Friday,

October 31, 2003

Part III

Department of 

Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedure for 

Clothes Washers; Direct Final Rule and 

Proposed Rule


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02
62198 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EE–RM/TP–03–100] 

RIN 1904–AB43 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedure 

for Clothes Washers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(Department or DOE) today promulgates 

an amendment to the test procedure for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

clothes washers. The amendment 

changes one of the spin cycles required 

for testing the cloth used in the 

extraction phase of the test procedure by 

replacing the lowest spin cycle of 50 

gravitation (g) force with a spin cycle of 

100g. The 50g spin cycle produced 

inconsistent and unreliable test results. 

This amendment also adds as a testing 

requirement the use of an additional 

statistical analysis to qualify the 

interactive effect between different lots 

of the test cloth and spin speeds to 

improve consistency with the baseline 

data.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

on January 1, 2004, the same day that 

new energy efficiency standards for 

clothes washers become effective, 

unless significant adverse comments are 

received by December 1, 2003. If 

significant adverse comments are 

received, a timely withdrawal of this 

rule will be published in the Federal 

Register.

ADDRESSES: The Department will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this direct final rule no later 

than the date provided in the DATES

section. Please submit comments, data 

and information electronically to the 

following Internet address: 

clotheswashertestclothtp@ee.doe.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted 

in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, 

or text (ASCII) format file and avoid the 

use of special characters or any form of 

encryption. Comments in electronic 

format should be identified by the 

docket number EE–RM/TP–03–100, and 

wherever possible carry the electronic 

signature of the author. Absent an 

electronic signature, comments 

submitted electronically must be 

followed and authenticated by 

submitting the signed original paper 

document. No telefacsimiles (telefaxes) 

will be accepted. 

Written (paper) comments may be 

submitted to: Ms. Brenda EdwardsJones, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE–2J, Test Procedures for 

Clothes Washers, Docket Number: EE–

RM/TP–03–100, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. 

Please submit one signed copy—no 

telefacsimiles. 

You may read copies of the public 

comments received in the resource room 

of the appliance office of the Building 

Technologies Program, room 1J–018 of 

the Forrestal Building at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC between the hours of 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. Please 

call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

resource room. Please note: The 

Department’s Freedom of Information 

Reading Room (room 1E–190 in the 

Forrestal Building) is no longer 

servicing rulemakings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Twigg or Bryan Berringer, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE–

2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–

9611, e-mail: 

Barbara.Twigg@ee.doe.gov, or 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov,

respectively; or Francine Pinto, Esq., or 

Thomas DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

9507, e-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov, or 

Thomas.DePriest@hq.doe.gov,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Discussion 

A. Correction of the Typographical Error in 

Table 2.6.5 of Appendix J1 

B. Determination of Correction Factors for 

New Lots of Energy Test Cloth 

C. Statistical Test to Validate New Lots of 

Energy Test Cloth 

D. Effect of Changes on Measured 

Efficiencies 

III. Discussion of Direct Final Rulemaking 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’ 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’ 

F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’ 

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

K. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

L. Review Under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

M. Approval by the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. 6291 

et seq.) The products currently subject 

to this Program (‘‘covered products’’) 

include residential clothes washers, the 

subject of today’s direct final rule. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) 

Under the Act, the Program consists 

of three parts: Testing, labeling, and the 

Federal energy conservation standards. 

The Department, in consultation with 

the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), may amend or 

prescribe test procedures as appropriate 

for each of the covered products. (42 

U.S.C. 6293) The purpose of the test 

procedures is to measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. The test 

procedures must not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3))

If DOE amends a test procedure, 

EPCA requires DOE to determine 

whether the new test procedure would 

change the measured energy efficiency 

or measured energy use of any covered 

product as determined under the 

existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that a 

change would result, DOE must amend 

the applicable energy conservation 

standard during the rulemaking that 

establishes the new test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In setting any new 

energy conservation standard, DOE 

must measure, with the new test 

procedure, the energy efficiency or 

energy use of a representative sample of 

covered products that minimally 

comply with the existing standard. The 

average energy efficiency or energy use 

of these representative samples under 


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 62199

the new test procedure shall constitute 

the amended energy conservation 

standard for the applicable covered 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

