This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

62644 

Vol. 76, No. 196 

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 

1Representing the following companies who are 

members of the Major Appliance Division: 

Whirlpool, General Electric, Electrolux, LG 

Electronics, BSH, Alliance Laundry, Viking Range, 

Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U–Line, Samsung, 

Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA 

Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, 

Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman 

Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLonghi. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

Request To Consider Automatic 

Termination Controls 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: On September 8, 2011, the 

Department of Energy received a joint 

petition submitted by the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers and the 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, 

on behalf of a number of named parties 

requesting that the clothes dryer test 

procedure be amended to address the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls such as moisture and 

temperature sensor controls. Public 

comment is requested on whether DOE 

should grant the petition and consider 

the proposal contained in the petition. 

DATES: Comments must be postmarked 

no later than December 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must reference the petition for 

rulemaking. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: ResCDPetition-2011-PET0062@ee.doe.gov. Include ‘‘Petition for 

Rulemaking’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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, (202) 

586–7463, e-mail: stephen.witkowski 

@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl or Ms. Sarah 

Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121, (202) 

586–7796, e-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov or 

Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other 

things, that ‘‘[each] agency shall give an 

interested person the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). Pursuant to 

this provision of the APA, the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers and the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, on behalf 

of a number of named parties, 

petitioned DOE to amend the test 

procedure for residential clothes dryers 

to include provisions related to 

automatic termination controls, as set 

forth below. In promulgating this 

petition for public comment, the DOE is 

seeking views on whether it should 

grant the petition and consider the 

proposal contained in the petition. By 

seeking comment on whether to grant 

this petition, the DOE takes no position 

at this time regarding the merits of the 

suggested amendment. 

The proposed amendment sought in 

the petition would institute a procedure 

that addresses the effectiveness of 

automatic termination controls such as 

moisture and temperature sensor 

controls. The petitioners request that 

DOE test the full cycle of clothes dryers, 

including cool-down. The petitioners 

also request that the DOE modify the 

ending remaining moisture content 

(RMC) to require that the RMC be no 

more than 2 percent when testing units 

equipped with automatic termination 

controls using the DOE test load. This 

petition also requests that the DOE 

revise the relevant energy conservation 

standards under section 323 of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 

reflect the requested test procedure. The 

DOE seeks public comment on whether 

it should grant the petition. 

DOE notes that it issued a Request for 

Information (RFI) to further investigate 

the effects of automatic cycle 

termination on the energy efficiency of 

clothes washers. (76 FR 50145, Aug. 12, 

2011). The petition also served as a 

response to DOE’s RFI. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 4, 

2011. 

Sean A. Lev, 

Acting General Counsel. 

Set forth below is the full text of the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers and the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project petition: 

Joint Petition to Amend the Test 

Procedure for Residential Clothes 

Dryers to Include Provisions Related to 

Automatic Termination Controls 

Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0010; 

RIN 1904–AC02 and Docket No. EERE– 

2011–BT–TP–0054, RIN 1904–AC63 

September 8, 2011 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers1

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Alliance to Save Energy 

Alliance for Water Efficiency Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council 

Northeast 

Energy Efficiency Partnerships 

Consumer 

Federation of America 

National Consumer Law Center 

I. Introduction and Overview 

As part of the agreement between the 

Joint Commenters on federal minimum 

energy conservation standards for five 

products, including residential clothes 

dryers, and related test procedures, 

ENERGY STAR, and financial incentive 

provisions, the Joint Commenters agreed 

that the Department of Energy (DOE) 

should amend the clothes dryer test 

procedure to address the effectiveness of 

automatic termination controls such as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62645 

2EPCA section 323(b)(2) provides the process 

which DOE must follow in replying to a petition for 

a test procedure revision. The Administrative 

Procedure Act requires that ‘‘[e]ach agency shall 

give an interested person the right to petition for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

§ 553(e). 

moisture and temperature sensor 

controls. In its final test procedure, 

however, DOE declined to adopt 

proposed amendments to address 

automatic termination controls. The 

Joint Commenters estimate that energy 

savings of approximately 1.1 quads over 

30 years can be achieved through a test 

procedure revision that accounts for 

such controls, and thus petition DOE to 

amend the clothes dryer test procedure 

to account for the effectiveness of 

automatic termination controls.2 This 

petition also serves as joint comments in 

response to DOE’s Request for 

Information on Test Procedures for 

Residential Clothes Dryers, Docket No. 

EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054, RIN 1904– 

AC63, 76 Fed Reg. 50145 (Aug. 12, 

2011). 

II. The Joint Stakeholders to and 

Supporters of the Agreement 

The American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy (ACEEE) is a 

nonprofit, non-partisan, organization 

dedicated to advancing energy 

efficiency as a means of promoting 

economic prosperity, energy security, 

and environmental protection. ACEEE 

fulfills its mission by conducting indepth technical and policy assessments; 

advising policymakers and program 

managers; working collaboratively with 

businesses, public interest groups, and 

other organizations; publishing books, 

conference proceedings, and reports; 

organizing conferences and workshops; 

and educating consumers and 

businesses. 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) represents 

manufacturers of major, portable and 

floor care home appliances, and 

suppliers to the industry. AHAM’s 

membership includes over 150 

companies throughout the world. In the 

U.S., AHAM members employ tens of 

thousands of people and produce more 

than 95% of the household appliances 

shipped for sale. The factory shipment 

value of these products is more than $30 

billion annually. The home appliance 

industry, through its products and 

innovation, is essential to U.S. 

consumer lifestyle, health, safety and 

convenience. Through its technology, 

employees and productivity, the 

industry contributes significantly to 

U.S. jobs and economic security. Home 

appliances also are a success story in 

terms of energy efficiency and 

environmental protection. New 

appliances often represent the most 

effective choice a consumer can make to 

reduce home energy use and costs. 

AHAM represents the manufacturers of 

virtually all affected clothes dryers 

manufactured and/or sold in the United 

States. 

The Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) is 

a coalition of prominent business, 

government, environmental, and 

consumer leaders who promote the 

efficient and clean use of energy 

worldwide to benefit consumers, the 

environment, economy, and national 

security. Established as an NGO in 1977, 

to carry out its mission, the Alliance 

undertakes research, educational 

programs, and policy advocacy, designs 

and implements energy-efficiency 

projects, promotes technology 

development and deployment, and 

builds public-private partnerships, in 

the U.S. and other countries. 

The Alliance for Water Efficiency is a 

stakeholder-based 501(c)(3) non-profit 

organization dedicated to the efficient 

and sustainable use of water, with 317 

member organizations from water 

utilities, government agencies, 

businesses, industry, plumbing, 

appliance and irrigation manufacturers, 

retailers, environmental and energy 

efficiency advocates, and other 

stakeholders. Located in Chicago, the 

Alliance serves as a North American 

advocate for water efficient products 

and programs, and provides information 

and assistance on water conservation 

efforts. 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) is a coalition group 

dedicated to advancing cost-effective 

energy efficiency standards for 

appliances and equipment. ASAP works 

at both the state and federal levels and 

is led by a Steering Committee with 

representatives from consumer groups, 

utilities, state government, 

environmental groups, and energyefficiency groups. 

The Consumer Federation of America 

is an association of nearly 300 nonprofit 

consumer groups that was established in 

1968 to advance the consumer interest 

through research, advocacy, and 

education. 

The National Consumer Law Center®, 

a nonprofit corporation founded in 

1969, assists consumers, advocates, and 

public policy makers nationwide on 

consumer law issues. NCLC works 

toward the goal of consumer justice and 

fair treatment, particularly for those 

whose poverty renders them powerless 

to demand accountability from the 

economic marketplace. NCLC has 

provided model language and testimony 

on numerous consumer law issues 

before federal and state policy makers. 

NCLC publishes an 18-volume series of 

treatises on consumer law, and a 

number of publications for consumers. 

The Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) is a national 

environmental advocacy organization 

with over 1.3 million members and 

online activists. NRDC has spent 

decades working to build and improve 

DOE’s federal appliance standards 

programs because of the important 

energy, environmental, consumer, and 

reliability benefits of appliance 

efficiency standards. NRDC participated 

in the enactment of the first federal 

legislation establishing efficiency 

standards, and has been active in all 

significant rulemakings since then. 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP) is a non-profit 

organization that facilitates regional 

partnerships to advance the efficient use 

of energy in homes, buildings and 

industry in the Northeast U.S. NEEP 

works to leverage knowledge, capability, 

learning and funding through regionally 

coordinated policies, programs and 

practices. As a regional organization 

that collaborates with policy makers, 

energy efficient program administrators, 

and business, NEEP is a leader in the 

movement to build a cleaner 

environment and a more reliable and 

affordable energy system. 

The Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council is an interstate 

compact between the states of Idaho, 

Montana, Oregon and Washington 

authorized by the Northwest Power Act 

of 1980 (PL96–501). The Council is 

charged with ensuring that the 

Northwest’s electric power system will 

provide adequate and reliable energy at 

the lowest economic and environmental 

cost to its citizens. 

Other supporters include the 

California Energy Commission, Demand 

Response and Smart Grid Coalition, and 

Earthjustice. 

III. Background 

DOE proposed to amend DOE’s test 

procedure for clothes dryers to 

incorporate the individual test 

procedures for timer dryers and 

automatic termination control dryers in 

AS/NSZ Standard 2442 with a few 

modifications. DOE sought comment on 

the adequacy of AS/NSZ Standard 2442, 

along with proposed definitions and 

clarifications, to measure energy 

consumption for timer and automatic 

termination control clothes dryers to 

account for over-drying energy 

consumption. The Joint Commenters 

supported DOE’s proposal to account for 

the effectiveness of automatic 

termination controls because it would 

have provided an incentive to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturers to design products that 

avoid over-drying. Although the Joint 

Stakeholders generally promote 

harmonization with international 

standards, the Joint Stakeholders did 

not agree that AS/NSZ Standard 2442 

provided the best methods and 

procedures to account for the amount of 

over- drying associated with automatic 

termination control dryers beyond a 

specified RMC. 

Instead, the Joint Stakeholders 

proposed that the procedure should be 

to test the full cycle, including cooldown. This procedure is more 

representative of consumer usage 

because it includes all of the energy use 

in a cycle. It is also reproducible and 

repeatable because it does not require 

any ‘‘guesswork’’ as to when the cooldown will begin. On the other hand, 

DOE’s original proposal to stop the 

dryer when the heater switches off for 

the final time at the end of the drying 

cycle, i.e., immediately before the cooldown period begins, entails some 

guesswork that introduces variability 

into the test. The procedure the Joint 

Stakeholders’ proposed is also less 

burdensome because it does not require 

the manufacturers to conduct multiple 

tests in order to determine the point 

immediately before cool-down for each 

model. Thus, the Joint Stakeholders 

argued that their proposal improved 

upon DOE’s proposal in addressing 

over-drying by including cool-down. 

Furthermore, for dryers that have both 

an automatic termination control cycle 

and a timer cycle, the Joint Stakeholders 

argued that only the automatic 

termination cycle should be tested. 

Finally, the Joint Stakeholders argued 

that if DOE adopted the Joint 

Stakeholders’ proposed test procedure, 

i.e., to test the full cycle including cooldown, it must also revise the relevant 

energy conservation standards to reflect 

the new test procedure, ensuring that for 

dryers with effective automatic 

termination controls, there is no change 

in the stringency of the standards, per 

section 323 of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. Specifically, the Joint 

Stakeholders argued, the procedures in 

section 323(e)(2) should be used, with 

the clarification that for the purposes of 

establishing a representative sample of 

products, DOE should choose a sample 

of minimally compliant dryers which 

automatically terminate the drying cycle 

at no less than four percent RMC. 

In the final test procedure, DOE 

declined to adopt the amendments it 

had proposed with regard to automatic 

termination controls (with or without 

the modifications proposed by the Joint 

Stakeholders). DOE determined, based 

on test results, that 

given the load specified in the current 

DOE test procedure, the proposed 

automatic cycle termination control 

procedures may not adequately measure 

clothes dryer performance * * *. DOE 

believes that, although automatic 

termination control dryers may be 

measured as having a lower efficiency 

than a comparable dryer with only time 

termination control if tested according 

to the proposed test procedure, 

automatic termination control dryers 

may in fact be drying the clothing to 

approximately 5-percent RMC in real 

world use. DOE believes that automatic 

termination control dryers reduce 

energy consumption (by reducing overdrying) compared to timer dryers based 

on analysis of the AHAM field use 

survey and analysis of the field test data 

conducted by NIST. (76 Fed. Reg. 972, 

1000 (Jan. 6, 2011)). 

DOE also stated that if data were 

available to develop a test procedure 

that accurately measures the energy 

consumption of clothes dryers equipped 

with automatic termination controls, it 

could consider revised amendments to 

the test procedure. (Id.). 

