JE F 1325.8

(8-89)

EFG (07-90)

Un ted States Government

memorandum

DATE: July 22, 1994

REPLY TO

ATTN OF: P. Marc LaFrance, EE-431

Department of Energy

SUBJECT: Draft Coordination for Clarification of Existing Clothes Washer Test Procedure Final Rule,

ACCRTS No. EE-1283

TO: Eugene Margolis, GC-72

Mark Friedrichs, PO-50

Attached for your review is a draft final rule for the clarification of the existing clothes washer test

procedure to address the Whirlpool "lockout" issue. There are a considerable number of

controversial issues. Most notibly is the Department's response to comments, as to how we handled

the interpretation and reversed interpretation which commenters claim disrupted the competitive

marketplace. Additionally, the attached final rule amendment has changed considerably, such that

lockouts will no longer show any energy savings, so Whirlpool may claim that it violates the

Department and Whirlpool's October 1993 agreement.

Please provide your comments to me by COB July 29, 1994.

Attachment

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

.JEF 1325.8 

! (8-89) 

EFG(Ol-90) 

Un~ted States Government Department of Energy 

memorandum 

DATE: 

REPLY TO 

ATTN OF: 

SUBJECT: 

TO: 

Draft Coordination for Clarification of Existing Clothes Washer Test Procedure Final Rule, 

ACCRTS No. EE-1283 . 

Eugene Margolis, GC-72 

Mark Friedrichs, PO-50 

Attached for your review is a draft final rule for the clarification of the existing clothes washer test 

procedure to address the Whirlpool "lockout" issue. There are a considerable number of 

controversial issues. Most notibly is the Department's response to comments, as to how we handled 

the interpretation and reversed interpretation which commenters claim disrupted the competitive 

marketplace. Additionally, the attached fmal rule amendment has changed considerably, such that 

lockouts will no longer show any energy savings, so Whirlpool may claim that it violates the 

Department and Whirlpool's October 1993 agreement. 

Please provide your comments to me by COB July 29, 1994. 

Attachment 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy-Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

Docket No: EE-RM-93-701

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products.

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

Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National

Energy Conservation Policy Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act

of 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, and

the Energy Policy Act of 1992, requires the Department of Energy (DOE or the

Department) to administer an energy conservation program for certain major

household appliances and commercial equipment. Among other program elements,

the Act requires that standard methods of testing be prescribed for each

covered product. The purpose of today's notice is to amendment the Department

of Energy (DOE or the Department) clothes washer test procedure. The test

procedure now provides a means to properly test clothes washers that are

designed to lock out any wash/rinse temperature selection from the normal

cycle.

DATES: The effective date for this document is (180 days from Federal

Register publication).

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of EDergy' Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Docket No: EE-RM-93-701 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products. 

AGENCY: 

ACTION: 

SUMMARY: 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

Final rule. 

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act 

of 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, and 

the Energy Policy Act of 1992, requires the Department of Energy (DOE or the 

Department) to administer an energy conservation program for certain major 

household appliances and commercial equipment. Among other program elements, 

the Act requires that standard methods of testing be prescribed for each 

covered product. The purpose of today's notice is to amendment the Department 

of Energy (DOE or the Department) clothes washer test procedure. The test 

procedure now provides a means to properly test clothes washers that are 

designed to lock out any wash/rinse temperature selection from the normal 

cycle. 

DATES: The effective date for this document is (180 days from Federal 

Register publication). 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

P. Marc LaFrance

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Mail Station EE-43

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC, 20585

(202) 586-7140

Eugene Margolis, Esq.

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of General Counsel

Mail Station GC-72

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC, 20585

(202) 586-9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I., Introduction

A. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public

Law 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public

Law 95-619, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law

100-12, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, Public

Law 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, created

the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles

(Program).' The products currently subject to this Program (often referred

to as "covered products") include clothes washers, the subject of today's

noti ce.

' Part B of Title III of EPCA, as amended, is referred to in this proposed rule as the "Act."

Part B of Title III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.

C:\...\WPfina1.003

2 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

P. Marc LaFrance . U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Mail Station EE-43 

Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC, 20585 

(202) 586-7140 . 

Eugene Margolis, Esq. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of General Counsel 

Mail Station GC-72 

Forrestal Building 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC, 20585 

(202) 586-9507 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public 

Law 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public 

Law 95-619, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 

100-12, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, Public 

Law 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, created 

the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles 

(Program).l The products currently subject to this Program (often referred 

to as IIcovered productsll ) include clothes washers, the subject of today's 

notice. 

1 Part B of Title III of EPCA, as amended, is referred to in this proposed rule as the "Act." 

Part B of Title III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309. 

2 

C:\ ... \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 9:20am 
Under the Act, the Program consists essentially of three parts:

testing, labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. Violations

of the standard, as determined under the test procedure, are subject to civil

penalties. The Department, in consultation with the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (formerly the National Bureau of Standards), is

required to amend or establish new test procedures as appropriate for each of

the covered products. Section 323. The purpose of the test procedures is 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 must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Section

323(b)(3). A test procedure is not required if DOE determines by rule that,

one cannot be developed. Section 323(d)(1). One hundred and eighty days

after a test procedure for a product is adopted, no manufacturer may represent

the energy consumption of, or the cost of energy consumed by, the product

except as reflected in tests conducted according to the DOE procedure.

Section 323(c)(2). However, the 180-day period referred to in section

323(c)(2) may be extended for a period of up to an additional 180 days if the

Secretary determines that the requirements of section 323(c)(2) would impose

undue burden. Section 323(c)(3). Test procedures appear at 10 CFR part 430,

subpart B.

Section 323(e) of the Act requires DOE to determine to what extent, if

any, a proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency or

measured energy use of any covered product as determined under the existing

test procedure. If DOE determines that an amended test procedure would alter

the measured efficiency or measured energy use of a covered product, the DOE

is required to amend the related energy conservation standard accordingly. In

C:\...\WPfinal.003

July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

Under the Act, the Program consists essentially of three parts: 

testing, labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. Violations 

of the standard, as determined under the test procedure, are subject to civil 

e, 

penalties. The Department, in consultation with the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (formerly the National Bureau of Standards), is 

required to amend or establish new test procedures as appropriate for each of 

the covered products. Section 323. The purpose of the test procedures is 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 must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Section 

323(b)(3). A test procedure is not required if DOE determines by rule thate 

one cannot be developed. Section 323(d)(1). One hundred and eighty days 

after a test procedure for a product is adopted, no manufacturer may represent 

the energy consumption of, or the cost of energy consumed by, the product 

except as reflected in tests conducted according to the DOE procedure. 

Section 323(c)(2). However, the 180-day period referred to in section 

323(c)(2) may be extended for a period of up to an additional 180 days if the 

Secretary determines that the requirements of section 323(c) (2) would impose 

undue burden. Section 323(c)(3). Test procedures appear at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B. 

Section 323(e) of the Act requires DOE to determine to what extent, if 

any, a proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency or 

measured energy use of any covered product as determined under the existing 

test procedure. If DOE determines that an amended test procedure would alter 

the measured efficiency or measured energy use of a covered product, the DOE 

is required to amend the related energy conservation standard accordingly. In 

3 

c:\ .•. \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
determining the amended standard, the DOE is required to measure the energy

efficiency or energy use of representative samples of covered products which

minimally comply with the existing standard. The average efficiency of these

representative samples, tested using the amended test procedure, constitutes

the amended standard. Section 323(e)(2).