Effective 180 days after DOE 

prescribes or establishes an amended or 

new test procedure for a covered 

product, no manufacturer, distributor, 

retailer, or private labeler may make any 

representation with respect to the 

energy use, efficiency, or cost of energy 

consumed by the product, unless the 

product has been tested in accordance 

with such amended or new DOE test 

procedure and the representation fairly 

discloses the results of that testing. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) This restriction on 

representations will take effect 180 days 

after the January 1, 2004, effective date 

of this amended test procedure. A 

manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or 

private labeler may begin using the new 

test procedure to make representations 

with respect to the energy use, 

efficiency, or cost of energy consumed 

by the product beginning with the 

January 1, 2004, effective date of this 

rule. 

B. Background 

The U.S. government established the 

first federal test procedures for clothes 

washers in 1977. In the 1990’s, 

concurrent with the development of 

new energy conservation standards for 

clothes washers, the Department of 

Energy began revising the clothes 

washer test procedure. The existing test 

procedure did not cover a number of 

innovative clothes washer technologies 

such as high spin speed and adaptive 

water fill control, and DOE published 

several proposals to address those 

innovations including one on December 

22, 1993, (58 FR 67710) and another on 

March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15330). In its 

comments on the March 23, 1995, 

proposed rule, the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

requested that DOE adopt an additional 

new test procedure that would capture 

current consumer habits that showed a 

reduction in the use of hot water and 

energy. AHAM proposed that DOE 

incorporate this test as part of the 

process of revising the clothes washer 

energy conservation standards, and that 

the test go into effect concurrently with 

the issuance of new standards. 

On April 22, 1996, the Department 

issued a supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking proposing such a 

new test procedure, appendix J1, as well 

as certain additional revisions to the 

currently applicable test procedure in 

appendix J to subpart B of 10 CFR part 

430. (61 FR 17589). The supplemental 

notice requested comments on whether 

DOE should adopt the AHAMrecommended test procedure with 

certain changes. The test procedure final 

rule published on August 27, 1997, 

adopted the AHAM recommendation. 

62 FR 45484. Appendix J, the current 

test procedure, will expire on December 

31, 2003. 66 FR 3313, 3330 (January 12, 

2001).Appendix J1 is now informational 

but will become mandatory and replace 

appendix J when the energy 

conservation standards adopted on 

January 12, 2001, take effect on January 

1, 2004. 

A key difference between the 

appendix J and the appendix J1 test 

procedures is the basic energy efficiency 

descriptor. Appendix J specifies an 

energy efficiency descriptor called the 

energy factor (EF). The appendix J1 test 

procedure replaces the EF with an 

energy efficiency descriptor called the 

modified energy factor (MEF). In 

contrast with the previous EF descriptor 

which only calculated the energy use of 

the clothes washer itself, the MEF 

descriptor accounts for the remaining 

moisture content (RMC) of clothes 

leaving the clothes washer. In order to 

calculate the RMC, appendix J1 requires 

manufacturers to use a particular lot of 

standardized test cloth to simulate a 

washer load of clothes. Other 

substantive differences between the test 

procedures include using different 

water temperatures for testing and using 

test cloth loads for all classes of clothes 

washers in appendix J1, but not in 

appendix J. 

As the Department proceeded with 

the standards rulemaking for clothes 

washers, DOE conducted tests on a 

number of clothes washers using the 

appendix J1 test procedure and shared 

the results with the manufacturers of the 

tested units. The manufacturers then 

indicated that some of the values for the 

RMC were higher than they would have 

expected from earlier test data. The 

Department investigated possible causes 

for the new test results being 

inconsistent with the values produced 

using the original lot of test cloth and 

summarized its findings in the DOE 

report, Development of a Standardized 

Energy Test Cloth for Measuring 

Remaining Moisture Content in a 

Residential Clothes Washer, May 2000. 

(Docket No. EE–RM–94–403, DOE, No. 

