Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87803 

regulation have been approved by OMB 

and have been assigned OMB control 

number 0575–0189. This proposed rule 

contains no new reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements that would 

require approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

E-Government Act Compliance 

Rural Development is committed to 

the E-Government Act, which requires 

Government agencies in general to 

provide the public the option of 

submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible and to promote the use 

of the internet and other information 

technologies to provide increased 

opportunities for citizen access to 

Government information and services, 

and for other purposes. 

USDA Non-Discrimination Statement 

In accordance with Federal civil 

rights laws and USDA civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, 

employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from 

discriminating based on race, color, 

national origin, religion, sex, gender 

identity (including gender expression), 

sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance 

program, political beliefs, or reprisal or 

retaliation for prior civil rights activity, 

in any program or activity conducted or 

funded by USDA (not all bases apply to 

all programs). Remedies and complaint 

filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident. 

Program information may be made 

available in languages other than 

English. Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means of 

communication to obtain program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, American Sign Language) 

should contact the responsible Mission 

Area, agency, or staff office; or the 711 

Relay Service. 

To file a program discrimination 

complaint, a complainant should 

complete a Form AD–3027, USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, which can be obtained online at 

usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 

ad-3027.pdf from any USDA office, by 

calling (866) 632–9992, or by writing a 

letter addressed to USDA. The letter 

must contain the complainant’s name, 

address, telephone number, and a 

written description of the alleged 

discriminatory action in sufficient detail 

to inform the Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature 

and date of an alleged civil rights 

violation. The completed AD–3027 form 

or letter must be submitted to USDA by: 

a. Mail: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410; or 

b. Fax: (833) 256–1665 or (202) 690– 

7442; or 

c. Email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

Severability 

It is USDA’s intention that the 

provisions of this rule shall operate 

independently of each other. If this rule 

or any portion of this rule is ultimately 

declared invalid or stayed as to a 

particular provision, it is USDA’s intent 

that the rule nonetheless be severable 

and remain valid with respect to those 

provisions not affected by a declaration 

of invalidity or stayed. USDA concludes 

it would separately adopt all the 

provisions contained in this rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3565 

Conflict of interest, Credit, Fair 

housing, Loan programs—housing and 

community development, Low and 

moderate-income housing, 

Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Rent 

subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rural areas. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Agency proposes to 

amend 7 CFR part 3565 as follows: 

PART 3565—GUARANTEED RURAL 

RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3565 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 

U.S.C. 1480. 

Subpart H—Project Management 

■ 2. Amend § 3565.352 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 3565.352 Preservation of affordable 

housing. 

* * * * * 

(b) Use restriction. For the original 

term of the guaranteed loan, the housing 

must remain available for occupancy by 

low- and moderate-income households, 

in accordance with subpart E of this 

part. This requirement must be included 

in a deed restriction in a form 

acceptable to the Agency. The deed 

restriction must be recorded separately, 

before and with priority over other 

documents related to the transaction. 

The restriction will apply unless the 

housing is acquired by foreclosure or an 

instrument in lieu of foreclosure, or the 

Agency waives the applicability of this 

requirement after determining that each 

of the following three circumstances 

exist: 

(1) There is no longer a need for lowand moderate-income housing in the 

market area in which the housing is 

located; 

(2) Housing opportunities for lowincome households and minorities will 

not be reduced as a result of the waiver; 

and 

(3) Additional federal assistance will 

not be necessary as a result of the 

waiver. 

* * * * * 

Joaquin Altoro, 

Administrator, Rural Housing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25713 Filed 11–4–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2024–BT–TP–0009] 

RIN 1904–AF68 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Residential and 

Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Consumer Clothes Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the 

test procedures for residential and 

commercial clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers to update the 

test cloth specifications. DOE also 

proposes to reorganize the test 

procedures for improved readability. 

DOE is conducting this rulemaking to 

address specific issues and to make 

minor corrections to the current test 

procedures. However, this rulemaking 

does not satisfy the statutory 

requirement that, at least once every 7 

years, DOE review the test procedures 

for clothes washers and consumer 

clothes dryers. DOE is seeking comment 

from interested parties on the proposal. 

DATES: 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this proposal no later than 

December 5, 2024. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on this NOPR if one is 

requested by November 12, 2024. If a 

public meeting is requested, DOE will 

announce its date and participation 

information on the DOE website and via 

email. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87804 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2024–BT–TP–0009. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2024–BT–TP–0009, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) Email: 

WashersDryers2024TP0009@ee.doe.gov. 

Include the docket number EERE–2024– 

BT–TP–0009 in the subject line of the 

message. 

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

1445. If possible, please submit all items 

on a CD, in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, public meeting attendee lists 

and transcripts (if a public meeting is 

held), comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2024-BT-TP-0009. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

of this document for information on 

how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

5649. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Uchechukwu ‘‘Emeka’’ Eze, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

4798. Email: uchechukwu.eze@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in a public meeting (if one is held), 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

following industry standard into 10 CFR 

part 430: 

AATCC LP1–2021, Laboratory 

Procedure for Home Laundering: 

Machine Washing, Revised 2023. 

Copies of AATCC test methods can be 

obtained from the American Association 

of Textile Chemists and Colorists 

(‘‘AATCC’’), P.O. Box 12215, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549– 

3526, or www.aatcc.org. 

See section IV.M of this document for 

a further discussion of this standard. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope of Applicability 

B. Relevant Historical Background 

C. Test Cloth Specifications and 

Requirements 

1. Cut Orientation 

2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count 

3. Granite Weave 

4. Alternate Test Cloth 

5. Uniformity Criteria 

6. Variance P-Value Threshold and RootMean-Square Error 

D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring Edits 

1. Introductory Paragraph 

2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions 

3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and 

Clothes Dryer Test Procedures 

4. Restructuring Appendix J3 

E. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

F. Compliance Date 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

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. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Consumer (residential) clothes 

washers (‘‘RCWs’’), commercial clothes 

washers (‘‘CCWs’’), and consumer 

clothes dryers are included in the list of 

‘‘covered products/equipment’’ for 

which DOE is authorized to establish 

and amend energy conservation 

standards and test procedures. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)–(8); 42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(H)) DOE’s test procedures for 

RCWs are currently prescribed at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices J 

(‘‘appendix J’’) and J2 (‘‘appendix J2’’). 

The test procedures for CCWs must be 

the same as those established for RCWs. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)). DOE’s test 

procedures for consumer clothes dryers 

are currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendices D1 

(‘‘appendix D1’’) and D2 (‘‘appendix 

D2’’). DOE also prescribes specifications 

for the test cloth to be used for testing 

clothes washers at appendix J3 to 

subpart B (‘‘appendix J3’’). The 

following sections discuss DOE’s 

authority to establish and amend test 

procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers and relevant 

background information regarding 

DOE’s consideration of test procedures 

for these products. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317, as codified) Title III, Part B of 

EPCA 2 established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles, 

which sets forth a variety of provisions 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87805 

3For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

4EPCA does not contain an analogous provision 

for commercial equipment. 

5 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011– 

01). 

6 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related 

equipment—Methods of measurement for power 

consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7: 

2018). 

7Manufacturers must use the results of testing 

under appendix J2 to determine compliance with 

the current relevant standards for RCWs at 10 CFR 

430.32(g)(1) and for CCWs at 10 CFR 431.156(b). 

Manufacturers must use the results of testing under 

appendix J to determine compliance with the 

relevant standards for RCWs manufactured on or 

after March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR 

430.32(g)(2) and with any amended standards for 

CCWs provided in 10 CFR 431.156 that are 

published after January 1, 2022. 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

These products include RCWs and 

consumer clothes dryers. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(7)–(8)) Title III, Part C of EPCA,3

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

section 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(H)) RCWs, CCWs, and consumer 

clothes dryers are the subject of this 

document. 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal 

energy conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291; 42 U.S.C. 6311), test 

procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 

6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 

6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy 

conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 

42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296; 42 

U.S.C. 6316). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products/ 

equipment must use as the basis for: (1) 

certifying to DOE that their products 

comply with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted 

pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a)), and (2) making other 

representations about the efficiency of 

those consumer products/equipment (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

products/equipment comply with 

relevant standards promulgated under 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products and 

equipment established under EPCA 

generally supersede State laws and 

regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and (b)) DOE may, however, 

grant waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C. 

6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and 

procedures DOE must follow when 

prescribing or amending test procedures 

for covered products/equipment. EPCA 

requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product/equipment during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and not be unduly 

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

6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product and equipment, including 

RCWs, CCWs and consumer clothes 

dryers, to determine whether amended 

test procedures would more accurately 

or fully comply with the requirements 

for the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A); 6314(a)(1)) 

If the Secretary determines, on her 

own behalf or in response to a petition 

by any interested person, that a test 

procedure should be prescribed or 

amended, the Secretary shall promptly 

publish in the Federal Register 

proposed test procedures and afford 

interested persons an opportunity to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments with respect to such 

procedures. The comment period on a 

proposed rule to amend a test procedure 

shall be at least 60 days and may not 

exceed 270 days. In prescribing or 

amending a test procedure, the 

Secretary shall take into account such 

information as the Secretary determines 

relevant to such procedure, including 

technological developments relating to 

energy use or energy efficiency of the 

type (or class) of covered products 

involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2); 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a)). If DOE determines that 

test procedure revisions are not 

appropriate, DOE must publish its 

determination not to amend the test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(ii); 

42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) 

In addition, EPCA requires that DOE 

amend its test procedures for all covered 

products to integrate measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption into the overall energy 

efficiency, energy consumption, or other 

energy descriptor, unless the current 

test procedure already incorporates the 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, or if such integration is 

technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)–(ii)) 4 If an integrated 

test procedure is technically infeasible, 

DOE must prescribe separate standby 

mode and off mode energy use test 

procedures for the covered product, if a 

separate test is technically feasible. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such 

amendment must consider the most 

current versions of the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 62301 5 and IEC Standard 

62087 6 as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

EPCA requires the test procedures for 

CCWs to be the same as the test 

procedures established for RCWs. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with the test 

procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires 

that DOE evaluate, at least once every 7 

years, the test procedures for CCWs to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

DOE is publishing this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to 

address specific issues and to make 

minor corrections to the current test 

procedures that are required for 

certification of compliance with 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. However, this rulemaking 

does not satisfy the EPCA requirement 

that, at least once every 7 years, DOE 

review the test procedures for RCWs, 

CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 6314(a)(1)(A)) 

B. Background 

As discussed, DOE’s existing test 

procedures for clothes washers are 

prescribed at appendix J and appendix 

J2,7 and DOE’s existing test procedures 

for consumer clothes dryers are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87806 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

8The test procedures in appendix D1 or appendix 

D2 must be used to determine compliance with the 

current relevant standards for consumer clothes 

dryers at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must 

use the test procedure in appendix D2 to determine 

compliance with the relevant standards for 

consumer clothes dryers manufactured on or after 

March 1, 2028, specified at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(4). 

9The term ‘‘lot’’ refers to a quantity of cloth that 

has been manufactured with the same batches of 

cotton and polyester during one continuous 

process. Section 2 of appendix J3. 

