.
 Water Inlet and Drain Hoses
    In response to the September 2010 NOPR, Whirlpool commented that 
appendix J2 should adopt three additional test setup requirements that 
can affect water and energy consumption. First, Whirlpool suggested 
that the length of the inlet water hoses be defined as the standard 
hose length of 48 inches, as this would avoid an inadvertent impact on 
hot water usage. Second, Whirlpool suggested that the length of the 
drain hose should be defined as not to exceed 72 inches. Third, 
Whirlpool suggested

[[Page 13927]]

that the drain pipe height should be between 38 and 54 inches. 
Whirlpool stated that adoption of these specifications will 
significantly reduce variation between laboratories. (Whirlpool, No. 13 
at p. 14).
    DOE notes that Section 2.1 of the test procedure requires the 
clothes washer to be installed in accordance with manufacturer's 
instructions, which would include installation of the water inlet and 
drain hoses supplied with each new clothes washer. Therefore, DOE 
believes the test procedure should not separately specify the length of 
the inlet and drain hoses. Regarding the height of the drain pipe, DOE 
has no data with which to evaluate Whirlpool's suggested height 
requirement. Therefore, DOE is unable to determine the impact on test 
results due to the height of the drain pipe. For these reasons, today's 
final rule does not adopt Whirlpool's suggested requirements regarding 
water inlet and drain hoses.
8. Clarifications and Corrections
Correction of Cold Rinse Definition
    After the publication of the September 2010 NOPR, DOE became aware 
of an error in the definition of ``cold rinse'' in the test procedure 
at appendix J1. Specifically, cold rinse is defined in section 1.22 of 
appendix J1 as ``the coldest rinse temperature available on the machine 
(and should be the same rinse temperature selection tested in 3.7 of 
this appendix).'' However, section 3.7 of appendix J1 contains 
provisions for testing warm rinse, which instruct that such tests be 
conducted with the hottest rinse temperature available. Thus, section 
3.7 is inapplicable to the definition of cold rinse in section 1.22. In 
the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to remove reference to section 3.7 
in the definition of cold rinse in both section 1.22 of appendix J1 and 
proposed section 1.7 of appendix J2.
    Whirlpool and AHAM agree with DOE's proposal to correct the 
definition of cold rinse. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 24 at 
p. 3) DOE received no comments on these revisions. Therefore, for the 
reasons stated above and in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE incorporates 
these changes into the amendments to the appendix J1 test procedure and 
the new appendix J2 test procedure in today's final rule as proposed in 
the August 2011 SNOPR.
Clarification of Wash Time Setting for Electromechanical Dials
    Section 2.10 of the current test procedure specifies the wash time 
setting to be used in the energy test cycle. If only one wash time is 
prescribed in the energy test cycle, that wash setting is to be used; 
otherwise, the wash time setting is required to be the higher of either 
the minimum wash time or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available 
in the energy test cycle. As described in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE 
has become aware that, for certain clothes washers equipped with an 
electromechanical dial to control wash time, the dial may yield 
different results for the same setting depending on the direction in 
which the dial was turned to reach that setting. DOE's internal testing 
indicates that that consistency in setting the wash time in such cases 
may be achieved by resetting the dial to the minimum wash time and then 
turning it in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the 
desired setting. If the desired setting is passed, the dial should not 
be turned in the direction of decreasing wash time to reach the 
setting. Instead, the dial should be returned to the minimum wash time 
and then turned in the direction of increasing wash time until the 
desired setting is reached. In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to 
add these clarifications to the provisions for setting the wash time in 
both appendix J1 and appendix J2.
    To provide further consistency, DOE also proposed the additional 
clarification that the conditions stated in the case of more than one 
wash time setting--that the wash time setting shall be the higher of 
either the minimum, or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available in 
the energy test cycle--shall apply regardless of the labeling of 
suggested dial locations.
    Springboard stated that use and care manuals sometimes do not 
prescribe a wash time for each cycle. Springboard also commented that 
currently the appendix J1 test procedure does not specify whether the 
70 percent wash time provision applies to machines with 
electromechanical or electronic controls. Springboard questioned 
whether a default setting on the machine should be used, or whether the 
cycle and time labeled in bold on the control panel should be the 
prescribed setting. Springboard further noted that on a mechanical 
dial, it is not always possible to achieve the same wash time setting. 
(Springboard, No. 11 at p. 3).
    AHAM does not oppose DOE's proposed clarifications to appendices J1 
and J2 regarding the wash time setting. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 4) ALS 
supports DOE's proposal to achieve consistency in obtaining the wash 
time setting on machines with electromechanical dials. ALS stated that 
the proposed changes would reduce variability in test results. 
Furthermore, ALS supports the proposal to add the phrase ``regardless 
of the labeling of suggested dial locations'' to clarify the existing 
requirement that ``the wash time setting shall be the higher of either 
the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available in the 
energy test cycle.'' (ALS, No. 22 at p. 3).
    DOE has observed that clothes washers with electronic controls have 
a default wash time setting for each cycle; this default time would be 
considered the ``prescribed'' wash time setting. Therefore, the 
provision stating ``the wash time setting shall be the higher of either 
the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available in the 
energy test cycle'' applies only to electromechanical controls, where 
the user is required to manually set the wash time by turning the wash 
setting dial. DOE's proposal would clarify that this wash time 
requirement would apply ``regardless of the labeling of suggested dial 
locations.'' This would include any labels in bold or other markings 
suggesting particular locations on the dial.
    DOE received no comments objecting to its proposed revisions 
regarding the wash time setting provisions of the test procedure. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, DOE incorporates these 
changes into the amendments to the appendix J1 test procedure and the 
new J2 test procedure in today's final rule.
Clarification of Cold Wash Definition
    As described in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE has observed multiple 
clothes washer models that offer a ``tap cold'' wash temperature 
setting in addition to a ``cold'' wash temperature setting. DOE 
proposed to clarify how to classify these temperature selections in 
appendix J1 and appendix J2.
    Section 3.6 of appendix J1 defines the cold wash selection as ``the 
coldest wash temperature selection available.'' Additionally, section 
1.18 of appendix J1 defines ``warm wash'' as ``all wash temperature 
selections below the hottest hot, less than 135[emsp14][deg]F, and 
above the coldest cold temperature selection.'' In some cases with 
these models, DOE has observed that the ``cold'' setting mixes in hot 
water to raise the temperature above the cold water supply temperature, 
as defined in section 2.3 of appendix J1. In such cases, DOE proposes 
that the manufacturer specified ``cold'' setting should be considered a 
warm wash, as defined in section 1.18 of appendix J1 and section 1.34 
of appendix J2; and that the ``tap cold'' setting should be considered 
the cold wash, as defined in section 3.6 of

[[Page 13928]]

both appendix J1 and appendix J2. In cases where the ``cold'' setting 
does not add any hot water for any of the test loads required for the 
energy test cycle, the ``cold'' setting should be considered the cold 
wash; and the ``tap cold'' setting would not be required for testing.
    AHAM, Whirlpool, and NEEA support the proposed clarification 
regarding cold wash temperature selection (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 4; 
Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 26 at p. 7). DOE received no 
comments objecting to its proposed revisions regarding the 
clarification of the cold wash temperature. Therefore, for the reasons 
discussed above, DOE incorporates these changes into the amendments to 
the appendix J1 test procedure and the new J2 test procedure in today's 
final rule.
Removal of Obsolete Note in Water Factor Calculation Section
    In the current test procedure at appendix J1, section 4.2 provides 
instructions for calculating the water consumption of clothes washers. 
Currently, this section includes the following note:

(The calculations in this Section need not be performed to determine 
compliance with the energy conservation standards for clothes 
washers).

    EPCA established a water factor standard for top-loading and front-
loading standard-size residential clothes washers, so this note is now 
obsolete. The calculations in section 4.2 must be performed to 
determine compliance with energy conservation standards for these 
product classes. Today's final rule removes this note in both appendix 
J1 and appendix J2.
Correction of Typographical Error in Hot Water Consumption Calculation
    Section 4.1.4 of the existing clothes washer test procedure 
calculates the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption using gas-
heated or oil-heated water. The equation listed in this section 
contains a clerical error in the symbol for total weighted per-cycle 
hot water energy consumption. In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed 
amending the equation in this section to replace the incorrect symbol, 
HT, with the correct symbol, HET. DOE would apply 
this amendment to both existing appendix J1 and new appendix J2.
    AHAM supports DOE's proposed correction to the symbol for total 
weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 
16) DOE received no comments objecting to this revision. Therefore, for 
the reasons stated above, DOE incorporates these changes into the 
amendments to the appendix J1 test procedure and the new J2 test 
procedure.
Removal of Energy Factor Calculation
    Section 4.5 of the current clothes washer test procedure provides 
for the calculation of Energy Factor (EF). EF was the energy efficiency 
metric used to establish energy conservation standards for clothes 
washers manufactured before January 1, 2004. (10 CFR 430.32(g)) This 
metric is no longer used to determine compliance with energy 
conservation standards, or in any other related metrics. Therefore, DOE 
proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to remove the obsolete calculation 
of EF from the clothes washer test procedure.
    AHAM supports DOE's proposal to remove the obsolete calculation of 
EF from the clothes washer test procedure. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 17) DOE 
received no comments objecting to this revision. Therefore, for the 
reasons stated above, DOE incorporates this change into the amendments 
to the appendix J1 test procedure and the new appendix J2 test 
procedure.
Clarification of Waiver Field Test Equation
    In response to the August 2011 SNOPR, AHAM commented that section 
6.2 of the test procedure regarding field testing needs clarification. 
AHAM stated further that the equation in section 6.2 is confusing. 
(AHAM, No. 24 at p. 6)
    Section 6.2 in the appendix J1 test procedure provides describes 
one possible method for determining the energy consumption of a clothes 
washer with a nonconventional wash system. Generally, the method 
described in this section involves field testing both the 
nonconventional clothes washer as well as a conventional clothes 
washer; developing a scaling factor by comparing the conventional 
clothes washer's rated energy consumption and field test energy 
consumption; and applying this scaling factor to the nonconventional 
clothes washer to determine an appropriate rating based on its field 
test results.
    The equation provided in Section 6.2 was created when EF was the 
only metric used to determine compliance with energy conservation 
standards for clothes washers. Therefore, it does not include 
provisions for measuring the energy required for moisture removal 
(i.e., drying energy), which is a component of MEF, or for measuring 
the water consumption factor. Therefore, this equation is no longer 
applicable and should be removed. Today's final rule amends Section 6.2 
in both appendix J1 and the newly created appendix J2 by removing the 
specific example, including the equation, and modifying the general 
provisions so that the section is applicable to MEF and WF. The 
amendment to appendix J2 contains an additional instruction to measure 
standby and off mode power according to the provisions in the relevant 
sections of the test procedure.
Clarification of Water Factor Terminology
    DOE notes the use of inconsistent terminology to describe the water 
consumption factor (or water factor) among the clothes washer test 
procedure, clothes washer energy conservation standards, annual 
operating cost calculations, and certification, compliance, and 
enforcement requirements for clothes washers.
    The clothes washer energy conservation standards use the 
terminology ``water factor,'' and DOE has observed that the term 
``water factor'' has been used more often than ``water consumption 
factor'' during previous rulemakings and within public comments 
submitted by interested parties. DOE has also observed that ``water 
factor'' is the term most commonly used within the clothes washer 
industry. Therefore, today's final rule replaces the term ``water 
consumption factor'' with ``water factor'' in the appendix J1 test 
procedure, the newly created appendix J2 test procedure, and the annual 
operating cost calculations for clothes washers in 10 CFR 430.23(j). In 
addition, today's final rule replaces the abbreviation ``WCF'' with 
``WF'' in the appendix J1 test procedure and the newly created appendix 
J2 test procedure.
9. Test Procedure Performance Specifications
    In response to the August 2009 standards framework document, DOE 
received multiple comments in support of adding performance measures to 
the clothes washer test procedure, which it addressed in the September 
2010 NOPR. DOE carefully considered these comments but did not propose 
to incorporate measures of wash performance into the clothes washer 
test procedure. DOE noted that EPCA states ``[a]ny 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 * * *

[[Page 13929]]

and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.'' 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). 
DOE stated, however, that it would consider wash performance and 
related impacts to consumer utility in developing any future energy 
conservation standards for residential clothes washers.
    In response to the September 2010 NOPR, DOE received multiple 
comments regarding the inclusion of performance measures in the clothes 
washer test procedure. AHAM and NEEA support DOE's proposal to not 
incorporate wash performance into the test procedure. AHAM stated that 
DOE should consider it later should data on the feasibility of 
incorporating a measure of wash performance become available. NEEA 
commented that there is no justification for including such metrics in 
a test procedure, which is required by EPCA to measure energy and water 
use and to provide a means to estimate annual operating cost. (AHAM, 
No. 14 at p. 17; NEEA, No. 12 at p. 15) ALS stated that generally, the 
residential clothes washer test procedure is adequate for measuring 
energy consumption and water consumption of both residential and 
commercial clothes washers, as long as the minimum efficiency standard 
for commercial clothes washers takes into account the consumer utility 
needed for the commercial washer application. (ALS, No. 10 at p. 6).
    BSH commented that wash performance should be included, and that 
the clothes washer should be rated based on the quantity of laundry can 
successfully be washed rather than the physical size of the clothes 
container. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 4; BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 
at p. 211) BSH stated that manufacturer-rated load weight accompanied 
by performance assessments are the only way to fairly compare top-load 
and front-load clothes washer capabilities. (BSH, No. 17 at p. 4).
    China commented that the testing conditions proposed by DOE for 
various temperature settings are different than the test conditions 
required by IEC Standard 60456, ``Clothes washing machines for 
household use-Methods for measuring the performance,'' Edition 5.0. 
China recommended that DOE apply the same test conditions as IEC 
Standard 60456, or specify testing temperatures by referencing IEC 
Standard 60456 test conditions, to avoid creating unnecessary barriers 
to trade. China stated that IEC Standard 60456 test conditions 
establish a clear value for the supply water temperatures, compared to 
the range of water temperatures provided in DOE's proposed rule, and 
that this could lead to confusion. (China, No. 19 at p.4).
    In response, DOE reiterates that it currently considers any 
lessening of the utility or the performance of a covered product likely 
to result from the imposition of any energy conservation standard. 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) Furthermore, DOE may not prescribe a 
standard that is likely to result in the unavailability in the United 
States of performance characteristics, including reliability. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4) As stated above, EPCA requires that DOE test procedures must 
be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy 
efficiency, energy use, water use in specified instances, or estimated 
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative use 
cycle or period of use. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3).