200) To understand the effects of 

operating variables and cloth 

specifications, DOE decided to conduct 

additional laboratory tests to determine 

the RMC. To insure that the use of a 

specific manufacturer’s product (clothes 

washer) would not influence or bias the 

test results in any way, the Department 

developed a test using an extractor to 

remove moisture content, instead of 

using a clothes washer. An extractor is 

a centrifuge—basically a rotating basket 

that has a controllable speed to produce 

a variety of centrifugal forces. The 

centrifuge test used a variety of speeds 

to impose different centripetal 

accelerations on the test load. These 

accelerations are reported in terms of 

gravitation forces (g forces). DOE also 

soaked the cloth in a tub at a controlled 

temperature to approximate the agitated 

soak cycle provided by a typical washer. 

Thus, the additional laboratory tests 

DOE conducted closely resembled those 

specified in the clothes washer test 

procedure. 

The extractor-based test examined 

RMC values at different g forces so that 

new batches of test cloth could be 

compared to the RMC values of a 

standard reference test cloth. This 

comparison provided the basis for 

developing a correction methodology 

whereby the test results using any new 

lot of cloth could be ‘‘corrected’’ back to 

the test values of the base reference lot 

of cloth. The Department derived the 

correction factor from measuring the 

deviation between a new production 

batch of test cloth and a standard 

reference test cloth. This deviation is 

measured as the root mean square 

(RMS) between the set of measured 

RMC values and the set of standard 

RMC values. If this absolute deviation is 

below 2 percent, then correction factors 

are unnecessary in MEF tests using that 

batch of cloth. If the absolute RMS 

difference between the cloth RMC 

values and standard RMC values is 

above 2 percent, then correction factors 

are necessary when using the cloth to 

test the MEF of a clothes washer. (10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1, 

section 2.6.5) 

The correction factors currently are 

derived by fitting the data points into a 

straight line (a linear least squares fit) 

based on the set of RMC values for the 

new production lot compared to the 

baseline RMC values for data taken at 

50, 200, and 350 spin g’s, with warm 

(100 °F) and cold (60 °F) rinse water, 

and with spin times of 4 minutes and 15 

minutes. The fit criteria for an 

acceptable new lot of test cloth is an 

RMS error term <2%. (10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix J1, section 2.6.6) 

Using data from clothes washer 

manufacturers, the Department selected 

the range of test conditions (50–350 g’s, 

warm and cold, 4 and 15 minutes) to 

bracket the actual conditions under 

which manufactured residential clothes 

washers operate and will be tested 

according to the appendix J1 test 

procedure. The 50–350 g range bounds 

the lower and upper levels of spin 

speeds in a typical clothes washer. The 

use of both warm and cold water 


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02
62200 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

temperatures serves to identify any 

changes in test results of the test cloth 

due to water temperature variation. The 

use of 4 and 15 minute spin times 

bounds the various spin cycle times in 

a typical clothes washer. Thus, by 

requiring the averaging of this 

combination of test cycles, the test 

procedure created a representative 

profile of the spin and extraction 

behavior of the test cloth. (10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix J1, sections 

2.6.5.3.6 and 2.6.6.1)

When the Department published the 

energy conservation standards final rule 

for clothes washers on January 12, 2001, 

the rule included revisions to the 1997 

test procedure based on DOE’s May 

2000 report dealing with the energy test 

cloth, RMC, extractor testing, and the 

correction factors. The Department 

believed that the system of using the 

correction factors would enable those 

conducting future tests to use new lots 

of test cloth in a manner consistent with 

the base test cloth, and produce reliable 

RMC values. In addition, the 

Department incorporated in their 

entirety AHAM’s comments and the 

Joint Stakeholders Comment requesting 

minor editorial changes to help clarify 

both appendices J and J1. (Docket No. 

EE–RM–94–403, AHAM, Nos. 197 and 

199, and Joint Comment, No. 204) 

Although the revised appendix J1 was 

published as part of the 2001 final rule 

for clothes washers, appendix J1 was 

available for informational use only 

until the new clothes washer standards 

would take effect on January 1, 2004. 

Initial experimental tests using the new 

procedure to certify lots of test cloth 

using the correction factors worked well 

until several new lots again appeared to 

have unusually high RMC at the 50g test 

level. Correction factors 

notwithstanding, several manufacturers 

noticed that the corrected RMC values 

for these newer lots of test cloth were 

still significantly different from the 

RMC values determined from earlier lots 

of test cloth that had been tested in the 

same clothes washer. When the 

Department learned that these later lots 

of test cloth were producing 10 percent 

higher RMC values than the test cloth 

reference base, DOE conducted tests to 

explore the new inconsistency issue 

which the correction factor system in 

appendix J1 did not seem to have fixed. 