10A parenthetical reference at the end of a 

quotation or paraphrase of an AHAM letter provides 

reference for information located in the docket of 

this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2024–BT–TP– 

0009, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). 

The references are arranged as follows: (docket ID 

number at the page of that document). 

prescribed at appendix D1 and 

appendix D2.8

Additionally, DOE’s existing test 

procedure at appendix J3 provides 

specifications for the test cloth to be 

used for testing clothes washers; 

procedures for pre-conditioning new 

test cloth; procedures for verifying that 

new lots 9 of test cloth meet the defined 

material specifications; and procedures 

for developing a set of correction 

coefficients that correlate the measured 

remaining moisture content (‘‘RMC’’) 

values of each new test cloth lot with a 

set of standard RMC values established 

as a historical reference point. These 

correction coefficients are applied to the 

RMC measurements performed during 

testing according to appendix J or 

appendix J2, ensuring consistency in the 

final corrected RMC measurement 

across different test cloth lots used for 

testing. 

Although the test cloth specifications 

and qualification procedures in 

appendix J3 are nominally applicable to 

clothes washer testing, DOE 

understands that manufacturers and test 

laboratories use the same test cloth for 

testing clothes dryers as well. As 

discussed further in section III.B of this 

document, the test cloth specifications 

for clothes washer testing and clothes 

dryer testing have historically been 

aligned. Furthermore, as discussed 

further in section III.D.3 of this 

document, test cloth that satisfies the 

requirements of appendix J3 for clothes 

washer testing also satisfies the 

requirements codified in appendices D1 

and D2 for clothes dryer testing. 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) has 

established a Test Cloth Task Force 

(‘‘AHAM task force’’) that, among other 

responsibilities, reviews and 

recommends new lots of test cloth for 

industry use; identifies and secures 

suppliers for manufacturing test cloth; 

conducts research and investigations to 

recommend continuous improvements 

to the test cloth specifications and 

qualification procedures; and addresses 

any industry-wide concerns that may 

arise regarding the test cloth. DOE 

representatives participate in the AHAM 

task force. 

On May 31, 2024, DOE received a 

letter from AHAM (‘‘May 2024 AHAM 

Letter’’) urging DOE to allow the use of 

alternate test cloth material for clothes 

washer and clothes dryer testing. (No. 1 

at p. 4) 10 The May 2024 AHAM Letter 

also made further requests for DOE to 

amend certain test cloth specifications 

based on the results of recent 

investigations by the AHAM task force. 

(Id.) In this document, DOE proposes to 

implement changes to its test cloth 

specifications to address these concerns. 

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘Process Rule’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from certain provisions in the 

Process Rule as follows. 

Section 8(a) of the Process Rule states 

that in determining whether to consider 

establishing or amending any test 

procedure, DOE will publish one or 

more preliminary documents in the 

Federal Register (e.g., a request for 

information or notice of data 

availability) intended to gather 

information on key issues. As discussed, 

DOE is conducting this rulemaking to 

address specific issues rather than 

conducting a full review of the clothes 

washer and clothes dryer test 

procedures that would satisfy the 7-year 

lookback requirement prescribed by 

EPCA. This proposal seeks to address 

known issues regarding test cloth that 

have been brought to DOE’s attention, as 

discussed in the previous section of this 

document. For these reasons, DOE finds 

it appropriate to deviate from this 

provision in the Process Rule by 

forgoing publication of a preliminary 

document as part of a pre-NOPR stage 

for this rulemaking. 

Section 8(b)(2) of the Process Rule 

states that there will be not less than 60 

days for public comment on the NOPR, 

with at least one public hearing or 

workshop. As stated, DOE will hold a 

public meeting on this NOPR if one is 

requested; otherwise, DOE finds it 

appropriate to forgo a public hearing 

given the limited scope of issues 

addressed in this NOPR. DOE has also 

determined that 30 days is an 

appropriate period for providing 

comments. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes 

amendments to its test cloth 

specifications as follows: 

(1) Specify that fabric weight and 

thread count must be measured on 

finished goods prior to preconditioning, 

(2) Clarify that the test cloth be made 

with a ‘‘granite,’’ ‘‘momie,’’ or ‘‘crepe’’ 

weave, 

(3) Allow the use of an alternate test 

cloth, 

(4) Amend the statistical criteria for a 

new test cloth lot to be considered 

acceptable for use, 

(5) Restructure and renumber certain 

sections of appendix J3 for clarity, and 

(6) Harmonize the test cloth 

specifications for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the current test procedures as well as 

the reason for the proposed change. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURES

Current DOE test procedures Proposed test procedures Attribution 

Does not specify at which stage of the process 

the fabric weight and thread count of test 

cloth are applicable.

Specifies that fabric weight and thread count 

must be measured on finished goods prior 

to pre-conditioning.

Industry request; improve reproducibility of 

test results. 

Specifies the use of ‘‘granite or momie’’ weave Specifies the use of ‘‘granite, momie, or 

crepe’’ weave.

Industry request; clarification of existing requirement. 

Specifies one type of allowable test cloth .......... Specifies two types of allowable test cloth ...... Industry request; reduce test burden while 

maintaining reproducibility and representativeness. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87807 

11The test procedures for CCWs must be the same 

as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(8)). 

12An ‘‘automatic clothes washer’’ is a class of 

clothes washer that has a control system that is 

capable of scheduling a preselected combination of 

operations, such as regulation of water temperature, 

regulation of the water fill level, and performance 

of wash, rinse, drain, and spin functions without 

the need for user intervention subsequent to the 

initiation of machine operation. Some models may 

require user intervention to initiate these different 

segments of the cycle after the machine has begun 

operation, but they do not require the user to 

intervene to regulate the water temperature by 

adjusting the external water faucet valves. 10 CFR 

430.2. 

13A ‘‘semi-automatic clothes washer’’ is a class of 

clothes washer that is the same as an automatic 

clothes washer except that user intervention is 

required to regulate the water temperature by 

adjusting the external water faucet valves. Id. 

14 ‘‘Other clothes washer’’ means a class of 

clothes washer that is not an automatic or semiautomatic clothes washer. Id. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURES— 

Continued 

Current DOE test procedures Proposed test procedures Attribution 

Specifies that the coefficient of variation across 

nine RMC values must be less than or equal 

to 1 percent.

Specifies that the coefficient of variation 

across nine RMC values must be less than 

or equal to 2.0 percent.

Reduce test burden while maintaining reproducibility and representativeness. 

Specifies that the P-value of the RMC correction curve must be greater than or equal to 

0.1.

Specifies that the root-mean-square error of 

the RMC correction curve must be less 

than or equal to 0.015.

Reduce test burden while maintaining reproducibility and representativeness. 

Appendix J3 test cloth specifications currently 

apply only to clothes washers.

Harmonizes test cloth requirements across 

both clothes washers and clothes dryers 

and extends applicability of appendix J3 

test cloth specifications to both clothes 

washers and clothes dryers.

Industry request; clarify existing requirements 

consistent with industry practice. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments described in 

section III of this document would not 

alter the measured efficiency of RCWs, 

CCWs, or consumer clothes dryers, or 

require retesting or recertification solely 

as a result of DOE’s adoption of the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedures, if finalized. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)) Discussion of DOE’s proposed 

actions are addressed in detail in 

section III of this document. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

proposes certain amendments to its test 

procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers. For each 

proposed amendment, DOE provides 

relevant background information, 

explains why the amendment merits 

consideration, discusses relevant public 

comments, and proposes a potential 

approach. 

A. Scope of Applicability 

This rulemaking applies to clothes 

washers (both RCWs and CCWs, which 

use the same test procedures) 11 and 

consumer clothes dryers. 

DOE has defined a clothes washer as 

a consumer product designed to clean 

clothes, utilizing a water solution of 

soap and/or detergent and mechanical 

agitation or other movement, that must 

be one of the following classes: 

automatic clothes washers,12 semiautomatic clothes washers,13 and other 

clothes washers.14 10 CFR 430.2. 

DOE regulations also define ‘‘electric 

clothes dryer’’ and ‘‘gas clothes dryer’’ 

similarly as 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 electricity or gas, 

respectively, as the heat source. See, 10 

CFR 430.2. DOE’s clothes dryer test 

procedures are applicable to both 

electric and gas clothes dryers. 

A commercial clothes washer is defined as 

a soft-mount front-loading or soft-mount toploading clothes washer that— 

(A) Has a clothes container compartment 

that— 

(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is 

not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and 

(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not 

more than 4.0 cubic feet; and 

(B) Is designed for use in— 

(i) Applications in which the occupants of 

more than one household will be using the 

clothes washer, such as multi-family housing 

common areas and coin laundries; or 

(ii) Other commercial applications. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(21); 10 CFR 431.452) 

DOE is not proposing changes to the 

scope of the RCW, CCW, or consumer 

clothes dryer test procedures, or the 

relevant definitions, in this NOPR. 

B. Relevant Historical Background 

This section summarizes the 

historical background of test cloth 

specifications in DOE’s clothes washer 

and clothes dryer test procedures that is 

relevant to topics discussed in this 

NOPR. 

DOE first introduced the use of test 

cloth into the original clothes dryer test 

procedure established by the final rule 

published September 14, 1977 

(‘‘September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final 

Rule’’). 42 FR 46145. The test cloth 

specifications were a 50-percent cotton 

and 50-percent polyester blended 

material, representative of the range of 

fabrics comprising consumer wash 

loads. Id. at 42 FR 46146. The 

September 1977 Clothes Dryer Final 

Rule also established a maximum use of 

25 clothes dryer test cycles for each 

piece of test cloth to reduce potential 

variability in the test results that may 

occur from any change in the 

composition of the test cloth due to 

continued drying of the same test cloth. 

Id. 

DOE introduced the use of test cloth 

into the original clothes washer test 

procedure established by the final rule 

published September 28, 1977 

(‘‘September 1977 Clothes Washer Final 

Rule’’). 42 FR 49802. As discussed in 

the September 1977 Clothes Washer 

Final Rule, the size and composition of 

the test load was chosen to be identical 

to the test load that had been specified 

for clothes dryers in the September 1977 

Clothes Dryer Final Rule. Id. at 49 FR 

49805. The number of test runs for each 

piece of test cloth was limited to no 

more than 25 clothes washer test cycles. 

Id. at 49 FR 49808. 

Since introducing the use of test cloth 

into the originally established clothes 

dryer and clothes washer test 

procedures, DOE has periodically 

updated the test cloth specifications and 

requirements. The following paragraphs 

summarize some of these changes to test 

cloth specifications and requirements 

that are relevant to the amendments 

proposed in this document. 

In a final rule published May 19, 1981 

(‘‘May 1981 Final Rule’’), DOE amended 

the clothes dryer test procedure to, 

among other changes, establish test 

cloth pre-conditioning requirements to 

improve test repeatability by ensuring 

that the test cloth not contain any watersoluble sizing or finishing agents that 

could affect the moisture performance of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87808 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

15The May 2000 Test Cloth Report is available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD0064-0277. 

16Section 3.7.2 of appendix J3 specifies 

dimensions of smaller energy ‘‘stuffer’’ cloths, 

which are nominally 12 inches by 12 inches prior 

to hemming. Since the energy stuffer cloths are 

square, the consideration of cut orientation in this 

section of the document pertains only to the 

rectangular energy test cloths. 

