13888 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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-TP0021. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 27, 

1997).

Established new test procedure at appendix J1. 

September 2010 NOPR ...... Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.75 FR 57556 (September 

21, 2010).

Proposed new appendix J2 to 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 of 

Proposed Rulemaking.

76 FR 49238 (August 9, 

2011).

Proposed revisions to new appendix J2 to incorporate 

provisions of IEC Standard 62301 (2nd Ed.); proposed minor amendments to appendix J1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13890 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Because appendix J applies only to clothes 

washers manufactured before January 1, 2004, 

appendix J is now obsolete. 

2 IEC standards are available online at 

www.iec.ch. 

3EISA 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. 

TABLE I.1—SUMMARY OF RELEVANT REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS— 

Continued 

Name Action Citation and date Summary of action 

November 2011 SNOPR ..... Supplementary Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking.

76 FR 69870 (November 

9, 2011).

Proposed amended definition of the energy test cycle 

for the proposed new appendix J2. 

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

January 2001 standards 

Final Rule.

Final Rule .......................... 66 FR 3314 (January 12, 

2001).

Required use of appendix J1 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 document.

Framework document ........ 74 FR 44306 (August 28, 

2009).

Developed to consider amended energy conservation 

standards. 

September 2009 standards 

public meeting.

Public meeting ................... September 21, 2009 .......... Public meeting to discuss energy conservation standards rulemaking; included test procedure issues. 

LEGISLATION 

EPCA ................................... Legislation ......................... Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 

94–163.

Established authority for energy conservation standards and test procedures. 

EISA 2007 ........................... Legislation ......................... Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007, 

Pub. L. 110–140.

Required standby and off mode energy to be 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. 

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)) 

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. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 percycle 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 lowpower mode energy consumption; (2) 

extends the test load sizes table to 

accommodate test loads for largecapacity 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 oilheated 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13892 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13894 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 userinitiated 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. 

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 preand 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 energyconsuming 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. 

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 lowpower 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 lowpower 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 LEDbased 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 lowpower 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 energyconsuming 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 energyconsuming 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13896 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lowpower 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 lowpower 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfcleaning 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 selfclean, 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 selfclean 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 selfclean 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 disincentivize 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 selfcleaning 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13898 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfclean 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 selfclean 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 useroriented 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 oneway 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13899 

5The 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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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). 

DOE interprets the network mode 

provisions in IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) to be a forwardthinking 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 twothirds 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, noncyclic 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 powermeasuring 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. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 °F, 

for water-heating clothes washers only. 

This specification is narrower than the 

range specified by IEC Standard 62301 

of 73.4 ± 9 °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 °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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7As 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). 

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 °F) 

because the more stringent DOE range 

(75 ± 5 °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 °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-waterheating. DOE also concurs with some 

commenters that the more stringent 

temperature range of 75 ± 5 °F will 

produce more accurate, repeatable, and 

reproducible results compared to the 73 

± 9 °F range. DOE also notes that the 

current test procedure requires a 

temperature range of 75 ± 5 °F for active 

mode testing. Therefore, performing 

standby and off mode testing at 75 ± 5 

°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 °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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13903 

8Self-clean mode, delay start mode, and cycle 

finished mode are considered part of the active 

mode. 

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 powermeasuring 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. 

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 ‘‘lowpower 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 nonactive 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lowpower modes is represented by a single 

energy metric called ‘‘combined lowpower 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 percycle 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 lowpower 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfclean 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13906 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 steamcapable 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°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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 ‘‘selfclean 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 selfclean 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 timeof-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 smartgrid 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 selfclean), 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 percycle 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 nonactive 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13909 

9The 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. 

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. 

TABLE III.1—SELF-REPORTED WASH

LOADS FROM 2009 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE SURVEYS

Utility Number of 

participants 

Average number wash 

loads/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 nonparticipants 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

Category Efficiency Number. of 

sites 

Number wash 

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) 

× (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 nonparticipants 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ft3. 

DOE is aware that multiple clothes 

washers available on the market have 

container volumes exceeding 3.8 ft3. 

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 ft3. 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 ft3 to 

3.3 ft3 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 ft3. 

