Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5519 

verifier must verify that inhibitors were 

used with 100 percent of synthetic N 

application on all field(s) or 

management unit(s) where the practice 

was implemented. For timing practices 

(no fall application or split in-season 

application), the third-party verifier 

must verify application timing through 

management records. 

William Hohenstein, 

Director, Office of Energy and Environmental 

Policy, Office of the Chief Economist. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00975 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–GL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 106 

[CIS No. 2801–25; DHS Docket No. USCIS 

2021–0010] 

RIN 1615–AC68 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Fee Schedule and Changes to 

Certain Other Immigration Benefit 

Request Requirements; Second 

Correction 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: On January 31, 2024, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) published a final rule to adjust 

certain immigration and naturalization 

benefit request fees charged by USCIS, 

add fee exemptions, and make changes 

to certain other immigration benefit 

request requirements. The rule took 

effect on April 1, 2024. In this notice, 

we are correcting a technical error made 

in that rule. 

DATES: This correcting amendment is 

effective January 17, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Cribbs, Deputy Chief Financial 

Officer, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security, 5900 Capital 

Gateway Dr., Camp Springs, MD 20746; 

telephone 240–721–3000 (this is not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 31, 2024, the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) published 

a final rule in the Federal Register at 89 

FR 6194 changing immigration and 

naturalization benefit request fees 

charged by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), fee 

exemptions and fee waiver 

requirements, premium processing time 

limits, and intercountry adoption 

processing. DHS published a correction 

to the final rule at 89 FR 20101 on 

March 24, 2024. DHS has identified an 

error in the regulatory text. 

Need for Correction 

As codified by DHS in the final rule, 

8 CFR 106.3(a)(3)(ii)(A) erroneously 

associates the E–2C classification with 

Form I–129CW. Petitioners for E–2C 

classification do not submit Form I– 

129CW. Form I–129CW petitioners may 

request a fee waiver when petitioning 

for a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional 

worker (see 8 CFR 214.2(w)), but the fee 

waiver provision as codified does not 

include a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional 

worker. Therefore, this notice corrects 

that error by removing ‘‘E–2 CNMI 

investor’’ and replacing it with ‘‘CW–1, 

CNMI-only transitional worker’’ in the 

first sentence of 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3)(ii)(A) 

to include the correct nonimmigrant 

classification. DHS is correcting the 

second sentence of 8 CFR 

106.3(a)(3)(ii)(A) by removing ‘‘a E–2 

CNMI investor’’ and replacing it with 

‘‘an employer petitioning for a CW–1, 

CNMI-only transitional worker,’’ to 

clarify that the employer petitioning for 

a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional worker 

must pay any fees in 8 CFR 106.2(c) that 

may apply, not an E–2 CNMI investor. 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 106 

Citizenship and naturalization, Fees, 

Immigration. 

Correction 

Accordingly, for the reasons set out in 

the preamble, chapter I of title 8 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is corrected 

by making the following correcting 

amendment: 

PART 106—USCIS FEE SCHEDULE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 106 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1254a, 

1254b, 1304, 1356; Pub. L. 107–609; 48 

U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 

(6 U.S.C. 101 note); Pub. L. 115–218, 132 

Stat. 1547; Pub. L. 116–159, 134 Stat. 709. 

■ 2. Section 106.3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) to read as 

follows: 

§ 106.3 Fee waivers and exemptions. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Petition for a CNMI-Only 

Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker 

(Form I–129CW) for a CW–1, CNMI-only 

transitional worker. Waiver of the fee for 

Form I–129CW does not waive the 

requirement for an employer petitioning 

for a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional 

worker to pay any fees in § 106.2(c) that 

may apply. 

* * * * * 

Christina E. McDonald, 

Associate General Counsel for Regulatory 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01386 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2024–BT–TP–0009] 

RIN 1904–AF68 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Residential and 

Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Consumer Clothes Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is 

amending the test procedures for 

residential and commercial clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers to 

update the test cloth specifications. DOE 

is also reorganizing 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. 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. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

February 18, 2025. The amendments 

will be mandatory for product testing 

starting July 16, 2025. The incorporation 

by reference of certain material listed in 

the rule was approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of July 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, 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 those 

containing information that is exempt 

from public disclosure. 

A link to 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5520 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

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

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

3For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket contact the Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

5649. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Uchechukwu ‘‘Emeka’’ Eze, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

4798. Email: uchechukwu.eze@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope of Applicability 

B. Relevant Historical Background 

C. Test Cloth Specifications and 

Requirements 

1. Cut Orientation 

2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count 

3. Granite Weave 

4. Alternate Test Cloth 

5. Uniformity Criteria 

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

D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring Edits 

1. Introductory Paragraph 

2. Pre-Conditioning Instructions 

3. Harmonizing Clothes Washer and 

Clothes Dryer Test Procedures 

4. Restructuring Appendix J3 

E. Test Procedure Costs 

F. Effective and Compliance Dates 

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 

N. Congressional Notification 

V. 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 in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) at 

10 CFR 430.23(j) and 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 430.23(d) 

and 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 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

These products include RCWs and 

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

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

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

section 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

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

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

clothes dryers are the subject of this 

document. 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

energy conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

require information and reports from 

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

U.S.C. 6316). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products/ 

equipment must use as the basis for: (1) 

certifying to DOE that their products 

comply with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted under 

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

6316(a)), and (2) making other 

representations about the efficiency of 

those 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 comply 

with any 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 shall be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle (as determined by the 

Secretary) or period of use and shall not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5521 

4For commercial equipment, if the Secretary 

determines that a test procedure amendment is 

warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test 

procedures in the Federal Register, and afford 

interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 

45 days’ duration) to present oral and written data, 

views, and arguments on the proposed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). 

5EPCA does not contain an analogous provision 

for commercial equipment. 

6 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011– 

01). 7 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related 

equipment—Methods of measurement for power 

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

2018). 

8Manufacturers 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. 

9The 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). 

10The 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. 

11 Document available at www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009-0001. 

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 his or 

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)).4 If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. 

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)) 5 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 6 and IEC Standard 

62087 7 as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)). 

EPCA requires the test procedures for 

CCWs to be the same as the test 

procedures established for RCWs. (42 

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

procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires 

that DOE evaluate, at least once every 7 

years, the test procedures for CCWs to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

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

DOE is publishing this final rule 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. As DOE has not conducted a 

comprehensive review of the current 

test procedures, 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 

J2,8 and DOE’s existing test procedures 

for consumer clothes dryers are 

prescribed at appendix D1 and 

appendix D2.9

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 10 of test cloth meet the defined 

material specifications; and procedures 

for developing a set of correction 

coefficients that correlate the measured 

remaining moisture content (‘‘RMC’’) 

values of each new test cloth lot with a 

set of standard RMC values established 

as a historical reference point. These 

correction coefficients are applied to the 

RMC measurements performed during 

testing according to appendix J or 

appendix J2, ensuring consistency in the 

final corrected RMC measurement 

across different test cloth lots used for 

testing. 