D. Annual Operating Cost Calculation

    DOE did not propose in the September 2010 NOPR to amend the 
estimated annual operating cost calculation in 10 CFR 430.23 to include 
the cost of energy consumed in the non-active washing modes. DOE noted 
that the cost of energy consumed in self-clean, standby, off, delay 
start, and cycle finished modes is small relative to the total annual 
energy cost for clothes washers and, therefore, would make little 
difference in the estimated annual operating cost calculation. In 
addition, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) EnergyGuide Label for 
clothes washers includes as its primary indicator of product energy 
efficiency the estimated annual operating cost, compared to a range of 
annual operating costs of similar products. Appendix F1 to 16 CFR part 
305. An estimated annual operating cost incorporating self-clean, 
standby, off, delay start, and cycle finished mode energy use would no 
longer be directly comparable to the minimum and maximum energy costs 
currently prescribed for the EnergyGuide Label.
    Upon further consideration, DOE proposed in the August 2011 SNOPR 
to amend the annual energy cost calculations to include the cost of 
energy consumed in non-active washing modes. As discussed in the August 
2011 SNOPR, EPCA requires that 180 days after the amended test 
procedure is prescribed, all representations related to the energy use, 
efficiency, or cost of energy consumed for residential clothes washers 
must reflect the results of testing according to the amended test 
procedure. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2) Also, the definition of ``estimated 
annual operating cost'' is the aggregate retail cost of the energy 
likely to be consumed annually in representative use of a consumer 
product, determined in accordance with section 6293 of this title. 42 
U.S.C. 6291(7) The test procedure established in today's final rule 
includes provisions for measuring standby and off mode energy use. 
Additionally, EPCA requires that any revisions to the labels for 
residential clothes washers include disclosure of the estimated annual 
operation cost (determined in accordance with DOE's test procedures 
prescribed under section 6293 of EPCA), unless the Secretary determines 
that disclosure of annual operating cost is not technologically 
feasible, or if 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 received additional comments from interested parties in 
response to its proposal in the August 2011 SNOPR. AHAM opposes 
revision of estimated annual operating cost to incorporate standby, off 
and self-clean modes. AHAM stated that the cost of energy associated 
with each individual mode makes little difference in the annual 
operating cost. AHAM claims the increased test burden in measuring 
these modes and incorporating them in the annual energy cost is not 
justifiable. AHAM further stated that if, however, DOE revises the 
estimated annual operating cost calculation, DOE and FTC should provide 
adequate time for collection of data on operating costs before the new 
integrated approach goes into effect. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 3) NEEA 
agrees with DOE's proposal to include non-active washing mode energy 
use in the calculation of energy cost. (NEEA, No. 26 at p. 7).
    DOE notes that the revised test procedure at appendix J2 implements 
the ``alternate approach'' for measuring standby and off mode energy 
use, which minimizes the additional test burden required for performing 
these measurements. In addition, the revised test procedure does not 
require measurement of self-clean mode.
    For the reasons stated in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE amends the 
annual energy cost calculations in 10 CFR part 430.23 for residential 
clothes washers to include the cost of energy consumed in standby and 
off modes. Therefore, today's final rule amends the clothes washer test 
procedure to revise the estimated annual operating cost calculation to 
integrate standby and off mode energy use, as proposed in the August 
2011 SNOPR.

[[Page 13930]]

E. Revisions to Appendix J1

    The following sections describe amendments to the current appendix 
J1 in today's final rule. These changes are discussed in more detail 
previously but are set forth here to clearly describe those changes 
that are applicable to appendix J1, use of which is currently required 
to demonstrate compliance with existing energy conservation standards. 
In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must 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. 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) DOE has determined that none 
of the following amendments to appendix J1 would alter the measured 
efficiency of residential clothes washers. The amendments to appendix 
J1 are effective 30 days after publication of this final rule in the 
Federal Register.
1. Revision of Introductory Text
    Today's final rule revises the introductory text of appendix J1 
after the appendix heading to note that manufacturers may continue to 
use appendix J1 until the compliance date of any amended standards that 
address standby and off mode energy consumption for residential clothes 
washers. After this date, all residential clothes washers shall be 
tested using the provisions of appendix J2. This introductory note is 
also included at the beginning of appendix J2.
2. Correction of Typographical Errors in Materials Incorporated by 
Reference
    The current DOE test procedure at appendix J1 contains an incorrect 
mailing address in section 2.6.4.5.3(b) for the American Association of 
Textile Chemists and Colorists. The correct address is P.O. Box 12215. 
Today's final rule corrects this typographical error. Today's final 
rule also updates the contact telephone number to (919) 549-3526, which 
is listed on the cover page of the current versions of the AATCC 
standards.
3. Correction of Cold Rinse Definition
    As discussed previously in section III.C.8.a, today's final rule 
corrects the definition of cold rinse in section 1.22 of appendix J1 by 
removing the incorrect reference to section 3.7.
4. Removal of Redundant Sections
    As discussed previously in section III.C.6.k, this final rule 
removes the redundant sections 2.6.1.1-2.6.1.2.4 in appendix J1, which 
were made obsolete by the 2001 Final Rule. Today's final rule also 
maintains the thread count specification from deleted section 
2.6.1.1(A), of 65 x 57 per inch (warp x fill) by moving it to section 
2.6.4.3.
5. Detergent Specification and Dosage
    As discussed previously in section III.C.6.c, this final rule 
specifies the use of AHAM standard test detergent Formula 3 in test 
cloth preconditioning, at a dosing of 27.0g + 4.0g/lb.
6. Wash Time Setting for Electromechanical Dials
    As discussed previously in section III.C.8.b, this final rule adds 
clarification to the wash time setting provisions in section 2.10 of 
appendix J1 to help ensure consistency when setting the wash time on 
clothes washers with electromechanical dials.
7. Clarification of Cold Wash Definition
    As discussed previously in section III.C.8.c, this final rule adds 
clarification to the cold wash definition in section 3.6 of appendix J1 
for clothes washers that offer a ``tap cold'' wash temperature setting 
in addition to a ``cold'' wash temperature setting.
8. Removal of Obsolete Note in Water Factor Calculation Section
    As discussed previously in section III.C.8.d, this final rule 
removes an obsolete note in section 4.2 of appendix J1, which states 
that the water factor calculations need not be performed to determine 
compliance with the energy conservation standards for clothes washers.
9. Clarification of Water Factor Terminology
    As discussed previously in section III.C.8.h, this final rule 
replaces the term ``water consumption factor'' with ``water factor'' in 
sections 1.19 and 4.2.3 of appendix J1.
10. Correction of Typographical Error in Hot Water Consumption 
Calculation
    As discussed previously in section III.C.8.e, this final rule 
amends the equation in section 4.1.4 of appendix J1 to replace the 
incorrect symbol, HT, with the correct symbol, 
HET.
11. Extension of Test Load Size Table
    As discussed previously in section III.C.3.b, this final rule 
extends Table 5.1 in appendix J1 to accommodate clothes washers with 
capacities up to 6.0 cubic feet.
12. Clarification of Waiver Field Test Equation
    As discussed previously in section III.C.8.g, this final rule 
modifies the provisions in section 6.2 in appendix J1 by removing the 
specific example, including the equation, and modifying the general 
provisions so that the section is applicable to MEF and WF.
13. Corrections to Provisions for Calculating the RMC Correction Curve
    As discussed previously in section III.C.6.j, this final rule 
corrects typographical and transcription errors in the formula given in 
section 2.6.6.1 of appendix J1. This final rule also amends the 
description of the analysis of variance test to be performed in section 
2.6.6.2 to make the analysis details more explicit and technically 
accurate.

F. Removal of Obsolete Test Procedure at Appendix J

    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to delete appendix J to 
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with all references to appendix J in 
10 CFR 430.23. Appendix J applies only to clothes washers manufactured 
before January 1, 2004 and is therefore obsolete. Appendix J1 to 
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 provides an applicable test procedure for 
all clothes washers currently available on the market. DOE proposed to 
maintain the current naming of appendix J1, rather than renaming it as 
appendix J, and to establish new appendix J2 to simplify the changes 
required.
    NEEA supports DOE's proposal to eliminate appendix J and to add 
appendix J2. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 16) Therefore, for the reasons 
discussed above, DOE eliminates appendix J along with all references to 
appendix J.

G. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden
    As noted previously, under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), EPCA requires that 
``[a]ny 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.'' DOE 
tentatively concluded in the September 2010 NOPR that amending the 
relevant DOE test procedures to incorporate clauses regarding test 
conditions and

[[Page 13931]]

methods found in IEC Standard 62301, along with the proposed 
modifications to the active washing mode test procedure, would satisfy 
this requirement.
    DOE received numerous comments regarding test burden in response to 
the September 2010 NOPR. DOE addressed some of these comments 
specifically related to delay start mode and cycle finished mode test 
burden in the August 2011 SNOPR. DOE responds to the remaining comments 
here.
    Whirlpool stated that the proposed measurement of energy and water 
consumption in delay start, cycle finished, self-clean, off modes, 
additional rinses, etc. would increase manufacturer test burden by as 
much as 25 percent. Whirlpool commented that it does not have 
sufficient ``slack'' capacity to manage such an increase in test burden 
because its laboratories are currently operating at full capacity on 
two shifts. Whirlpool stated that the cost of utilizing third-party 
laboratories for this added testing would be substantial and could 
exceed $500,000 annually. Whirlpool added that the proposed revision of 
the energy test cycle definition could double or quadruple the length 
of the test process for any clothes washer for which Part (B) of the 
proposed energy test cycle definition applies. Whirlpool believes that 
this additional test burden would not be justifiable. (Whirlpool, No. 
13 at pp. 1, 13).
    AHAM commented that additional measurements required by the 
proposed rule would be burdensome and would result in only a de minimus 
amount of additional measured energy (as little as zero additional 
energy in the case of cycle finished mode). AHAM stated that DOE should 
not substantially increase the testing burden on manufacturers when the 
result would not produce significant conservation of energy and thus 
little or no benefit to the public interest. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 2) 
AHAM stated that measuring de minimus amount of standby power energy 
would require large amounts of testing time. AHAM believes that DOE's 
estimate of an 11 percent increase in the testing duration for clothes 
washers offering inactive, off, delay start, and cycle finished modes 
would be significant, and AHAM predicts that the increase in test 
duration could actually be as much as 25 percent. AHAM believes that 
separately measuring delay start and cycle finished mode represents a 
significant increase in the testing burden, without any corresponding 
public benefit. (AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 4, 15) Furthermore, AHAM stated 
that adding steam cycles to the test procedure would add substantially 
to the test burden. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 10).
    BSH commented that its calculations indicate appendix J1 requires 
three days of dedicated testing for each appliance. BSH believes this 
is already a significant burden for appliance testing, particularly as 
compared to clothes dryers and other appliances. BSH estimated that the 
worst-case proposal in the September 2010 NOPR would represent a 47 
percent increase in testing time for each clothes washer, for a total 
testing time of one full work week. BSH stated that to perform this 
additional testing, laboratory facilities and available labor would 
need to be increased by around 50 percent, or external resources 
sought, which would delay product innovation. BSH also estimated that 
should self-cleaning and steam cycles be excluded from testing, and 
should delay start and cycle finished modes be included in off and 
inactive modes rather than separately measured, the increase in test 
burden would be approximately 15 percent. BSH believes that this level 
of testing increase is manageable. Finally, BSH estimated that should 
the definition of energy test cycle be implemented as proposed in the 
September 2010 NOPR, test burden could increase by 100 percent or more 
depending on how the phrase ``largely comparable'' is interpreted and 
defined. (BSH, No. 17 pp. 5-6).
    NEEA believes that any increased test burden resulting from DOE's 
proposal will be minor in comparison to the significant amount of 
testing that manufacturers conduct as part of product development, and 
in testing their competitors' products. NEEA stated that much of the 
added test burden, such as burden associated with testing inactive 
mode, non-active wash mode power consumption, and steam cycles will be 
associated with only a subset of the models produced. (NEEA, No. 12 at 
p. 15).
    The California Utilities commented that the test procedure proposed 
by DOE in the September 2010 NOPR represents an improvement over the 
current J1 test procedure, and does not appear to significantly add to 
the testing burden. The California Utilities stated that testing of 
delay start, cycle finished, and self-clean modes should apply only to 
those models that include those features (or in the case of self-clean 
mode, those models with a manufacturer recommendation for periodic 
self-clean cycles), and therefore would alter the testing burden only 
for those products. The California Utilities also stated that because 
measurement of hot water is already incorporated in the test procedure 
for the MEF calculation, inclusion of hot water in the proposed IWF 
calculation will not introduce any significant test burden. (California 
Utilities, No. 18 at pp. 1, 2, 5).
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed supplemental amendments to 
the clothes washer test procedure, which incorporated the most current 
version of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) instead of the previous 
version. DOE also proposed certain amendments to the active mode 
provisions of the test procedure. As explained in the August 2011 
SNOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the new provisions in IEC 
Standard 62301 (Second Edition) would improve test results without 
undue test burden. DOE also stated its belief that the potential for 
increased test burden for certain power measurements is offset by more 
reasonable requirements for testing equipment, while maintaining 
acceptable measurement accuracy. In addition, the proposed amendments 
to the active mode provisions consist of clarifications and would not 
require any additional investment, equipment purchases, or test time 
beyond those described in the September 2010 NOPR. Therefore, DOE 
tentatively concluded that the proposed active mode amendments would 
not impose significant burden on manufacturers.
    The California Utilities support the harmonization of the test 
procedure with IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). The California 
Utilities stated that the potential test burden on manufacturers is 
outweighed by the improvement in accuracy and representativeness of the 
resulting power measurement. The California Utilities stated further 
that the increased testing time and the use of analytical software 
associated with using the Second Edition is required only for unstable 
and non-cyclical power measurements, and because the expected number of 
instances of unstable and non-cyclical power should be small, the added 
test burden should likewise remain minimal. (California Utilities, No. 
25 at p. 1).
    NEEA believes that the extra time required for measuring unstable 
power modes is justified for obtaining an accurate measurement. NEEA 
believes that for clothes washers requiring the most extreme increase 
in test burden, manufacturers will quickly learn the behavior of their 
products' standby and off mode behavior and choose the appropriate 
measurement technique accordingly. (NEEA, No. 26 at p. 2) NEEA also 
suggested that setting time limits on the duration of delay start and

