Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 157 August 14, 2013 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes 

Dryers; Final Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49608 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054] 

RIN 1904–AC63 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Residential Clothes 

Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 2, 2013, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to amend the test procedures for 

residential clothes dryers. DOE also 

published a supplemental NOPR 

(SNOPR) on February 7, 2013, to 

propose additional amendments to the 

clothes dryer test procedure. Those 

proposed rulemakings serve as the basis 

for today’s action. This final rule 

updates the reference to the latest 

edition of the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 62301, ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power,’’ Edition 2.0 2011–01. For the 

test procedures at both appendix D and 

appendix D1 to the same subpart, DOE 

is adopting amendments to clarify the 

cycle settings used for the test cycle, the 

requirements for the gas supply for gas 

clothes dryers, the installation 

conditions for console lights, the 

method for measuring the drum 

capacity, the maximum allowable 

weighing scale range, and the allowable 

use of a relative humidity meter. This 

final rule also amends the DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure to create a new 

appendix D2 that includes the 

amendments discussed above and 

testing methods for more accurately 

measuring the effects of automatic cycle 

termination. 

DATES: Effective date: The effective date 

of this rule is September 13, 2013. 

Compliance date: Compliance with 

the amended test procedure in appendix 

D for the purposes of compliance with 

current energy conservation standards, 

as well as representations, is required 

beginning February 10, 2014 until 

January 1, 2015. Compliance with the 

amended test procedure in appendix D1 

for the purpose of compliance with the 

January 1, 2015 energy conservation 

standards, as well as representations, is 

required beginning January 1, 2015. 

Appendix D2 may be used for 

informational purposes and compliance 

with the provisions in appendix D2 may 

be required at a later date. Voluntary 

early compliance with appendix D1 or 

appendix D2 is permitted. 

Incorporation by reference: The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this rule was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register September 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#

!docketDetail;dct=FR%252B

PR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;r

pp=10;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054. 

This Web page will contain a link to the 

docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email: 

clothes_dryers@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure 

1. January 2011 Final Rule 

2. August 2011 RFI 

3. January 2013 NOPR 

4. February 2013 SNOPR 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Automatic Termination Control 

Procedures. 

B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition). 

C. Clarifications to Test Conditions. 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by This Test 

Procedure Rulemaking 

B. Automatic Cycle Termination 

1. Joint Petition to Amend the Clothes 

Dryer Test Procedure 

2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis 

3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed 

Amendments and Today’s Final Rule 

a. Definitions 

b. Test Load 

c. Automatic Termination Control Dryer 

Test Cycle 

d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer 

Field Use Factor 

e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the 

Determination of the Completion of the 

Test Cycle 

f. New Appendix D2 

C. Timed Dry Test Method 

D. Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard 

62301 Second Edition for Measuring 

Standby Mode and Off Mode Power 

E. Technical Correction to the Calculation 

of the Per-cycle Combined Total Energy 

Consumption 

F. Clarifications to Test Conditions 

1. Cycle Settings 

2. Gas Supply Requirements 

3. Console Lights 

4. Drum Capacity Measurements 

5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range 

6. Relative Humidity Meter 

G. Additional Test Procedure Issues 

1. Consumer Usage Patterns and 

Capabilities 

a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles 

b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content and 

Moisture Removed During Test Cycle 

c. Test Load Weight 

d. Exhaust Conditions 

2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight 

Measurement 

3. Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning 

4. Room Ambient Humidity Requirements 

5. Measurement of Drying Cycle Time 

6. Clothes Dryer Energy Conservation 

Standards 

H. Effects of Proposed Test Procedure 

Revisions on Compliance with Standards 

1. Active Mode 

2. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

I. Compliance with Other EPCA 

Requirements 

1. Test Burden 

2. Certification Requirements 

3. Compliance date of final amended test 

procedures 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49609 

1 ‘‘Bone dry’’ is defined in the DOE clothes dryer 

test procedure as a condition of a load of test 

clothes which has been dried in a dryer at 

maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 

minutes, removed and weighed before cool down, 

and then dried again for 10-minute periods until the 

final weight change of the load is 1 percent or less. 

(10 CFR subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2) 

2The CEF is defined as the clothes dryer test load 

weight in pounds divided by the sum of the percycle standby and off mode energy consumption 

and either the total per-cycle electric dryer energy 

consumption or the total per-cycle gas dryer energy 

consumption expressed in kilowatt hours (kWh). 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 

112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B of title 

III, which for editorial reasons was 

redesignated as Part A upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ These include 

residential clothes dryers, the subject of 

today’s notice. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8)) 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use as the basis for (1) certifying to the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that 

their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of those products. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA provides that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section shall be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to 

amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency of any 

covered product as determined under 

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

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

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

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

EPCA also requires DOE to amend the 

test procedures for all residential 

covered products to include measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. Specifically, EPCA 

provides definitions of ‘‘standby mode’’ 

and ‘‘off mode’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(1)(A)) and permits DOE to 

amend these definitions in the context 

of a given product (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(1)(B)). The statute requires 

integration of such energy consumption 

into the overall energy efficiency, 

energy consumption, or other energy 

descriptor for each covered product, 

unless DOE determines that— 

(i) the current test procedures for a 

covered product already fully account 

for and incorporate the standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption of the 

covered product; or 

(ii) such an integrated test procedure 

is technically infeasible for a particular 

covered product, in which case the 

Secretary shall prescribe a separate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

test procedure for the covered product, 

if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

In any test procedure amendment, 

DOE must consider the most current 

versions of International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 62301, ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power,’’ and IEC Standard 62087, 

‘‘Methods of measurement for the power 

consumption of audio, video, and 

related equipment.’’ Id. 

B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure 

DOE’s test procedures for clothes 

dryers are codified in appendix D and 

appendix D1 to subpart B of Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

DOE established its test procedure for 

clothes dryers at appendix D in a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on September 14, 1977 (the September 

1977 Final Rule). 42 FR 46145. On May 

19, 1981, DOE published a final rule to 

amend the test procedure by 

establishing a field-use factor for clothes 

dryers with automatic termination 

controls, clarifying the test cloth 

specifications and clothes dryer 

preconditioning, and making editorial 

and minor technical changes. 46 FR 

27324. The test procedure includes 

provisions for determining the energy 

factor (EF) for clothes dryers, which is 

a measure of the total energy required to 

dry a standard test load of laundry to a 

‘‘bone dry’’ 1 state. 

1. January 2011 Final Rule 

On January 6, 2011, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a final rule for the 

residential clothes dryer and room air 

conditioner test procedure rulemaking 

(76 FR 972) (January 2011 Final Rule), 

in which it (1) adopted the provisions 

for the measurement of standby mode 

and off mode energy use for those 

products; and (2) adopted several 

amendments to the clothes dryer and 

room air conditioner test procedures 

concerning the active mode for these 

products. 76 FR 972 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE 

created a new appendix D1 in 10 CFR 

part 430 subpart B that contained the 

amended test procedure for clothes 

dryers. Manufacturers must use the test 

procedures in appendix D1 to 

demonstrate compliance with energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers as of January 1, 2015. (76 FR 

52852 (Aug. 24, 2011), 76 FR 52854 

(Aug. 24, 2011)) 

For clothes dryer standby mode and 

off mode, the January 2011 Final Rule 

amended the DOE clothes dryer test 

procedure to incorporate by reference 

specific clauses from the IEC Standard 

62301, ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power,’’ (first edition June 2005) (IEC 

Standard 62301 First Edition) regarding 

test conditions and test procedures for 

measuring standby mode and off mode 

power consumption, as well as language 

to clarify application of these provisions 

for measuring standby mode and off 

mode power consumption in clothes 

dryers. In addition, DOE adopted 

definitions of modes based on the 

relevant provisions from IEC Standard 

62301 Second Edition Committee Draft 

for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV). 

DOE established the Combined Energy 

Factor (CEF) for clothes dryers to 

integrate energy use in the standby 

mode and off mode with the energy use 

of the main functions of the product.2

76 FR 972, 975–6 (Jan. 6, 2011). 

For clothes dryer active mode, in the 

January 2011 Final Rule, DOE adopted 

testing methods for ventless clothes 

dryers, test cloth preconditioning 

requirements for clothes dryer energy 

tests, test conditions for gas clothes 

dryers, test conditions for clothes dryer 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49610 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3The test method proposed in a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking involved testing 

clothes dryers with automatic termination controls 

using the ‘‘normal’’ setting (and where the 

temperature setting can be chosen independently of 

the program, DOE proposed to use the highest 

temperature level) and a test load with a starting 

moisture content of 57.5 ± 0.33 percent, allowing 

the dryer to run until the heater switches off for the 

final time at the end of the drying cycle to achieve 

a final remaining moisture content of no more than 

5 percent. 75 FR 37594, 37612–20 (June 29, 2010). 

4RMC is the ratio of the weight of water 

contained by the test load to the bone-dry weight 

of the test load, expressed as a percent. 

5The DOE test load is composed of cotton momie 

test cloths that are each 24 inches by 36 inches in 

dimensions and are a blend of 50-percent cotton 

and 50-percent polyester. 

6Most clothes dryers available on the market 

provide separate settings for the ‘‘temperature 

level’’ and ‘‘dryness level.’’ The temperature level 

refers to the temperature of the hot air used to dry 

the load in the drum. The dryness level refers to 

the desired remaining moisture content of the load 

at the completion of the drying cycle. 

drum capacity measurement, and 

amendments to reflect current clothes 

dryer usage patterns and capabilities 

and to update the references to the 

relevant industry test standard 

(Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HLD– 

1–2009). 76 FR 972, 976–8 (Jan. 6, 

2011). 

In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE 

did not adopt amendments to more 

accurately measure automatic cycle 

termination that were proposed earlier 

in the rulemaking 3 because DOE 

concluded that they did not adequately 

measure the energy consumption of 

clothes dryers equipped with such 

systems using the test load specified in 

the DOE test procedure. DOE stated that 

clothes dryers with automatic 

termination sensing control systems, 

which infer the RMC 4 of the load from 

the properties of the exhaust air such as 

temperature and humidity, may be 

designed to stop the cycle when a load 

of varying weights, composition, and 

size has a higher RMC than the RMC 

obtained using the proposed automatic 

cycle termination test procedure in 

conjunction with the existing DOE test 

load.5 In considering whether other test 

loads would be appropriate to 

incorporate into the DOE test procedure 

to produce both representative and 

repeatable test results, however, DOE 

noted that manufacturers indicated that 

test load types and test cloth materials 

different than those specified in the 

DOE test procedure do not produce 

results as repeatable as those obtained 

using the test load as currently 

specified. 76 FR 977 (Jan. 6, 2011). 

2. August 2011 RFI 

On August 12, 2011, DOE published 

a Request for Information (RFI) to 

further investigate the effects of 

automatic cycle termination on clothes 

dryer energy efficiency (August 2011 

RFI). 76 FR 50145. DOE sought 

information, data, and comments 

regarding methods for more accurately 

measuring the effects of automatic cycle 

termination in the clothes dryer test 

procedure. In particular, DOE sought 

comment on the following: (1) The 

characteristics of loads of varying 

weights, composition, and size, (2) the 

accuracy of different automatic cycle 

termination sensors and controls, (3) the 

target final RMC used by manufacturers 

to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4) 

the effects of the characteristics of water 

(i.e., hardness and conductivity) used 

for wetting the test load prior to testing, 

and (5) the cycle settings selected by 

consumers for automatic termination 

cycles. In response to the August 2011 

RFI, interested parties commented that 

DOE should amend the clothes dryer 

test procedure to include provisions to 

account for the effectiveness of 

automatic cycle termination and amend 

the relevant energy conservation 

standards based on the effects of the test 

procedure changes according to EPCA. 

3. January 2013 NOPR 

On January 2, 2013, DOE published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

(January 2013 NOPR) (78 FR 152) to 

propose amendments to the DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1, to include 

methods for more accurately measuring 

the effects of automatic cycle 

termination. DOE also proposed to 

update the reference to the latest edition 

of the IEC Standard 62301, ‘‘Household 

electrical appliances—Measurement of 

standby power,’’ Edition 2.0 2011–01 

(IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) or 

‘‘Second Edition’’) for measuring 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, along with additional 

clarifying language. For the test 

procedures at both appendix D and 

appendix D1, DOE proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR to clarify the cycle 

settings used for the test cycle and the 

requirements for the gas supply for gas 

clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 154–155 (Jan. 

2, 2013). DOE also held a public 

meeting on February 6, 2013 (hereafter 

referred to as the February 2013 public 

meeting) to hear oral comments on and 

solicit information relevant to the 

January 2013 NOPR. 

4. February 2013 SNOPR 

On February 7, 2013, DOE published 

a supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) to consider 

inquiries regarding specific provisions 

in the current clothes dryer test 

procedures (February 2013 SNOPR). 

DOE proposed amendments to clarify 

the installation conditions for console 

lights, the method for measuring the 

drum capacity, the maximum allowable 

scale range, and the allowable use of a 

relative humidity meter. 78 FR 8992 

(Feb. 7, 2013). 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Automatic Termination Control 

Procedures. 

In this final rule, DOE amends the test 

procedures for clothes dryers in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B to create a new 

appendix D2 to include methods for 

more accurately measuring the effects of 

automatic cycle termination. As 

discussed in section III.I.3, DOE 

determined that the amended automatic 

cycle termination test procedure for 

clothes dryers represents a significantly 

different testing methodology that may 

impact the energy consumption of some 

clothes dryers more than others and 

would potentially require additional 

product re-design to meet the January 1, 

2015 standards. As a result, to maintain 

the same basic test procedure that is 

required for use to determine 

compliance with the January 1, 2015 

clothes dryer standards, DOE is not 

amending appendix D1 in today’s final 

rule to include provisions for more 

accurately measuring the effects of 

automatic cycle termination. The newly 

created appendix D2 with such 

amendments will not be required for use 

to determine compliance with either the 

current or the January 1, 2015 energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers. DOE will continue to evaluate 

products on the market and collect data 

on clothes dryer automatic cycle 

termination to evaluate when the 

compliance date for the amended test 

procedure in appendix D2 will be 

required. 

The amended test method in 

appendix D2 requires that clothes dryers 

with automatic cycle termination 

controls be tested using the ‘‘Normal’’ 

automatic termination cycle setting. 

Where the drying temperature setting 

can be chosen independently, it shall be 

set to the maximum. Where the dryness 

level setting can be chosen 

independently, it shall be set to the 

‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘medium’’ dryness level 

setting.6 The amendments also specify 

that the clothes dryer be allowed to run 

until the completion of the drying cycle, 

including the cool-down period, to 

achieve a final RMC of no more than 2 

percent. If the final measured RMC is 

above 2 percent, the test shall be 

considered invalid and a new test cycle 

shall be run using the highest dryness 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49611 

level setting. DOE notes that a final 

RMC of 2 percent using the DOE test 

load is more representative of clothes 

dryers currently on the market than the 

5-percent final RMC specified in the 

existing test procedure and the new 

requirement is representative of the 

maximum consumer-accepted final 

RMC. DOE is including an additional 

clarification that the cycle shall be 

considered complete when the clothes 

dryer indicates to the user that the cycle 

has finished (by means of a display, 

indicator light, audible signal, or other 

signal) and the heater and drum/fan 

motor shuts off for the final time. If the 

clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle 

prevention feature (i.e., that 

continuously or intermittently tumbles 

the clothes dryer drum after the clothes 

dryer indicates to the user that the cycle 

has finished) that is activated by default 

in the condition as shipped by the 

manufacturer, the wrinkle prevention 

mode would be included in the test 

measurement cycle unless it precluded 

the necessary automatic termination 

cycle program, temperature setting, or 

dryness setting. In addition, if a 

manufacturer’s user manual specifies 

that the wrinkle prevention mode is 

recommended to be activated for normal 

use even if it is not done so in the asshipped condition, the product would 

be tested with the wrinkle prevention 

mode activated per manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to apply a field use factor of 

0.80 for clothes dryers with automatic 

cycle termination to account for the 

measured energy consumption at the 

end of the automatic termination cycle 

drying the DOE test load below 2- 

percent RMC. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 

2013). Based on comments from 

interested parties and review of 

available field use data, DOE 

determined that eliminating the field 

use factor for automatic termination 

control dryers will produce test results 

that are more representative of 

consumer use. As a result, in today’s 

final rule, DOE is eliminating the field 

use factor in appendix D2 for clothes 

dryers with automatic termination 

controls because the test method 

directly measures any over-drying 

energy consumption. 

For clothes dryers with only timed 

dry control settings, the amendments 

adopted in the new appendix D2 require 

that the existing timed dry test cycle be 

used, but change the allowable final 

RMC range from 2.5–5 percent to 1–2.5 

percent. DOE is also amending the test 

procedure in appendix D2 to change the 

normalization in the calculation of the 

per-cycle energy consumption to 

represent the energy consumption 

required to dry the test load to 2-percent 

RMC. These changes provide 

consistency with the test method for 

automatic cycle termination and are 

representative of the final RMC of 

clothes dryers currently on the market 

using the DOE test load. 

Appendix D2 may be used for 

informational purposes, but will not be 

required for use to determine 

compliance with either the current or 

the January 1, 2015 energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers. DOE is not 

amending appendix D1 in today’s final 

rule to include the amendments for 

more accurately measuring the effects of 

automatic cycle termination discussed 

above. 

B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition). 

The IEC published IEC Standard 

62301 (Second Edition) on January 27, 

2011. Consistent with EPCA 

requirements for amending test 

procedures to include standby and off 

mode procedures (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)), DOE analyzed this latest 

version of the IEC standard and 

determined that it provides for 

improvement for some measurements of 

standby mode and off mode energy use. 

Accordingly, DOE adopts amendments 

in today’s final rule to incorporate 

certain provisions of the IEC Standard 

62301 (Second Edition), along with 

clarifying language, into the DOE 

clothes dryer test procedures in both 

appendix D1 and appendix D2. 

C. Clarifications to Test Conditions. 

DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendices D, D1, and D2 to 

clarify: (1) The cycle settings used for 

the test cycle, (2) the requirements for 

the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, (3) 

the installation conditions for console 

lights, (4) the method for measuring the 

drum capacity, (5) the maximum 

allowable weighing scale range for drum 

capacity and test cloth measurements, 

and (6) the allowable use of a relative 

humidity meter. 

D. Summary of Test Provisions. 

Table II.1 presents the key test 

procedure provisions in appendix D, 

D1, and D2. 

TABLE II.1—TEST PROCEDURE PROVISIONS

Test provisions Appendix D Appendix D1 Appendix D2 

Standby/Off Mode Test Methods ... None ............................................. Incorporates by reference IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition) with additional clarifications.

Incorporates by reference IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition) with additional clarifications. 

Ventless Dryer Test Methods ........ No ................................................. Yes ................................................ Yes. 

Number of Cycles Per Year ........... 416 ................................................ 283 ................................................ 283. 

Referenced AHAM Standard ......... HLD–1–1974 ................................. HLD–1–2009 ................................. HLD–1–2009. 

Test Load Weight .......................... Standard Size Dryers: 7.00 ± .07 

pounds.

Standard Size Dryers: 8.45 ± .085 

pounds.

Standard Size Dryers: 8.45 ± .085 

pounds. 

Compact Size Dryers: 3.00 ± .03 

pounds.

Compact Size Dryers: 3.00 ± .03 

pounds.

Compact Size Dryers: 3.00 ± .03 

pounds. 

Detergent Specifications for Test 

Cloth Preconditioning.

AHAM Standard Test Detergent 

IIA.

AHAM Standard Test Detergent 

Formula 3.

AHAM Standard Test Detergent 

Formula 3. 

Water Temperature for Test Load 

Preparation.

100 °F ± 5 °F ................................ 60 °F ± 5 °F .................................. 60 °F ± 5 °F. 

Starting RMC of Test Load ............ 70 ± 3.5 percent ........................... 57.5 ± 3.5 percent ........................ 57.5 ± 0.33 percent. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49612 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7A notation in the form ‘‘Hydromatic, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24–27, 116–118’’ 

identifies an oral comment that DOE received 

during the February 6, 2013, NOPR public meeting, 

was recorded in the public meeting transcript in the 

docket for the residential clothes dryer test 

procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT– 

TP–0054), and is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers 

to a comment (1) made by the Hydromatic 

Technologies Corporation during the public 

meeting; (2) recorded in document number 10, 

which is the public meeting transcript that is filed 

in the docket of the residential clothes dryer test 

procedure rulemaking; and (3) which appears on 

pages 24–27 and 116–118 of document number 10. 

TABLE II.1—TEST PROCEDURE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Test provisions Appendix D Appendix D1 Appendix D2 

Cycle and Settings Used for Test .. Timed Dry Cycle, Maximum Temperature.Timed Dry Cycle, Maximum Temperature.Automatic Termination Control 

Dryers: ‘‘Normal’’ Automatic Dry 

Cycle; Maximum Temperature 

(if separately selectable); ‘‘Normal’’ or ‘‘Medium’’ Dryness (or, 

if no such designations, at midpoint between min. and max. 

settings). 

Timer Dryers: Timed Dry Cycle, 

Maximum Temperature. 

RMC of Test Load at Which Test 

is Stopped.

Stopped manually at 2.5–5 percent RMC.Stopped manually at 2.5–5 percent RMC.Automatic Termination Control 

Dryers: Allowed to run until 

completion of automatic cycle. 

Must be below 2-percent RMC 

or additional test with highest 

dryness level setting must be 

run. 

Timer Dryers: Stopped manually 

at 1–2.5 percent RMC. 

Cool Down ..................................... Clothes dryer not permitted to advance into cool down.Clothes dryer not permitted to advance into cool down.Cool down period included in 

automatic cycle test. 

Field Use Factor (multiplied by 

per-cycle energy consumption to 

account for over drying).

= 1.04 for automatic termination 

control dryers.

= 1.04 for automatic termination 

control dryers.

No field use factor for automatic 

termination control dryers. 

= 1.18 for timer dryers .................. = 1.18 for timer dryers .................. = 1.18 for timer dryers. 

Clarifications:.

• Cycle settings used for the 

test cycle 

Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes. 

• Requirements for the gas 

supply for gas clothes dryers 

• Installation conditions for 

console lights 

• Method for measuring the 

drum capacity 

• Maximum allowable scale 

range 

• Allowable use of a relative 

humidity meter 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by This Test 

Procedure Rulemaking 

Today’s amendments to DOE’s clothes 

dryer test procedure cover both electric 

and gas clothes dryers. DOE defines a 

clothes dryer to mean a cabinet-like 

appliance designed to dry fabrics in a 

tumble-type drum with forced air 

circulation, with blower(s) driven by an 

electric motor(s) and either gas or 

electricity as the heat source. 10 CFR 

430.2. DOE is not amending the 

definition for clothes dryers in DOE’s 

regulations. 

Hydromatic Technologies Corporation 

(Hydromatic) commented that its 

‘‘hybrid electric’’ clothes dryer should 

be a covered product and should be 

considered before setting any standards 

or test procedures. (Hydromatic, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24–27, 

116–118) 7 DOE notes that the 

Hydromatic’s clothes dryer would be 

considered a covered product under the 

definition of an electric clothes dryer in 

10 CFR 430.2 because the heat source is 

electricity. The definition does not limit 

electric clothes dryers to any specific 

method or technology by which the heat 

is generated from the electrical supply, 

such as an electric resistance heater or 

heat pump technology. 

B. Automatic Cycle Termination 

In today’s final rule, DOE is adopting 

amendments to the clothes dryer test 

procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B to create a new appendix D2 that 

includes methods to more accurately 

measure the effects of automatic cycle 

termination. DOE is not including these 

methods for automatic cycle termination 

in appendix D1 for the reasons 

discussed in section III.I.3. 

The DOE test procedures for clothes 

dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices D and D1 require 

manufacturers to apply a field use factor 

to the per-cycle drying energy 

consumption to determine the 

performance of clothes dryers equipped 

with both automatic cycle termination 

and timers. For clothes dryers with 

automatic termination control, the test 

procedures do not distinguish between 

the types of sensing control system (e.g., 

temperature-sensing or moisture-sensing 

controls) nor consider the sophistication 

and accuracy of the control system. Gas 

or electric clothes dryers with time 

termination control (i.e., those clothes 

dryers equipped with a timer to 

determine the end of a drying cycle) are 

assigned a field use factor of 1.18, while 

clothes dryers with automatic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49613 

termination are assigned a field use 

factor of 1.04. Because the test 

procedure requires the measurement of 

a timed drying cycle in which the tester 

manually stops the drying cycle when 

the test load reaches 2.5–5 percent RMC, 

the field use factors are intended to 

account for consumers that may dry 

loads beyond the 2.5–5 percent RMC 

specified in the test procedure. The field 

use factor for timer dryers was derived 

from a field study conducted by the 

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company in 

1971, consisting of 64 households and 

33,000 loads of clothing, as well as data 

reported by AHAM representing the 

energy consumption in 1972 of 

2,983,200 production units of clothes 

dryers. 42 FR 46145, 46146 (Sept. 14, 

1977). For automatic termination 

control dryers, the field use factor was 

derived from a field study conducted by 

AHAM in 1977 involving 72 

households. 45 FR 46762–63 (July 10, 

1980); 46 FR 27324 (May 19, 1981). 

In an SNOPR published on June 29, 

2010 (75 FR 37594) (June 2010 SNOPR) 

in advance of the January 2011 Final 

Rule, DOE proposed to revise its clothes 

dryer test procedure to include 

definitions of, and provisions for, 

testing both timer dryers and automatic 

termination control dryers based on the 

methodology provided in Australia/New 

Zealand (AS/NZS) Standard 2442.1: 

1996, ‘‘Performance of household 

electrical appliances—Rotary clothes 

dryers, Part 1: Energy consumption and 

performance’’ (AS/NZS Standard 

2442.1) and AS/NZS Standard 2442.2: 

2000, ‘‘Performance of household 

electrical appliances—Rotary clothes 

dryers, Part 2: Energy labeling 

requirements’’ (AS/NZS Standard 

2442.2). 75 FR 37594, 37598 (June 29, 

2010). DOE proposed to incorporate the 

testing methods from these international 

test standards, along with a number of 

clarifications, to measure the energy 

consumption for both timer dryers and 

automatic termination control dryers. 

The measurement would account for the 

energy consumed by the clothes dryer 

after the load reaches an RMC of 5 

percent. 75 FR 37594, 37599 (June 29, 

2010). The proposed test method in the 

June 2010 SNOPR specified that a 

clothes dryer with automatic cycle 

termination controls be tested using the 

‘‘normal’’ cycle setting, and where the 

temperature setting can be chosen 

independently of the program, it would 

be set to the highest level. The clothes 

dryer would then be allowed to run 

until the heater switched off for the final 

time at the end of the drying cycle. If the 

final RMC was higher than 5 percent, 

the test would be re-run using the 

highest dryness level setting. Id. 

In addition to the provisions for 

automatic termination control dryers, 

DOE also proposed testing methods in 

the June 2010 SNOPR for timer dryers 

based on AS/NZS Standard 2442.1. The 

proposed test method specified that the 

clothes dryer be operated at the 

maximum temperature setting until the 

final RMC of the load was between 5 

and 6 percent. The procedure would 

then be repeated to dry the load until 

the final RMC was between 4 and 5 

percent, with the results from these two 

tests used to interpolate the value of the 

per-cycle energy consumption required 

to dry the test load to exactly 5-percent 

RMC. 75 FR 37594, 37617 (June 29, 

2010). 

As discussed in the January 2011 

Final Rule, DOE conducted testing of 

representative residential clothes dryers 

using the automatic cycle termination 

test procedure proposed in the June 

2010 SNOPR. The results of the testing 

revealed that all of the clothes dryers 

tested significantly over-dried the DOE 

test load to near bone dry and, as a 

result, the measured EF values were 

significantly lower than EF values 

obtained using the existing DOE test 

procedure in appendix D. 76 FR 972, 

977 (Jan. 6, 2011). In the January 2011 

Final Rule, DOE concluded that the test 

procedure amendments for automatic 

cycle termination proposed in the June 

2010 SNOPR do not adequately measure 

the energy consumption of clothes 

dryers equipped with such systems 

using the test load specified in the DOE 

test procedure. Clothes dryers with 

automatic termination sensing control 

systems may infer the RMC of the load 

from the properties of the exhaust air 

such as temperature and humidity or by 

using conductivity sensor bars to 

determine the amount of moisture in the 

load when the load comes in contact 

with the sensors. DOE noted in the 

January 2011 Final Rule that these 

automatic termination sensing control 

systems may be designed for consumer 

use to dry loads of varying weights, 

composition, and size, which may have 

different moisture retention properties 

than the existing DOE test load, and 

therefore, may result in a higher 

measured RMC than the RMC obtained 

using the existing DOE test load with 

the proposed automatic cycle 

termination test procedure. In 

considering whether other test loads 

would be appropriate to incorporate 

into the DOE test procedure to produce 

both representative and repeatable test 

results, however, DOE noted that 

manufacturers indicated that test load 

types and test cloth materials different 

than those specified in the DOE test 

procedure do not produce results as 

repeatable as those obtained using the 

test load as currently specified. As a 

result, in the January 2011 Final Rule, 

DOE did not adopt the amendments to 

more accurately measure automatic 

cycle termination that were originally 

proposed in the June 2010 TP SNOPR. 

76 FR 972, 977–78 (Jan. 6, 2011). 

1. Joint Petition To Amend the Clothes 

Dryer Test Procedure 

As discussed in section I of this 

notice, DOE published the August 2011 

RFI to further investigate the effects of 

automatic cycle termination on clothes 

dryer energy efficiency. 76 FR 50145 

(Aug. 12, 2011). DOE sought 

information, data, and comments 

regarding methods for more accurately 

measuring the effects of automatic cycle 

termination in the residential clothes 

dryer test procedure. In particular, DOE 

sought comment on the following: (1) 

The characteristics of loads of varying 

weights, composition, and size, (2) the 

accuracy of different automatic cycle 

termination sensors and controls, (3) the 

target final RMC used by manufacturers 

to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4) 

the effects of the characteristics of water 

(i.e., hardness and conductivity) used 

for wetting the test load prior to testing, 

and (5) the cycle settings selected by 

consumers for automatic termination 

cycles. 

In response to the August 2011 RFI, 

DOE received the ‘‘Joint Petition to 

Amend the Test Procedure for 

Residential Clothes Dryers to Include 

Provisions Related to Automatic 

Termination Controls’’ (the ‘‘Joint 

Petition’’), a comment submitted by 

groups representing manufacturers 

(AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation 

(Whirlpool), General Electric Company 

(GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. 

(LG), BSH Home Appliances (BSH), 

Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking 

Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, 

U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, 

Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, 

Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, 

Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, 

Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, 

Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and 

environmental advocates (American 

Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE), Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), 

Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and 

consumer groups (Consumer Federation 

of America (CFA) and the National 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8A notation in the form ‘‘Joint Petition, No. 3 at 

pp. 1, 4–5’’ identifies a written comment: (1) Made 

by the Joint Petition; (2) recorded in document 

number 2 that is filed in the docket of the 

residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054) and 

available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) 

that appears on pages 1 and 4–5 of document 

number 2. 

Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) 

(collectively, the ‘‘Joint Petitioners’’). 

The Joint Petitioners commented that 

DOE should amend the clothes dryer 

test procedure to include provisions to 

account for the effectiveness of 

automatic cycle termination. (Joint 

Petition, No. 3 at pp. 1, 4–5) 8

The Joint Petitioners recognized 

DOE’s concerns that the amendments 

for automatic cycle termination 

proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR may 

not properly measure the effectiveness 

of automatic termination controls, 

particularly in light of data that 

suggested that automatic termination 

control dryers may in fact be drying 

clothes to approximately 5-percent RMC 

rather than the less than 2-percent RMC 

resulting from testing using the DOE test 

cloth. The Joint Petitioners noted that 

the DOE test cloth is uniform, for 

purposes of repeatability and 

reproducibility, but likely dries faster 

and more uniformly than a load of 

varying weights, composition, and size. 