Although the test cloth specifications 

and qualification procedures in 

appendix J3 are nominally applicable to 

clothes washer testing, DOE 

understands that manufacturers and test 

laboratories use the same test cloth for 

testing clothes dryers as well. As 

discussed further in section III.B of this 

document, the test cloth specifications 

for clothes washer testing and clothes 

dryer testing have historically been 

aligned. Furthermore, as discussed 

further in section III.D.3 of this 

document, test cloth that satisfies the 

requirements of appendix J3 for clothes 

washer testing also satisfies the 

requirements codified in appendices D1 

and D2 for clothes dryer testing. 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) has 

established a Test Cloth Task Force 

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

responsibilities, reviews and 

recommends new lots of test cloth for 

industry use; identifies and secures 

suppliers for manufacturing test cloth; 

conducts research and investigations to 

recommend continuous improvements 

to the test cloth specifications and 

qualification procedures; and addresses 

any industry-wide concerns that may 

arise regarding the test cloth. DOE 

representatives participate in the AHAM 

task force. 

On May 31, 2024, DOE received a 

letter from AHAM (‘‘May 2024 AHAM 

Letter’’) urging DOE to allow the use of 

alternate test cloth material for clothes 

washer and clothes dryer testing.11 The 

May 2024 AHAM Letter also made 

further requests for DOE to amend 

certain test cloth specifications based on 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5522 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

12Table I.1 excludes one comment not applicable 

to this rulemaking. 

13The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop test procedures for 

insert product. (Docket No. EERE–2024–BT–TP– 

0009, which is maintained at: 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number at page of that document). 

the results of recent investigations by 

the AHAM task force. (Id.) 

DOE published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) on November 5, 

2024 (‘‘November 2024 NOPR’’), 

presenting DOE’s proposals to amend 

the test procedures for residential and 

commercial clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers to update the 

test cloth specifications. 89 FR 87803. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the November 2024 NOPR from the 

interested parties listed in Table I.1.12

TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 2024 NOPR 

Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule Comment No. 

in the docket Commenter type 

Michael Ravnitzky ..................................................................... Ravnitzky ................................ 5 Individual. 

Anonymous ............................................................................... Anonymous ............................. 6 Individual. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ....................................... NEEA ...................................... 8 Advocacy Organization. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ........................ AHAM ...................................... 10 Trade Organization. 

Ravnitzky, NEEA, and AHAM 

submitted comments generally 

supportive of DOE’s proposals in the 

November 2024 NOPR. (Ravnitzky, No. 

5 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 1–2; 

AHAM, No. 10 at p. 1) An anonymous 

commenter expressed support for test 

cloth specifications in order to achieve 

results that identify the most efficient 

clothes washers. (Anonymous, No 6 at 

p. 1) Comments from these stakeholders 

regarding specific topics addressed in 

the November 2024 NOPR are discussed 

in the relevant sections of this 

document. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.13

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘Process Rule’’), DOE noted in the 

November 2024 NOPR that it was 

deviating from section 8(b)(2) of the 

Process Rule, which 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 

in the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

found it appropriate to forgo a public 

hearing given the limited scope of issues 

addressed in the proposal, but also 

stated that DOE would hold a public 

meeting on the November 2024 NOPR if 

one was requested. DOE did not receive 

any comments requesting a public 

meeting. DOE also determined in the 

November 2024 NOPR that 30 days was 

an appropriate period for providing 

comments, given the limited scope of 

issues addressed in the proposal. 89 FR 

87803, 87806. 

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

cloth specifications as follows: 

(1) Specify that fabric weight and 

thread count must be measured on 

finished goods prior to preconditioning, 

(2) Clarify that the test cloth be made 

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

weave, 

(3) Allow the use of an alternate test 

cloth, 

(4) Amend the statistical criteria for a 

new test cloth lot to be considered 

acceptable for use, 

(5) Restructure and renumber certain 

sections of appendix J3 for clarity, and 

(6) Harmonize the test cloth 

specifications for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. 

The adopted amendments are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the test procedure provisions prior to 

the amendments, as well as the reason 

for the adopted changes. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE

DOE test procedure prior to amendment Amended test procedure Attribution 

Does not specify at which stage of the 

process the fabric weight and thread 

count of test cloth are applicable.

Specifies that fabric weight and thread count must be 

measured on finished goods prior to pre-conditioning.

Industry request; improve reproducibility 

of test results. 

Specifies the use of ‘‘granite or momie’’ 

weave.

Specifies the use of ‘‘granite, momie, or crepe’’ weave ....... Industry request; clarification of existing 

requirement. 

Specifies one type of allowable test 

cloth.

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

while maintaining reproducibility and 

representativeness. 

Specifies that the coefficient of variation 

across nine RMC values must be less 

than or equal to 1 percent.

Specifies that the coefficient of variation across nine RMC 

values must be less than or equal to 1.5 percent.

Reduce test burden while maintaining 

reproducibility and representativeness. 

Specifies that the P-value of the RMC 

correction curve must be greater than 

or equal to 0.1.

Specifies that the root-mean-square error of the RMC correction curve must be less than or equal to 0.012.Reduce test burden while maintaining 

reproducibility and representativeness. 

Appendix J3 test cloth specifications currently apply only to clothes washers.Harmonizes test cloth requirements across both clothes 

washers and clothes dryers and extends applicability of 

appendix J3 test cloth specifications to both clothes 

washers and clothes dryers.

Industry request; clarify existing requirements consistent with industry 

practice. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5523 

14The test procedures for CCWs must be the same 

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

6314(a)(8)). 15An ‘‘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 

16A ‘‘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. 

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

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

18The May 2000 Test Cloth Report is available at 

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

DOE has determined that the 

amendments described in section III and 

adopted in this document will 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 

amendments to the test procedures. 

Additionally, DOE has determined that 

the amendments will not increase the 

cost of testing. Discussion of DOE’s 

actions are addressed in detail in 

section III of this document. 

The effective date for the amended 

test procedures adopted in this final 

rule is 30 days after publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. 

Representations of energy use or energy 

efficiency must be based on testing in 

accordance with the amended test 

procedures beginning 180 days after the 

publication of this final rule. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

discusses certain amendments to its test 

procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers. For each 

amendment, DOE provides relevant 

background information, explains why 

the amendment merits consideration, 

discusses relevant public comments, 

and its final approach. 

A. Scope of Applicability 

This rulemaking applies to clothes 

washers (both RCWs and CCWs, which 

use the same test procedures) 14 and 

consumer clothes dryers. 

DOE has defined a clothes washer as 

a consumer product designed to clean 

clothes, utilizing a water solution of 

soap and/or detergent and mechanical 

agitation or other movement, that must 

be one of the following classes: 

automatic clothes washers,15 semiautomatic clothes washers,16 and other 

clothes washers.17 10 CFR 430.2. 

DOE regulations also define ‘‘electric 

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

similarly as a cabinet-like appliance 

designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type 

drum with forced air circulation, with 

blower(s) driven by an electric motor(s) 

and either electricity or gas, 

respectively, as the heat source. See, 10 

CFR 430.2. DOE’s clothes dryer test 

procedures are applicable to both 

electric and gas clothes dryers. 

A commercial clothes washer is 

defined as a soft-mount front-loading or 

soft-mount 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 changing the scope of the 

RCW, CCW, or consumer clothes dryer 

test procedures, or the relevant 

definitions, in this final rule. 

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 final 

rule. 

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 in 

this document. 

In a final rule published May 19, 1981 

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

the clothes dryer test procedure to, 

among other changes, establish test 

cloth pre-conditioning requirements to 

improve test repeatability by ensuring 

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

could affect the moisture performance of 

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’’).18

In particular, relevant to topics 

discussed in this final rule, the May 

2000 Test Cloth Report documented the 

difficulty of relating specifiable test 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5524 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

19Section 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. 