Test results confirmed that the RMC 

value at 50g shifted the correction curve 

so that the corrected RMC values at 

100g, the typical spin g level of many 

vertical axis washers, were inconsistent 

with corrected RMC results using earlier 

lots of test cloth. Retests of both early 

and later lots of test cloth confirmed a 

basic lack of repeatability of 50g spin 

tests. 

Ongoing RMC tests in the extractor, 

however, indicated that spin g levels of 

100g’s or more continued to produce 

repeatable results with good lot-to-lot 

consistency of the RMC compared to the 

g-curve shape. Only the 50g spin tests 

were producing the inconsistency and 

repeatability problems. 

The Department had originally 

selected the 50g spin level as the lower 

end with which to bracket the spin 

speeds of clothes washers for computing 

the average RMC value. The other spin 

levels were 200g, 350g, and 500g, if a 

washer could achieve that high a spin 

speed. In discussions with clothes 

washer manufacturers regarding the 

repeatability problems with the 50g spin 

level, the Department learned that 

clothes washers use 50g spins only in 

delicate cycles and as an optional slow 

spin that is available in a limited 

number of models. Because it was not 

a commonly used spin cycle, DOE, 

AHAM and the clothes washer 

manufacturers agreed that it would be 

better to use the more dependable 100g 

spin speed as the lower end of the range 

of spin speeds. A linear least squares fit 

test cloth correction procedure based on 

100g and greater RMC test data will 

result in more reliable correction factors 

for the vast majority of clothes washer 

models in production. 

In a letter to DOE dated April 2, 2003, 

AHAM requested that the Department 

implement this change in the test 

procedure. (AHAM No. 1 at 1) Because 

the 50g anomalies discussed above were 

unexpected, AHAM also recommended 

in the letter that a statistical procedure 

be adopted to recognize any other 

unexpected anomaly that might occur in 

future lots of energy test cloths. This 

statistical test will identify deviations in 

RMC as compared with g-curve shape 

beyond the magnitude where the linear 

least squares fit correction factor is 

appropriate. In statistical terms, these 

anomalies are referred to as a ‘‘lot-to-lot 

interactive effect’’—a lot-to-lot 

difference in characteristics that 

produces a different relationship of 

RMC to g, spin time, and/or final rinse 

temperature. 

A ‘‘lot-to-lot interactive effect’’

statistical test that could be used to 

screen out lots whose RMC as compared 

with g-behavior is inconsistent with the 

baseline lot is a standard statistical 

procedure called ‘‘analysis of variance’’

or ‘‘ANOVA.’’ As applied to new lots of 

energy test cloth, the ANOVA statistical 

test will detect the extent of the 

deviation of the shape of the RMC 

compared to the g-curve of a given lot 

from the shape of the RMC compared to 

the g-curve of the baseline lot. It would 

have detected the peculiarity of the 

RMC values at 50g in the later lots 

running very high relative to the RMC 

values at 100, 200, or 350g, compared to 

the baseline lot. Tests of new lots of 

cloth using the100g (instead of 50g), 

200g, and 350g extractor test points 

have thus far all satisfied the ANOVA 

test criteria for an acceptable lot. The 

Department expects that the ANOVA 

test will detect any unanticipated RMC 

compared to g-curve shape deviation in 

future lots.

II. Discussion 

In this direct final rule, the 

Department is correcting the 

typographical error in Table 2.6.5 of 

appendix J1 (10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix J1, section 2.6.5), modifying 

the procedure for developing the 

correction factors for new production 

lots of energy test cloth used in the test 

procedure for clothes washers, and 

introducing a second statistical test to 

validate new lots of energy test cloth. 