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 largercapacity 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 largecapacity machines. NRDC commented 

that the relationship of load size to 

capacity may be linear, but it is not 

proportionate, suggesting that 

consumers who purchase largercapacity 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 ft3, 

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 ft3 clothes washer 

with MEF = 2.0 is allowed 10 percent 

more energy and water per pound of 

clothes than a 3.0 ft3 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13911 

10The 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/ft3 for small capacity 

to 2.3 lb/ft3 for large capacity, whereas the scaling 

factor for maximum test load weight is a constant 

4.10 ± 0.03 lb/ft3. 

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 ft3 for front-loaders and 3.66 ft3

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 toploaders. 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

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 ft3

and 6.0 ft3 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. Largercapacity 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 °F >135 °F Steam 

(57.2 °C) (57.2 °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 extrahot 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 lowenergy 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 overreporting 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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

Age of clothes washer 

Percentage of 

users that 

usually use 

warm rinse 

Less than 2 years old ........... 21.5 

2 to 4 years old .................... 19.1 

TABLE III.4—2005 RECS DATA ON

THE USE OF WARM RINSE BY AGE

OF THE CLOTHES WASHER—Continued 

Age of clothes washer 

Percentage of 

users that 

usually use 

warm rinse 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 °F on the Cottons 

setting with a 60 °F rinse temperature, 

yet provide a higher wash temperature 

of 135 °F on the Heavy Duty setting with 

a 60 °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 °F wash/rinse 

temperature combination and the 135/ 

60 °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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfclean 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 °F ± 5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C) or 100 

°F ± 10 °F (37.8 °C ± 5.5 °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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13918 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Figure III.1 indicates four possible fill 

levels for vertical axis (top-loading) 

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 frontloading 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 ft3. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER07MR12.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 frontloading 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 frontloading 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 rerated (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, toploading 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13920 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 frontloading 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 toploading 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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/m2). 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13922 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °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 preconditioning 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 newlyreferenced 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 gforces 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 

‘‘g Force’’ 

RMC percentage 

Warm soak Cold soak 

15 min. spin 4 min. spin 15 min. 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 WHIRLPOOLRECOMMENDED EXTRACTOR CALIBRATION

RPM ‘‘g’’ Force 

RPM/S 

(spin-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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 °F (99 

°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 °F (99 °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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13925 

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. 

13The 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 × 

57 per inch (warp × 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 × 57 per inch (warp 

× 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 °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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 frontloading 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 oilheated 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 * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonactive washing modes. DOE noted that 

the cost of energy consumed in selfclean, 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lowpower mode hours are allocated to the 

inactive and off modes, and the lowpower 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13933 

14A searchable database of certified small 

businesses is available online at: http:// 

dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dspldsbs.cfm. 

(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 nonactive 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 nonactive 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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.20 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(3). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

■ 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. 

■ 4. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (c) 

through (o) as paragraphs (d) through 

(p); 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (c); 

■ c. Revising newly designated 

paragraphs (m) introductory text and 

(m)(2). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 430.23 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 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 × ETE1 × 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 × ((MET1 × CKWH) + (HETG1 × CBTU))) 

Where: 

N1 and CKWH are defined in paragraph 

(j)(1)(i)(A) of this section, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 oilheated 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 × (ETE2 + ETSO) × 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 kilowatthours 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 × ((MET2 + ETSO) × CKWH) + (HETG2

× 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 oilheated 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 semiautomatic 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 averageuse 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 averageuse 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] 

■ 6. Appendix J to subpart B of part 430 

is removed. 

Appendix J1—[Amended] 

■ 7. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text; 

■ b. Revising section 1.19; 

■ c. Revising section 1.22; 

■ d. Removing sections 2.6.1.1 through 

2.6.1.2.4; 

■ e. Revising section 2.6.3.1; 

■ f. Revising section 2.6.4.3 

■ g. Revising section 2.6.4.5.3(b); 

■ h. Revising section 2.6.6.1; 

■ i. Revising section 2.6.6.2; 

■ j. Revising section 2.10; 

■ k. Revising section 3.6; 

■ l. Revising section 4.1.4; 

■ m. Revising section 4.2; 

■ n. Revising section 4.2.3; 

■ o. Removing section 4.5; 

■ p. Revising section 5; and 

■ 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 washrinse-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 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C) and the rinse 

temperature is to be controlled to 60 °F ± 5 

°F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C). Repeat the cycle with 

detergent and then repeat the cycle three 

additional times without detergent, bone 

drying the load between cycles (total of five 

wash and rinse cycles). 