20The pre-conditioning process is specified in 

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

each of the five cycles. 

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 final rule, DOE is updating 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 

performance consistent with the current 

test cloth, and (4) re-define appropriate 

thresholds for certain statistical 

requirements specified for new lots of 

test cloth. 

Each of the 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. As discussed in section 

III.C.3 of this document, DOE is 

harmonizing the clothes washer and 

clothes dryer test cloth specifications 

such that the edits in this section 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.19

Furthermore, section 5 of appendix J3 

specifies that the maximum shrinkage 

requirements for the energy test cloth 

after pre-conditioning 20 must not be 

more than 5 percent of the length and 

width. 

Appendix J3 does not specify the 

orientation of the rectangular 

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. 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. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5525 

21As 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. 

22Section 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 and 

approximately 500 yards per roll. However, other 

sizes may be used if the test cloth material meets 

the specifications listed in sections 3.2 through 3.6 

of appendix J3. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

discussed 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.21 89 

FR 87803, 87809. 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. In the November 

2024 NOPR, DOE noted 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. Id. DOE added that it had 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. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

further raised concerns about potential 

unintended consequences of requiring a 

specific cut orientation for each energy 

test cloth. Id. DOE noted that depending 

on the width of the fabric roll, 

specifying a cut orientation as suggested 

in the May 2024 AHAM Letter 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. Id. For instance, a 63- 

inch-wide roll as specified by section 

3.1 of appendix J3 would be able to 

accommodate only 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 noted that 

textiles are typically woven in 

standardized widths and expressed 

concern that fabricating rolls with a 

custom width for DOE test cloth could 

increase the material cost. Id. 

In summary, in the November 2024 

NOPR, DOE expressed uncertainty 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. Id. 

Irrespective of its determination 

regarding the specification of a cut 

orientation requirement, in the 

November 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively 

determined that section 3.1 of appendix 

J3 is superfluous,22 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. Id. at 89 

FR 87810. As such, in the November 

2024 NOPR, DOE proposed removing 

section 3.1 of appendix J3 and 

renumbering the subsequent sections 

accordingly. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the roll 

dimensions and cut orientations that are 

currently used to fabricate DOE test 

cloth. Id. DOE also requested 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. Id. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULESER17JA25.090</GPH>
5526 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

23The 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. 

24The Technical Appendix can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024- 

BT-TP-0009-0003. 

25AHAM 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 further requested comment on its 

concern that establishing a cut 

orientation requirement could lead to 

fabric waste, depending on the 

dimensions of the fabric roll. Id. DOE 

also requested comment on its tentative 

determination not to specify a cut 

orientation requirement, and whether it 

should adopt the cut orientation 

requirement specified by AHAM or any 

other cut orientation requirement. Id. 

DOE requested 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. Id. 

AHAM commented that it specifically 

supports the roll dimension and cut 

orientation amendments to appendix J3 

proposed in the November 2024 NOPR. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 1) 

Ravnitzky commented that allowing 

flexibility in test cloth specifications, 

such as adjustments in cut orientations 

and fabric dimensions, would help 

reduce fabric waste and lower material 

costs without compromising test 

integrity. Ravnitzky added that this 

practical approach would benefit both 

the industry and sustainability efforts. 

(Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 1) 

For the reasons discussed in this final 

rule and in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the November 2024 

NOPR, to not specify a cut orientation 

requirement and to remove the 

requirements in section 3.1 of appendix 

J3. 

2. Fabric Weight and Thread Count 

Section 3.3 of appendix J3 specifies 

that the fabric weight of the test cloth 

must be 5.60 ± 0.25 ounces per square 

yard, but it does not currently 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 ± 2 percent, 

but it does not currently 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. In 

the November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted 

the term ‘‘finished goods’’ means after 

the cloth has been hemmed into energy 

test cloth and energy stuffer cloths, but 

prior to any pre-conditioning. 89 FR 

87803, 87810. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

further noted 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 preconditioning, is the most appropriate 

point in the cloth fabrication process 

because these dimensional properties 

can change during certain stages of the 

cloth fabrication process. Id. In the 

November 2024 NOPR, DOE stated that 

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. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to specify within section 3 of 

appendix J3 that fabric weight and 

thread count specifications apply to 

finished goods prior to preconditioning, and requested feedback on 

this proposal. Id. 

NEEA commented that it supports 

specifying a point in the manufacturing 

and preconditioning process at which 

the fabric weight and thread count are 

measured. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2) 

For the reasons discussed in this final 

rule and in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the November 2024 

NOPR, to specify in section 3 of 

appendix J3 that fabric weight and 

thread count specifications apply to 

finished goods prior to preconditioning. 

3. Granite Weave 

Section 3.2 of appendix J3 currently 

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 

25B23 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. 

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). 89 FR 

87803, 87810. The results of DOE’s 

testing are presented in a Technical 

Appendix published in the docket for 

this rulemaking.24 The testing presented 

in the November 2024 NOPR showed 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). 

Id. Although DOE’s test sample in the 

November 2024 NOPR did not include 

any CCWs, DOE noted that it 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. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

noted that through its participation in 

discussions with the AHAM task force 

it 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. Id. DOE noted that, instead, 

the type of crepe weave used for Lot 

25A is expected to be more readily 

available going forward. Id. 

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 J3.25 In the 

November 2024 NOPR, DOE noted 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. Id. In the November 2024 

NOPR, DOE expressed concerns 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. Id. 

Therefore, in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE tentatively determined not to 

establish a definition for these terms 

within the appendix J3 test procedure. 

Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested feedback on its proposal to 

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

allowable weaves in appendix J3. Id. 

DOE further requested feedback on its 

tentative determination not to establish 

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

‘‘momie’’ weave in appendix J3. Id. 

Aside from the generally supportive 

comments discussed previously, DOE 

received no comments in response to 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5527 

26AHAM 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. 27On 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. 

28Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2023–09/Test%20Cloth%20Policy

%20for%20Clothes%20Washers%20and

%20Clothes%20Dryers%20Enforcement

%20Policy.pdf. 

29Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021 provides 

specifications for various types of cloth, one of 

which is designated as Laundering Ballast Type 3. 

30The 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. 

the November 2024 NOPR specifically 

regarding its proposal to add the term 

‘‘crepe’’ to the list of allowable weaves 

in appendix J3, or its tentative 

determination not to establish 

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

‘‘momie’’ weave in appendix J3. 

For the reasons discussed in this final 

rule and in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the November 2024 

NOPR, to add the term ‘‘crepe’’ to the 

list of allowable weaves in appendix J3, 

and to not 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 

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 

noted in the November 2024 NOPR that 

it now 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). 89 FR 87803, 87811. 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. Id. 

As discussed in the November 2024 

NOPR, during the COVID–19 pandemic, 

the laundry industry experienced 

shortages in DOE test cloth supply.26 Id. 

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. Id. 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.27 On 

September 28, 2023, DOE issued a 

statement 28 that it would exercise its 

enforcement discretion and not impose 

civil penalties on a clothes washer, 

commercial clothes washer, or clothes 

dryer manufacturer for certifying 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards based on testing 

that exceeds the maximum test cloth 

run provision set forth in the DOE test 

procedures. Instead, DOE allowed for 

usage of test cloth for twice the number 

of runs allowed in the relevant test 

procedures. 

