[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87803-87821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25480]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 87804]]


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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3f4c2d0cbc6d1d0e7d1dac6d1d091939197f7f39393939ae3c6c68dc7ccc68dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="df88beacb7baadac9bada6baadacedefedeb8b8fefefefe69fbabaf1bbb0baf1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/EERE-2024-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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f7e4f4f53565e515c5a6c4b5e515b5e4d5b4c6e4a5a4c4b5650514c7f5a5a115b505a11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="327342425e5b535c51576146535c565340564163475741465b5d5c417257571c565d571c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f1a0c070a0c071a04181a410a150a2f071e410b000a41080019">[email protected]</a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b7a4b4b57525a55585e684f5a555f5a495f486a4e5e484f525455487b5e5e155f545e155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="18596868747179767b7d4b6c79767c796a7c6b496d7d6b6c7177766b587d7d367c777d367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 Root-Mean-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

[[Page 87805]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All 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.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPCA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 87806]]

prescribed at appendix D1 and appendix D2.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Manufacturers 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.
    \8\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 pre-conditioning,
    (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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Proposed test
 Current DOE test procedures       procedures            Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not specify at which     Specifies that        Industry request;
 stage of the process the      fabric weight and     improve
 fabric weight and thread      thread count must     reproducibility of
 count of test cloth are       be measured on        test results.
 applicable.                   finished goods
                               prior to pre-
                               conditioning.
Specifies the use of          Specifies the use of  Industry request;
 ``granite or momie'' weave.   ``granite, momie,     clarification of
                               or crepe'' weave.     existing
                                                     requirement.
Specifies one type of         Specifies two types   Industry request;
 allowable test cloth.         of allowable test     reduce test burden
                               cloth.                while maintaining
                                                     reproducibility and
                                                     representativeness.

[[Page 87807]]

 
Specifies that the            Specifies that the    Reduce test burden
 coefficient of variation      coefficient of        while maintaining
 across nine RMC values must   variation across      reproducibility and
 be less than or equal to 1    nine RMC values       representativeness.
 percent.                      must be less than
                               or equal to 2.0
                               percent.
Specifies that the P-value    Specifies that the    Reduce test burden
 of the RMC correction curve   root-mean-square      while maintaining
 must be greater than or       error of the RMC      reproducibility and
 equal to 0.1.                 correction curve      representativeness.
                               must be less than
                               or equal to 0.015.
Appendix J3 test cloth        Harmonizes test       Industry request;
 specifications currently      cloth requirements    clarify existing
 apply only to clothes         across both clothes   requirements
 washers.                      washers and clothes   consistent with
                               dryers and extends    industry practice.
                               applicability of
                               appendix J3 test
                               cloth
                               specifications to
                               both clothes
                               washers and clothes
                               dryers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The test procedures for CCWs must be the same as those 
established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ semi-automatic 
clothes washers,\13\ and other clothes washers.\14\ 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An ``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.
    \13\ A ``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 semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 top-loading 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 water-
soluble sizing or finishing agents that could affect the moisture 
performance of

[[Page 87808]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The May 2000 Test Cloth Report is available at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0064-0277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Section 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.
    \17\ The pre-conditioning process is specified in section 5 of 
appendix J3 and consists of five wash-rinse-spin cycles, with the 
load bone-dried between each of the five cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix J3 does not specify the orientation of the rectangular

[[Page 87809]]

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)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO24.000

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 87810]]

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 <plus-minus> 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 x 57 threads per 
inch <plus-minus> 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 pre-conditioning.
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 25B \19\ 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ AHAM 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 87811]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ AHAM 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.
    \23\ On 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.
    \24\ Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Test%20Cloth%20Policy%20for%20Clothes%20Washers%20and%20Clothes%20Dryers%20Enforcement%20Policy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Table VII of AATCC LP1-2021 provides specifications for 
various types of cloth, one of which is designated as Laundering 
Ballast Type 3.

  Table III.1--Specifications for Laundering Ballast Type 3 Cloth From
                             AATCC LP1-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Characteristic                        Specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiber Content.....................  50% cotton/50% polyester <plus-
                                     minus>3%.
Greige Fabric Yarns...............  16/1 or 30/2 ring spun.
Greige Fabric Construction........  52 x 48 <plus-minus> 5 yarns per
                                     inch, plain weave.
Finished Fabric Weight............  155 <plus-minus> 10 grams per square
                                     meter (4.57 <plus-minus> 0.29
                                     ounces per square yard).
Edges.............................  All edges hemmed or over-edged.
Finished Piece Size...............  920 x 920 <plus-minus> 30
                                     millimeters (36.0 x 36.0 <plus-
                                     minus> 1 inch).
Finished Piece Weight.............  130 <plus-minus> 10 grams (4.59
                                     <plus-minus> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 87812]]

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:

<bullet> Greige Fabric Yarns: Type 16/1 only \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Edges: All edges hemmed only \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ As 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Finished Piece Weight: Disregard \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 25B \31\--
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See letters received by DOE on December 13, 2023 and May 
24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
pre-qualification 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

[[Page 87813]]

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 ``P-value'' 
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 P-value 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See the Technical Appendix available at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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-factor-information.