(Joint Petition, No. 3 at p. 5) 

As part of the Joint Petition, AHAM 

members provided test data on clothes 

dryers with automatic termination 

controls representing 60 percent of 

shipments, measuring the final RMC at 

the completion of a ‘‘normal’’ automatic 

cycle, including cool down, using the 

DOE test load. The data showed that all 

tested models had a final RMC below 2 

percent. The Joint Petitioners stated that 

because there are few consumer 

complaints that automatic termination 

control dryers do not dry clothes, this 

market-representative final RMC from 

testing using the DOE test cloth best 

approximates the maximum consumeraccepted final RMC. (Joint Petition, No. 

3 at pp. 5–6) 

Based on this data, the Joint 

Petitioners stated that DOE should 

amend the clothes dryer test procedure 

to include the full automatic 

termination cycle, including cool down. 

The Joint Petitioners stated that testing 

the entire cycle is more representative of 

actual consumer use and is less of a test 

burden for manufacturers than DOE’s 

proposal in the June 2010 SNOPR to 

stop the clothes dryer when the heater 

switches off for the final time at the end 

of the drying cycle. In addition, the Joint 

Petitioners commented that the test 

procedure should be amended to state 

that the final RMC when testing units 

with automatic termination controls 

shall be no more than 2 percent when 

testing with the DOE test load to be 

representative of clothes dryers 

currently on the market. Any test in 

which the final RMC is 2 percent or less 

should be considered valid. If the final 

RMC is greater than 2 percent, the test 

would be invalid and a new test run 

would be conducted using the highest 

dryness level setting. (Joint Petition, No. 

3 at p. 6) 

AHAM withdrew its support for the 

petition in a letter to DOE dated May 29, 

2012, stating that the petition was 

predicated on DOE’s adoption of test 

procedure provisions to account for 

automatic termination controls by 

December 31, 2011. (AHAM, No. 5 at 

pp. 1–2) DOE acknowledged AHAM’s 

withdrawal but continued to consider 

the substantive provisions to account for 

such controls. 

2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis 

For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

selected a representative sample of 20 

clothes dryers encompassing all clothes 

dryer product classes to evaluate 

potential amendments for automatic 

cycle termination. DOE considered 

features such as rated energy factor, 

rated capacity, control type (i.e., 

electromechanical versus electronic), 

and automatic cycle termination sensor 

technology (if advertised) when 

selecting units to be most representative 

of products currently available on the 

U.S. market. DOE initially conducted 

testing for all test units according to the 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1. 

Appendix D1 requires that the DOE test 

load, initially soaked with an RMC of 

57.5 ± 3.5 percent, be dried using the 

timed dry and maximum temperature 

settings until the test load has reached 

a final RMC of 2.5 to 5 percent without 

allowing the clothes dryer to advance 

into a cool-down phase. A field use 

factor is then applied to the measured 

per-cycle energy consumption to 

account for the over-drying energy 

consumption associated with the use of 

either timer dryers or automatic 

termination control dryers. DOE then 

conducted testing of these units using 

automatic cycle termination test 

methodologies with different test loads 

to evaluate the effects of these potential 

test procedure amendments on the 

measured efficiency as compared to the 

existing DOE test procedure in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D1. DOE 

also conducted additional testing to 

evaluate repeatability and 

reproducibility of the test results. 78 FR 

152, 157–158 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

In conducting the testing for the 

January 2013 NOPR, DOE used the DOE 

test load and the test load specified in 

both the AHAM clothes dryer test 

standard HLD–1–2009, ‘‘Household 

Tumble Type Clothes Dryers,’’ and the 

IEC test standard 61121, ‘‘Tumble dryers 

for household use—Methods for 

measuring the performance,’’ Edition 3 

(2005), which consists of cotton bed 

sheets, towels, and pillowcases. DOE 

concluded in the August 2011 RFI that 

clothes dryers with automatic 

termination sensing control systems 

may be designed to stop the cycle when 

a load of varying weights, composition, 

and size has a higher RMC than the 

RMC obtained using the automatic 

termination drying cycle in conjunction 

with the existing DOE test load. 76 FR 

50145, 50146 (Aug. 12, 2011). 

As part of the January 2013 NOPR, 

DOE conducted the testing for the 

proposed automatic cycle termination 

test methodology according to the DOE 

test procedure in appendix D1, with the 

following modifications. The test load 

was prepared with a starting RMC of 

57.5 percent ± 0.33 percent. The 

controls were set as follows: 

• Instead of using the timed dry cycle 

setting, the ‘‘normal’’ automatic 

termination cycle setting was selected. If 

a ‘‘normal’’ cycle setting was not 

provided, then the test cycle 

recommended by manufacturers for 

drying cotton or linen clothes was used. 

• Where the temperature setting 

could be chosen independently of the 

program, the highest level was selected. 

• Where the dryness level setting 

could be chosen independently of the 

program, it was set to the ‘‘normal’’ or 

‘‘medium’’ level. If such designation 

was not provided, then the dryness level 

was set at the mid-point between the 

minimum and maximum settings. 78 FR 

152, 158 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

The clothes dryer was then allowed to 

run until the completion of the cycle, 

including the cool-down period. At the 

completion of the cycle, the clothes 

were weighed to determine the final 

RMC. If the final RMC was below 2 

percent for the DOE test load, the test 

was considered valid. If the RMC was 

higher than 2 percent (i.e., the test load 

contained more moisture than would be 

acceptable to consumers), the test was 

considered invalid and was re-run using 

the highest dryness level setting. DOE 

selected the 2-percent RMC threshold 

based on data presented in the Joint 

Petitioners’ comment regarding RMC 

levels acceptable to consumers, 

discussed above. For the IEC/AHAM 

test load, similar test conditions were 

applied except that the threshold value 

for the final RMC was changed from 2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49615 

9For this series of tests, DOE did not make any 

modifications to the water used to wet the test 

loads. 

percent to 5 percent because of the more 

varied composition of the IEC/AHAM 

test load. Id. 

For each specific testing methodology, 

DOE conducted a series of three 

identical tests for each model to 

evaluate the repeatability of test 

results.9 DOE presented the test results 

in the January 2013 NOPR, which are 

summarized in Table III.1. DOE noted in 

the January 2013 NOPR that for the 

automatic cycle termination tests using 

the DOE test load, all of the tests 

resulted in a lower measured CEF (i.e., 

higher per-cycle energy use) compared 

to the DOE test procedure, ranging from 

a 3.5 percent to 41.9 percent decrease in 

CEF. Similarly, for the automatic cycle 

termination tests using the IEC/AHAM 

test load, DOE noted that all of the tests 

resulted in a lower measured CEF 

compared to the DOE test procedure, 

ranging from a 6.1 percent to 40.3 

percent decrease. In addition, the 

majority of tested units had a lower CEF 

for the automatic cycle termination test 

with the IEC/AHAM test load than with 

the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 159–160 

(Jan. 2, 2013). 

TABLE III.1—JANUARY 2013 NOPR DOE TEST PROCEDURE AND AUTOMATIC CYCLE TERMINATION TEST RESULTS

Product class 

DOE test 

procedure 

(Appendix D1) 

Automatic cycle 

termination—DOE test load 

Automatic cycle 

termination—IEC/AHAM test load 

CEF (lb/kWh) CEF 1 (lb/kWh) % Change CEF 1 (lb/kWh) % Change 

Vented Electric Standard ................................. 3.79 3.16 ¥16.6 3.03 ¥20.0 

Vented Electric Compact (240V) ..................... 3.54 2.79 ¥21.1 2.68 ¥24.4 

Vented Electric Compact (120V) ..................... 3.75 2.18 ¥41.9 2.42 ¥35.6 

Vented Gas ...................................................... 3.39 2.92 ¥13.9 2.79 ¥17.7 

Ventless Electric Compact (240V) ................... 2.98 2.73 ¥8.4 2.63 ¥11.9 

Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer .. 2.54 2.45 ¥3.9 2.29 ¥9.7 

1 No field use factor for automatic cycle termination applied to results. 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also 

presented the average final RMC from 

the automatic cycle termination tests 

with both the DOE and IEC/AHAM test 

loads, as well as the cycle settings used 

for each test unit. The test data showed 

that the final RMC ranged from 0.4 

percent to 2.0 percent for the DOE test 

load and 1.3 to 4.7 percent for the IEC/ 

AHAM test load. DOE also noted that 

for nearly all of the test units, the 

average final RMC was higher for the 

tests using the IEC/AHAM test load. The 

higher measured per-cycle energy use 

and final RMC for the IEC/AHAM test 

load compared to the DOE test load is 

likely due to the ability of the IEC/ 

AHAM test load to retain more water 

during the drying process than the DOE 

test load, which gives off moisture more 

readily and terminates the drying cycle 

sooner. In addition, as discussed above, 

clothes dryers with automatic 

termination sensing control systems 

may be designed to stop the cycle when 

a load of varying weights, composition, 

and size has a higher RMC than the 

RMC obtained using the DOE test load. 

78 FR 152, 160 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR 

that manufacturers have indicated that 

test load types and test cloth materials 

different than those specified in the 

DOE test procedure do not produce 

results as repeatable as those obtained 

using the DOE test load. Therefore, for 

each test unit, DOE examined the testto-test variation in CEF among the three 

tests conducted using the DOE test 

procedure and among the three tests 

using the automatic cycle termination 

test methodology. DOE presented the 

test-to-test variation results in the 

January 2013 NOPR, which are 

summarized in Table III.2. The analysis 

showed that the test-to-test variation for 

the automatic cycle termination tests 

with the DOE test load is slightly lower 

than the test-to-test variation with the 

IEC/AHAM test load, and that both are 

higher than the test-to-test variation for 

the DOE test procedure. DOE noted that 

the more consistent results for the 

current DOE test procedure are likely 

due to the use of the timed dry cycle 

rather than the automatic termination 

cycles, which may have additional 

variation in results due to the 

performance of temperature and 

moisture sensors and the automatic 

termination control strategies. 78 FR 

152, 160–161 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

TABLE III.2—JANUARY 2013 NOPR CEF TEST-TO-TEST VARIATION

CEF Test-to-test variation (%) 

DOE test 

procedure 

(Appendix D1) 

Automatic cycle 

termination— 

DOE test load 

Automatic cycle 

termination— 

IEC/AHAM test 

load 

Minimum .......................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.16 0.16 

Maximum ......................................................................................................................... 2.08 5.7 6.44 

Average ............................................................................................................................ 0.87 1.87 2.07 

In the January 2013 NOPR, to evaluate 

the effect of test load composition on 

repeatability, DOE then ran appendix 

D1 again for a subset of 10 of the clothes 

dryers in its test sample, using the IEC/ 

AHAM test cloth instead of the DOE test 

cloth. For each of these units, DOE 

conducted three repeat tests. DOE stated 

that it believes that using the timed dry 

cycle and requiring that the clothes 

dryer be stopped manually allow for 

better evaluation of the effect of the test 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

load composition alone on repeatability 

by limiting other factors, such as 

automatic termination sensor 

performance, that may contribute to 

variability of results from test to test. 

The results from this testing were 

presented in the January 2013 NOPR 

and are summarized in Table III.3. The 

results showed a test-to-test variation in 

CEF (expressed in terms of standard 

error) of 1.02 percent for the IEC/AHAM 

test load as compared to the 0.87 

percent test-to-test variation for the DOE 

timed dry test procedure with the DOE 

test load. 78 FR 152, 161 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

TABLE III.3—JANUARY 2013 NOPR 

CEF TEST-TO-TEST VARIATION FOR

APPENDIX D1 WITH IEC/AHAM 

TEST LOADS

Timed Dry-IEC/AHAM 

test load— 

CEF test-to-test 

standard error 

(%) 

Minimum ............... 0.31 

Maximum .............. 1.42 

Average ................ 1.02 

DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR 

that in addition to the use of the IEC/ 

AHAM test load producing less 

repeatable results from test to test, the 

reproducibility of test results from lab to 

lab must also be considered because 

different test laboratories may be using 

different lots of test cloth. To evaluate 

the reproducibility of test results from 

lab to lab, DOE conducted testing of 9 

units at an independent test laboratory 

with different lots of the DOE and IEC/ 

AHAM test loads using the automatic 

cycle termination test method. The 

results showed that the lab-to-lab 

reproducibility of test results was, on 

average, 3.0 percent for the existing DOE 

test load and 4.7 percent for the IEC/ 

AHAM test load. 78 FR 152, 161–162 

(Jan. 2, 2013). 

As part of the automatic cycle 

termination testing for the January 2013 

NOPR, DOE tested a number of units in 

the test sample at an independent test 

laboratory that measured and recorded 

the energy consumption and an 

estimated instantaneous RMC of the test 

load throughout the test cycle. The 

estimated RMC was determined based 

on the weight of the test load, measured 

in place during the test cycle, and the 

rotation of the drum. Based on this 

testing, DOE decided to develop a field 

use factor to account for the over-drying 

energy consumption using the 

automatic cycle termination test method 

with the DOE test load at the end of the 

cycle when the load is dried below 2- 

percent RMC. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan. 2, 

2013). 

Using the independent test 

laboratory’s data, DOE evaluated the 

measured energy consumption at 

different times during the cycle—when 

the test load initially reached 5-percent 

RMC, when it reached 2-percent RMC, 

and at the end of the cycle (including 

after cool down). The test data showed 

that the energy consumption measured 

over a full automatic termination dry 

cycle is 11–72 percent greater than the 

energy consumption during the test 

cycle when the test load initially 

reaches 5-percent RMC, and 4–62 

percent greater than the energy 

consumption when the test load 

initially reaches 2-percent RMC (before 

any moisture regain during cool down/ 

tumbling). DOE also noted that while 

the final RMC of the DOE test load using 

the automatic cycle termination test 

method was between 0.4 percent and 

2.0 percent at the completion of the test 

cycle for all of the clothes dryers in 

DOE’s test sample, this RMC was 

achieved either after the end of a cooldown period, during which the clothes 

dryer tumbles with no added heat after 

the conclusion of the heated drying, or 

after an extended period of operation at 

nearly 0-percent RMC when the heater 

is cycled off and on. The independent 

test laboratory’s data showed that 

during cool down or non-heated 

tumbling, the test load regains moisture 

from the room air. As a result, the final 

RMC of the test load at the completion 

of the cycle after the cool-down/ 

tumbling period is higher than the RMC 

of the load when the heater turns off for 

the final time. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan. 2, 

2013). 

TABLE III.4—JANUARY 2013 NOPR—MEASURED AUTOMATIC CYCLE TERMINATION ENERGY CONSUMPTION AT SPECIFIC

RMC LEVELS

Product class Test unit Automatic cycle termination sensor 

technology 

Energy consumption 

(kWh) 

5% RMC 2% RMC 

End of cycle 

(measured 

RMC 

(%)) 1

Vented Electric Standard .................. 1 Moisture + Temp .............................. 1.945 2.070 2.624 (1.2) 

2 Temperature ..................................... 2.068 2.233 3.119 (0.9) 

4 Moisture + Temp .............................. 2.160 2.318 2.405 (0.7) 

6 Moisture + Temp .............................. 2.091 2.280 3.141 (1.9) 

Vented Electric Compact (240V) ...... 10 Temperature ..................................... 0.823 0.875 1.418 (2.0) 

Vented Gas ....................................... 13 Moisture + Temp .............................. 2.375 2.569 2.905 (0.8) 

15 Moisture + Temp .............................. 2.347 2.532 3.161 (1.2) 

17 Moisture + Temp .............................. 2.300 2.482 2.843 (1.2) 

1As noted above, the test load regained moisture during the cool-down/tumbling period. 

Based on the test data, DOE noted that 

for all of the clothes dryers tested at the 

independent test laboratory, the DOE 

test load reached 2-percent RMC before 

the clothes dryer initially began cycling 

the heater on and off. The test data also 

showed that the cool-down/tumbling 

period can contribute a significant 

amount of energy consumption 

associated with over-drying and 

moisture regain when using the DOE 

test load. DOE observed that two test 

units, both of which used the same 

moisture sensor technology and dried 

the test load to final RMCs of close to 

1 percent at the end of the cycle, had 

significantly different total measured 

energy consumption. One of these test 

units achieved this final RMC with only 

a brief cool-down period, while the 

other test unit repeatedly heated, 

tumbled, and regained moisture before 

the final cool down. DOE stated in the 

January 2013 NOPR that it believes that 

the difference in energy consumption 

between these two units is most likely 

a function of the control strategy rather 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49617 

10 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

section 2.6.3 requires the use of soft water with 17 

parts per million hardness or less. 

than the accuracy of the sensors. 78 FR 

152, 163–166 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

As part of the January 2013 NOPR, 

DOE conducted further analysis to 

develop an appropriate field use factor 

to account for the measured energy 

consumption at the end of the automatic 

termination cycle below 2-percent RMC 

using the DOE test load (including any 

cool-down/tumbling period). DOE 

calculated a field use factor of 0.80 for 

automatic termination control dryers by 

taking the average of the difference 

between the measured energy 

consumption to initially reach 2-percent 

RMC and the measured energy 

consumption at the end of the test cycle. 

78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 2013). The 

results of this analysis showing the 

application of the 0.8 field use factor are 

presented in Table III.5. 

TABLE III.5—JANUARY 2013 NOPR—AUTOMATIC CYCLE TERMINATION TEST RESULTS WITH ADJUSTED FIELD USE

FACTOR

Product class Test unit 

Per-cycle energy consumption 

(kWh) 

2% RMC End of test— 

measured 

End of test—field 

adjusted 

Vented Electric Standard ................................................................. 1 2.070 2.624 2.099 

2 2.233 3.119 2.495 

4 2.318 2.405 1.924 

6 2.280 3.141 2.513 

Vented Electric Compact (240V) ..................................................... 10 0.875 1.418 1.134 

Vented Gas ...................................................................................... 13 2.569 2.905 2.324 

15 2.532 3.161 2.528 

17 2.482 2.843 2.274 

DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR 

that the IEC recently revised its test 

standard for clothes dryers, IEC 

Standard 61121. 78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 

2013). IEC Standard 61121 Fourth 

Edition, which published in February 

2012, notes that the characteristics of 

the water used for wetting the test load 

prior to the test, particularly the 

conductivity, can influence the test 

results when testing automatic 

termination control dryers with 

moisture sensors. Clothes dryers with 

moisture sensors use conductivity 

sensor bars to determine the amount of 

moisture in the load when the load 

comes in contact with the sensors. Table 

III.6 provides the characteristics of 

either soft or hard water to be used for 

appliance testing under IEC Standard 

61121. 

TABLE III.6—IEC STANDARD 61121 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPOSITION OF SOFT AND HARD WATER FOR CLOTHES DRYER

TESTING

Property Unit 

Water type 

Standard soft 

water 

Standard hard 

water 

Total hardness ........................................................... Millimols per liter (mmol/l) (Ca2∂/Mg2∂) ................... 0.50 ± 0.20 ....... 2.50 ± 0.20 

Conductivity (at 20°C) ................................................ Microsiemens per centimeter (μS/cm) ...................... 150 ± 50 ........... 750 ± 150 

In the August 2011 RFI, DOE 

requested information and data on these 

effects of the characteristics of the water 

used to wet the test load on the 

measured efficiency, as well as any 

potential testing burden associated with 

the requirements for modifying the 

water supply used for wetting the test 

load. DOE did not receive any 

comments or information on this issue. 

DOE conducted testing for the January 

2013 NOPR to evaluate the effects of 

using supply water modified to meet the 

specifications in the IEC Standard 61121 

on the measured efficiency compared to 

using supply water according to the 

requirements of appendix D1. For this 

series of tests, DOE conducted tests on 

16 units using the same automatic cycle 

termination methodology discussed 

above, except that the water used to wet 

the test load prior to the test met the 

conditions presented in Table III.6 for 

standard soft water. 78 FR 152, 167 (Jan. 

2, 2013). DOE selected the soft water 

requirements from IEC Standard 61121 

rather than the hard water requirements 

to more closely match the existing DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure, which also 

requires the use of soft water.10 For each 

test method, DOE again conducted three 

identical tests for each test unit. The test 

results did not show a correlation 

between the average measured CEF and 

water supply specifications for the 

automatic cycle termination tests with 

either the DOE or IEC/AHAM test loads. 

Similar to the measured CEF discussed 

above, there was no definitive 

correlation between the average 

measured final RMC or the test-to-test 

variation and the water supply 

specifications. Based on the test results, 

DOE determined that the modifications 

to the water supply specified in IEC 

Standard 61121 did not have a 

definitive effect on the measured CEF as 

compared to the water requirements 

specified in the existing DOE test 

procedure. In addition, the repeatability 

testing showed that the IEC water 

hardness specifications did not improve 

overall the test-to-test repeatability. 78 

FR 152, 167–169 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

DOE conducted additional testing on 

two clothes dryers to evaluate the labto-lab reproducibility using both supply 

water specifications in automatic cycle 

termination tests with the IEC/AHAM 

test load. These tests showed that the 

IEC supply water may produce more 

reproducible results from lab to lab with 

the IEC/AHAM test load. DOE noted, 

however, that the percentage difference 

in test results from lab to lab was within 

the test-to-test variation for a given lab 

using the IEC/AHAM test load. For 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49618 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

these reasons, DOE did not propose 

amendments in the January 2013 NOPR 

to include in the amendments to 

appendix D1 the supply water 

specifications from IEC Standard 61121. 

DOE noted that if additional test results 

are made available showing that IEC 

supply water characteristics produce 

more repeatable and reproducible test 

results than the requirements in 

appendix D1, DOE may consider such 

amendments in a future test procedure 

rulemaking. 78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 

2013). 

3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed 

Amendments and Today’s Final Rule 

Based on the testing and analysis 

discussed above, DOE proposed 

amendments to the clothes dryer test 

procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D1 in the January 2013 

NOPR to more accurately measure the 

energy consumption of automatic 

termination control dryers. 78 FR 152, 

169 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

a. Definitions 

DOE proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR to amend the clothes dryer test 

procedure in appendix D1 to add 

definitions for both automatic 

termination control dryers and timer 

dryers. DOE proposed to define 

‘‘automatic termination control dryer’’ 

as a clothes dryer that can be preset to 

carry out at least one sequence of 

operations to be terminated by means of 

a system assessing, directly or 

indirectly, the moisture content of the 

load. An automatic termination control 

dryer with a supplementary timer or 

that may also be manually controlled 

would be tested as an automatic 

termination control dryer. DOE 

proposed to define ‘‘timer dryer’’ as a 

clothes dryer that can be preset to carry 

out at least one operation to be 

terminated by a timer, but may also be 

manually controlled, and does not 

include any automatic termination 

function. 78 FR 152, 169–170 (Jan. 2, 

2013). 

AHAM and ALS commented that they 

did not oppose the proposed definitions 

for automatic termination control dryer 

and timer dryer. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 

12; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) Based on these 

comments and the discussion above, 

DOE is adopting these definitions for 

automatic termination control dryer and 

timer dryer in today’s final rule. 

b. Test Load 

The existing DOE test procedure in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

section 2.6 specifies that the test load be 

composed of 50-percent cotton and 50- 

percent polyester momie weave cloth. 

Section 2.7 in appendix D1 requires that 

test loads be prepared with a starting 

RMC of 57.5 percent ± 3.5 percent. DOE 

proposed amendments in January 2013 

NOPR to change the starting RMC from 

57.5 percent ± 3.5 percent to 57.5 

percent ± 0.33 percent. DOE stated in 

the January 2013 NOPR that it believes 

that the starting RMC of 57.5 percent ± 

0.33 percent, which was used for the 

testing presented above, and originally 

proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR, 

would produce the most repeatable 

results, particularly for automatic 

termination control dryers. DOE noted 

that allowing a wide range in the 

starting RMC, such as the ± 3.5 percent 

specified in the current DOE test 

procedure, would result in significantly 

different results using the proposed 

automatic cycle termination test 

procedure because a test load with a 

starting RMC of 61 percent would 

contain approximately 0.6 pounds (lb) 

of water more than a test load with a 

starting RMC of 54 percent for standardsize loads. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

As a result, DOE specifically proposed 

to amend 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix D1, section 2.7.1, ‘‘Compact 

size dryer load,’’ and section 2.7.2, 

‘‘Standard size dryer load,’’ to require 

that water be extracted from the wet test 

loads by spinning the load until the 

moisture content of the load is 52.5– 

57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of 

the test load. Final mass adjustments 

would be made, such that the moisture 

content is 57.5 percent ± 0.33 percent by 

adding water uniformly to the load in a 

very fine spray. DOE noted that 

requiring water to be extracted to 

achieve an RMC between 52.5 percent 

and 57.5 percent would serve as an 

initial preparation step prior to the final 

mass adjustments to obtain a test load 

with an RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33 percent 

proposed above. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 

2013). 

Test Load Composition 

In response to the January 2013 

NOPR, The Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) and NPCC jointly 

commented (hereafter ‘‘NEEA & NPCC’’) 

that the DOE test load is not 

representative of the laundry loads 

being dried in a representative average 

use cycle. NEEA & NPCC stated that the 

data from the NEEA residential laundry 

field use study, which included 50 

households in the Pacific Northwest 

United States metered from January 

2012 to March 2012, show that the 

fabrics in the loads being washed and 

dried are much heavier than those in the 

DOE test load. NEEA & NPCC added 

that the outcomes for the field data, in 

terms of RMC from the clothes washer, 

drying cycle time, and clothes dryer 

energy use, are all substantially different 

than those produced using the test 

procedure proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3– 

4, 10; NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at p. 114; NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 17) NEEA added 

that: (1) The current DOE test load is 

consistent and the ply is fairly thin, (2) 

the IEC Standard 61121 mixed load has 

thinner fabric but more cotton than the 

DOE load, (3) the IEC Standard 61121 

cotton load is also fairly thin and not 

substantively different than the DOE 

ply, (4) the AS/NZS Standard 2442 load 

is mostly cotton and has a large range 

of ply thicknesses and resembles loads 

that are seen in the field, and (5) the 

AHAM HLD–1–1992 test load is cotton 

and has a large range of ply thicknesses. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San 

Diego Gas and Electric Company, and 

Southern California Edison (hereafter 

‘‘California Investor Owned Utilities 

(IOUs)’’) and NEEA commented that the 

test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation based 

on DOE’s testing is slightly higher for 

the IEC cotton load as compared to the 

DOE test load, but, given that the 

amount of energy that it takes to dry the 

IEC cotton load is greater, the results as 

a percentage of per-cycle energy use are 

not significantly different. The 

California IOUs added that, given the far 

greater differences observed between the 

actual clothes dryer energy use per load 

in the field and what is measured using 

the DOE test procedure, this minimal 

increase in testing variability is 

justifiable to provide an accurate 

representation of energy use. (NEEA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 

17, 19–21, 22; California IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 64) 

NEEA & NPCC and the California 

IOUs noted that when DOE tested the 

IEC/AHAM test load and allowed the 

clothes dryers to shut off at 5-percent 

RMC or less (rather than 2-percent RMC 

with the DOE test load), all of the 

clothes dryers used more energy per 

load but left the clothes less dry than 

the tests with the DOE test load. The 

California IOUs added that the average 

efficiency drop from the existing 

appendix D1 results was 3.9 percent for 

automatic termination with the DOE test 

load and 9.7 percent with the IEC/ 

AHAM test load and that the choice of 

a test load affects the final test outcome 

more than the choice of final RMC or 

most of the other factors being 

considered in the test procedure. NEEA 

& NPCC and the California IOUs 

commented that this difference would 

increase with an even more realistic test 

load, such as the AHAM HLD–1–1992 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49619 

11The 5 tested clothes dryers included: (1) A 

dryer with temperature sensing, (2) a dryer with 

stationary moisture sensing bars, (3) a dryer with 

moisture sensing bars that rotate with the drum, (4) 

a dryer with an exhaust air-to-air heat exchanger, 

and (5) a heat pump clothes dryer. 

test load. The California IOUs added 

that removing the last few percent RMC 

from the load is an inefficient process, 

and that if the test procedure required 

the IEC/AHAM test load to be dried 2- 

percent RMC, the difference in 

efficiency compared to the existing 

appendix D1 test procedure would 

widen further. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 

at p. 5; California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 14; 

California IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 60–61, 64) 

NEEA & NPCC and the California 

IOUs presented test data for 5 different 

clothes dryer models 11 comparing the 

drying time, measured per-cycle energy 

consumption, and CEF using the 

automatic termination test cycle with 

the DOE test load versus with a test load 

they considered more representative of 

real-world laundry loads. NEEA & NPCC 

noted that the drying times for the 

automatic termination test cycle with 

the real-world loads are quite similar 

from model to model, except for the 

clothes dryer with the moisture sensor 

bars that rotate with the drum and the 

heat pump clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC 

and the California IOUs also noted that 

the CEF is lower for the tests with real 

world load as compared to the DOE test 

load in all cases, but the difference 

varies depending on the technology 

type. Based on this data, NEEA & NPCC 

and the California IOUs believe that it 

is inappropriate for DOE to adopt a 

single field use factor to adjust the percycle energy use from testing using the 

current DOE test load to represent how 

various technologies would perform 

with real-world laundry loads. NEEA & 

NPCC and the California IOUs 

commented that DOE should specify 

testing with a more realistic test load, 

such as the IEC cotton load or AHAM 

HLD–1–1992 test load, so that 

manufacturers would have an incentive 

to optimize their sensors and drying 

technology for real-world conditions. 

(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 10–12; 

California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 21–22) 

NEEA & NPCC commented that a test 

load that is more reflective of real-world 

clothing, such as the IEC cotton test load 

or the AHAM HLD–1–1992 test load, 

would provide additional agreement 

between tested energy use and typical 

field energy use. NEEA & NPCC urged 

DOE to address this issue as soon as 

possible for both clothes washers and 

clothes dryers in a new rulemaking. 

(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 12–13) 

NRDC, ASAP, ACEEE, and the 

California IOUs similarly commented 

that the current test load is not 

representative of real-world loads and 

results in significant underreporting of 

energy use. The California IOUs added 

that, as a result, the test procedure does 

not appropriately balance 

representativeness and repeatability. 

NRDC, ASAP, and the California IOUs 

requested DOE to address this issue as 

soon as possible in a new rulemaking. 

NRDC and ASAP commented that 

clothes dryers are likely the single 

largest opportunity for energy savings in 

home appliances, and modifying the test 

procedure so that it more accurately 

represents field energy use is critical to 

being able to capture these additional 

opportunities. (NRDC, No. 20 at p. 2; 

ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

10 at pp. 119–120; ACEEE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 114– 

115; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 14, 

17) 

Earthjustice commented that DOE’s 

use of 5 percent as the target RMC using 

the AHAM test load recognizes that the 

AHAM load is more representative of 

the loads encountered in the field. 

Earthjustice stated that the NEEA field 

study data, which shows that heavier 

fabrics (such as the towels represented 

in the AHAM test load) make up a 

significant portion of household laundry 

loads, supports this conclusion. 

(Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 1–2) 

The California IOUs stated that 

designs that reduce over-drying can, 

based on DOE’s test data in January 

2011 Final Rule, save about 0.3 to 0.6 

kilowatt hours (kWh) of over-drying 

energy use per load relative to designs 

that inefficiently terminate the cycle. 