IV. Proposal 

The Joint Stakeholders now present 

data to assist in the development of a 

test procedure that accurately measures 

the energy consumption of clothes 

dryers equipped with automatic 

termination controls, and request that 

DOE amend the clothes dryer test 

procedure to include procedures to 

account for automatic termination 

controls. 

DOE was concerned that the proposed 

test procedure may not properly 

measure the effectiveness of automatic 

termination controls, particularly in 

light of data that suggested that 

automatic termination control dryers 

may in fact be drying clothing to 

approximately five percent remaining 

moisture content (RMC) in the real 

world. The Joint Stakeholders 

determined that the best way to address 

DOE’s concern was to account for the 

fact that the test procedure has inherent 

differences from consumer use that are 

necessary for repeatability and 

reproducibility. The most significant 

difference between the test procedure 

and consumer use is the DOE test cloth, 

which does not represent a variety of 

cloth used by consumers. The DOE test 

cloth is uniform, whereas a consumer 

load contains items of varying weights, 

composition, and size. Thus, the DOE 

test cloth likely dries faster and more 

uniformly than an actual consumer 

load. 

AHAM members conducted testing on 

clothes dryers with automatic 

termination controls that are currently 

on the market—the clothes dryers tested 

represent about 60 percent of 

shipments. Because there are few 

consumer complaints that clothes dryers 

equipped with automatic termination 

controls do not dry clothes, the testing 

assumed that the current market ending 

RMC is appropriate. The testing was 

conducted per the following conditions 

which closely approximated DOE’s 

proposed test procedure, except that the 

entire cycle was tested, including cooldown: 

• Test procedure: Existing DOE test 

procedure, not including most recent 

amendments. 

• Starting RMC: 70% ± 3.5%. 

• Test load: DOE load. 

• Test runs: Three tests on each 

machine, average ending RMC reported 

to AHAM. 

• Program: A ‘‘normal’’ program 

(cycle) shall be selected. Where the 

dryness level can be chosen 

independently of the program, the 

‘‘normal’’ level shall be selected. Where 

the drying temperature (setting) can be 

chosen independently of the program, it 

shall be set to the maximum. 

• Tests were run until the automatic 

termination controls stopped the clothes 

dryer (i.e., cool-down was included). 

• Data was de-identified and 

aggregated by AHAM. 

The test results, shown in Table 1, 

demonstrated that an ending RMC of 

two percent using the DOE test cloth 

best approximates the maximum, 

consumer accepted, ending RMC. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62647 

3 76 Fed. Reg. 1026 (January 6, 2011). 

Based on this data, the Joint 

Stakeholders request that DOE adopt the 

test procedure amendments it 

previously proposed except that it 

should modify the proposal to state that 

testing will include the full cycle, 

including cool-down. As the Joint 

Stakeholders previously commented, 

and is discussed in more detail in 

Section III above, testing the entire cycle 

including cool-down is more 

representative of actual consumer use 

and is less of a test burden for 

manufacturers than DOE’s original 

proposal to stop the dryer when the 

heater switches off for the final time at 

the end of the drying cycle. In addition, 

DOE should modify its original proposal 

to state that ending RMC when testing 

units equipped with automatic 

termination controls shall be no more 

than two percent when testing with the 

DOE test load. That maximum 

percentage, according to the data above, 

is representative of clothes dryers 

currently on the market. Consistent with 

DOE’s proposal, but substituting two 

percent ending RMC for five percent 

ending RMC, any test cycle in which the 

final RMC is two percent or less should 

be considered valid. If the final RMC is 

greater than two percent, the test would 

be invalid and a new run would be 

conducted using the highest dryness 

level setting. 

V. Revision of Standards 

If DOE adopts the Joint Stakeholders’ 

proposals in this petition, which would 

test the full cycle, including cool-down, 

and result in a change in measured 

energy, it must also revise the relevant 

energy conservation standards to reflect 

the new test procedure, ensuring that for 

dryers with effective automatic 

termination controls, there is no change 

in the stringency of the standards, per 

section 323 of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. Specifically, the 

procedures in section 323(e)(2) should 

be used, with the clarification that for 

the purposes of establishing a 

representative sample of products, DOE 

should choose a sample of minimally 

compliant dryers which automatically 

terminate the drying cycle at 1.5 to 2 

percent RMC. By selecting products that 

terminate at 1.5 to 2 percent, DOE will 

assure that the revised standard is based 

upon dryers which do not over-dry. 