A. Correction of the Typographical Error 

in Table 2.6.5 of Appendix J1 

In this direct final rule, the 

Department is correcting the 

typographical error in Table 2.6.5 of 

appendix J1, by changing 14 minutes to 

4 minutes. (66 FR at 3331–33; 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix J1, section 

2.6.5) Section 2.6.5.3.6 of appendix J1 

specifies spin times of 4 and 15 minutes 

(66 FR at 3332) and the May 2000 report 

documents that these are the intended 

spin times selected to bracket the range 

of spin times commonly used in 

production clothes washers. All 

extractor testing to derive correction 

factors has been carried out with 15 

minute and 4 minute spin times at both 

cold and warm soak temperatures. 

B. Determination of Correction Factors 

for New Lots of Energy Test Cloth 

In this direct final rule, the 

Department is modifying the procedure 

for developing the correction factors for 

new production lots of energy test cloth 

by replacing the extractor test points at 

50g with 100g test points. The linear 

least squares fit to the baseline set of 

RMC’s is otherwise unchanged. The 

Department has confirmed through tests 

of new lots of test cloth in the extractor 

and analysis of previous data that RMC, 

g forces, spin time, and temperature at 

spin g levels at 100g’s or more, continue 

to produce repeatable results with good 

lot-to-lot consistency of the RMC 

compared to g-curve shape. The 50g test 

point, which DOE had selected to 

provide an all-inclusive range of spin g 

levels, can be deleted with minimal 


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 62201

effect because spin g levels below 100g 

are used only in delicate cycles (not 

tested in the appendix J1 test procedure) 

and as an optional slow spin that is 

available in a limited number of models. 

The Department agrees that a linear 

least squares fit test cloth correction 

procedure based on 100g and greater 

RMC test data would result in a more 

reliable correction curve for the vast 

majority of clothes washer models in 

production. Using 100, 200, 350, and 

500g as test points would still bracket 

the range of spin speeds in most clothes 

washers and provide a comprehensive 

and representative test for establishing 

the correction curves for new batches of 

test cloth. In light of these 

circumstances and the problems with 

use of the 50g test points, discussed 

above, the Department believes it is 

appropriate to modify the clothes 

washer test procedure in appendix J1 by 

replacing these test points with 100g 

test points. 

C. Statistical Test To Validate New Lots 

of Energy Test Cloth 

In this direct final rule, the 

Department is adopting a standard 

statistical procedure called ‘‘analysis of 

variance’’ or ‘‘ANOVA’’ as the lot-to-lot 

interactive-effect statistical test for 

screening out lots of test cloth whose 

RMC compared to g behavior is 

inconsistent with the baseline lot. The 

ANOVA statistical test detects the 

extent of the deviation of the shape of 

the RMC compared to the g-curve of a 

given lot of the test cloth from the shape 

of the RMC compared to the g-curve of 

the baseline lot. It would have detected 

the peculiarity of the 50g RMC values in 

the later lots running very high relative 

to the 100g, 200g, or 350g RMC values, 

compared to the baseline lot. With the 

100g (instead of 50g), 200g, and 350g 

extractor test points, all of the lots that 

DOE has tested so far satisfy the 

ANOVA test criteria for an acceptable 

lot. The Department believes that the 

test will catch any unanticipated RMC 

compared to g-curve shape deviation in 

future lots. 

The ANOVA test adds a second 

method for determining the 

‘‘acceptability’’ of a new lot of test cloth 

that a manufacturer will use in 

conjunction with the criterion currently 

prescribed in appendix J1 for making 

this determination. That criterion is that 

the RMS error term (of the least squares 

fit used to determine the correction 

factors for a new lot of test cloth) must 

be <2%. The RMS error term measures 

the ‘‘goodness of fit’’ of the derived 

linear relationship between the baseline 

set of RMC values and corresponding 

RMC values for the new lot obtained at 

each test condition. That is, it is 

intended to characterize the ‘‘closeness’’

or ‘‘lack of scatter’’ of the 12 data points 

to the ‘‘best-fit’’ (least squares) line that 

is subsequently used to calibrate 

(‘‘correct’’) the new-lot RMC value to the 

RMC value of the baseline lot. 

Although the later lots discussed 

above met the criterion of an RMS of 

<2%, other difficulties subsequently 

emerged when using these lots for 

actual machine testing. Most notably, 

RMC measurements behaved erratically 

at the low (50g) spin speed conditions. 

Although linearly related to 

corresponding baseline RMC 

measurements, the RMC measurements 

of later lots (over an observed range of 

30% to 70%) were inconsistent with 

baseline values in a more subtle way. 