* * * * * 

2.6.4.3 The thread count shall be 65 × 57 

per inch (warp × 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Fstatistic 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=HET×1/e×3412 Btu/kWh or 

HETG=HET×1/e×3.6 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. 

≥ < 

liter 

≥ < lb kg lb kg lb kg 

0–0.80 ............................... 0–22.7 ............................... 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 

0.80–0.90 .......................... 22.7–25.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 3.50 1.59 3.25 1.47 

0.90–1.00 .......................... 25.5–28.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 3.90 1.77 3.45 1.56 

1.00–1.10 .......................... 28.3–31.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 4.30 1.95 3.65 1.66 

1.10–1.20 .......................... 31.1–34.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 4.70 2.13 3.85 1.75 

1.20–1.30 .......................... 34.0–36.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 5.10 2.31 4.05 1.84 

1.30–1.40 .......................... 36.8–39.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 5.50 2.49 4.25 1.93 

1.40–1.50 .......................... 39.6–42.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 5.90 2.68 4.45 2.02 

1.50–1.60 .......................... 42.5–45.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 6.40 2.90 4.70 2.13 

1.60–1.70 .......................... 45.3–48.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 6.80 3.08 4.90 2.22 

1.70–1.80 .......................... 48.1–51.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 7.20 3.27 5.10 2.31 

1.80–1.90 .......................... 51.0–53.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 7.60 3.45 5.30 2.40 

1.90–2.00 .......................... 53.8–56.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 8.00 3.63 5.50 2.49 

2.00–2.10 .......................... 56.6–59.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 8.40 3.81 5.70 2.59 

2.10–2.20 .......................... 59.5–62.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 8.80 3.99 5.90 2.68 

2.20–2.30 .......................... 62.3–65.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 9.20 4.17 6.10 2.77 

2.30–2.40 .......................... 65.1–68.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 9.60 4.35 6.30 2.86 

2.40–2.50 .......................... 68.0–70.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 10.00 4.54 6.50 2.95 

2.50–2.60 .......................... 70.8–73.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 10.50 4.76 6.75 3.06 

2.60–2.70 .......................... 73.6–76.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 10.90 4.94 6.95 3.15 

2.70–2.80 .......................... 76.5–79.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 11.30 5.13 7.15 3.24 

2.80–2.90 .......................... 79.3–82.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 11.70 5.31 7.35 3.33 

2.90–3.00 .......................... 82.1–85.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 12.10 5.49 7.55 3.42 

3.00–3.10 .......................... 85.0–87.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 12.50 5.67 7.75 3.52 

3.10–3.20 .......................... 87.8–90.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 12.90 5.85 7.95 3.61 

3.20–3.30 .......................... 90.6–93.4 .......................... 3.00 1.36 13.30 6.03 8.15 3.70 

3.30–3.40 .......................... 93.4–96.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 13.70 6.21 8.35 3.79 

3.40–3.50 .......................... 96.3–99.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 14.10 6.40 8.55 3.88 

3.50–3.60 .......................... 99.1–101.9 ........................ 3.00 1.36 14.60 6.62 8.80 3.99 

3.60–3.70 .......................... 101.9–104.8 ...................... 3.00 1.36 15.00 6.80 9.00 4.08 

3.70–3.80 .......................... 104.8–107.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 15.40 6.99 9.20 4.17 

3.80–3.90 .......................... 107.6–110.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 15.80 7.16 9.40 4.26 

3.90–4.00 .......................... 110.4–113.3 ...................... 3.00 1.36 16.20 7.34 9.60 4.35 

4.00–4.10 .......................... 113.3–116.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 16.60 7.53 9.80 4.45 

4.10–4.20 .......................... 116.1–118.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 17.00 7.72 10.00 4.54 

4.20–4.30 .......................... 118.9–121.8 ...................... 3.00 1.36 17.40 7.90 10.20 4.63 

4.30–4.40 .......................... 121.8–124.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 17.80 8.09 10.40 4.72 

4.40–4.50 .......................... 124.6–127.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 18.20 8.27 10.60 4.82 

4.50–4.60 .......................... 127.4–130.3 ...................... 3.00 1.36 18.70 8.46 10.85 4.91 

4.60–4.70 .......................... 130.3–133.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 19.10 8.65 11.05 5.00 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13939 

TABLE 5.1—TEST LOAD SIZES—Continued 

Container volume Minimum load Maximum load Average load 

cu. ft. 