In an effort to further alleviate any test 

cloth supply constraints that could limit 

energy testing activities for clothes 

washers and clothes dryers, the AHAM 

task force evaluated the potential merits 

of specifying an alternate test cloth that 

could be used for DOE testing, as 

discussed in the May 2024 AHAM 

Letter. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

noted that the AHAM task force 

identified a commercially available 

standardized fabric as a possible 

alternative to the current test cloth 

specification. Id. 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. 

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.29 The specifications 

for Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth are 

provided in Table III.1. 

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

Characteristic Specification 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As part of an AHAM task force 

investigation, DOE and AHAM members 

conducted comparative testing of 

Laundering Ballast Type 3 cloth 30 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. Id. The 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5528 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

31The Technical Appendix can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2024- 

BT-TP-0009-0003. 

32As 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. 

33As 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). 

34As 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. 

35The 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. 

36Section 3.1.2.3 of the proposed regulatory text 

in the November 2024 NOPR specified the 

following: 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. 

results of DOE’s testing are presented in 

the Technical Appendix published in 

the docket for this rulemaking.31

Specifically, as discussed in the 

November 2024 NOPR, 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. Id. 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. Id. 

As discussed in the November 2024 

NOPR, DOE’s testing demonstrated no 

substantive difference in measured 

efficiency compared with historical lots 

used for RCW and consumer clothes 

dryer testing. Id. 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. Id. In the November 2024 

NOPR, DOE discussed that although its 

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. Id. 

at 89 FR 87811–87812. 

In addition, AHAM presented the 

results of its members’ testing in 

appendix A to the May 2024 AHAM 

Letter. As discussed in the November 

2024 NOPR, this testing also 

demonstrated no substantive difference 

in measured efficiency compared with 

historical lots used for RCW and 

consumer clothes dryer testing. Id. at 89 

FR 87812. 

Based on these data, DOE tentatively 

determined in the November 2024 

NOPR that the AATCC Laundering 

Ballast Type 3 cloth provides results 

that are equally as representative as 

results obtained using the currently 

specified test cloth. Id. On this basis, in 

the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

proposed, consistent with the 

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. Id. 

Specifically, DOE proposed in the 

November 2024 NOPR to incorporate by 

reference AATCC LP1–2021 into 

appendix J3 and to allow the use of test 

cloth meeting the specifications of 

Laundering Ballast Type 3, as specified 

in Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021, with 

the following additional specifications 

and substitutions: 

• Greige Fabric Yarns: Type 16/1 

only 32

• Edges: All edges hemmed only 33

• 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.34

• Finished Piece Weight: Disregard.35

Id. 

Furthermore, and consistent with the 

discussion in section III.C.3 of this 

document, DOE considered in the 

November 2024 NOPR whether to 

propose a definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ 

as specified in Table VII of AATCC 

LP1–2021. Id. In the November 2024 

NOPR, DOE noted the term ‘‘plain 

weave’’ to be a well-understood term of 

art and therefore tentatively determined 

that adding a definition of ‘‘plain 

weave’’ to appendix J3 was not 

warranted. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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. Id. DOE also 

requested feedback on its tentative 

determination not to establish a 

definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ in 

appendix J3. Id. 

NEEA commented that it specifically 

supports allowing the use of the 

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. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Ravnitzky commented in support of 

the alternate test cloth proposed in the 

November 2024 NOPR to address 

potential supply shortages and ensure 

consistent and reliable results, based on 

thorough testing. (Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 

1) 

AHAM commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal in the November 2024 

NOPR to not establish a definition for 

‘‘plain weave’’ in appendix J3. (AHAM, 

No. 10 at p. 1) 

For the reasons discussed in this final 

rule and in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the November 2024 

NOPR, to allow the use of test cloth 

corresponding to the 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, and to not 

establish a definition for ‘‘plain weave’’ 

in appendix J3. In this final rule, DOE 

is implementing this in appendix J3 by 

directly codifying each of the cloth 

specifications within appendix J3, 

rather than incorporating by reference 

Table VII of AATCC LP1–2021 with 

modifications (as was proposed in the 

November 2024 NOPR). As discussed in 

section III.D.3 of this document, as a 

result of the amendments in this final 

rule, the specifications in appendix J3 

apply to both clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. 

In response to the November 2024 

NOPR, AHAM commented that section 

3.1.2.3 of appendix J3 as proposed in 

the November 2024 NOPR36 should 

reference section 3.3 instead of section 

3.7.1 and 3.7.2. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) 

DOE agrees with AHAM’s assessment 

of the incorrect cross-references in the 

proposed amendments to section 3.1.2.3 

of appendix J3. However, these 

proposed cross-references are rendered 

moot by the approach taken in this final 

rule to directly codify each of the test 

cloth specifications within 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, 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5529 

37See letters received by DOE on December 13, 

2023 and May 24, 2024. 

38See Table II.1—Summary of Changes in 

Proposed Test Procedures Relative to Current Test 

Procedures in the November 2024 NOPR. 

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. 

As discussed in the November 2024 

NOPR, 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. 89 FR 

87803, 87812. 

Since the effective date of the CV 

requirement, the AHAM task force has 

developed correction factors for test 

cloth lots 25A and 25B37—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. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

noted that the 1-percent threshold was 

originally recommended by AHAM 

during a previous test procedure 

rulemaking. Id. citing 87 FR 33316, 

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

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

force used its discretion to evaluate the 

uniformity of each new test cloth lot. 89 

FR 87803, 87812. DOE noted that it 

understood 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). Id. In the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE proposed to amend appendix J3 by 

increasing the allowable CV threshold to 

2 percent. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested feedback on its proposal to 

amend the CV threshold requirement in 

appendix J3 from 1 percent to 2 percent. 

Specifically, DOE requested comment 

on whether another threshold would be 

more appropriate. Id. 

NEEA commented that it supports 

increasing the CV of the ‘‘uniformity 

check’’ from 1 percent to 2 percent. 

(NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2) NEEA noted that 

it has extensive experience testing 

laundry products with common and 

emerging technologies using a variety of 

textiles. (Id. at p. 1) 

AHAM commented that it agrees with 

DOE’s statement in the November 2024 

NOPR that repeatable performance of 

test cloth lots with a CV slightly higher 

than 1 percent is an indication that the 

threshold may be unnecessarily 

stringent. However, AHAM expressed 

reluctance with a 2-percent threshold, 

stating that a CV threshold of 2 percent 

would result in a within-lot variation of 

up to 1 RMC percentage point, and 

instead suggested a CV limit of 1.5 

percent. AHAM commented that this 

threshold would exclude lots 19, 24B, 

and 24D, which AHAM characterized as 

highly variable and problematic lots. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 3–4) 

As discussed, EPCA requires that any 

test procedures be reasonably designed 

to produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle (as determined by the 

Secretary) or period of use and shall not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

DOE tentatively determined in the 

November 2024 NOPR that increasing 

the allowable CV threshold to 2 percent 

would reduce test burden while 

maintaining reproducibility and 

representativeness 38 of test results. DOE 

understands that the cost of the test 

cloth factors in the cost of prequalification testing as specified in 

appendix J3. If the pre-qualification test 

must be repeated, either on subdivided 

portions of the test cloth lot or on a 

different test cloth lot, in order to 

achieve an allowable CV value, the cost 

of the qualified test cloth and thus test 

burden for clothes washer and clothes 

dryer manufacturers may increase. 