Additional testing of the later lots (and 

other test lots as well) strongly supports 

the assertion that RMC values—recently 

obtained when conducting extractor 

tests at 50g spin speed conditions with 

any lot—are inconsistent with RMC 

results that were obtained at 50g of the 

original baseline lot. 

Whatever the reason(s), recent 

extractor tests have yielded higher RMC 

measurements at all test conditions than 

those previously obtained for the 

baseline. If the measurements for a new 

lot of test cloth are consistently higher 

over the entire range of test conditions, 

the correction curve (as originally 

configured) and the test criterion (RMS 

<2%) would be sufficient to establish 

the acceptance—or rejection—of a new 

test lot. However, with the benefit of 

hindsight, the Department now knows 

that the difference between recent 

extractor tests and the baseline is not 

the same at all test conditions; in fact, 

the difference is most pronounced in the 

four time/temperature tests conducted 

at the 50g spin speed. In statistical 

terms, this inherent inconsistency is 

referred to as an ‘‘interactive effect’’

between test lots and spin speeds. The 

ANOVA is a commonly used statistical 

procedure for detecting interactive 

effects, if and when they exist. As 

applied to new lots of energy test cloths, 

this statistical test will detect the extent 

of the deviation of the RMC compared 

to the g-curve shape of a given lot from 

the RMC compared to the g-curve shape 

of the baseline lot. This could be either 

a gross difference in the overall slope or 

the peculiarity that has been observed in 

the later lots of the RMC values at 50g 

running very high relative to the RMC 

values at 100g, 200g, or 350g, compared 

to the baseline lot. The ‘‘P-value’’ (a 

theoretically-based probability) that 

ANOVA produces is interpreted as 

evidence of a real, repeatable interactive 

effect between lots and spin speeds. The 

lower the P-value, the stronger the 

evidence of an interaction. A value less 

than 0.10 is sufficient to conclude that 

there is a problematic interaction, and 

the lot of test cloth being tested should 

not be used to measure RMC. 

The Department evaluated an analysis 

of all cloth lot samples tested thus far. 

Analytical results and conclusions 

support the use of 100g test data rather 

than 50g data. It is interesting to note 

that there is no evidence of an 

interactive effect for earlier lots of test 

cloth, justifying the use of the correction 

curves based on the 50g to 350g range 

for those lots. Starting with later lots, 

interactive effects attributable to 50g test 

data are clearly evident. However, over 

the 100g-to-350g range, there is no 

evidence of an interactive effect with 

any of these lots. The Department 

believes that the P-value from the 

ANOVA test is an appropriate test for 

acceptance of new lots of test cloth. 

D. Effect of Changes on Measured 

Efficiencies 

In any rulemaking to amend a test 

procedure, section 323(e) of EPCA 

requires the Department to determine 

whether the amended test procedure 

would alter the measured energy 

efficiency of any covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)) If the amendment does 

alter measured efficiency, the Secretary 

must amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard so that products 

that minimally comply with the 

standard prior to the test procedure 

amendment will continue to comply. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) These provisions 

prevent changes in a test procedure that 

would cause a product that complied 

with applicable Federal energy 

conservation standards using the 

previous test procedure from being 

forced into non-compliance as a result 

of using the new test procedure.

Today’s rule amends the test 

procedure for clothes washers, appendix 

J1, which is designed to measure 

performance under new energy 

conservation standards that will take 

effect on January 1, 2004. Appendix J1 

is not mandatory until then. Today’s 

rule will produce insignificant changes 

in the measured efficiency of a limited 

number of models of clothes washers. 

These changes are important, however, 

because they will assure that measured 

efficiencies conform more closely to the 

results that would occur if a reference 

test cloth were used in every test. Use 

of the reference test cloth produces 

results that most accurately measure a 

clothes washer’s performance under the 

energy conservation standards that will 

go into effect on January 1, 2004. 