≥ < 

liter 

≥ < lb kg lb kg lb kg 

4.70–4.80 .......................... 133.1–135.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 19.50 8.83 11.25 5.10 

4.80–4.90 .......................... 135.9–138.8 ...................... 3.00 1.36 19.90 9.02 11.45 5.19 

4.90–5.00 .......................... 138.8–141.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 20.30 9.20 11.65 5.28 

5.00–5.10 .......................... 141.6–144.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 20.70 9.39 11.85 5.38 

5.10–5.20 .......................... 144.4–147.2 ...................... 3.00 1.36 21.10 9.58 12.05 5.47 

5.20–5.30 .......................... 147.2–150.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 21.50 9.76 12.25 5.56 

5.30–5.40 .......................... 150.1–152.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 21.90 9.95 12.45 5.65 

5.40–5.50 .......................... 152.9–155.7 ...................... 3.00 1.36 22.30 10.13 12.65 5.75 

5.50–5.60 .......................... 155.7–158.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 22.80 10.32 12.90 5.84 

5.60–5.70 .......................... 158.6–161.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 23.20 10.51 13.10 5.93 

5.70–5.80 .......................... 161.4–164.2 ...................... 3.00 1.36 23.60 10.69 13.30 6.03 

5.80–5.90 .......................... 164.2–167.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 24.00 10.88 13.50 6.12 

5.90–6.00 .......................... 167.1–169.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 24.40 11.06 13.70 6.21 

Notes: (1) All test load weights are bone dry weights. 

(2) Allowable tolerance on the test load weights are ±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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 ft3 (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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 ft3 (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 °F 

(57.2 °C)) 

ia—Inactive Mode 

LP—Combined Low-Power Mode 

m—Extra Hot Wash (maximum wash temp. 

>135 °F (57.2 °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 ≤135 °F 

(57.2 °C)) and ‘‘cold wash’’ (minimum wash 

temperature) water temperatures within 

±3.8 °F (±2.1 °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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13941 

the mean of the ‘‘hot wash’’ (maximum wash 

temperature ≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) and ‘‘cold 

wash’’ (minimum wash temperature) water 

temperatures within ±3.8 °F (±2.1 °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 ≤135 °F 

(57.2 °C) and above the minimum wash 

temperature. 

1.35 Water factor means the quotient of 

the total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption for cold wash divided by the 

cubic foot (or liter) capacity of the clothes 

washer. 

1.36 Water-heating clothes washer means 

a clothes washer where some or all of the hot 

water for clothes washing is generated by a 

water heating device internal to the clothes 

washer. 

2. Testing Conditions 

2.1 Installation. Install the clothes washer 

in accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions. For combined low-power mode 

testing, the product shall be installed in 

accordance with Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of 

IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), disregarding the provisions 

regarding batteries and the determination, 

classification, and testing of relevant modes. 

2.2 Electrical energy supply. 

2.2.1 Supply voltage and frequency. 

Maintain the electrical supply at the clothes 

washer terminal block within 2 percent of 

120, 120/240, 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 °F 

(57.2 °C) and the cold water supply at the 

water inlets shall not exceed 60 °F (15.6 °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 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C) and the cold 

water supply shall be maintained at 60 °F ± 

5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °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 °F (±0.6 °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 preconditioned in a clothes washer in the 

following manner: 

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

Standard detergent 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 

°F ± 5°F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C) and the rinse 

temperature is to be controlled to 60°F ± 5°F 

(15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C). Repeat the cycle with 

detergent and then repeat the cycle three 

additional times without detergent, bone 

drying the load between cycles (total of five 

wash and rinse cycles). 

2.6.4 Energy test cloth material. The 

energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths 

shall be made from fabric meeting the 

following specifications. The material should 

come from a roll of material with a width of 

approximately 63 inches and approximately 

500 yards per roll. However, other sizes 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/m2). 

2.6.4.3 The thread count shall be 65 × 57 

per inch (warp × fill), ±2 percent. 