17The pre-conditioning process is specified in 

section 5 of appendix J3 and consists of five washrinse-spin cycles, with the load bone-dried between 

each of the five cycles. 

test cloth. 46 FR 27324. The May 1981 

Final Rule also established a weight 

tolerance on the test cloth. Id. 

In a final rule published August 27, 

1997, DOE amended its test cloth 

requirements in the clothes washer test 

procedure by adding a new requirement 

to prewash (i.e., pre-condition) new test 

cloth prior to first use for energy 

consumption testing. 62 FR 45484. 

DOE published a final rule on January 

12, 2001 (‘‘January 2001 Final Rule’’) 

that, among other changes to the clothes 

washer test procedure, introduced the 

modified energy factor descriptor, 

which incorporated an estimate of 

clothes drying energy into the clothes 

washer efficiency descriptor through 

consideration of the RMC of the clothes 

leaving the clothes washer. 66 FR 3314. 

As discussed in the January 2001 Final 

Rule, it had been discovered that the 

test cloth to be used for determining the 

RMC was giving inconsistent results. Id. 

at 66 FR 3317. DOE investigated 

possible causes for the inconsistent test 

results and summarized the results in a 

report published in May 2000 titled 

Development of a Standardized Energy 

Test Cloth for Measuring Remaining 

Moisture Content in a Residential 

Clothes Washer (‘‘May 2000 Test Cloth 

Report’’).15

In particular, relevant to topics 

discussed in this NOPR, the May 2000 

Test Cloth Report documented the 

difficulty of relating specifiable test 

cloth characteristics—fiber content, 

weight, etc.—to RMC measurements. 

(See section 4 of May 2000 Test Cloth 

Report). On this basis, DOE concluded 

that tighter test cloth specifications 

alone would not necessarily lead to 

comparably consistent RMC 

measurements. To provide more 

consistent RMC measurements from lot 

to lot, the May 2000 Test Cloth Report 

proposed a new method for developing 

a ‘‘correction factor’’ for each new lot of 

test cloth. The correction factor would 

be applied to the RMC measurement to 

normalize the RMC results to match the 

RMC performance of a designated 

‘‘standard lot.’’ 

The May 2000 Test Cloth Report also 

concluded that a viable approach to 

minimize the effects of test cloth 

variation on RMC would be to 

consistently specify a single type of 

fabric that is produced frequently by 

one mill to a consistent set of 

specifications. The report recommended 

the use of a 50-percent cotton/50- 

percent polyester momie weave fabric 

from one particular mill as a suitable 

choice, noting that this cloth (at the 

time) was produced in high volume, had 

been produced to a consistent 

specification for many years, and was 

likely to continue to be produced on 

this basis for the foreseeable future. (See 

section 6 of May 2000 Test Cloth 

Report) 

The May 2000 Test Cloth Report 

recommended a set of test cloth 

specifications and an RMC correction 

factor approach that could be adopted 

into the DOE test procedure. The 

January 2001 Final Rule incorporated 

into the clothes washer test procedures 

many of the recommendations of the 

May 2000 Test Cloth Report, including 

the recommended updates to the test 

cloth specifications and the RMC 

correction factor procedure. The January 

2001 Final Rule also increased the 

number of allowable test runs for each 

piece of test cloth to no more than 60 

clothes washer test cycles (from 25 

previously). 66 FR 3314, 3320. 

DOE published a direct final rule on 

October 31, 2003 (‘‘October 2003 Final 

Rule’’) that, among other changes to the 

clothes washer test procedure, added as 

a testing requirement the use of a 

statistical analysis approach to qualify 

any interactive effect between different 

lots of test cloth and spin speeds to 

further improve consistency of the RMC 

measurement. 68 FR 62198. 

On March 7, 2012, DOE published a 

final rule (‘‘March 2012 Final Rule’’) 

that, among other changes, updated 

certain test cloth specifications for 

clothes washer testing based on 

recommendations provided by AHAM. 

77 FR 13888, 13920–13921. Specifically, 

the March 2012 Final Rule adopted 

definitions for cloth ‘‘lot’’ and ‘‘roll’’ 

and established test cloth weight 

tolerances. Id. at 77 FR 13921–13922. 

The March 2012 Final Rule also 

updated pre-conditioning wash 

requirements and incorporated 

American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists (‘‘AATCC’’) test 

methods for verifying the absence of 

water-repellent finishes on the test 

cloth. Id. at 77 FR 13922. 

In a final rule published on August 5, 

2015 (‘‘August 2015 Final Rule’’), DOE 

moved the standard extractor RMC 

procedure for developing the correction 

factors for each new test cloth lot from 

appendix J2 to the newly created 

appendix J3. 80 FR 46730. 

In a final rule published on June 1, 

2022 (‘‘June 2022 Final Rule’’), among 

other changes, DOE further consolidated 

clothes washer test cloth-related 

provisions into appendix J3 (from 

appendix J2) to improve the overall 

logical flow of both test procedures. Id. 

at 87 FR 33367. DOE additionally 

codified in appendix J3 a test cloth 

material verification procedure that had 

historically been used by the AHAM 

task force when evaluating new lots of 

test cloth. Id. at 87 FR 33368. 

C. Test Cloth Specifications and 

Requirements 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

update its test cloth specifications and 

requirements to (1) further improve 

consistency in test results across 

different lots of test cloth, (2) clarify 

certain requirements consistent with 

textile industry nomenclature, (3) allow 

the use of an alternate type of test cloth 

that has been shown to exhibit 

consistent performance with the current 

test cloth, and (4) reevaluate appropriate 

thresholds for certain statistical 

requirements specified for new lots of 

test cloth. 

Each of the proposed changes are in 

line with DOE’s historical practice of 

regularly updating its test cloth 

specifications to improve the 

consistency of test results and adapt to 

changes in material specifications and 

availability of commercially available 

textiles. 

In this section, DOE addresses clothes 

washer specifications in appendix J3 

specifically. In section III.D.3 of this 

document, DOE proposes harmonizing 

the clothes washer and clothes dryer 

test cloth specifications such that the 

edits proposed in this section would 

apply to both product types. 

1. Cut Orientation 

Section 3.1 of appendix J3 specifies 

that the test cloth material should come 

from a roll of material with a width of 

approximately 63 inches, although other 

sizes may be used if the test cloth 

material meets the specifications listed 

in sections 3.2 through 3.6 of appendix 

J3. Section 3.7.1 of appendix J3 specifies 

the dimensions of the individual energy 

test cloths—nominally 24 inches by 36 

inches prior to hemming.16

Furthermore, section 5 of appendix J3 

specifies that the maximum shrinkage 

requirements for the energy test cloth 

after pre-conditioning 17 must not be 

more than 5 percent of the length and 

width. 

Appendix J3 does not specify the 

orientation of the rectangular 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87809 

18As discussed, RMC is a measure of the 

remaining water content of the clothes washer load 

at the end of the wash cycle and is used to 

incorporate an estimate of clothes drying energy 

into the clothes washer efficiency descriptor. 

dimensions (i.e., lengthwise versus 

widthwise) for cutting individual energy 

test cloths from the roll of fabric. As 

such, the cut orientation of the 

rectangular energy test cloths can be 

optimized to minimize wasted fabric 

(e.g., a lengthwise cut of 36 inches 

adjacent to a widthwise cut of 24 inches 

could be patterned on a 63-inch width 

roll of material with minimal waste). 

The May 2024 AHAM Letter 

recommended that appendix J3 specify 

that the energy test cloth be cut in a 

specific orientation relative to the fabric 

roll. (No. 1 at p. 4) Specifically, the May 

2024 AHAM Letter suggested that the 

24-inch dimension be cut from the 

lengthwise (i.e., ‘‘warp’’) direction of the 

roll and the 36-inch dimension be cut 

from the widthwise (i.e., ‘‘weft’’) 

direction of the roll, as depicted in 

Figure III.1. (Id. at p. 23) 

DOE understands through discussions 

of the AHAM task force that differences 

in cut orientation can impact the 

relative shrinking of cloth in each 

direction after repeated wash and dry 

cycles, which could potentially affect its 

water absorption and retention 

properties—characteristics that are 

particularly relevant to the RMC 

measurement.18 The May 2024 AHAM 

Letter did not, however, provide any 

data or quantitative evaluation of 

whether, or to what extent, the direction 

of cut orientation could affect the 

shrinkage of the energy test cloth, or the 

RMC measurement in the clothes 

washer test procedure. DOE notes that 

even if the cut orientation could impact 

the relative shrinkage of the length and 

width of the energy test cloth, section 5 

of appendix J3 already specifies a 

maximum allowable shrinkage of 5 

percent in each direction. DOE has no 

information to suggest that any variation 

in shrinkage within this 5 percent 

tolerance would have a substantive 

impact on the resulting RMC 

measurement in the clothes washer test 

procedure. 

Furthermore, DOE is concerned about 

potential unintended consequences of 

requiring a specific cut orientation for 

each energy test cloth. Depending on the 

width of the fabric roll, specifying a cut 

orientation as suggested by AHAM 

could prevent the optimization of cut 

patterns as described previously (i.e., a 

36-inch lengthwise cut adjacent to a 24- 

inch widthwise cut on a 63-inch width 

roll of material), resulting in increased 

fabric waste and a corresponding 

increase in material cost. For instance, 

a 63-inch-wide roll as specified by 

section 3.1 of appendix J3 would only 

be able to accommodate a single 36-inch 

wide cut as suggested by AHAM, 

resulting in nearly 40 percent of the roll 

material being wasted. And although 

section 3.1 of appendix J3 permits the 

use of other size rolls, DOE understands 

that textiles are typically woven in 

standardized widths and is concerned 

that fabricating rolls with a custom 

width for DOE test cloth could increase 

the material cost. 

In summary, DOE is uncertain as to 

whether, or to what extent, the energy 

test cloth cut orientation could impact 

the RMC measurement in the clothes 

washer test procedure, and whether 

specifying a particular cut orientation 

could result in fabric waste that would 

lead to an increase in material cost. As 

such, DOE requests comment to clarify 

these uncertainties, as provided at the 

end of this section. If DOE were to be 

provided with additional information 

that alleviates these uncertainties and 

concerns, DOE would consider 

establishing a cut orientation 

requirement in a final rule. 

Irrespective of its determination 

regarding the specification of a cut 

orientation requirement, DOE has 

tentatively determined that section 3.1 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP05NO24.000</GPH>

Fabric Roll 

) 

0. +I 0. ~ ~ 

ro ro 

s 36" s ..._ ..._ <1> <1> 

tlO 

+I 

tlO 

"'O "'O 

<1> <1> 

~ ~ 

<1> <1> 

V') V') 

36" 

Cut Edge/Weft 

Figure 111.1 Energy Test Cloth Cut Orientation Diagram Adapted from the May 

2024 AHAM Letter 
87810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

19The AHAM task force designated the two most 

recent lots of test cloth ‘‘25A’’ and ‘‘25B’’ to reflect 

that these two lots were manufactured at the same 

time using the same continuous weaving process, 

although they were finished in separate batch 

processes. 

20The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP0009. 