B. Background

The clothes washer test procedure was originally proposed by notice

issued May 11, 1977. (42 FR 25329, May 17, 1977). Subsequently, the

Department published the original clothes washer test procedure on

September 28, 1977 (42 FR 49802) with the only amendment being an editorial

change in the title of Appendix J on June 29, 1979. (44 FR 37938).

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) has designed a new line of clothes

washers to meet the appliance energy conservation standard established by DOE

that became effective May 14, 1994. Whirlpool is obligated to test these

clothes washers for compliance with the new standard using the test procedure

regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix J. The new

clothes washers have been designed to lock out hot water using a wash/rinse

water temperature combination setting (warm rinse) in the cycle Whirlpool has

designated as the "normal cycle" under the regulations. However, a warm rinse

is available in all other cycles. Thus, the energy consumption in the "normal

cycle" is lower than other cycles which offer more energy intensive wash/rinse

water temperature combinations.

The "lockout" issue originated with Whirlpool requesting an interpretation of

C:\...\WPfinal.003

4 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

determining the amended standard, the DOE is required to measure the energy 

efficiency or energy use of representative samples of covered products which 

-

minimally comply with the existing standard. The average efficiency of these 

representative samples, tested using the amended test procedure, constitutes 

the amended standard. Section 323(e) (2). 

B. Background 

The clothes washer test procedure was originally proposed by notice 

issued May 11, 1977. (42 FR 25329, May 17, 1977). Subsequently, the 

Department published the original clothes washer test procedure on 

September 28, 1977 (42 FR 49802) with the only amendment being an editorial 

change in the title of Appendix J on June 29, 1979. (44 FR 37938). 

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) has designed a new line of clothes 

washers to meet the appliance energy conservation standard established by DOE 

that became effective May 14, 1994. Whirlpool is obligated to test these 

clothes washers for compliance with the new standard using the test procedure 

regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix J. The new 

clothes washers have been designed to lock out hot water using a wash/rinse 

water temperature combination setting (warm rinse) in the cycle Whirlpool has 

designated as the "normal cyclell under the regulations. However" a warm rinse 

is available in all other cycles. Thus, the energy consumption in th~ "normal 

cycle" is lower than other cycles which offer more energy intensive wash/rinse 

water temperature combinations. 

The "lockout" issue originated with Whirlpool requesting an interpretaticn of 

4 

C:\ ... \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
the test procedure from the Department in 1992, and again in early 1993. The

Department responded to these requests (December 18, 1992 and April 21, 1993

letters), disagreeing with Whirlpool's interpretation and indicating that

Whirlpool must set the temperature selector to the hottest setting available

after the normal cycle is selected. Whirlpool continued discussions with the

Department and after further review by the Department, the Department issued a

letter to Whirlpool on October 20, 1993. In the letter to Whirlpool, the

Department stated, "...Whirlpool's interpretation of the test procedure is one

that the Department concurs is permissible reading of the test procedure. The

Department believes, however, that Whirlpool's interpretation may yield

results not consistent with the objectives of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, as amended.". In the letter, the Department continued to

say that we planned on amending the test procedure to establish and clarify

the testing requirements for clothes washers that do not have all of the

temperature combinations available in the normal cycle. This is the purpose

of today's final rule.

II. Discussion

The Department published a proposed rule (December 22, 1993, 58 FR 67710) to

amend the clothes washer test procedure to address the Whirlpool clothes

washer "lock out" issue. Hereafter, it is referred to as the proposed rule.

A public hearing was, subsequently held on February 24, 1994. Today's final

rule provides a detailed discussion about the issues raised by the various

entities and provides rationale to support the amended test procedure which

will resolve this issue.

C:\...\WPfinal.003

5 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

the test procedure from the Department in 1992, and again in early 1993. The 

Department responded to these requests (December 18, 1992 and April 21, 1993 

letters), disagreeing with Whirlpoolls interpretation and indicating that 

Whirlpool must set the temperature selector to the hottest setting available 

after the normal cycle is selected. Whirlpool continued discussions with the 

Department and after further review by the Department, the Department issued a 

letter to Whirlpool on October 20, 1993. In the letter to Whirlpool, the 

Department stated, 1I ••• Whirlpool IS interpretation of the test procedure is one 

that the Department concurs is permissible reading of the test procedure. The 

Department believes, however, that Whirlpoolls interpretation may yield 

results not consistent with the objectives of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended. lI • In the letter, the Department continued to 

say that we planned on amending the test procedure to establish and clarify 

the testing requirements for clothes washers that do not have all of the 

temperature combinations available in the normal cycle. This is the purpose 

of todayls final rule. 

11. Di scuss ion 

The Department published a proposed rule (December 22, 1993, 58 FR 67710) to 

amend the clothes washer test procedure to address the Whirlpool clothes 

washer IIl ock outll issue. Hereafter, it is referred to as the proposed rule. " 

A public hearing was subsequently held on February 24, 1994. Todayls final 

rule provides a detailed .discussion about the issues raised by the various 

entities and provides rationale to support the amended test procedure which 

will resolve this issue. 

5 

C:\ •.. \WPfinal.003 

July 25. 1994 

9:20am 
The Department received eight (8) written comments in response to the proposed

rule, and received testimony from four (4) persons at the public hearing.

Written comments and/or testimonies were provided by the American Council for

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Frigidaire company (Frigidaire), General

Electric Company (GE), Maytag Corporation (Maytag), Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC), the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), Speed Queen Company

(Speed Queen), and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool). The Department will

present discussions of issues related to the test procedure interpretation and

revision process raised in the comments, followed by discussion of the issues

of the test procedure amendment.

A) Test procedure interpretation and revision process

The Department received numerous comments concerning the Department's process

of providing the interpretation of the requirements for the "normal cycle" as

they relate to the "lock out" issue, initiated by Whirlpool. Several comments

opposed the amendment and the Department's interpretation. Frigidaire (No. 2

at 9) indicated that the amendment should not be adopted because it provides

an unfair competitive advantage. Frigidaire also indicated that, "The

procedure of negotiating and communicating the change in this matter requires

improvement". Frigidaire (Oral testimony at 46) stated, "... I don't think

there is a loophole that exists today. I mean, it's an incorrect

interpretation, and it would require a reversal of decisions that were made

last October." GE (No. 3 at 3) objected to the rulemaking and stated, "The

Department's failure to notify immediately all manufacturers of its October

20, 1993 reversal of interpretation is likely to adversely affect competition

within the home laundry industry sector of the economy." GE (No. 3 at 4)

C:\... \WPfinal.003

6 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

The Department received eight (8) written comments in response to the proposed 

rule, and received testimony from four (4) persons at the public hearing. 

Written comments and/or testimonies were provided by the American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Frigidaire company (Frigidaire), General 

Electric Company (GE), May tag Corporation (May tag), Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), Speed Queen Company 

(Speed Queen), and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool). The Department will 

present discussions of issues related to the test procedure interpretation and 

revision process raised in the comments, followed by discussion of the issues 

of the test procedure amendment. 