Based on the comments received from 

NEEA and AHAM, both of which have 

extensive experience testing clothes 

washers and clothes dryers, DOE 

understands that there is general 

support to increase the threshold to 1.5 

percent, but only mixed support to 

increase the threshold to 2 percent. DOE 

understands AHAM’s comment as 

indicating that, despite historical test 

cloth lots with CV values greater than 

1.5 percent having been qualified for 

use, manufacturers would currently find 

an allowable CV threshold of 1.5 

percent to reflect the appropriate 

balance between representativeness and 

test burden. DOE recognizes that 

manufacturers (as represented by 

AHAM) have extensive experience in 

dealing with differences between test 

cloth lots, and likewise recognizes 

manufacturers’ interest in ensuring 

repeatable and reproducible test 

results—as the basis for producing 

representative test results—for the 

purposes of certifying compliance with 

the applicable standards. In 

consideration of the above, in this final 

rule, DOE is amending the CV threshold 

requirement in section 7.2.5 of appendix 

J3 from 1 percent to 1.5 percent. DOE 

further specifies that this requirement 

applies to test cloth lots qualified after 

February 18, 2025. 

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 

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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5530 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

39The March 2010 AHAM Letter is available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE–2024–BT– 

TP–0009–0002. 

40See the Technical Appendix available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE–2024–BT– 

TP–0009–0003. 

41 DOE maintains a historical record of the 

standard extractor test data and final correction 

curve coefficients for each approved lot of energy 

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

articles/clothes-washer-test-cloth-correction-factorinformation. 42The RMSE, as proposed in the November 2024 

NOPR, is equal to the square root of the ratio of the 

sum of the squared errors across the test sample 

divided by the number of values in the test sample 

(N). The ‘‘N–2’’ approach refers to a different 

formula for RMSE wherein the denominator of the 

equation is N–2 instead of N, as proposed in the 

November 2024 NOPR. 

43The appendix J3 test report referenced by 

AHAM is available at www.energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/standardized-templates-reporting-testresults. DOE develops standardized data templates 

for reporting the results of tests conducted in 

accordance with current DOE test procedures. 

Templates may be used by third-party laboratories 

under contract with DOE that conduct testing in 

support of ENERGY STAR verification, DOE 

rulemakings, and enforcement of the federal energy 

conservation standards. 

44The appendix J3 test report uses the STEYX() 

function in Microsoft Excel to calculate RMSE. This 

function uses N–2 as the denominator. In its 

analysis conducted for the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE inadvertently used a different formula for 

calculating RMSE that uses N as the denominator. 

45The RMSE values presented in this final rule 

were calculated using the N–2 approach consistent 

with the formula in section 8.9 of appendix J3, as 

amended in this final rule, using all available tested 

runs. For lots of test cloth prior to Lot 16, where 

the 500g and 650g tests were not performed, the N– 

2=18 value in the denominator of the RMSE 

formula was updated to N–2=10 to correspond to 

the number of tested runs for these lots of test cloth. 

46 In the October 2003 Final Rule, the 50g test 

point resulted in inconsistent corrected RMC 

results. DOE acknowledged a basic lack of 

repeatability of the 50g spin tests and replaced 

these test points with 100g test points. 68 FR 62198, 

62200–62201. 

significant. If the interaction is not 

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

than 0.1), then the lot is considered 

acceptable. If the P-value is less than 

0.1, the test cloth is deemed 

unacceptable. The P-value provides an 

indication of any interactive effect 

between lots and spin speeds. The lower 

the P-value, the stronger the evidence of 

such an interaction. 

On March 29, 2010, AHAM sent DOE 

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

noting that Lot 17 was measured to have 

a P-value that was less than 0.1.39

AHAM requested that DOE approve Lot 

17 for use on the basis that the rootmean-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. 

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 40 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, in the 

November 2024 NOPR, DOE 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. 89 FR 

87803, 87813. DOE further tentatively 

determined that a different statistical 

measure can provide a better measure of 

the acceptability of a new test cloth lot. 

Id. 

Specifically, in the November 2024 

NOPR, DOE 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. Id. 

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 determined in the November 

2024 NOPR that RMSE—which 

evaluates corrected RMC values—would 

provide a better measure of acceptability 

than P-value, which evaluates 

uncorrected RMC values. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR DOE 

presented RMSE values of the historical 

test cloth lots posted to DOE’s website 41

that fell within a range of 0.004 to 0.014. 

Id. Additionally, DOE stated that 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 0.009. Id. 

Based on the historical record and its 

testing, DOE tentatively determined in 

the November 2024 NOPR that an 

RMSE-based threshold for new test 

cloth lots would provide a better 

measure of the acceptability of a new 

test cloth lot, and therefore proposed 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. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

replace the P-value test in appendix J3 

with a root-mean-square error test, and 

on its proposal to specify 0.015 as an 

acceptability threshold for the RMSE 

value. Id. 

Ravnitzky commented in support of 

the proposed shift from the P-value test 

to the RMSE threshold, stating that the 

proposed RMSE threshold of 0.015, 

based on historical data, provides a 

more accurate measure of test cloth 

performance and ensures that new test 

cloth lots produce consistent RMC 

measurements, improving the 

robustness of the testing protocol. 

(Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 1) 

AHAM commented that it does not 

necessarily oppose DOE’s tentative 

determination that an RMSE-based 

threshold for new test cloth lots would 

provide a better measure of acceptability 

than the P-value evaluation, but 

suggested certain improvements to the 

approach. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) 

Specifically, AHAM recommended 

that the RMSE calculation reflect the 

‘‘N–2’’ approach 42 that has historically 

been used in the test cloth evaluations 

and is used in the appendix J3 test 

report template today.43 AHAM 

commented that this would change the 

denominator in equation proposed in 

section 8.9 of draft appendix J3 from 20 

to 18. (Id. at p. 5) 

DOE notes that in addition to being 

used in the appendix J3 test report (as 

described by AHAM), the ‘‘N–2’’ 

approach was also used in the RMSE 

calculation previously specified in 

appendices J1 and J2 as codified by the 

January 2001 Final Rule. See 66 FR 

3314, 3332. DOE did not intend to 

change its approach to calculating 

RMSE compared to the approach used 

in the appendix J3 test report and 

previously specified in appendices J1 

and J2.44 For this final rule, DOE recalculated the historical test cloth lot 

RMSE values that were presented in the 

November 2024 NOPR using the ‘‘N–2’’ 

approach.45

AHAM further noted that as presented 

in the November 2024 NOPR, the 

highest RMSE value of 0.014 is for Lot 

6, which included testing at the 50g 

force instead of the 100g force testing 

that has been required since the 

introduction of Lot 7.46 AHAM 

suggested that Lot 6 be excluded from 

the evaluation. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) 

DOE notes that Lot 5 was also tested 

using the 50g test point instead of the 

100g test point. Due to the lack of 

repeatability and consistency of the 

previous 50g data point, DOE agrees 

with AHAM’s suggestion to exclude Lot 

6—as well as Lot 5—from consideration 

in determining an appropriate RMSE 

threshold. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5531 

The updated RMSE values used for 

this final rule analysis are presented in 

Table III.2 of this document. These 

values reflect use of the ‘‘N–2’’ approach 

and exclude Lot 5 and Lot 6. 