           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 pre-
conditioning 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

[[Page 87814]]

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 pre-conditioning 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 
<plus-minus> 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ An 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ``pre-conditioning'' 
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 re-numbered 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ These cost estimates are based on DOE's most recent 
purchases of test cloth in relatively small quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 87815]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification 
Database, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 87816]]

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

[[Page 87817]]

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 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 industry-developed 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

[[Page 87818]]

may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the 
methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for 
test procedure NOPRs pursuant 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. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  430.3 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) as paragraphs (d)(2) 
through (4); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (d)(1).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend appendix D1 to subpart B by:
0
a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3;
0
b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; and
0
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.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend appendix D2 to subpart B by:
0
a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3;
0
b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; and
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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.

[[Page 87820]]

    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).
* * * * *
0
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).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend appendix J3 to subpart B by:
0
a. Revising the heading for appendix J3;
0
b. Adding section 0;
0
c. Revising section 1;
0
d. Revising the heading to section 3;
0
e. Revising sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3;
0
f. Removing sections 3.4 through 3.8;
0
g. Revising section 5;
0
h. Revising sections 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, and 7.2.5;
0
i. Revising sections 8.5 through 8.8; and
0
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 Sec.  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 
<plus-minus>4 percent cotton, with the balance being polyester, open 
end spun, 15/1 <plus-minus>5 percent cotton count blended yarn.
    3.1.1.3 Thread count. Thread count is measured on the finished 
good, prior to pre-conditioning. 65 x 57 per inch (warp x fill), 
<plus-minus>2 percent.
    3.1.1.4 Fabric weight. Fabric weight is measured on the finished 
good, prior to pre-conditioning. 5.60 <plus-minus> 0.25 ounces per 
square yard (190.0 <plus-minus> 8.4 g/m\2\).
    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 <plus-minus> \1/2\ inches by 
36 <plus-minus> \1/2\ inches (61.0 <plus-minus> 1.3 cm by 91.4 
<plus-minus> 1.3 cm), and hemmed to 22 <plus-minus> \1/2\ inches by 
34 <plus-minus> \1/2\ inches (55.9 <plus-minus> 1.3 cm by 86.4 
<plus-minus> 1.3 cm) before pre-conditioning.
    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 <plus-minus> \1/4\ inches by 12 <plus-minus> \1/4\ inches 
(30.5 <plus-minus> 0.6 cm by 30.5 <plus-minus> 0.6 cm), and hemmed 
to 10 <plus-minus> \1/4\ inches by 10 <plus-minus> \1/4\ inches 
(25.4 <plus-minus> 0.6 cm by 25.4 <plus-minus> 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-rinse-spin 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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F 
(57.2 [deg]C <plus-minus> 2.8 [deg]C) and the rinse temperature is 
to be controlled to 60 [deg]F <plus-minus> 5 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C 
<plus-minus> 2.8 [deg]C).
    5.2 Dry the load to bone-dry between each of the five wash-
rinse-spin cycles.
    5.3 The maximum shrinkage after pre-conditioning 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 Scotchguard\TM\ or other water-repellent 
finish. An Oil Repellency Grade of 0 (Fails Kaydol) is required.

[[Page 87821]]

    7.1.3 Absorbency. Perform AATCC Test Method 79-2010, to confirm 
the absence of Scotchguard\TM\ 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 RMC<INF>cloth-avg</INF> 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 (RMC<INF>standard</INF>) are linearly related to the 
RMC<INF>cloth-avg</INF> values calculated in section 8.6 of this 
appendix:

RMC<INF>standard</INF> ~ A x RMC<INF>cloth-avg</INF> + B

where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.

                                         Table 8.7--Standard RMC Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          RMC percentage
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Warm soak                       Cold soak
                   ``g Force''                   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   15 min. spin     4 min. spin    15 min. spin     4 min. spin
                                                     (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (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, RMC<INF>cloth-corr</INF> as follows:

RMC<INF>cloth-corr</INF> = A x RMC<INF>cloth-avg</INF> + B

Where:

RMC<INF>cloth-avg</INF> = 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05NO24.001

Where:

RMC<INF>standard_i</INF> = the RMC<INF>standard</INF> value in table 
8.7 of this appendix for the ith extractor test condition, expressed 
as a decimal,
RMC<INF>cloth-corr_i</INF> = 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>