[[Page 13932]]

cycle finished mode can limit the test burden associated with measuring 
power in these modes. (NEEA, No. 26 at pp. 2-3) NEEA disagrees with 
Whirlpool's claim that there is virtually no consumer benefit in 
measuring power consumption in low-power modes. (NEEA, No. 26 at p. 3).
    DOE notes that interested parties generally support harmonizing the 
test procedure with the Second Edition of IEC Standard 62301, and that 
the test procedure improves accuracy and consistency of test results 
and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. As described previously, DOE 
adopts the ``alternate approach'' in which all low-power mode hours are 
allocated to the inactive and off modes, and the low-power mode power 
is only measured in the inactive and off modes, depending on which of 
these modes is present. Under the alternate approach, additional 
measurements of delay start mode and cycle finished mode are not 
required. Today's final rule also does not require the separate 
measurement of self-clean mode. In addition, the large majority of 
amendments to the active mode provisions of the test procedure consist 
of clarifications to test conduct and revised calculations, and would 
not require any additional investment, equipment purchases, or test 
time beyond those described in the September 2010 NOPR. DOE believes 
that any additional test burden resulting from the revised definition 
of the energy test cycle will be minimal because manufacturers already 
possess in-depth knowledge about the energy characteristics of each 
wash cycle offered on their clothes washers. Other test laboratories 
would not be required to conduct multiple tests to determine which 
cycle settings should be included under Part (B) of the energy test 
cycle, which could actually reduce test burden. For these reasons, DOE 
concludes that today's amendments to the provisions for standby mode, 
off mode, and active mode provisions of the clothes washer test 
procedure will not impose significant additional test burden on 
manufacturers.
2. Integration of Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption Into the 
Energy Efficiency Metrics
    As discussed previously, EPCA 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 an 
integrated test procedure is technically infeasible. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A) As described in section III.B.8, DOE adds provisions in 
this final rule for calculating the integrated modified energy factor, 
which integrates the combined low-power mode energy consumption into 
the overall energy efficiency metric for clothes washers.
    EPCA also provides that test procedure amendments adopted to comply 
with the new EPCA requirements for standby and off mode energy 
consumption will not be used to determine compliance with previously 
established standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(C) Because DOE is 
incorporating these changes in a new appendix J2 to 10 CFR part 430 
subpart B that manufacturers would not be required to use until the 
compliance date of amended energy conservation standards for 
residential clothes washers, the test procedure amendments pertaining 
to standby mode and off mode energy consumption that DOE adopts in this 
rulemaking do not apply to, and have no effect on, existing standards.
3. Impacts on Commercial Clothes Washers
    The test procedure for commercial clothes washers is required to be 
the same test procedure established for residential clothes washers. 42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(8) Thus, the test procedure set forth in appendix J1 of 
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 is also currently used to test commercial 
clothes washers. 10 CFR 431.154
    DOE noted in the September 2010 NOPR that the impacts on testing 
commercial clothes washers would be limited to the proposed amendments 
associated with active washing mode because commercial clothes washer 
standards are based on MEF and WF. These include the proposed changes 
to the test load size specification, TUFs, DUF, test cloth 
specification, capacity measurement, detergent specification, and water 
supply pressure specification, which would affect the measured energy 
and water efficiencies of a commercial clothes washer. DOE stated that 
the most significant impacts would be associated with the proposed 
amendments for capacity measurement and usage factors, but did not have 
information to evaluate any impacts for commercial clothes washers.
    DOE received several comments on the potential impacts of an 
amended clothes washer test procedure on commercial clothes washers and 
provided responses to most of these comments in the August 2011 SNOPR. 
NEEA provided one additional comment on the September 2010 NOPR. NEEA 
stated that most of the provisions of the new appendix J2 test 
procedure will be relevant to the testing and rating of commercial 
clothes washers. NEEA notes, however, that DOE's current projected 
schedule for a new commercial clothes washer rulemaking estimates a 
final rule in 2015, which would result in an effective date of new 
standards for these products in 2018. NEEA suggests that DOE explore 
the possibility of expediting the projected rulemaking schedule for 
commercial clothes washers to more closely align the metrics and 
marketplace performance perceptions of the residential and commercial 
products. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 15).
    DOE also received the following comments from the August 2011 
SNOPR. AHAM and ALS agree with DOE's clarification that the impact on 
commercial clothes washers would be limited to the proposed amendments 
associated with active washing mode, since commercial clothes washer 
standards are based on MEF and WF, which do not include standby and off 
mode. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 6; ALS, No. 22 at p. 4).
    For the reasons discussed above and in the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE 
concludes that the addition of procedures to measure the energy use in 
standby and off modes would be inapplicable to and would not affect the 
standards for commercial clothes washers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(e). 
For the active mode provisions of the revised test procedure that could 
affect the measured energy and water efficiencies of a commercial 
clothes washer, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3) provides the 
following: Models of covered products in use before the date on which 
an amended energy conservation standard (developed using the amended 
test procedure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) becomes effective that 
comply with the energy conservation standard applicable to such covered 
products on the day before such date are deemed to comply with the 
amended standard. The same is true of revisions of such models that 
come into use after such date and have the same energy efficiency, 
energy use or water use characteristics.
4. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Requirements
    Sections 6299-6305 and 6316 of EPCA authorize DOE to enforce 
compliance with the energy and water conservation standards established 
for certain consumer products and commercial equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6299-
6305 (consumer products), 6316

[[Page 13933]]

(commercial equipment) On March 7, 2011, the Department revised, 
consolidated, and streamlined its existing certification, compliance, 
and enforcement regulations for certain consumer products and 
commercial and industrial equipment covered under EPCA, including 
residential clothes washers. 76 FR 12422. These regulations for 
residential clothes washers are codified in 10 CFR 429.20.
    The certification requirements for residential clothes washers 
consist of a sampling plan for selection of units for testing and 
requirements for certification reports. In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE 
proposed amending the provisions in the sampling plan in 10 CFR part 
429.20(a)(2) that would include IMEF along with the existing measure of 
MEF, and IWF along with the existing measure of WF.
    AHAM and ALS expressed support for DOE's proposal to include IMEF 
and IWF along with the existing measures of MEF and WF, respectively in 
the sampling plan in 10 CFR 429.20(a)(2). AHAM also supported DOE's 
proposal to not make any changes to the reporting requirements for 
residential clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 6; ALS, No. 22 at p. 
4)
    In the November 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed amending the reporting 
requirements in 10 CFR 429.20(b)(2) to require manufacturers, when 
using appendix J2, to list all cycle settings comprising the complete 
energy test cycle for each basic model. As described previously in 
section III.C.4.f, DOE does not intend to make this information 
publicly available as part of the certification report.
    Today's final rule modifies the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 
429.20(b)(2) by specifying that a certification report shall include 
publicly available information including MEF, WF, and capacity; as well 
as the list of cycle settings comprising the complete energy test cycle 
for each basic model, which would not be made publicly available as 
part of the report. The requirement to provide the list of cycle 
settings comprising the complete energy test cycle will apply only to 
test results obtained using appendix J2.

H. Impacts of the Test Procedure Amendments on EnergyGuide and 
ENERGYSTAR

    In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE determined that the proposed test 
procedure amendments would not affect the FTC EnergyGuide labeling 
program because DOE did not propose to amend the estimated annual 
operating cost calculation in 10 CFR 430.23. DOE received multiple 
comments on the impacts of test procedure amendments on the EnergyGuide 
and ENERGYSTAR programs.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE addressed comments related to 
EnergyGuide impacts. DOE also received the following comment regarding 
impacts to the ENERGYSTAR program. NEEA stated that the ENERGYSTAR 
program has weathered a number of standards changes for the products 
promoted under its brand, and has periodically updated its program 
specifications in response to these changes. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 16) 
DOE agrees that the ENERGYSTAR program periodically updates its program 
specifications for each product in response to changes in efficiency 
standards, as well as changes in the availability of products on the 
market. Therefore, DOE expects that the ENERGYSTAR program will be able 
to modify its program specifications for clothes washers to incorporate 
the integrated efficiency metrics after the compliance date of any 
amended standards for clothes washers.
    In the August 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend the estimated 
annual operating cost by incorporating the cost of energy consumed in 
the non-active washing modes. DOE also proposed to update the number of 
annual use cycles, which would affect the estimated annual operating 
cost disclosed on the EnergyGuide label. DOE received several comments 
related to its proposal to update the annual operating cost, as 
described previously in section III.D.
    For the reasons described in section III.D and the August 2011 
SNOPR, today's final rule amends the estimated annual operating cost by 
incorporating the cost of energy consumed in the non-active wash modes. 
Today's final rule also updates the annual use cycles, which affects 
the estimated annual operating cost. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6294, the 
FTC may revise the EnergyGuide label for residential clothes washers.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

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 
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 (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed today's rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for 
this certification is as follows:
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity 
to be small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less 
than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These 
size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS 
classification code 335224, which applies to household laundry 
equipment manufacturers and includes clothes washer manufacturers, is 
1,000 employees. Searches of the SBA Web site \14\ to identify clothes 
washer manufacturers within these NAICS codes identified, out of 
approximately 17 manufacturers supplying clothes washers in the United 
States, one small business. This small business manufactures laundry 
appliances, including clothes washers. The other manufacturers 
supplying clothes washers are large multinational corporations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is 
available online at: http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's final rule would amend DOE's test procedure by 
incorporating testing provisions to address active mode, standby mode, 
and off mode energy and water consumption that will

[[Page 13934]]

be used to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards. 
The test procedure amendments for measuring standby and off mode power 
using the ``alternative method'' involve measuring power input when the 
clothes washer is in inactive mode or off mode, or both if both modes 
are available on the clothes washer under test, as a proxy for 
measuring power consumption in all low-power modes. These tests can be 
conducted in the same facilities used for the current energy testing of 
these products, so it is anticipated that manufacturers would not incur 
any additional facilities costs as a result of the proposed test 
procedure amendments. The power meter required for these tests might 
require greater accuracy than the power meter used for current energy 
testing, but the investment required for a possible instrumentation 
upgrade is expected to be approximately a few thousand dollars. The 
duration of each non-active washing mode test period is expected to be 
roughly 30-45 minutes, depending on stability of the power, using the 
alternate approach described previously. This is comparable to 
approximately one-half to two-thirds the time required to conduct a 
single energy test wash cycle. Each clothes washer tested requires, on 
average, approximately 15 test cycles for energy testing, which equates 
to about 3 days of testing. Using the alternate approach adopted in 
today's final rule, DOE estimates roughly a 3-percent increase in total 
test period duration. DOE notes that the provisions from IEC Standard 
62301 (Second Edition) incorporated by reference in today's final rule 
would require longer test durations in the event that the threshold 
stability criteria of the power measurement are not met. However, based 
on DOE's observations during testing for the September 2010 NOPR and 
August 2011 SNOPR, the likelihood of such a longer test being required 
should be small.
    DOE also estimates that it currently costs a manufacturer 
approximately $2300 on average, including the cost of consumables, to 
conduct energy testing for a particular clothes washer. DOE further 
estimates that the cost of additional testing for non-active washing 
modes using the alternate approach adopted in today's final rule will 
average $75 per machine, a 3 percent increase over current test costs.
    DOE does not expect that these additional requirements for 
equipment and time and additional cost to conduct the non-active 
washing mode will impose a significant economic burden on entities 
subject to the applicable testing requirements. Although the small 
business has significantly lower sales than other manufacturers over 
which to amortize these additional costs, it produces only a single 
platform that would be subject to the proposed non-active washing mode 
tests.
    Furthermore, the test procedure amendments for the active washing 
mode adopted in today's final rule will not increase test burden 
because they comprise revisions to calculations rather than additional, 
longer, or more complex methodology.
    In response to the August 2011 SNOPR, ALS stated that it takes no 
position on DOE's tentative conclusion that the September 2010 NOPR and 
August 2011 SNOPR would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. ALS stated that it needs to 
conduct a significant number of tests utilizing the proposed test 
procedure before commenting on the additional burden that falls on 
manufacturers. (ALS, No. 22 at p. 3).
    For the reasons discussed above, DOE concludes and certifies that 
today's final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared 
a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has 
transmitted the certification and supporting statement of factual basis 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of residential clothes washers must certify to DOE 
that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
products according to the DOE test procedures for clothes washers, 
including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has 
established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial 
equipment, including residential clothes washers. (76 FR 12422 (March 
7, 2011)). The collection-of-information requirement for the 
certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by 
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been 
approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting 
burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per 
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for residential 
clothes washers. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class 
of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this 
rule amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA

[[Page 13935]]

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)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's final rule according to UMRA 
and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains 
neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in 
the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these 
requirements do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The amendments to the test procedure in today's final rule 
incorporate testing

[[Page 13936]]

methods contained in the following commercial standards:

    1. AATCC Test Method 79-2010, Absorbency of Textiles, Revised 
2010.
    2. AATCC Test Method 118-2007, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon 
Resistance Test, Revised 2007.
    3. AATCC Test Method 135-2010, Dimensional Changes of Fabrics 
after Home Laundering.
    4. IEC Standard 62301, Household electrical appliances--
Measurement of standby power, Edition 2.0, 2011-01.

    DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether 
they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA 
(i.e., whether they were developed in a manner that fully provides for 
public participation, comment, and review). DOE has consulted with both 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
using the methods contained in these standards and has received no 
comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household 
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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 February 22, 2012.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Section 429.20 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text;
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  429.20  Residential clothes washers.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Any represented value of the water factor, integrated water 
factor, the estimated annual operating cost, the energy or water 
consumption, or other measure of energy or water consumption of a basic 
model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater 
than or equal to the higher of:
* * * * *
    (ii) Any represented value of the modified energy factor, 
integrated modified energy factor, or other measure of energy or water 
consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher 
values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following additional product-specific information: When 
using appendix J2, a list of all cycle selections comprising the 
complete energy test cycle for each basic model.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
3. 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
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (o) as paragraphs (d) through 
(p);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising newly designated paragraphs (m) introductory text and 
(m)(2).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) AATCC. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists, 
P.O. Box 12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or go 
to www.aatcc.org.
    (1) AATCC Test Method 79-2010, Absorbency of Textiles, Revised 
2010, IBR approved for Appendix J2 to Subpart B.
    (2) AATCC Test Method 118-2007, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon 
Resistance Test, Revised 2007, IBR approved for Appendix J2 to Subpart 
B.
    (3) AATCC Test Method 135-2010, Dimensional Changes of Fabrics 
after Home Laundering, Revised 2010, IBR approved for Appendix J2 to 
Subpart B.
* * * * *
    (m) IEC. International Electrotechnical Commission, available from 
the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th 
Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to http://webstore.ansi.org.
* * * * *
    (2) IEC Standard 62301 (``IEC 62301''), Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power, Edition 2.0, 2011-01, IBR 
approved for Appendix J2 to Subpart B.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (j) Clothes washers. (1) The estimated annual operating cost for 
automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers must be rounded off to the 
nearest dollar per year and is defined as follows:
    (i) When using appendix J2 (see the note at the beginning of 
appendix J2),
    (A) When electrically heated water is used,

(N1 x ETE1 x CKWH)

Where:

N1 = the representative average residential clothes 
washer use of 392 cycles per year according to appendix J1,
ETE1 = the total per-cycle energy consumption when 
electrically heated water is used, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to section 4.1.7 of appendix J1, and
CKWH = the representative average unit cost, in dollars 
per kilowatt-hour, as provided by the Secretary.

    (B) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used,

(N1 x ((MET1 x CKWH) + 
(HETG1 x CBTU)))

Where:

N1 and CKWH are defined in paragraph 
(j)(1)(i)(A) of this section,

[[Page 13937]]

MET1 = the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical 
energy consumption, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 
according to section 4.1.6 of appendix J1,
HETG1 = the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption 
using gas-heated or oil-heated water, in Btu per cycle, determined 
according to section 4.1.4 of appendix J1, and
CBTU = the representative average unit cost, in dollars 
per Btu for oil or gas, as appropriate, as provided by the 
Secretary.

    (ii) When using appendix J2,
    (A) When electrically heated water is used,

(N2 x (ETE2 + ETSO) x CKWH)

Where:

N2 = the representative average residential clothes 
washer use of 295 cycles per year according to appendix J2,
ETE2 = the total per-cycle energy consumption when 
electrically heated water is used, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to section 4.1.7 of appendix J2,
ETSO = the per-cycle combined low-power mode energy 
consumption, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to 
section 4.4 of appendix J2, and
CKWH = the representative average unit cost, in dollars 
per kilowatt-hour, as provided by the Secretary.

    (B) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used,

(N2 x ((MET2 + ETSO) x 
CKWH) + (HETG2 x CBTU))

Where:

N2 and ETSO are defined in (j)(1)(ii)(A) of 
this section,
MET2 = the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical 
energy consumption, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 
according to section 4.1.6 of appendix J2,
CKWH = the representative average unit cost, in dollars 
per kilowatt-hour, as provided by the Secretary,
HETG2 = the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption 
using gas-heated or oil-heated water, in Btu per cycle, determined 
according to section 4.1.4 of appendix J2,
CBTU = the representative average unit cost, in dollars 
per Btu for oil or gas, as appropriate, as provided by the 
Secretary.