The California IOUs stated that, based 

on recent testing by Ecos, Consumer 

Reports, DOE, and Ecova, certain 

automatic termination test methods can 

actually result in a higher measured 

energy use relative to DOE’s current 

timed dry test procedure because the 

DOE test cloths are already quite dry by 

the time many clothes dryers detect 

high exhaust temperatures and low 

humidity levels that indicate there is no 

water left in the load to evaporate. The 

California IOUs stated that it is difficult 

for these clothes dryers to prevent overdrying because the condition they are 

designed to detect occurs when the DOE 

test load has been over-dried. (California 

IOUs, No. 22 at p. 13) 

The California IOUs commented that 

DOE should use the AHAM HLD–1– 

1992 bone-dry load weight (7.4 lb), 

which according to the NEEA field data 

more accurately represents field laundry 

loads than the DOE test load or the IEC/ 

AHAM cotton load because it contains 

a much wider range of fabric 

thicknesses and weights. The California 

IOUs stated that common items such as 

shirts, pants, socks, and other articles of 

clothing are three-dimensional, and 

therefore contain interior sides that are 

more difficult to dry than the twodimensional DOE test cloths. The 

California IOUs added that these items 

vary quite widely in their moisture 

retention capability because of 

differences in thickness and synthetic 

content but, on average, retain more 

moisture per pound than the uniform 

DOE test cloth and require more energy 

to dry. The California IOUs stated that 

these items present automatic 

termination controls with greater 

difficulty than DOE’s test cloths in 

determining when the load is dry. 

(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17–18; 

California IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 112–113) The 

Super Efficient Dryer Initiative (SEDI) 

also cited the Ecova testing in stating 

that the AHAM HLD–1–1992 test load is 

the most similar to typical laundry 

because it uses items of actual clothing 

with different fabrics and varying 

thicknesses. SEDI stated that the test 

results showed that drying test cloths 

that more closely resemble real-world 

clothing increased drying time and 

energy consumption, and that DOE 

should specify the use of the AHAM 

HLD–1–1992 test load in the clothes 

dryer test procedure. (SEDI, No. 14 at 

pp. 2–3) 

The California IOUs commented that 

manufacturers are likely already using 

AHAM HLD–1 to evaluate drying 

performance. The California IOUs 

commented that if there is already a 

representative load that industry is 

using to determine drying performance, 

measuring energy at the same time as 

that test would reduce test burden. 

(California IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 179–180) 

AHAM stated that the test burden 

associated with using the IEC/AHAM 

test load for energy and water testing 

would not be lower than the burden 

associated with using the DOE test load. 

AHAM stated that manufacturers use 

the IEC/AHAM test load for non-energy 

purposes, but use of the AHAM test 

procedure is voluntary and, thus, use of 

the IEC/AHAM test load for other 

purposes is outside of the regulatory 

context. AHAM also stated that it is not 

simple to measure the energy using the 

IEC/AHAM test load given the increased 

variability in test results, which will in 

turn increase the burden on 

manufacturers. AHAM added that it is 

critical that the DOE test procedure be 

as repeatable and reproducible as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49620 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

possible, especially given the more 

stringent standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

p. 15) 

AHAM stated that the DOE test load, 

because it is comprised of uniform test 

cloth, produces more repeatable and 

reproducible results. AHAM, therefore, 

agreed with DOE’s proposal to continue 

using the DOE test load at this time. 

AHAM stated that should such a change 

in the test load be considered in the 

future, extensive testing would be 

required to determine the appropriate 

test load and the impact of such a 

change on measured energy efficiency. 

AHAM indicated that it would be 

impossible to complete this work prior 

to the January 1, 2015 compliance date 

of the amended standards, even were it 

appropriate to make such a change 

during the 3-year lead time before the 

amended standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

p. 14) Samsung also supported using the 

DOE test load to minimize measurement 

system uncertainty, based on DOE’s data 

and internal experience that the IEC/ 

AHAM loads could result in higher 

variation. Samsung stated that even 

though the DOE load is different from 

real-world loads, it is expected that the 

DOE load will identify relative 

differences between the test units with 

higher precision. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 

2) 

Hydromatic stated that there is no 

definition of a real-world test load. 

(Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at pp. 40–55) 

DOE recognizes interested parties 

concerns regarding the test load 

composition and the available field 

study data that show a variety of 

weights, composition, and size of 

consumer laundry loads. DOE did not 

receive any data or information from 

interested parties that would alter its 

determination that the test-to-test and 

lab-to-lab variation using the current 

IEC/AHAM test load is sufficiently 

higher than with the DOE test load to 

warrant the continued use of the DOE 

test load. Further, DOE concludes that 

specifying any alternative load with 

more variation in weights, composition, 

and size than the DOE test load would 

increase the test-to-test and lab-to-lab 

variation. Repeatable and reproducible 

test procedures are necessary to ensure 

that testing results are consistent from 

test to test and lab to lab especially for 

compliance and verification testing. In 

addition, although certain 

manufacturers may use AHAM HLD–1 

for measuring clothes dryer performance 

and these manufacturers may 

experience reduced testing burden if 

DOE specified the IEC/AHAM load in 

its test procedure, the use of AHAM 

HLD–1 is voluntary and thus this 

benefit may not apply to all 

manufacturers. For these reasons, DOE 

is not adopting amendments to the DOE 

test load in today’s final rule. In 

addition, due to a lack of sufficient 

information at this time, DOE is not 

adopting a definition of a real-world 

load in today’s final rule. DOE may 

continue collecting data on clothes 

dryer test loads and may consider 

amendments to the test load in a future 

rulemaking if data is made available 

showing that the variation from test to 

test and lab to lab can be reduced, 

particularly for different batches and 

lots of test loads. 

Test Load Preparation 

AHAM requested that DOE provide 

further definition of what is considered 

a ‘‘very fine spray’’ and what is meant 

by ‘‘uniform’’ when adding water to 

make the final mass adjustments. 

AHAM questioned whether testers 

should use a spray bottle, a detergent 

bottle with holes in it, or some other 

method, and that without clarity on 

these points, variation could be 

introduced into the test procedure. 

AHAM stated that the method for 

application of the water could impact 

the measured energy use. AHAM 

suggested that DOE further investigate 

the impact this method could have on 

measured energy use, including 

contacting manufacturers for input. 

AHAM stated that it cannot provide 

data on the impact on measured energy 

efficiency, if any, until DOE clarifies 

‘‘very fine spray.’’ (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 

12) ALS opposed tightening the 

allowable range for the initial RMC to ± 

0.33 percent because it claimed 

manufacturers and test labs will aim to 

be at the low end of this tolerance, and 

then try to utilize the proposed 

technique of ‘‘uniformly’’ misting with 

a ‘‘very fine spray’’ the outside of the 

test load to achieve the initial RMC. 

ALS believes that the sprayed moisture 

on the outside of the test load is the 

easiest to evaporate during the energy 

test and can skew the test result. (ALS, 

No. 16 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE does not believe that the method 

for wetting the test load, which requires 

water to be initially extracted to achieve 

an RMC between 52.5 percent and 57.5 

percent then making final mass 

adjustments to obtain a test load with an 

RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33 percent by adding 

water uniformly to the load in a very 

fine spray, would significantly affect the 

measured efficiency at the extremes for 

the RMC conditions. Because the DOE 

test cloths are uniform and relatively 

thin, the water absorbed when making 

the final mass adjustments by adding 

water uniformly in a very fine spray 

would be absorbed relatively 

equivalently to the water absorbed when 

initially dampening the test load. In 

addition, DOE notes that the allowable 

range for the initial RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33 

percent would result in a difference in 

the amount of water contained in the 

test load of only approximately 0.06 lb 

at the minimum and maximum values. 

As a result, DOE does not believe this 

allowable range for the initial RMC 

would measurably affect the efficiency 

and that further tightening the 

tolerances would add testing burden to 

achieve the initial RMC. DOE also notes 

that for the testing conducted for the 

January 2013 NOPR, the test technicians 

did not attempt to control the tolerances 

for wetting the test load tighter than the 

ranges specified in the test method (i.e., 

the initial extraction achieve an RMC 

between 52.5 percent and 57.5 and the 

final mass adjustments to obtain a test 

load with an RMC of 57.5 ± 0.33 

percent). As a result, any effects in the 

measured efficiency would have been 

captured in the test-to-test variation for 

the automatic termination tests with the 

DOE test load (which was on average 

1.87 percent). For these reasons, DOE is 

adopting the test load requirements 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR and 

discussed above, with the following 

clarification. To provide a clear and 

consistent method, the amendments 

adopted in today’s final rule specify in 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

D2, section 2.7, that water added to 

make the final mass adjustments shall 

be uniformly distributed among all of 

the test cloths in a very fine spray using 

a spray bottle. 

Automatic Termination Control Dryer 

Test Cycle 

DOE proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR to change the clothes dryer test 

cycle specified in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.3 to 

require separate test methods for 

automatic termination control dryers 

and timer dryers. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 

2, 2013). 

For automatic termination control 

dryers, DOE proposed to amend the 

clothes dryer test procedure to require 

the use of the control settings discussed 

in section III.B.2 of this notice. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to require 

that the ‘‘normal’’ automatic termination 

cycle program be selected for the test 

cycle, and that for clothes dryers that do 

not have a ‘‘normal’’ program, the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

drying cotton or linen clothes would be 

selected. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

Where the drying temperature can be 

chosen independently of the program, it 

would be set to the maximum 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49621 

12 Denkenberger, Serena Mau, Chris Calwell, and 

Eric Wanless. 2011. Residential Clothes Dryers: A 

Closer Look at Energy Efficiency Test Procedures 

and Savings Opportunities. Ecova and NRDC. p. 7. 

temperature setting. Id. In addition, the 

proposed amendments would require 

that where the dryness level setting can 

be chosen independently of the 

program, the dryness level would be set 

to the ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘medium’’ setting. 

Id. If such designation is not provided, 

then the dryness level would be set at 

the mid-point between the minimum 

and maximum settings. DOE also 

proposed to require that the cycle 

settings used for the test cycle be 

recorded. Id. 

For the reasons explained below, DOE 

proposed that the clothes dryer would 

then be allowed to run until the 

completion of the cycle, including any 

cool-down period. After the cycle is 

complete, the test load would be 

weighed to determine the final RMC. If 

the final RMC is below 2 percent, the 

test would be considered valid. If the 

RMC is higher than 2 percent, the test 

would be considered invalid and would 

be re-run using the highest dryness level 

setting. Id. 

DOE proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR to measure the full automatic 

termination cycle, including any cooldown period, to be more representative 

of actual consumer use. DOE 

determined in the January 2013 NOPR 

that the proposed provision to include 

a cool-down period would result in less 

testing burden than the January 2011 

Final Rule proposal to stop the test 

cycle when the heater switches off for 

the final time immediately before the 

cool-down period begins (76 FR 972, 

998 (Jan. 6, 2011)), which would require 

the tester to monitor the clothes dryer 

and possibly run multiple test cycles to 

determine when the heater has switched 

off for the final time. 78 FR 152, 170 

(Jan. 2, 2013). 

As discussed above, DOE also 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to 

base the calculations for automatic 

termination control dryers on a nominal 

final RMC of 2 percent. This is a change 

from the existing test procedure, which 

requires that the clothes dryer test cycle 

be stopped when the final RMC is 

between 2.5 percent and 5 percent. 

Based on the data submitted in the Joint 

Petition and DOE’s analysis, DOE 

tentatively concluded in the January 

2013 NOPR that a final RMC of 2 

percent using the DOE test load would 

be more representative of clothes dryers 

currently on the market and 

representative of the maximum 

consumer-accepted final RMC. Id. 

NEEA stated that, based on its field 

study data, consumers select the 

medium temperature setting 52 percent 

of the time. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 21) The 

California IOUs commented that DOE 

should update the required temperature 

settings in the test procedure to reflect 

consumer preferences, based on recent 

field measurements. The California 

IOUs stated that DOE should make these 

revisions in a new test procedure 

rulemaking. The California IOUs noted 

that the NEEA field data also show that 

consumers select the high and low 

temperature settings 35 percent and 13 

percent of the time, respectively. 

(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17, 20) 

DOE does not have information to 

determine for the clothes dryer models 

included in the field study whether the 

temperature setting can be selected 

independently of the cycle program and 

whether the sample of clothes dryers in 

the field study is representative of the 

optional temperature settings for all 

clothes dryer shipments. As a result, 

DOE notes that there is uncertainty as to 

whether the temperature settings 

selected by participants in the NEEA 

field study, which included only 50 

households in the Pacific Northwest, are 

representative of the selections of the 

nation as a whole. For these reasons, 

DOE is not considering changing the 

temperature settings for the automatic 

termination test cycle proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR at this time. 

However, DOE notes that according to 

the provisions for the cycle settings 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR, 

which specify that the highest 

temperature setting be used if the 

temperature setting can be chosen 

independently of the cycle program 

setting, six of the 14 units in DOE’s test 

sample that had a temperature setting 

indicator on the control panel were 

unable to select the temperature setting 

separately from the cycle program and 

automatically used the medium 

temperature setting for the test cycle. In 

addition, DOE may continue to collect 

and consider available data and 

information on the temperature settings 

to consider whether changes to the 

temperature settings would be 

warranted in a future test procedure 

rulemaking. 

NEEA stated that, based on its field 

study data, consumers select the normal 

dryness setting 57 percent of the time 

and the very dry setting 42 percent of 

the time. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 21) The 

California IOUs commented that many 

people use the very dry setting, and that 

it is not true that all consumers are 

satisfied with the dryness of their 

clothing when using the normal dryness 

setting, based on the study conducted 

by NRDC in 2011 that found that real 

clothing would have to be dried to 

approximately 2-percent final RMC in 

order to feel uniformly dry to the touch. 

The California IOUs commented that, 

since the DOE test cloths are much 

easier to dry than real-world loads, the 

test cloths would need to be 

significantly lower than 2-percent final 

RMC to approximate a 2-percent final 

RMC in real clothing. The California 

IOUs stated that with a test load that 

more closely approximates real-world 

clothing, such as the AHAM HLD–1– 

1992 test load, a 2-percent final RMC 

would be appropriate. (California IOUs, 

No. 22 at pp. 20–21) 

DOE notes that the NRDC report 

prepared by Ecova and referenced by 

the California IOUs states that the 2- 

percent RMC threshold for what 

consumers would consider ‘‘dry’’ for 

real-world clothing is an assertion made 

by NRDC and Ecova without any 

empirical basis.12 As a result, DOE is 

not considering changing the dryness 

level settings for the automatic 

termination test cycle proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR. In addition, for the 

reasons discussed above, DOE is not 

considering changing the DOE test load 

at this time. 

NEEA & NPCC and the California 

IOUs commented that the NEEA field 

study showed that participants used 

timed drying 29 percent of the time, and 

the auto-termination cycle 71 percent of 

the time. NEEA & NPCC and the 

California IOUs considered 29 percent 

to be a significant fraction of total 

clothes dryer cycles, and therefore 

stated that the test procedure should 

require clothes dryers with automatic 

cycle termination to be tested both in 

the timed drying and auto cycle 

termination modes. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 

21 at pp. 13–14; California IOUs, No. 22 

at p. 11) 

Because the field study sample was 

limited, DOE does not have sufficient 

information at this time to determine 

how frequently all consumers in the 

nation use the timed dry function versus 

the automatic cycle termination 

function and, thus, properly weight or 

apportion the energy consumption 

between the two drying modes in the 

clothes dryer test procedure. DOE also 

notes that Whirlpool submitted a 

comment in the last test procedure 

rulemaking asserting that, although the 

majority of consumers want timed dry 

cycle capability, they use it only 10 

percent of the time. 76 FR 972, 995 (Jan. 

6, 2011). In addition, requiring the 

measurement of both the automatic 

termination cycle and the timed dry 

cycle for automatic termination control 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49622 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

dryers would significantly increase 

testing burden. As a result, DOE is not 

considering amendments in today’s 

final rule to require the measurement of 

both the automatic termination cycle 

and the timed dry cycle for automatic 

termination control dryers. 

d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer 

Field Use Factor 

DOE proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR that the measured test cycle 

energy consumption be multiplied by a 

field use factor of 0.80 to calculate the 

per-cycle energy consumption for 

automatic termination control dryers 

based on the data presented above in 

section III.B.2. DOE noted in the January 

2013 NOPR that this field use factor 

would account for the measured energy 

consumption at the end of the automatic 

termination cycle drying the DOE test 

load below 2-percent RMC, which DOE 

determines to be representative of 

consumer-acceptable drying levels with 

loads of varying weights, composition, 

and size. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

AHAM and ALS opposed the 

proposed 0.80 field use factor, asserting 

that it is without technical or empirical 

justification. AHAM added that the Joint 

Petition did not include such a factor 

because it is not necessary under the 

proposed test procedure. AHAM and 

ALS stated that based on testing, DOE 

must rely on the proposed field use 

factor to justify the determination of a 

de minimus impact on the measured 

efficiency according to DOE’s criteria 

(e.g., less than a 5-percent impact on 

measured efficiency). AHAM 

commented that it is inappropriate for 

DOE to include the 0.80 field use factor 

to avoid adjusting the standard, and that 

DOE should either provide a 

‘‘crosswalk’’ or not make such 

significant test procedure changes 

except as part of a future standards 

rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 4; 

ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) 

Samsung agreed with DOE’s proposed 

field use factor. Samsung alternatively 

recommended that the 0.80 field use 

factor not be included in the test 

procedure and that the standard levels 

be adjusted to account for the energy 

increase due to the test procedure 

change according to 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2). (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3) 

NEEA & NPCC, ASAP, ACEEE, SEDI, 

and the California IOUs commented that 

the 0.80 field use factor for automatic 

termination cycles inappropriately 

adjusts per-cycle energy use, 

significantly underestimating the annual 

clothes dryer energy use measured in 

the field. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 

3–4; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at pp. 28, 85–86; ACEEE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 200– 

201; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3; California 

IOUs, No. 22 at p. 3) NEEA & NPCC 

stated that, based on its analysis and 

testing, the proposed test procedure 

estimates annual energy use that is 

approximately 30 percent lower than 

what is observed in the field. NEEA & 

NPCC commented that their testing 

demonstrates reasonably close 

agreement in energy use between DOE’s 

proposed test procedure, but without 

the field use factor, and testing with a 

more real-world procedure. NEEA & 

NPCC stated that average annual clothes 

dryer energy use estimated from NEEA’s 

2012 field study is 920 kWh, and 

suggests that the field use factor should 

be closer to 1.1 or 1.2, assuming all 

other test procedure factors are 

unchanged. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 

6) NEEA & NPCC strongly 

recommended that DOE not use a field 

use factor less than 1.0 to adjust the 

actual measured energy use from 

testing. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2– 

3, 12; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at pp. 87–92) NPCC added that 

the proposed field use factor is not 

consistent with the original proposal in 

the Joint Petition. (NPCC, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 104) 

The California IOUs commented that the 

NEEA field study data supports a field 

use adjustment factor of 1.0, or it should 

be removed entirely, since the field data 

consistently point to clothes dryers 

using more energy than they do under 

the DOE test procedure. (California 

IOUs, No. 22 at p. 6, 17; California IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 

170–171) SEDI added that CLASPfunded laboratory testing suggests that 

clothes dryers in the field consume 

more energy than would be measured by 

the proposed test procedure even 

without the field use factor. (SEDI, No. 

14 at p. 3) 

NEEA & NPCC and the California 

IOUs commented that DOE’s data show 

that the average clothes dryer operating 

on an automatic termination cycle uses 

on the order of 25 percent more energy 

than it would if it terminated the cycle 

at optimum load dryness. NEEA & 

NPCC and the California IOUs 

commented that the difference between 

the end-of-cycle energy use and the 

energy use upon initially reaching 2- 

percent RMC represent an energy 

savings opportunity that manufacturers 

should be encouraged to pursue through 

modifications to automatic termination 

controls. NEEA & NPCC and the 

California IOUs stated that the proposed 

field use factor would revise the 

measured energy use for automatic 

termination control dryers that don’t 

terminate at an initial 2-percent RMC 

down to a value that might have been 

achieved if the clothes dryer terminated 

properly. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 

6; California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 5; 

California IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 76–77, 101– 

102) 

The California IOUs noted that in two 

cases (DOE test units 4 and 17), the 

adjusted energy consumption is lower 

than the measured energy consumption 

at both 5-percent and 2-percent RMC, 

and likely represents the energy 

consumption at points in the cycle 

when the test load would have been 

damp to the touch. The California IOUs 

stated that the field-adjusted values that 

DOE presented, therefore, are not 

representative of field clothes dryer 

performance. The California IOUs also 

stated that DOE’s sample of 8 clothes 

dryer models is not sufficiently large to 

provide statistically meaningful 

information on the field use factor. 

(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 5–6; 

California IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 94–97) 

NEEA & NPCC commented that DOE’s 

testing showed, with one exception, that 

the final RMC values for the IEC/AHAM 

test load are higher than with the DOE 

test load but the increase in the final 

RMC was not consistent from model to 

model. NEEA & NPCC stated that, as a 

result, any single field use factor is 

problematic. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at 

p. 5) NEEA & NPCC also noted that the 

proposed automatic termination test 

procedure significantly increases the 

range of tested efficiencies, but that this 

increase is not predictable for a given 

clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC stated that 

the most and least efficient models 

using the current DOE test procedure 

are not the most and least efficient 

models using the proposed automatic 

termination test procedure but with a 

more realistic test load. NEEA & NPCC 

stated that the proposed field use factor 

will simply reduce the calculated per 

cycle energy use, thereby reducing the 

differentiation among models. (NEEA & 

NPCC, No. 21 at p. 6) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that DOE should adjust the 

January 1, 2015 standards to account for 

the proposed test procedure 

amendments without the proposed field 

use factor. However, the Joint Efficiency 

Advocates stated that if DOE concludes 

that it cannot adjust the standard levels, 

DOE should proceed with the proposal 

in the January 2013 NOPR. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 2– 

3) 

SEDI objected to the proposed 0.80 

field use factor, but commented that if 

DOE chooses to retain the field use 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49623 

factor, manufacturers should be 

required to report clothes dryer energy 

consumption both with and without the 

field use factor applied. SEDI stated that 

accurate energy consumption 

information is critical for energy 

efficiency programs to be able to 

evaluate potential for incentives for 

more efficient products. (SEDI, No. 14 at 

p. 3) 

Earthjustice commented that DOE 

should revise the proposed field use 

factor for automatic termination control 

dryers. Earthjustice stated that DOE’s 

test data show that the load composition 

has much less of an impact on the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls than DOE’s proposed field use 

factor assumes. Earthjustice commented 

that for nearly all of the 20 clothes 

dryers that DOE tested, the difference in 

CEF between the AHAM and DOE test 

loads was less than 10 percent, with an 

average reduction in CEF of about 4 

percent. Earthjustice stated that the 

adjustment needed for the CEF ratings 

to better reflect real world conditions is 

not only much smaller than DOE has 

proposed, it is in the opposite direction, 

and that DOE’s proposal would lead to 

CEFs that significantly overstate the 

energy efficiency of many automatic 

termination control dryers. 

(Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 1–2) 

Earthjustice stated that DOE’s analysis 

shows that drying the DOE test load to 

2-percent RMC at the end of the cycle 

reasonably approximates drying a test 

load that is more representative of the 

varied composition and heavier fabrics 

encountered in real world laundry loads 

to 5-percent RMC. Earthjustice stated 

that based on the test data in the January 

2013 NOPR, the only field use factor 

that should be applied is a small 

correction to reflect that drying the 

AHAM test load to the end of a cycle 

achieving 5-percent RMC results in CEF 

levels about 4 percent below those 

measured drying the DOE test cloth as 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR. 

(Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 2) 

Based on these comments and DOE’s 

review of available data, DOE agrees 

that eliminating the field use factor for 

automatic termination control dryers 

will produce test results that are more 

representative of consumer use. As a 

result, in today’s final rule, DOE is not 

adopting the 0.80 field use factor 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR, but 

is instead removing the field use factor 

for automatic termination control dryers 

in appendix D2 because the test method 

directly measures the over-drying 

energy consumption. Because DOE is 

not amending appendix D or appendix 

D1 to include the methods for more 

accurately measuring the effects of 

automatic cycle termination, as 

discussed in section III.B.3.f, DOE is not 

amending the current field use factors 

specified in section 4.1 in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix D and 

appendix D1. 

e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the 

Determination of the Completion of the 

Test Cycle 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed for the automatic cycle 

termination test method that the clothes 

dryer shall be operated until the 

completion of the programmed cycle, 

including the cool-down period. 78 FR 

152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

NRDC commented that DOE should 

clarify the definition of ‘‘completion of 

test cycle’’ for clothes dryers with 

automatic termination controls. NRDC 

noted that many clothes dryers have 

post-cycle features, such as additional 

tumbling designed to prevent wrinkling, 

that may run after the clothes dryer has 

terminated the main drying cycle. NRDC 

stated that these features can sometimes 

be enabled by the user and sometimes 

are the default operational mode. NRDC 

recommended that DOE modify the 

proposed test procedure to clarify that 

the cycle is complete when the main 

cycle terminates and the clothes dryer 

indicates to the consumer that the load 

is finished. (NRDC, No. 20 at pp. 1–2; 

NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

10 at pp. 129–131) NRDC also urged 

DOE to conduct a new rulemaking as 

soon as possible to further revise the 

clothes dryer test procedure to address 

post-cycle energy use to better represent 

real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at 

p. 2) 

NEEA & NPCC commented that it is 

unclear whether the current test 

procedure is designed to capture the 

energy use associated with the wrinkle 

prevention mode, which is part of the 

default cycle in some clothes dryer 

models. NEEA & NPCC stated that the 

wrinkle prevention mode meets DOE’s 

definition of an active mode, and yet 

DOE’s testing stopped the test at the 

completion of the cool-down phase. 

NEEA & NPCC stated clothes dryers 

typically use 150–250 watts of power 

when rotating the drum (and by default 

in most models, the fan) and that over 

a few hours, the wrinkle prevention 

mode could use as much as 0.5 kWh 

depending on how often the feature is 

activated and for how long at the end of 

each cycle. NEEA & NPCC stated that 

this clothes dryer feature should be 

accounted for accurately in the test 

procedure, regardless of any increase in 

the test burden associated with the 

measurement. According to NEEA & 

NPCC, the potential energy use of this 

function may be large enough to make 

the difference as to whether or not a 

clothes dryer complies with the 

standard, and so is not insignificant. 

(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 14) NEEA 

added that if a cyclical wrinkle 

prevention period goes on indefinitely, 

it may cause issues with determining 

when to measure standby and off mode 

if the end of the cycle is not clearly 

defined. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 154–155) 

The California IOUs, Hydromatic, and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) also questioned how the 

wrinkle prevention mode would be 

tested and how the end of the cycle 

would be determined. The California 

IOUs stated that it is a relatively new 

feature, but it is becoming more 

prevalent. (California IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 153, 

154; Hydromatic, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 124–128, 132– 

133; EPA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at pp. 122–123) 

AHAM stated that the cycle ends 

when the clothes dryer signals to the 

consumer that the cycle is complete, 

and that wrinkle prevention or similar 

functions are selected by the user and 

should not be included in the DOE test 

unless they are activated by default in 

the condition as shipped. AHAM stated 

that this approach will minimize 

ambiguity for testers, thus resulting in 

less variation in the test procedure. 

(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13) ALS similarly 

recommended testing with the default 

settings and not with other optional 

settings such as a wrinkle prevention 

extended cycle. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 4) 

DOE conducted a market survey and 

testing to evaluate the wrinkle 

prevention mode. DOE noted that 

products operate in wrinkle prevention 

mode either intermittently or by 

continuously tumbling for a fixed 

period of time or until the user opens 

the clothes dryer door. Based on DOE’s 

review of products currently available 

on the market, approximately 95 percent 

of products that are equipped with a 

wrinkle prevention feature offer it as a 

mode that must be manually selected by 

the user (i.e., wrinkle prevention is 

turned off by default). Approximately 63 

percent of products that are equipped 

with a wrinkle prevention feature 

operate in this mode by intermittently 

tumbling. For the products in DOE’s test 

sample, the intermittent tumbling 

consisted of 3 to 5 seconds of tumbling 

every 5 to 10 minutes for a fixed period 

of time. Such intermittent tumbling was 

observed for all products on the market 

that operated in wrinkle prevention 

mode automatically by default after the 

end of the programmed cycle, with the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49624 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

maximum duration among the sample 

units being 5 hours. DOE estimates that 

products that intermittently tumble for 

5 hours would consume approximately 

8.3 Wh in the wrinkle prevention mode. 

In the worst-case scenario for clothes 

dryers on the market for which the 

wrinkle prevention mode must be 

selected manually by the user, 

continuous tumbling was observed with 

a duration of up to 45 minutes and a 

corresponding energy consumption as 

much as approximately 188 Wh. 

DOE is unaware of consumer usage 

data on how often consumers select the 

wrinkle prevention mode when this 

feature must be manually selected or 

data on the typical elapsed time 

between the end of the programmed 

cycle and when the consumer opens the 

clothes dryer door to remove the 

laundry load. As a result, DOE is not 

amending the test procedure to include 

the measurement of the wrinkle 

prevention mode when this feature must 

be manually selected by the consumer. 

As discussed in section III.F.1, DOE is 

adopting amendments to clarify for 

automatic termination control dryers 

that the test procedures specify 

requirements only for the automatic 

termination cycle program, temperature 

setting, and dryness setting, and do not 

specify modifications to any other 

optional settings that do not affect the 

automatic termination cycle program, 

temperature setting, or dryness setting. 

As a result, if a product is equipped 

with a wrinkle prevention feature that is 

activated by default in the condition as 

shipped by the manufacturer, the 

wrinkle prevention mode would be 

included in the test measurement cycle 

unless it precluded the necessary 

automatic termination cycle program, 

temperature setting, or dryness setting. 

DOE also notes that, based on the 

requirements that products be installed 

in accordance with manufacturers’ 

instructions, if a manufacturers’ user 

manual specifies that the wrinkle 

prevention mode is recommended to be 

activated for normal use even if it not 

done so in the as-shipped condition, the 

products would be tested with the 

wrinkle prevention mode activated as 

per manufacturer’s instructions. 

DOE is adopting amendments in 

today’s final rule to clarify in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, 

section 3.3.2, that the drying cycle is 

complete when the clothes dryer 

indicates to the user that the cycle has 

finished (by means of a display, 

indicator light, audible signal, or other 

signal) and the heater and drum/fan 

motor shuts off for the final time. If the 

clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle 

prevention mode (i.e., that continuously 

or intermittently tumbles the clothes 

dryer drum after the clothes dryer 

indicates to the user that the cycle has 

finished) that is activated by default in 

the as-shipped position or if 

manufacturers’ instructions specify that 

the feature is recommended to be 

activated for normal use, the cycle shall 

be considered complete after the end of 

the wrinkle prevention mode. 

f. New Appendix D2 

With the exception of the field use 

factor and the compliance date, AHAM 

and ALS supported the proposed test 

procedure for automatic termination 

control dryers. In light of its objection 

to the proposed field use factor and 

compliance date, however, AHAM 

stated that it cannot support these 

changes at this time and DOE should 

instead defer the changes until 

compliance with a future standard, 

subsequent to the January 1, 2015 

standards change. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 

13; ALS, No. 16 at p. 4) 

Samsung supported the proposed 

automatic termination test method, 

including the maximum allowable RMC 

of 2 percent. Samsung stated that the 

proposed test procedure is 

representative of consumer usage 

because it measures the energy use of 

the most commonly selected cycle 

(Normal/Cottons and Linens) and 

includes the cool-down period. 

Samsung stated that the proposed test 

procedure would encourage 

manufacturers to refine their automatic 

termination feature to terminate drying 

very close to the target 2-percent RMC 

using the DOE test load, without the 

over-drying evidenced on some clothes 

dryer models during DOE testing, thus 

reducing real-world energy 

consumption. (Samsung, No. 13 at pp. 

2–3) 

ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC 

jointly commented (hereafter ‘‘the Joint 

Efficiency Advocates’’) and SEDI, 

NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and the 

California IOUs commented that they 

generally support the proposed 

automatic termination test procedure 

amendments. The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and 

the California IOUs noted that DOE’s 

test data presented in the January 2013 

NOPR show that there is wide 

variability among clothes dryers in the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls, and that many clothes dryers 

waste a significant amount of energy at 

the end of the automatic termination 

cycle (up to 38 percent of energy use). 