TABLE III.2—HISTORICAL TEST CLOTH

LOT RMSE VALUES FOR LOT 7 

THROUGH LOT 25B 

[Calculated using ‘‘N–2’’ approach] 

Lot RMSE 

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

8 ............................................ 0.006 

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

10 .......................................... 0.008 

11 .......................................... 0.009 

12 .......................................... 0.010 

13 .......................................... 0.010 

14 .......................................... 0.008 

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

16 .......................................... 0.010 

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

18 .......................................... 0.010 

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

20 .......................................... 0.009 

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

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

23 .......................................... 0.010 

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

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

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

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

25B ....................................... 0.010 

The updated RMSE values fall within 

a range of 0.004 to 0.011, compared to 

a range of 0.004 to 0.014 as presented 

in the November 2024 NOPR. 

Additionally, the AATCC lot of test 

cloth evaluated by DOE and AHAM, as 

described in section III.C.4 of this 

document, has an updated RMSE value 

of 0.010, compared to a value of 0.009 

as presented in the November 2024 

NOPR. Accordingly, DOE determines 

that a threshold RMSE value of 0.012, as 

suggested by AHAM, is appropriate. 

Lastly, AHAM requested that the Pvalue calculation remain in the test 

cloth test report (without an 

acceptability threshold) so that the 

metric can be monitored and ensure that 

the change does not have unintended 

consequences. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) 

DOE recognizes the benefits to 

maintaining the P-value calculation in 

the appendix J3 test report, even if no 

longer used as acceptability criteria, and 

will consider AHAM’s suggestion at 

such time DOE updates its appendix J3 

test report. 

In summary, in this final rule, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal to replace the Pvalue test in appendix J3 with an RMSE 

test. DOE is establishing the RMSE 

threshold requirement in section 8.9 of 

appendix J3 at 0.012, as calculated using 

the ‘‘N–2’’ approach. DOE further 

specifies that this requirement applies 

to test cloth lots qualified after February 

18, 2025. 

D. Other Clarifying and Restructuring 

Edits 

1. Introductory Paragraph 

Appendix J3 includes test cloth 

specifications, procedures for preconditioning test cloth, procedures for 

verifying that new lots of test cloth meet 

the defined material specifications, and 

procedures for developing RMC 

correction factors. Appendix J3 contains 

an introductory section titled 

‘‘Objective’’ that summarizes the key 

objectives of the procedure. This 

paragraph currently does not reference 

the pre-conditioning of test cloth as one 

of the key objectives. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to update the heading to 

appendix J3 and its objective paragraph 

to explicitly include pre-conditioning of 

test cloth as one of the key objectives. 

89 FR 87803, 87813.In the November 

2024 NOPR, DOE requested feedback on 

its proposal to update appendix J3 to 

explicitly mention pre-conditioning of 

test cloth. Id. 

DOE did not receive any specific 

comments on this topic and is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

November 2024 NOPR, to update 

appendix J3 to explicitly include preconditioning of test cloth as one of the 

key objectives. 

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 

subsections that provide a clearer stepby-step sequence of instructions. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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. 89 FR 87803, 87813. 

DOE did not receive any specific 

comments on this topic and is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

November 2024 NOPR, 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 

referenced by only 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. 

As discussed in the November 2024 

NOPR, historically, manufacturers and 

test laboratories have used the same test 

cloth for both clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. 89 FR 87803, 87813. The 

May 2024 AHAM Letter requested that 

DOE harmonize specifically the preconditioning procedure for clothes 

washers and clothes dryers. Id. In line 

with this recommendation, in the 

November 2024 NOPR, DOE 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). Id. at 89 FR 87814. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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. Id. 

Specifically, DOE proposed 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 also proposed 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. Id. 

DOE further proposed 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. Id. DOE proposed 

that these specifications—which are 

specific to clothes washers and do not 

apply to clothes dryers—be included in 

section 2.7 of appendices J and J2. Id. 

DOE also proposed that appendices D1 

and D2 retain the existing requirement 

that for clothes dryers the test cloth 

must not be used for more than 25 runs, 

although this requirement will be 

relocated to section 2.6 (from 2.6.1(c) 

currently). Id. 

Finally, DOE proposed to update the 

objective statement and section 5 of 

appendix J3 to explicitly reference 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5532 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

47An 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. 

48These cost estimates are based on DOE’s most 

recent purchases of test cloth in relatively small 

quantities. 

clothes dryers alongside clothes 

washers. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

harmonize test cloth specifications for 

clothes washers and clothes dryers. Id. 

AHAM commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal in the November 2024 

NOPR to harmonize test cloth 

specifications for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 1) 

Ravnitzky commented in support of 

harmonizing the test cloth specifications 

between clothes washers and clothes 

dryers to simplify compliance, enhance 

the consistency of test results, reduce 

complexity for manufacturers, and 

support standardized testing practices. 

(Ravnitzky, No. 5 at p. 1) 

For the reasons discussed in this final 

rule and in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the November 2024 

NOPR, to harmonize test cloth 

specifications for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. 

4. Restructuring Appendix J3 

Section 3.2 of appendix J3 specifies 

the ‘‘nominal fabric type’’ for the test 

cloth as pure finished bleached cloth 

made with a momie or granite weave, 

which is nominally 50 percent cotton 

and 50 percent polyester. Section 3.5 of 

appendix J3 contains a duplicative 

(although more specific) requirement 

specifying a fiber content of 50 percent 

± 4 percent cotton, with the balance 

being polyester. In the November 2024 

NOPR, DOE proposed to remove the 

less-specific nominal fiber content 

specification from section 3.2 of 

appendix J3. 89 FR 87803, 87814. 

Accordingly, DOE further proposed to 

update the name of section 3.2 of 

appendix J3 from ‘‘nominal fabric type’’ 

to ‘‘fabric type.’’ Id. 

Within section 3 of appendix J3, 

which lists the specifications for the test 

cloth, subsections 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 proposed in 

the November 2024 NOPR to reorder 

these subsections to provide the fiber 

content specification first, followed by 

thread count specification, followed by 

the fabric weight specification. Id. 

Section 3.7 of appendix J3 currently 

includes dimensions for the energy test 

cloth and energy stuffer cloth 47 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. In the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE proposed, consistent with the 

recommendations in the May 2023 

AHAM Letter, to clarify this wording 

and to specify that the dimensions listed 

in section 3.7 apply before preconditioning of the test cloth. Id. 

Appendices D1, D2, J, J2, and J3 

currently use inconsistent hyphenation 

of the word pre-conditioning, using 

‘‘pre-conditioning’’ in some cases and 

‘‘preconditioning’’ in others. The May 

2024 AHAM Letter requested that DOE 

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

Id. In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to standardize the 

hyphenation of ‘‘pre-conditioning’’ 

across all five appendices. Id. 

The June 2022 Final Rule renumbered certain sections of appendix 

J3 and implemented in section 8.5 of 

appendix J3 references to ‘‘sections 8.3.3 

and 8.3.4 of this appendix.’’ 87 FR 

33316, 33405. These cross-references 

should instead reference sections 8.3 

and 8.4 of appendix J3. In the November 

2024 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 89 FR 87803, 

87814. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested feedback on its proposal to 

clarify and restructure appendix J3. Id. 