    (2)(i) The modified energy factor for automatic and semi-automatic 
clothes washers is determined according to section 4.4 of appendix J1 
(when using appendix J1) and section 4.5 of appendix J2 (when using 
appendix J2). The result shall be rounded off to the nearest 0.01 cubic 
foot per kilowatt-hour per cycle.
    (ii) The integrated modified energy factor for automatic and semi-
automatic clothes washers is determined according to section 4.6 of 
appendix J2 (when using appendix J2). The result shall be rounded off 
to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot per kilowatt-hour per cycle.
    (3) Other useful measures of energy consumption for automatic or 
semi-automatic clothes washers shall be those measures of energy 
consumption which the Secretary determines are likely to assist 
consumers in making purchasing decisions and which are derived from the 
application of appendix J1 or appendix J2, as appropriate. In addition, 
the annual water consumption of a clothes washer can be determined as:
    (i) When using appendix J1, the product of the representative 
average-use of 392 cycles per year and the total weighted per-cycle 
water consumption in gallons per cycle determined according to section 
4.2.2 of appendix J1. The water factor can be determined according to 
section 4.2.3 of appendix J1, with the result rounded off to the 
nearest 0.1 gallons per cycle per cubic foot. The remaining moisture 
content can be determined according to section 3.8 of appendix J1, with 
the result rounded off to the nearest 0.1 percent.
    (ii) When using appendix J2, the product of the representative 
average-use of 295 cycles per year and the total weighted per-cycle 
water consumption for all wash cycles, in gallons per cycle, determined 
according to section 4.2.11 of appendix J2. The water factor can be 
determined according to section 4.2.12 of appendix J2, with the result 
rounded off to the nearest 0.1 gallons per cycle per cubic foot. The 
integrated water factor can be determined according to section 4.2.13 
of appendix J2, with the result rounded off to the nearest 0.1 gallons 
per cycle per cubic foot. The remaining moisture content can be 
determined according to section 3.8 of appendix J2, with the result 
rounded off to the nearest 0.1 percent.
* * * * *

Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430--[Removed]

0
6. Appendix J to subpart B of part 430 is removed.

Appendix J1--[Amended]

0
7. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Revising section 1.19;
0
c. Revising section 1.22;
0
d. Removing sections 2.6.1.1 through 2.6.1.2.4;
0
e. Revising section 2.6.3.1;
0
f. Revising section 2.6.4.3
0
g. Revising section 2.6.4.5.3(b);
0
h. Revising section 2.6.6.1;
0
i. Revising section 2.6.6.2;
0
j. Revising section 2.10;
0
k. Revising section 3.6;
0
l. Revising section 4.1.4;
0
m. Revising section 4.2;
0
n. Revising section 4.2.3;
0
o. Removing section 4.5;
0
p. Revising section 5; and
0
q. Revising section 6.2.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix J1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

    Manufacturers may use Appendix J1 to certify compliance with 
existing DOE energy conservation standards until the compliance date 
of any amended standards that address standby and off mode power 
consumption for residential clothes washers. After this date, all 
residential clothes washers shall be tested using the provisions of 
Appendix J2.
* * * * *
    1.19 Water factor means the quotient of the total weighted per-
cycle water consumption divided by the cubic foot (or liter) 
capacity of the clothes washer.
* * * * *
    1.22 Cold rinse means the coldest rinse temperature available on 
the machine.
* * * * *
    2.6.3.1 Perform 5 complete normal wash-rinse-spin cycles, the 
first two with current AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3 and the 
last three without detergent. Place the test cloth in a clothes 
washer set at the maximum water level. Wash the load for ten minutes 
in soft water (17 ppm hardness or less) using 27.0 grams + 4.0 grams 
per pound of cloth load of AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3. The 
wash temperature is to be controlled to 135 [deg]F  5 
[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C) and the rinse 
temperature is to be controlled to 60 [deg]F  5 [deg]F 
(15.6 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C). Repeat the cycle with 
detergent and then repeat the cycle three additional times without 
detergent, bone drying the load between cycles (total of five wash 
and rinse cycles).
* * * * *
    2.6.4.3 The thread count shall be 65 x 57 per inch (warp x 
fill), 2 percent.
* * * * *
    2.6.4.5.3. * * *
    (b) Copies of the above standards incorporated by reference can 
be obtained from the American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists, P.O. Box 12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 
telephone (919) 549-3526, fax (919) 549-8933, or email: 
orders@aatcc.org.
* * * * *
    2.6.6.1 Average the values of 3 test runs and fill in Table 
2.6.5 of this appendix. Perform a linear least-squares fit to 
determine coefficients A and B such that the standard RMC values 
shown in Table 2.6.6.1 of this appendix (RMCstandard) are 
linearly related to the RMC values measured in section 2.6.5 of this 
appendix (RMCcloth):

RMCstandard ~ A * RMCcloth + B

where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.
* * * * *
    2.6.6.2 Perform an analysis of variance with replication test 
using two factors, spin

[[Page 13938]]

speed and lot, to check the interaction of speed and lot. Use the 
values from Table 2.6.5 and Table 2.6.6.1 of this Appendix in the 
calculation. The ``P'' value of the F-statistic for interaction 
between spin speed and lot in the variance analysis shall be greater 
than or equal to 0.1. If the ``P'' value is less than 0.1, the test 
cloth is unacceptable. ``P'' is a theoretically based measure of 
interaction based on an analysis of variance.
* * * * *
    2.10 Wash time setting. If one wash time is prescribed in the 
energy test cycle, that shall be the wash time setting; otherwise, 
the wash time setting shall be the higher of either the minimum or 
70 percent of the maximum wash time available in the energy test 
cycle, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. If 
the clothes washer is equipped with an electromechanical dial 
controlling wash time, reset the dial to the minimum wash time and 
then turn it in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the 
appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting is passed, return 
the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn in the direction of 
increasing wash time until the setting is reached.
* * * * *
    3.6 ``Cold Wash'' (Minimum Wash Temperature Selection). Water 
and electrical energy consumption shall be measured for each water 
fill level or test load size as specified in sections 3.6.1 through 
3.6.3 of this Appendix for the coldest wash temperature selection 
available. For a clothes washer that offers two or more wash 
temperature settings labeled as cold, such as ``Cold'' and ``Tap 
Cold'', the setting with the minimum wash temperature shall be 
considered the cold wash. If any of the other cold wash temperature 
settings add hot water to raise the wash temperature above the cold 
water supply temperature, as defined in section 2.3 of this 
Appendix, those setting(s) shall be considered warm wash setting(s), 
as defined in section 1.18 of this Appendix. If none of the cold 
wash temperature settings add hot water for any of the water fill 
levels or test load sizes required for the energy test cycle, the 
wash temperature setting labeled as ``Cold'' shall be considered the 
cold wash, and the other wash temperature setting(s) labeled as cold 
shall not be required for testing.
* * * * *
    4.1.4 Total per-cycle hot water energy consumption using gas-
heated or oil-heated water. Calculate for the energy test cycle the 
per-cycle hot water consumption, HETG, using gas-heated 
or oil-heated water, expressed in Btu per cycle (or megajoules per 
cycle) and defined as:

HETG=HETx1/ex3412 Btu/kWh or 
HETG=HETx1/ex3.6 MJ/kWh

Where:

e = Nominal gas or oil water heater efficiency=0.75.
HET = As defined in 4.1.3.
* * * * *
    4.2.3 Water factor. Calculate the water factor, WF, expressed in 
gallons per cycle per cubic foot (or liters per cycle per liter), 
as:

WF = QT/C

Where:

QT = As defined in section 4.2.2.
C = As defined in section 3.1.5.
* * * * *

5. Test Loads

                                                               Table 5.1--Test Load Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Container volume                                     Minimum load              Maximum load              Average load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               cu. ft.  >= = 0.10 lbs (0.05 kg).

* * * * *
    6.2 Nonconventional Wash System Energy Consumption Test. The 
field test may consist of a minimum of 10 of the nonconventional 
clothes washers (``test clothes washers'') and 10 clothes washers 
already being distributed in commerce (``base clothes washers''). 
The tests should include a minimum of 50 energy test cycles per 
clothes washer. The test clothes washers and base clothes washers 
should be identical in construction except for the controls or 
systems being tested. Equal numbers of both the test clothes washer 
and the base clothes washer should be tested simultaneously in 
comparable settings to minimize seasonal or consumer laundering 
conditions or variations. The clothes washers should be monitored in 
such a way as to accurately record the average total energy and 
water consumption per cycle, including water heating energy when 
electrically heated water is used, and the energy required to remove 
the remaining moisture of the test load. The field test results 
should be used to determine the best method to correlate the rating 
of the test clothes washer to the rating of the base clothes washer.
* * * * *

0
6. Add a new Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 to read as follows:

Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

    Manufacturers may use Appendix J1 to certify compliance with 
existing DOE energy conservation standards until the compliance date 
of any amended standards that address standby and off mode power 
consumption for residential clothes washers. After this date, all 
residential clothes washers shall be tested using the provisions of 
Appendix J2.

1. Definitions and Symbols

    1.1 Active mode means a mode in which the clothes washer is 
connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is 
performing one or more of the main functions of washing, soaking, 
tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing water from the 
clothing, or is involved in functions necessary for these main 
functions, such as admitting water into the washer or pumping water 
out of the washer. Active mode also includes delay start and cycle 
finished modes.
    1.2 Active washing mode means a mode in which the clothes washer 
is performing any of the operations included in a complete cycle 
intended for washing a clothing load, including the main functions 
of washing, soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or removing 
water from the clothing.
    1.3 Adaptive control system means a clothes washer control 
system, other than an adaptive water fill control system, which is 
capable of automatically adjusting washer operation or washing 
conditions based on characteristics of the clothes load placed in 
the clothes container, without allowing or requiring consumer 
intervention or actions. The automatic adjustments may, for example, 
include automatic selection, modification, or control of any of the 
following: Wash water temperature, agitation or tumble cycle time, 
number of rinse cycles, and spin speed. The characteristics of the 
clothes load, which could trigger such adjustments, could, for 
example, consist of or be indicated by the presence of either soil, 
soap, suds, or any other additive laundering substitute or 
complementary product.
    Note: Appendix J2 does not provide a means for determining the 
energy consumption of a clothes washer with an adaptive control 
system. A waiver must be obtained pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27 to 
establish an acceptable test procedure for each such clothes washer.
    1.4 Adaptive water fill control system means a clothes washer 
water fill control system which is capable of automatically 
adjusting the water fill level based on the size or weight of the 
clothes load placed in the clothes container, without allowing or 
requiring consumer intervention or actions.
    1.5 Bone-dry means a condition of a load of test cloth 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 Clothes container means the compartment within the clothes 
washer that holds the clothes during the operation of the machine.
    1.7 Cold rinse means the coldest rinse temperature available on 
the machine.
    1.8 Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available 
modes other than active washing mode, including inactive mode, off 
mode, delay start mode, and cycle finished mode.
    1.9 Compact means a clothes washer which has a clothes container 
capacity of less than 1.6 ft\3\ (45 L).
    1.10 Cycle finished mode means an active mode which provides 
continuous status display, intermittent tumbling, or air circulation 
following operation in active washing mode.
    1.11 Deep rinse cycle means a rinse cycle in which the clothes 
container is filled with water to a selected level and the clothes 
load is rinsed by agitating it or tumbling it through the water.
    1.12 Delay start mode means an active mode in which activation 
of active washing mode is facilitated by a timer.
    1.13 Energy test cycle for a basic model means:
    (A) The cycle selection recommended by the manufacturer for 
washing cotton or linen clothes, and includes all wash/rinse 
temperature selections for each of the temperature use factors 
(TUFs) offered in that cycle, and
    (B) If the cycle selection described in Part (A) does not 
include all wash/rinse temperature selections for each of the TUFs 
available on the clothes washer, the energy test cycle shall 
include, in addition to Part (A), the alternate cycle selection(s) 
offering these remaining wash/rinse temperature selection(s), tested 
only at the wash/rinse temperature selection(s) for each TUF not 
available on the cycle selection described in Part (A).
    Where multiple alternate cycle selections offer a wash/rinse 
temperature selection for which a TUF has been developed, and that 
is not available on the cycle selection

[[Page 13940]]

recommended by the manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes 
described in Part (A), the alternate cycle selection certified by 
the manufacturer to have the highest energy consumption for that 
TUF, as measured according to section 2.13, shall be included in the 
energy test cycle, so that each TUF that is available on the clothes 
washer has been tested once.
    (C) All cycle selections included under Part (A) and all cycle 
selections included under Part (B) shall be tested using each 
appropriate load size as defined in section 2.8 and Table 5.1 of 
this appendix.
    (D) For any cycle selection tested under (A) or (B), the 
manufacturer default settings shall be used, except for the 
temperature selection, if necessary. This includes wash conditions 
such as agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin speed(s), wash 
times, rinse times, and all other wash parameters or optional 
features applicable to that cycle, including water heating time for 
water heating clothes washers.
    (E) Each wash cycle included as part of the energy test cycle 
shall include the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay 
start or cycle finished modes.
    (F) The energy test cycle shall not include any cycle, if 
available, that is dedicated for cleaning, deodorizing, or 
sanitizing the clothes washer, and is separate from clothes washing 
cycles.
    1.14 IEC 62301 means the test standard published by the 
International Electrotechnical Commission, entitled ``Household 
electrical appliances-Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 
62301, Edition 2.0 2011-01 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3).
    1.15 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.
    1.16 Integrated modified energy factor means the quotient of the 
cubic foot (or liter) capacity of the clothes container divided by 
the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such 
energy consumption expressed as the sum of:
    (a) The machine electrical energy consumption;
    (b) The hot water energy consumption;
    (c) The energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in 
the wash load; and
    (d) The combined low-power mode energy consumption.
    1.17 Integrated water factor means the quotient of the total 
weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons 
divided by the cubic foot (or liter) capacity of the clothes washer.
    1.18 Load usage factor means the percentage of the total number 
of wash loads that a user would wash a particular size (weight) 
load.
    1.19 Lot means a quantity of cloth that has been manufactured 
with the same batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous 
process.
    1.20 Manual control system means a clothes washer control system 
which requires that the consumer make the choices that determine 
washer operation or washing conditions, such as, for example, wash/
rinse temperature selections and wash time, before starting the 
cycle.
    1.21 Manual water fill control system means a clothes washer 
water fill control system which requires the consumer to determine 
or select the water fill level.
    1.22 Modified energy factor means the quotient of the cubic foot 
(or liter) capacity of the clothes container divided by the total 
clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such energy 
consumption expressed as the sum of the machine electrical energy 
consumption, the hot water energy consumption, and the energy 
required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load.
    1.23 Non-water-heating clothes washer means a clothes washer 
which does not have an internal water heating device to generate hot 
water.
    1.24 Off mode means a mode in which the clothes washer 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 classification 
of an off mode.
    1.25 Roll means a subset of a lot.
    1.26 Spray rinse cycle means a rinse cycle in which water is 
sprayed onto the clothes for a period of time without maintaining 
any specific water level in the clothes container.
    1.27 Standard means a clothes washer which has a clothes 
container capacity of 1.6 ft\3\ (45 L) or greater.
    1.28 Standby mode means any mode in which the clothes washer is 
connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the 
following user oriented or protective functions that 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.
    1.29 Symbol usage. The following identity relationships are 
provided to help clarify the symbology used throughout this 
procedure.