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02
62202 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

The Department has no information to 

indicate that there are clothes washers 

that ‘‘minimally comply’’ with existing 

energy conservation standards using the 

existing test procedure, and that would 

fall out of compliance with the standard 

once the newly modified test procedure 

is used. Therefore, DOE is not required 

by EPCA section 323(e)(2) to make any 

changes to energy conservation 

standards. The Department has therefore 

determined that although today’s 

amended test procedure will alter the 

measured efficiency or measured energy 

use of some clothes washer models, it is 

not necessary to test models with the 

new test procedure to consider or make 

any modifications to energy 

conservation standards. 

The Department also notes that even 

if today’s amendments do change the 

energy efficiency rating of any model 

and would cause it not to comply with 

the current energy conservation 

standards, the standard for that model is 

becoming more stringent on January 1, 

2004, in any event. As a result, the new 

energy conservation standards, which 

already have been finalized through 

notice and comment rulemaking, will 

supersede the current standards and 

render irrelevant the model’s ability or 

inability to comply with the current 

standard. Thus, a change resulting from 

today’s amendments to the test 

procedure would simply mean that the 

product in question does not meet the 

new efficiency standard that will 

become effective on January 1. The 

Department has no information to 

indicate that there are clothes washers 

that will fail to comply with the new 

standards solely as a result of today’s 

amendments to the test procedure. 

III. Discussion of Direct Final 

Rulemaking 

The Department is publishing this 

direct final rule without having 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking because DOE views this 

amendment as noncontroversial and 

anticipates no significant adverse 

comments. However, in the event that 

the Department receives significant 

adverse comments, DOE has prepared a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 

proposing the same amendment. The 

Department is publishing this NOPR as 

a separate document in this issue of 

today’s Federal Register. The direct 

final rule will be effective January 1, 

2004, unless DOE receives significant 

adverse comments by December 1, 2003. 

If DOE receives significant adverse 

comments, it will withdraw the 

revisions before their effective date. In 

case of the withdrawal of this direct 

final rule, DOE will announce the 

withdrawal in the Federal Register. 

DOE will then address all public 

comments in a separate final rule based 

on the proposed rule that DOE is 

publishing today. DOE will not 

implement a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this rule should do so 

at this time. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this rule, the Department 

promulgates a minor change to the test 

procedure for measuring the energy 

consumption of clothes washers. The 

Department 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 (NEPA). (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) The rule is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5, for 

rulemakings that interpret or amend an 

existing rule without changing the 

environmental effect, as set forth in the 

Department’s NEPA regulations in 

appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 

1021. This rule will not affect the 

quality or distribution of energy usage 

and, therefore, will not result in any 

environmental impacts. Accordingly, 

neither an environmental impact 

statement nor an environmental 

assessment is required. 

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ 

Today’s rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

Accordingly, today’s action is not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order by the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601–612, requires preparation of 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. A regulatory 

flexibility analysis examines the impact 

of the rule on small entities and 

considers alternative ways of reducing 

negative impacts. 5 U.S.C. 605. 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 

rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://

www.gc.doe.gov.

Today’s rule prescribes minor 

amendments to the test procedures that 

will be used to test compliance with 

energy conservation standards and 

labeling. Because the rule affects only 

test procedures and not the minimum 

energy efficiency standard levels for 

clothes washer models, the Department 

believes that it will not have a 

significant economic impact. Instead, it 

will provide common testing methods 

for all clothes washer manufacturers or 

private labelers, and will improve the 

accuracy of information provided to 

consumers. Because this rule makes 

only minor revisions to the new test 

procedure scheduled to go into effect 

with the new clothes washer standard 

on January 1, 2004, it is not expected 

that this rule will have a significant (if 

any) economic impact on manufacturers 

performing the test procedure. 

The overall size of the clothes washer 

manufacturing industry also negates the 

necessity for a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) considers an 

entity to be a small business if, together 

with its affiliates, it employs fewer than 

a threshold number of workers specified 

in 13 CFR part 121 according to the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes. The threshold 

number for NAICS classification 335224 

for household laundry equipment 

manufacturers, which includes clothes 

washers, is 1000 employees. Of the five 

firms in the clothes washer industry that 

account for nearly 99 percent of clothes 

washer sales, the Department has 

determined that none would be 

considered ‘‘small’’ by the above 

definition. Using this SBA size 

standard, the Department is aware of 

only one small entity among clothes 

washer manufacturers or private 

labelers. Because the clothes washer 

models of that manufacturer already 

exceed the new standard which takes 

effect on January 1, 2004, it is not 

expected that the test procedure 

revision in this rule will have any 

adverse impact. Therefore, DOE certifies 

that today’s rule will not have a 

‘‘significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities,’’

and the preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not warranted. 