21AHAM suggested defining ‘‘granite weave’’ as 

a broad classification of weave producing a small, 

irregular, pebbled surface similar to crepe fabrics; 

fabrics made with a granite weave are generally 

interlaced tightly, and warp and filling yarns appear 

on the face. AHAM suggested defining ‘‘momie/ 

granite weave fabric’’ as test cloth made with 

granite weave fabric as specified in the suggested 

definition of granite weave. 

of appendix J3 is superfluous, given that 

the suggested parameters regarding the 

width and length dimensions of the roll 

(i.e., a roll width of approximately 63 

inches and approximately 500 yards per 

roll) are rendered moot by the 

accompanying provision allowing for 

rolls of other sizes to be used. As such, 

DOE proposes to remove section 3.1 of 

appendix J3 and renumber the 

subsequent sections accordingly. 

DOE requests comment on the roll 

dimensions and cut orientations that are 

currently used to fabricate DOE test 

cloth. 

DOE requests comment as to whether, 

or to what extent, the energy test cloth 

cut orientation could impact the RMC 

measurement in the clothes washer test 

procedure. 

DOE requests comment on its concern 

that establishing a cut orientation 

requirement could lead to fabric waste, 

depending on the dimensions of the 

fabric roll. 

DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination not to specify a 

cut orientation requirement. DOE 

further seeks comment on whether it 

should adopt the cut orientation 

requirement specified by AHAM or any 

other cut orientation requirement. 

DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination that section 3.1 

of appendix J3 is superfluous and its 

proposal to remove the requirements in 

section 3.1 of appendix J3. 

2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count 

Section 3.3 of appendix J3 specifies 

that the fabric weight of the test cloth 

must be 5.60 ± 0.25 ounces per square 

yard, but it does not specify at what 

point in the fabrication process this 

specification applies. Similarly, section 

3.4 of appendix J3 specifies that the 

thread count of the test cloth must be 65 

× 57 threads per inch ± 2 percent, but 

it does not specify at what point in the 

fabrication process this specification 

applies. The May 2024 AHAM Letter 

requested that DOE amend these 

specifications to clarify that fabric 

weight and thread count specifications 

apply to ‘‘finished goods’’ test cloth 

prior to pre-conditioning. (No. 1 at pp. 

4, 22) Through its participation in the 

AHAM task force, DOE understands the 

term ‘‘finished goods’’ to mean after the 

cloth has been hemmed into energy test 

cloth and energy stuffer cloths, but prior 

to any pre-conditioning. 

DOE further understands through its 

participation in the AHAM task force 

that specifying that these requirements 

apply to finished goods (as opposed to 

prior to the cloth having been 

processed, de-starched, and hemmed), 

but prior to any pre-conditioning, is the 

most appropriate point in the cloth 

fabrication process because these 

dimensional properties can change 

during certain stages of the cloth 

fabrication process. Applying these 

specifications to finished goods 

therefore ensures the consistency of 

each test cloth lot at the state in which 

the test cloth is purchased by a 

manufacturer or test laboratory. 

Consistent with AHAM’s 

recommendation, DOE proposes to 

specify within section 3 of appendix J3 

that fabric weight and thread count 

specifications apply to finished goods 

prior to pre-conditioning. 

DOE requests feedback on its proposal 

to specify in appendix J3 that fabric 

weight and thread count specifications 

apply to finished goods prior to preconditioning. 

3. Granite Weave 

Section 3.2 of appendix J3 states that 

the test cloth used for clothes washer 

testing must be a pure finished bleached 

cloth, made with a momie or granite 

weave. As discussed in the May 2024 

AHAM Letter, recent lots 25A and 

25B19 were woven with a different type 

of granite weave—a ‘‘crepe’’ weave— 

than the ‘‘momie’’ type of granite weave 

that has historically been used for DOE 

test cloth. (No. 1 at p. 3) 

To evaluate whether using a crepe 

weave would impact test results 

compared to the historical momie 

weave, DOE conducted comparative 

testing of RCWs and consumer clothes 

dryers using lot 25A (made with a crepe 

weave) and previous test cloth lot 23 

(made with a momie weave). The results 

of DOE’s testing are presented in a 

Technical Appendix published in the 

docket for this rulemaking.20 This 

testing shows no substantive variation 

in RMC, integrated modified energy 

factor (‘‘IMEF’’), or integrated water 

factor—the reported metrics for RCWs— 

or in combined energy factor—the 

reported metric for consumer clothes 

dryers—between the different granite 

weave types (i.e., traditional momie 

versus crepe weave). Although DOE’s 

test sample did not include any CCWs, 

DOE expects that the trends in RMC 

values, energy use, and water use that 

it observed in RCWs would apply to 

CCWs, given that RCWs and CCWs are 

designed and operate similarly and are 

tested using the same test procedure. 

Through its participation in 

discussions with the AHAM task force, 

DOE understands that very few textile 

mills maintain the capability to fabricate 

cloth using the type of momie weave 

that has traditionally been used to 

produce DOE test cloth. Instead, the 

type of crepe weave used for lot 25A is 

expected to be more readily available 

going forward. In recognition of this, 

DOE is proposing to add the term 

‘‘crepe’’ to the list of allowable 

weaves—specifically, to revise newly 

renumbered section 3.1.1.1 of appendix 

J3 to specify that the test cloth be made 

with a momie, granite, or crepe weave. 

DOE requests feedback on its proposal 

to add the term ‘‘crepe’’ to the list of 

allowable weaves in appendix J3. 

Appendix J3 currently does not define 

the terms momie or granite weave. In 

the May 2024 AHAM Letter, AHAM 

suggested that DOE establish definitions 

for these terms in appendix J3.21 (No. 1 

at pp. 21–22) Through its participation 

in the AHAM task force, DOE 

understands that momie, granite, and 

crepe weave types are generally 

understood terms of art within the 

textile industry, but there is not a 

definitive source for definitions of these 

terms. DOE is concerned that creating 

its own definitions for these terms could 

inadvertently conflict with the range of 

weave styles that are generally 

understood by the textile industry to be 

granite weaves. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined not to establish a 

definition for these terms within the 

appendix J3 test procedure. DOE would 

consider establishing definitions for one 

or more of these terms—including the 

definitions suggested by AHAM—if 

interested parties were to demonstrate 

sufficient justification that would 

alleviate the concerns expressed herein. 

DOE requests feedback on its tentative 

determination not to establish 

definitions for ‘‘crepe,’’ ‘‘granite,’’ or 

‘‘momie’’ weave in appendix J3. 

4. Alternate Test Cloth 

DOE is required to ensure that the test 

procedure is reasonably designed to 

produce test results that measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, water use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product/equipment during a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87811 

22AHAM informed DOE on March 3, 2022 that 

there were significant issues with the quality and 

availability of the required test cloth material for 

the applicable energy tests for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. 

23On August 7, 2023, AHAM informed DOE that 

test cloth shortages were persisting and that this 

supply shortage could also eventually impact DOE’s 

ability to conduct assessment, enforcement, or other 

testing. 24Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2023-09/Test%20Cloth%20Policy%20for%

20Clothes%20Washers%20and%20Clothes

%20Dryers%20Enforcement%20Policy.pdf. 25Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021 provides 

specifications for various types of cloth, one of 

which is designated as Laundering Ballast Type 3. 

26The tested cloth used 16/1 fabric yarns and was 

sized to match the DOE energy test cloth and energy 

stuffer cloth dimensions and hemming instructions 

(as currently specified in section 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of 

appendix J3, respectively) instead of the finished 

piece dimensions specified in Table VII of AATCC 

LP1–2021. 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and is not unduly 

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

6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In 

establishing the current test cloth 

specifications, DOE considered the 

representativeness of the range of fabrics 

comprising consumer wash loads, the 

manufacturability of the fabric, the 

consistency in test cloth production, 

and the consistency in test results from 

the fabric. 66 FR 3314, 3318 (Jan. 12, 

2001). 

As discussed, the current test cloth 

specifications were recommended by 

the May 2000 Test Cloth Report, which 

noted that this cloth (at the time) was 

produced in high volume, had been 

produced to a consistent specification 

for many years, and was likely to 

continue to be produced on this basis 

for the foreseeable future. (See section 6 

of May 2000 Test Cloth Report.) The 

May 2000 Test Cloth Report also 

highlighted the benefits of specifying a 

single type of fabric that is produced 

frequently by one mill to a consistent set 

of specifications. 

However, while the test cloth 

specified in appendix J3 continues to be 

produced by a single supplier, DOE 

understands through its participation in 

the AHAM task force that this cloth is 

produced exclusively for use in 

conducting the DOE test procedure (i.e., 

this specific cloth is not used to any 

significant extent by any other industry 

bodies or for any other regulatory or 

research and development purposes). As 

such, it is no longer the case that this 

cloth is produced in high volume 

(beyond the volume needed for DOE 

testing purposes), leading to uncertainty 

as to whether this cloth is likely to 

remain readily available on a consistent 

basis for the foreseeable future. 

During the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

laundry industry experienced shortages 

in DOE test cloth supply.22 The 

specialized nature of the DOE test cloth 

(i.e., the fact the cloth is unique to DOE 

testing needs and produced in relatively 

low volumes) inhibited the ability to 

identify alternate sources of supply for 

the test cloth. To mitigate this shortage, 

AHAM requested that DOE use its 

enforcement discretion to allow 

extended use of test cloth beyond the 

currently defined cycle limits.23 On 

September 28, 2023, DOE issued a 

statement 24 stating that DOE would 

exercise its enforcement discretion and 

not impose civil penalties on a clothes 

washer, commercial clothes washer, or 

clothes dryer manufacturer for certifying 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards based on testing 

that exceeds the maximum test cloth 

run provision set forth in the DOE test 

procedures. Instead, DOE allowed for 

usage of test cloth for twice the number 

of runs allowed in the relevant test 

procedures. 

In an effort to further alleviate any test 

cloth supply constraints that could limit 

energy testing activities for clothes 

washers and clothes dryers, the AHAM 

task force evaluated the potential merits 

of specifying an alternate test cloth that 

could be used for DOE testing, as 

discussed in the May 2024 AHAM 

Letter. (No. 1 at p. 3) 

The AHAM task force identified a 

commercially available standardized 

fabric as a possible alternative to the 

current test cloth specification. This 

fabric is used as ‘‘ballast’’ for testing 

specific material attributes (such as 

colorfastness) of textiles and, according 

to the May 2024 AHAM Letter, has been 

used by the textile industry for over 80 

years. (No. 1 at p. 3) Specifically, the 

fabric meets the specifications of 

Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth 

specified by industry standard AATCC 

LP1–2021, Laboratory Procedure for 

Home Laundering: Machine Washing.25

The specifications for Laundering 

Ballast Type 3 cloth are provided in 

Table III.1. 

TABLE III.1—SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAUNDERING BALLAST TYPE 3 CLOTH FROM AATCC LP1–2021 

Characteristic Specification 

Fiber Content ..................................................................... 50% cotton/50% polyester ±3%. 

Greige Fabric Yarns ........................................................... 16/1 or 30/2 ring spun. 

Greige Fabric Construction ................................................ 52 × 48 ± 5 yarns per inch, plain weave. 

Finished Fabric Weight ...................................................... 155 ± 10 grams per square meter (4.57 ± 0.29 ounces per square yard). 