Ravnitzky commented that the 

proposed reorganization of the test 

procedures for improved readability and 

simplicity is a significant improvement, 

stating that clearer procedural 

instructions make it easier for 

manufacturers and testing laboratories 

to accurately follow the guidelines, 

enhancing overall compliance, and that 

simplifying the test procedures helps 

manufacturers to meet important energy 

efficiency requirements for major 

appliances such as clothes washers and 

clothes dryers, supporting broader 

energy conservation goals. (Ravnitzky, 

No. 5 at p. 1) 

For the reasons discussed in this final 

rule and in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the November 2024 

NOPR, to clarify and restructure 

appendix J3. 

E. Test Procedure Costs 

EPCA requires that test procedures 

amended 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 in this 

final rule will impact testing costs or the 

burden of conducting the test 

procedure. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

presented market research indicating 

that the alternate test cloth proposed for 

use has approximately the same cost per 

pound as the current test cloth— 

approximately $40–50 per pound of 

unconditioned test cloth.48 89 FR 

87803, 87814. Therefore, DOE 

tentatively determined that using the 

alternate test cloth would not impact 

clothes washer or clothes dryer testing 

costs. Id. 

Based on an analysis of the test results 

presented in the Technical Appendix, in 

the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedures for the newly finalized 

amendments. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment 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. Id. 

DOE received no comments in 

response to the November 2024 NOPR 

regarding the impact of testing costs or 

the burden of conducting the test 

procedure. 

For the reasons discussed in this final 

rule and in the November 2024 NOPR, 

DOE has determined that the 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

will not impact testing costs or the 

burden of conducting the test 

procedure. 

F. Effective and Compliance Dates 

The effective date for the adopted test 

procedure amendment will be 30 days 

after publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. EPCA prescribes that 

all representations of energy efficiency 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5533 

and energy use, including those made 

on marketing materials and product 

labels, must be made in accordance with 

an amended test procedure, beginning 

180 days after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) 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); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) 

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.) 

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 

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, noting 

that it did not have any test data to 

support an extended number of cycles 

on the new test cloth at the time. 89 FR 

87803, 87815. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that the updated 

test cloth provisions would alleviate any 

test cloth shortages that were the 

impetus for the enforcement discretion 

policy, and that at the time of 

compliance of the amended test 

procedure, no need for such a policy 

would remain. Id. Therefore, in the 

November 2024 NOPR, DOE 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), the enforcement discretion 

policy would be withdrawn. Id. 

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. Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

recognized the concern of test cloth 

availability. Id. As noted, DOE 

tentatively determined that it 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 

and noted that the amendments could 

be used as early as their effective date 

(i.e., 30 days after publication of the 

final rule DOE published regarding 

these amendments). Id. 

In the November 2024 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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. Id. 

DOE did not receive any specific 

comments on this topic and is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

November 2024 NOPR, that the 

enforcement discretion policy allowing 

twice the number of test cloth runs will 

be withdrawn 180 days after publication 

of this final rule. 

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 final 

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 final 

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 a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’) for any final rule where the 

agency was first required by law to 

publish a proposed rule 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 final 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 

rulemaking. DOE used available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE accessed the 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5534 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

49U.S. Department of Energy Compliance 

Certification Database, available at: 

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

products.html. 

Compliance Certification Database 49 to 

create a list of companies that import or 

otherwise manufacture the RCWs, 

CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers 

covered by this final rule. Of the 

domestic original equipment 

manufacturers (‘‘OEM’’) that 

manufacture the RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers covered by this 

final rule, DOE has identified one 

domestic RCW OEM that qualifies as a 

small business. 

As detailed in section III.C.4 of this 

document, DOE is establishing an 

additional type of test cloth be 

permitted for testing. This alternate test 

cloth (and updated test cloth provisions) 

will alleviate any test cloth shortages 

currently experienced by manufacturers. 

This alternate test cloth is 

approximately the same cost as the 

existing test cloth and has not 

demonstrated any substantive 

differences in measured efficiency 

compared with historical lots used to 

RCW and consumer clothes dryer 

testing. As a result, DOE does not expect 

any increased cost or burdens to 

manufacturers from this final rule. 

Therefore, DOE concludes that the 

final rule would not have a ‘‘significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities,’’ and that the 

preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. 

DOE has submitted a 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 amending the certification 

or reporting requirements for RCWs, 

CCWs, and consumer clothes dryers in 

this final rule. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE establishes test 

procedure amendments for measuring 

the energy efficiency of RCWs, CCWs, 

and consumer clothes dryers. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 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 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE examined this final rule 

and determined that it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

final rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

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

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5535 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)–(b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at 

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

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any 

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 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 

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 regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). 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 final rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that 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 significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action 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 modifications to the test 

procedures for RCWs, CCWs, and 

consumer clothes dryers adopted in this 

final rule do not incorporate any new 

commercial standards or test procedures 

that are not already incorporated by 

reference at 10 CFR 430.3 and therefore 

DOE has not re-assessed such standards 

as part of this final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

AATCC Test Method 135–2010 is 

referenced in the amendatory text of this 

document but has already been 

approved for the sections where it 

appears. No changes are being made to 

the IBR material. 

N. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule before its effective date. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

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


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5536 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

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 January 10, 2025, 

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 January 13, 

2025. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend appendix D1 to subpart B 

of part 430 by: 

■ a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 

and 2.6.3; 

■ b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; 

and 

■ c. Revising the heading for section 2.8. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

* * * * * 

2. Testing Conditions 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend appendix D2 to subpart B 

of part 430 by: 

■ a. Revising sections 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 

and 2.6.3; 

■ b. Adding sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5; 

and 

■ c. Revising the heading for section 2.8. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers 

* * * * * 

2. Testing Conditions 

* * * * * 

2.6 Test cloths. 

2.6.1 Material Specifications. The energy 

test cloth and energy stuffer cloth material 

and dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in section 3 of appendix J3 to 

this subpart. 

2.6.2 Material Verification. The test cloth 

lot used to fabricate each piece of test cloth 

must conform with the material verification 

procedures specified in section 7 of appendix 

J3 to this subpart. 

2.6.3 Lot Identification. Each piece of test 

cloth must be clean and permanently marked 

identifying the lot number of the material. 

Mixed lots of material must not be used for 

testing a clothes dryer. 

2.6.4 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must 

be pre-conditioned prior to first use as 

specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this 

subpart. 

2.6.5 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must 

not be used for more than 25 test runs (after 

pre-conditioning). 

* * * * * 

2.8 Clothes dryer pre-conditioning. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend appendix J to subpart B of 

part 430 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. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation 

* * * * * 

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). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend appendix J2 to subpart B of 

part 430 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. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation 

* * * * * 

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. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5537 

2.7.5 Pre-Conditioning. The test cloth must 

be pre-conditioned prior to first use as 

specified in section 5 of appendix J3 to this 

subpart. 

2.7.6 Lifetime. Each piece of test cloth must 

not be used for more than 60 test runs (after 

pre-conditioning). 

■ 6. Amend appendix J3 to subpart B of 

part 430 by: 

■ a. Revising the heading for appendix 

J3; 

■ b. Revising section 1; 

■ c. Revising section 3; 

■ d. Revising section 5; 

■ e. Revising sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.5; 

■ f. Revising sections 8.5 through 8.8; 

and 

■ g. 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 

* * * * * 

1. Objective 

This appendix includes the following: (1) 

Specifications for the test cloth to be used for 

testing clothes washers and clothes dryers; 

(2) procedures for pre-conditioning the test 

cloth for use in testing clothes washers and 

clothes dryers; (3) procedures for verifying 

that new lots of test cloth meet the defined 

material specifications; and (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 

appendix 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 

The energy test cloths and energy stuffer 

cloths must meet the following 

specifications: 

3.1 The test cloth material must be one of 

the following two types: 

3.1.1 Legacy Momie Cloth. 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% ± 4% cotton, with the balance 

being polyester, open end spun, 15/1 ± 5% 

cotton count blended yarn. 