A) Test procedure interpretation and revision process 

The Department received numerous comments concerning the Department's process 

of providing the interpretation of the requirements for the IInorma l cycle ll as 

they relate to the IIl ock out" issue, initiated by Whirlpool. Several comments 

opposed the amendment and the Department's interpretation. Frigidaire (No.2 

at 9) indicated that the amendment should not be adopted because it provides 

an unfair competitive advantage. Frigidaire also indicated that, liThe 

procedure of negotiating and communicating the change in this matter requires 

improvement". Frigidaire (Oral testimony at 46) stated, " ... I don't think 

there is a loophole that exists today. I mean, it's an incorrect 

interpretation, and it would require a reversal of decisions that were made 

last October." GE (No.3 at 3) objected to the rulemaking and stated, liThe 

Department's failure to notify immediately all manufacturers of its October 

20, 1993 reversal of interpretation is likely to adversely affect competition 

within the home laundry industry sector of the economy. II GE (No.3 at 4) 

6 

C:\ •.. \WPfinal.003 

July 25. 1994 9:20am 
stated, "The Department cannot reverse a regulatory interpretation that

substantially impacts affected parties without first providing: notice and the

opportunity to comment, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act;

appropriate impact analysis, as required by Executive Order 12866; and a

delayed effective date, as required by the Energy policy and Conservation Act

(as amended)." GE believes that the rulemaking is premature and should be

withdrawn until the Department addresses the October 1993 reversal of

interpretation. GE (No. 12 at 2) indicated that they believe the Department's

original interpretation was correct and that no test procedure amendment is

needed. GE stated that the key issue that they believe the Department's

original interpretation was correct is because in the current test procedure

(section 3,2.2.2) it requires the wash/rinse temperature selector to be set to

the hottest setting "available". GE goes on to describe in detail why they

believe the adjective "available" refers to the clothes washer verses the

normal cycle. Maytag (No. 1 at 3) indicated that the Department's lack of

timely notice that discussions were continuing (with Whirlpool) after July

1993 has created a situation where Maytag clothes washers may be perceived-by

potential customers to have a competitive disadvantage as compared to

Whirlpool's products on energy consumption and feature availability. Maytag

also strongly urged the Department to adopt internal procedures designed to

provide appropriate notice to all parties potentially affected by a request

for a interpretative ruling. Maytag further referenced an example (10 CFR

205.80) of an interpretative procedure. Speed Queen (No. 8 at 2) indicated

that they were not given a timely opportunity to comment on the exchange of

interpretation documents until after the proposed rule was published. Speed

Queen recommended that, "DOE should demand usage of the mechanisms in place to

openly engage in interpretation requests. One such mechanism is a petition

C:\...\WPfinal.003

7 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

stated, liThe Department cannot reverse a regulatory interpretation that 

substantially impacts affected parties without first providing: notice and the 

opportunity to comment, as- required by the Administrative Procedure Act; 

appropriate impact analysis, as required by Executive Order 12866; and a 

delayed effective date, as required by the Energy policy and Conservation Act 

(as amended)." GE believes that the rulemaking is premature and should be 

withdrawn until the Department addresses the October 1993 reversal of 

interpretation. GE (No. 12 at 2) indicated that they believe the Departmentls 

original interpretation was correct and that no test procedure amendment is 

needed. GE stated that the key issue that they believe the Departmentls 

original interpretation was correct is because in the current test procedure 

(section 3.2.2.2) it requires the wash/rinse temperature selector to be set to 

the hottest setting "availablell

• GE goes on to describe in detail why they 

believe the adjective "available" refers to the clothes washer verses the 

normal cycle. May tag (No.1 at 3) indicated that the Departmentls lack of 

timely notice that discussions were continuing (with Whirlpool) after July 

1993 has created a situation where May tag clothes washers may be perceived- by 

potential customers to have a competitive disadvantage as compared to 

Whirlpool IS products on energy consumption and feature availability. May tag 

also strongly urged the Department to adopt internal procedures designed to 

provide appropriate notice to all parties potentially affected by a request 

for a interpretative ruling. May tag further referenced an example (10 CFR 

205.80) of an interpretative procedure. Speed Queen (No.8 at 2) indicated 

that they were not given a timely opportunity to comment on the exchange of 

interpretation documents until after the proposed rule was published. Speed 

Queen recommended that, "DOE should demand usage of the mechanisms in place to 

openly engage in interpretation requests. 

7 

One such mechanism is a petition 

C: \ ••• \NPfinal. 003 

July 25. 1994 

9:20am 
for a waiver to a test procedure.".

ACEEE (No. 5 at 1), NRDC (No. 10 at 2), and ODOE (No. 11 at 1) generally

supported the Department's proposed rule to close the "loop hole" in the test

procedures.

Whirlpool (No. 4) and (No. 9) supports the Department's process of

interpretation and timeliness of notification.

(TBD- General counsel position on several issues is required before we can

formulate a valid response to this controversial issues)

Test procedure amendment issues

The proposed rule provided an amended test procedure which proposed testing in

the most energy intensive cycle for temperature selections which are locked

out of the normal cycle . The proposed test procedure then apportioned the

hot water energy consumption measured under the normal and the most energy

intensive cycles, on a 75% and 25% basis, respectively . The majority of the

test procedure comments dealt with this portion of the Department ' s proposed

rule.

The Department had proposed weighting factors of 75% (normal cycle) and 25%

(most energy intensive cycle) because this was based on historical consumer

usage data on the use of the normal cycle. Many commenter's were opposed to

this. Maytag (No. 1 at 5) stated, "While Maytag's data indicates the "normal

cycle" use to be 67%, this percentage could be dramatically impacted by the

manner in which a manufacturer designs and displays its "normal cycle" for the

C:\...\WPfina1.003

$ July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

for a waiver to a test procedure.". 

ACEEE (No.5 at 1), NRDC (No. 10 at 2), and aDaE (No. 11 at 1) generally 

supported the Department1s proposed rule to close the Ill oop hole" in the test 

procedures. 

Whirlpool (No.4) and (No.9) supports the Department1s process of 

interpretation and timeliness of notification. 

(TBO- General counsel position on several issues is required before we can 

formulate a valid response to this controversial issues) 

B) Test procedure amendment issues 

The proposed rule provided an amended test procedure which proposed testing in 

the most energy intensive cycle for temperature selections which are locked 

out of the normal cycle. The proposed test procedure then apportioned the 

hot water energy consumption measured under the normal and the most energy 

intensive cycles, on a 75% and 25% basis, respectively. The majority of the 

test procedure comments dealt with this portion of the Department1s proposed 

rule. 

The Department had proposed weighting factors of 75% (normal cycle) and 25% 

(most energy intensive cycle) because this was based on historical consumer 

usage data on the use of the normal cycle. Many commenter1s were opposed to 

this .. May tag (No.1 at 5) stated, IIWhile Maytag1s data indicates the IInormal 

cycle" use to be 67%, this percentage could be dramatically impacted by the 

manner in which a manufacturer designs and displays its "normal cycle" for the 

8 

c: \ ••• \wpfinal. 003 

July 25, 1994 

9: 20am 
product,". Maytag proposed the use of a "test cycle" instead of the normal

cycle. The "test cycle" will be discussed below in detail. Frigidaire (No. 2

at 3) stated, "The 75/25 apportionment is inappropriate" because "Data is

based on products where all temperature options are available in the normal

cycle", "Data is not valid for a product with a "new" feature", "The hot water

energy calculation decreases by approximately 25% with no loss in consumer

utility", and "The energy standard should change (for a product w/ lock out)".