Edges ................................................................................. All edges hemmed or over-edged. 

Finished Piece Size ........................................................... 920 × 920 ± 30 millimeters (36.0 × 36.0 ± 1 inch). 

Finished Piece Weight ....................................................... 130 ± 10 grams (4.59 ± 0.35 ounces). 

As part of an AHAM task force 

investigation, DOE and AHAM members 

conducted comparative testing of 

Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth 26 to 

evaluate whether this cloth could be 

used to conduct the DOE test 

procedures and whether doing so would 

produce test results comparable to the 

currently specified test cloth. The 

results of DOE’s testing are presented in 

the Technical Appendix published in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

Specifically, DOE tested six RCWs 

and eight consumer clothes dryers, 

representing eight manufacturers and all 

major product classes; AHAM members 

additionally conducted testing of eight 

RCWs and six consumer clothes dryers, 

representing all major product classes. 

These products were tested to their 

rated appendix (D1, D2, or J2) using 

both the current DOE test cloth and the 

Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth. 

DOE’s testing demonstrated no 

substantive difference in measured 

efficiency compared with historical lots 

used for RCW and consumer clothes 

dryer testing. In particular for clothes 

washers, the Laundering Ballast Type 3 

produced RMC results comparable to 

existing DOE test cloth using the 

currently specified correction factor 

approach. Although DOE’s test sample 

did not include any CCWs, DOE expects 

that the trends in RMC values, energy 

use, and water use that it observed in 

RCWs would apply to CCWs, given that 

RCWs and CCWs are designed and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

27As discussed previously, comparative testing 

was conducted only on fabric with 16/1 yarn type, 

which is a single-string yarn similar in thickness to 

the 15/1 yarn type currently specified in section 3.5 

of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on fabric 

with 30/2 yarn type—the other fabric yarn option 

specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021—which 

is a two-string version of yarn with each string 

roughly half the diameter of the single-string 

version. 

28As discussed previously, comparative testing 

was conducted only on fabric matching the 

hemming instructions currently specified in 

sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing 

was conducted on over-edged pieces of test cloth 

(i.e., the other edging option specified in Table VII 

of AATCC LP1–2021). 

29As discussed previously, comparative testing 

was conducted only on fabric matching the 

dimensions currently specified in sections 3.7.1 and 

3.7.2 of appendix J3. No testing was conducted on 

fabric pieces matching the dimensions as specified 

in Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021. 

30The Finished Piece Weight specified in Table 

VII of AATCC LP1–2021 corresponds to the 

Finished Piece Size specified in the same table; as 

such, this specification does not apply to fabric 

pieces matching the proposed finished piece 

dimensions. 

31See letters received by DOE on December 13, 

2023 and May 24, 2024. 

operate similarly and are tested using 

the same test procedure. 

In addition, AHAM presented the 

results of its members’ testing in 

appendix A to the May 2024 AHAM 

Letter. (No. 1 at pp. 6–9) This testing 

also demonstrated no substantive 

difference in measured efficiency 

compared with historical lots used for 

RCW and consumer clothes dryer 

testing. 

Based on this data, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the AATCC 

Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth 

provides results that are equally as 

representative as results obtained using 

the currently specified test cloth. On 

this basis, DOE is proposing, consistent 

with recommendations from the May 

2024 AHAM Letter, to amend appendix 

J3 to allow for the use of AATCC 

Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth, with a 

specific yarn size, and cut and hemmed 

to the DOE energy test cloth 

dimensions. (No. 1 at p. 22) As 

discussed in section III.D.3 of this 

document, the specifications in 

appendix J3 would apply to both clothes 

washers and clothes dryers. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference AATCC LP1– 

2021 into appendix J3 and to allow the 

use of test cloth meeting the 

specifications of Laundering Ballast 

Type 3, as specified in Table VII of 

AATCC LP1–2021, with the following 

additional specifications and 

substitutions: 

• Greige Fabric Yarns: Type 16/1 

only 27

• Edges: All edges hemmed only 28

• Finished Piece Size: Dimensions in 

accordance with sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 

of appendix J3 for energy test cloths and 

energy stuffer cloths, respectively.29

• Finished Piece Weight: Disregard 30

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow the use of Laundering 

Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC 

LP1–2021 (with certain additional 

specifications) as an alternate test cloth 

for conducting clothes washer and 

clothes dryer testing. 

Consistent with the discussion in 

section III.C.3 of this document, DOE 

considered whether to propose a 

definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ as 

specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1– 

2021. DOE understands the term ‘‘plain 

weave’’ to be a well-understood term of 

art and therefore tentatively determines 

that adding a definition of ‘‘plain 

weave’’ to appendix J3 would not be 

warranted. 

DOE requests feedback on its tentative 

determination not to establish a 

definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ in 

appendix J3. 

5. Uniformity Criteria 

In the June 2022 Final Rule, DOE 

codified a prequalification procedure to 

be performed on each new lot of test 

cloth to verify the uniformity of the test 

cloth throughout the beginning, middle, 

and end of the lot. 87 FR 33316. As 

discussed in the June 2022 Final Rule, 

DOE had received a request from 

members of the AHAM task force to add 

to appendix J3 additional steps to the 

qualification procedure that have 

historically been performed on each 

new lot of test cloth to ensure 

uniformity of RMC test results on test 

cloths from the beginning, middle, and 

end of each new lot. Id. at 87 FR 33368. 

Industry practice has been to perform 

this ‘‘uniformity check’’ before 

conducting the procedure to develop the 

RMC correction factors currently 

specified in appendix J3. Id. 

Specifically, the uniformity check 

involves performing an RMC 

measurement on nine bundles of sample 

test cloth representing the beginning, 

middle, and end locations of the first, 

middle, and last rolls of test cloth in a 

new lot. Id. In the historical procedure 

provided by the AHAM task force, the 

coefficient of variation (‘‘CV’’) across the 

nine RMC values must be less than or 

equal to 1 percent for the test cloth lot 

to be considered acceptable for use. Id. 

The amendments codified by the June 

2022 Final Rule included the suggested 

requirement for the CV of the 

‘‘uniformity check’’ procedure to be less 

than or equal to 1 percent. Id. at 87 FR 

33369. 

Shortly after the publication of the 

June 2022 Final Rule establishing the 

requirement for the CV to be less than 

or equal to 1 percent—but prior to its 

effective date—lot 24D was produced by 

the test cloth supplier and was 

measured to have a CV of 1.6 percent. 

AHAM developed correction factors for 

this lot of test cloth despite its CV over 

1 percent, on the basis that the new CV 

requirement had not yet become 

effective, and that the industry was 

facing a test cloth shortage. 

Since the effective date of the CV 

requirement, the AHAM task force has 

developed correction factors for test 

cloth lots 25A and 25B31—both with CV 

values of 1.1 percent. AHAM stated in 

letters to DOE that it based its 

recommendations to proceed with these 

test cloth lots on the ongoing test cloth 

shortages, DOE’s historical acceptance 

of lots with CVs exceeding 1 percent, 

and the extensive testing that DOE 

performed of lot 25A, as described in 

section III.C.3 of this document. 

DOE notes that the 1-percent 

threshold was originally recommended 

by AHAM during a previous test 

procedure rulemaking. 87 FR 33316, 

33368 (Jun. 1, 2022). DOE further notes 

that prior to the codification of the prequalification procedure, the AHAM task 

force used its discretion to evaluate the 

uniformity of each new test cloth lot. 

DOE understands the repeatable 

performance of test cloth lots with a CV 

slightly higher than 1 percent—as 

shown by the testing of lot 25A 

described in section III.C.3 of this 

document—to be an indication that the 

1-percent threshold may be 

unnecessarily stringent (i.e., too low). In 

this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

appendix J3 by increasing the allowable 

CV threshold to 2 percent. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to amend the CV threshold 

requirement in appendix J3 from 1 

percent to 2 percent. Specifically, DOE 

requests comment on whether another 

threshold would be more appropriate. 

6. Variance P-Value Threshold and 

Root-Mean-Square Error 

In the October 2003 Final Rule, DOE 

adopted a statistical procedure, called 

‘‘analysis of variance’’ (or ‘‘ANOVA’’), 

as the lot-to-lot interactive-effect 

statistical test for screening out lots of 

test cloth whose RMC behavior is 

inconsistent with the baseline lot. 68 FR 

62198, 62201. The ANOVA statistical 

test measures the extent of the deviation 

of the shape of the RMC compared to 

the g-curve for a given lot of the test 

cloth from the shape of the RMC 

compared to the g-curve for the baseline 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87813 

32See the Technical Appendix available at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP0009. 

33 DOE maintains a historical record of the 

standard extractor test data and final correction 

curve coefficients for each approved lot of energy 

test cloth at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

articles/clothes-washer-test-cloth-correction-factorinformation. 

lot. Id. In the October 2003 Final Rule, 

DOE explained that it believed that the 

test would catch any unanticipated 

deviation in RMC in future lots. Id. 

Section 8.8 of appendix J3 specifies 

performing the analysis of variance with 

replication test using two factors, spin 

speed and lot, to determine whether the 

interaction of speed and lot is 

significant. If the interaction is not 

significant (as calculated by the ‘‘Pvalue’’ of the F-statistic being greater 

than 0.1), then the lot is considered 

acceptable. If the P-value is less than 

0.1, the test cloth is deemed 

unacceptable. The P-value provides an 

indication of any interactive effect 

between lots and spin speeds. The lower 

the P-value, the stronger the evidence of 

such an interaction. 

On March 29, 2010, AHAM sent DOE 

a letter (‘‘March 2010 AHAM Letter’’) 

noting that the lot 17 was measured to 

have a P-value that was less than 0.1. 

(No. 2 at p. 1) AHAM requested that 

DOE approve lot 17 for use on the basis 

that the root-mean-square error 

(‘‘RMSE’’) was less than 2 percent, the 

P-value of the test cloth excluding the 

100g test condition was greater than 0.1, 

and test cloth supply shortage issues. 

(Id. at pp. 1–4) 

The more recent lot of AATCC test 

cloth evaluated by DOE and AHAM, as 

described in section III.C.4 of this 

document, had a P-value of 0.072, 

which would not meet the requirements 

of section 8.8 of appendix J3. However, 

the testing conducted by DOE and 

AHAM 32 suggests that, despite the low 

P-value, the application of the test cloth 

correction factors produces corrected 

RMC values that are comparable (i.e., 

less than 1 RMC percentage point 

difference on average) to the standard 

RMC values for each tested extractor 

condition. For this reason, DOE has 

tentatively determined that a low Pvalue is not necessarily indicative of a 

test cloth lot not being acceptable for 

use in the clothes washer test 

procedures. DOE has further tentatively 

determined that a different statistical 

measure can provide a better measure of 

the acceptability of a new test cloth lot. 

Specifically, DOE has evaluated the 

usefulness of the RMSE between the 

corrected RMC values and the standard 

RMC values for the same test conditions 

as a potentially more relevant statistical 

measure to evaluate a new test cloth lot. 

Conceptually, this RMSE value 

represents the closeness of fit of the 

corrected RMC values to the standard 

RMC values. A smaller RMSE value 

indicates a better closeness of fit. 