NRDC and SEDI added that the 

proposed test procedure will capture 

this energy use at the end of the cycle 

and will result in differentiation of the 

measured efficiency of individual 

clothes dryers. The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates stated that based on DOE’s 

test data, the current test procedure in 

appendix D1 is not a good predictor of 

the efficiency of the complete automatic 

termination cycle. The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, NEEA & NPCC, and the 

California IOUs stated that the proposed 

automatic cycle termination test 

procedure will encourage manufacturers 

to adopt improved automatic 

termination controls and will provide a 

significant national energy savings 

opportunity. The California IOUs added 

that DOE’s sample is too small to 

conclusively estimate this savings 

opportunity, but a study conducted by 

NRDC on 15 clothes dryers concluded 

that a variety of energy-saving 

technologies, including automatic 

termination, could save 20 percent to 30 

percent of overall energy consumption 

by preventing over-drying. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 1– 

2; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 20 

at p. 1; NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2, 

4–5; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 3– 

5) 

Based on the comments from 

interested parties and for the reasons 

discussed above, DOE is adopting the 

automatic termination test method 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR 

with modification as further discussed 

above. With regards to AHAM’s 

comments concerning the compliance 

date, as discussed in section III.B.3.f and 

section III.I.3, DOE is amending the 

clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B to create a new 

appendix D2 that includes the testing 

methods for more accurately measuring 

the effects of automatic cycle 

termination. As discussed in section 

III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2 

will not be required for use to determine 

compliance with the January 1, 2015 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers. DOE is not amending 

appendix D1 in today’s final rule to 

include the amendments associated 

with automatic termination controls. 

Appendix D2 is for informational 

purposes only. 

Timed Dry Test Method 

For timer dryers, DOE proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR to use the test 

method currently specified in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

section 3.3, but with a revised final 

RMC requirement. The proposed test 

method would require that the clothes 

dryer be operated using the highest 

temperature setting and maximum time 

setting. The clothes dryer would then be 

allowed to run until the final RMC of 

the load is between 1.0 percent and 2.5 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49625 

percent, at which point the test cycle 

would be stopped without permitting 

the clothes dryer to advance into the 

cool-down period and the test load 

would be weighed. DOE also proposed 

to add a clarification that the clothes 

dryer should not be stopped 

intermittently in the middle of the test 

cycle for any reason. DOE stated that 

this clarification would ensure that test 

technicians are not stopping the clothes 

dryer intermittently to weigh the test 

load to check whether the RMC is 

within the target range. Such a practice 

would alter the measured results 

because of the heat loss from the clothes 

dryer when the cycle is stopped. 78 FR 

152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

DOE proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR to include separate calculations 

for the per-cycle energy consumption 

for timer dryers. The calculations would 

be similar to the calculations provided 

in the current DOE test procedure in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

sections 4.1–4.3, except that the 

normalization of the per-cycle energy 

consumption to represent the energy 

consumption required to dry the test 

load to 4-percent RMC would be 

changed to represent the new target 

RMC of 2 percent. The per-cycle energy 

consumption calculation in the current 

test procedure applies a scaling factor of 

53.5, which represents the RMC 

percentage point change from the 

nominal initial RMC of 57.5 percent to 

the nominal final RMC of 4 percent. The 

proposed amendments would change 

this scaling factor to 55.5 to reflect the 

new final RMC of 2 percent. DOE 

proposed a range of 1.0 percent to 2.5 

percent for the allowable final RMC 

during the test cycle to reduce testing 

burden. DOE tentatively concluded in 

the January 2013 NOPR that requiring 

the tester to dry the test load to an exact 

RMC during the test cycle would be 

unduly burdensome because it could 

require the test to be repeated a 

significant number of times until the 

exact RMC is achieved. For the test 

procedure to produce repeatable results, 

the measured test cycle energy 

consumption is normalized to calculate 

the energy consumption required to dry 

the test load from exactly 57.5-percent 

RMC to 2-percent RMC, which is 

representative of clothes dryers 

currently on the market and of the 

maximum consumer-accepted final 

RMC. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

DOE proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR that manufacturers continue to 

apply the field use factor needed to 

account for the energy consumption of 

timed drying beyond the 2-percent RMC 

specified in the test procedure. DOE did 

not propose any changes to the 1.18 

field use factor for timer dryers because 

DOE stated that it is not aware of any 

data or studies more recent than the 

studies on which it was originally based 

that would indicate that this value is not 

currently representative of consumer 

use. 

DOE did not propose in the January 

2013 NOPR to include the cool-down 

period as part of the timed dry test cycle 

because the proposed test method 

requires drying the load to a specified 

RMC, at which point the test cycle is 

stopped by the test technician. DOE 

determined that specifying a timed dry 

cycle that includes the cool-down 

period to achieve a target final RMC 

would add significant testing burden on 

test technicians to determine and preset 

the appropriate time setting. DOE also 

noted that it would be difficult to ensure 

that testing results are repeatable and 

reproducible because different 

combinations of timed dry cycle length 

and cool-down period may be selected 

to dry a test load to the same final RMC. 

AHAM commented that it did not 

oppose the proposed timed dry test 

method on a technical basis. AHAM 

stated, however, because it considers 

these changes to be part of the proposed 

amendments regarding automatic cycle 

termination controls, it cannot support 

these changes at this time. AHAM 

commented that DOE should defer the 

changes until compliance with future 

energy conservation standards, 

subsequent to the January 1, 2015 

standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13) ALS 

also opposed the proposed timed drying 

test method because it opposed any test 

procedure change with an effective date 

concurrent with the January 1, 2015 

standards. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 4) As 

discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is 

adopting the amendments to more 

accurately measure the effects of 

automatic cycle termination in a new 

appendix D2 that will not be required 

for use to determine compliance with 

the January 1, 2015 energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers. As a result, 

in today’s final rule, DOE is also 

adopting the timer dryer test methods 

presented above in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.3.2. 

DOE is not amending appendix D1 in 

today’s final rule to include these 

amendments. 

Incorporating by Reference IEC 

Standard 62301 Second Edition for 

Measuring Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Power 

As discussed in section I of today’s 

final rule, EPCA, as amended by EISA 

2007, requires that test procedures be 

amended to include standby mode and 

off mode energy consumption, taking 

into consideration the most current 

versions of IEC Standards 62301 and 

62087. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) The 

January 2011 Final Rule incorporated in 

the test procedures for clothes dryers 

relevant provisions from IEC Standard 

62301 (First Edition) for measuring 

standby mode and off mode power. 76 

FR 972, 979–80 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE 

reviewed the IEC Standard 62301 (First 

Edition) and concluded that it would be 

generally applicable to clothes dryers, 

although some clarification would be 

needed. Specifically, DOE adopted 

amendments for standby mode and off 

mode power measurements to provide a 

stabilization period of 30 to 40 minutes 

followed by an energy use measurement 

period of 10 minutes. 76 FR 986 (Jan.6, 

2011). With these clarifications in place, 

the January 2011 Final Rule referenced 

IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) for 

the standby mode and off mode wattage 

measurements. DOE also incorporated 

into the clothes dryer test procedure 

definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘standby 

mode,’’ and ‘‘off mode’’ based on the 

definitions provided in IEC Standard 

62301 CDV. 76 FR 76 FR 981–85 (Jan. 

6, 2011). 

IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) 

published on January 27, 2011. 

Consistent with EPCA requirements for 

amending test procedures to include 

standby and off mode procedures, DOE 

considered IEC Standard 62301 (Second 

Edition) for amendments to the standby 

mode and off mode test procedures for 

clothes dryers in the January 2013 

NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE 

determined that IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) is an internationallyaccepted test procedure for measuring 

standby power in residential appliances, 

and it provides clarification to certain 

sections as compared to the First 

Edition. In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to update its reference to IEC 

Standard 62301 by incorporating certain 

provisions of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition), along with clarifying 

language, into the DOE test procedures 

for clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 

2, 2013). 

AHAM and ALS commented that they 

support the incorporation by reference 

of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). 

AHAM stated that the Second Edition 

contains a number of important 

clarifications not present in the First 

Edition and that adopting the Second 

Edition will allow for optimum 

international harmonization, which 

gives clarity and consistency to the 

regulated community. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

pp. 13–14; ALS, No. 16 at p. 4) 

The suitability of specific clauses 

from IEC Standard 62301 (Second 

Edition) regarding testing conditions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49626 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and methodology for use in DOE’s 

clothes dryer test procedure are 

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Section 4, paragraph 4.4 of the Second 

Edition revises the power measurement 

accuracy provisions of the First Edition. 

A more comprehensive specification of 

required accuracy is provided in the 

Second Edition, which depends upon 

the characteristics of the power being 

measured. Testers using the Second 

Edition are required to measure the crest 

factor and power factor of the input 

power, and to calculate a maximum 

current ratio (MCR) (paragraph 4.4.1 of 

the Second Edition). The Second 

Edition then specifies calculations to 

determine permitted uncertainty in 

MCR. DOE noted in the January 2013 

NOPR, however, that the allowable 

uncertainty is the same or less stringent 

than the allowable uncertainty specified 

in the First Edition, depending on the 

value of MCR and the power level being 

measured. DOE determined that this 

change in the allowable uncertainty, 

however, maintains sufficient accuracy 

of measurements under a full range of 

possible measured power levels without 

placing undue demands on the 

instrumentation. These power 

measurement accuracy requirements 

were based upon detailed technical 

submissions to the IEC in the 

development of IEC Standard 62301 

Final Draft International Standard 

(FDIS), which showed that commonlyused power measurement instruments 

were unable to meet the original 

requirements for certain types of loads. 

DOE concluded in the January 2013 

NOPR that the incremental testing 

burden associated with the additional 

measurements and calculations is offset 

by the more reasonable requirements for 

testing equipment, while maintaining 

measurement accuracy deemed 

acceptable and practical by voting 

members for IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition). For these reasons, 

DOE proposed in the January 2013 

NOPR to incorporate by reference in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

section 2.4.7 the power equipment 

specifications in section 4, paragraph 

4.4 of IEC Standard 62301 (Second 

Edition). 78 FR 152, 171–172 (Jan. 2, 

2013). AHAM commented that it 

supports incorporating by reference 

these provisions. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 

14) For the reasons discussed above, 

DOE adopts in today’s final rule these 

amendments to its clothes dryer test 

procedure. 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted 

that Section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition) 

maintains the installation and setup 

procedures incorporated by reference in 

the clothes dryer test procedure in the 

January 2011 Final Rule from the First 

Edition. These provisions require that 

the appliance be prepared and set up in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions, and that if no instructions 

are given, then the factory or default 

settings shall be used, or where there are 

no indications for such settings, the 

appliance is tested as supplied. 

Additionally, IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) adds certain 

clarifications to the installation and 

setup procedures in section 5, paragraph 

5.2 of the First Edition regarding 

products equipped with a battery 

recharging circuit for an internal battery, 

as well as instructions for testing each 

relevant configuration option identified 

in the product’s instructions for use. 

DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR 

that it is not aware of any clothes dryer 

with an internal battery, or with a 

recharging circuit for such a battery. 

DOE also determined that a requirement 

to separately test each configuration 

option could substantially increase test 

burden and potentially conflicts with 

the requirement within the same section 

to set up the product in accordance with 

the instructions for use or, if no such 

instructions are available, to use the 

factory or default settings. Therefore, 

DOE tentatively concluded in the 

January 2013 NOPR that the portions of 

the installation instructions in section 5, 

paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) pertaining to batteries 

and the requirement for the 

determination, classification, and 

testing of all modes associated with 

every combination of available product 

configuration options (which may be 

more numerous than the modes 

associated with operation at the default 

settings) are not appropriate for the 

clothes dryer test procedures. 

Accordingly, DOE proposed qualifying 

language in the test procedure 

amendments in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.1 to 

disregard those portions of the 

installation instructions. 78 FR 152, 172 

(Jan. 2, 2013). AHAM commented that it 

does not oppose this proposal because 

it is also not aware of any clothes dryer 

with an internal battery or recharging 

circuit for such a battery. (AHAM, No. 

17 at p. 14) Therefore, for the reasons 

discussed, DOE is amending the clothes 

dryer test procedure in today’s final rule 

to incorporate by reference the 

installation instructions in section 5, 

paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) and to include 

qualifying language to disregard the 

portions pertaining to batteries and the 

requirement for the determination, 

classification, and testing of all modes 

associated with every combination of 

available product configuration options. 

The Second Edition also contains 

provisions for the power supply (section 

4.3) and power-measuring instruments 

(section 4.4). Paragraph 4.3.2 requires 

that the value of the harmonic content 

of the voltage supply be recorded during 

the test and reported. As described 

previously, paragraph 4.4.1 requires the 

instrument to measure the crest factor 

and maximum current ratio. Paragraph 

4.4.3 requires the instrument to be 

capable of measuring the average power 

or integrated total energy consumption 

over any operator-selected time interval. 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated 

that it is aware of commercially 

available power measurement 

instruments that can perform each of 

these required measurements 

individually. However, DOE is also 

aware that certain industry-standard 

instruments, such as the Yokogawa 

WT210/WT230 digital power meter and 

possibly others, are unable to measure 

harmonic content or crest factor while 

measuring average power or total 

integrated energy consumption. DOE is 

concerned that laboratories currently 

using power-measuring instruments 

without this capability would be 

required to purchase, at potentially 

significant expense, additional powermeasuring instruments that are able to 

perform all these measurements 

simultaneously. Therefore, DOE 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR for 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

D1, sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.4.7 that if the 

power-measuring instrument is unable 

to perform these measurements during 

the actual test measurement, it would be 

acceptable to measure the total 

harmonic content, crest factor, and 

maximum current ratio immediately 

before and immediately after the actual 

test measurement to determine whether 

the requirements for the power supply 

and power measurement have been met. 

78 FR 152, 172 (Jan. 2, 2013). AHAM 

commented that it supports this 

proposal. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) For 

the reasons discussed, DOE adopts these 

amendments to its clothes dryer test 

procedure in today’s final rule. 

The other major changes in the 

Second Edition related to the 

measurement of standby mode and off 

mode power consumption in covered 

products involve measurement 

techniques and specification of the 

stability criteria required to measure 

that power. The Second Edition 

contains more detailed techniques to 

evaluate the stability of the power 

consumption and to measure the power 

consumption for loads with different 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49627 

stability characteristics. According to 

the Second Edition, the user is given a 

choice of measurement procedures, 

including sampling methods, average 

reading methods, and a direct meter 

reading method. For the January 2013 

NOPR, DOE evaluated these new 

methods in terms of test burden and 

improvement in results as compared to 

the methods adopted in the January 

2011 Final Rule, which were based on 

IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition). 

In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE 

adopted provisions requiring that 

clothes dryer standby mode and off 

mode power be measured using section 

5, paragraph 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301 

(First Edition), clarified by requiring the 

product to stabilize for 30 to 40 minutes 

and using an energy use measurement 

period of 10 minutes. Further, for any 

clothes dryer in which the power varies 

over a cycle, as described in section 5, 

paragraph 5.3.2 of the First Edition, the 

January 2011 Final Rule adopted 

amendments to require the use of the 

average power approach in section 5, 

paragraph 5.3.2(a), with a 30- to 40- 

minute stabilization period and a 10- 

minute minimum measurement period, 

as long as the measurement period 

comprises one or more complete cycles. 

76 FR 972, 979–980, 985–986 (Jan. 6, 

2011). 

For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

analyzed the potential impacts of 

referencing methodology from IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition) rather 

than from the First Edition by 

comparing the provisions allowed by 

each under different scenarios of power 

consumption stability. Based on its 

analysis, DOE concluded that the use of 

the Second Edition would improve the 

accuracy and representativeness of 

power consumption measurements and 

would not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. As a result, DOE proposed in 

the January 2013 NOPR to incorporate 

by reference the relevant paragraphs of 

section 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) in the clothes dryer 

test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.6. 78 

FR 152, 172–174 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

AHAM commented that it does not 

oppose the proposed requirement to use 

the sampling method in section 5.3.2 of 

the Second Edition. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

p. 14) For the reasons discussed above, 

DOE amends the clothes dryer test 

procedure in today’s final rule to require 

in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

D1, section 3.6 the use of the sampling 

method in section 5.3.2 of the Second 

Edition for all standby mode and off 

mode power measurements. 

DOE also amends the reference in 10 

CFR 430.3 to add IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition). DOE is not replacing 

the reference to the First Edition in 10 

CFR 430.3, because several test 

procedures for other covered products 

not addressed in today’s notice 

incorporate provisions from it. In 

addition, there are a number of editorial 

changes necessary in appendix D1 to 

allow for the correct referencing to the 

Second Edition. For example, the 

definition section in appendix D1 must 

define the IEC Standard 62301 as the 

Second Edition instead of the First 

Edition. Also, there are certain section 

numbering differences in the Second 

Edition that impact the text of the 

measurement provisions of the relevant 

test procedures in appendix D1. In 

addition, the definition and section 

references discussed above are 

incorporated in appendix D2. 

E. Technical Correction to the 

Calculation of the Per-cycle Combined 

Total Energy Consumption 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted 

that 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix D1, section 4.6, regarding the 

calculation of the per-cycle combined 

total energy consumption contains a 

reference to an incorrect section 

number. The per-cycle standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption, ETSO, 

which is contained in section 4.5, is 

incorrectly referenced in the per-cycle 

combined total energy consumption as 

section 4.7. DOE proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR to correct this 

section number reference. 78 FR 152, 

174 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE did not receive 

any comments on this topic in response 

to the January 2013 NOPR. In today’s 

final rule, DOE adopts this amendment 

to its clothes dryer test procedure in 

appendix D1, and includes the correct 

calculation in newly adopted appendix 

D2. 

F. Clarifications to Test Conditions 

DOE noted in both the January 2013 

NOPR and the February 2013 SNOPR 

that it had received a number of 

inquiries requesting clarification on 

testing according to the DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D. 78 FR 152, 174 

(Jan. 2, 2013); 78 FR 8992 (Feb. 7, 2013). 

As discussed in the following sections, 

based on these inquiries, DOE is 

adopting amendments in today’s final 

rule to clarify certain provisions in the 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure. 

1. Cycle Settings 

Section 3.3 in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D specifies that the 

maximum temperature setting and, if a 

tested unit is equipped with a timer, the 

maximum time setting must be used for 

the drying test cycle. DOE noted in the 

January 2013 NOPR that it received an 

inquiry regarding how to test a clothes 

dryer that has timed dry cycle length 

settings, but no temperature settings on 

the control panel. DOE proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR to clarify in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D, section 

3.3, that if the clothes dryer does not 

have a separate temperature setting 

selection on the control panel, the 

maximum time setting should be used 

for the drying test cycle. DOE also 

proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to 

include the clarification discussed 

above in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix D1, for the 

timer dryer test method. 78 FR 152, 174 

(Jan. 2, 2013). 

AHAM commented that it does not 

oppose these clarifications for the cycle 

settings, nor does it oppose these 

changes becoming effective prior to the 

January 1, 2015 standards compliance 

date. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 17) Because 

DOE did not receive any comments 

objecting to this proposal in response to 

the January 2013 NOPR and for the 

reasons discussed above, DOE adopts 

this clarification to its clothes dryer test 

procedure in appendix D and appendix 

D1 in today’s final rule. Because DOE is 

amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure in today’s final rule to create 

a new appendix D2 for informational 

purposes only that includes the 

methods for more accurately measuring 

the effects of automatic cycle 

termination, which includes a separate 

method for timer dryers, DOE is also 

including the same cycle settings 

clarification in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, for 

the timer dryer test method. 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted 

that it also received an inquiry regarding 

how to test a clothes dryer that has an 

optional cycle setting, other than the 

temperature and time settings, that is 

activated by default in the condition as 

shipped by the manufacturer. DOE 

proposed to clarify in both 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix D, section 3.3, 

and appendix D1, section 3.3.1, that the 

test procedures specify requirements 

only for the temperature setting and 

time setting, and do not specify 

modifications to any other optional 

settings that do not alter the temperature 

setting and time setting. Similarly, in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

section 3.3.2, DOE proposed to clarify 

for automatic termination control dryers 

that any other optional cycle settings 

that do not affect the automatic 

termination cycle program, temperature 

setting, or dryness setting shall be tested 

in the as-shipped position. 78 FR 152, 

174 (Jan. 2, 2013). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49628 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

AHAM commented that it does not 

oppose the clarifications for the optional 

cycle settings because they are 

consistent with its position that units 

should be tested in the as-shipped 

condition. AHAM stated that if other 

settings are activated by default when 

the appropriate temperature and time 

settings are selected, the unit should be 

tested with those settings activated. 

AHAM noted, however, that because it 

opposes the amendments related to 

automatic termination controls at this 

time, it supports incorporating these 

clarifications in the current appendix D 

and appendix D1. Should DOE finalize 

the automatic termination control 

methodology and related amendments, 

but make them mandatory for 

compliance with some future standard 

(beyond 2015), AHAM stated it would 

support these clarifications in that test 

procedure as well. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

pp. 17–18) 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

amends section 3.3 in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D and D1 and 

section 3.3.1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart 

B, appendix D2, to clarify that any other 

optional cycle settings that do not affect 

the temperature or time settings shall be 

tested in the as-shipped position. In 

addition, DOE amends section 3.3.2 of 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

D2, which will not be required to 

demonstrate compliance with the 2015 

standards, to clarify for automatic 

termination control dryers that any 

other optional cycle settings that do not 

affect the automatic termination cycle 

program, temperature setting, or dryness 

setting shall be tested in the as-shipped 

position. 

2. Gas Supply Requirements 

Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D and appendix 

D1, specifies that gas supply to the 

clothes dryer should be maintained at a 

normal inlet test pressure at 7 to 10 

inches of water column, and that the 

hourly British thermal unit (Btu) rating 

of the burner shall be maintained within 

± 5 percent of the rating specified by the 

manufacturer. DOE discussed in the 

January 2013 NOPR that it received an 

inquiry noting that during testing of a 

gas clothes dryer, the unit under test did 

not meet the requirement to maintain 

the Btu rating within 5 percent of the 

rating specified by the manufacturer 

under the allowable range in gas inlet 

test pressure. DOE proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR to add a 

clarification in both 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 

that if the requirement to maintain the 

hourly Btu rating of the burner within 

± 5 percent of the rating specified by the 

manufacturer cannot be achieved under 

the allowable range in gas inlet test 

pressure, the orifice of the gas burner 

should be modified as necessary to 

achieve the required Btu rating. 78 FR 

152, 174–175 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

AHAM and ALS opposed the 

proposal to change the orifice of the gas 

burner or any other hardware to meet 

the ± 5 percent requirement. AHAM 

added that the burner Btu rating is 

based on a test gas value intended to 

ensure product safety and that the 

average heating value and typical 

heating value during consumer use may 

be lower than the heating value of the 

test gas. AHAM commented that 

because the intent of the test procedure 

is to be representative of actual 

consumer use, DOE should not go 

forward with this proposal because the 

consumer would never and should 

never modify the orifice. (AHAM, No. 

17 at p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at pp. 4–5) 

DOE notes that the proposed 

requirement to modify the gas burner 

orifice if the hourly Btu rating specified 

by the manufacturer cannot be achieved 

under the allowable range in gas inlet 

pressure ensures that the burner output 

is reproducible from lab to lab for 

testing purposes. DOE notes that 

removing the gas supply requirements 

specified in the test procedure and 

allowing a wider range in the burner 

output could affect the measured 

efficiency and reproducibility of results 

because of the resulting variation in the 

heat input into the air entering the 

clothes dryer drum. In addition, DOE 

notes that the test procedure for gas 

water heaters similarly specifies that the 

burner should be adjusted as necessary 

to achieve the hourly Btu rating 

specified by the manufacturer. (10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix E, section 

5.1.3) To ensure that test results are 

repeatable and reproducible, in today’s 

final rule, DOE amends the clothes 

dryer test procedure in section 2.3.2 in 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D 

and appendix D1 to include this 

clarification for the gas supply 

requirements. In addition, because DOE 

is also amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure to include a new appendix 

D2, DOE is also including this 

clarification for the gas supply 

requirements in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D2, section 2.3.2. 

Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 

specifies that if a clothes dryer is 

equipped with a gas appliance pressure 

regulator, the regulator outlet pressure 

at the normal test pressure shall be 

approximately that recommended by the 

manufacturer. DOE noted in the January 

2013 NOPR that the test procedures for 

similar gas heating products, such as gas 

water heaters, specify that the regulator 

outlet pressure must be within ± 10 

percent of the value specified by the 

manufacturer. DOE proposed to clarify 

the term ‘‘approximately’’ by specifying 

that the regulator outlet pressure shall 

be within ± 10 percent of the value 

specified by the manufacturer. 78 FR 

152, 175 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

ALS supported DOE’s proposal to 

clarify the outlet pressure range for the 

gas regulator. (ALS, No. 16, at p. 5) 

AHAM commented that the regulator 

outlet pressure should be as close as 

possible to that specified by the 

manufacturer. AHAM stated that this 

manufacturer recommendation helps 

ensure the safety of the product and, 

thus, the outlet pressure should not be 

altered. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 18) 

Because DOE did not receive any 

comments objecting to this proposal in 

response to the January 2013 NOPR and 

for the reasons discussed above, DOE 

amends section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix D and 

appendix D1 in today’s final rule to 

include the clarification that the 

regulator outlet pressure shall be within 

± 10 percent of the value recommended 

by the manufacturer in the installation 

manual, on the nameplate sticker, or 

wherever the manufacturer makes such 

a recommendation for the basic model. 

In addition, because DOE is also 

amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure to include a new appendix 

D2, DOE is also including this 

clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D2, section 2.3.2. 

3. Console Lights 

In the February 2013 SNOPR, DOE 

noted that it received an inquiry 

requesting clarification on section 2.1 in 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D 

and appendix D1, which specifies for 

the installation conditions that all 

console lights or other lighting systems 

that do not consume more than 10 watts 

shall be disconnected during the clothes 

dryer active mode test cycle. 78 FR 

8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013). DOE noted 

that this provision was originally 

adopted in the September 1977 Final 

Rule. 42 FR 46145, 46146, 46150. DOE 

intended this provision to apply to an 

older generation of clothes dryers 

existing at the time of the September 

1977 Final Rule that used task lights to 

illuminate the area of the clothes dryer 

for consumers doing the laundry that 

did not provide any function related to 

the drying process during the drying 

cycle. Newer-generation clothes dryers 

equipped with electronic controls may 

have control setting indicators such as 

indicator lights showing the cycle 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49629 

progression, temperature or dryness 

settings, or other cycle functions. In 

contrast to the task lighting of oldergeneration clothes dryers, these 

indicator lights associated with cycle 

settings or the drying operation are fully 

integrated into the clothes dryer control 

printed circuit boards (PCBs). 

Disconnecting such lights would require 

extracting the control PCB from the 

clothes dryer and either physically 

cutting off the indicator lights or 

destroying their electrical signal traces 

etched on the PCB. 

As a result of these differences, DOE 

proposed in the February 2013 SNOPR 

to clarify in section 2.1 in both 

appendix D and appendix D1 that 

‘‘console lights or other lighting 

systems’’ refers to task lights that do not 

provide any function during the drying 

cycle related to the drying process, 

rather than the control setting indicators 

in newer-generation clothes dryers with 

electronic controls. DOE also proposed 

to clarify that control setting indicators 

such as indicator lights showing the 

cycle progression, temperature or 

dryness settings, or other cycle 

functions should not be disconnected 

during the active mode test cycle. 78 FR 

8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013). 

AHAM and ALS commented that they 

do not oppose the proposed clarification 

for the installation conditions of console 

lights. AHAM added that because this is 

not different than current industry 

practice, this proposal would not impact 

measured efficiency. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) Because DOE 

did not receive any comments objecting 

to this proposal and for the reasons 

discussed above, DOE amends the 

section 2.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D and appendix D1 in 

today’s final rule to include this 

clarification to the installation 

requirements for console lights or other 

lighting systems. In addition, because 

DOE is also amending the clothes dryer 

test procedure to include a new 

appendix D2, DOE is also including this 

clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D2, section 2.1. 

4. Drum Capacity Measurements 

Section 3.1 in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 

specifies that when measuring drum 

capacity, the drum shall be filled with 

water to a level determined by the 

intersection of the door plane and the 

loading port. In addition, section 3.1 

specifies that volume should be added 

or subtracted as appropriate depending 

on whether the plastic bag used for the 

measurement protrudes into the drum 

interior. DOE noted in the February 

2013 SNOPR that it received an inquiry 

requesting clarification of this 

requirement. DOE proposed to amend 

section 3.1 to clarify that, for the 

measurement of the drum capacity, the 

intersection of the door plane and the 

loading port refers to the uppermost 

edge of the drum that is in contact with 

the door seal and that volume should be 

added or subtracted from the measured 

water fill volume to account for any 

space in the drum interior not measured 

by water fill (e.g., space occupied by the 

door protruding into the drum interior). 

78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013). 

ALS supported DOE’s proposal to 

clarify the drum capacity measurement. 

(ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) AHAM commented 

that it opposes the change for the drum 

capacity measurements in appendix D 

due to a lack of information and data on 

the impact, if any, on measured energy 

efficiency. AHAM stated that it does not 

have such data. AHAM also commented 

that the proposed amendments could 

impact manufacturers’ reported 

capacities and that it would be 

burdensome to require such a change 

during the transition to the January 1, 

2015 standards. AHAM suggested that 

DOE make this change only to appendix 

D1, and only if DOE determines that 

there would be no impact on measured 

energy efficiency. Otherwise, AHAM 

requested that any changes DOE made 

not be mandatory for compliance with 

the January 1, 2015 standards. 

According to AHAM, this would allow 

any impact on measured energy 

efficiency to be evaluated in the future. 

AHAM commented that it is possible 

that manufacturers have information on 

whether there is an impact on measured 

energy efficiency, and, thus, AHAM 

suggested that DOE contact 

manufacturers to understand the 

potential impact. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 

18–19) 

DOE notes that the amendment for the 

drum capacity measurement proposed 

in the February 2013 SNOPR would 

clarify the measurement method (i.e., 

the level to which water is filled in the 

drum and the amount of volume added 

or subtracted from the measurement), 

but not change the measurement results. 

Therefore, the amendments to clarify 

the drum capacity measurement would 

not affect the measured drum volume or 

energy efficiency. In today’s final rule, 

DOE amends section 3.1 in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix D and 

appendix D1 to include this clarification 

to the drum capacity measurement. In 

addition, because DOE is also amending 

the clothes dryer test procedure to 

include a new appendix D2, DOE is also 

including this clarification in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, 

section 3.1. 

The California IOUs commented that 

the current method for measuring drum 

capacity requires a technician to line the 

clothes dryer drum with a plastic bag 

and then fill the lined drum with water 

while the clothes dryer rests on its side 

on a scale. The California IOUs stated 

that this procedure is burdensome, 

presents a risk of very large water spills, 

and can introduce measurement errors 

because it is often difficult for 

technicians to ensure that the plastic 

bag has completely filled every 

extrusion inside the drum, particularly 

those just inside the drum opening. The 

California IOUs stated that DOE should 

consider the IEC method for drum 

volume measurement. (California IOUs, 

No. 22 at p. 24) 

DOE notes that the drum volume 

measurement method in annex E of IEC 

Standard 61121 requires that the clothes 

dryer be placed on its side with the door 

leveled horizontally. The drum is then 

filled with specifically-sized table 

tennis balls without preventing the door 

closing. In addition, the table tennis 

balls are stirred occasionally to achieve 

the closest packing of balls possible and 

to eliminate void spaces. The number of 

table tennis balls are then counted and 

used to calculate the drum volume. DOE 

notes that this method could result in 

variation due to test technicians stirring 

the table tennis balls differently, and 

thus ending up with a different number 

of total balls in the drum. DOE also 

notes that counting the table tennis balls 

may be burdensome depending on the 

size of the drum. DOE notes that, if 

conducted properly, the drum capacity 

measurement using water is not 

significantly more burdensome that the 

drum volume measurement method in 

IEC Standard 61121. As a result, DOE is 

not considering such amendments to the 

drum capacity measurement method in 

today’s final rule. 