2.6.4.4 The warp yarn and filling yarn 

shall each have fiber content of 50 percent ±4 

percent cotton, with the balance being 

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

percent cotton count blended yarn. 

2.6.4.5 Water repellent finishes, such as 

fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes shall 

not be applied to the test cloth. The absence 

of such finishes shall be verified by: 

2.6.4.5.1 AATCC Test Method 118–2007, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 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 § 430.3), for 

each new lot of test cloth (when purchased 

from the mill) to confirm the absence of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ScotchguardTM 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 § 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

‘‘g Force’’ 

Warm soak Cold soak 

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 ft3), 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 (<17 ppm) water. The 

entire test load shall be submerged. The 

water temperature shall be 100 °F ± 5°F (37.8 

°C ± 2.8 °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 (<17 ppm) water at 60 

°F ± 5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13943 

TABLE 2.6.6.1—STANDARD RMC VALUES (RMC STANDARD) 

‘‘g Force’’ 

RMC percentage 

Warm soak Cold soak 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(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 × 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, precondition 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 °F (23.9 ± 

2.8 °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 °F (99 

°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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 × T × 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 °F (41.7 °C) 

K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per 

gallon per degree F = 0.00240 kWh/gal- 

°F (0.00114 kWh/L-°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 frontloading 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 °F ± 5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C) 

or 100 °F ± 10 °F (37.8 °C ± 5.5 °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/ft3 for 100 °F 

(993 kg/m3 for 37.8 °C) or 62.3 lbs/ft3 for 

60 °F (998 kg/m3 for 15.6 °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( °F) = ((Hw × 135 °F)+ (Cw × 60 °F))/(Hw 

+ Cw) 

or 

Tw( °C) = ((Hw × 57.2 °C)+ (Cw × 15.6 °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 °F (57.2 °C) >135 °F (57.2 °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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13945 

TABLE 3.2—TEST SECTION REFERENCE—Continued 

Max. wash temp. available ≤135 °F (57.2 °C) >135 °F (57.2 °C)**

Number of wash temp. selections 1 2 >2 3 >3 

................ ................ * 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 °F (57.2 °C). 

3.3 ‘‘Extra Hot Wash’’ (Max Wash Temp 

>135 °F (57.2 °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 

≤135 °F (57.2 °C)). Water and electrical 

energy consumption shall be measured for 

each water fill level and/or test load size as 

specified in sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.3 of 

this Appendix for a 135 °F (57.2 °C) wash, if 

available, or for the hottest selection less than 

135 °F (57.2 °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 

(≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) wash and the coldest cold 

wash. If a selection is not available at the 25, 

50 or 75 percent position, in place of each 

such unavailable selection use the next 

warmer setting. Each reportable value to be 

used for the warm water wash setting shall 

be the arithmetic average of all tests 

conducted pursuant to this section. 

3.5.2.1 Maximum test load and water fill. 

Hot water consumption (Hwx), 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

percent position between the hottest hot 

(≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) wash and the coldest cold 

wash. 

3.7.2 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 

which a warm rinse is available. For a clothes 

washer that offers four or more warm wash 

selections, test at all discrete selections for 

which a warm rinse is available, or test at 25 

percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent positions 

of the temperature selection device between 

the hottest hot (≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) wash and 

the coldest cold wash. If a selection is not 

available at the 25, 50, or 75 percent position, 

in place of each such unavailable selection 

use the next warmer setting. Each reportable 

value to be used for the warm wash/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 × RMCx + B) × 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 × RMCCOLD + B) × 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 × RMCWARM + B) × 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 × (1 – TUFww) + 

RMCWARM,corr × (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 × RMCcorr,max extraction + 0.25 × 

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 § 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 × TUFm] + [Hhx × TUFh] + 

[Hwx × TUFw] + [Hwwx × TUFww] + [Hcx

× TUFc] 

(b) Vha = [Hma × TUFm] + [Hha × TUFh] + 

[Hwa × TUFw] + [Hwwa × TUFww] + [Hca

× TUFc] 

(c) Vhn = [Hmn × TUFm] + [Hhn × TUFh] + 

[Hwn × TUFw] + [Hwwn × TUFww] + [Hcn

× 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 °F (57.2 °C) >135 °F (57.2 °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) ............................................................................................ .................... .................... ** 0.22/0.49 ** 0.22/0.49 ** 0.22/0.49 

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 × T × K]=Total energy when 

a maximum load is tested. 