C--Capacity
C (with subscripts)--Cold Water Consumption
D--Energy Consumption for Removal of Moisture from Test Load
E--Electrical Energy Consumption
F--Load Usage Factor
H--Hot Water Consumption
HE--Hot Water Energy Consumption
ME--Machine Electrical Energy Consumption
P--Power
Q--Water Consumption
RMC--Remaining Moisture Content
S--Annual Hours
TUF--Temperature Use Factor
V--Temperature-Weighted Hot Water Consumption
W--Mass of Water
WC--Weight of Test Load After Extraction
WI--Initial Weight of Dry Test Load

    Subscripts:

a or avg--Average Test Load
B--Part B of the Energy Test Cycle
c--Cold Wash (minimum wash temp.)
corr--Corrected (RMC values)
h--Hot Wash (maximum wash temp. 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C))
n--Minimum Test Load
o--Off Mode
oi--Combined Off and Inactive Modes
T--Total
w--Warm Wash
ww--Warm Wash/Warm Rinse
x--Maximum Test Load

    The following examples are provided to show how the above 
symbols can be used to define variables:

Emx = ``Electrical Energy Consumption'' for an ``Extra 
Hot Wash'' and ``Maximum Test Load''
HEmin = ``Hot Water Energy Consumption'' for the 
``Minimum Test Load''
Pia = ``Power'' in ``Inactive Mode''
Qhmin = ``Water Consumption'' for a ``Hot Wash'' and 
``Minimum Test Load''
TUFm = ``Temperature Use Factor'' for an ``Extra Hot 
Wash''

    1.30 Temperature use factor means, for a particular wash/rinse 
temperature setting, the percentage of the total number of wash 
loads that an average user would wash with that setting.
    1.31 Thermostatically controlled water valves means clothes 
washer controls that have the ability to sense and adjust the hot 
and cold supply water.
    1.32 Uniformly distributed warm wash temperature selection(s) 
means (A) multiple warm wash selections for which the warm wash 
water temperatures have a linear relationship with all discrete warm 
wash selections when the water temperatures are plotted against 
equally spaced consecutive warm wash selections between the hottest 
warm wash and the coldest warm wash. If the warm wash has infinite 
selections, the warm wash water temperature has a linear 
relationship with the distance on the selection device (e.g. dial 
angle or slide movement) between the hottest warm wash and the 
coldest warm wash. The criteria for a linear relationship as 
specified above is that the difference between the actual water 
temperature at any warm wash selection and the point where that 
temperature is depicted on the temperature/selection line formed by 
connecting the warmest and the coldest warm selections is less than 
5 percent. In all cases, the mean water temperature of 
the warmest and the coldest warm selections must coincide with the 
mean of the ``hot wash'' (maximum wash temperature 3.8 [deg]F (2.1 [deg]C); 
or (B) on a clothes washer with only one warm wash temperature 
selection, a warm wash temperature selection with a water 
temperature that coincides with

[[Page 13941]]

the mean of the ``hot wash'' (maximum wash temperature 3.8 [deg]F (2.1 [deg]C).
    1.33 Warm rinse means the hottest rinse temperature available on 
the machine.
    1.34 Warm wash means all wash temperature selections that are 
below the maximum wash temperature 240, or 120/208Y volts as applicable to the particular terminal 
block wiring system and within 2 percent of the nameplate frequency 
as specified by the manufacturer. If the clothes washer has a dual 
voltage conversion capability, conduct test at the highest voltage 
specified by the manufacturer.
    2.2.2 Supply voltage waveform. For the combined low-power mode 
testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage waveform indicated 
in Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301. If the power measuring 
instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record the 
total harmonic content during the test measurement period, it is 
acceptable to measure and record the total harmonic content 
immediately before and after the test measurement period.
    2.3 Supply Water.
    2.3.1 Clothes washers in which electrical energy consumption or 
water energy consumption are affected by the inlet water 
temperature. (For example, water heating clothes washers or clothes 
washers with thermostatically controlled water valves.). The 
temperature of the hot water supply at the water inlets shall not 
exceed 135 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C) and the cold water supply at the 
water inlets shall not exceed 60 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C). A water meter 
shall be installed in both the hot and cold water lines to measure 
water consumption.
    2.3.2 Clothes washers in which electrical energy consumption and 
water energy consumption are not affected by the inlet water 
temperature. The temperature of the hot water supply shall be 
maintained at 135 [deg]F  5 [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C) and the cold water supply shall be maintained at 
60 [deg]F  5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C  2.8 
[deg]C). A water meter shall be installed in both the hot and cold 
water lines to measure water consumption.
    2.4 Water pressure. The static water pressure at the hot and 
cold water inlet connection of the clothes washer shall be 
maintained at 35 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) 2.5 
psig (241.3 kPa 17.2 kPa) when the water is flowing. The 
static water pressure for a single water inlet connection shall be 
maintained at 35 psig 2.5 psig (241.3 kPa 17.2 kPa) when the water is flowing. A water pressure gauge 
shall be installed in both the hot and cold water lines to measure 
water pressure.
    2.5 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the 
following instruments, as appropriate:
    2.5.1 Weighing scales.
    2.5.1.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a 
resolution of no larger than 0.2 oz (5.7 g) and a maximum error no 
greater than 0.3 percent of the measured value.
    2.5.1.2 Weighing scale for clothes container capacity 
measurement. The scale should have a resolution no larger than 0.50 
lbs (0.23 kg) and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the 
measured value.
    2.5.2 Watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter shall have a 
resolution no larger than 1 Wh (3.6 kJ) and a maximum error no 
greater than 2 percent of the measured value for any demand greater 
than 50 Wh (180.0 kJ).
    2.5.3 Watt meter. The watt meter used to measure combined low-
power mode power consumption shall comply with the requirements 
specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301. If the power 
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and 
record the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio 
during the test measurement period, it is acceptable to measure and 
record the crest factor, power factor, and maximum current ratio 
immediately before and after the test measurement period.
    2.5.4 Temperature measuring device. The device shall have an 
error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F (0.6 
[deg]C) over the range being measured.
    2.5.5 Water meter. The water meter shall have a resolution no 
larger than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters) and a maximum error no greater 
than 2 percent for the water flow rates being measured.
    2.5.6 Water pressure gauge. The water pressure gauge shall have 
a resolution of 1 pound per square inch gauge (psig) (6.9 kPa) and 
shall have an error no greater than 5 percent of any measured value.
    2.6 Test cloths.
    2.6.1 Energy Test Cloth. The energy test cloth shall be made 
from energy test cloth material, as specified in section 2.6.4 of 
this Appendix, that is 24  \1/2\ inches by 36  \1/2\ inches (61.0  1.3 cm by 91.4  
1.3 cm) and has been hemmed to 22  \1/2\ inches by 34 
 \1/2\ inches (55.9  1.3 cm by 86.4  1.3 cm) before washing. The energy test cloth shall be clean 
and shall not be used for more than 60 test runs (after 
preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this appendix). All energy 
test cloth must be permanently marked identifying the lot number of 
the material. Mixed lots of material shall not be used for testing a 
clothes washer.
    2.6.2 Energy Stuffer Cloth. The energy stuffer cloth shall be 
made from energy test cloth material, as specified in section 2.6.4 
of this Appendix, and shall consist of pieces of material that are 
12  \1/4\ inches by 12  \1/4\ inches (30.5 
 0.6 cm by 30.5  0.6 cm) and have been 
hemmed to 10  \1/4\ inches by 10  \1/4\ 
inches (25.4  0.6 cm by 25.4  0.6 cm) before 
washing. The energy stuffer cloth shall be clean and shall not be 
used for more than 60 test runs (after preconditioning as specified 
in section 2.6.3 of this Appendix). All energy stuffer cloth must be 
permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed 
lots of material shall not be used for testing a clothes washer.
    2.6.3 Preconditioning of Test Cloths. The new test cloths, 
including energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths, shall be 
pre-conditioned in a clothes washer in the following manner:
    2.6.3.1 Perform 5 complete normal wash-rinse-spin cycles, the 
first two with AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3 and the last three 
without detergent. Place the test cloth in a clothes washer set at 
the maximum water level. Wash the load for ten minutes with a 
minimum fill of 20 gallons of soft water (17 ppm hardness or less) 
using 27.0 grams + 4.0 grams per pound of cloth load of AHAM 
Standard detergent Formula 3. The wash temperature is to be 
controlled to 135 [deg]F  5[deg]F (57.2 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C) and the rinse temperature is to be controlled to 
60[deg]F  5[deg]F (15.6 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C). 
Repeat the cycle with detergent and then repeat the cycle three 
additional times without detergent, bone drying the load between 
cycles (total of five wash and rinse cycles).
    2.6.4 Energy test cloth material. The energy test cloths and 
energy stuffer cloths shall be made from fabric meeting the 
following specifications. The material should come from a roll of 
material with a width of approximately 63 inches and approximately 
500 yards per roll. However, other sizes may be used if they fall 
within the specifications.
    2.6.4.1 Nominal fabric type. Pure finished bleached cloth made 
with a momie or granite weave, which is nominally 50 percent cotton 
and 50 percent polyester.
    2.6.4.2 The fabric weight specification shall be 5.60  0.25 ounces per square yard (190.0  8.4 g/m\2\).
    2.6.4.3 The thread count shall be 65 x 57 per inch (warp x 
fill), 2 percent.
    2.6.4.4 The warp yarn and filling yarn shall each have fiber 
content of 50 percent 4 percent cotton, with the balance 
being polyester, and be open end spun, 15/1 5 percent 
cotton count blended yarn.
    2.6.4.5 Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain 
resistant finishes shall not be applied to the test cloth. The 
absence of such finishes shall be verified by:
    2.6.4.5.1 AATCC Test Method 118-2007, (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), for each new lot of test cloth (when 
purchased from the mill) to confirm the absence of Scotchguard \TM\ 
or other water repellent finish (required scores of ``D'' across the 
board).
    2.6.4.5.2 AATCC Test Method 79-2010, (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  430.3), for each new lot of test cloth (when purchased 
from the mill) to confirm the absence of

[[Page 13942]]

Scotchguard\TM\ or other water repellent finish (time to absorb one 
drop should be on the order of 1 second).
    2.6.4.6 The moisture absorption and retention shall be evaluated 
for each new lot of test cloth by the Standard Extractor Remaining 
Moisture Content (RMC) Test specified in section 2.6.5 of this 
Appendix.
    2.6.4.6.1 Repeat the Standard Extractor RMC Test in section 
2.6.5 of this Appendix three times.
    2.6.4.6.2 An RMC correction curve shall be calculated as 
specified in section 2.6.6 of this Appendix.
    2.6.4.7 The maximum shrinkage after preconditioning shall not be 
more than 5 percent of the length and width. Measure per AATCC Test 
Method 135-2010, (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.6.5 Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure. The following 
procedure is used to evaluate the moisture absorption and retention 
characteristics of a lot of test cloth by measuring the RMC in a 
standard extractor at a specified set of conditions. Table 2.6.5 of 
this Appendix is the matrix of test conditions. In the table, ``g 
Force'' represents units of gravitational acceleration. When this 
matrix is repeated 3 times, a total of 60 extractor RMC test runs 
are required. For the purpose of the extractor RMC test, the test 
cloths may be used for up to 60 test runs (after preconditioning as 
specified in section 2.6.3 of this Appendix).

                              Table 2.6.5--Matrix of extractor RMC test conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Warm soak                         Cold soak
                 ``g Force''                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                15 min. spin     4 min. spin      15 min. spin     4 min. spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
200
350
500
650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.6.5.1 The standard extractor RMC tests shall be run in a North 
Star Engineered Products Inc. (formerly Bock) Model 215 extractor 
(having a basket diameter of 20 inches, height of 11.5 inches, and 
volume of 2.09 ft\3\), with a variable speed drive (North Star 
Engineered Products, P.O. Box 5127, Toledo, OH 43611) or an 
equivalent extractor with same basket design (i.e. diameter, height, 
volume, and hole configuration) and variable speed drive. Table 
2.6.5.1 shows the extractor spin speed, in revolutions per minute 
(RPM), that shall be used to attain each required g-force level.

      Table 2.6.5.1--Extractor Spin Speeds for Each Test Condition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        ``g Force''                              RPM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100........................................................   594  1
200........................................................   840  1
350........................................................  1111  1
500........................................................  1328  1
650........................................................  1514  1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.6.5.2 Test Load. Test loads shall be comprised of randomly 
selected cloth at the beginning, middle and end of a lot. Test 
cloths shall be preconditioned in accordance with section 2.6.3 of 
this Appendix. The load size shall be 8.4 lbs. It is acceptable to 
use two test loads for standard extractor RMC tests, with each load 
used for half of the total number of required tests.
    2.6.5.3 Procedure.
    2.6.5.3.1 Using a dryer that complies with the temperature 
requirements specified in section 2.12 of this Appendix, dry the 
test cloth until it is ``bone-dry'' according to the definition in 
section 1.5 of this Appendix. Record the ``bone-dry'' weight of the 
test load (WI).
    2.6.5.3.2 Prepare the test load for soak by grouping four test 
cloths into loose bundles. Bundles are created by hanging four 
cloths vertically from one corner and loosely wrapping the test 
cloth onto itself to form the bundle. Bundles should be wrapped 
loosely to ensure consistency of water extraction. Bundles are then 
placed into the water to soak. Eight to nine bundles will be formed 
depending on the test load. The ninth bundle may not equal four 
cloths but can incorporate energy stuffer cloths to help offset the 
size difference.
    2.6.5.3.3 Soak the test load for 20 minutes in 10 gallons of 
soft ( 5[deg]F (37.8 
[deg]C  2.8 [deg]C) at all times between the start and 
end of the soak.
    2.6.5.3.4 Remove the test load and allow each of the test cloth 
bundles to drain over the water bath for a maximum of 5 seconds.
    2.6.5.3.5 Manually place the test cloth bundles in the basket of 
the extractor, distributing them evenly by eye. The draining and 
loading process shall take no longer than 1 minute. Spin the load at 
a fixed speed corresponding to the intended centripetal acceleration 
level (measured in units of the acceleration of gravity, g)  1g for the intended time period  5 seconds. The 
timer shall begin when the extractor meets the required spin speed 
for each test.
    2.6.5.3.6 Record the weight of the test load immediately after 
the completion of the extractor spin cycle (WC).
    2.6.5.3.7 Calculate the remaining moisture content of the test 
load as (WC-WI)/WI.
    2.6.5.3.8 It is not necessary to drain the soak tub if the water 
bath is corrected for water level and temperature before the next 
extraction.
    2.6.5.3.9 It is not necessary to dry the test load in between 
extraction runs. However, the bone dry weight shall be checked after 
every 12 extraction runs to make sure the bone dry weight is within 
tolerance (8.4  0.1 lb).
    2.6.5.3.10 The test load must be soaked and extracted once 
following bone drying, before continuing with the remaining 
extraction runs. This extraction shall be performed at the same spin 
speed used for the extraction run prior to bone drying, for a time 
period of 4 minutes. Either warm or cold soak temperature may be 
used.
    2.6.5.3.11 The remaining moisture content of the test load shall 
be measured at five g levels: 100 g, 200 g, 350 g, 500 g, and 650 g, 
using two different spin times at each g level: 4 minutes and 15 
minutes.
    2.6.5.4 Repeat section 2.6.5.3 of this Appendix using soft ( 5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C).
    2.6.6 Calculation of RMC correction curve.
    2.6.6.1 Average the values of 3 test runs, and fill in Table 
2.6.5 of this appendix. Perform a linear least-squares fit to 
determine coefficients A and B such that the standard RMC values 
shown in Table 2.6.6.1 of this appendix (RMCstandard) are 
linearly related to the RMC values measured in section 2.6.5 of this 
appendix (RMCcloth):

RMCstandard ~ A * RMCcloth + B

where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.