Recognizing that the corrected RMC 

value is used to calculate IMEF, DOE 

tentatively determines that RMSE— 

which evaluates corrected RMC 

values—would provide a better measure 

of acceptability than P-value, which 

evaluates uncorrected RMC values. 

As shown in Table III.2, the RMSE 

values of the historical test cloth lots 

posted to DOE’s website 33 fall within a 

range of 0.004 to 0.014. Additionally, 

the AATCC lot of test cloth evaluated by 

DOE and AHAM, as described in section 

III.C.4 of this document, has an RMSE 

of 0.0091. 

TABLE III.2—HISTORICAL TEST CLOTH

LOT RMSE VALUES

Lot RMSE 

5 ............................................ 0.004 

6 ............................................ 0.014 

7 ............................................ 0.007 

8 ............................................ 0.005 

9 ............................................ 0.006 

10 .......................................... 0.007 

11 .......................................... 0.008 

12 .......................................... 0.009 

13 .......................................... 0.009 

14 .......................................... 0.007 

15 .......................................... 0.005 

16 .......................................... 0.009 

17 .......................................... 0.011 

18 .......................................... 0.009 

19 .......................................... 0.010 

20 .......................................... 0.008 

21 .......................................... 0.010 

22 .......................................... 0.010 

23 .......................................... 0.009 

24A ....................................... 0.010 

24B ....................................... 0.008 

24D ....................................... 0.011 

25A ....................................... 0.008 

25B ....................................... 0.009 

Based on the historical record and its 

testing, in this NOPR, DOE tentatively 

determines that an RMSE-based 

threshold for new test cloth lots would 

provide a better measure of the 

acceptability of a new test cloth lot. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to replace 

the P-value evaluation in section 8.8 of 

appendix J3 with a calculation of RMSE 

and a requirement that the RMSE be 

below 0.015, which represents a 

threshold slightly higher than the 

maximum RMSE value of 0.014 

observed among historical test cloth 

lots. 

DOE requests feedback on its proposal 

to replace the P-value test in appendix 

J3 with a root-mean-square error test. 

DOE requests feedback on specifying 

0.015 as an acceptability threshold for 

the RMSE value. 

D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring 

Edits 

1. Introductory Paragraph 

Appendix J3 includes test cloth 

specifications, procedures for preconditioning test cloth, procedures for 

verifying that new lots of test cloth meet 

the defined material specifications, and 

procedures for developing RMC 

correction factors. Appendix J3 contains 

an introductory section titled 

‘‘Objective’’ that summarizes the key 

objectives of the procedure. This 

paragraph currently does not reference 

the pre-conditioning of test cloth as one 

of the key objectives. 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

update the heading to appendix J3 and 

its objective paragraph to explicitly 

include pre-conditioning of test cloth as 

one of its objectives. 

DOE requests feedback on its proposal 

to update appendix J3 to explicitly 

mention pre-conditioning of test cloth. 

2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions 

Section 5 of appendix J3 provides the 

test cloth pre-conditioning instructions. 

Currently, this section is organized as a 

single paragraph detailing the entire 

procedure, whereas other sections of 

appendix J3 are organized with sections 

that provide a clearer step-by-step 

sequence of instructions. DOE proposes 

to restructure section 5 of appendix J3 

to read as a sequence of instructions 

rather than a single paragraph, for 

greater clarity and ease of use. 

3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and 

Clothes Dryer Test Procedures 

As previously discussed, in the 

August 2015 Final Rule, DOE moved the 

test cloth qualification procedures from 

appendix J2 to a newly created 

appendix J3. Appendix J3 is currently 

only referenced by the clothes washer 

test procedure. Section 2.7 of 

appendices J and J2 reference appendix 

J3 generally for test cloth specifications 

and section 5 of appendix J3 for test 

cloth pre-conditioning instructions. 

Whereas, for clothes dryers, section 2.6 

of appendices D1 and D2 list each of the 

test cloth specifications and detail the 

test cloth pre-conditioning 

requirements. 

Historically, manufacturers and test 

laboratories have used the same test 

cloth for both clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. The May 2024 AHAM 

Letter requested that DOE harmonize 

specifically the pre-conditioning 

procedure for clothes washers and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

34An energy stuffer cloth is made from the same 

material as an energy test cloth but is cut to a 

smaller size. Test loads must consist of energy test 

cloths and no more than five energy stuffer cloths 

per load to achieve the specified weight. 

35These cost estimates are based on DOE’s most 

recent purchases of test cloth in relatively small 

quantities. 

clothes dryers. (No. 1 at p. 4) In line 

with this recommendation, DOE has 

tentatively determined that all aspects 

of the test cloth specifications can be 

harmonized between clothes washers 

and clothes dryers (i.e., not just the preconditioning requirements). 

DOE proposes to harmonize test cloth 

specifications between appendices J, J2, 

D1, and D2 by replacing existing test 

cloth specifications in appendices D1 

and D2 with references to the analogous 

specifications in appendix J3. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing to 

replace the entirety of section 2.6 in 

both appendices D1 and D2 with a 

paragraph specifically referencing 

sections 3 (Test Cloth Specifications) 

and 7 (Test Cloth Material Verification 

Procedure) of appendix J3. DOE is also 

proposing to update section 2.7 of 

appendices J and J2 to specifically 

reference sections 3 (Test Cloth 

Specifications), 7 (Test Cloth Material 

Verification Procedure), and 8 (RMC 

Correction Curve Procedure) of 

appendix J3. 

DOE is further proposing to remove 

section 3.8 of appendix J3, which 

currently specifies that the test cloth 

must be clean, may not be used for more 

than 60 clothes washer runs, must be 

permanently marked, and may not be 

used in mixed lots. These 

specifications—which are specific to 

clothes washers and do not apply to 

clothes dryers—would instead be 

included in section 2.7 of appendices J 

and J2. Appendices D1 and D2 would 

retain the existing requirement that for 

clothes dryers the test cloth must not be 

used for more than 25 runs, although 

this requirement would be relocated to 

section 2.6 (from 2.6.1(c) currently). 

Finally, DOE is proposing to update 

the objective statement and section 5 of 

appendix J3 to explicitly reference 

clothes dryers alongside clothes 

washers. 

DOE requests feedback on its proposal 

to harmonize test cloth specifications 

for clothes washers and clothes dryers. 

4. Restructuring Appendix J3 

Section 3.2 of appendix J3 specifies 

the ‘‘nominal fabric type’’ for the test 

cloth as pure finished bleached cloth 

made with a momie or granite weave, 

which is nominally 50 percent cotton 

and 50 percent polyester. Section 3.5 of 

appendix J3 contains a duplicative 

(although more specific) requirement 

specifying a fiber content of 50 percent 

± 4 percent cotton, with the balance 

being polyester. DOE proposes to 

remove the less specific nominal fiber 

content specification from section 3.2 of 

appendix J3. Accordingly, DOE is 

further proposing to update the name of 

section 3.2 of appendix J3 from 

‘‘nominal fabric type’’ to ‘‘fabric type.’’ 

Within section 3 of appendix J3, 

which lists the specifications for the test 

cloth, sections 3.2 through 3.5 are 

currently organized as follows: section 

3.2 specifies the nominal fabric type, 

section 3.3 specifies the fabric weight, 

section 3.4 specifies the thread count, 

and section 3.5 specifies the fiber 

content of the yarn. This order does not 

match the order in which these material 

properties are considered throughout 

the test cloth fabrication process. 

Specifically, the weaving process starts 

with spinning yarn of a specific fiber 

content, then a specific number of yarn 

strands (corresponding to thread count) 

are woven into a roll of fabric, resulting 

in a specific material density (i.e., fabric 

weight). To better match the order in 

which these material properties are 

considered throughout the test cloth 

fabrication process, DOE proposes to 

reorder these sections to provide the 

fiber content specification first, 

followed by thread count specification, 

followed by the fabric weight 

specification. 

Section 3.7 of appendix J3 currently 

includes dimensions for the energy test 

cloth and energy stuffer cloth 34 and 

specifies that the dimensions apply 

‘‘before washing.’’ DOE is aware that 

this terminology may lead to confusion, 

as it is inconsistent with other parts of 

the test procedure that use the term 

‘‘pre-conditioning’’ rather than 

‘‘washing’’ to refer to the process by 

which test cloth is washed before its 

first use. Consistent with the 

recommendations in the May 2024 

AHAM Letter, DOE is proposing to 

clarify this wording and to specify that 

the dimensions listed in section 3.7 

apply before pre-conditioning of the test 

cloth. (No. 1 at p. 24) 

Appendices D1, D2, J, J2, and J3 

currently use inconsistent hyphenation 

of the word pre-conditioning, using 

‘‘pre-conditioning’’ in some cases and 

‘‘preconditioning’’ in others. The May 

2024 AHAM Letter requested that DOE 

standardize the hyphenation of ‘‘preconditioning’’ throughout the appendix. 

(No. 1 at p. 4) In this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing to standardize the 

hyphenation of ‘‘pre-conditioning’’ 

across all five appendices. 

The June 2022 Final Rule renumbered certain sections of appendix 

J3 and implemented in section 8.5 of 

appendix J3 references to ‘‘sections 8.3.3 

and 8.3.4 of this appendix.’’ 87 FR 

33316, 33405. These cross-references 

should instead reference sections 8.3 

and 8.4 of appendix J3. DOE is therefore 

proposing to correct this typographical 

error by updating section 8.5 of 

appendix J3 to correctly reference 

sections 8.3 and 8.4, in place of sections 

8.3.3 and 8.3.4. 

Finally, DOE is proposing to add a 

section 0 to appendix J3 to specify the 

industry standards incorporated by 

reference in this test procedure. 

Specifically, these include AATCC Test 

Method 118–2007, AATCC Test Method 

79–2010, AATCC Test Method 135– 

2010, and, newly, AATCC LP1–2021. 

DOE also proposes conforming edits at 

each instance where these test methods 

are referenced within appendix J3. 

DOE requests feedback on its 

proposals to clarify and restructure 

appendix J3, including the addition of a 

new section to specify the industry 

standards incorporated by reference. 

E. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

EPCA requires that test procedures 

proposed by DOE not be unduly 

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

6293(b)(3); 6314(a)(2)) DOE does not 

anticipate that the amendments 

proposed in this NOPR would impact 

testing costs or the burden of 

conducting the test procedure. 

DOE’s market research indicates that 

the alternate test cloth proposed for use 

in this document has approximately the 

same cost per pound as the current test 

cloth—approximately $40–50 per pound 

of unconditioned test cloth.35 Therefore, 

using the alternate proposed test cloth 

would not impact clothes washer or 

clothes dryer testing costs. 

Based on an analysis of the test results 

presented in the Technical Appendix, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedures should any of these 

additional proposed amendments be 

finalized. 

DOE requests comments on its 

tentative determination that that the 

amendments proposed in this NOPR 

would not impact testing costs or the 

burden of conducting the test 

procedure. 

F. Compliance Date 

As discussed, on September 28, 2023, 

DOE issued a statement stating that DOE 

would exercise its enforcement 

discretion and not impose civil 

penalties on a clothes washer, 

commercial clothes washer, or clothes 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87815 

36U.S. Department of Energy Compliance 

Certification Database, available at: 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

products.html. 

dryer manufacturer for certifying 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards based on testing 

that exceeds the maximum test cloth 

run provision set forth in the DOE test 

procedures. Instead, DOE allowed for 

usage of test cloth for twice the number 

of runs allowed in the relevant test 

procedures. 