GE (No.3 at 6) stated,,"We question what effect the temperature lockout

feature will have on the 75%/25% cycle usage assumptions which justify the

usage factors found in the calculation." ACEEE (No. 5 at 1) stated, "We are

also troubled by use of 25% weighting factor for the "normal" cycle, a

weighting factor which is not based on empirical measurements on how consumers

would actually use washers with normal cycles different from energy-intensive

cycles. Therefore, we recommend that for the present time, a 100% weighting

factor be assigned to the most energy-intensive cycle, until such time that

empirical data is available on how these washers will actually be used."

Speed Queen (No. 8 at 2) stated, "Consumers will quickly modify their usage

pattern by switching to select the cycle most nearly approximating a "normal"

cycle to obtain the hot wash/warm rinse selection." NRDC (No. 10 at 2)

stated, the Department would be better justified in using solely the

results of the most energy intensive cycle. Since there are no statistically

valid data on how consumers choose wash cycles,

Whirlpool (No. 4 at 5) and (No. 9 at 6) is the only commenter that supports

the proposed apportionment. Whirlpool believes that the 75% value for use of

the normal cycle has been consistent over many surveys2. They also feel that

2

Proctor and Gamble survey data from numerous years which was referenced in Whirlpools submission.

C:\...\WPfinal.003

9 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

product. II , May tag proposed the use of a IItest cycle" instead of the nonnal 

cycle. The "test cycle" will be discussed below in .detail. Frigidaire (No.2 

at 3) stated, liThe 75/25 apportionment is inappropriate" because IIData is 

based on products where all temperature options are available in the nonnal 

cyclell , IIData is not valid for a product with a IInew" feature", liThe hot water 

energy calculation decreases by approximately 25% with no loss in consumer 

utility", and liThe energy standard should change (for a product wi lock out)", 

GE (No.3 at 6) stated, "We question what effect the temperature lockout 

feature will have on the 75%/25% cycle usage assumptions which justify the 

usage factors found in the calculation. 1I ACEEE (No.5 at 1) stated, "We are 

also troubled by use of 25% weighting factor for the "nonna '" cycle, a 

weighting factor which is not based on empirical measurements on how consumers 

would actually use washers with nonnal cycles different from energy-intensive 

cycles. Therefore, we recommend that for the present time, a 100% weighting 

factor be assigned to the most energy-intensive cycle, until such time that 

empirical data is available on how these washers will actually be used." 

Speed Queen (No. 8 at 2) stated, "Consumers wi 11 qUi ckly modify thei r usage 

pattern by switching to select the cycle most nearly approximating a "nonnalll 

cycle to obtain 'the hot wash/warm rinse selection. 1I NRDC (No. 10 at 2) 

stated, ", .• the Department would be better justified in using solely the 

results of the most energy intensive cycle. Since there are no statistically 

valid data on how consumers choose wash cycles, .. ,11, 

Whirlpool (No.4 at 5) and (No.9 at 6) is the only commenter that supports 

the proposed apportionment. Whirlpool believes that the 75% value for use of 

the nonnal cycle has been consistent over many surveys2. They also feel that 

2 

Proctor and Gamble survey data from numerous years which was referenced in Whirlpools submission. 

9 

c: \ ••• \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
the type of cycle used is chosen first, then the temperature selection is made

second. Whirlpool also believes that the use of the most energy intensive

.cycle for 25% of the time may overstate the energy consumption because

consumers may use other non-normal cycles that are less energy intensive.

Whirlpool basically concluded by saying that the test procedure should be

amended as proposed.

The Department also received comments relative to the energy consumption of

clothes washers with lock outs if they were tested in accordance with the

proposed test procedure. Frigidaire (No. 2 at 7) stated that the proposed

test procedure would underestimate energy consumption by 24.9% and 31.4% for a

five-temperature machine and a four-temperature machine, respectively, as

compared to clothes washers without warm rinse lockout. Speed Queen (No. 8 at

1) indicated that the proposed test procedure would reveal a 6% disparity

because the proposed calculations did not sufficiently weight hot water usage

in the most energy intensive cycle.

After careful deliberation, it is DOE's belief that using the 75/25 weighting

factors is not appropriate. DOE agrees with the majority of commenters that

without actual consumer use data, any weighting factors between the normal

cycle and any other cycle of lockout clothes washers can only be considered as

pure conjecture. The "normal" cycle of a lockout clothes washer is not the

same as a normal cycle of traditional washing machines. The consumer habits

of using these new clothes washers will not necessarily be the same as using

the traditional non-lockout washers. Extending historical data to this type

of clothes washers, as advocated by Whirlpool, is not appropriate.

Furthermore, the Department did not receive convincing evidence from Whirlpool

C:\...\WPfinal.003

1 ® July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

the type of cycle used is chosen first, then the temperature selection is made 

second. Whirlpool also believes' that the use of the most energy intensive 

cycle for 25% of the time may overstate the energy consumption because 

consumers may use other non-normal cycles that are less energy intensive. 

Whirlpool basically concluded by saying that the test procedure should be 

amended as proposed. 

The Department also received comments relative to the energy consumption of 

clothes washers with lock outs if they were tested in accordance with the 

proposed test procedure. Frigidaire (No.2 at 7) stated that the proposed 

test procedure would underestimate energy consumption by 24.9% and 31.4% for a 

five-temperature machine and a four-temperature machine, respectively, as 

compared to clothes washers without warm rinse lockout. Speed Queen (No. 8 at 

1) indicated that the proposed test procedure would reveal a 6% disparity 

because the proposed calculations did not sufficiently weight hot water usa~e 

in the most energy intensive cycle. 

After careful deliberation, it is DOE's belief that using the 75/25 weighting 

factors is not appropriate. DOE agrees with the majority of commenters that 

without actual consumer use data, any weighting factors between the normal 

cycle and any other cycle of lockout clothes washers can only be considered as 

pure conjecture. The "normal" cycle of a lockout clothes washer is not the 

same as a normal cycle of traditional washing machines. The consumer habits 

of using these new clothes washers will not necessarily be the same as using 

the traditional non-lockout washers. Extending historical data to this type 

of clothes washers, as advocated by Whirlpool, is not appropriate. 

Furthermore, the Department did not receive convincing evidence from Whirlpool 

10 

C:\ .•. \WPfina1.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
regarding the validity of their assumption that consumers choose the cycle

selection first and the temperature combination second in washing clothes.

Therefore, the Department concludes that, in the absence of credible consumer

use data, the weighting factor for the most energy intensive cycle should be

100% for any washer with a wash/rinse temperature selection lockout in the

normal cycle. Additionally, this will prevent any potential energy

consumption and/or reporting disparity, as reported by Frigidaire or Speed

Queen. The ratio of using the normal and the most energy intensive cycles

when lockouts are used, could be reviewed in future test procedure

rulemakings, when Temperature Use Factors are addressed and when credible

actual consumer use data for these washers become available.

In today's final rule, the amended test procedure has been revised from the

proposed test procedure to require use of the most energy intensive cycle for

wash/rinse temperature lockouts for 100% of the time. Therefore, there is no

longer.any need to prorate the energy between the normal cycle and most energy

intensive cycle in the energy calculation equation. The energy consumption

for all temperature selections, along with their appropriate Temperature Use

Factors in the normal cycle, are combined with the energy consumption and

appropriate Temperature Use Factors from the most energy intensive cycle for

the locked out temperature combination(s).