[[Page 13943]]

                                Table 2.6.6.1--Standard RMC Values (RMC Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                RMC percentage
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Warm soak                 Cold soak
                         ``g Force''                         ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                15 min.                   15 min.
                                                                  spin     4 min. spin      spin     4 min. spin
                                                               (percent)     (percent)   (percent)     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100.........................................................         45.9         49.9         49.7         52.8
200.........................................................         35.7         40.4         37.9         43.1
350.........................................................         29.6         33.1         30.7         35.8
500.........................................................         24.2         28.7         25.5         30.0
650.........................................................         23.0         26.4         24.1         28.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.6.6.2 Perform an analysis of variance with replication test 
using two factors, spin speed and lot, to check the interaction of 
speed and lot. Use the values from Table 2.6.5 and Table 2.6.6.1 of 
this Appendix in the calculation. The ``P'' value of the F-statistic 
for interaction between spin speed and lot in the variance analysis 
shall be greater than or equal to 0.1. If the ``P'' value is less 
than 0.1, the test cloth is unacceptable. ``P'' is a theoretically 
based measure of interaction based on an analysis of variance.
    2.6.7 Application of the RMC correction curve.
    2.6.7.1 Using the coefficients A and B calculated in section 
2.6.6.1 of this Appendix:

RMCcorr = A x RMC + B

    2.6.7.2 Apply this RMC correction curve to measured RMC values 
in sections 3.8.2.6, 3.8.3.2, and 3.8.3.4 of this Appendix.
    2.7 Test Load Sizes. Maximum, minimum, and, when required, 
average test load sizes shall be determined using Table 5.1 of this 
Appendix and the clothes container capacity as measured in sections 
3.1.1 through 3.1.5 of this Appendix. Test loads shall consist of 
energy test cloths, except that adjustments to the test loads to 
achieve proper weight can be made by the use of energy stuffer 
cloths with no more than 5 stuffer cloths per load.
    2.8 Use of Test Loads. Table 2.8 of this Appendix defines the 
test load sizes and corresponding water fill settings which are to 
be used when measuring water and energy consumptions. Adaptive water 
fill control system and manual water fill control system are defined 
in section 1 of this Appendix:

                           Table 2.8--Test Load Sizes and Water Fill Settings Required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Manual water fill control system                        Adaptive water fill control system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Test load size                Water fill setting         Test load size         Water fill setting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max..................................  Max....................  Max....................  As determined by the
                                                                                          Clothes Washer.
Min..................................  Min....................  Avg Min................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.8.1 The test load sizes to be used to measure RMC are 
specified in section 3.8.1 of this Appendix.
    2.8.2 Test loads for energy and water consumption measurements 
shall be bone dry prior to the first cycle of the test, and dried to 
a maximum of 104 percent of bone dry weight for subsequent testing.
    2.8.3 Load the energy test cloths by grasping them in the 
center, shaking them to hang loosely and then put them into the 
clothes container prior to activating the clothes washer.
    2.9 Pre-conditioning of Clothes Washer.
    2.9.1 Non-water-heating clothes washer. If the clothes washer 
has not been filled with water in the preceding 96 hours, pre-
condition it by running it through a cold rinse cycle and then 
draining it to ensure that the hose, pump, and sump are filled with 
water.
    2.9.2 Water-heating clothes washer. If the clothes washer has 
not been filled with water in the preceding 96 hours, or if it has 
not been in the test room at the specified ambient conditions for 8 
hours, pre-condition it by running it through a cold rinse cycle and 
then draining it to ensure that the hose, pump, and sump are filled 
with water.
    2.10 Wash time setting. If one wash time is prescribed in the 
energy test cycle, that shall be the wash time setting; otherwise, 
the wash time setting shall be the higher of either the minimum or 
70 percent of the maximum wash time available in the energy test 
cycle, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. If 
the clothes washer is equipped with an electromechanical dial 
controlling wash time, reset the dial to the minimum wash time and 
then turn it in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the 
appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting is passed, return 
the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn in the direction of 
increasing wash time until the setting is reached.
    2.11 Test room temperature. For all clothes washers, maintain 
the test room ambient air temperature at 75  
5[emsp14][deg]F (23.9  2.8 [deg]C) for active mode 
testing and combined low-power mode testing. Do not use the test 
room ambient air temperature conditions specified in Section 4, 
Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 for combined low-power mode testing.
    2.12 Bone dryer temperature. The dryer used for bone drying must 
heat the test cloth and energy stuffer cloths above 210 [deg]F (99 
[deg]C).
    2.13 Energy consumption for the purpose of certifying the cycle 
selection(s) to be included in Part (B) of the energy test cycle 
definition. Where multiple alternate cycle selections offer a wash/
rinse temperature selection for which a TUF has been developed, and 
that is not available on the cycle selection recommended by the 
manufacturer for washing cotton or linen clothes described in Part 
(A) of the energy test cycle definition, the alternate cycle 
selection with the highest energy consumption for that TUF, as 
measured according to this section, shall be included in the energy 
test cycle.
    2.13.1 For the TUF being considered under this section, 
establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2 of this test 
procedure. Select the applicable cycle selection and temperature 
selection. Use the manufacturer default settings for agitation/
tumble operation, soil level, spin speed(s), wash times, rinse 
times, and all other wash parameters or optional features applicable 
to that cycle selection, including water heating time for water 
heating clothes washers.
    2.13.2 Use the clothes washer's maximum test load size, 
determined from Table 5.1, for testing under this section.
    2.13.3 For clothes washers with a manual water fill control 
system, user-adjustable adaptive water fill control system, or 
adaptive water fill control system with alternate manual water fill 
control system, use the water fill selector setting resulting in the 
maximum water level available for each cycle selection for testing 
under this section.
    2.13.4 Each wash cycle tested under this section shall include 
the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay start or cycle 
finished modes.

[[Page 13944]]

    2.13.5 Measure each cycle selection's electrical energy 
consumption (EB) and hot water consumption 
(HB). Calculate the total energy consumption for each 
cycle selection (ETB), as follows:

ETB = EB + (HB x T x K)

Where:

EB is the electrical energy consumption, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours per cycle.
HB is the hot water consumption, expressed in gallons per 
cycle.
T = temperature rise = 75[emsp14][deg]F (41.7 [deg]C)
K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree F = 
0.00240 kWh/gal-[deg]F (0.00114 kWh/L-[deg]C)

3. Test Measurements

    3.1 Clothes container capacity. Measure the entire volume which 
a clothes load could occupy within the clothes container during 
active mode washer operation according to the following procedures:
    3.1.1 Place the clothes washer in such a position that the 
uppermost edge of the clothes container opening is leveled 
horizontally, so that the container will hold the maximum amount of 
water. For front-loading clothes washers, the shipping bolts and 
door seal shall remain in place during the capacity measurement.
    3.1.2 Line the inside of the clothes container with 2 mil (0.051 
mm) plastic sheet. All clothes washer components which occupy space 
within the clothes container and which are recommended for use with 
the energy test cycle shall be in place and shall be lined with 2 
mil (0.051 mm) plastic sheet to prevent water from entering any void 
space.
    3.1.3 Record the total weight of the machine before adding 
water.
    3.1.4 Fill the clothes container manually with either 60 [deg]F 
 5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C  2.8 [deg]C) or 100 
[deg]F  10 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C  5.5 [deg]C) 
water, with the door open. For a top-loading, vertical-axis clothes 
washer, fill the clothes container to the uppermost edge of the 
rotating portion, including any balance ring. For a front-loading, 
horizontal-axis clothes washer, fill the clothes container to the 
uppermost edge that is in contact with the door seal. For all 
clothes washers, any volume which cannot be occupied by the clothing 
load during operation must be excluded from the measurement. Measure 
and record the weight of water, W, in pounds.
    3.1.5 The clothes container capacity is calculated as follows:

C = W/d

Where:

C = Capacity in cubic feet (liters).
W = Mass of water in pounds (kilograms).
d = Density of water (62.0 lbs/ft\3\ for 100[emsp14][deg]F (993 kg/
m\3\ for 37.8 [deg]C) or 62.3 lbs/ft\3\ for 60[emsp14][deg]F (998 
kg/m\3\ for 15.6 [deg]C)).

    3.2 Procedure for measuring water and energy consumption values 
on all automatic and semi-automatic washers. All energy consumption 
tests shall be performed under the energy test cycle(s), unless 
otherwise specified. Table 3.2 of this Appendix defines the sections 
below which govern tests of particular clothes washers, based on the 
number of wash/rinse temperature selections available on the model, 
and also, in some instances, method of water heating. The procedures 
prescribed are applicable regardless of a clothes washer's washing 
capacity, loading port location, primary axis of rotation of the 
clothes container, and type of control system.
    3.2.1 Inlet water temperature and the wash/rinse temperature 
settings.
    3.2.1.1 For automatic clothes washers, set the wash/rinse 
temperature selection control to obtain the wash water temperature 
selection desired (extra hot, hot, warm, or cold) and cold rinse, 
and open both the hot and cold water faucets.
    3.2.1.2 For semi-automatic washers:
    (1) For hot water temperature, open the hot water faucet 
completely and close the cold water faucet;
    (2) For warm inlet water temperature, open both hot and cold 
water faucets completely;
    (3) For cold water temperature, close the hot water faucet and 
open the cold water faucet completely.
    3.2.1.3 Determination of warm wash water temperature(s) to 
decide whether a clothes washer has uniformly distributed warm wash 
temperature selections. The wash water temperature, Tw, of each warm 
water wash selection shall be calculated or measured.
    (1) For non-water heating clothes washers, calculate Tw as 
follows:

Tw( [deg]F) = ((Hw x 135[emsp14][deg]F)+ (Cw x 60[emsp14][deg]F))/
(Hw + Cw)

    or

Tw( [deg]C) = ((Hw x 57.2 [deg]C)+ (Cw x 15.6 [deg]C))/(Hw + Cw)

Where:

    Hw = Hot water consumption of a warm wash.
    Cw = Cold water consumption of a warm wash.
    (2) For water-heating clothes washers, measure and record the 
temperature of each warm wash selection after fill.
    3.2.2 Total water consumption during the energy test cycle shall 
be measured, including hot and cold water consumption during wash, 
deep rinse, and spray rinse.
    3.2.3 Clothes washers with adaptive water fill/manual water fill 
control systems.
    3.2.3.1 Clothes washers with adaptive water fill control system 
and alternate manual water fill control systems. If a clothes washer 
with an adaptive water fill control system allows consumer selection 
of manual controls as an alternative, then both manual and adaptive 
modes shall be tested and, for each mode, the energy consumption 
(HET, MET, and DE) and water 
consumption (QT), values shall be calculated as set forth 
in section 4 of this Appendix. Then the average of the two values 
(one from each mode, adaptive and manual) for each variable shall be 
used in section 4 of this Appendix for the clothes washer.
    3.2.3.2 Clothes washers with adaptive water fill control system.
    3.2.3.2.1 Not user adjustable. The maximum, minimum, and average 
water levels as defined in the following sections shall be 
interpreted to mean that amount of water fill which is selected by 
the control system when the respective test loads are used, as 
defined in Table 2.8 of this Appendix. The load usage factors which 
shall be used when calculating energy consumption values are defined 
in Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.
    3.2.3.2.2 User adjustable. Four tests shall be conducted on 
clothes washers with user adjustable adaptive water fill controls 
which affect the relative wash water levels. The first test shall be 
conducted with the maximum test load and with the adaptive water 
fill control system set in the setting that will give the most 
energy intensive result. The second test shall be conducted with the 
minimum test load and with the adaptive water fill control system 
set in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result. 
The third test shall be conducted with the average test load and 
with the adaptive water fill control system set in the setting that 
will give the most energy intensive result for the given test load. 
The fourth test shall be conducted with the average test load and 
with the adaptive water fill control system set in the setting that 
will give the least energy intensive result for the given test load. 
The energy and water consumption for the average test load and water 
level shall be the average of the third and fourth tests.
    3.2.3.3 Clothes washers with manual water fill control system. 
In accordance with Table 2.8 of this Appendix, the water fill 
selector shall be set to the maximum water level available on the 
clothes washer for the maximum test load size and set to the minimum 
water level for the minimum test load size. The load usage factors 
which shall be used when calculating energy consumption values are 
defined in Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

                                        TABLE 3.2--Test Section Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Max. wash temp. available                     135 [deg]F (57.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      [deg]C)\**\
                                                                                           ---------------------
             Number of wash temp. selections                   1          2          >2         3          >3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test sections required to be followed....................  .........  .........  .........        3.3        3.3
                                                           .........        3.4        3.4  .........        3.4
                                                           .........  .........        3.5        3.5        3.5
                                                                 3.6        3.6        3.6        3.6        3.6

[[Page 13945]]

 
                                                           .........  .........      * 3.7      * 3.7      * 3.7
                                                                 3.8        3.8        3.8        3.8        3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only applicable to machines with warm rinse.
** Only applicable to water heating clothes washers on which the maximum wash temperature available exceeds 135
  [deg]F (57.2 [deg]C).