In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, 

AHAM requested that DOE maintain its 

enforcement discretion policy to allow 

twice the number of test runs than is 

currently specified for test cloth meeting 

the current specifications, but not for 

any of the alternate test cloth proposed 

for use in this NOPR, noting that it does 

not have any test data to support an 

extended number of cycles on the new 

test cloth at this time. (No. 1 at p. 4) 

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends 

a test procedure, all representations of 

energy efficiency and energy use, 

including those made on marketing 

materials and product labels, must be 

made in accordance with that amended 

test procedure, beginning 180 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) 

If DOE were to publish an amended 

test procedure EPCA provides an 

allowance for individual manufacturers 

to petition DOE for an extension of the 

180-day period if the manufacturer may 

experience undue hardship in meeting 

the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To 

receive such an extension, petitions 

must be filed with DOE no later than 60 

days before the end of the 180-day 

period and must detail how the 

manufacturer will experience undue 

hardship. (Id.) 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the updated test cloth provisions as 

proposed in this NOPR would alleviate 

any test cloth shortages that were the 

impetus for the enforcement discretion 

policy, and that at the time of 

compliance of any amended test 

procedure, should DOE decide to issue 

such an amendment, no need for such 

a policy would remain. Therefore, DOE 

has tentatively determined that upon 

the compliance date of test procedure 

provisions of an amended test 

procedure (i.e., 180 days after 

publication of a test procedure final 

rule), should DOE issue such an 

amendment, the enforcement discretion 

policy would be withdrawn. 

DOE requests comments on its 

tentative determination that the 

enforcement discretion policy allowing 

twice the number of test cloth runs 

would be withdrawn 180 days after 

publication of a test procedure final 

rule. 

In the May 2024 AHAM Letter, 

AHAM further requested that DOE 

consider allowing immediate use of the 

alternate test cloth as a relief to 

manufacturers facing test cloth 

shortages, rather than waiting for the 

completion of the rulemaking. (No. 1 at 

p. 5) 

DOE recognizes the concern of test 

cloth availability. As noted, DOE would 

maintain the current enforcement policy 

allowing for the extended lifetime of the 

current test cloth until 180 days after 

publication of a test procedure final 

rule. The proposed amendments, if 

adopted, could be used as early as their 

effective date (i.e., 30 days after 

publication of any final rule DOE may 

publish regarding these amendments). 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011) and E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review,’’ 88 FR 21879 (April 

11, 2023), requires agencies, to the 

extent permitted by law, to (1) propose 

or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits 

justify its costs (recognizing that some 

benefits and costs are difficult to 

quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

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 (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed 

this proposed rule under the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. 

DOE has recently conducted a focused 

inquiry into small business 

manufacturers of the RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers covered by this 

proposed rulemaking. DOE used 

available public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE 

accessed the Compliance Certification 

Database 36 to create a list of companies 

that import or otherwise manufacture 

the RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes 

dryers covered by this proposal. 

As detailed in section III.C.4 of this 

document, DOE is proposing that an 

additional type of test cloth be 

permitted for testing. This alternate test 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87816 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

cloth is approximately the same cost as 

the existing test cloth. As a result, DOE 

does not expect any increased cost or 

burdens to manufacturers from this 

proposal. 

Therefore, DOE initially concludes 

that the impacts of the proposed test 

procedure amendments proposed in this 

NOPR would not have a ‘‘significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities,’’ and that the 

preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. 

DOE will transmit the certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers must first obtain test data 

for their products according to the DOE 

test procedures, 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 

RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes 

dryers. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) 

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 35 

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. 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

certification or reporting requirements 

for RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes 

dryers in this NOPR. 

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 NOPR, DOE proposes 

amendments to test procedures that are 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

energy conservation standards for 

RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes 

dryers. DOE has determined that this 

rulemaking falls into a class of actions 

that are categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, DOE has determined 

that adopting test procedures for 

measuring energy efficiency of 

consumer products and industrial 

equipment is consistent with activities 

identified in 10 CFR part 1021, 

appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. 

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 (Aug. 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 has examined this proposed 

rule and has determined that it would 

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 as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed 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, the proposed 

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 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87817 

37 DOE has historically provided a 75-day 

comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant 

Continued 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rulemaking 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 

proposed rule or policy that may affect 

family well-being. When developing a 

Family Policymaking Assessment, 

agencies must assess whether: (1) the 

action strengthens or erodes the stability 

or safety of the family and, particularly, 

the marital commitment; (2) the action 

strengthens or erodes the authority and 

rights of parents in the education, 

nurture, and supervision of their 

children; (3) the action helps the family 

perform its functions, or substitutes 

governmental activity for the function; 

(4) the action increases or decreases 

disposable income or poverty of families 

and children; (5) the proposed benefits 

of the action justify the financial impact 

on the family; (6) the action may be 

carried out by State or local government 

or by the family; and whether (7) the 

action establishes an implicit or explicit 

policy concerning the relationship 

between the behavior and personal 

responsibility of youth, and the norms 

of society. In evaluating the above 

factors, DOE has concluded that it is not 

necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment as none of the 

above factors are implicated. Further, 

this proposed determination would not 

have any financial impact on families 

nor any impact on the autonomy or 

integrity of the family as an institution. 

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 proposed 

regulation would 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). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final

%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%

20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this proposed 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 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates 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 is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedures for 

measuring the energy efficiency of 

RCWs, CCWs, and consumer clothes 

dryers is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

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

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

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

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers would 

incorporate fabric specifications from 

the following commercial standard: 

AATCC LP1–2021. 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 will consult with both the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

The test procedure proposed in this 

NOPR references AATCC LP1–2021, 

‘‘Laboratory Procedure for Home 

Laundering: Machine Washing.’’ 

AATCC LP1–2021 is an industrydeveloped test standard that specifies 

standard home laundering conditions. 

Specifically, the test procedure 

proposed in this NOPR references 

AATCC LP1–2021 for specifying 

standardized fabric materials. AATCC 

LP1–2021 is reasonably available from 

AATCC (See, members.aatcc.org/store/ 

lp001/2212/). 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule.37 Interested parties 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87818 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.- 

Canada-Mexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 

I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103– 

182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 

10 U.S.C.A. § 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA 

Implementation Act’’); and Executive Order 12889, 

‘‘Implementation of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement,’’ 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, 

on July 1, 2020, the Agreement between the United 

States of America, the United Mexican States, and 

the United Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 

2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), 

went into effect, and Congress’s action in replacing 

NAFTA through the USMCA Implementation Act, 

19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of 

E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period 

requirement for technical regulations. Thus, the 

controlling laws are EPCA and the USMCA 

Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA’s public 

comment period requirements for consumer 

products, the USMCA only requires a minimum 

comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE 

now provides a 60-day public comment period for 

test procedure NOPRs. 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and that are 

free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on the roll 

dimensions and cut orientations that are 

currently used to fabricate DOE test 

cloth. 

(2) DOE requests comment as to 

whether, or to what extent, the energy 

test cloth cut orientation could impact 

the RMC measurement in the clothes 

washer test procedure. 

(3) DOE requests comment on its 

concern that establishing a cut 

orientation requirement could lead to 

fabric waste, depending on the 

dimensions of the fabric roll. 

(4) DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination not to specify a 

cut orientation requirement. DOE 

further seeks comment on whether it 

should adopt the cut orientation 

requirement specified by AHAM or any 

other cut orientation requirement. 

(5) DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination that section 3.1 

of appendix J3 is superfluous and its 

proposal to remove the requirements in 

section 3.1 of appendix J3. 

(6) DOE requests feedback on its 

proposal to specify in appendix J3 that 

fabric weight and thread count 

specifications apply to finished goods 

prior to pre-conditioning. 

(7) DOE requests feedback on its 

proposal to add the term ‘‘crepe’’ to the 

list of allowable weaves in appendix J3. 

(8) DOE requests feedback on its 

tentative determination not to establish 

definitions for ‘‘crepe,’’ ‘‘granite,’’ or 

‘‘momie’’ weave in appendix J3. 

(9) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow the use of Laundering 

Ballast Type 3 cloth specified in AATCC 

LP1–2021 (with certain additional 

specifications) as an alternate test cloth 

for conducting clothes washer and 

clothes dryer testing. 

(10) DOE requests feedback on its 

tentative determination not to establish 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87819 

a definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ in 

appendix J3. 

(11) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to amend the CV threshold 

requirement in appendix J3 from 1 

percent to 2 percent. Specifically, DOE 

requests comment on whether another 

threshold would be more appropriate. 

(12) DOE requests feedback on its 

proposal to replace the P-value test in 

appendix J3 with a root-mean-square 

error test. 

(13) DOE requests feedback on 

specifying 0.015 as an acceptability 

threshold for the RMSE value. 

(14) DOE requests feedback on its 

proposal to update appendix J3 to 

explicitly mention pre-conditioning of 

test cloth. 

(15) DOE requests feedback on its 

proposal to harmonize test cloth 

specifications for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. 

(16) DOE requests feedback on its 

proposals to clarify and restructure 

appendix J3, including the addition of a 

new section to specify the industry 

standards incorporated by reference. 

(17) DOE requests comments on its 

tentative determination that that the 

amendments proposed in this NOPR 

would not impact testing costs or the 

burden of conducting the test 

procedure. 

(18) DOE requests comments on its 

tentative determination that the 

enforcement discretion policy allowing 

twice the number of test cloth runs 

would be withdrawn 180 days after 

publication of a test procedure final 

rule. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comment. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on October 25, 2024, 

by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on October 29, 

2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy; 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

part 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 430.3 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (3) as paragraphs (d)(2) through 

(4); and 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (d)(1). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) AATCC LP1–2021, Laboratory 

Procedure for Home Laundering: 

Machine Washing, Revised 2023, IBR 

approved for Appendix J3 to Subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend appendix D1 to subpart B 

by: 

■ a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 

and 2.6.3; 

■ b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; 

and 

■ c. Revising the heading to section 2.8. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

2.6 Test cloths. 

2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy 

test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material 

and dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to 

this subpart. 

2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth 

lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth 

must conform with the material verification 

procedures specified in section 7 of appendix 

J3 to this subpart. 

2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test 

cloth must be clean and permanently marked 

identifying the lot number of the material. 

Mixed lots of material must not be used for 

testing a clothes dryer. 

2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth 

must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as 

specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this 

subpart. 

2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth 

must not be used for more than 25 test runs 

(after pre-conditioning). 

* * * * * 

2.8 Clothes dryer pre-conditioning. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend appendix D2 to subpart B 

by: 

■ a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 

and 2.6.3; 

■ b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; 

and 

■ c. Revising the heading for section 2.8. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

2.6 Test cloths. 

2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy 

test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material 

and dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to 

this subpart. 

2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth 

lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth 

must conform with the material verification 

procedures specified in section 7 of appendix 

J3 to this subpart. 

2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test 

cloth must be clean and permanently marked 

identifying the lot number of the material. 

Mixed lots of material must not be used for 

testing a clothes dryer. 

2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth 

must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as 

specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this 

subpart. 