The comments also revealed a concern about the possibility of other features

or selections being locked out. Maytag (No. 1 at 5) provided an example of

consumer habits if a,hot wash or a maximum water level were locked out.

Frigidaire (Oral testimony at 35) indicated that water levels and "different

things" could be locked out. Speed Queen (No. 8 at 1) indicated that the

C:\...\WPfinal.003

1 1 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

regarding the validity of their assumption that consumers choose the cycle 

selection first and the temperature combination second in washing clothes. 

Therefore, the Department concludes that, in the absence of credible consumer 

use data, the weighting factor for the most energy intensive cycle should be 

100% for any washer with a wash/rinse temperature selection lockout in the 

normal cycle. Additionally, this will prevent any potential energy 

consumption and/or reporting disparity, as reported by Frigidaire or Speed 

Queen. The ratio of using the normal and the most energy intensive cycles 

when lockouts are used, could be reviewed in future test procedure 

rulemakings, when Temperature Use Factors are addressed and when credible 

actual consumer use data for these washers become available. 

In today's final rule, the amended test procedure has been revised from the 

proposed test procedure to require use of the most energy intensive cycle for 

. wash/rinse temperature lockouts for 100% of the time. Therefore, there is no 

longer.any need to prorate the energy between the normal cycle and most energy 

intensive cycle in the energy calculation equation. The energy consumption 

for all temperature selections, along with their appropriate Temperature Use 

Factors in the normal cycle, are combined with the energy consumption and 

appropriate Temperature Use Factors from the most energy intensive cycle for 

the locked out temperature combination(s). 

The comments also revealed a concern about the possibility of other features 

or selections being locked out. May tag (No. 1 at 5) provided an example of 

consumer habits if a hot wash or a maximum water level were locked out. 

Frigidaire (Oral testimony at 35) indicated that water levels and "different 

things" could be locked out. Speed Queen (No.8 at 1) indicated that the 

11 

C:\ ••• \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 9: 20am. 
Department's proposal did not address hot wash, partial fills or partial timer

hot wash/warm rinse lockouts.

The Department agrees with the commenters' concern about other possible

lockouts. Today's rule addresses all possible temperature selection lockouts.

The Department was able to address all temperature selections because a

temperature selection lockout was the subject of the proposed rule. However,

other issues such as, wash time and maximum fill level, were not part of the

proposedrule and it would not be appropriate for the Department to issue a

final rule regarding them. The Department does not feel that a "loop hole" in

the test procedure exists for the wash time or maximum fill issues. The

Department believes the requirement for wash time is specified as a basic test

condition (section 2.10) and any testing conducted with less time than 9.75

minutes of agitation time would be non-compliant with the requirements of the

Code of Federal Regulation. In the case of maximum fill, the requirement is

specified prior to the selection of the wash cycle and refers to the maximum

fill of the clothes washer. The intent of the maximum fill testing portion of

the test procedure is to measure the maximum energy consumption capability of

the clothes washer. However, to help clarify the language regarding the

maximum fill requirements, the Department has proposed minor changes in the

TBD-DATE proposed rule. (FR TBD). The Department believes that any type of

maximum fill or wash time lockout design would require the submission of a

Petition for Waiver.

In light of all of the concerns about lockouts on the normal cycle, several

commenters raised questions about the Department maintaining the requirement

for testing in the "normal" cycle. Maytag (No. 1 at 5) proposed the use of a

C:\...\WPfinal.003

2 July 25, 1994

1 9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

Department1s proposal did not address hot wash, partial fills or partial timer 

hot wash/warm rinse lockouts. 

The Department agrees with the commenters l concern about other possible 

lockouts. Today1s rule addresses all possible temperature selection lockouts. 

The Department was able to address all temperature selections because a 

temperature selection lockout was the subject of the proposed rule. However, 

other issues such as, wash time and maximum fill level, were not part of the 

proposed'rule and it would not be appropriate for the Department to issue a 

final rule regarding them. The Department does not feel that a IIlo,op holell in 

the test procedure exists for the wash time or maximum fill issues. The 

Department believes the requirement for wash time is specified as a basic test 

condition (section 2.10) and any testing conducted with less time than 9.75 

minutes of agitation time would be non-compliant with the requirements of the 

Code of Federal Regulation. In the case of maximum fill, the requirement is 

specified prior to the selection of the wash cycle and refers to the maximum 

fill of the clothes washer. The intent of the maximum fill testing portion of 

the test procedure is to measure the maximum energy consumption capability of 

the clothes washer. However, to help clarify the language regarding the 

maximum fill requirements, the Department has proposed minor changes in the 

TBD-DATE proposed rule. (FR TBD). The Department believes that any type of 

maximum fill or wash time lockout'design would require the submission of a 

Petition for Waiver. 

In light of all of the concerns about lockouts on the normal cycle, several 

commenters raised questions about the Department maintaining the requirement 

for testing in the IInormalll cycle. May tag (No.1 at 5) proposed the use of a 

12 c: \ •.. \WPfinal. 003 July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
energy test cycle which would include elements such as: minimum wash time, all

wash/rinse temperature combinations, maximum water fill and maximum spin

speed. Maytag (No. 6 at 1) also provided specific changes to the test

procedure for their proposed test cycle. Speed Queen (No. 8 at 1) also

proposed that a test cycle be adopted with requirements very similar to

Maytag's proposal. GE (No. 12 at 4) supported the Maytag proposal of a test

cycle, if the Department continued with the amendment (as discussed earlier).

ODOE (No. 11 at 1) supported the Maytag proposal of a test cycle. ACEEE (No.

5 at 2) indicated that the Department could define specific cycles as proposed

by Maytag, although they felt that it should be done in a subsequent

rulemaking.;

The Department found the concept of an alternate test cycle to be interesting,

although, this was not the intention of the proposed rule. Since this had not

been proposed and available for comment by all interested parties the

Department does not believe that it would be appropriate in this rule to adopt

a significantly different approach to closing the lockout "loop hole".

Furthermore, the Department does not have any assessment as to how this would

impact existing models and the potential development of new models. However,

the Department has proposed a general test procedure revision (TBD - fill in

when available) and anticipates proposing a subsequent general test procedure

revision, as discussed in the publication, so if any parties are still

interested in this alternate approach, then they should provide new comments

for those rulemakings.

The Department received numerous comments indicating that the proposed test

procedure was ambiguous and complicated. Frigidaire (No, 2 at 8) and (Oral

C:\ ... \WPfina1.003

1 3 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

energy test cycle which would include elements such as: minimum wash time, all 

wash/rinse temperature combinations, maximum water fill and maximum spin 

speed. May tag (No.6 at 1) also provided specific changes to the test 

procedure for their proposed test cycle. Speed Queen (No.8 at 1) also 

proposed that a test cycle be adopted with requirements very similar to 

Maytag1s proposal. GE (No. 12 at 4) supported the May tag proposal of a test 

cycle, if the Department continued with the amendment (as discussed earlier). 

ODOE (No. 11 at 1) supported the May tag proposal of a test cycle. ACEEE (No. 

5 at 2) indicated that the Department could define specific cycles as proposed 

by May tag, although they felt that it should be done in a subsequent 

rulemaking. 