    3.3 ``Extra Hot Wash'' (Max Wash Temp 
135[emsp14][deg]F (57.2 [deg]C)) for water heating 
clothes washers only. Water and electrical energy consumption shall 
be measured for each water fill level and/or test load size as 
specified in sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.3 of this Appendix for the 
hottest wash setting available.
    3.3.1 Maximum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hmx), cold water consumption (Cmx), and 
electrical energy consumption (Emx) shall be measured for 
an extra hot wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls 
set for the maximum water fill level. The maximum test load size is 
to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.3.2 Minimum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hmn), cold water consumption (Cmn), and 
electrical energy consumption (Emn) shall be measured for 
an extra hot wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls 
set for the minimum water fill level. The minimum test load size is 
to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.3.3 Average test load and water fill. For clothes washers with 
an adaptive water fill control system, measure the values for hot 
water consumption (Hma), cold water consumption 
(Cma), and electrical energy consumption (Ema) 
for an extra hot wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with an average 
test load size as determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.4 ``Hot Wash'' (Max Wash Temp or test load size as specified in 
sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.3 of this Appendix for a 
135[emsp14][deg]F (57.2 [deg]C) wash, if available, or for the 
hottest selection less than 135[emsp14][deg]F (57.2 [deg]C).
    3.4.1 Maximum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hhx), cold water consumption (Chx), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ehx) shall be measured for 
a hot wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls set for 
the maximum water fill level. The maximum test load size is to be 
used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.4.2 Minimum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hhn), cold water consumption (Chn), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ehn) shall be measured for 
a hot wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls set for 
the minimum water fill level. The minimum test load size is to be 
used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.4.3 Average test load and water fill. For clothes washers with 
an adaptive water fill control system, measure the values for hot 
water consumption (Hha), cold water consumption 
(Cha), and electrical energy consumption (Eha) 
for a hot wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with an average test 
load size as determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.5 ``Warm Wash.'' Water and electrical energy consumption shall 
be determined for each water fill level and/or test load size as 
specified in sections 3.5.1 through 3.5.2.3 of this Appendix for the 
applicable warm water wash temperature(s) with a cold rinse.
    3.5.1 Clothes washers with uniformly distributed warm wash 
temperature selection(s). The reportable values to be used for the 
warm water wash setting shall be the arithmetic average of the 
measurements for the hot and cold wash selections. This is a 
calculation only; no testing is required.
    3.5.2 Clothes washers that lack uniformly distributed warm wash 
temperature selections. For a clothes washer with fewer than four 
discrete warm wash selections, test all warm wash temperature 
selections. For a clothes washer that offers four or more warm wash 
selections, test at all discrete selections, or test at 25 percent, 
50 percent, and 75 percent positions of the temperature selection 
device between the hottest hot (x), cold water consumption (Cwx), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ewx) shall be measured 
with the controls set for the maximum water fill level. The maximum 
test load size is to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 
of this Appendix.
    3.5.2.2 Minimum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hwn), cold water consumption (Cwn), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ewn) shall be measured 
with the controls set for the minimum water fill level. The minimum 
test load size is to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 
of this Appendix.
    3.5.2.3 Average test load and water fill. For clothes washers 
with an adaptive water fill control system, measure the values for 
hot water consumption (Hwa), cold water consumption 
(Cwa), and electrical energy consumption (Ewa) 
with an average test load size as determined per Table 5.1 of this 
Appendix.
    3.6 ``Cold Wash'' (Minimum Wash Temperature Selection). Water 
and electrical energy consumption shall be measured for each water 
fill level and/or test load size as specified in sections 3.6.1 
through 3.6.3 of this Appendix for the coldest wash temperature 
selection available. For a clothes washer that offers two or more 
wash temperature settings labeled as cold, such as ``Cold'' and 
``Tap Cold'', the setting with the minimum wash temperature shall be 
considered the cold wash. If any of the other cold wash temperature 
settings add hot water to raise the wash temperature above the cold 
water supply temperature, as defined in section 2.3 of this 
Appendix, those setting(s) shall be considered warm wash setting(s), 
as defined in section 1.34 of this Appendix. If none of the cold 
wash temperature settings add hot water for any of the water fill 
levels or test load sizes required for the energy test cycle, the 
wash temperature setting labeled as ``Cold'' shall be considered the 
cold wash, and the other wash temperature setting(s) labeled as cold 
shall not be required for testing.
    3.6.1 Maximum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hcx), cold water consumption (Ccx), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ecx) shall be measured for 
a cold wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls set for 
the maximum water fill level. The maximum test load size is to be 
used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.6.2 Minimum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hcn), cold water consumption (Ccn), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ecn) shall be measured for 
a cold wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls set for 
the minimum water fill level. The minimum test load size is to be 
used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.6.3 Average test load and water fill. For clothes washers with 
an adaptive water fill control system, measure the values for hot 
water consumption (Hca), cold water consumption 
(Cca), and electrical energy consumption (Eca) 
for a cold wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with an average test 
load size as determined per Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.7 ``Warm Wash/Warm Rinse.'' Water and electrical energy 
consumption shall be determined for each water fill level and/or 
test load size as specified in sections 3.7.2.1 through 3.7.2.3 of 
this Appendix for the applicable warm wash temperature selection as 
described in section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2 of this Appendix and the hottest 
available rinse temperature selection.
    3.7.1 Clothes washers with uniformly distributed warm wash 
temperature selection(s). Test the warm wash/warm rinse cycle at the 
wash temperature selection with the temperature selection device at 
the 50

[[Page 13946]]

percent position between the hottest hot (warm rinse setting 
shall be the arithmetic average of all tests conducted pursuant to 
this section.
    3.7.2.1 Maximum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hwwx), cold water consumption (Cwwx), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ewwx) shall be measured 
with the controls set for the maximum water fill level. The maximum 
test load size is to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 
of this Appendix.
    3.7.2.2 Minimum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption 
(Hwwn), cold water consumption (Cwwn), and 
electrical energy consumption (Ewwn) shall be measured 
with the controls set for the minimum water fill level. The minimum 
test load size is to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 
of this Appendix.
    3.7.2.3 Average test load and water fill. For clothes washers 
with an adaptive water fill control system, measure the values for 
hot water consumption (Hwwa), cold water consumption 
(Cwwa), and electrical energy consumption 
(Ewwa) with an average test load size as determined per 
Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
    3.8 Remaining Moisture Content:
    3.8.1 The wash temperature will be the same as the rinse 
temperature for all testing. Use the maximum test load as defined in 
Table 5.1 of this Appendix for testing.
    3.8.2 For clothes washers with cold rinse only:
    3.8.2.1 Record the actual ``bone dry'' weight of the test load 
(WIx), then place the test load in the clothes washer.
    3.8.2.2 Set water level selector to maximum fill.
    3.8.2.3 Run the energy test cycle.
    3.8.2.4 Record the weight of the test load immediately after 
completion of the energy test cycle (WCx).
    3.8.2.5 Calculate the remaining moisture content of the maximum 
test load, RMCx, defined as:

RMCx = (WCx - WIx)/WIx

    3.8.2.6 Apply the RMC correction curve described in section 
2.6.7 of this Appendix to calculate the corrected remaining moisture 
content, RMCcorr, expressed as a percentage, which shall 
be the final RMC used in section 4.3 of this Appendix:

RMCcorr = (A x RMCx + B) x 100%

Where:

A and B are the coefficients of the RMC correction curve as defined 
in section 2.6.6.1 of this Appendix.
RMCx = As defined in section 3.8.2.5 of this Appendix.

    3.8.3 For clothes washers with cold and warm rinse options:
    3.8.3.1 Complete sections 3.8.2.1 through 3.8.2.4 of this 
Appendix for cold rinse.
    Calculate the remaining moisture content of the maximum test 
load for cold rinse, RMCCOLD, defined as:

RMCCOLD = (WCx - WIx)/
WIx

    3.8.3.2 Apply the RMC correction curve described in section 
2.6.7 of this Appendix to calculate the corrected remaining moisture 
content for cold rinse, RMCCOLD,corr, expressed as a 
percentage, as follows:

RMCCOLD,corr = (A x RMCCOLD + B) x 100%

Where:

A and B are the coefficients of the RMC correction curve as defined 
in section 2.6.6.1 of this Appendix.
RMCCOLD = As defined in section 3.8.3.1 of this Appendix.

    3.8.3.3 Complete sections 3.8.2.1 through 3.8.2.4 of this 
Appendix for warm rinse. Calculate the remaining moisture content of 
the maximum test load for warm rinse, RMCWARM, defined 
as:

RMCWARM = (WCx - WIx)/
WIx

    3.8.3.4 Apply the RMC correction curve described in section 
2.6.7 of this Appendix to calculate the corrected remaining moisture 
content for warm rinse, RMCWARM,corr, expressed as a 
percentage, as follows:

RMCWARM,corr = (A x RMCWARM + B) x 100%

Where:

A and B are the coefficients of the RMC correction curve as defined 
in section 2.6.6.1 of this Appendix.
RMCWARM = As defined in section 3.8.3.3 of this Appendix.

    3.8.3.5 Calculate the corrected remaining moisture content of 
the maximum test load, RMCcorr, expressed as a 
percentage, which shall be the final RMC used in section 4.3 of this 
Appendix:

RMCcorr = RMCCOLD,corr x (1 - 
TUFww) + RMCWARM,corr x (TUFww)

Where:

RMCCOLD,corr = As defined in section 3.8.3.2 of this 
Appendix.
RMCWARM,corr = As defined in section 3.8.3.4 of this 
Appendix.

TUFww is the temperature use factor for warm rinse as 
defined in Table 4.1.1 of this Appendix.

    3.8.4 Clothes washers that have options such as multiple 
selections of spin speeds or spin times that result in different RMC 
values and that are available in the energy test cycle, shall be 
tested at the maximum and minimum extremes of the available options, 
excluding any ``no spin'' (zero spin speed) settings, in accordance 
with requirements in section 3.8.2 or 3.8.3 of this Appendix, as 
applicable. The calculated RMCcorr,max extraction and 
RMCcorr,min extraction at the maximum and minimum 
settings, respectively, shall be combined as follows and the final 
corrected RMC to be used in section 4.3 of this Appendix shall be:

RMCcorr = 0.75 x RMCcorr,max extraction + 0.25 
x RMCcorr,min extraction

Where:

RMCcorr,max extraction is the corrected remaining 
moisture content using the maximum spin setting, calculated 
according to section 3.8.2 or 3.8.3 of this Appendix, as applicable.
RMCcorr,min extraction is the corrected remaining 
moisture content using the minimum spin setting, calculated 
according to section 3.8.2 or 3.8.3 of this Appendix, as applicable.

    3.9 Combined low-power mode power. Connect the clothes washer to 
a watt meter as specified in section 2.5.3 of this Appendix. 
Establish the testing conditions set forth in sections 2.1, 2.2 and 
2.11 of this Appendix. For clothes washers that take some time to 
enter a stable state from a higher power state as discussed in 
Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, note 1 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes 
washer to reach the lower power state before proceeding with the 
test measurement. Follow the test procedure for the sampling method 
specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 for testing in 
each possible mode as described in sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 of this 
Appendix.
    3.9.1 If a clothes washer has an inactive mode as defined in 
section 1.15 of this Appendix, measure and record the average 
inactive mode power of the clothes washer, Pia, in watts.
    3.9.2 If a clothes washer has an off mode as defined in section 
1.24 of this Appendix, measure and record its average off mode 
power, Po, in watts.

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

    4.1 Hot water and machine electrical energy consumption of 
clothes washers.
    4.1.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted hot water consumption for 
maximum, average, and minimum water fill levels using each 
appropriate load size as defined in section 2.8 and Table 5.1 of 
this Appendix. Calculate for the cycle under test the per-cycle 
temperature-weighted hot water consumption for the maximum water 
fill level, Vhx, the average water fill level, 
Vha, and the minimum water fill level, Vhn, 
expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle) and defined as:

(a) Vhx = [Hmx x TUFm] + 
[Hhx x TUFh] + [Hwx x 
TUFw] + [Hwwx x TUFww] + 
[Hcx x TUFc]
(b) Vha = [Hma x TUFm] + 
[Hha x TUFh] + [Hwa x 
TUFw] + [Hwwa x TUFww] + 
[Hca x TUFc]
(c) Vhn = [Hmn x TUFm] + 
[Hhn x TUFh] + [Hwn x 
TUFw] + [Hwwn x TUFww] + 
[Hcn x TUFc]

Where:

Hmx, Hma, and Hmn, are reported hot 
water consumption values, in gallons per-cycle (or liters per 
cycle), at maximum, average, and minimum water fill, respectively, 
for the extra hot wash cycle with the appropriate test loads as 
defined in section 2.8 of this Appendix.
Hhx, Hha, and Hhn, are reported hot 
water consumption values, in gallons per-cycle

[[Page 13947]]

(or liters per cycle), at maximum, average, and minimum water fill, 
respectively, for the hot wash cycle with the appropriate test loads 
as defined in section 2.8 of this Appendix.
Hwx, Hwa, and Hwn, are reported hot 
water consumption values, in gallons per-cycle (or liters per 
cycle), at maximum, average, and minimum water fill, respectively, 
for the warm wash cycle with the appropriate test loads as defined 
in section 2.8 of this Appendix.
Hwwx, Hwwa, and Hwwn, are reported 
hot water consumption values, in gallons per-cycle (or liters per 
cycle), at maximum, average, and minimum water fill, respectively, 
for the warm wash/warm rinse cycle with the appropriate test loads 
as defined in section 2.8 of this Appendix.
Hcx, Hca, and Hcn, are reported hot 
water consumption values, in gallons per-cycle (or liters per 
cycle), at maximum, average, and minimum water fill, respectively, 
for the cold wash cycle with the appropriate test loads as defined 
in section 2.8 of this Appendix.
TUFm, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, 
and TUFc are temperature use factors for extra hot wash, 
hot wash, warm wash, warm wash/warm rinse, and cold wash temperature 
selections, respectively, and are as defined in Table 4.1.1 of this 
Appendix.

                                      Table 4.1.1--Temperature Use Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Max wash temp available                    135 [deg]F (57.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------          [deg]C)
                                                                                       -------------------------
            No. wash temp selections                Single      2 Temps      >2 Temps     3 Temps      >3 Temps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUFm (extra hot)...............................  ...........  ...........  ...........         0.14         0.05
TUFh (hot).....................................  ...........         0.63         0.14  ...........         0.09
TUFww (warm/warm)..............................  ...........  ...........       * 0.27       * 0.27       * 0.27
TUFw (warm)....................................  ...........  ...........     ** 0.22/     ** 0.22/     ** 0.22/
                                                                                  0.49         0.49         0.49
TUFc (cold)....................................         1.00         0.37         0.37         0.37         0.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only applicable to machines offering a warm/warm cycle. For machines with no warm/warm cycle, TUFww (warm/
  warm) should be zero.
** For machines offering a warm/warm cycle, TUFw (warm) should be 0.22. For machines with no warm/warm cycle,
  TUFw (warm) should be 0.49.

    4.1.2 Total per-cycle hot water energy consumption for all 
maximum, average, and minimum water fill levels tested. Calculate 
the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption for the maximum 
water fill level, HEmax, the minimum water fill level, 
HEmin, and the average water fill level, 
HEavg, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined 
as:

(a) HEmax = [Vhx x T x K]=Total energy when a 
maximum load is tested.
(b) HEavg = [Vha x Tx K]=Total energy when an 
average load is tested.
(c) HEmin = [Vhn x T x K]=Total energy when a 
minimum load is tested.

Where:

Vhx, Vha, and Vhn are as defined in 
section 4.1.1 of this Appendix.
T = Temperature rise = 75[emsp14][deg]F (41.7 [deg]C).
K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree F = 
0.00240 kWh/gal-[deg]F (0.00114 kWh/L-[deg]C).

    4.1.3 Total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption. 
Calculate the total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption, 
HET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined 
as:

HET = [HEmax x Fmax] + 
[HEavg x Favg] + HEmin x 
Fmin]

Where:

HEmax, HEavg, and HEmin are as 
defined in section 4.1.2 of this Appendix.
Fmax, Favg, and Fmin are the load 
usage factors for the maximum, average, and minimum test loads based 
on the size and type of the control system on the washer being 
tested. The values are as shown in Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

                     Table 4.1.3--Load Usage Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Water fill control system               Manual      Adaptive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fmax =........................................     \1\ 0.72     \2\ 0.12
Favg =........................................  ...........     \2\ 0.74
Fmin =........................................     \1\ 0.28     \2\ 0.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reference 3.2.3.3.
\2\ Reference 3.2.3.2.