2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth 

must not be used for more than 25 test runs 

(after pre-conditioning). 

* * * * * 

2.8 Clothes dryer pre-conditioning. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend appendix J to subpart B by 

revising section 2.7 to read as follows: 

Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Automatic and 

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

2.7 Test cloths. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
87820 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy 

test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material 

and dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to 

this subpart. 

2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth 

lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth 

must conform with the material verification 

procedures specified in section 7 of appendix 

J3 to this subpart. 

2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test 

cloth lot used for testing must have a 

remaining moisture content (RMC) correction 

curve determined, according to section 8 of 

appendix J3 to this subpart. 

2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test 

cloth must be clean and permanently marked 

identifying the lot number of the material. 

Mixed lots of material must not be used for 

testing a clothes washer. 

2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth 

must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as 

specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this 

subpart. 

2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth 

must not be used for more than 60 test runs 

(after pre-conditioning). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend appendix J2 to subpart B by 

revising section 2.7 to read as follows: 

Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Automatic and 

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

2.7 Test cloths. 

2.7.1 Material Specifications. The energy 

test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material 

and dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to 

this subpart. 

2.7.2 Material Verification. The test cloth 

lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth 

must conform with the material verification 

procedures specified in section 7 of appendix 

J3 to this subpart. 

2.7.3 RMC Correction Curve. The test 

cloth lot used for testing must have a 

remaining moisture content (RMC) correction 

curve determined, according to section 8 of 

appendix J3 to this subpart. 

2.7.4 Lot Identification. Each piece of test 

cloth must be clean and permanently marked 

identifying the lot number of the material. 

Mixed lots of material must not be used for 

testing a clothes washer. 

2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth 

must be pre-conditioned prior to first use as 

specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this 

subpart. 

2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth 

must not be used for more than 60 test runs 

(after pre-conditioning). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend appendix J3 to subpart B by: 

■ a. Revising the heading for appendix 

J3; 

■ b. Adding section 0; 

■ c. Revising section 1; 

■ d. Revising the heading to section 3; 

■ e. Revising sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3; 

■ f. Removing sections 3.4 through 3.8; 

■ g. Revising section 5; 

■ h. Revising sections 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 

and 7.2.5; 

■ i. Revising sections 8.5 through 8.8; 

and 

■ j. Adding section 8.9. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix J3 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Test Cloth Specifications and 

Procedures for Pre-Conditioning and 

Determining Correction Coefficients of 

New Test Cloth Lots 

* * * * * 

0. Incorporation by Reference. 

In § 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference 

the entire standard for AATCC Test Method 

118–2007, AATCC Test Method 79–2010, 

AATCC Test Method 135–2010, and AATCC 

LP1–2021; however, only enumerated 

provisions of AATCC LP1–2021 are 

applicable as follows: 

0.1 AATCC LP1–2021 

(a) Table VII as referenced in section 3.1.2 

of this appendix. 

0.2 [Reserved] 

1. Objective 

This appendix includes the following: 

1.1 Specifications for the test cloth to be 

used for testing clothes washers and clothes 

dryers; 

1.2 Procedures for pre-conditioning the 

test cloth for use in testing clothes washers 

and clothes dryers; 

1.3 Procedures for verifying that new lots 

of test cloth meet the defined material 

specifications; and 

1.4 Procedures for developing a set of 

correction coefficients that correlate the 

measured remaining moisture content (RMC) 

values of each new test cloth lot with a set 

of standard RMC values established as an 

historical reference point. These correction 

coefficients are applied to the RMC 

measurements performed during testing 

according to appendix J or J2 to this subpart, 

ensuring that the final corrected RMC 

measurement for a clothes washer remains 

independent of the test cloth lot used for 

testing. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Cloth Specifications 

* * * * * 

3.1 The test cloth material must be one of 

the following two types: 

3.1.1 Test cloth meeting all of the 

specifications in sections 3.1.1.1 through 

3.1.1.4 of this appendix. 

3.1.1.1 Fabric type. Pure finished 

bleached cloth made with a momie, granite, 

or crepe weave. 

3.1.1.2 Fiber content of warp and filling 

yarn. 50 percent ±4 percent cotton, with the 

balance being polyester, open end spun, 15/ 

1 ±5 percent cotton count blended yarn. 

3.1.1.3 Thread count. Thread count is 

measured on the finished good, prior to preconditioning. 65 × 57 per inch (warp × fill), 

±2 percent. 

3.1.1.4 Fabric weight. Fabric weight is 

measured on the finished good, prior to preconditioning. 5.60 ± 0.25 ounces per square 

yard (190.0 ± 8.4 g/m2). 

3.1.2 Test cloth meeting the 

specifications of Laundering Ballast Type 3, 

as specified in Table VII of AATCC LP1– 

2021, with the following additional 

specifications and substitutions: 

3.1.2.1 Greige fabric yarns. Type 16/1 

only. 

3.1.2.2 Edges. All edges hemmed only. 

3.1.2.3 Finished piece size. Dimensions 

in accordance with sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 

of this appendix for energy test cloths and 

energy stuffer cloths, respectively. 

3.1.2.4. Finished piece weight. Disregard. 

3.2 Water repellent finishes, such as 

fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes, must 

not be applied to the test cloth. 

3.3. Test cloth dimensions. 

3.3.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test 

cloth must be made from test cloth material 

that is cut to 24 ± 1⁄2 inches by 36 ± 1⁄2 inches 

(61.0 ± 1.3 cm by 91.4 ± 1.3 cm), and 

hemmed to 22 ± 1⁄2 inches by 34 ± 1⁄2 inches 

(55.9 ± 1.3 cm by 86.4 ± 1.3 cm) before preconditioning. 

3.3.2 Energy stuffer cloth. The energy 

stuffer cloth must be made from the same test 

cloth material as the energy test cloth, cut to 

12 ± 1⁄4 inches by 12 ± 1⁄4 inches (30.5 ± 0.6 

cm by 30.5 ± 0.6 cm), and hemmed to 10 ± 1⁄4 inches by 10 ± 1⁄4 inches (25.4 ± 0.6 cm 

by 25.4 ± 0.6 cm) before pre-conditioning. 

* * * * * 

5. Test Cloth Pre-Conditioning Instructions 

Use the following instructions for 

performing pre-conditioning of new energy 

test cloths and energy stuffer cloths as 

specified throughout section 7 and section 8 

of this appendix, before any clothes washer 

testing using appendix J or appendix J2 to 

this subpart, and before any clothes dryer 

testing using appendix D1 or D2 to this 

subpart. 

5.1 Perform five complete wash-rinsespin cycles, the first two with current AHAM 

Standard detergent Formula 3 and the last 

three without detergent. Place the test cloth 

in a clothes washer set at the maximum water 

level. Wash the load for ten minutes in soft 

water (17 ppm hardness or less) using 27.0 

grams + 4.0 grams per pound of cloth load 

of AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3. The 

wash temperature is to be controlled to 

135 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C) and the rinse 

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

(15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C). 

5.2 Dry the load to bone-dry between 

each of the five wash-rinse-spin cycles. 

5.3 The maximum shrinkage after preconditioning must not be more than 5 

percent of the length and width. Measure per 

AATCC Test Method 135–2010. 

* * * * * 

7. * * * 

7.1 * * * 

7.1.1 Dimensions. Each hemmed energy 

test cloth must meet the size specifications in 

section 3.3.1 of this appendix. Each hemmed 

energy stuffer cloth must meet the size 

specifications in section 3.3.2 of this 

appendix. 

7.1.2 Oil repellency. Perform AATCC Test 

Method 118–2007, to confirm the absence of 

ScotchguardTM or other water-repellent 

finish. An Oil Repellency Grade of 0 (Fails 

Kaydol) is required. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 87821 

7.1.3 Absorbency. Perform AATCC Test 

Method 79–2010, to confirm the absence of 

ScotchguardTM or other water-repellent 

finish. The time to absorb one drop must be 

on the order of 1 second. 

7.2 * * * 

7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation 

(CV) of the nine average RMC values from 

each sample load. The CV must be less than 

or equal to 2.0% for the test cloth lot to be 

considered acceptable and to perform the 

standard extractor RMC testing. 

8. * * * 

8.5 Repeat sections 8.3 and 8.4 of this 

appendix an additional two times, so that 

three replications at each extractor condition 

are performed. When this procedure is 

performed in its entirety, a total of 60 

extractor RMC test runs are required. 

8.6 Calculate RMCcloth-avg for each 

extractor test condition by averaging the 

values of the 3 replications performed 

specified in sections 8.3 and 8.4 of this 

appendix. 

8.7 Perform a linear least-squares fit to 

determine coefficients A and B such that the 

standard RMC values shown in table 8.7 of 

this appendix (RMCstandard) are linearly 

related to the RMCcloth-avg values calculated in 

section 8.6 of this appendix: 

RMCstandard ∼ A × RMCcloth-avg + B 

where A and B are coefficients of the linear 

least-squares fit. 

TABLE 8.7—STANDARD RMC VALUES

‘‘g Force’’ 

RMC percentage 

Warm soak Cold soak 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

100 ................................................................................................................... 45.9 49.9 49.7 52.8 

200 ................................................................................................................... 35.7 40.4 37.9 43.1 

350 ................................................................................................................... 29.6 33.1 30.7 35.8 

500 ................................................................................................................... 24.2 28.7 25.5 30.0 

650 ................................................................................................................... 23.0 26.4 24.1 28.0 

8.8 Calculate the corrected RMC value for 

each extractor test condition, RMCcloth-corr as 

follows: 

RMCcloth-corr = A × RMCcloth-avg + B 

Where: 

RMCcloth-avg = the average RMC value, as 

calculated in section 8.6 of this appendix 

for each extractor test condition, 

expressed as a decimal, and 

A and B are the coefficients of the linear least 

squares fit as determined in section 8.7 

of this appendix. 

8.9 Calculate the root mean square error 

of the linear fit, RMSE. The RMSE must be 

less than or equal to 0.015 for the test cloth 

lot to be considered acceptable. The RMSE is 

calculated as follows: 

Where: 

RMCstandard_i = the RMCstandard value in table 

8.7 of this appendix for the ith extractor 

test condition, expressed as a decimal, 

RMCcloth-corr_i = the corrected RMC value, as 

calculated in section 8.8 of this appendix 

for the ith extractor test condition, 

expressed as a decimal, and 

i = the 20 extractor test conditions listed in 

table 8.7 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–25480 Filed 11–4–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2024–2419; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2023–00366–R] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model 

AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, 

AS350BA, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, 

AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, 

EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. 

This proposed AD was prompted by a 

manufacturer assessment that 

determined additional actions are 

necessary to improve particle detection 

for main gearboxes (MGBs) with certain 

planet gear bearings installed. This 

proposed AD would require repetitively 

inspecting the MGB bevel wheel for the 

presence of particles, repetitively 

inspecting the MGB magnetic plug for 

particles, and prohibit installing an 

affected MGB unless certain 

requirements are met. These actions are 

specified in a European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is 

proposed for incorporation by reference. 

The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this NPRM by December 20, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

regulations.gov. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP05NO24.001</GPH>

20 

RMSE = I (RMCstandard i - RMCc1oth corr i )' 

i=l 20