3.1.1.3 Thread count. 65 x 57 per inch 

(warp × fill), ± 2%. Thread count is measured 

on the finished good, prior to preconditioning. 

3.1.1.4 Fabric weight. 5.60 ± 0.25 ounces 

per square yard (190.0 ± 8.4 g/m2). Fabric 

weight is measured on the finished good, 

prior to pre-conditioning. 

3.1.2 Modified AATCC Laundering Ballast 

Type 3. Test cloth meeting the specifications 

in sections 3.1.2.1 through 3.1.2.4 of this 

appendix. 

3.1.2.1 Fabric Type. Plain weave. 

3.1.2.2 Fiber content of warp and filling 

yarn. 50% cotton/50% polyester ± 3%, 16/1 

ring spun. 

3.1.2.3 Thread count. 52 x 48 ± 5 yarns per 

inch. Thread count is measured on the 

finished good, prior to pre-conditioning. 

3.1.2.4 Fabric weight. 4.57 ± 0.29 ounces 

per square yard (155 ± 10 g/m2). Fabric 

weight is measured on the finished good, 

prior to pre-conditioning. 

3.2 Water repellent finishes, such as 

fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes, must 

not be applied to the test cloth. 

3.3. Test cloth dimensions. 

3.3.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test 

cloth must be made from test cloth material 

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

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

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

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

3.3.2 Energy stuffer cloth. The energy 

stuffer cloth must be made from the same test 

cloth material as the energy test cloth, cut to 

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

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

by 25.4 ± 0.6 cm) before pre-conditioning. 

* * * * * 

5. Test Cloth Pre-Conditioning Instructions 

Use the following instructions for 

performing pre-conditioning of new energy 

test cloths and energy stuffer cloths as 

specified throughout section 7 and section 8 

of this appendix, before any clothes washer 

testing using appendix J or appendix J2 to 

this subpart, and before any clothes dryer 

testing using appendix D1 or appendix 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 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C) and the rinse 

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

(15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C). 

5.2 Dry the load to bone-dry between each 

of the five wash-rinse-spin cycles. 

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

percent of the length and width. Measure per 

AATCC Test Method 135–2010 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3). 

* * * * * 

7. Test Cloth Material Verification Procedure 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

7.2 Uniformity Verification. 

* * * * * 

7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation 

(CV) of the nine average RMC values from 

each sample load. For test cloth lots qualified 

after February 18, 2025, the CV must be less 

than or equal to 1.5% for the test cloth lot 

to be considered acceptable and to perform 

the standard extractor RMC testing. 

8. RMC Correction Curve Procedure 

* * * * * 

8.5 Repeat sections 8.3 and 8.4 of this 

appendix an additional two times, so that 

three replications at each extractor condition 

are performed. When this procedure is 

performed in its entirety, a total of 60 

extractor RMC test runs are required. 

8.6 Calculate RMCcloth-avg for each extractor 

test condition by averaging the values of the 

3 replications performed specified in sections 

8.3 and 8.4 of this appendix. 

8.7 Perform a linear least-squares fit to 

determine coefficients A and B such that the 

standard RMC values shown in Table 8.7 of 

this appendix (RMCstandard) are linearly 

related to the RMCcloth-avg values calculated in 

section 8.6 of this appendix: 

RMCstandard ∼ A × RMCcloth-avg + B 

where A and B are coefficients of the linear 

least-squares fit. 

TABLE 8.7—STANDARD RMC VALUES

‘‘g Force’’ 

RMC percentage 

Warm soak Cold soak 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

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

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

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

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


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5538 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 8.7—STANDARD RMC VALUES—Continued 

‘‘g Force’’ 

RMC percentage 

Warm soak Cold soak 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

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

8.8 Calculate the corrected RMC value for 

each extractor test condition, RMCcloth-corr as 

follows: 

RMCcloth-corr = A × RMCcloth-avg + B 

Where: 

RMCcloth-avg = the average RMC value, as 

calculated in section 8.6 of this appendix 

for each extractor test condition, 

expressed as a decimal, and 

A and B are the coefficients of the linear least 

squares fit as determined in section 8.7 

of this appendix. 

8.9 Calculate the root mean square error of 

the linear fit, RMSE. For test cloth lots 

qualified after February 18, 2025, the RMSE 

must be less than or equal to 0.012 for the 

test cloth lot to be considered acceptable. The 

RMSE is calculated as follows: 

Where: 

RMCstandard_i = the RMCstandard value in Table 

8.7 of this appendix for the ith extractor 

test condition, expressed as a decimal, 

RMCcloth-corr_i = the corrected RMC value, as 

calculated in section 8.8 of this appendix 

for the ith extractor test condition, 

expressed as a decimal, and 

N = the number of extractor test conditions 

listed in Table 8.7 of this appendix = 20. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2025–00986 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2022–BT–TP–0019] 

RIN 1904–AF08 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Compressors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is amending the test 

procedure for compressors to correct an 

error and to ensure that pressure ratio is 

expressed in terms of absolute pressure. 

DOE is also correcting the formula for 

isentropic efficiency and specific energy 

consumption of the packaged 

compressor by incorporating a K6

correction factor to correct for 

differences in pressure ratio when 

testing at differing elevations. Finally, 

DOE is amending the definition of ‘‘air 

compressor’’ to include a minor 

clarification and revise a typographical 

error. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

April 2, 2025. The amendments will be 

mandatory for product testing starting 

July 16, 2025. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on April 2, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at 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 those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2022-BT-TP-0019. The docket 

web page contains instructions on how 

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket contact the Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email: ApplianceStandards

Questions@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

DOE incorporates by reference the 

following industry standards into title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulation 

(‘‘CFR’’) part 431: 

IEC 60584–1:2013, Thermocouples— 

Part 1: EMF specifications and 

tolerances, edition 3.0, August 2013 

(‘‘IEC 60584–1:2013’’). 

IEC 60584–3:2021, Thermocouples— 

Part 3: Extension and compensating 

cables—Tolerances and identification 

system, edition 3.0, February 2021 (‘‘IEC 

60584–3:2021’’). 

Copies of IEC 60584–1:2013 and IEC 

60584–3:2021 may be purchased from 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Central Office, 3, 

rue de Varembe ́, Case Postale 131, CH– 

1211, Geneva, Switzerland +41 22 919 

02 11, or by going to webstore.iec.ch. 

ISO 1217:2009(E), Displacement 

compressors—Acceptance tests, fourth 

edition, July 1, 2009 (‘‘ISO 

1217:2009(E)’’). 

ISO 1217:2009/Amd.1:2016(E), 

Displacement compressors—Acceptance 

tests (fourth edition, July 1, 2009), 

AMENDMENT 1: Calculation of 

isentropic efficiency and relationship 

with specific energy, April 15, 2016 

(‘‘ISO 1217:2009/Amd.1:2016(E)’’). 

ISO 5167–1:2022(E), Measurement of 

fluid flow by means of pressure 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULESER17JA25.091</GPH>