(b) HEavg = [Vha × T× K]=Total energy when 

an average load is tested. 

(c) HEmin = [Vhn × T × 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 °F (41.7 °C). 

K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per 

gallon per degree F = 0.00240 kWh/gal- 

°F (0.00114 kWh/L-°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 kilowatthours per cycle and defined as: 

HET = [HEmax × Fmax] + [HEavg × Favg] + HEmin

× 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 

TABLE 4.1.3—LOAD USAGE

FACTORS—Continued 

Water fill control 

system Manual Adaptive 

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 × 1/e × 3412 Btu/kWh or HETG

= HET × 1/e × 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 =[ [Emx× TUFm] + [Ehx × TUFh]+ + 

[Ewx× TUFw]+ + [Ewwx× TUFww] + [Ecx× 

TUFc] 

(b) MEavg = [Ema × TUFm] + [Eha× TUFh] + 

[Ewa× TUFw]+ + [Ewwa× TUFww]+ + [Eca× 

TUFc] 

(c) MEmin = [Emn× TUFm]+ + [Ehn× TUFh]+ + 

[Ewn× TUFw]+ + [Ewwn× TUFww] + [Ecn× 

TUFc] 

Where: 

Emx, Ema, and Emn, are reported electrical 

energy consumption values, in kilowatthours 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 kilowatthours 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 kilowatthours 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 kilowatthours 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 × Fmax]+ + [MEavg× Favg]+ + 

[MEmin× 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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 × Fmax] + [Qmavg × Favg] + 

[Qmmin × 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 × Fmax] + [Qhavg × Favg] + [Qhmin

× 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 × Fmax] + [Qwavg × Favg] + 

[Qwmin × 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 × Fmax] + [Qwwavg × Favg] 

+ [Qwwmin × 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 × Fmax] + [Qcavg × Favg] + [Qcmin

× 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 × TUFm] + [QhT × TUFh] + [QwT

× TUFw] + [QwwT × TUFww] + [QcT × 

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 × Maximum test load weight) + 

(Favg × Average test load weight) + (Fmin

× Minimum test load weight)]× 

(RMCcorr¥4%) × (DEF) × (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 kilowatthours per cycle and defined as: 

ETLP = [(Pia × Sia) + (Po × So)] × 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

≥ < 

liter 

≥ < lb kg lb kg lb kg 

0–0.80 ............................... 0–22.7 ............................... 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 

0.80–0.90 .......................... 22.7–25.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 3.50 1.59 3.25 1.47 

0.90–1.00 .......................... 25.5–28.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 3.90 1.77 3.45 1.56 

1.00–1.10 .......................... 28.3–31.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 4.30 1.95 3.65 1.66 

1.10–1.20 .......................... 31.1–34.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 4.70 2.13 3.85 1.75 

1.20–1.30 .......................... 34.0–36.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 5.10 2.31 4.05 1.84 

1.30–1.40 .......................... 36.8–39.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 5.50 2.49 4.25 1.93 

1.40–1.50 .......................... 39.6–42.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 5.90 2.68 4.45 2.02 

1.50–1.60 .......................... 42.5–45.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 6.40 2.90 4.70 2.13 

1.60–1.70 .......................... 45.3–48.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 6.80 3.08 4.90 2.22 

1.70–1.80 .......................... 48.1–51.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 7.20 3.27 5.10 2.31 

1.80–1.90 .......................... 51.0–53.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 7.60 3.45 5.30 2.40 

1.90–2.00 .......................... 53.8–56.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 8.00 3.63 5.50 2.49 

2.00–2.10 .......................... 56.6–59.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 8.40 3.81 5.70 2.59 

2.10–2.20 .......................... 59.5–62.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 8.80 3.99 5.90 2.68 

2.20–2.30 .......................... 62.3–65.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 9.20 4.17 6.10 2.77 

2.30–2.40 .......................... 65.1–68.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 9.60 4.35 6.30 2.86 

2.40–2.50 .......................... 68.0–70.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 10.00 4.54 6.50 2.95 