5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range 

Section 2.4.1 in appendix D and 

appendix D1 specifies that the weighing 

scale for the test cloth shall have a range 

of 0 to a maximum of 30 lb with a 

resolution of at least 0.2 ounces and a 

maximum error no greater than 0.3 

percent of any measured value within 

the range of 3 to 15 lb. Similarly, section 

2.4.1.2 in appendix D and appendix D1 

specifies that the weighing scale for 

drum capacity measurements should 

have a range of 0 to a maximum of 500 

lb with resolution of 0.50 lb and a 

maximum error no greater than 0.5 

percent of the measured value. DOE 

noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that 

it received an inquiry requesting 

clarification of this requirement. DOE 

recognizes that scales for weighing the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

test cloth may have maximum capacity 

higher than 30 lb, but still meet the 

requirements for resolution and 

maximum error within the range of 3 to 

15 lb, as specified in the test procedure. 

DOE also recognizes that a clothes 

dryer, when filled with water for the 

drum capacity measurement, could 

exceed 500 lb. As a result, DOE 

proposed in February 2013 SNOPR to 

allow a higher maximum scale range, 60 

lb for weighing the test cloth and 600 lb 

for drum capacity measurements. DOE 

also noted that the resolution and 

maximum error requirements would 

remain unchanged. 78 FR 8992, 8993– 

8994 (Feb. 7, 2013). 

AHAM stated that it did not oppose 

the proposal to increase the maximum 

allowable scale range while retaining 

the resolution and maximum error 

requirements. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 19) 

ALS opposed DOE’s proposal for the 

weighing scales, especially for the 600 

lb maximum range for the weighing 

scale used for drum capacity 

measurements. ALS commented that a 

larger maximum range would be 

acceptable provided that the scale’s 

accuracy in the range where the 

measurement is being made is calibrated 

to ISO 17025. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 5–6) 

As discussed above, DOE is maintaining 

the resolution and accuracy 

requirements in the range where the 

measurement is being made that are 

specified in the current test procedure. 

DOE does not believe it is necessary to 

require a calibration to a specific 

standard as long as the resolution and 

accuracy requirements have been 

properly certified. For the reasons 

discussed above, in today’s final rule, 

DOE adopts the amendments to sections 

2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2 in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 

to allow a higher maximum scale range, 

60 lb for weighing the test cloth and 600 

lb for drum capacity measurements, 

while maintaining the current 

resolution and maximum error 

requirements. In addition, because DOE 

is also amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure to include a new appendix 

D2, DOE is also incorporating these 

provisions for the weighing scale in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, 

sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2. 

6. Relative Humidity Meter 

Section 2.4.4 in appendix D and 

appendix D1 specifies that the dry and 

wet bulb psychrometer used for 

measuring the ambient humidity shall 

have an error no greater than ±1 degree 

Fahrenheit (°F). DOE noted in the 

February 2013 SNOPR that it received 

an inquiry requesting clarification of 

this provision. DOE recognizes that 

relative humidity meters may be an 

acceptable means to measure the 

ambient humidity. DOE also recognizes 

that some humidity meters may express 

error tolerances in terms of the dry and 

wet bulb temperatures, while others 

express error tolerances in terms of 

percent relative humidity. As a result, 

DOE evaluated how the ±1 °F tolerance 

for the dry and wet bulb temperatures 

translates to relative humidity. DOE 

determined in the February 2013 

SNOPR, based on the allowable range in 

ambient temperature (72 to 78 °F) and 

ambient humidity (40 to 60 percent 

relative humidity) specified in the DOE 

test procedure, that a ±1 °F tolerance for 

the dry and wet bulb temperatures 

would translate to a tolerance between 

±2 percent and ±4 percent relative 

humidity. As a result, DOE proposed 

that a relative humidity meter with a 

maximum error tolerance expressed in 

°F equivalent to the requirements for the 

dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with 

a maximum error tolerance of ±2 

percent relative humidity would be 

acceptable for testing. 78 FR 8992, 

8993–8994 (Feb. 7, 2013). 

ALS supported DOE’s proposed 

requirements for the relative humidity 

meter. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 6) Because 

DOE did not receive any comments 

objecting to this proposal in response to 

the February 2013 SNOPR and for the 

reasons discussed above, DOE adopts in 

today’s final rule the amendments to 

section 2.4.4 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D and appendix D1 

specifying that a relative humidity 

meter with a maximum error tolerance 

expressed in °F equivalent to the 

requirements for the dry and wet bulb 

psychrometer or with a maximum error 

tolerance of ±2 percent relative 

humidity would be acceptable for 

testing. In addition, because DOE is also 

amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure to include a new appendix 

D2, DOE is also including this 

clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D2, section 2.4.4. 

G. Additional Test Procedure Issues 

DOE received comments in response 

to the January 2013 NOPR and February 

2013 SNOPR regarding a number of 

additional issues related to the clothes 

dryer test procedure. These issues are 

discussed in the following sections. 

1. Consumer Usage Patterns and 

Capabilities 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding changes to reflect current 

consumer usage patterns and 

capabilities. NEEA and the California 

IOUs commented that based on the 

NEEA field use data, the drying energy 

consumption per-cycle in the field is 

different than what is measured in the 

DOE test procedure. NEEA stated that 

real-world drying times are longer and 

the energy used per load is greater. 

According to NEEA, their field use data 

indicates that the average annual energy 

use is 1134 kWh/year, which is nearly 

double what the DOE test procedure 

produces. According to the California 

IOUs, the typical annual energy use 

using DOE’s proposed amendments to 

appendix D1 is 30 percent lower than 

values observed in the NEEA field 

study, which ranged from 

approximately 830 to 1,100 kWh/year. 

The California IOUs stated that the 

estimated clothes dryer energy use is 

967 kWh/year when using the appendix 

D test procedure, which closely 

approximates the trends observed in the 

field data. The California IOUs stated 

that the proposed number of clothes 

dryer loads per year reduces the 

estimated annual energy use to 641 

kWh/year, which is too low. (NEEA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 

15–16, 17, 18; California IOUs, No. 22 

at pp. 1–2) 

The California IOUs commented that 

in terms of load size, typical drying 

times, and the measurement of 

automatic termination, NEEA’s field 

study and the proposed test procedure 

in the January 2013 NOPR are in fairly 

close agreement. However, the 

California IOUs stated that the initial 

RMC, number of annual use cycles, field 

use factor, temperature settings, load 

composition, and duct restriction are 

substantively different, and as a result, 

a number of values derived from these 

parameters (i.e., the adjusted per-cycle 

energy use, energy factor, and estimated 

annual energy use) are significantly 

different as well. The California IOUs 

commented that changes to the initial 

RMC, field use factor, and number of 

annual use cycles are feasible to include 

in the current test procedure 

rulemaking. (California IOUs, No. 22 at 

p. 6) 

NRDC also commented that there are 

several aspects of the test procedure that 

remain inconsistent with real-world use, 

including the number of annual clothes 

dryer use cycles and the initial RMC, as 

demonstrated by the recent NEEA field 

study, testing by Ecos for NRDC, and 

more recent testing by Ecova. NRDC 

commented that, while these issues are 

beyond the scope of the current 

rulemaking, DOE should conduct a new 

rulemaking as soon as possible to 

address these issues to better represent 

real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at 

p. 2) NEEA & NPCC similarly 

commented that if DOE is unable to 

make appropriate changes to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49631 

proposed test procedures in the current 

rulemaking that would bring tested 

energy use in closer agreement with a 

more representative average use cycle as 

indicated by the NEEA field data, DOE 

should initiate another round of test 

procedure and standards rulemaking as 

soon as possible. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 

at p. 4) 

The following sections discuss the 

specific issues related to consumer use. 

a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles 

The DOE test procedure in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

section 4.5, specifies that the 

representative number of clothes dryer 

average-use cycles is 283 cycles per 

year. NEEA presented data at the 

February 2013 public meeting from a 

field study that it conducted in the 

Pacific Northwest for a four- to fiveweek period during the winter of 2012 

indicating that the number of clothes 

dryer annual use cycles is 428, and that 

the amendment in the January 2011 

Final Rule to change the number of 

cycles per year to 283 is not 

representative. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 17–18, 194– 

195) The California IOUs also 

commented that the number of loads 

being dried per year is greater than 

specified in appendix D1. The 

California IOUs commented that, as a 

result, real-world energy consumption is 

higher, with a greater potential for 

absolute energy savings. (California 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 

at pp. 196–198) NEEA & NPCC and the 

California IOUs commented that the 

clothes dryer annual use cycles should 

be adjusted upward to 337 based on the 

NEEA field study data. (NEEA & NPCC, 

No. 21 at p. 13; California IOUs, No. 22 

at pp. 6, 10) NEEA & NPCC and the 

California IOUs commented that the 

RECS data alone are not precise enough 

to use as the basis for the annual use 

cycles of clothes dryers. NEEA & NPCC 

and the California IOUs commented that 

RECS data are based on self-reporting of 

survey participants, who were asked to 

recall and report on their typical 

laundry habits, rather than relying on 

precisely metered laundry loads. NEEA 

& NPCC and the California IOUs also 

stated that the ranges allowed for the 

responses are too wide to produce 

accurate data on average use, and that 

the clothes dryer data are qualitative 

and categorical in nature, further 

introducing room for interpretation. 

NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs 

commented that the estimate of the 

fraction of clothes washer loads that are 

dried is 124 percent based on NEEA 

data and not the 84 percent or 91 

percent that DOE estimated. NEEA & 

NPCC stated that the matching process 

between the monitored clothes dryer 

cycles and the hand-written log entries 

for each load can lead to ambiguity in 

the results of their analysis of the field 

data, but that the NEEA data also show 

that people are often splitting loads that 

come out of the clothes washer into two 

or more clothes dryer loads. (NEEA & 

NPCC, No. 21 at p. 13; California IOUs, 

No. 22 at pp. 6, 7–8) 

The California IOUs stated that they 

conducted a sensitivity analysis on the 

RECS data to establish high, 

intermediate, and low estimates of 

annual clothes dryer usage, using the 

distribution of responses for each 

question to establish weighted averages 

of clothes washer and clothes dryer use. 

The California IOUs commented that 

their analysis showed that the RECS 

data could yield values as high as 363 

and as low as 199 clothes dryer loads 

per year. The California IOUs 

commented that DOE should consider 

existing field measurements of 

residential laundry behavior to 

determine an appropriate estimate for 

the number of annual clothes dryer use 

cycles, noting a number of surveys with 

estimates for the average annual use 

cycles ranging from 224 loads per year 

to 545 loads per year. (California IOUs, 

No. 22 at p. 9) The California IOUs 

stated that the NEEA field study, which 

estimated 338 annual use cycles, is 

more reflective of the average U.S. 

homeowner usage than the RECS data 

are for several reasons: (1) The 50 

participants were metered for a longer 

period than other field studies 

(including a total of 903 valid clothes 

dryer runs); (2) the NEEA study was 

specifically designed to examine the 

energy use and behaviors associated 

with laundry care in the Northwest 

region, including written logs of clothes 

washer and clothes dryer use to 

corroborate metered clothes dryer data; 

(3) NEEA captured a diverse sample of 

homes in its study, whereas one earlier 

study was dominated by homes already 

participating in energy efficiency 

programs that show a tendency to use 

equipment less frequently; and (4) the 

estimates of annual clothes dryer loads 

per year from the NEEA study fall in the 

middle of the range of possible clothes 

dryer use estimates resulting from 

analysis of RECS data. (California IOUs, 

No. 22 at p. 10) The California IOUs 

commented that although a 

comprehensive study of typical U.S. 

residential laundry behavior does not 

yet exist, the existing studies provide a 

sounder basis for calculating clothes 

dryer cycles per year than RECS survey 

data. The California IOUs requested that 

DOE adjust its current assumption of 

283 clothes dryer loads per year up to 

336 clothes dryer loads per year, which 

both reflects findings of the NEEA study 

and serves as a compromise point 

between current and pre-2011 DOE duty 

cycle values. (California IOUs, No. 22 at 

pp. 10–11) 

AHAM opposed a change to the 

number of clothes dryer annual use 

cycles. AHAM stated that DOE just 

completed a rulemaking in which it 

determined that it was appropriate to 

decrease the number of annual use 

cycles. AHAM commented that DOE 

should not reverse that determination 

now, at least, not without further study 

and the opportunity for full notice and 

comment rulemaking on the issue. In 

addition, AHAM stated that it is not 

appropriate to make this change at this 

time given that it will impact test 

results, thus necessitating an adjustment 

to the standard, which should not be 

done during the 3-year lead time to the 

January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 

17 at p. 16) 

DOE notes that the 283 clothes dryer 

annual use cycles specified in appendix 

D1 was based on data from the 2005 

RECS, which is a national sample 

survey of housing units that collects 

statistical information on the 

consumption of, and expenditures for, 

energy in housing units along with data 

on energy-related characteristics of the 

housing units and occupants. In the 

January 2011 Final Rule, DOE estimated 

that the fraction of clothes washer loads 

that go into the clothes dryer is 91 

percent (not the 84 percent suggested by 

NEEA & NPCC). In addition, DOE noted 

in the January 2011 Final Rule that the 

283 annual use cycles is fairly 

consistent with data provided by AHAM 

that referenced a study conducted by 

Procter & Gamble (which estimated 279 

annual use cycles), as well as data from 

Whirlpool (which estimated 288 annual 

use cycles). 76 FR 972, 1010 (Jan. 6, 

2011). DOE also notes that the NEEA 

field study does not appear to take into 

account users that may line-dry certain 

laundry loads, which could potentially 

be due to the timing (winter) and 

location (Pacific Northwest) of the 

survey. DOE recognizes interested 

parties’ concerns regarding the number 

of annual use cycles based on the 

available field use data. However, DOE 

does not have sufficient information at 

this time to make a definitive 

conclusion regarding the number of 

clothes dryer annual use cycles. As a 

result, DOE is not amending the number 

of clothes dryer annual use cycles at this 

time in the limited scope of this test 

procedure rulemaking. DOE may 

continue collecting and considering 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49632 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

available data on clothes dryer use and 

may consider amendments to the 

number of annual use cycles in a future 

rulemaking. 

b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content 

and Moisture Removed During Test 

Cycle 

The DOE test procedure in appendix 

D1 specifies that the initial RMC of the 

test load shall be 57.5 percent. (10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 

section 2.7) NEEA presented data at the 

February 2013 public meeting from a 

field study that it conducted showing 

that real-world initial RMC is 80 

percent. In addition, NEEA commented 

that based on its field use data, the 

drying cycle times in the field are 

different than what is measured in the 

DOE test procedure. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 15, 16, 

194–195) The California IOUs also 

commented that, based on the NEEA 

field data, clothes are wetter when they 

come out of the clothes washer than 

DOE estimates. (California IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 196– 

197) 

NEEA & NPCC and the California 

IOUs commented that, based on the 

NEEA field study data, initial RMC 

values below 60 percent are not being 

realized in the field, and that their 

average (from a sample of 50 households 

that comprised 30-percent top-loaders 

and 70-percent front-loaders) is 

estimated to be 62 percent. NEEA & 

NPCC stated that this results in greater 

energy use and longer cycle times in the 

field than is produced using the DOE 

test procedure. NEEA & NPCC added 

that the initial RMC is largely 

independent of the dry weight of the 

test load because: (1) Clothes washer 

users are not always selecting the cycles 

that utilize the highest spin speeds 

available on their equipment; and (2) if 

consumers do select those cycles, the 

clothes washers are not always 

successfully balancing the loads 

sufficiently to actually spin at the 

highest speeds. NEEA & NPCC 

commented that in many cases, the 

machine is unable to balance the load 

after a long period and simply spins at 

the highest speed that the suspension 

allows, and they believe that this speed 

may decrease over time as the drum 

suspension components wear. (NEEA & 

NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3–4, 7–8, NPCC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 

114) NEEA & NPCC stated that the RMC 

values seen in the field result in more 

time and energy to dry a typical load 

than DOE’s current test procedures 

would suggest. According to NEEA & 

NPCC, the estimated average drying 

cycle time from the field testing was 58 

minutes. NEEA & NPCC also stated that 

there is a positive linear trend between 

average drying time versus average total 

moisture removed. Based on field data, 

NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs 

recommended that DOE change the 

initial RMC value to 62 percent ± 0.33 

percent. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 

8–10; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6– 

7) 

AHAM opposed a change to the initial 

RMC currently specified in the DOE test 

procedure at appendix D1. AHAM 

stated that DOE just completed a 

rulemaking in which it determined that 

it was appropriate to decrease the initial 

RMC. AHAM commented that DOE 

should not now reverse that 

determination, at least not without 

further study and the opportunity for 

full notice and comment rulemaking on 

the issue. In addition, AHAM stated that 

it is not appropriate to make this change 

at this time given that it will impact test 

results, thus necessitating an adjustment 

to the standard, which should not be 

done during the 3-year lead time to the 

January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 

17 at pp. 12–13) 

DOE noted in the January 2011 Final 

Rule that the 57.5-percent initial RMC 

was based on AHAM shipmentweighted clothes washer RMC data, 

which was representative of all products 

on the market. In addition, DOE notes 

that there is uncertainty in the initial 

RMC estimates from the NEEA field 

study data because each laundry load 

was not dried to determine the bone-dry 

weight, which is then used to calculate 

the RMC of the test load. Instead, a fixed 

correction was used to estimate the 

RMC of laundry loads from the NEEA 

field study. DOE also notes that NEEA 

& NPCC’s comment that initial RMCs 

below 60 percent are not being realized 

in the field appears to be contrary to the 

data presented in their comments, 

which show that a large number of 

laundry loads metered in the NEEA 

field study had initial RMCs of 60 

percent or less (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 

at p. 7). After considering this 

information, DOE determined it is not 

sufficient at this time to make a 

definitive conclusion regarding the 

value of the initial RMC of the test load. 

As a result, DOE is not amending the 

initial RMC in this test procedure 

rulemaking. DOE may continue 

collecting and considering available 

data on clothes dryer use and may 

consider amendments to the initial RMC 

in a future rulemaking. 

The California IOUs stated that the 

amount of moisture being removed 

better describes the work being done by 

a clothes dryer than the dry weight of 

clothing in the load, and that the 

proposed test procedure does not 

require the clothes dryer under test to 

remove as much moisture as the field 

data suggests is typical. The California 

IOUs stated that, as a result, the DOE 

test procedure underestimates field 

clothes dryer energy use by 30 percent. 

The California IOUs presented data 

showing that the amount of water 

removed during the proposed automatic 

cycle termination test procedure is 4.6 

lb, whereas the NEEA field study data 

show an average of 4.5 lb of water 

removed during the drying cycle. The 

California IOUs stated that the test 

procedure will not be representative of 

field conditions unless the total 

moisture being removed per load is 

greater, as suggested by the field data. 

(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 18–19) 

DOE notes that the amount of 

moisture removed is controlled by the 

weight, initial RMC, and final RMC of 

the test load. For the reasons discussed 

in this section, DOE is not considering 

changes to the test load weight and 

initial RMC in today’s final rule. In 

addition, as discussed in section III.B.3, 

the 2-percent final RMC threshold for 

the automatic cycle termination test 

method was based on the data presented 

in the Joint Petitioners’ comment 

regarding RMC levels acceptable to 

consumers. DOE also notes that the 

amount of water removed during the 

proposed automatic termination test 

cycle for standard-size clothes dryers 

must be at a minimum 4.7 lb to dry the 

load to just 2-percent RMC (not 4.6 lb 

as suggested by the California IOUs), 

and thus most clothes dryers will dry 

more than 4.7 lb of water during the test 

cycle. DOE also notes that the data from 

the NEEA field study cited by the 

California IOUs showing that on average 

4.5 lb of water was removed during the 

drying cycle appears to be contrary to 

the California IOUs’ comment that the 

total moisture being removed per load 

should be greater. For these reasons, 

DOE is not considering changes to these 

values that would revise the amount of 

moisture removed during the test cycle. 

c. Test Load Weight 

The DOE test procedure at appendix 

D1 specifies test load bone-dry weights 

of 8.45 lb and 3.00 lb for standard-size 

and compact-size clothes dryers, 

respectively. As part of the test 

procedure amendments in the January 

2011 Final Rule, DOE changed the load 

bone-dry weights for standard-size 

dryers from 7.00 lb to 8.45 lb based on 

the historical trends of clothes washer 

tub volumes and the corresponding 

percentage increase in clothes washer 

test load sizes (as specified by the DOE 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49633 

clothes washer test procedure). 76 FR 

972, 977 (Jan. 6, 2011). 

NEEA commented that the dry weight 

of real-world test loads, as determined 

from its field study, is on average 7.4 lb. 

(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

10 at p. 17) As discussed above, DOE 

notes that there is uncertainty in the test 

load bone-dry weight estimates from the 

NEEA field study data because each 

laundry load was not dried to determine 

the bone-dry weight. Instead, a fixed 

correction was used to estimate the dry 

weight of laundry loads based on the 

weight measurements after the drying 

cycle from the NEEA field study. In 

addition, it is unclear whether the 

NEEA field study included both 

standard-size and compact-size clothes 

dryers and whether the capacities of the 

clothes dryer models in the 50 

households selected in the survey are 

representative of all U.S. clothes dryer 

shipments. DOE recognizes NEEA’s 

concerns regarding the test load bonedry weight based on the available field 

use data. However, DOE does not have 

sufficient information at this time to 

make a definitive conclusion regarding 

the test load bone-dry weight. As a 

result, DOE is not amending the test 

load bone-dry weight at this time in this 

test procedure rulemaking. DOE may 

continue collecting and considering 

available data on clothes dryer use and 

may consider amendments to the test 

load bone-dry weight in a future 

rulemaking. 

d. Exhaust Conditions 

The DOE test procedure specifies in 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D 

and appendix D1, section 2.1, that the 

clothes dryer exhaust shall be restricted 

by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator 

described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM 

HLD–1–2009. 

The California IOUs commented that 

DOE should update the test procedure 

in a new rulemaking to modify the 

exhaust cap diameter to better reflect 

the duct restriction and airflow from 

recent NEEA field measurements. 

According to the California IOUs, 

typical clothes dryers operate with lessthan-ideal venting and have greater duct 

blockage, lower airflow, and 

correspondingly longer drying times 

than those measured under DOE test 

conditions. The California IOUs stated 

that this is due to lint accumulation in 

ducts, failure of users to clean lint filters 

routinely, unsecured ducting, and long 

venting distances in older homes. The 

California IOUs stated that NEEA’s field 

study confirms a wide range of air flow 

rates from clothes dryers, representing 

various levels of duct restriction. The 

California IOUs noted that air flow rates 

at the output of the vent were found to 

be as low as 6 cubic feet per minute 

(CFM) and as high as 146 CFM, with an 

average of 79 CFM. The California IOUs 

stated that this is significantly lower 

than air flow rates of approximately 96 

CFM that they measured in the 

laboratory when a set of clothes dryers 

similar to those metered in the field 

were tested under the current DOE test 

procedure. The California IOUs 

developed a correlation of air flow rate 

with the size of hole in an end cap, as 

allowed by the 2010 AHAM procedure, 

and found that the NEEA field study 

average air flow rate was reproduced for 

the average of four representative 

clothes dryers in the laboratory with a 

hole diameter of 211⁄16 inches versus the 

current DOE value of 27⁄8 inch diameter. 

The California IOUs stated that DOE 

should update its airflow restriction in 

a new rulemaking to better reflect 

conditions documented in the field. 

(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17, 19– 

20, 21) 

DOE first notes that the exhaust 

simulator specified in section 3.3.5.1 of 

AHAM HLD–1–2009, which is required 

for use in the DOE test procedure, 

requires a hole diameter of 29⁄16 inches, 

not the 27⁄8-inch diameter referenced by 

the California IOUs. As a result, DOE 

notes that it is unclear whether the 

correlation between air flow rates with 

the size of the hole was developed 

correctly to take into consideration the 

29⁄16-hole diameter required in the DOE 

test procedure. In addition, drum 

volume and shipments information 

were not made available for the four 

clothes dryers used in the limited 

testing conducted by the California 

IOUs, to determine whether airflow 

rates would be representative of all 

clothes dryer shipments and household 

venting configurations. Therefore, DOE 

does not have sufficient information at 

this time to make a definitive 

conclusion regarding the exhaust 

conditions. As a result, DOE is not 

amending the exhaust conditions at this 

time in this test procedure rulemaking. 

DOE may continue collecting and 

considering available data on clothes 

dryer use and may consider 

amendments to the exhaust conditions 

in a future rulemaking. 

2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight 

Measurement 

DOE notes that 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2 and 

appendix D1, section 1.5 specify that 

the bone-dry weight means the 

condition of a load of test clothes which 

has been dried in a clothes dryer at 

maximum temperature for a minimum 

of 10 minutes, removed and weighed 

before cool down, and then dried again 

for 10-minute periods until the final 

weight change of the load is 1 percent 

or less. 

The California IOUs commented that 

DOE should clarify its requirements for 

bone-dry weight measurements. The 

California IOUs stated that the process 

for obtaining bone-dry weight is 

considerably labor intensive, requiring 

technicians to iteratively dry test cloths 

until their run-to-run weight variation is 

less than a particular percentage. The 

California IOUs added that for a 

laboratory conducting large numbers of 

clothes dryer measurements, the 

repeated bone drying of test cloths can 

be burdensome. The California IOUs 

commented that the current wording of 

the test procedure appears to require 

that testers obtain new bone-dry cloth 

measurements for every clothes dryer 

test. According to the California IOUs, 

test cloths shed very little mass through 

the drying process (about 0.01 lb for 

every 10 drying cycles) and so they 

question whether it may be acceptable 

for bone drying to occur at a less 

frequent interval as long as the same test 

cloths are used for every drying cycle. 

(California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 24) 

DOE notes that if a commercial 

clothes dryer is used, bone-drying test 

loads should only take two to three 10- 

minute drying cycles to achieve a bonedry state. In addition, DOE notes that 

the current DOE clothes dryer test 

procedure does not require multiple test 

runs. As a result, DOE does not consider 

the bone-drying process to be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and, therefore, 

is not amending the bone-drying process 

in today’s final rule. 

Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning 

DOE notes that the current clothes 

dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.8.2, 

specifies that for ventless clothes dryers, 

before any test cycle, the steady-state 

machine temperature must be equal to 

the room ambient temperature. Section 

2.8.2 also specifies that this may be 

done by leaving the machine at ambient 

room conditions for at least 12 hours 

between tests. 

The California IOUs commented that 

for testing laboratories conducting a 

high volume of testing with limited test 

stations, the requirement for ventless 

clothes dryers to leave the machine at 

ambient conditions for 12 hours 

between tests when conducting repeated 

tests can be burdensome and effectively 

means that only one test may be 

performed per day. The California IOUs 

requested that DOE consider alternate 

language that might enable shorter 

turnaround times when testing ventless 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49634 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

clothes dryers. The California IOUs 

stated that, for example, drum or cabinet 

air temperature measurements could be 

conducted after an initial 6-hour period 

to determine whether a clothes dryer’s 

internal temperature is within ± 5 °F of 

ambient conditions. If internal 

temperatures are within the given range 

of ambient conditions, testing would 

proceed. Otherwise, test technicians 

would need to wait the full 12 hours 

until conducting another test. The 

California IOUs stated that such 

provisions would greatly reduce the 

testing burden for ventless clothes 

dryers. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 24) 

As discussed above, the provisions 

specify that the steady-state temperature 

may be achieved by leaving the machine 

at ambient room conditions for at least 

12 hours between tests. DOE notes, 

however, that a 12-hour period is not 

required and, as discussed in the 

January 2011 Final Rule, other means 

used to achieve a steady-state machine 

temperature would be acceptable under 

the test procedure provisions. 76 FR 

972, 1007 (Jan. 6, 2011). As a result, 

DOE is not changing the preconditioning requirements for ventless 

clothes dryers in today’s final rule. 

Room Ambient Humidity Requirements 

The DOE test procedures specify in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D, 

section 2.2 and appendix D1, section 

2.2.1, that the room relative humidity 

must be maintained at 50 ± 10 percent 

relative humidity. 

The California IOUs also commented 

that the lab-to-lab variation from DOE’s 

testing with the DOE and IEC/AHAM 

test loads may be largely attributed to 

the variation in ambient humidity. The 

California IOUs commented that if the 

DOE were to change the test load 

composition such that reproducibility 

and repeatability were lessened, DOE 

could change other conditions in the 

test procedure to compensate, such as 

specifying a tighter tolerance for the 

allowable humidity. The California 

IOUs noted that it is relatively harder 

for the air coming in to the clothes dryer 

to evaporate the moisture in the load if 

the air has more water in it. (California 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 

at pp. 70–72) 

The California IOUs commented that 

they tested one clothes dryer with 

moisture sensors near the extremes of 

environmental conditions for 

temperature and humidity. The 

California IOUs stated that the hightemperature, low-relative humidity 

scenario was only 1-percent more 

efficient than the low-temperature, highrelative humidity scenario. The 

California IOUs noted that other studies, 

such as data provided by Whirlpool in 

chapter 5 of the 2011 DOE Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, have 

shown the measured efficiency has a 

greater sensitivity to ambient 

temperature and relative humidity. The 

California IOUs stated their limited data 

to date on this topic do not suggest that 

the range of allowable environmental 

conditions needs to be narrowed, but 

they encouraged DOE to investigate this 

issue more thoroughly in a new 

rulemaking as it seeks ways of 

minimizing run-to-run variability while 

increasing the representativeness of the 

test procedure. (California IOUs, No. 22 

at pp. 22–23) 

DOE notes that, in its tests, it did not 

require the ambient conditions to be 

controlled any more tightly than 

required by the current test procedure 

and that variations in the ambient 

humidity would also have been present 

from test to test within a given test lab. 

As a result, the effects of variations in 

the ambient humidity would be equally 

present in both the test-to-test and labto-lab variation. As a result, DOE 

considers the difference in lab-to-lab 

reproducibility for the DOE test load 

(3.0 percent) and the IEC/AHAM test 

load (4.7 percent) to be primarily 

attributable to the variation in test loads 

from lot to lot. DOE notes that further 

tightening the room temperature and 

humidity conditions may require testing 

to be conducted in an environmental 

chamber to maintain the required 

conditions, which would significantly 

increase testing burden. Based on the 

information and test data available 

regarding the effects of the ambient 

humidity on the measured efficiency, 

DOE is not amending the room relative 

humidity requirements in today’s final 

rule. 