    4.1.4 Total per-cycle hot water energy consumption using gas-
heated or oil-heated water. Calculate for the energy test cycle the 
per-cycle hot water consumption, HETG, using gas-heated 
or oil-heated water, expressed in Btu per cycle (or megajoules per 
cycle) and defined as:

HETG = HET x 1/e x 3412 Btu/kWh or 
HETG = HET x 1/e x 3.6 MJ/kWh

Where:

e = Nominal gas or oil water heater efficiency = 0.75.
HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.1.5 Per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption for all 
maximum, average, and minimum test load sizes. Calculate the total 
per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption for the maximum 
water fill level, MEmax, the average water fill level, 
MEavg, and the minimum water fill level, 
MEmin, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined 
as:

(a) MEmax = [Emxx TUFm] + 
[Ehx x TUFh] + [Ewxx 
TUFw] + [Ewwxx TUFww] + 
[Ecxx TUFc]
(b) MEavg = [Ema x TUFm] + 
[Ehax TUFh] + [Ewax 
TUFw] + [Ewwax TUFww] + 
[Ecax TUFc]
(c) MEmin = [Emnx TUFm] + 
[Ehnx TUFh] + [Ewnx 
TUFw] + [Ewwnx TUFww] + 
[Ecnx TUFc]

Where:

Emx, Ema, and Emn, are reported 
electrical energy consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
at maximum, average, and minimum test loads, respectively, for the 
extra hot wash cycle.
Ehx, Eha, and Ehn, are reported 
electrical energy consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
at maximum, average, and minimum test loads, respectively, for the 
hot wash cycle.
Ewx, Ewa, and Ewn, are reported 
electrical energy consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
at maximum, average, and minimum test loads, respectively, for the 
warm wash cycle.
Ewwx, Ewwa, and Ewwn, are reported 
electrical energy consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
at maximum, average, and minimum test loads, respectively, for the 
warm wash/warm rinse cycle.
Ecx, Eca, and Ecn, are reported 
electrical energy consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
at maximum, average, and minimum test loads, respectively, for the 
cold wash cycle.
TUFm, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, 
and TUFc are as defined in Table 4.1.1 of this Appendix.

    4.1.6 Total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy 
consumption. Calculate the total weighted per-cycle machine 
electrical energy consumption, MET, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:

MET = [MEmax x Fmax] + 
[MEavgx Favg] + [MEminx 
Fmin]
Where:

MEmax, MEavg, and MEmin are as 
defined in section 4.1.5 of this Appendix.
Fmax, Favg, and Fmin are as defined 
in Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.1.7 Total per-cycle energy consumption when electrically 
heated water is used. Calculate for the energy test cycle the total 
per-cycle energy consumption, ETE, using electrically 
heated water, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:

[[Page 13948]]

ETE = HET + MET

Where:

MET = As defined in section 4.1.6 of this Appendix.
HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.2 Water consumption of clothes washers.
    4.2.1 Per-cycle water consumption for extra hot wash. Calculate 
the maximum, average, and minimum total water consumption, expressed 
in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle), for the extra hot wash 
cycle and defined as:

Qmmax = [Hmx + Cmx]
Qmavg = [Hma + Cma]
Qmmin = [Hmn + Cmn]

Where:

Hmx, Cmx, Hma, Cma, 
Hmn, and Cmn are defined in section 3.3 of 
this Appendix.

    4.2.2 Per-cycle water consumption for hot wash. Calculate the 
maximum, average, and minimum total water consumption, expressed in 
gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle), for the hot wash cycle and 
defined as:

Qhmax = [Hhx + Chx]
Qhavg = [Hha + Cha]
Qhmin = [Hhn + Chn]

Where:

Hhx, Chx, Hha, Cha, 
Hhn, and Chn are defined in section 3.4 of 
this Appendix.

    4.2.3 Per-cycle water consumption for warm wash with cold rinse. 
Calculate the maximum, average, and minimum total water consumption, 
expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle), for the warm 
wash/cold rinse cycle and defined as:

Qwmax = [Hwx + Cwx]
Qwavg = [Hwa + Cwa]
Qwmin = [Hwn + Cwn]

Where:

Hwx, Cwx, Hwa, Cwa, 
Hwn, and Cwn are defined in section 3.5 of 
this Appendix.
    4.2.4 Per-cycle water consumption for warm wash with warm rinse. 
Calculate the maximum, average, and minimum total water consumption, 
expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle), for the warm 
wash/warm rinse cycle and defined as:

Qwwmax = [Hwwx + Cwwx]
Qwwavg = [Hwwa + Cwwa]
Qwwmin = [Hwwn + Cwwn]

Where:

Hwwx, Cwwx, Hwwa, Cwwa, 
Hwwn, and Cwwn are defined in section 3.7 of 
this Appendix.
    4.2.5 Per-cycle water consumption for cold wash. Calculate the 
maximum, average, and minimum total water consumption, expressed in 
gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle), for the cold wash cycle and 
defined as:

Qcmax = [Hcx + Ccx]
Qcavg = [Hca + Cca]
Qcmin = [Hcn + Ccn]

Where:

Hcx, Ccx, Hca, Cca, 
Hcn, and Ccn are defined in section 3.6 of 
this Appendix.

    4.2.6 Total weighted per-cycle water consumption for extra hot 
wash. Calculate the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for 
the extra hot wash cycle, QmT, expressed in gallons per 
cycle (or liters per cycle) and defined as:

QmT =[Qmmax x Fmax] + 
[Qmavg x Favg] + [Qmmin x 
Fmin]

Where:

Qmmax, Qmavg, Qmmin are defined in 
section 4.2.1 of this Appendix.
Fmax, Favg, Fmin are defined in 
Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.2.7 Total weighted per-cycle water consumption for hot wash. 
Calculate the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for the hot 
wash cycle, QhT, expressed in gallons per cycle (or 
liters per cycle) and defined as:

QhT = [Qhmax x Fmax] + 
[Qhavg x Favg] + [Qhmin x 
Fmin]

Where:

Qhmax, Qhavg, Qhmin are defined in 
section 4.2.2 of this Appendix.
Fmax, Favg, Fmin are defined in 
Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.2.8 Total weighted per-cycle water consumption for warm wash 
with cold rinse. Calculate the total weighted per-cycle water 
consumption for the warm wash/cold rinse cycle, QwT, 
expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle) and defined as:

QwT = [Qwmax x Fmax] + 
[Qwavg x Favg] + [Qwmin x 
Fmin]
Where:

Qwmax, Qwavg, Qwmin are defined in 
section 4.2.3 of this Appendix.
Fmax, Favg, Fmin are defined in 
Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.2.9 Total weighted per-cycle water consumption for warm wash 
with warm rinse. Calculate the total weighted per-cycle water 
consumption for the warm wash/warm rinse cycle, QwwT, 
expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle) and defined as:

QwwT = [Qwwmax x Fmax] + 
[Qwwavg x Favg] + [Qwwmin x 
Fmin]

Where:

Qwwmax, Qwwavg, Qwwmin are defined 
in section 4.2.4 of this Appendix.
Fmax, Favg, Fmin are defined in 
Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.2.10 Total weighted per-cycle water consumption for cold wash. 
Calculate the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for the 
cold wash cycle, QcT, expressed in gallons per cycle (or 
liters per cycle) and defined as:

QcT = [Qcmax x Fmax] + 
[Qcavg x Favg] + [Qcmin x 
Fmin]

Where:

Qcmax, Qcavg, Qcmin are defined in 
section 4.2.5 of this Appendix.
Fmax, Favg, Fmin are defined in 
Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.

    4.2.11 Total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash 
cycles. Calculate the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for 
all wash cycles, QT, expressed in gallons per cycle (or 
liters per cycle) and defined as:

QT = [QmT x TUFm] + [QhT 
x TUFh] + [QwT x TUFw] + 
[QwwT x TUFww] + [QcT x 
TUFc]

Where:

QmT, QhT, QwT, QwwT, and 
QcT are defined in sections 4.2.6 through 4.2.10 of this 
Appendix.
TUFm, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, 
and TUFc are defined in Table 4.1.1 of this Appendix.

    4.2.12 Water factor. Calculate the water factor, WF, expressed 
in gallons per cycle per cubic foot (or liters per cycle per liter), 
as:

WF = QcT/C

Where:

QcT = As defined in section 4.2.10 of this Appendix.
C = As defined in section 3.1.5 of this Appendix.

    4.2.13 Integrated water factor. Calculate the integrated water 
factor, IWF, expressed in gallons per cycle per cubic foot (or liter 
per cycle per liter), as:

IWF = QT/C

Where:

QT = As defined in section 4.2.11 of this Appendix.
C = As defined in section 3.1.5 of this Appendix.

    4.3 Per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from 
test load. Calculate the per-cycle energy required to remove the 
remaining moisture of the test load, DE, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:

DE = [(Fmax x Maximum test load weight) + 
(Favg x Average test load weight) + (Fmin x 
Minimum test load weight)]x (RMCcorr-4%) x (DEF) x (DUF)

Where:

Fmax, Favg, and Fmin are as defined 
in Table 4.1.3 of this Appendix.
Maximum, average, and minimum test load weights are as defined in 
Table 5.1 of this Appendix.
RMCcorr = As defined in section 3.8.2.6, 3.8.3.5, or 
3.8.4 of this Appendix.
DEF = Nominal energy required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture 
from clothes = 0.5 kWh/lb (1.1 kWh/kg).
DUF = Dryer usage factor, percentage of washer loads dried in a 
clothes dryer = 0.91.

    4.4 Per-cycle combined low-power mode energy consumption. 
Calculate the per-cycle combined low-power mode energy consumption, 
ETLP, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined 
as:

ETLP = [(Pia x Sia) + 
(Po x So)] x Kp/295.

Where:

Pia = Washer inactive mode power, in watts, as defined in 
section 3.9.1 of this Appendix for clothes washers capable of 
operating in inactive mode; otherwise, Pia = 0.
Po = Washer off mode power, in watts, as defined in 
section 3.9.2 of this Appendix for clothes washers capable of 
operating in off mode; otherwise, Po=0.
Sia = Annual hours in inactive mode as defined as 
Soi if no off mode is possible, [Soi/2] if 
both inactive mode and off mode are possible, and 0 if no inactive 
mode is possible.
So = Annual hours in off mode as defined as 
Soi if no inactive mode is possible, [Soi/2] 
if both inactive mode and off mode are possible, and 0 if no off 
mode is possible.

[[Page 13949]]

Soi = Combined annual hours for off and inactive mode = 
8,465.
Kp = Conversion factor of watt-hours to kilowatt-hours = 
0.001.
295 = Representative average number of clothes washer cycles in a 
year.

    4.5 Modified energy factor. Calculate the modified energy 
factor, MEF, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (or 
liters per kilowatt-hour per cycle) and defined as:

MEF = C/(ETE + DE)

Where:

C = As defined in section 3.1.5 of this Appendix.
ETE = As defined in section 4.1.7 of this Appendix.
DE = As defined in section 4.3 of this Appendix.

    4.6 Integrated modified energy factor. Calculate the integrated 
modified energy factor, IMEF, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-
hour per cycle (or liters per kilowatt-hour per cycle) and defined 
as:

IMEF = C/(ETE + DE + ETLP)

Where:

C = As defined in section 3.1.5 of this Appendix.
ETE = As defined in section 4.1.7 of this Appendix.
DE = As defined in section 4.3 of this Appendix.
ETLP = As defined in section 4.4 of this Appendix.

5. Test Loads

                                                               Table 5.1--Test Load Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Container volume                                     Minimum load              Maximum load              Average load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               cu. ft.  >= = 0.10 lbs (0.05 kg).

[[Page 13950]]

6. Waivers and Field Testing

    6.1 Waivers and Field Testing for Nonconventional Clothes 
Washers. Manufacturers of nonconventional clothes washers, such as 
clothes washers with adaptive control systems, must submit a 
petition for waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27 to establish an 
acceptable test procedure for that clothes washer if the washer 
cannot be tested pursuant to the DOE test procedure or the DOE test 
procedure yields results that are so unrepresentative of the clothes 
washer's true energy consumption characteristics as to provide 
materially inaccurate comparative data. In such cases, field testing 
may be appropriate for establishing an acceptable test procedure. 
The following are guidelines for field testing which may be used by 
manufacturers in support of petitions for waiver. These guidelines 
are not mandatory and the Department may determine that they do not 
apply to a particular model. Depending upon a manufacturer's 
approach for conducting field testing, additional data may be 
required. Manufacturers are encouraged to communicate with the 
Department prior to the commencement of field tests which may be 
used to support a petition for waiver. Section 6.3 of this Appendix 
provides an example of field testing for a clothes washer with an 
adaptive water fill control system. Other features, such as the use 
of various spin speed selections, could be the subject of field 
tests.
    6.2 Nonconventional Wash System Energy Consumption Test. The 
field test may consist of a minimum of 10 of the nonconventional 
clothes washers (``test clothes washers'') and 10 clothes washers 
already being distributed in commerce (``base clothes washers''). 
The tests should include a minimum of 50 energy test cycles per 
clothes washer. The test clothes washers and base clothes washers 
should be identical in construction except for the controls or 
systems being tested. Equal numbers of both the test clothes washer 
and the base clothes washer should be tested simultaneously in 
comparable settings to minimize seasonal or consumer laundering 
conditions or variations. The clothes washers should be monitored in 
such a way as to accurately record the average total energy and 
water consumption per cycle, including water heating energy when 
electrically heated water is used, and the energy required to remove 
the remaining moisture of the test load. Standby and off mode energy 
consumption should be measured according to section 4.4 of this test 
procedure. The field test results should be used to determine the 
best method to correlate the rating of the test clothes washer to 
the rating of the base clothes washer.
    6.3 Adaptive water fill control system field test. (1) Section 
3.2.3.1 of this Appendix defines the test method for measuring 
energy consumption for clothes washers which incorporate both 
adaptive and alternate manual water fill control systems. Energy 
consumption calculated by the method defined in section 3.2.3.1 of 
this Appendix assumes the adaptive cycle will be used 50 percent of 
the time. This section can be used to develop field test data in 
support of a petition for waiver when it is believed that the 
adaptive cycle will be used more than 50 percent of the time. The 
field test sample size should be a minimum of 10 test clothes 
washers. The test clothes washers should be representative of the 
design, construction, and control system that will be placed in 
commerce. The duration of field testing in the user's house should 
be a minimum of 50 energy test cycles, for each unit. No special 
instructions as to cycle selection or product usage should be given 
to the field test participants, other than inclusion of the product 
literature pack which would be shipped with all units, and 
instructions regarding filling out data collection forms, use of 
data collection equipment, or basic procedural methods. Prior to the 
test clothes washers being installed in the field test locations, 
baseline data should be developed for all field test units by 
conducting laboratory tests as defined by section 1 through section 
5 of this Appendix to determine the energy consumption, water 
consumption, and remaining moisture content values. The following 
data should be measured and recorded for each wash load during the 
test period: Wash cycle selected, the mode of the clothes washer 
(adaptive or manual), clothes load dry weight (measured after the 
clothes washer and clothes dryer cycles are completed) in pounds, 
and type of articles in the clothes load (e.g., cottons, linens, 
permanent press). The wash loads used in calculating the in-home 
percentage split between adaptive and manual cycle usage should be 
only those wash loads which conform to the definition of the energy 
test cycle.
    Calculate:

T=The total number of energy test cycles run during the field test.
Ta=The total number of adaptive control energy test 
cycles.
Tm=The total number of manual control energy test cycles.

    The percentage weighting factors:

Pa=(Ta/T) x 100% (the percentage weighting for 
adaptive control selection)
Pm=(Tm/T) x 100% (the percentage weighting for 
manual control selection)

    (2) Energy consumption (HET, MET, and 
DE) and water consumption (QT), values 
calculated in section 4 of this Appendix for the manual and adaptive 
modes, should be combined using Pa and Pm as 
the weighting factors.
[FR Doc. 2012-4819 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```