The Department found the concept of an alternate test cycle to be interesting, 

although, this was not the intention of the proposed rule. Since this had not 

been propos.ed and available for corranent by all interested parties the 

Department does not believe that it would be appropriate in this rule to adopt 

a significantly different approach to closing the lockout IIl oop holell • 

Furthermore, the Department does not have any assessment as to how this would 

impact existing models and the potential development of new models. However, 

the Department has proposed a general test procedure revision (TBD - fill in 

when available) and anticipates proposing a subsequent general test procedure 

revision, as discussed in the publication, so if any parties are still 

interested in this alternate approach, then they should provide hew corranents 

for those rulemakings. 

The Department received numerous comments indicating that the proposed test 

procedure was ambiguous and complicated. 

13 

Frigidaire (No.2 at 8) and (Oral 

C:\ ... \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
testimony at 34) indicated that the test procedure is unnecessarily

complicated and that it added additional test burden and ambiguities with room

for creative interpretation. ACEEE (No. 5 at 1) stated, "While we are in

general support of the proposed amended test procedure, we are troubled that

the proposed amendment may create additional ambiguities in what is meant by

"normal" and "most energy-intensive cycle".". GE (No. 3 at 5) and Maytag

(Oral testimony at 15) question how pre-wash and extra-rinse cycles are

treated under the non-normal cycle testing requirement. Whirlpool (No. 9 at

6) suggested word changes in Section 3.2 of the proposed amendment to clarify

the word "available".

The Department agrees that the test procedure of the proposed rule and the

final rule are more complicated than the current test procedure. However,

today's amended test procedure does not change any testing requirements for

clothes washers that do not incorporate any temperature selection lockouts.

Today's amended test procedure is also considerably less complicated than the

proposed rule. Additionally, the definition of the "non-normal cycle" was

modified to specifically exclude any manually selected pre-wash, pre-soak, and

extra-rinse cycles.

As one of the suggested alternatives, Frigidaire (Oral testimony at 31)

recommends having a separate class and minimum energy standard for clothes

washers with lock out. NRDC (No. 10 at 2) opposed the addition of a separate

class and minimum energy standard for clothes washers with lock-out. The

Department believes that lock outs do not offer any utility and therefore do

not warrant a separate class.

C:\...\WPfina1.003

14 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

testimony at 34) indicated that the test procedure is unnecessarily 

complicated and that it added additional test burden and ambiguities with room 

for creative interpretation. ACEEE (No.5 at 1) stated, "While we are in 

general support of the proposed amended test procedure, we are troubled that 

the proposed amendment may create additional ambiguities in what is meant by 

"norma '" and "most energy-intensive cycle".". GE (No.3 at 5) and May tag 

(Oral testimony at 15) question how pre-wash and extra-rinse cycles are 

treated under the non-normal cycle testing requirement. Whirlpool (No.9 at 

6) suggested word changes in Section 3.2 of the proposed amendment to clarify 

the word "available". 

The Department agrees that the test procedure of the proposed rule and the 

final rule are more complicated than the current test procedure. However, 

today·s amended test procedure does not change any testing requirements for 

. clothes washers that do not incorporate any temperature selection lockouts. 

Today·s amended test procedure is also considerably less complicated than the 

proposed rule. Additionally, the definition of the "non-normal cycle" was 

modified to specifically exclude any manually selected pre-wash, pre-soak, and 

extra-rinse cycles. 

As one of the suggested alternatives, Frigidaire (Oral testimony at 31) 

recommends having a separate class and minimum energy standard for clothes 

washers with lock out. NRDC (No: 10 at 2) opposed the addition of a separate 

class and minimum energy standard for clothes washers with lock-out. The 

Department bel i eves that lock outs do not offer any util ity and therefore do 

not warrant a separate class. 

14 

C:\ ..• \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
The last issue which caused a significant concern dealt with the Department's

proposal to allow one year of lead time from the final rule publication to the

effective date of the amendment. Maytag (No. 1 at 4), Frigidaire (Oral

testimony at 10), ACEEE (No, 5 at 1), Speed Queen (No. 8 at 2), NRDC (No. 10

at 3) and ODOE (No. 11 at 2) all opposed a one year lead time. They believe

that a 180 day lead time is sufficient. Frigidaire (No. 7 at 1) provided

additional information regarding lead time as a response to the Department's

request at the hearing. Frigidaire estimated that it would take six to nine

months to introduce a product into production if it fit into a brand line

which had been recently restructured. Whirlpool (No. 9 at 6) is the only

commenter who agrees with the Department's original proposal of one year. The

Department is swayed by the other commenters and believes that the 180 day

lead time should be sufficient for the vast majority of the Whirlpool

products, only some of which will need modifying.

The above modifications will not change the related existing energy efficiency

standard for this appliance. The Department believes that today's final rule

will have a minimal impact on the clothes washer industry because of the

limited availability of machines which have this unique feature. To the

Department's knowledge, until Whirlpool's planned lock-out design, clothes.

washers have offered all available wash/rinse temperature combinations in

their normal cycles. Furthermore, Whirlpool's clothes washers are

considerably above the minimum standard, whereas the standard would only

require adjustment if it impacted clothes washers that minimally comply.

Therefore, the Department has determined that no change in the energy

efficiency standard would be required under 42 U.S.C. §6293(e)(2) by this

amended test procedure.

C:\... \WPfinal.003

1 5

July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

The last issue which caused a significant concern dealt with the Department's 

proposal to allow one year of lead time from the final rule publication to the 

effective date of the amendment. May tag (No.1 at 4), Frigidaire (Oral 

testimony at 10), ACEEE (No.5 at 1), Speed Queen (No.8 at 2), NRDC (No. 10 

at 3) and ODOE (No. 11 at 2) all opposed a one year lead time. They believe 

that a 180 day lead time is sufficient. Frigidaire (No.7 at 1) provided 

additional information regarding lead time as a response to the Department's 

request at the hearing. Frigidaire estimated that it would take six to nine 

months to introduce a product into production if it fit into a brand line 

which had been recently restructured. Whirlpool (No.9 at 6) is the only 

commenter who agrees with the Department's original proposal of one year. The 

Department is swayed by the other commenters and believes that the 180 day 

lead time should be sufficient for the vast majority of the Whirlpool 

products, only some of which will need modifying. 

The above modifications will not change the related existing energy efficiency 

standard for this appliance. The Department believes that today's final rule 

will have a minimal impact on the clothes washer industry because of the 

limited availability of machines which have this unique feature. To the 

Department's knowledge, until Whirlpool's planned lock-out design, clothes. 

washers have offered all available wash/rinse temperature combinations in 

their normal cycles. Furthermore, Whirlpool's clothes washers are 

considerably above the minimum standard, whereas the standard would only 

require adjustment if it impacted clothes washers that minimally comply. 

Therefore, the Department has determined that no change in the energy 

efficiency standard would be required under 42 U.S.C. §6293(e)(2) by this 

amended test procedure. 

15 

C:\ ••. \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
III. Environmental Review

Since test procedures under the Program will be used only to standardize

the measurement of energy usage and will not affect the quality or

distribution of energy usage, prescribing test procedures will not result in

any environmental impacts. The Department, therefore, has determined that

prescribing test procedures under the Program is not a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the

meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This rulemaking,

which amends existing Part 430 of Title 10 and will not change the

environmental effect of such regulation, is an item which is "categorically

excluded (A5)" by the Department of Energy's regulations on Nation

Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. (10 Code of Federal

Regulation, Part 1021) (57 FR 15122, April 24, 1992) (Appendix A to Subpart D,

Categorical Exclusion A5.). Consequently, neither an Environmental Impact

Statement nor an Environmental Assessment is required for today's rule.