2.50–2.60 .......................... 70.8–73.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 10.50 4.76 6.75 3.06 

2.60–2.70 .......................... 73.6–76.5 .......................... 3.00 1.36 10.90 4.94 6.95 3.15 

2.70–2.80 .......................... 76.5–79.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 11.30 5.13 7.15 3.24 

2.80–2.90 .......................... 79.3–82.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 11.70 5.31 7.35 3.33 

2.90–3.00 .......................... 82.1–85.0 .......................... 3.00 1.36 12.10 5.49 7.55 3.42 

3.00–3.10 .......................... 85.0–87.8 .......................... 3.00 1.36 12.50 5.67 7.75 3.52 

3.10–3.20 .......................... 87.8–90.6 .......................... 3.00 1.36 12.90 5.85 7.95 3.61 

3.20–3.30 .......................... 90.6–93.4 .......................... 3.00 1.36 13.30 6.03 8.15 3.70 

3.30–3.40 .......................... 93.4–96.3 .......................... 3.00 1.36 13.70 6.21 8.35 3.79 

3.40–3.50 .......................... 96.3–99.1 .......................... 3.00 1.36 14.10 6.40 8.55 3.88 

3.50–3.60 .......................... 99.1–101.9 ........................ 3.00 1.36 14.60 6.62 8.80 3.99 

3.60–3.70 .......................... 101.9–104.8 ...................... 3.00 1.36 15.00 6.80 9.00 4.08 

3.70–3.80 .......................... 104.8–107.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 15.40 6.99 9.20 4.17 

3.80–3.90 .......................... 107.6–110.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 15.80 7.16 9.40 4.26 

3.90–4.00 .......................... 110.4–113.3 ...................... 3.00 1.36 16.20 7.34 9.60 4.35 

4.00–4.10 .......................... 113.3–116.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 16.60 7.53 9.80 4.45 

4.10–4.20 .......................... 116.1–118.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 17.00 7.72 10.00 4.54 

4.20–4.30 .......................... 118.9–121.8 ...................... 3.00 1.36 17.40 7.90 10.20 4.63 

4.30–4.40 .......................... 121.8–124.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 17.80 8.09 10.40 4.72 

4.40–4.50 .......................... 124.6–127.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 18.20 8.27 10.60 4.82 

4.50–4.60 .......................... 127.4–130.3 ...................... 3.00 1.36 18.70 8.46 10.85 4.91 

4.60–4.70 .......................... 130.3–133.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 19.10 8.65 11.05 5.00 

4.70–4.80 .......................... 133.1–135.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 19.50 8.83 11.25 5.10 

4.80–4.90 .......................... 135.9–138.8 ...................... 3.00 1.36 19.90 9.02 11.45 5.19 

4.90–5.00 .......................... 138.8–141.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 20.30 9.20 11.65 5.28 

5.00–5.10 .......................... 141.6–144.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 20.70 9.39 11.85 5.38 

5.10–5.20 .......................... 144.4–147.2 ...................... 3.00 1.36 21.10 9.58 12.05 5.47 

5.20–5.30 .......................... 147.2–150.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 21.50 9.76 12.25 5.56 

5.30–5.40 .......................... 150.1–152.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 21.90 9.95 12.45 5.65 

5.40–5.50 .......................... 152.9–155.7 ...................... 3.00 1.36 22.30 10.13 12.65 5.75 

5.50–5.60 .......................... 155.7–158.6 ...................... 3.00 1.36 22.80 10.32 12.90 5.84 

5.60–5.70 .......................... 158.6–161.4 ...................... 3.00 1.36 23.20 10.51 13.10 5.93 

5.70–5.80 .......................... 161.4–164.2 ...................... 3.00 1.36 23.60 10.69 13.30 6.03 

5.80–5.90 .......................... 164.2–167.1 ...................... 3.00 1.36 24.00 10.88 13.50 6.12 

5.90–6.00 .......................... 167.1–169.9 ...................... 3.00 1.36 24.40 11.06 13.70 6.21 

Notes: (1) All test load weights are bone dry weights. 

(2) Allowable tolerance on the test load weights are ±0.10 lbs (0.05 kg). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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) × 100% (the percentage weighting 

for adaptive control selection) 

Pm=(Tm/T) × 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2