Measurement of Drying Cycle Time 

The California IOUs commented that 

DOE should include a measurement of 

drying time in its test procedure. The 

California IOUs indicated that test labs 

can already determine drying time for 

timed dry and automatic termination 

cycles from their data logs of power 

consumption over time, but the DOE 

test procedure does not require it to be 

reported. The California IOUs stated 

that various U.S. clothes dryer 

manufacturers currently make widely 

different claims about drying times for 

various models, each employing 

different assumptions about the size and 

composition of the load being dried and 

the initial RMC. According to the 

California IOUs, some manufacturers 

have made claims that particular clothes 

dryer models can achieve energy 

savings of 40 percent or more, or can 

dry laundry in as little as 14 minutes, 

but these results may not have been 

achieved under representative 

conditions. The California IOUs stated 

that in the absence of standardized 

guidelines for how to report drying 

times and energy savings, manufacturers 

developed their own guidelines for 

marketing purposes. (California IOUs, 

No. 22 at pp. 11–12) 

The California IOUs further stated 

that the link between energy efficiency 

and drying times in clothes dryers has 

already been established in laboratory 

testing. The California IOUs stated that, 

all else being equal, a clothes dryer that 

reduces the heating element 

temperature and modestly extends 

average drying times can save energy, 

which is the basis for the optional ‘‘ecomodes’’ now being offered in many new 

clothes dryers. The California IOUs 

stated that this will not affect consumer 

satisfaction for loads that are not timecritical, but that it may be an 

unacceptable tradeoff to many 

consumers. The California IOUs stated 

that having an accurate measure of 

drying times will help users purchase 

those models that can achieve energy 

savings without sacrificing performance, 

and will help programs such as 

ENERGYSTAR establish a reasonable 

upper bound for allowable drying times 

for labeled products. (California IOUs, 

No. 22 at p. 12) 

The California IOUs stated that 

recording and reporting drying time will 

also encourage manufacturers to 

automatically terminate the drying cycle 

promptly and as close as possible to 2- 

percent RMC, since any additional overdrying would take more time and 

produce no consumer benefit. 

(California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 12) 

DOE notes that requiring the 

measurement of the drying time is 

inconsistent with the EPCA requirement 

that a test procedure measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As a 

result, DOE is not adopting amendments 

to require the measurement and 

reporting of the clothes dryer cycle time 

in today’s final rule. 

Effects of Proposed Test Procedure 

Revisions on Compliance With 

Standards 

In any rulemaking to amend a test 

procedure, DOE must determine to what 

extent, if any, the proposed test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of any covered 

product as determined under the 

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

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

amended test procedure would alter the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49635 

13As discussed in section III.B.III.B.3, the 

proposed amendments in the January 2013 NOPR 

included the 0.80 field use factor for automatic 

termination control dryers. 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In 

determining the amended energy 

conservation standard, the Secretary 

shall measure, pursuant to the amended 

test procedure, the energy efficiency, 

energy use, or water use of a 

representative sample of covered 

products that minimally comply with 

the existing standard. The average of 

such energy efficiency, energy use, or 

water use levels determined under the 

amended test procedure shall constitute 

the amended energy conservation 

standard for the applicable covered 

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

were to amend an energy conservation 

standard under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2), 

models of covered products in use 

before the date on which the amended 

energy conservation standard becomes 

effective (or revisions of such models 

that come into use after such date and 

have the same energy efficiency, energy 

use or water use characteristics) that 

comply with the energy conservation 

standard applicable to such covered 

products on the day before such date 

shall be deemed to comply with the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)) DOE’s authority to 

amend energy conservation standards 

does not affect DOE’s obligation to issue 

any final standards as described in 42 

U.S.C. 6295. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(4)) 

Active Mode 

As discussed in section III.F, DOE is 

amending 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, 

appendix D in today’s final only to 

clarify the cycle settings used for 

testing, the requirements for the gas 

supply, the installation conditions for 

console lights, the method for 

measuring the drum capacity, the 

maximum allowable scale range, and 

the allowable use of a relative humidity 

meter. Because the amendments to 

appendix D would not change the actual 

testing method, DOE determined that 

these amendments would not affect the 

measured efficiency according to 

appendix D and would not affect a 

manufacturer’s ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the current energy 

conservation standards at 10 CFR 

430.32(h)(2). 

As part of the January 2013 NOPR, 

because the January 1, 2015 energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers are based on CEF as measured 

according to 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, 

appendix D1, DOE investigated how the 

proposed amendments for automatic 

cycle termination would affect the 

measured CEF. For the January 2013 

NOPR, DOE conducted testing on 20 

clothes dryers according to the DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure in existing 

appendix D1 and then according to the 

proposed automatic cycle termination 

test procedure.13 The results of this 

testing showed that specific models 

resulted in either a lower or higher 

measured CEF as compared to the 

measured CEF using the existing test 

procedure, ranging from a 27.4-percent 

decrease to a 20.4-percent increase in 

CEF with an average of a 3.8-percent 

increase. DOE also evaluated the effects 

of the proposed amendments for the 

products in DOE’s test sample that 

minimally comply with the existing 

energy conservation standards (based on 

rated EF). The results for the 10 

minimally compliant units in DOE’s test 

sample showed a 27.4-percent decrease 

to a 16.9-percent increase in CEF as 

compared to the CEF using the existing 

test procedure, with an average of a 4.1- 

percent increase. 78 FR 152, 175–176 

(Jan. 2, 2013). 

Based on these results and consistent 

with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) and (2), DOE 

tentatively concluded in the January 

2013 NOPR that the proposed 

amendments to the active mode test 

procedure will on average not impact 

the measured efficiency as compared to 

the current test procedure for models 

currently available on the market. As a 

result, DOE did not consider 

amendments to the energy conservation 

standards that will be required on 

January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176 (Jan. 2, 

2013). 

AHAM disagreed with DOE’s 

determination that the proposed test 

procedure’s impact on measured 

efficiency is de minimus and that an 

adjustment to the standards is 

unnecessary. AHAM stated that DOE’s 

data shows that the impact of the 

proposed test procedure amendments is 

significant enough that it would be 

inappropriate for DOE to make the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

effective until a future standards change 

(i.e., subsequent to the January 1, 2015 

standards). (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 2–3, 

11; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at pp. 172–173) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

approach does not meet either the test 

procedure ‘‘crosswalk’’ and lead time 

requirements for amended standards or 

the procedural and substantive 

requirements and criteria under 42 

U.S.C. 6295. AHAM stated that the 

provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) do not 

contain the same rigorous economic and 

technical criteria as in the standards 

provisions because changes in standards 

stringency are intended to occur in a 

standards rulemaking only, not in a 

stand-alone test procedure rulemaking. 

AHAM stated that in a future joint 

standards and test procedure 

rulemaking, the basic criteria of 

technical feasibility and economic 

justification, and the many subeconomic and technical considerations, 

can be reviewed fully. (AHAM, No. 17 

at p. 3) 

AHAM commented that test 

procedures should not be used to 

tighten or loosen standards. AHAM 

stated that DOE must comply with 42 

U.S.C. 6293(e), and if that would result 

in unlawful attenuating of lead time and 

lock-in periods, then DOE should wait 

until a future standards rulemaking is 

complete and integrate the regulatory 

processes. AHAM stated that, should 

DOE proceed as proposed in the January 

2013 NOPR despite AHAM’s 

opposition, AHAM would prefer that 

DOE include the 0.80 field use factor 

rather than exclude it because it would 

mitigate the burden to manufacturers. 

(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 5) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

evaluation of the impacts of the 

proposed test procedure revisions on 

the measured efficiency was not 

conducted pursuant to any formal 

policy or guidance on how the 

evaluation under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is to 

be conducted. AHAM commented that 

without some establishment of these 

policies and procedures, it is difficult to 

evaluate whether the analysis was 

conducted properly or to determine how 

to interpret its results. (AHAM, No. 17 

at p. 5) 

AHAM members conducted testing on 

vented electric standard, vented electric 

compact (240V), vented gas, and 

ventless electric compact (240V) clothes 

dryers under existing appendix D1 and 

the proposed appendix D1. AHAM 

stated that its test data, applying the 

0.80 field use factor, showed similar 

results to DOE’s testing. In particular, 

AHAM’s testing under the proposed test 

procedure showed a 28.1-percent 

decrease to a 13.1-percent increase in 

CEF as compared to the CEF using 

appendix D1, with an average 0.63- 

percent increase in CEF. However, 

AHAM stated that without a protocol for 

choosing which models to test, a focus 

on individual product classes rather 

than clothes dryers as a whole, and 

criteria for what is significant versus de 

minimus, the DOE and the AHAM 

processes are both arbitrary. (AHAM, 

No. 17 at pp. 5–6) 

AHAM disagreed with DOE’s 

determination that an average 3.8- 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49636 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

percent (based on all tested models) or 

an average 4.1-percent (based on 

minimally compliant models only) 

increase in CEF is de minimus, and, 

thus, does not constitute an ‘‘impact’’ on 

measured efficiency. AHAM stated that 

42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)–(2) requires DOE to 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency and it does 

not say ‘‘significantly alter.’’ AHAM 

noted that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) specifies 

that if DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure will alter the 

measured efficiency, the Secretary shall 

(not ‘‘may’’ or ‘‘shall under certain 

circumstances’’) amend the applicable 

energy conservation standard during the 

rulemaking carried out with respect to 

such test procedure. AHAM noted that 

the statute provides for an averaging 

process—which DOE has failed to 

further define or clarify—that is 

required to determine the amended 

standard. AHAM stated that there is no 

process to determine when not to 

change the standard and that even if 

such de minimus determinations are 

statutorily permitted, these data—even 

if accepted as an appropriate 

sampling—do not support a de minimus 

determination. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 7) 

AHAM commented that because the 

January 1, 2015 standards are 5 percent 

more stringent than the existing 

standard, it is not reasonable to 

conclude that a 3.8–4.1 percent change 

in measured efficiency will on average 

not impact the measured efficiency. 

AHAM and ALS commented that the 

field use factor seems to have been 

selected to allow DOE to meet what it 

considers a de minimus threshold. 

(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 7; ALS, No. 16 at 

p. 3) 

AHAM stated that it is improper to 

consider just an average impact on 

measured efficiency, across all product 

classes combined, and that DOE should 

instead assess the range of impacts. 

AHAM commented that every clothes 

dryer, not just the average clothes dryer, 

must comply with the standards and, 

thus, ranges of impact must not be 

ignored as DOE assesses whether there 

is an impact on measured efficiency 

under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1). AHAM 

commented that DOE and AHAM data 

under the proposed test procedure show 

a wide range of effects on the measured 

CEF as compared to the appendix D1 

test results. AHAM commented that 

even if DOE determined that the 

proposed test procedure changes impact 

measured efficiency, it is unclear 

whether DOE should adopt test 

procedure changes that would have this 

range of impacts during a 3-year lead 

time or any time other than coincident 

with a standards rulemaking. In this 

particular case, AHAM stated that it 

does not believe it is appropriate to 

make such a standards change. (AHAM, 

No. 17 at pp. 7–8) According to ALS, it 

is unacceptable to have certain models 

that cannot be certified or sold after 

January 1, 2015 because Congress 

intended under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3) that 

every model that is compliant before a 

test procedure change would be 

compliant after the test procedure 

change. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) The 

California IOUs also commented that 

there is a wide range in measured 

efficiency under the proposed test 

procedure, and that although the effects 

on the measured efficiency on average 

may be small, clothes dryers must 

qualify individually. (California IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 

169–171) 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

assess the impact on measured 

efficiency by product class. AHAM 

stated that product classes exist for 

energy conservation standards because 

of important design, use, and utility 

differences between products that 

impact energy use, and those differences 

should not be ignored when assessing 

the impact a test procedure change will 

have on measured energy efficiency. 

AHAM commented that based on DOE’s 

data, there are certain product classes 

for which the de minimus argument 

does not hold, even if such 

determinations are permitted and even 

if the field use factor is applied (e.g., 

vented electric compact (120V) clothes 

dryers). Furthermore, comparing the 

DOE and AHAM data by product class, 

AHAM noted that the product class 

average impacts differ. For example, 

DOE’s test data show a 7.4-percent 

change for vented gas clothes dryers, 

whereas AHAM’s data show a 2.5- 

percent change in average CEF under 

the proposed test procedure as 

compared to appendix D1 results. Thus, 

AHAM stated that the overall averages 

are not comparable. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

p. 8) 

AHAM and ALS opposed the 0.80 

field use factor for automatic 

termination control dryers and noted 

that without that field use factor 

applied, the data show that an 

adjustment under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is 

necessary. AHAM noted that DOE and 

AHAM’s data, when the field use factor 

is removed, show an average impact on 

measured energy efficiency of ¥16.9 

percent and ¥19.5 percent, 

respectively, for the proposed test 

procedure as compared to the appendix 

D1 test results. In addition, AHAM 

again noted that for certain product 

classes, the average impact is even more 

significant. AHAM noted that, for 

example, the impact on measured 

efficiency for vented electric compact 

(120V) clothes dryers in DOE’s sample 

(of which there is only one) without the 

field use factor applied is ¥42.0 percent 

as compared to the appendix D1 test 

results. In addition, according to 

AHAM’s data, without the field use 

factor applied, the average impact on 

measured efficiency for vented electric 

standard clothes dryers is ¥20.0 

percent and the average impact on 

measured efficiency for vented gas 

clothes dryers is ¥18.0 percent as 

compared to the appendix D1 test 

results. Furthermore, AHAM stated that 

though the overall average impact on 

measured efficiency is similar between 

the DOE data (¥16.9 percent) and 

AHAM data (¥19.5 percent), AHAM 

believes this is coincidental because the 

individual product class averages which 

factor in to the overall average are quite 

different. AHAM noted, for example, 

that the percent change for vented gas 

clothes dryers is ¥14.0 percent based 

on DOE’s data, whereas AHAM’s data 

show a ¥18.0-percent change as 

compared to appendix D1. (AHAM, No. 

17 at pp. 8–10; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) 

Samsung stated that it conducted 

testing on units to evaluate the effects of 

the proposed test procedure change on 

the measured efficiency. Samsung stated 

that, in general, its test results are 

within the data range of the DOE tests. 

(Samsung, No. 13 at p. 4) 

AHAM commented that DOE does not 

have sufficient data or a transparent 

model selection process upon which to 

base either: 1) A determination as to 

whether the proposed test procedure 

amendments impact measured 

efficiency, or 2) a standards adjustment 

under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). AHAM 

stated that the basic models on the 

market today are not necessarily the 

basic models that will be on the market 

when compliance with the January 1, 

2015 standards is required. According to 

AHAM, many of those models are still 

in the design phase and may have 

different platforms than those in current 

production. AHAM stated, however, 

that its own data are similarly limited 

and did not suggest how DOE could 

adjust the standard. As a result, AHAM 

recommended that DOE work together 

with stakeholders to develop a process 

for that adjustment. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

p. 11) 

AHAM and NEEA & NPCC 

commented that the anti-backsliding 

provision in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) is not intended to apply to 

standards adjustments done per 42 

U.S.C. 6293(e). AHAM stated that, 

otherwise, DOE could never address the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49637 

consequences of test procedure changes 

between standards changes. AHAM also 

stated that if DOE does not apply these 

test procedure amendments until the 

underlying standards changes in the 

future, this would no longer be an issue. 

(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 11; NEEA & NPCC, 

No. 21 at p. 15) NEEA & NPCC and 

Earthjustice added that if DOE chooses 

not to adjust the January 1, 2015 

standards based on the proposed 

changes to the test procedure, not only 

will it violate the provisions in section 

42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1), but also the 5- 

percent energy savings estimated for the 

January 1, 2015 standards could largely 

be lost. NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice 

stated that the 4-percent difference in 

energy use when applying the proposed 

test procedure might be enough to allow 

most of the models now in production 

to meet the standards and would be a de 

facto weakening of the January 1, 2015 

standards. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 

15; Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 3) ASAP 

also commented that a 4-percent 

increase in CEF is not insignificant 

considering that the January 1, 2015 

standards will reduce energy use by 

about 5 percent compared to the current 

standards. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 169) NEEA & 

NPCC commented that it is not clear 

whether or not the testing conducted by 

DOE required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is 

sufficient to properly calculate an 

appropriate adjustment to the standard. 

NEEA & NPCC disagreed with DOE’s 

determination that no adjustment is 

needed. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 15) 

Earthjustice commented that the 

January 2013 NOPR asserts that the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

will not alter the measured energy 

efficiency of clothes dryers, but this 

conclusion is contrary to DOE’s own 

findings that the proposed amended test 

procedure resulted in an average 

increase in CEF of 3.8 percent and a 4.1- 

percent increase when only considering 

the minimally compliant clothes dryers 

in DOE’s sample. Earthjustice stated that 

because DOE’s testing confirms that the 

amendments to the test procedures will 

alter the measured energy efficiency of 

clothes dryers, EPCA requires that DOE 

adjust the standards for these products. 

Earthjustice stated that nothing in 42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) suggests that DOE is 

authorized to determine that the extent 

of any such alteration is insufficient to 

trigger the obligation to adjust the 

standards and that the ‘‘extent’’ of any 

such alteration determines the amount 

of adjustment required under 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2). Earthjustice noted that a 

final rule published on October 17, 1990 

(55 FR 42162) reduced the required 

energy factor levels for electric storage 

water heaters by 0.02 to account for the 

impact of revisions to the water heater 

test procedure. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at 

pp. 3–4) 

Earthjustice commented that the need 

to adjust the standards might be 

different if adjusting the standards 

under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would have no 

impact on covered products. 

Earthjustice noted examples of the 

dishwasher, boiler, and refrigerator test 

procedure amendments where the 

change in the measured energy 

efficiency is so small that any 

adjustment to the standard would not 

impact the compliance of any covered 

products. Earthjustice commented that 

DOE has not suggested that a 4-percent 

change in the level of the clothes dryer 

standards would have no impact on the 

compliance status of covered models. 

Earthjustice stated that DOE cannot 

conclude that a 4-percent reduction in 

the stringency of the clothes dryer 

standards would have a de minimus 

impact, given that DOE determined in 

the final rule adopting the January 1, 

2015 standards that a significant share 

of the clothes dryers currently on the 

market perform just below the adopted 

standards. Earthjustice stated that 

adding 4-percent to the January 1, 2015 

standard for electric standard-size 

clothes dryers would enable many of the 

clothes dryers meeting the efficiency 

level below the standards to then 

comply with the standards, reducing the 

energy savings that the January 1, 2015 

standards would otherwise have 

delivered. To avoid this weakening of 

the standards, Earthjustice stated that 

DOE must adjust them as 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e) requires. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at 

pp. 4–5) 

NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice 

commented that anti-backsliding 

provisions would not preclude 

amending the energy conservation 

standards based on the proposed test 

procedure amendments for automatic 

cycle termination. Earthjustice added 

that such an adjustment is required to 

avoid backsliding. Earthjustice also 

noted that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(4) provides 

that DOE’s authority to adjust energy 

conservation standards under this 

subsection shall not affect the 

Secretary’s obligation to issue final rules 

as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. 

According to Earthjustice, this provision 

means that any adjustments to standards 

that DOE makes under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) 

do not count as amendments to the 

standards that satisfy DOE’s rulemaking 

obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6295. 

Earthjustice stated that the adjustment 

process established under 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e) is designed to avoid de facto 

reductions (or increases) in the 

stringency of standards by ensuring that 

the impacts of test procedure 

amendments on measured energy 

efficiency are reflected in the level of 

the standard and that application of 

section 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) preserves the 

integrity of the standards, consistent 

with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (NEEA & 

NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 14–15; Earthjustice, 

No. 15 at pp. 2–3) 

NPCC commented that if the 

automatic termination field use factor is 

not applied, more units in DOE’s test 

sample would fail to meet the January 

1, 2015 standard than would pass. 

(NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

10 at pp. 166–167) ASAP questioned 

whether, if DOE did not adopt the field 

use factor, the standards would be 

adjusted so that, on average, a clothes 

dryer that just complies with the 

January 1, 2015 standards under the 

current test procedure would still 

comply with those standards under the 

new test procedure. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 168) 

As discussed in section III.B.3 and 

section III.I.3, DOE is amending the 

clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B to create a new 

appendix D2 that includes the testing 

methods for more accurately measuring 

the effects of automatic cycle 

termination. As discussed in section 

III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2 

will not be required for use to determine 

compliance with the January 1, 2015 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers. DOE is not amending 

appendix D1 in today’s final rule to 

include these amendments for 

automatic cycle termination. As a result, 

DOE determined that the amendments 

for automatic cycle termination adopted 

in today’s final rule would not affect a 

manufacturer’s ability to comply with 

the January 1, 2015 energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers in 10 CFR 

430.32(h)(3). 

DOE is only amending the active 

mode test procedures in 10 CFR part 

430 subpart B, appendix D1 in today’s 

final to correct the calculation of the 

per-cycle combined total energy 

consumption and to clarify the cycle 

settings used for testing, the 

requirements for the gas supply, the 

installation conditions for console 

lights, the method for measuring the 

drum capacity, the maximum allowable 

scale range, and the allowable use of a 

relative humidity meter. Because these 

amendments to appendix D1 do not 

change the actual testing method, DOE 

has determined that these amendments 

will not affect the measured efficiency 

according to appendix D1 and will not 

affect a manufacturer’s ability to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49638 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

demonstrate compliance with the 

January 1, 2015 energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). 

2. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also 

investigated how the proposed 

amendments for standby mode and off 

mode would affect the measured 

efficiency. DOE stated that because the 

proposed amendments to the DOE 

clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 

part 430 subpart B, appendix D1 for 

measuring standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption would not alter the 

existing measure of energy consumption 

for clothes dryers (EF), the proposed 

amendments would not affect a 

manufacturer’s ability to comply with 

the current energy conservation 

standards. 78 FR 152, 176 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

DOE’s amendments in the January 

2011 Final Rule specified that 

manufacturers will not be required to 

use the test procedure provisions for 

standby mode and off mode until the 

mandatory January 1, 2015 compliance 

date of the amended clothes dryer 

energy conservation standards. (10 CFR 

430.32(h)(3)) The January 1, 2015 

amended energy conservation standards 

are based on CEF, which accounts for 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. In the January 2013 

NOPR, DOE investigated how the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

for standby mode and off mode would 

affect the amended energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). DOE 

stated that the proposed changes to the 

testing methods for measuring standby 

mode and off mode energy consumption 

do not vary significantly from the 

methods in the amended DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure in appendix D1 for 

measuring standby power and would 

not alter the measured efficiency. To 

confirm this assertion, DOE conducted 

testing on four clothes dryers (three of 

which minimally comply with the 

existing energy conservation standards) 

according to both the existing appendix 

D1 and the proposed amendments to 

appendix D1 for standby mode and off 

mode that are based IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition). The results showed 

that the measured standby power was 

the same using both methods. Based on 

these test results, DOE stated that the 

proposed amendments to the clothes 

dryer test procedure for standby mode 

and off mode would not alter the 

measured CEF. DOE, therefore, did not 

consider amendments to the energy 

conservation standards at 10 CFR 

430.32(h)(3) that must be met on 

January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176–177 

(Jan. 2, 2013). DOE did not receive any 

comments on this issue. In the absence 

of comments, and for the reasons 

discussed above, DOE concludes that 

the amendments to the clothes dryer test 

procedure for standby mode and off 

mode adopted in today’s final rule will 

not alter the measured CEF. 

DOE’s amendments continue to 

clarify that manufacturers are not 

required to use the provisions relating to 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

in appendix D1 to determine 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standard until the 

compliance date of the amended energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers addressing standby mode and off 

mode energy use on January 1, 2015. As 

a result, the test procedure amendments 

for standby mode and off mode will not 

affect a manufacturer’s ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

current energy conservation standards. 

In addition, as discussed in section 

III.D and section III.I.3, DOE is 

amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B to create a new appendix D2 that 

includes the amendments for standby 

mode and off mode. For the reasons 

discussed in section III.I.3, the newly 

created appendix D2 will not be 

required for use to determine 

compliance with the January 1, 2015 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers. As a result, DOE 

determined that the amendments to 

appendix D2 for standby mode and off 

mode adopted in today’s final rule will 

not affect a manufacturer’s ability to 

comply with the current energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers. 

I. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

1. Test Burden 

EPCA requires that test procedures 

shall be reasonably designed to produce 

test results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. Test 

procedures must also not be unduly 

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

6293(b)(3)) 

DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR 

that the proposed amendments for 

automatic cycle termination would 

change the test cycle for automatic 

termination control dryers to require 

that a programmed automatic 

termination cycle be used for the test 

instead of using the maximum timed 

dry setting. DOE stated that the 

proposed provision to include the cooldown period and to allow the clothes 

dryer to run until the completion of the 

programmed dry cycle would likely be 

less burdensome than the existing test 

procedure in which the tester is 

required to monitor or make estimates 

about the RMC of the test load and 

potentially run multiple test cycles to 

determine when to stop the test to 

achieve the desired final RMC. For timer 

dryers, DOE stated that the proposed 

amendments would use the same basic 

test method that is currently specified in 

the DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix D1, except that 

the test cycle would be stopped when 

the final RMC is between 1.0 percent 

and 2.5 percent instead of between 2.5 

percent and 5.0 percent. DOE noted that 

this would result in a slightly longer 

cycle time, but the additional time 

would be minimal compared to the 

overall time to set up and conduct the 

test. For these reasons, DOE stated in 

the January 2013 NOPR that the 

proposed amendments to more 

accurately account for automatic cycle 

termination would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. DOE also noted 

that the revised test cycle for automatic 

termination control dryers would 

produce a measured energy use that is 

more representative of consumer use 

because it directly measures the energy 

consumption of the programmed 

automatic termination cycle. 78 FR 152, 

177 (Jan. 2, 2013). 

AHAM commented that the proposed 

changes to the test procedure regarding 

automatic cycle termination controls 

would add significant burden to 

manufacturers if implemented prior to 

the January 1, 2015 standards. AHAM 

indicated that manufacturers have 

already begun designing products to 

comply with the January 1, 2015 

standards using the existing appendix 

D1 and that many manufacturers would 

have to redesign their models in order 

to meet the standards using the 

proposed test procedure, which would 

add an unreasonable burden on 

manufacturers during the 3-year lead 

time. Thus, AHAM urged DOE not to 

make the test procedure changes 

associated with automatic cycle 

termination controls effective until 

compliance with future standards 

(beyond 2015) is required so that the 

impacts on measured energy efficiency 

can be fully considered. (AHAM, No. 17 

at p. 16) 

The California IOUs commented that 

the burden for clothes washers is greater 

than for clothes dryers. The California 

IOUs stated that, in the past, clothes 

washers used significantly more energy 

than clothes dryers and, thus, more 

testing to determine the energy use was 

justified. The California IOUs 

commented that clothes washers have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49639 

improved significantly and that clothes 

dryers now use roughly three times as 

much energy as clothes washers use on 

average, based on the total average 

annual energy consumption in the field. 

The California IOUs commented that 

greater test burden would be justified to 

determine clothes dryer energy use 

because the clothes washer test burden 

has been justified in the past and 

accepted by industry for what is now a 

much smaller potential energy savings. 

(California IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 176–179) In 

response, AHAM commented that the 

test burden of two completely different 

products (clothes washers and clothes 

dryers) cannot be compared. AHAM 

stated that although clothes washers and 

clothes dryers are linked products from 

a consumer and product planning 

perspective, they are not similar 

products. Thus, AHAM did not agree 

that because the clothes washer test 

procedure takes longer to conduct, it 

would be acceptable for the clothes 

dryer test procedure to take just as long. 

AHAM stated that increasing the testing 

time for clothes dryers would increase 

testing burden on manufacturers, 

irrespective of what the burden is for 

testing a different product. (AHAM, No. 

17 at pp. 16–17) 

As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is 

amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B to create a new appendix D2 that 

includes the testing methods for more 

accurately measuring the effects of 

automatic cycle termination. The newly 

created appendix D2 will not be 

required for use to determine 

compliance with the January 1, 2015 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers. DOE is not amending 

appendix D1 in today’s final rule to 

include these amendments for 

automatic cycle termination. As a result, 

DOE concludes that the test procedure 

amendments and the compliance date 

for the January 1, 2015 energy 

conservation standards and 

corresponding use of the appendix D1 

test procedure will not be unduly 

burdensome. DOE is not considering 

additional test procedure amendments 

that would increase testing burden for 

the reasons discussed in sections III.B 

and III.G. 

As discussed in section III.F, DOE is 

amending 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, 

appendix D and appendix D1 in today’s 

final rule to clarify the cycle settings 

used for testing, the requirements for the 

gas supply, the installation conditions 

for console lights, the method for 

measuring the drum capacity, the 

maximum allowable scale range, and 

the allowable use of a relative humidity 

meter. Because the amendments to 

clarify the test procedures would not 

change the actual testing method and 

provide additional options for 

instrumentations while requiring the 

same resolution and accuracy, DOE has 

determined that these amendments will 

not result in any added test burden on 

manufacturers as compared to the 

existing DOE clothes dryer test 

procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D and appendix D1. In 

addition, DOE is adopting these same 

provisions in newly created appendix 

D2. As discussed above, the newly 

created appendix D2 will not be 

required for use to determine 

compliance with the January 1, 2015 

energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers. For the same reasons 

discussed above, DOE has determined 

that amendments to clarify the cycle 

settings used for testing, the 

requirements for the gas supply, the 

installation conditions for console 

lights, the method for measuring the 

drum capacity, the maximum allowable 

scale range, and the allowable use of a 

relative humidity meter, will not result 

in any added test burden on 

manufacturers. 

With regards to the amendments for 

standby and off mode power 

consumption, DOE concluded in the 

January 2011 Final Rule that the 

amended test procedure would produce 

test results that measure the standby 

mode and off mode power consumption 

of covered products during a 

representative average use cycle as well 

as annual energy consumption, and that 

the test procedure would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct.76 FR 972, 1020 

(Jan. 6, 2011). The amendments to the 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure for 

standby mode and off mode are based 

on an updated version of IEC Standard 

62301, IEC Standard 62301 (Second 

Edition), which has been the subject of 

significant review and input from 

interested parties and, thus, continues 

to be an internationally accepted test 

standard for measuring standby mode 

and off mode power consumption. In 

the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that 

the provisions of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) that it proposed to 

incorporate by reference provide a 

means to measure power consumption 

with greater accuracy and repeatability 

than the provisions from IEC Standard 

62301 (First Edition) that were adopted 

in the January 2011 Final Rule. DOE 

tentatively concluded in the January 

2013 NOPR that the proposed 

amendments would also provide 

measurements representative of average 

consumer use of the product under test. 

78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE also 

noted that interested parties have 

commented that the testing methods in 

IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) 

would not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. 77 FR 28805, 28812 (May 16, 

2012); 76 FR 58346, 58350 (Sept. 20, 

2011); 77 FR 13888, 13893 (March 7, 

2012). The potential for increased test 

burden for certain power consumption 

measurements is also offset by more 

reasonable requirements for testing 

equipment, while maintaining 

measurement accuracy deemed 

acceptable and practical by voting 

members for IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition). For these reasons, 

DOE tentatively concluded in the 

January 2013 NOPR that the proposed 

amendments would produce test results 

that measure the standby mode and off 

mode power consumption during 

representative use, and that the test 

procedures would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 78 FR 152, 177 

(Jan. 2, 2013). 

AHAM commented that incorporating 

by reference IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) will allow for optimal 

international harmonization and will 

reduce testing burden. (AHAM, No. 17 

at p. 14) DOE concludes, based on this 

comment and the discussion above, that 

the amendments for standby mode and 

off mode adopted in today’s final rule 

produce test results that measure the 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption during representative use, 

and that the test procedures will not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. 

Certification Requirements 

DOE is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 

6299 et seq. to enforce compliance with 

the energy and water conservation 

standards established for certain 

consumer products. On March 7, 2011, 

the Department revised, consolidated, 

and streamlined its existing 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement regulations for certain 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment covered under 

EPCA, including clothes dryers. 76 FR 

12422. The certification regulations are 

codified in 10 CFR 429.12 and 429.21 

(residential clothes dryers). 

The certification and compliance 

requirements for residential clothes 

dryers consist of a sampling plan for the 

selection of units for testing, calculation 

procedures for determining a basic 

model’s certified rating, and 

requirements for the submittal of 

certification reports. Because DOE 

introduced a new metric (CEF) in the 

January 2011 Final Rule, DOE proposed 

in the January 2013 NOPR to amend the 

sampling provisions in 10 CFR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49640 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

14These preparatory steps include, but are not 

limited to: (1) Generate ideas and concepts to meet 

the minimum standard with the new measurement 

method; (2) create prototypes for feasibility testing; 

(3) conduct an initial design review to select the 

best design path to pursue; (4) secure input from all 

cross-functional areas (e.g., consumer marketing, 

sales, manufacturing, etc.); (5) create the planned 

timeline with critical paths identified; (6) create the 

output specifications (e.g., drawings, bill of 

material, quality and manufacturing plan 

documents, etc.); (7) identify and qualify suppliers 

for new parts; (8) procure prototype parts for a 

assembling multiple prototypes of the full dryer for 

in-house lab tests to confirm performance and 

reliability requirements can be met; (9) conduct full 

reliability and performance tests in-house (9 

months); (10) conduct field tests with consumers, 

to learn of any unknown deficiencies; (11) conduct 

a validation and verification design review for 

commitment to procure production tooling & 

equipment; (12) procure production tooling and 

equipment (usually takes 1 year); (13) react to any 

unanticipated issues learned from continued 

testing; (14) secure all agency approvals; (15) 

qualify production tooling and equipment; (16) 

conduct factory pilot runs using new tooling and 

equipment; (17) conduct final design and safety 

review; and (18) commit to starting production. 

(ALS, No. 16 at pp. 1–2) 

429.21(a)(2) to include CEF, along with 

the existing measure of EF, in the list of 

metrics for which consumers would 

favor higher values. DOE also proposed 

to amend the dryer-specific certification 

requirements in 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to 

require manufacturers, when using 

either appendix D or appendix D1, to 

provide an indication if the clothes 

dryer has automatic termination 

controls and also to report the hourly 

Btu rating of the burner for gas clothes 

dryers. DOE also proposed to amend 10 

CFR 429.21(b)(2) to require 

manufacturers, when using appendix 

D1, to include the CEF and to list the 

cycle setting selections for the energy 

test cycle as recorded in the proposed 

section 3.4.7 of appendix D1 for each 

basic model. 

ALS supported DOE’s proposal to 

update 10 CFR part 429 to include CEF. 

In addition ALS stated that it did not 

oppose reporting: (1) Whether the 

clothes dryer has automatic termination 

controls, (2) the hourly Btu rating of the 

burner, and (3) the cycle setting 

selections for the energy test cycle. 

(ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) For the reasons 

discussed above, and because DOE did 

not receive any comments objecting to 

this proposal, DOE is adopting in 

today’s final rule the amendments to 10 

CFR 429.21 for the additional 

certification and reporting requirements 

presented above. Even though appendix 

D2 is not required for compliance and 

representation purposes for the 2015 

energy conservation standards, DOE is 

adopting the methodology and allowing 

for its voluntary use early at the 

discretion of the manufacturer. 

Consequently, DOE is also adopting 

amendments to 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to 

require manufacturers, when using 

appendix D2, to list the cycle setting 

selections for the energy test cycle. 

In addition, DOE is clarifying in 10 

CFR 429.21(a)(3) that the certified 

capacity of any clothes dryer basic 

model should be the mean of the 

capacities of the units in the sample for 

the basic model. While DOE believes 

this is current practice since the existing 

test procedure and sampling plan 

require testing at least two units and 

measuring the drum capacity 

individually for each, DOE is adopting 

this provision in the final rule for 

clarity. 

Compliance date of final amended test 

procedures 

DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR 

that it proposed amendments to the test 

procedures for clothes dryers in 

appendix D and appendix D1 in 10 CFR 

part 430 subpart B. Pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), effective 180 days 

after DOE prescribes or establishes a 

new or amended test procedure, 

manufacturers must make 

representations of energy efficiency 

using that new or amended test 

procedure. DOE stated in the January 

2013 NOPR that, therefore, effective 180 

days after the promulgation of any final 

amendments to the test procedure based 

on the proposal, manufacturers must 

make representations of energy 

efficiency, including certifications of 

compliance, using either appendix D or 

appendix D1. Manufacturers must use a 

single appendix for all representations, 

including certifications of compliance, 

and may not use appendix D for certain 

representations and appendix D1 for 

other representations. 78 FR 152, 177– 

178 (Jan. 2, 2013). See DOE’s existing 

guidance on this topic for additional 

information, available at: http://www1.

eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/pdfs/tp_faq_2012–06–29.pdf. 

DOE stated that compliance with 

DOE’s amended standards for clothes 

dryers, and the corresponding use of the 

test procedures at appendix D1 for all 

representations, including certifications 

of compliance, is required as of January 

1, 2015. (76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011), 

76 FR 52854 (Aug. 24, 2011)) 

AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS opposed 

the January 1, 2015 compliance date 

based on the proposed test procedure 

amendments for automatic cycle 

termination. AHAM, Whirlpool, and 

ALS stated that a January 1, 2015 

compliance date significantly undercuts 

the statutory 3-year lead time provided 

to manufacturers for compliance with a 

revised standards (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(4)(A)(i)). AHAM, Whirlpool, 

and ALS commented that manufacturers 

would not have enough time to prepare 

for the upcoming January 1, 2015 

standards compliance date using a 

proposed revised appendix D1 (except 

for the minor technical corrections), 

especially because the proposed test 

procedure amendments for automatic 

cycle termination effectively constitutes 

a new, revised standard due to its 

significant impact on measured 

efficiency. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 3; 

Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1–2; ALS, No. 

16 at p. 2; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 172–173) 

AHAM commented that requiring the 

test procedure amendments for 

automatic cycle termination for the 

January 1, 2015 compliance date is 

problematic because EPCA ensures that 

compliant models in use prior to the test 

procedure change and accompanying 

standards adjustment remain in 

compliance after the change. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(3)) AHAM stated that during the 

3-year lead time to an amended 

standard, manufacturers may have many 

basic models in the design phase that 

are not yet ‘‘in use,’’ and thus, may not 

be afforded the protections the statute 

was designed to provide. According to 

AHAM, this will result in stranded 

investments for manufacturers and 

could require manufacturers to redesign 

some, many, or even all of the basic 

models that were already being 

redesigned to comply with the January 

1, 2015 standards using the existing 

appendix D1. AHAM stated that the 

design process takes time, and DOE 

cannot truncate that lead time provided 

by EPCA by effectively engaging in a 

standards revision through the test 

procedure rulemaking process. AHAM 

stated that DOE should not make 

standards changes that impact measured 

energy as significantly as the proposed 

automatic termination control 

amendments would during a lead time 

to amended or new standards. (AHAM, 

No. 17 at pp. 3–4) 

ALS commented that it has 

implemented significant design 

construction changes to its products 

towards compliance with the January 1, 

2015 standards based on the current test 

procedure in appendix D1. ALS stated 

that the proposed test procedure for 

automatic cycle termination will require 

it to make significant new design 

changes to its clothes dryers, which 

cannot be completed in the remaining 

time before the January 1, 2015 

compliance date. ALS identified 

numerous preparatory steps that it must 

take to meet the January 1, 2015 

standards under the proposed test 

procedure.14 ALS further stated that the 

investment it has already made may 

become stranded because its designs 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49641 

will not allow compliance under DOE’s 

new proposed test procedure. ALS 

commented that it is the low-volume 

manufacturer of residential clothes 

dryers, and as such, any investment for 

DOE minimum standard compliance 

normally impacts ALS disproportionally 

compared to the larger market share 

manufacturers. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 1–2) 

Whirlpool commented that, based on 

the data presented in the January 2013 

NOPR, the proposed test procedure 

amendments for automatic cycle 

termination will likely require a major 

switch from electromechanical to 

electronic controls for some basic 

models. Whirlpool indicated that this is 

not a simple or low-cost change, and 

that even with this significant change in 

technology, it would not necessarily 

ensure that a product would be 

compliant. Whirlpool stated that such 

an upgrade is a complete redesign, in 

many cases requiring manufacturers to 

engage in every phase of the design 

process. (Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1–2) 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

not proceed with the proposed test 

procedure amendments on the proposed 

timeline. AHAM commented that if 

DOE moves forward with the proposed 

automatic termination control 

amendments, the changes to appendix 

D1 must not be required for compliance 

with the January 1, 2015 standards. 

Instead, AHAM urged that the proposed 

amendments not be required until a 

future standards revision, during which 

the impact on measured efficiency can 

be more fully analyzed in an integrated 

analysis of the effects of both standards 

and test procedure changes under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B). AHAM 

commented that, given the significant 

impact on measured efficiency, 

compounded by the disparate impact on 

individual basic models and product 

classes as demonstrated by the range of 

impacts on measured efficiency, DOE 

should not require the use of the 

automatic termination control test 

procedure for compliance with the 

January 1, 2015 standards. Even if DOE 

were to adjust the standards pursuant to 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)), AHAM stated 

that the statutory 3-year lead-time 

would be undercut. (AHAM, No. 17 at 

pp. 4, 10–11) 

Samsung suggested that if DOE 

determines that manufacturers of units 

that tested with a lower final RMC and 

consumed more energy would require 

more time to make the required 

refinements to the drying algorithm, 

such units should be covered under the 

EPCA grandfathering provision (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)). Samsung stated that 

DOE should not delay the proposed 

automatic cycle termination test 

procedure until the next standard 

change, which could be 2020, thereby 

potentially delaying the possible energy 

savings by 5 years or more. Samsung 

supported the compliance date of 

January 1, 2015, noting that the 

proposed test procedure would reflect 

the real-world energy use of clothes 

dryers having automatic cycle 

termination. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates, 

NRDC, and SEDI urged DOE to publish 

a final rule for this rulemaking as soon 

as possible so that manufacturers have 

adequate lead time before the January 1, 

2015 standards. (Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 20 

at p. 2; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates added that the 

consensus standards for clothes dryers 

were based on the assumption that 

significant additional energy savings 

would be achieved through a change to 

the test procedure to capture the 

effectiveness of automatic termination 

controls. The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

stated that it is important that the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

take effect with the January 1, 2015 

standards to realize these additional 

energy savings. (Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3) 

DOE is not amending appendix D1 in 

today’s final rule to include the 

amendments for measuring the effects of 

automatic cycle termination. DOE is 

amending the clothes dryer test 

procedure in appendix D1 to include 

the amendments for standby mode and 

off mode, the technical correction to the 

per-cycle combined total energy 

consumption, the clarifications to the 

test conditions, and the amendments to 

address the additional test procedure 

issues, as discussed in section III.D 

through section III.G. As discussed in 

section III.H, these amendments to 

appendix D1 will not affect a 

manufacturer’s ability to comply with 

the January 1, 2015 standards. As 

discussed above, compliance with 

DOE’s amended standards for clothes 

dryers, and corresponding use of the test 

procedures at appendix D1 for all 

representations, including certifications 

of compliance, is required as of January 

1, 2015. 

However, DOE is amending the 

clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B to create a new 

appendix D2 that includes the testing 

methods for more accurately measuring 

the effects of automatic cycle 

termination. The newly created 

appendix D2 will not be required for use 

to determine compliance with the 

January 1, 2015 energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers. DOE will 

continue to evaluate products on the 

market and collect data on clothes dryer 

automatic cycle termination. However, 

manufacturers may elect to use 

appendix D2 early to show compliance 

with the January 1, 2015 energy 

conservation standards. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

In conducting this review, DOE first 

determined the potential number of 

affected small entities. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

considers an entity to be a small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs fewer than the threshold 

number of workers specified in 13 CFR 

part 121 according to the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes. The SBA’s Table 

of Size Standards is available at: http:// 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/

documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_

tablepdf.pdf. The threshold number for 

NAICS classification 335224, Household 

Laundry Equipment Manufacturing, 

which includes clothes dryer 

manufacturers, is 1,000 employees. 

DOE determined that most of the 

manufacturers supplying clothes dryers 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49642 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

15A searchable database of certified small 

businesses is available online at: http://dsbs.sba.

gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. 

are large multinational corporations. As 

part of the most recent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

residential clothes dryers, DOE 

requested comment on whether there 

are any manufacturer subgroups, 

including potential small businesses, 

that it should consider for its analyses. 

DOE received a comment from one 

business stating that it should be 

considered a small business. 77 FR 

22454, 22521 (April 21, 2011). 

DOE then conducted a market survey 

in which it reviewed the AHAM 

membership directory, product 

databases (the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute; 

AHAM; California Energy Commission; 

and ENERGY STAR databases), 

individual company Web sites, and the 

SBA dynamic small business search 15

to find potential small business 

manufacturers. During manufacturer 

interviews and at DOE public meetings 

for the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE asked interested 

parties and industry representatives if 

they were aware of any other small 

business manufacturers. DOE also 

contacted various companies, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer of covered 

residential clothes dryers. DOE screened 

out companies that did not offer 

products covered by this rulemaking, 

did not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. 

DOE initially identified at least 14 

manufacturers of residential clothes 

dryers that sold products in the United 

States. DOE determined that 13 of these 

companies exceeded the SBA’s 

maximum number of employees. Thus, 

DOE identified only one small business 

manufacturer of residential clothes 

dryers. This small business has 

developed a drying technology that it 

installs on existing clothes dryers. DOE 

notes that this small business currently 

offers for sale two clothes dryer models 

with its drying technology installed. 

Accordingly, DOE considered the 

economic impacts of the proposed test 

procedure amendments on this one 

small business manufacturer. 

For active mode, as discussed in 

section III.F, DOE is amending 10 CFR 

part 430 subpart B, appendix D and 

appendix D1 to clarify: (1) The cycle 

settings used for the test cycle, (2) the 

requirements for the gas supply for gas 

clothes dryers, (3) the installation 

conditions for console lights, (4) the 

method for measuring the drum 

capacity, (5) the maximum allowable 

scale range, and (6) the allowable use of 

a relative humidity meter. DOE 

determined that because these test 

procedure amendments do not change 

the actual testing method or time 

required for testing and provide 

additional options for instrumentation 

while requiring the same resolution and 

accuracy, these amendments will not 

result in any added test burden on 

manufacturers as compared to the 

existing DOE clothes dryer test 

procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix D and appendix D1. 

For standby mode and off mode, DOE 

has determined that the test procedure 

amendments adopted in today’s final 

rule, presented in section III.D, will not 

represent a significant economic impact. 

DOE notes that industry-standard 

instruments, such as the Yokogawa 

WT210/WT230 digital power meter, that 

meet the standby mode and off mode 

requirements of the current DOE clothes 

dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1, also meet the 

requirements of the amendments for 

standby mode and off mode adopted in 

today’s final rule. DOE also notes that 

these tests can be conducted in the same 

facilities used for the current standby 

mode and off mode testing of these 

products, so it is anticipated that 

manufacturers would not incur any 

additional facilities costs as a result of 

the test procedure amendments. As a 

result, DOE does not expect any 

increase in testing equipment costs 

based on the standby mode and off 

mode test procedure amendments. DOE 

also notes that the duration of a standby 

mode or off mode test period using the 

current test procedure in appendix D1 is 

40 to 50 minutes. As discussed in 

section III.D, DOE recognizes that the 

test duration using the standby and off 

mode test procedure adopted in today’s 

final rule may range from 15 minutes to 

3 hours depending on the stability of the 

measured power consumption. 

However, based on DOE’s testing of four 

clothes dryers from four different 

manufacturers comprising over 78 

percent of the total clothes dryer market 

share, DOE expects the test duration 

using the standby and off mode test 

procedure adopted in today’s final rule 

to be approximately 30 to 45 minutes for 

the majority of clothes dryers currently 

available on the market. DOE also notes 

that most third party testing laboratories 

already use these or similar industrystandard power meters for clothes dryer 

testing. As a result, if the small 

manufacturer decides to use a third 

party testing laboratory, DOE does not 

expect there to be an increase in cost for 

standby mode and off mode testing. In 

addition, as discussed in section III.I.1, 

interested parties have commented that 

incorporating by reference IEC Standard 

62301 (Second Edition) will allow for 

optimal international harmonization 

and will reduce testing burden. 

For these reasons, DOE concludes and 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of clothes dryers must 

certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the DOE test 

procedures for clothes dryers, including 

any amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

clothes dryers. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 

2011). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedure for residential clothes dryers. 

DOE has determined that this rule falls 

into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49643 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations for 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at http:// 

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined today’s final rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule will not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49644 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

will not have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy, nor has it been designated as a 

significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

Today’s final rule incorporates testing 

methods contained in the commercial 

standard, IEC Standard 62301, 

‘‘Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power,’’ 

Edition 2.0, 2011–01. DOE has 

evaluated this standard and is unable to 

conclude whether it fully complies with 

the requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA, i.e., whether it was developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review. 

DOE has consulted with both the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the FTC about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards and has 

received no comments objecting to their 

use. 

M. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Energy conservation, Household 

appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.21 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(2). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 429.21 Residential clothes dryers. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

energy factor, combined energy factor, 

or other measure of energy consumption 

of a basic model for which consumers 

would favor higher values shall be less 

than or equal to the lower of: 

* * * * * 

(3) The capacity of a basic model 

reported in accordance with paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section shall be the mean 

of the capacities measured for each 

tested unit of the basic model. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: When using appendix D, 

the energy factor in pounds per kilowatt 

hours (lb/kWh), the capacity in cubic 

feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for 

electric dryers only), an indication if the 

dryer has automatic termination 

controls, and the hourly British thermal 

unit (Btu) rating of the burner (for gas 

dryers only); when using appendix D1, 

the combined energy factor in pounds 

per kilowatt hours (lb/kWh), the 

capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the voltage 

in volts (V) (for electric dryers only), an 

indication if the dryer has automatic 

termination controls, and the hourly Btu 

rating of the burner (for gas dryers only); 

when using appendix D2, the combined 

energy factor in pounds per kilowatt 

hours (lb/kWh), the capacity in cubic 

feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for 

electric dryers only), an indication if the 

dryer has automatic termination 

controls, the hourly Btu rating of the 

burner (for gas dryers only), and a list 

of the cycle setting selections for the 

energy test cycle as recorded in section 

3.4.7 of appendix D2 to Subpart B of 

Part 430. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

§ 430.3 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding ‘‘and D2’’ after ‘‘appendix 

D1’’ in paragraph (h)(4). 

■ b. Removing ‘‘appendix D1,’’ from 

paragraph (m)(1); and 

■ c. Adding ‘‘D1,’’ and ‘‘D2,’’ after 

‘‘appendices C1,’’ in (m)(2). 

■ 5. Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the Note after the 

appendix heading; 

■ b. Revising sections 2.1, 2.3.2.1, 

2.3.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.4 in 

section 2. Test Conditions; and 

■ c. Revising sections 3.1 and 3.3 in 

section 3. Test Methods and 

Measurements. 

The revisions read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49645 

Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

Note: Effective February 10, 2014, 

manufacturers must make representations of 

energy efficiency, including certifications of 

compliance, using appendix D. Compliance 

with DOE’s amended standards for clothes 

dryers, and corresponding use of the test 

procedures at appendix D1 for all 

representations, including certifications of 

compliance, is required as of January 1, 2015. 

Manufacturers must use a single appendix for 

all representations, including certifications of 

compliance, and may not use appendix D for 

certain representations and appendix D1 for 

other representations. The procedures in 

appendix D2 need not be performed to 

determine compliance with energy 

conservation standards for clothes dryers at 

this time. However, manufacturers may elect 

to use the amended appendix D, D1 or D2 

early. 

* * * * * 

2. Testing Conditions 

2.1 Installation. Install the clothes dryer 

in accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions as shipped with the unit. If the 

manufacturer’s instructions do not specify 

the installation requirements for a certain 

component, it shall be tested in the asshipped condition. The dryer exhaust shall 

be restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust 

simulator described in 3.3.5 of HLD–1. All 

external joints should be taped to avoid air 

leakage. Disconnect all lights, such as task 

lights, that do not provide any information 

related to the drying process on the clothes 

dryer and that do not consume more than 10 

watts during the clothes dryer test cycle. 

Control setting indicator lights showing the 

cycle progression, temperature or dryness 

settings, or other cycle functions that cannot 

be turned off during the test cycle shall not 

be disconnected during the active mode test 

cycle. 

* * * * * 

2.3.2 Gas supply. 

2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas 

supply to the clothes dryer at a normal inlet 

test pressure immediately ahead of all 

controls at 7 to 10 inches of water column. 

If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 

appliance pressure regulator, the regulator 

outlet pressure at the normal test pressure 

shall be within ±10 percent of the value 

recommended by the manufacturer in the 

installation manual, on the nameplate 

sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes 

such a recommendation for the basic model. 

The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be 

maintained within ±5 percent of the rating 

specified by the manufacturer. If the 

requirement to maintain the hourly Btu 

rating of the burner within ± 5 percent of the 

rating specified by the manufacturer cannot 

be achieved under the allowable range in gas 

inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas 

burner should be modified as necessary to 

achieve the required Btu rating. The natural 

gas supplied should have a heating value of 

approximately 1,025 Btus per standard cubic 

foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in Btus 

per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to 

be used in the test shall be obtained either 

from measurements made by the 

manufacturer conducting the test using a 

standard continuous flow calorimeter as 

described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase 

of bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is 

certified to be at least as accurate a rating as 

could be obtained from measurements with 

a standard continuous flow calorimeter as 

described in section 2.4.6. 

2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas 

supply to the clothes dryer at a normal inlet 

test pressure immediately ahead of all 

controls at 11 to 13 inches of water column. 

If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 

appliance pressure regulator, the regulator 

outlet pressure at the normal test pressure 

shall be within ±10 percent of the value 

recommended by the manufacturer in the 

installation manual, on the nameplate 

sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes 

such a recommendation for the basic model. 

The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be 

maintained within ±5 percent of the rating 

specified by the manufacturer. If the 

requirement to maintain the hourly Btu 

rating of the burner within ± 5 percent of the 

rating specified by the manufacturer cannot 

be achieved under the allowable range in gas 

inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas 

burner should be modified as necessary to 

achieve the required Btu rating. The propane 

gas supplied should have a heating value of 

approximately 2,500 Btus per standard cubic 

foot. The actual heating value, Hp, in Btus per 

standard cubic foot, for the propane gas to be 

used in the test shall be obtained either from 

measurements made by the manufacturer 

conducting the test using a standard 

continuous flow calorimeter as described in 

section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled gas 

whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as 

accurate a rating as could be obtained from 

measurement with a standard continuous 

calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6. 

* * * * * 

2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The 

scale shall have a range of 0 to a maximum 

of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 0.2 

ounces and a maximum error no greater than 

0.3 percent of any measured value within the 

range of 3 to 15 pounds. 

2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity 

measurements. The scale should have a range 

of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with 

resolution of 0.50 pounds and a maximum 

error no greater than 0.5 percent of the 

measured value. 

* * * * * 

2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The 

dry and wet bulb psychrometer shall have an 

error no greater than ±1 °F. A relative 

humidity meter with a maximum error 

tolerance expressed in °F equivalent to the 

requirements for the dry and wet bulb 

psychrometer or with a maximum error 

tolerance of ±2 percent relative humidity 

would be acceptable for measuring the 

ambient humidity. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Procedures and Measurements 

3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum 

capacity by sealing all openings in the drum 

except the loading port with a plastic bag, 

and ensure that all corners and depressions 

are filled and that there are no extrusions of 

the plastic bag through any openings in the 

interior of the drum. Support the dryer’s rear 

drum surface on a platform scale to prevent 

deflection of the dryer, and record the weight 

of the empty dryer. Fill the drum with water 

to a level determined by the intersection of 

the door plane and the loading port (i.e., the 

uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact 

with the door seal). Record the temperature 

of the water and then the weight of the dryer 

with the added water and then determine the 

mass of the water in pounds. Add the 

appropriate volume to account for any space 

in the drum interior not measured by water 

fill (e.g., the space above the uppermost edge 

of the drum within a curved door) and 

subtract the appropriate volume to account 

for space that is measured by water fill but 

cannot be used when the door is closed (e.g., 

space occupied by the door when closed). 

The drum capacity is calculated as follows: 

C = w/d +/¥ volume adjustment 

C = capacity in cubic feet. 

w = mass of water in pounds. 

d = density of water at the measured 

temperature in pounds per cubic foot. 

* * * * * 

3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes dryer 

at the maximum temperature setting and, if 

equipped with a timer, at the maximum time 

setting. Any other optional cycle settings that 

do not affect the temperature or time settings 

shall be tested in the as-shipped position. If 

the clothes dryer does not have a separate 

temperature setting selection on the control 

panel, the maximum time setting should be 

used for the drying test cycle. Dry the test 

load until the moisture content of the test 

load is between 2.5 percent and 5.0 percent 

of the bone-dry weight of the test load, but 

do not permit the dryer to advance into cool 

down. If required, reset the timer or 

automatic dry control. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 

430 is amended: 

■ a. By revising the Note after the 

appendix heading; 

■ b. In section 1. Definitions, by revising 

section 1.11; 

■ c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1.1, 

2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.4, and 

2.4.7; 

■ 2. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 

2.1.3; 

■ d. In section 3. Test Methods and 

Measurements, by revising sections 3.1, 

3.3, and 3.6; and 

■ e. In section 4. Calculation of Derived 

Results From Test Measurements, by 

revising section 4.6. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

Note: Effective February 10, 2014, 

manufacturers must make representations of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49646 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

energy efficiency, including certifications of 

compliance, using appendix D. Compliance 

with DOE’s amended standards for clothes 

dryers, and corresponding use of the test 

procedures at appendix D1 for all 

representations, including certifications of 

compliance, is required as of January 1, 2015. 

Manufacturers must use a single appendix for 

all representations, including certifications of 

compliance, and may not use appendix D for 

certain representations and appendix D1 for 

other representations. The procedures in 

appendix D2 need not be performed to 

determine compliance with energy 

conservation standards for clothes dryers at 

this time. However, manufacturers may elect 

to use the amended appendix D, D1, or D2 

early. 

1. Definitions 

* * * * * 

1.11 ‘‘IEC 62301’’ (Second Edition) 

means the test standard published by 

the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) titled ‘‘Household 

electrical appliances—Measurement of 

standby power,’’ Publication 62301 

(Edition 2.0 2011–01) (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

* * * * * 

2. Testing Conditions 

2.1 Installation. 

2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both 

conventional clothes dryers and 

ventless clothes dryers, as defined in 

sections 1.7 and 1.19 of this appendix, 

install the clothes dryer in accordance 

with manufacturer’s instructions as 

shipped with the unit. If the 

manufacturer’s instructions do not 

specify the installation requirements for 

a certain component, it shall be tested 

in the as-shipped condition. Where the 

manufacturer gives the option to use the 

dryer both with and without a duct, the 

dryer shall be tested without the 

exhaust simulator described in section 

3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD–1 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3). All external 

joints should be taped to avoid air 

leakage. For drying testing, disconnect 

all lights, such as task lights, that do not 

provide any information related to the 

drying process on the clothes dryer and 

that do not consume more than 10 watts 

during the clothes dryer test cycle. 

Control setting indicator lights showing 

the cycle progression, temperature or 

dryness settings, or other cycle 

functions that cannot be turned off 

during the test cycle shall not be 

disconnected during the active mode 

test cycle. For standby and off mode 

testing, the clothes dryer shall also be 

installed in accordance with section 5, 

paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second 

Edition) (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), disregarding the provisions 

regarding batteries and the 

determination, classification, and 

testing of relevant modes. For standby 

and off mode testing, all lighting 

systems shall remain connected. 

2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers. 

For conventional clothes dryers, as 

defined in section 1.7 of this appendix, 

the dryer exhaust shall be restricted by 

adding the AHAM exhaust simulator 

described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM 

HLD–1 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3). 

2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For 

ventless clothes dryers, as defined in 

section 1.19, the dryer shall be tested 

without the AHAM exhaust simulator. If 

the manufacturer gives the option to use 

a ventless clothes dryer, with or without 

a condensation box, the dryer shall be 

tested with the condensation box 

installed. For ventless clothes dryers, 

the condenser unit of the dryer must 

remain in place and not be taken out of 

the dryer for any reason between tests. 

* * * * * 

2.2.2 For standby and off mode 

testing, maintain room ambient air 

temperature conditions as specified in 

section 4, paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 

(Second Edition) (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) 

* * * * * 

2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. 

For the clothes dryer standby mode and 

off mode testing, maintain the electrical 

supply voltage waveform indicated in 

section 4, paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 

(Second Edition) (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). If the power 

measuring instrument used for testing is 

unable to measure and record the total 

harmonic content during the test 

measurement period, it is acceptable to 

measure and record the total harmonic 

content immediately before and after the 

test measurement period. 

2.3.2 Gas supply. 

2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas 

supply to the clothes dryer immediately 

ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 

to 10 inches of water column. If the 

clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 

appliance pressure regulator for which 

the manufacturer specifies an outlet 

pressure, the regulator outlet pressure 

shall be within ±10 percent of the value 

recommended by the manufacturer in 

the installation manual, on the 

nameplate sticker, or wherever the 

manufacturer makes such a 

recommendation for the basic model. 

The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall 

be maintained within ±5 percent of the 

rating specified by the manufacturer. If 

the requirement to maintain the hourly 

Btu rating of the burner within ± 5 

percent of the rating specified by the 

manufacturer cannot be achieved under 

the allowable range in gas inlet test 

pressure, the orifice of the gas burner 

should be modified as necessary to 

achieve the required Btu rating. The 

natural gas supplied should have a 

heating value of approximately 1,025 

Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual 

heating value, Hn2, in Btus per standard 

cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used 

in the test shall be obtained either from 

measurements made by the 

manufacturer conducting the test using 

a standard continuous flow calorimeter 

as described in section 2.4.6 or by the 

purchase of bottled natural gas whose 

Btu rating is certified to be at least as 

accurate a rating as could be obtained 

from measurements with a standard 

continuous flow calorimeter as 

described in section 2.4.6. 

2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the 

gas supply to the clothes dryer 

immediately ahead of all controls at a 

pressure of 11 to 13 inches of water 

column. If the clothes dryer is equipped 

with a gas appliance pressure regulator 

for which the manufacturer specifies an 

outlet pressure, the regulator outlet 

pressure shall be within ±10 percent of 

the value recommended by the 

manufacturer in the installation manual, 

on the nameplate sticker, or wherever 

the manufacturer makes such a 

recommendation for the basic model. 

The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall 

be maintained within ±5 percent of the 

rating specified by the manufacturer. If 

the requirement to maintain the hourly 

Btu rating of the burner within ± 5 

percent of the rating specified by the 

manufacturer cannot be achieved under 

the allowable range in gas inlet test 

pressure, the orifice of the gas burner 

should be modified as necessary to 

achieve the required Btu rating. The 

propane gas supplied should have a 

heating value of approximately 2,500 

Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual 

heating value, Hp, in Btus per standard 

cubic foot, for the propane gas to be 

used in the test shall be obtained either 

from measurements made by the 

manufacturer conducting the test using 

a standard continuous flow calorimeter 

as described in section 2.4.6 or by the 

purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating 

is certified to be at least as accurate a 

rating as could be obtained from 

measurement with a standard 

continuous calorimeter as described in 

section 2.4.6. 

* * * * * 

2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. 

The scale shall have a range of 0 to a 

maximum of 60 pounds with a 

resolution of at least 0.2 ounces and a 

maximum error no greater than 0.3 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49647 

percent of any measured value within 

the range of 3 to 15 pounds. 

2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum 

capacity measurements. The scale 

should have a range of 0 to a maximum 

of 600 pounds with resolution of 0.50 

pounds and a maximum error no greater 

than 0.5 percent of the measured value. 

* * * * * 

2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb 

psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb 

psychrometer shall have an error no 

greater than ±1 °F. A relative humidity 

meter with a maximum error tolerance 

expressed in °F equivalent to the 

requirements for the dry and wet bulb 

psychrometer or with a maximum error 

tolerance of ± 2 percent relative 

humidity would be acceptable for 

measuring the ambient humidity. 