IV. Regulatory Planning and Review

Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a "significant

regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and

Review," (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action was not

subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C:\...\WPfinal.003

1 6 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

III. Environmental Review 

Since test procedures under the Program will be used only to standardize 

the measurement of energy usage and will not affect the quality or 

distribution of energy usage, prescribing test procedures will not result in 

any environmental impacts. The Department, therefore, has determined that 

prescribing test procedures under the Program is not a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the 

meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This rulemaking, 

which amends existing Part 430 of Title 10 and will not change the 

environmental effect of such regulation, is an item which is "categorically 

excluded (A5)" by the Department of Energy·s regulations on Nation 

Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. (10 Code of Federal 

Regulation, Part 1021) (57 FR 15122, April 24, 1992) (Appendix A to Subpart D, 

Categorical Exclusion A5.). Consequently, neither an Environmental Impact 

Statement nor an Environmental Assessment is required for today·s rule. 

IV. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Today·s regulatory action has been determined not to be a IIsignificant 

regulatory action ll under Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and 

Review," (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today·s action was not 

subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

16 

C:\ ... \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-345) (5 U.S.C. 601-612)

requires that an agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and

that it be published at the time the proposed rule is published. This

requirement (which appears in section 603) does not apply if the agency

"certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities." Today's rule will

marginally affect the clothes washer manufacturers. As previously discussed,

the test procedure would not have significant economic impact, but rather, it

would simply provide common testing methods. Therefore, DOE certifies that

the final rule, as promulgated, will not have a "significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities."

VI. Federalism Review

Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987) requires that

regulations or rules be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on States,

on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.

If there are sufficient substantial direct effects, then Executive Order 12612

requires preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all decisions

involved in promulgating and implementing a regulation or a rule.

The Department has identified a substantial direct effect that today's

rule might have on State governments. It would preempt inconsistent State

regulations. However, DOE has concluded that such effect is not sufficient to

warrant preparation of a federalism assessment. The Department knows of no

such inconsistent state regulations. Moreover, if there are any such state

C:\...\WPfinal.003

1 7 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-345) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) 

requires that an agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

that it be published at the time the proposed rule is published. This 

requirement (which appears in section 603) does not apply if the agency 

"certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. 1I Today's rule will 

marginally affect the clothes washer manufacturers. As previously discussed, 

the test procedure would not have significant economic impact, but rather, it 

wouVd simply provide common testing methods. Therefore, DOE certifies that 

the final rule, as promulgated, will not have a "significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. II 

VI. Federalism Review 

Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987) requires that 

regulations or rules be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on States, 

on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. 

If there are sufficient substantial direct effects, then Executive Order 12612 

requires preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all decisions 

involved in promulgating and implementing a regulation or a rule. 

The Department has identified a substantial direct effect that today's 

rule might have on State governments. It would preempt inconsistent State 

regulations. However, DOE has concluded that such effect is not sufficient to 

warrant preparation of a federalism assessment. The Department knows of no 

such inconsistent state regulations. Moreover, if there are any such state 

17 

C:\ .•. \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 9:20am 
regulations, the Act provides for subsequent State petitions for exemption.

Thus, a determination as to whether a State law prevails must be made on a

case-by-case basis using criteria set forth in the Act. If DOE receives such

a petition, it will then be appropriate to consider preparing a federalism

assessment consistent with the criteria in the Act.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure , Energy conservation , Household

appliances.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Department amends part 430 of

chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

Issued in Washington, DC, (Federal Register).

Chri stine A . Ervin

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

1 $ July

C:\...\WPfinal.003

25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

regulations, the Act provide~ for subsequent State petitions for exemption~ 

Thus, a determination as to whether a State law prevails must be made on a 

case-by-case basis using criteria set forth in the Act. If DOE receives such 

a petition, it will then be appropriate to consider preparing a federalism 

assessment consistent with the criteria in the Act. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Household 

appliances. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the Department amends part 430 of 

chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. 

Issued in Washington, DC, (Federal Register). 

Christine A. Ervin 

Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

18 

C:\ ..• \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am 
PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309

Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430 -Uniform Test Method for Measuring the

Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

B. In Appendix J to Subpart B of part 430, paragraphs 1.10 through 1.18 are

redesignated as paragraphs 1.13 through 1.21, respectively, and new paragraphs

1.11 and 1.12 are added to read as follows:

1.11 Most energy intensive cycle means the non-normal cycle that uses the

most energy when tested with the required wash/rinse temperature combinations.

1.12 Non-normal cycle means a cycle other than the normal cycle, excluding

any manually selected pre-wash, pre-soak, and extra-rinse.

C. In Appendix J to Subpart B of part 430, paragraph 1.9 is redesignated as

paragraph 1.10, and paragraph 1.9 is added to read as follows:

1.9 Lockout means that at least one wash/rinse water temperature

combination is not available in the normal cycle that is available in another

cycle on the machine.

D. Section 3.2 of Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430 is revised to read as

follows:

3.2 Test cycle. Establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2 of

this Appendix. For clothes washers that do not have lockout, skip sections

3.2.5. For automatic clothes washers that lock out certain wash/rinse

temperature combinations in the normal cycle, conduct all of the following

sections including section 3.2.5.

E. Between section 3.2.4 and 3.3 of Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430,

add new section 3.2.5 to read as follows:

3.2.5 Hot water energy consumption testing for clothes washers that lockout

any wash/rinse temperature combinations in the normal cycle.

3.2.5.1 For clothes washers that lockout cettain wash/rinse temperature

combinations, perform additional tests on non-normal cycles. Set the cycle

selector to`a non-normal cycle. Set the water level selector at maximum fill

and insert the appropriate test load, if applicable. Activate the cycle of

the clothes washer and also any suds-saver switch. Set the wash/rinse

temperature selector to the hottest untested temperature combination setting

that is locked out in the normal cycle and repeat 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, and

3.2.2.5.

3.2.5.2 Repeat 3.2.5.1 under the same temperature combination setting for

all other untested non-normal cycles on the machine.

3.2.5.3 Total the measured hot water consumption of wash, deep rinse, and

spray rinse of each non-normal cycle tested in 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2 and

compare. The cycle that has the highest hot water consumption shall be the

most energy intensive cycle for that particular wash/rinse temperature

combination setting. The hot water consumption of the most energy intensive

cycles shall be used in section 4 calculations.

C:\...\WPfina1.003

1 9 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309 

Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430-UnifoDn Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic C~othes Washers 

B. In Appendix J to Subpart B of part 430, paragraphs 1.10 through 1.18 are 

redesignated as paragraphs 1.13 through 1.21, respectively, and new paragraphs 

1.11 and 1.12 are added to read as follows: 

1.11 Most energy intensive cycle means the non-normal cycle that uses the 

most energy when tested with the requi,red wash/rinse temperature combinations. 

1.12 Non-normal cycle means a cycle other than the normal cycle, excluding 

any manually selected pre-wash, pre-soak, and extra-rinse. 

* * * * * 

C. In Appendix J to Subpart B of part 430, paragraph 1.9 is redesignated as 

paragraph 1.10, and paragraph 1.9 is added to read as follows: 

1.9 Lockout means that at least one wash/rinse water temperature 

combination is not available in the normal cycle that is available in another 

cycle on the machine. 