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 62203

D. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined pursuant to 

Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) 

that this regulation would not result in 

any takings which might require 

compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the United States 

Constitution.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’’

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’

(64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) requires 

that regulations, rules, legislation, and 

any other policy actions be reviewed for 

any substantial direct effects on States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or in the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

Government. If there are substantial 

direct effects, then this Executive Order 

requires preparation of a Federalism 

assessment to be used in all decisions 

involved in promulgating and 

implementing a policy action. 

The rule published today would not 

regulate or otherwise affect the States. 

Accordingly, DOE has determined that 

preparation of a Federalism assessment 

is unnecessary. 

F. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

No new information or record keeping 

requirements are imposed by this 

rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB 

clearance is required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

G. Review Under Executive Order 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

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

imposes on Executive agencies the 

general duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. With regard to 

the review required by sections 3(a) and 

3(b) of Executive Order 12988, it 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 

whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE reviewed today’s rule under 

the standards of section 3 of the 

Executive Order and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, the 

proposed regulations meet the relevant 

standards. 

H. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) requires 

that the Department prepare a budgetary 

impact statement before promulgating a 

rule that includes a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditure by state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

The budgetary impact statement must 

include: (i) Identification of the Federal 

law under which the rule is 

promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and 

quantitative assessment of anticipated 

costs and benefits of the Federal 

mandate and an analysis of the extent to 

which such costs to state, local, and 

tribal governments may be paid with 

Federal financial assistance; (iii) if 

feasible, estimates of the future 

compliance costs and of any 

disproportionate budgetary effects the 

mandate has on particular regions, 

communities, non-Federal units of 

government, or sectors of the economy; 

(iv) if feasible, estimates of the effect on 

the national economy; and (v) a 

description of the Department’s prior 

consultation with elected 

representatives of state, local, and tribal 

governments and a summary and 

evaluation of the comments and 

concerns presented. 

The Department has determined that 

the action today does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to State, local or to tribal governments 

in the aggregate or to the private sector. 

Therefore, the requirements of Sections 

203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Act do not apply to this action. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any 

proposed rule or policy that may affect 

family well-being. Today’s rule would 

not have any impact on the autonomy 

or integrity of the family as an 

institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment.

J. Review Under 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 the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), Office of Management and 

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s rule will not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or the use of energy, and, 

therefore, is not a significant energy 

action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

K. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

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 (February 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02
62204 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

reviewed today’s notice under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

L. Review Under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2). 

M. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s direct final rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 

2003. 

David K. Garman, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department amends Part 

430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, to read as follows:

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note.

■ 2. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430, 

as amended at 66 FR 3330 to become 

effective January 1, 2004, is further 

amended in section 2 by revising:

■ a. Table 2.6.5.

■ b. Section 2.6.5.3.6.

■ c. Table 2.6.6.1.

■ d. Section 2.6.6.2.

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.

* * * * *

2. * * * 

2.6. * * * 

2.6.5. * * *

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 ........................................................................................................................................................................... .......... .......... .......... ..........

* * * * *

2.6.5.3.6 The RMC of the test load 

shall be measured at three (3) g levels: 

100g; 200g; and 350g, using two 

different spin times at each g level: 4 

minutes; and 15 minutes. If a clothes 

washer design can achieve spin speeds 

in the 500g range then the RMC of the 

test load shall be measured at four (4) 

g levels: 100g; 200g; 350g; and 500g, 

using two different spin times at each g 

level: 4 minutes; and 15 minutes.

* * * * *

2.6.6. * * * 

2.6.6.1. * * *

TABLE 2.6.6.1.—STANDARD RMC VALUES (RMC STANDARD) 

‘‘g Force’’ 

RMC % 

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 

2.6.6.2. Perform an analysis of 

variance 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 in the 

calculation. The ‘‘P’’ value 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 probability of 

interaction based on an analysis of 

variance.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 03–27468 Filed 10–30–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 02