* * * * * 

2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode 

watt meter. The watt meter used to 

measure standby mode and off mode 

power consumption shall meet the 

requirements specified in section 4, 

paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second 

Edition) (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3). If the power measuring 

instrument used for testing is unable to 

measure and record the crest factor, 

power factor, or maximum current ratio 

during the test measurement period, it 

is acceptable to measure the crest factor, 

power factor, and maximum current 

ratio immediately before and after the 

test measurement period. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Procedures and Measurements 

3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the 

drum capacity by sealing all openings in 

the drum except the loading port with 

a plastic bag, and ensuring that all 

corners and depressions are filled and 

that there are no extrusions of the 

plastic bag through any openings in the 

interior of the drum. Support the dryer’s 

rear drum surface on a platform scale to 

prevent deflection of the drum surface, 

and record the weight of the empty 

dryer. Fill the drum with water to a 

level determined by the intersection of 

the door plane and the loading port (i.e., 

the uppermost edge of the drum that is 

in contact with the door seal). Record 

the temperature of the water and then 

the weight of the dryer with the added 

water and then determine the mass of 

the water in pounds. Add the 

appropriate volume to account for any 

space in the drum interior not measured 

by water fill (e.g., the space above the 

uppermost edge of the drum within a 

curved door) and subtract the 

appropriate volume to account for space 

that is measured by water fill but cannot 

be used when the door is closed (e.g., 

space occupied by the door when 

closed). The drum capacity is calculated 

as follows: 

C = w/d +/¥ volume adjustment 

C = capacity in cubic feet. 

w = mass of water in pounds. 

d = density of water at the measured 

temperature in pounds per cubic 

foot. 

* * * * * 

3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes 

dryer at the maximum temperature 

setting and, if equipped with a timer, at 

the maximum time setting. Any other 

optional cycle settings that do not affect 

the temperature or time settings shall be 

tested in the as-shipped position. If the 

clothes dryer does not have a separate 

temperature setting selection on the 

control panel, the maximum time 

setting should be used for the drying 

test cycle. Dry the load until the 

moisture content of the test load is 

between 2.5 and 5.0 percent of the bonedry weight of the test load, at which 

point the test cycle is stopped, but do 

not permit the dryer to advance into 

cool down. If required, reset the timer 

to increase the length of the drying 

cycle. After stopping the test cycle, 

remove and weigh the test load. The 

clothes dryer shall not be stopped 

intermittently in the middle of the test 

cycle for any reason. Record the data 

specified by section 3.4 of this 

appendix. If the dryer automatically 

stops during a cycle because the 

condensation box is full of water, the 

test is stopped, and the test run is 

invalid, in which case the condensation 

box shall be emptied and the test re-run 

from the beginning. For ventless dryers, 

as defined in section 1.19 of this 

appendix, during the time between two 

cycles, the door of the dryer shall be 

closed except for loading (and 

unloading). 

* * * * * 

3.6 Standby mode and off mode 

power. Establish the testing conditions 

set forth in Section 2 ‘‘Testing 

Conditions’’ of this appendix. For 

clothes dryers that take some time to 

enter a stable state from a higher power 

state as discussed in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 

(Second Edition) (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3), allow sufficient 

time for the clothes dryer to reach the 

lower power state before proceeding 

with the test measurement. Follow the 

test procedure specified in section 5, 

paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second 

Edition) for testing in each possible 

mode as described in sections 3.6.1 and 

3.6.2 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

4. Calculation of Derived Results From 

Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy 

consumption expressed in kilowatthours. Calculate the per-cycle combined 

total energy consumption, ECC, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle 

and defined for an electric clothes dryer 

as: 

ECC = Ece + ETSO

Where: 

Ece = the energy recorded in section 4.1 

of this appendix, and 

ETSO = the energy recorded in section 

4.5 of this appendix, and defined 

for a gas clothes dryer as: 

ECC = Ecg + ETSO

Where: 

Ecg = the energy recorded in section 4.4 

of this appendix, and 

ETSO = the energy recorded in section 

4.5 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Appendix D2 is added to Subpart 

B of Part 430 to read as follows: 

Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

Note: The procedures in appendix D2 need 

not be performed to determine compliance 

with energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers at this time. Manufacturers 

may elect to use the amended appendix D2 

early to show compliance with the January 1, 

2015 energy conservation standards. 

Manufacturers must use a single appendix for 

all representations, including certifications of 

compliance, and may not use appendix D1 

for certain representations and appendix D2 

for other representations. 

1. Definitions 

1.1 ‘‘Active mode’’ means a mode in which 

the clothes dryer is connected to a main 

power source, has been activated and is 

performing the main function of tumbling the 

clothing with or without heated or unheated 

forced air circulation to remove moisture 

from the clothing, remove wrinkles or 

prevent wrinkling of the clothing, or both. 

1.2 ‘‘AHAM’’ means the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

1.3 ‘‘AHAM HLD–1’’ means the test 

standard published by the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers, titled 

‘‘Household Tumble Type Clothes Dryers,’’ 

(2009), AHAM HLD–1–2009 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

1.4 ‘‘Automatic termination control’’ 

means a dryer control system with a sensor 

which monitors either the dryer load 

temperature or its moisture content and with 

a controller which automatically terminates 

the drying process. A mark, detent, or other 

visual indicator or detent which indicates a 

preferred automatic termination control 

setting must be present if the dryer is to be 

classified as having an ‘‘automatic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49648 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

termination control.’’ A mark is a visible 

single control setting on one or more dryer 

controls. 

1.5 ‘‘Automatic termination control dryer’’ 

means a clothes dryer which can be preset to 

carry out at least one sequence of operations 

to be terminated by means of a system 

assessing, directly or indirectly, the moisture 

content of the load. An automatic 

termination control dryer with 

supplementary timer or that may also be 

manually controlled shall be tested as an 

automatic termination control dryer. 

1.6 ‘‘Bone dry’’ means a condition of a load 

of test clothes which has been dried in a 

dryer at maximum temperature for a 

minimum of 10 minutes, removed, and 

weighed before cool down, and then dried 

again for 10-minute periods until the final 

weight change of the load is 1 percent or less. 

1.7 ‘‘Compact’’ or ‘‘compact size’’ means a 

clothes dryer with a drum capacity of less 

than 4.4 cubic feet. 

1.8 ‘‘Conventional clothes dryer’’ means a 

clothes dryer that exhausts the evaporated 

moisture from the cabinet. 

1.9 ‘‘Cool down’’ means that portion of the 

clothes drying cycle when the added gas or 

electric heat is terminated and the clothes 

continue to tumble and dry within the drum. 

1.10 ‘‘Cycle’’ means a sequence of 

operation of a clothes dryer which performs 

a clothes drying operation, and may include 

variations or combinations of the functions of 

heating, tumbling, and drying. 

1.11 ‘‘Drum capacity’’ means the volume of 

the drying drum in cubic feet. 

1.12 ‘‘IEC 62301’’ (Second Edition) means 

the test standard published by the 

International Electrotechnical Commission 

(‘‘IEC’’) titled ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power,’’ Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 

2011–01) (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3). 

1.13 ‘‘Inactive mode’’ means a standby 

mode that facilitates the activation of active 

mode by remote switch (including remote 

control), internal sensor, or timer, or that 

provides continuous status display. 

1.14 ‘‘Moisture content’’ means the ratio of 

the weight of water contained by the test load 

to the bone-dry weight of the test load, 

expressed as a percent. 

1.15 ‘‘Moisture sensing control’’ means a 

system which utilizes a moisture sensing 

element within the dryer drum that monitors 

the amount of moisture in the clothes and 

automatically terminates the dryer cycle. 

1.16 ‘‘Off mode’’ means a mode in which 

the clothes dryer is connected to a main 

power source and is not providing any active 

or standby mode function, and where the 

mode may persist for an indefinite time. An 

indicator that only shows the user that the 

product is in the off position is included 

within the clasification of an off mode. 

1.17 ‘‘Standard size’’ means a clothes dryer 

with a drum capacity of 4.4 cubic feet or 

greater. 

1.18 ‘‘Standby mode’’ means any product 

modes where the energy using product is 

connected to a mains power source and offers 

one or more of the following user-oriented or 

protective functions which may persist for an 

indefinite time: 

(a) To facilitate the activation of other 

modes (including activation or deactivation 

of active mode) by remote switch (including 

remote control), internal sensor, or timer. 

(b) Continuous functions, including 

information or status displays (including 

clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is 

a continuous clock function (which may or 

may not be associated with a display) that 

provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g., 

switching) and that operates on a continuous 

basis. 

1.19 ‘‘Temperature sensing control’’ means 

a system which monitors dryer exhaust air 

temperature and automatically terminates the 

dryer cycle. 

1.20 ‘‘Timer dryer’’ means a clothes dryer 

that can be preset to carry out at least one 

operation to be terminated by a timer, but 

may also be manually controlled, and does 

not include any automatic termination 

function. 

1.21 ‘‘Ventless clothes dryer’’ means a 

clothes dryer that uses a closed-loop system 

with an internal condenser to remove the 

evaporated moisture from the heated air. The 

moist air is not discharged from the cabinet. 

2. Testing Conditions 

2.1 Installation. 

2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both 

conventional clothes dryers and ventless 

clothes dryers, as defined in sections 1.8 and 

1.21 of this appendix, install the clothes 

dryer in accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions as shipped with the unit. If the 

manufacturer’s instructions do not specify 

the installation requirements for a certain 

component, it shall be tested in the asshipped condition. Where the manufacturer 

gives the option to use the dryer both with 

and without a duct, the dryer shall be tested 

without the exhaust simulator described in 

section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD–1 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). All 

external joints should be taped to avoid air 

leakage. For drying testing, disconnect all 

lights, such as task lights, that do not provide 

any information related to the drying process 

on the clothes dryer and that do not consume 

more than 10 watts during the clothes dryer 

test cycle. Control setting indicator lights 

showing the cycle progression, temperature 

or dryness settings, or other cycle functions 

that cannot be turned off during the test cycle 

shall not be disconnected during the active 

mode test cycle. For standby and off mode 

testing, the clothes dryer shall also be 

installed in accordance with section 5, 

paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

disregarding the provisions regarding 

batteries and the determination, 

classification, and testing of relevant modes. 

For standby and off mode testing, all lighting 

systems shall remain connected. 

2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers. For 

conventional clothes dryers, as defined in 

section 1.8 of this appendix, the dryer 

exhaust shall be restricted by adding the 

AHAM exhaust simulator described in 

section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD–1 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 

2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless 

clothes dryers, as defined in section 1.21, the 

dryer shall be tested without the AHAM 

exhaust simulator. If the manufacturer gives 

the option to use a ventless clothes dryer, 

with or without a condensation box, the 

dryer shall be tested with the condensation 

box installed. For ventless clothes dryers, the 

condenser unit of the dryer must remain in 

place and not be taken out of the dryer for 

any reason between tests. 

2.2 Ambient temperature and humidity. 

2.2.1 For drying testing, maintain the 

room ambient air temperature at 75 ± 3 ßF 

and the room relative humidity at 50 ±10 

percent relative humidity. 

2.2.2 For standby and off mode testing, 

maintain room ambient air temperature 

conditions as specified in section 4, 

paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 

2.3 Energy supply. 

2.3.1 Electrical supply. Maintain the 

electrical supply at the clothes dryer terminal 

block within 1 percent of 120/240 or 120/ 

208Y or 120 volts as applicable to the 

particular terminal block wiring system and 

within 1 percent of the nameplate frequency 

as specified by the manufacturer. If the dryer 

has a dual voltage conversion capability, 

conduct the test at the highest voltage 

specified by the manufacturer. 

2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. For the 

clothes dryer standby mode and off mode 

testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage 

waveform indicated in section 4, paragraph 

4.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). If the 

power measuring instrument used for testing 

is unable to measure and record the total 

harmonic content during the test 

measurement period, it is acceptable to 

measure and record the total harmonic 

content immediately before and after the test 

measurement period. 

2.3.2 Gas supply. 

2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas 

supply to the clothes dryer immediately 

ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 to 10 

inches of water column. If the clothes dryer 

is equipped with a gas appliance pressure 

regulator for which the manufacturer 

specifies an outlet pressure, the regulator 

outlet pressure shall be within ±10 percent of 

the value recommended by the manufacturer 

in the installation manual, on the nameplate 

sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes 

such a recommendation for the basic model. 

The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be 

maintained within ±5 percent of the rating 

specified by the manufacturer. If the 

requirement to maintain the hourly Btu 

rating of the burner within ± 5 percent of the 

rating specified by the manufacturer cannot 

be achieved under the allowable range in gas 

inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas 

burner should be modified as necessary to 

achieve the required Btu rating. The natural 

gas supplied should have a heating value of 

approximately 1,025 Btus per standard cubic 

foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in Btus 

per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to 

be used in the test shall be obtained either 

from measurements made by the 

manufacturer conducting the test using a 

standard continuous flow calorimeter as 

described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase 

of bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is 

certified to be at least as accurate a rating as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49649 

could be obtained from measurements with 

a standard continuous flow calorimeter as 

described in section 2.4.6. 

2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas 

supply to the clothes dryer immediately 

ahead of all controls at a pressure of 11 to 

13 inches of water column. If the clothes 

dryer is equipped with a gas appliance 

pressure regulator for which the 

manufacturer specifies an outlet pressure, the 

regulator outlet pressure shall be within ±10 

percent of the value recommended by the 

manufacturer in the installation manual, on 

the nameplate sticker, or wherever the 

manufacturer makes such a recommendation 

for the basic model. The hourly Btu rating of 

the burner shall be maintained within ±5 

percent of the rating specified by the 

manufacturer. If the requirement to maintain 

the hourly Btu rating of the burner within ± 

5 percent of the rating specified by the 

manufacturer cannot be achieved under the 

allowable range in gas inlet test pressure, the 

orifice of the gas burner should be modified 

as necessary to achieve the required Btu 

rating. The propane gas supplied should have 

a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btus 

per standard cubic foot. The actual heating 

value, Hp, in Btus per standard cubic foot, for 

the propane gas to be used in the test shall 

be obtained either from measurements made 

by the manufacturer conducting the test 

using a standard continuous flow calorimeter 

as described in section 2.4.6 or by the 

purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating is 

certified to be at least as accurate a rating as 

could be obtained from measurement with a 

standard continuous calorimeter as described 

in section 2.4.6. 

2.4 Instrumentation. Perform all test 

measurements using the following 

instruments as appropriate. 

2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The 

scale shall have a range of 0 to a maximum 

of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 0.2 

ounces and a maximum error no greater than 

0.3 percent of any measured value within the 

range of 3 to 15 pounds. 

2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity 

measurements. The scale should have a range 

of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with 

resolution of 0.50 pounds and a maximum 

error no greater than 0.5 percent of the 

measured value. 

2.4.2 Kilowatt-hour meter. The kilowatthour meter shall have a resolution of 0.001 

kilowatt-hours and a maximum error no 

greater than 0.5 percent of the measured 

value. 

2.4.3 Gas meter. The gas meter shall have 

a resolution of 0.001 cubic feet and a 

maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent 

of the measured value. 

2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The 

dry and wet bulb psychrometer shall have an 

error no greater than ±1 °F. A relative 

humidity meter with a maximum error 

tolerance expressed in °F equivalent to the 

requirements for the dry and wet bulb 

psychrometer or with a maximum error 

tolerance of ± 2 percent relative humidity 

would be acceptable for measuring the 

ambient humidity. 

2.4.5 Temperature. The temperature 

sensor shall have an error no greater than 

±1 °F. 

2.4.6 Standard Continuous Flow 

Calorimeter. The calorimeter shall have an 

operating range of 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic 

foot. The maximum error of the basic 

calorimeter shall be no greater than 0.2 

percent of the actual heating value of the gas 

used in the test. The indicator readout shall 

have a maximum error no greater than 0.5 

percent of the measured value within the 

operating range and a resolution of 0.2 

percent of the full-scale reading of the 

indicator instrument. 

2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode watt 

meter. The watt meter used to measure 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption shall meet the requirements 

specified in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC 

62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). If the power 

measuring instrument used for testing is 

unable to measure and record the crest factor, 

power factor, or maximum current ratio 

during the test measurement period, it is 

acceptable to measure the crest factor, power 

factor, and maximum current ratio 

immediately before and after the test 

measurement period. 

2.5 Lint trap. Clean the lint trap 

thoroughly before each test run. 

2.6 Test Cloths. 

2.6.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test 

cloth shall be clean and consist of the 

following: 

(a) Pure finished bleached cloth, made 

with a momie or granite weave, which is a 

blended fabric of 50-percent cotton and 50- 

percent polyester and weighs within +10 

percent of 5.75 ounces per square yard after 

test cloth preconditioning, and has 65 ends 

on the warp and 57 picks on the fill. The 

individual warp and fill yarns are a blend of 

50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester 

fibers. 

(b) Cloth material that is 24 inches by 36 

inches and has been hemmed to 22 inches by 

34 inches before washing. The maximum 

shrinkage after five washes shall not be more 

than 4 percent on the length and width. 

(c) The number of test runs on the same 

energy test cloth shall not exceed 25 runs. 

2.6.2 Energy stuffer cloths. The energy 

stuffer cloths shall be made from energy test 

cloth material, and shall consist of pieces of 

material that are 12 inches by 12 inches and 

have been hemmed to 10 inches by 10 inches 

before washing. The maximum shrinkage 

after five washes shall not be more than 4 

percent on the length and width. The number 

of test runs on the same energy stuffer cloth 

shall not exceed 25 runs after test cloth 

preconditioning. 

2.6.3 Test Cloth Preconditioning. 

A new test cloth load and energy stuffer 

cloths shall be treated as follows: 

(1) Bone dry the load to a weight change 

of ± 1 percent, or less, as prescribed in 

section 1.6 of this appendix. 

(2) Place the test cloth load in a standard 

clothes washer set at the maximum water fill 

level. Wash the load for 10 minutes in soft 

water (17 parts per million hardness or less), 

using 60.8 grams of AHAM standard test 

detergent Formula 3. Wash water 

temperature should be maintained at 140 °F 

±5 °F (60 °C ±2.7 °C). Rinse water 

temperature is to be controlled at 100 °F ±5 

°F (37.7 °C ±2.7 °C). 

(3) Rinse the load again at the same water 

temperature. 

(4) Bone dry the load as prescribed in 

section 1.6 of this appendix and weigh the 

load. 

(5) This procedure is repeated until there 

is a weight change of 1 percent or less. 

(6) A final cycle is to be a hot water wash 

with no detergent, followed by two warm 

water rinses. 

2.7 Test loads. 

2.7.1 Compact size dryer load. Prepare a 

bone-dry test load of energy cloths that 

weighs 3.00 pounds ± .03 pounds. The test 

load can be adjusted to achieve proper 

weight by adding energy stuffer cloths, but 

no more than five stuffer cloths may be 

added per load. Dampen the load by agitating 

it in water whose temperature is 60 °F ± 5 °F 

and consists of 0 to 17 parts per million 

hardness for approximately 2 minutes to 

saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from 

the wet test load by spinning the load until 

the moisture content of the load is between 

52.5 and 57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight 

of the test load. Make a final mass 

adjustment, such that the moisture content is 

57.5 percent ± 0.33 percent by adding water 

uniformly distributed among all of the test 

clothes in a very fine spray using a spray 

bottle. 

2.7.2 Standard size dryer load. Prepare a 

bone-dry test load of energy cloths that 

weighs 8.45 pounds ± .085 pounds. The test 

load can be adjusted to achieve proper 

weight by adding stuffer cloths, but no more 

than five stuffer cloths may be added per 

load. Dampen the load by agitating it in water 

whose temperature is 60 °F ± 5 °F and 

consists of 0 to 17 parts per million hardness 

for approximately 2 minutes to saturate the 

fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test 

load by spinning the load until the moisture 

content of the load is between 52.5 and 57.5 

percent of the bone-dry weight of the test 

load. Make a final mass adjustment, such that 

the moisture content is 57.5 percent ± 0.33 

percent by adding water uniformly 

distributed among all of the test clothes in a 

very fine spray using a spray bottle. 

2.7.3 Method of loading. Load the energy 

test cloths by grasping them in the center, 

shaking them to hang loosely, and then 

dropping them in the dryer at random. 

2.8 Clothes dryer preconditioning. 

2.8.1 Conventional clothes dryers. For 

conventional clothes dryers, before any test 

cycle, operate the dryer without a test load 

in the non-heat mode for 15 minutes or until 

the discharge air temperature is varying less 

than 1 °F for 10 minutes—whichever is 

longer—in the test installation location with 

the ambient conditions within the specified 

test condition tolerances of 2.2. 

2.8.2 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless 

clothes dryers, before any test cycle, the 

steady-state machine temperature must be 

equal to ambient room temperature described 

in 2.2.1. This may be done by leaving the 

machine at ambient room conditions for at 

least 12 hours between tests. 

3. Test Procedures and Measurements 

3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum 

capacity by sealing all openings in the drum 

except the loading port with a plastic bag, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49650 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and ensuring that all corners and depressions 

are filled and that there are no extrusions of 

the plastic bag through any openings in the 

interior of the drum. Support the dryer’s rear 

drum surface on a platform scale to prevent 

deflection of the drum surface, and record 

the weight of the empty dryer. Fill the drum 

with water to a level determined by the 

intersection of the door plane and the loading 

port (i.e., the uppermost edge of the drum 

that is in contact with the door seal). Record 

the temperature of the water and then the 

weight of the dryer with the added water and 

then determine the mass of the water in 

pounds. Add the appropriate volume to 

account for any space in the drum interior 

not measured by water fill (e.g., the space 

above the uppermost edge of the drum within 

a curved door) and subtract the appropriate 

volume to account for the space that is 

measured by water fill but cannot be used 

when the door is closed (e.g., space occupied 

by the door when closed). The drum capacity 

is calculated as follows: 

C= w/d +/¥ volume adjustment 

C= capacity in cubic feet. 

w= mass of water in pounds. 

d= density of water at the measured 

temperature in pounds per cubic foot. 

3.2 Dryer Loading. Load the dryer as 

specified in 2.7. 

3.3 Test cycle. 

3.3.1 Timer dryers. For timer dryers, as 

defined in section 1.20 of this appendix, 

operate the clothes dryer at the maximum 

temperature setting and, if equipped with a 

timer, at the maximum time setting. Any 

other optional cycle settings that do not affect 

the temperature or time settings shall be 

tested in the as-shipped position. If the 

clothes dryer does not have a separate 

temperature setting selection on the control 

panel, the maximum time setting should be 

used for the drying test cycle. Dry the load 

until the moisture content of the test load is 

between 1 and 2.5 percent of the bone-dry 

weight of the test load, at which point the 

test cycle is stopped, but do not permit the 

dryer to advance into cool down. If required, 

reset the timer to increase the length of the 

drying cycle. After stopping the test cycle, 

remove and weigh the test load. The clothes 

dryer shall not be stopped intermittently in 

the middle of the test cycle for any reason. 

Record the data specified by section 3.4 of 

this appendix. If the dryer automatically 

stops during a cycle because the 

condensation box is full of water, the test is 

stopped, and the test run is invalid, in which 

case the condensation box shall be emptied 

and the test re-run from the beginning. For 

ventless dryers, as defined in section 1.21 of 

this appendix, during the time between two 

cycles, the door of the dryer shall be closed 

except for loading (and unloading). 

3.3.2 Automatic termination control 

dryers. For automatic termination control 

dryers, as defined in section 1.5 of this 

appendix, a ‘‘normal’’ program shall be 

selected for the test cycle. For dryers that do 

not have a ‘‘normal’’ program, the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer for drying 

cotton or linen clothes shall be selected. 

Where the drying temperature setting can be 

chosen independently of the program, it shall 

be set to the maximum. Where the dryness 

level setting can be chosen independently of 

the program, it shall be set to the ‘‘normal’’ 

or ‘‘medium’’ dryness level setting. If such 

designation is not provided, then the dryness 

level shall be set at the mid-point between 

the minimum and maximum settings. Any 

other optional cycle settings that do not affect 

the program, temperature or dryness settings 

shall be tested in the as-shipped position. 

Operate the clothes dryer until the 

completion of the programmed cycle, 

including the cool down period. The cycle 

shall be considered complete when the dryer 

indicates to the user that the cycle has 

finished (by means of a display, indicator 

light, audible signal, or other signal) and the 

heater and drum/fan motor shuts off for the 

final time. If the clothes dryer is equipped 

with a wrinkle prevention mode (i.e., that 

continuously or intermittently tumbles the 

clothes dryer drum after the clothes dryer 

indicates to the user that the cycle has 

finished) that is activated by default in the 

as-shipped position or if manufacturers’ 

instructions specify that the feature is 

recommended to be activated for normal use, 

the cycle shall be considered complete after 

the end of the wrinkle prevention mode. 

After the completion of the test cycle, remove 

and weigh the test load. Record the data 

specified in section 3.4 of this appendix. If 

the final moisture content is greater than 2 

percent, the test shall be invalid and a new 

run shall be conducted using the highest 

dryness level setting. If the dryer 

automatically stops during a cycle because 

the condensation box is full of water, the test 

is stopped, and the test run is invalid, in 

which case the condensation box shall be 

emptied and the test re-run from the 

beginning. For ventless dryers, during the 

time between two cycles, the door of the 

dryer shall be closed except for loading (and 

unloading). 

3.4 Data recording. Record for each test 

cycle: 

3.4.1 Bone-dry weight of the test load 

described in 2.7. 

3.4.2 Moisture content of the wet test 

load before the test, as described in 2.7. 

3.4.3 Moisture content of the dry test load 

obtained after the test described in 3.3. 

3.4.4 Test room conditions, temperature, 

and percent relative humidity described in 

2.2.1. 

3.4.5 For electric dryers—the total 

kilowatt-hours of electric energy, Et, 

consumed during the test described in 3.3. 

3.4.6 For gas dryers: 

3.4.6.1 Total kilowatt-hours of electrical 

energy, Ete, consumed during the test 

described in 3.3. 

3.4.6.2 Cubic feet of gas per cycle, Etg, 

consumed during the test described in 3.3. 

3.4.6.3 Correct the gas heating value, 

GEF, as measured in 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2, to 

standard pressure and temperature 

conditions in accordance with U.S. Bureau of 

Standards, circular C417, 1938. 

3.4.7 The cycle settings selected, in 

accordance with section 3.3.2 of this 

appendix, for the automatic termination 

control dryer test. 

3.5 Test for automatic termination field 

use factor. The field use factor for automatic 

termination can be claimed for those dryers 

which meet the requirements for automatic 

termination control, defined in 1.4. 

3.6 Standby mode and off mode power. 

Establish the testing conditions set forth in 

Section 2 ‘‘Testing Conditions’’ of this 

appendix. For clothes dryers that take some 

time to enter a stable state from a higher 

power state as discussed in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second 

Edition) (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes 

dryer to reach the lower power state before 

proceeding with the test measurement. 

Follow the test procedure specified in section 

5, paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second 

Edition) for testing in each possible mode as 

described in sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of this 

appendix. 

3.6.1 If a clothes dryer has an inactive 

mode, as defined in section 1.13 of this 

appendix, measure and record the average 

inactive mode power of the clothes dryer, 

PIA, in watts. 

3.6.2 If a clothes dryer has an off mode, 

as defined in section 1.16 of this appendix, 

measure and record the average off mode 

power of the clothes dryer, POFF, in watts. 

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

4.1 Total per-cycle electric dryer energy 

consumption. Calculate the total electric 

dryer energy consumption per cycle, Ece, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and 

defined as: 

Ece = Et, 

for automatic termination control dryers, 

and, 

Ece = [55.5/(Ww¥ Wd)] × Et × field use, 

for timer dryers 

Where: 

55.5 = an experimentally established value 

for the percent reduction in the moisture 

content of the test load during a 

laboratory test cycle expressed as a 

percent. 

Et = the energy recorded in section 3.4.5 of 

this appendix 

field use = 1.18, the field use factor for 

clothes dryers with time termination 

control systems only without any 

automatic termination control functions. 

Ww = the moisture content of the wet test 

load as recorded in section 3.4.2 of this 

appendix. 

Wd = the moisture content of the dry test load 

as recorded in section 3.4.3 of this 

appendix. 

4.2 Per-cycle gas dryer electrical energy 

consumption. Calculate the gas dryer 

electrical energy consumption per cycle, Ege, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and 

defined as: 

Ege = Ete, 

for automatic termination control dryers, 

and, 

Ege = [55.5/(Ww ¥Wd)] × Ete × field use, 

for timer dryers 

Where: 

Ete = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.1 

of this appendix. 

field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section 

4.1 of this appendix. 

4.3 Per-cycle gas dryer gas energy 

consumption. Calculate the gas dryer gas 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49651 

energy consumption per cycle, Ege, 

expressed in Btus per cycle and defined 

as: 

Egg = Etg × GEF 

for automatic termination control dryers, 

and, 

Egg = [55.5/(Ww ¥Wd)] × Etg × field use × GEF 

for timer dryers 

Where: 

Etg = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.2 

of this appendix. 

GEF = corrected gas heat value (Btu per cubic 

foot) as defined in section 3.4.6.3 of this 

appendix, 

field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section 

4.1 of this appendix. 

4.4 Total per-cycle gas dryer energy 

consumption expressed in kilowatt-hours. 

Calculate the total gas dryer energy 

consumption per cycle, Ecg, expressed in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as: 

Ecg = Ege + (Egg/3412 Btu/kWh) 

Where: 

Ege = the energy calculated in section 4.2 of 

this appendix 

Egg = the energy calculated in section 4.3 of 

this appendix 

4.5 Per-cycle standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption. Calculate the dryer 

inactive mode and off mode energy 

consumption per cycle, ETSO, expressed in 

kWh per cycle and defined as: 

ETSO = [(PIA × SIA) + (POFF × SOFF)] × K/283 

Where: 

PIA = dryer inactive mode power, in watts, as 

measured in section 3.6.1; 

POFF = dryer off mode power, in watts, as 

measured in section 3.6.2. 

If the clothes dryer has both inactive mode 

and off mode, SIA and SOFF both equal 

8,620 ÷ 2 = 4,310, where 8,620 is the 

total inactive and off mode annual hours; 

If the clothes dryer has an inactive mode but 

no off mode, the inactive mode annual 

hours, SIA, is equal to 8,620 and the off 

mode annual hours, SOFF, is equal to 0; 

If the clothes dryer has an off mode but no 

inactive mode, SIA is equal to 0 and SOFF

is equal to 8,620 

Where: 

K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for 

watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; and 

283 = representative average number of 

clothes dryer cycles in a year. 

4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy 

consumption expressed in kilowatt-hours. 

Calculate the per-cycle combined total energy 

consumption, ECC, expressed in kilowatthours per cycle and defined for an electric 

clothes dryer as: 

ECC = Ece + ETSO

Where: 

Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of 

this appendix, and 

ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of 

this appendix, and defined for a gas 

clothes dryer as: 

ECC = Ecg + ETSO

Where: 

Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of 

this appendix, and 

ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of 

this appendix. 

4.7 Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatthour. Calculate the energy factor, EF, 

expressed in pounds per kilowatt-hour and 

defined for an electric clothes dryer as: 

EF = Wbonedry/Ece

Where: 

Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight 

recorded in section 3.4.1 of this 

appendix, and 

Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of 

this appendix, and and defined for a gas 

clothes dryer as: 

EF = Wbonedry/Ecg

Where: 

Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight 

recorded in section 3.4.1 of this 

appendix, and 

Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of 

this appendix, 

4.8 Combined Energy Factor in pounds 

per kilowatt-hour. Calculate the combined 

energy factor, CEF, expressed in pounds per 

kilowatt-hour and defined as: 

CEF = Wbonedry/ECC

Where: 

Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight 

recorded in section 3.4.1 of this 

appendix, and 

ECC = the energy calculated in section 4.6 of 

this appendix. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18931 Filed 8–13–13; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2