This approach will also assure that the 

tested sample yields valid results under 

both the current and proposed revised 

test procedure. 

We note that in the test procedures 

SNOPR, DOE stated that for the 

purposes of determining the effects of 

an amended test procedure on the 

measured efficiency of clothes dryers, 

the measurement of only clothes dryers 

that terminate the drying cycle at no less 

than a particular RMC would not 

constitute a representative sample.3 If 

DOE continues to hold this view, the 

test procedure proposal in this petition 

should still be adopted. In that case, 

DOE could revise the standards without 

limiting the representative sample of 

dryers based on automatic termination 

performance. As described in the next 

section, that alternate approach would 

reduce, but not eliminate, the benefits 

from this test procedure change and, 

therefore, we urge DOE to reconsider its 

position. 

VI. Energy Savings Potential 

If DOE adopts the Joint Stakeholders’ 

proposals in this petition, 

manufacturers will have an incentive to 

refine their automatic termination 

feature to terminate very close to two 

percent maximum ending RMC using 

the DOE test load. As Figure 1 

demonstrates, a large percentage of 

clothes dryers currently on the market 

dry to levels below the proposed two 

percent ending RMC. As manufacturers 

make these refinements, two things will 

happen—the measured energy 

efficiency of the dryer will improve and 

the ‘‘real world’’ energy consumption of 

the dryer will be reduced. This is 

exactly what should happen as the 

result of such a change in the test 

procedure towards conditions that more 

closely replicate consumer use. 

To estimate energy savings from the 

proposals for a test procedure 

amendment and a revision to the 

standards presented in this petition, we 

assume that the AHAM test load is 

representative of consumer loads. The 

DOE test data presented in the test 

procedures SNOPR showed that the 

maximum ending RMC using the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11OC11.007</GPH>
62648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4 75 Fed. Reg. 37618 (June 29, 2010). 

5Reich, Judith. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2010. 

Personal communication to Joanna Mauer. June 22, 

2010. 

6Per-unit annual energy savings based on 283 

cycles per year. Cumulative national energy savings 

calculated using the affected stock values and heat 

rates from the DOE NIA spreadsheet. 

7 75 FR 37618. 

AHAM test load was five percent.4 As 

noted above, the AHAM test data 

suggest that an ending RMC of two 

percent using the DOE test load best 

approximates the maximum, consumer 

accepted, ending RMC. We assume that 

an ending RMC of two percent with the 

DOE test load translates to an ending 

RMC of five percent using the AHAM 

test load, and we also assume that the 

average ending RMC using the DOE test 

load translates to the average ending 

RMC using the AHAM test load. The 

SNOPR data showed that the average 

over-drying energy consumption (i.e. 

energy consumed after the dryer reaches 

an RMC of five percent) using the 

AHAM test load based on the four 

models tested with a ‘‘normal cycle’’ 

and ‘‘normal dryness’’ was 0.18 kWh 

per cycle.5 Based on this data, we 

estimate that a test procedure change 

and a revision to the standards as 

proposed in this petition would result 

in average per-unit energy savings of 

0.18 kWh per cycle, or 51 kWh per year, 

and cumulative national energy savings 

of approximately 1.1 quads over 30 

years.6

If DOE determines that it cannot limit 

the representative sample to dryers that 

terminate within a 1.5 to 2 percent RMC 

range for purposes of revising the 

standard levels, national energy savings 

would be reduced, but significant 

savings would still be achieved. Dryers 

with automatic termination controls that 

perform worse than average would need 

to improve such that they consume no 

more energy than an average dryer. DOE 

noted in the test procedures SNOPR that 

there is an exponential trend in the plot 

of energy consumption as a function of 

RMC below an RMC of about five 

percent likely because it becomes more 

difficult to remove the lesser amounts of 

moisture remaining in the load.7 This 

exponential trend suggests that dryers 

that currently terminate at very low 

RMCs consume significant amounts of 

over-drying energy and that requiring 

dryers with poor automatic termination 

controls to improve such that they 

perform as well as an average dryer 

represents a significant savings 

opportunity. 

We recognize that there are significant 

uncertainties in estimating energy 

savings from the proposed test 

procedure in this petition. However, 

energy savings will certainly be 

achieved by encouraging use of better 

automatic termination controls to 

reduce over-drying energy consumption. 