* * * * * 

D. Section 3.2 of Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430 is revised to read as 

follows: 

3.2 Test cycle. Establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2 of 

this Appendix. For clothes washers that do not have lockout, skip sections 

3.2.5. For automatic clothes washers that lock out certain wash/rinse 

temperature combinations in the normal cycle, conduct all of the following 

sections including section 3.2.5. 

* * * * * 

E. Between section 3.2.4 and 3.3 of Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430, 

add new section 3.2.5 to read as follows: 

3.2.5 Hot water energy consumption testing for clothes washers that lockout 

any wash/rinse temperature combin~tions in the normal cycle. 

3.2.5.1 For clothes washers that lockout certain wash/rinse temperature, 

combinations, perform additional tests on non-normal cycles. Set the cycle 

selector to a non-normal cycle. Set the water level selector at maximum fill 

and insert the appropriate test load, if applicable. Activate the cycle of 

the clothes washer and also any suds-saver switch. Set the wash/rinse 

temperature selector to the hottest untested temperature combination setting 

that is locked out in the normal cycle and repeat 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, and 

3.2.2.5. 

3.2.5.2 Repeat 3.2.5.1 under the same temperature combination setting for 

all other untested non-normal cycles on the machine. 

3.2.5.3 Total the measured hot water consumption of wash, deep rinse, and 

spray rinse of each non-normal cycle tested in 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2 and 

compare. The cycle that has the highest hot water consumption shall be the 

most energy intensive cycle for that particular wash/rinse temperature 

combination setting. The hot water consumption of the most energy intensive 

cycles shall be used in section 4 calculations. 

19 

c: \ •.• \WPfinal. 003 

July 25. 1994 

9:20am 
3.2.5.4 Repeat 3.2.5.1 through 3.2.5.2 for all other wash/rinse temperature

combination selections that are locked out in the normal cycle. The hot water

consumption of the most energy intensive cycle for each locked out wash/rinse

temperature selection shall be used in section 4 calculations.

.3.2.5.5 Set the water level selector at minimum fill and insert the -

appropriate test load, if applicable. Activate the cycle of the clothes

washer and also any suds-saver switch. Repeat tests as described in 3.2.5.1

through 3.2.5.4, except that minimum fill tests are required only for the most

energy intensive cycles as determined during the maximum fill tests. The hot

water consumption of the most energy intensive cycles shall be used in section

4 calculations.

*

F. In Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430, section 4.1 is revised to read as

follows:

4.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted hot water consumption for maximum and

minimum water fill levels. Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted hot

water consumption for the maximum water fill level, Vmax. expressed in gallons

per cycle and defined as:

Vmax = X1 -,n [Vi X TUFT] + X2 [TUFW x SH]

where

Vi = Reported hot water consumption in gallons per-cycle at maximum

fill for each wash/rinse temperature selection, as recorded in

3.3.2. (For clothes washers that have lockouts, there will be

"Vi's" for wash/rinse temperature combination settings available

in the normal cycle and "Vi's" for wash/rinse temperature

combination settings in the most energy intensive cycle.)

TUFT = Applicable temperature use factor corresponding to wash/rinse

temperature selection as shown in 5 or 6.

n = Number of wash/rinse temperature selections available to the user

for the clothes washer under test.

TUFW = Temperature use factor for warm wash setting.

For clothes washers equipped with suds-saver feature:

X1 = Frequency of use without suds-saver feature = .86.

X2 = Frequency of use with suds-saver feature = .14.

For clothes washers not equipped with suds-saver feature:

X1 = 1.0

X2 = 0.0

SH Fresh make-up water measured during suds-return cycle at maximum

water fill level.

Calculate the per-cycle temperature -weighted hot water consumption for the

minimum water fill level, Vmin , expressed in gallons per cycle and defined as:

Vmin = X1 11_1 ' [V1 x TUFT] + X2 [TUF, x SL]

where

Vi = Reported hot water consumption in gallons per cycle at minimum

fill for each wash/rinse temperature selection, as recorded in

3.3.3.

(For clothes washers that have lockouts, there.will be "V1's" for

wash/rinse temperature combination settings available in the

normal cycle and "V1's" for wash/rinse temperature combination

settings in the most energy intensive cycle.)

.TUFT = Applicable temperature factor corresponding to wash/rinse

temperature selection as shown in 5 or 6.

SL = Fresh make-up water measured during suds-return cycle at minimum

water fill level.

C:\...\WPfinal.003

20 July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

3.2.5.4 Repeat 3.2.5.1 through 3.2.5.2 for all other wash/rinse temperature 

combination selections that are locked out in the normal cycle. The hot water 

consumption of the most energy intensive cycle for each locked out wash/rinse 

temperature selection shall be used in section 4 calculations. 

,3.2.5.5 Set the water level selector at minimum fill and insert the 

appropriate test load, if applicable. Activate the cycle of the clothes 

washer and also any suds-saver switch. Repeat tests as described in 3.2.5.1 

through 3.2.5.4, except that minimum fill tests are required only for the most 

energy intensive cycles as determined during the maximum fill tests. The hot 

water consumption of the most energy intensive cycles shall be used in section 

4 calculations. 

* * * * * 

F. In Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430, section 4.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

4.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted hot water consumption for maximum and 

minimum water fill levels. Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted hot 

water consumption for the maximum water fill level, Vrnax , expressed in gallons 

per cycle and defined as: 

where 

Vi = 

TUFi 

n = 

TUFw 

Reported hot water consumption in gallons per-cycle at maximum 

fill for each wash/rinse temperature selection, as reoorded in 

3.3.2. (For clothes washers that have lockouts, there will be 

"Vi'S" for wash/rinse temperature combination settings available 

in the normal cycle and "Vi'S" for wash/rinse temperature . 

combination settings in the most energy intensive cycle.) 

Applicable temperature use factor corresponding to wash/rinse 

temperature selection as shown in 5 or 6. 

Number of wash/rinse temperature selections available to the user 

for the clothes washer under test. 

Temperature use factor for warm wash setting. 

For clothes washers equipped with suds-saver feature: 

Xl = Frequency of use without suds-saver feature = .86. 

of use with suds-saver feature = .14. 

not equipped with suds-saver feature: 

X2 = Frequency 

For clothes washers 

Xl '1.0 

X2 0.0 

SH Fresh make-up water measured during suds-return cycle at maximum 

water fill level. 

Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted hot water consumption for the 

minimum water fill level, Vrnin , expressed in gallons per cycle and defined as: 

where 

Vi = 

, TUFi 

Reported hot water consumption in gallons per cycle at minimum 

fill for each wash/rinse temperature selection, as recorded in 

3.3.3. 

(For clothes washers that have lockouts, there .will be "Vi'S" for 

wash/rinse temperature combination settings available in the 

normal cycle and "Vi'S" for wash/rinse temperature combination 

settings in the most energy intensive cycle.) 

Applicable temperature factor corresponding to wash/rinse 

temperature selection as shown in 5 or 6. 

Fresh make-up water measured during suds-return cycle at minimum 

water fill level. 

.20 

C:\, •. \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 9: 20am 
n = As defined above.

TUFW = As defined above.

X1 = As defined above.

X2 = As defined above.

21

C:\... \WPfinal.003

July 25, 1994

9:20am

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 13

n = AS 

TUF .. As 

Xl As 

X2 = As 

defined 

defined 

defined 

defined 

above. 

above. 

above. 

above. 

21 

C:\ .•. \WPfinal.003 

July 25, 1994 

9:20am