In addition, an amended test procedure 

as proposed in this petition would 

capture all the energy use of a dryer 

cycle, which would better represent 

real-world dryer energy consumption 

and allow manufacturers more options 

for improving rated dryer efficiency. 

VII. Timing 

We recommend that test procedure 

and standards revisions adopted in 

response to this petition take effect on 

January 1, 2015. Our goal is to have a 

single round of standards and test 

procedure changes take effect. Thus, 

these test procedure and related 

standards amendments would replace 

the final test procedure issued in 

January 2011 and the dryer standards 

contained in the Direct Final Rule 

issued in April 2011. 

In order to give manufacturers 

adequate time to prepare for a revised 

test procedure and standards, we urge 

DOE to complete and finalize the test 

procedure and standards revisions as 

soon as possible, but no later than 

December 31, 2011. We suggest that 

DOE propose the modifications to the 

standards required by Section 323(e) in 

parallel to modifications to the test 

procedure. Parallel revisions to the test 

procedure and standards will provide 

stakeholders the clearest understanding 

of the impacts of the changes and enable 

the fastest resolution of the issues raised 

in this petition. The timing suggested in 

this petition is contingent on DOE 

providing adequate lead-in time for 

manufacturers to develop products that 

will comply with the revised standard 

per the revised test procedure that more 

effectively accounts for automatic 

termination controls. In order to provide 

adequate lead-in time, it is necessary 

that the test procedures and standards 

are completed and final no later than 

December 31, 2011. 

VIII. Conclusion 

Because data is now available to 

support a test procedure that accurately 

measures the effectiveness of automatic 

termination controls, the Joint 

Commenters request that DOE amend 

the clothes dryer test procedure to 

account for the effectiveness of 

automatic termination controls as 

discussed in Section IV above. Such 

amendments to account for the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls will help to prevent overdrying and will, thus, result in energy 

savings. If DOE adopts procedures to 

amend the test procedure to measure the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls, it must also revise the relevant 

energy conservation standards to reflect 

the new test procedure, ensuring that for 

dryers with effective automatic 

termination controls, there is no change 

in the stringency of the standards, per 

section 323 of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. 

JOINT STAKEHOLDERS

Manufacturers Advocates 

Kevin Messner Andrew deLaski 

Vice President, Government Relations Executive Director 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

On Behalf of— 

Members of Major Appliance Division: 

Whirlpool American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

General Electric Natural Resources Defense Council 

Electrolux Alliance to Save Energy 

LG Electronics Alliance for Water Efficiency 

Council BSH Northwest Power and Conservation 

Alliance Laundry Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 

Viking Range Consumer Federation of America 

Sub-Zero National Consumer Law Center 

Wolf 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62649 

JOINT STAKEHOLDERS—Continued 

Manufacturers Advocates 

Friedrich 

A/C U-Line 

Samsung 

Sharp Electronics 

Miele 

Heat 

Controller 

AGA Marvel 

Brown Stove 

Haier 

Fagor 

America 

Airwell 

Group 

Arcelik Fisher & Paykel 

Scotsman Ice 

Indesit 

Kuppersbusch 

Kelon 

DeLonghi 

[FR Doc. 2011–26169 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25001; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–079–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for the products listed above. That 

second supplemental NPRM proposed a 

one-time inspection to determine the 

part numbers of the aero/fire seals of the 

blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes on the engines, and 

replacing affected aero/fire seals with 

new, improved aero/fire seals. That 

second supplemental NPRM was 

prompted by a report that the top 3 

inches of the aero/fire seals of the 

blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes are not fireproof. This 

action revises the second supplemental 

NPRM by prohibiting installation of 

certain non-fireproof thrust reverser 

seals. We are proposing this third 

supplemental NPRM to prevent a fire in 

the fan compartment (a fire zone) from 

migrating through the seal to a 

flammable fluid in the thrust reverser 

actuator compartment (a flammable 

fluid leakage zone), which could result 

in an uncontrolled fire. Since these 

actions impose an additional burden 

over that proposed in the second 

supplemental NPRM, we are reopening 

the comment period to allow the public 

the chance to comment on these 

proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by November 

25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6496; fax: 425–917–6590; e-mail: 

chris.r.parker@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2006–25001; Directorate Identifier 

2006–NM–079–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS