49140 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429, 430 and 431 

[EERE–2016–BT–TP–0011] 

RIN 1904–AD95 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Residential and 

Commercial Clothes Washers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, 

request for comment, and 

announcement of webinar. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

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

test procedures for residential and 

commercial clothes washers to specify 

test conditions, instrument 

specifications, and test settings; address 

large clothes container capacities; add 

product-specific enforcement 

provisions; delete obsolete provisions; 

and consolidate all test cloth-related 

provisions and codify additional test 

cloth material verification procedures 

used by industry. DOE also proposes to 

create a new test procedure for 

residential and commercial clothes 

washers with additional modifications 

for certain test conditions, measurement 

of average cycle time, required test 

cycles, tested load sizes, semi-automatic 

clothes washer provisions, new 

performance metrics, and updated usage 

factors. The proposed new test 

procedure would be used for the 

evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, as well as to 

determine compliance with the updated 

standards. As part of this proposal, DOE 

is announcing a webinar to collect 

comments and data on this proposal. 

DOE is seeking comment from 

interested parties on the proposal. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this proposal 

no later than November 1, 2021. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

details. DOE will hold a webinar on 

Tuesday, September 14, 2021, from 

10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, by email to the 

following address: 

ResClothesWasher2016TP0011@

ee.doe.gov. Include ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program: Test Procedures 

for Residential and Commercial Clothes 

Washers’’ and docket number EERE– 

2016–BT–TP–0011 and/or RIN number 

1904–AD95 in the subject line of the 

message. Submit electronic comments 

in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, 

or ASCII file format, and avoid the use 

of special characters or any form of 

encryption. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing corona virus 2019 

(‘‘COVID–19’’) pandemic. DOE is 

currently accepting only electronic 

submissions at this time. If a commenter 

finds that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the COVID–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

No telefacsimilies (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2016-BT-TP-0011. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586– 

0371. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the webinar, contact the Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

following standards into part 430. 

American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists (‘‘AATCC’’) Test 

Method 79–2010, ‘‘Absorbency of 

Textiles,’’ Revised 2010. 

AATCC Test Method 118–2007, ‘‘Oil 

Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance 

Test,’’ Revised 2007. 

AATCC Test Method 135–2010, 

‘‘Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after 

Home Laundering,’’ Revised 2010. 

Copies of AATCC test methods can be 

obtained from AATC, P.O. Box 12215, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 

549–3526, or by going to www.aatcc.org. 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) 62301, ‘‘Household 

electrical appliances—Measurement of 

standby power,’’ (Edition 2.0, 2011–01). 

Copies of IEC 62301 are available 

from the American National Standards 

Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, 

New York, NY 10036, (212) 642–4900, 

or by going to webstore.ansi.org. 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section IV.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. General Comments 

B. Scope of Coverage 

C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation 

1. Water Meter Resolution 

2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines 

3. Water Supply Temperatures 

4. Wash Water Temperature Measurement 

5. Pre-Conditioning Requirements 

D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct 

1. Tested Load Sizes 

2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the 

Proposed Load Sizes 

3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested 

Settings 

4. Remaining Moisture Content 

5. Cycle Time Measurement 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49141 

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). 

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. 

6. Capacity Measurement 

7. Anomalous Cycles 

8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 

9. Optional Cycle Modifiers 

10. Clothes Washers With Connected 

Functionality 

E. Metrics 

1. Replacing Capacity With WeightedAverage Load Size 

2. Inverting the Water Metric 

3. Annual Energy Use 

4. Representation Requirements 

F. Cleaning Performance 

G. Consumer Usage Assumptions 

1. Annual Number of Wash Cycles 

2. Drying Energy Assumptions 

3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions 

4. Temperature Usage Factors 

5. Load Usage Factors 

6. Water Heater Assumptions 

7. Commercial Clothes Washer Usage 

H. Clarifications 

1. Water Inlet Hose Length 

2. Water Fill Selection Availability 

3. Water Fill Control Systems 

4. Energy Test Cycle Flowcharts 

5. Wash Time Setting 

6. Annual Operating Cost Calculation 

7. Structure of the Proposed New 

Appendix J 

8. Proposed Deletions and Simplifications 

9. Typographical Errors 

I. Test Cloth Provisions 

1. Test Cloth Specification 

2. Consolidation to Appendix J3 

J. Product-Specific RMC Enforcement 

Provisions 

K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, 

and Other Topics 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards 

3. Other Test Procedure Topics 

L. Compliance Date and Waivers 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Consumer (residential) clothes 

washers (‘‘RCWs’’) are included in the 

list of ‘‘covered products’’ for which 

DOE is authorized to establish and 

amend energy conservation standards 

and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(7)) DOE’s energy conservation 

standards and test procedures for RCWs 

are currently prescribed at title 10 of the 

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

part 430 section 23(j), and subpart B 

appendices J1 (‘‘Appendix J1’’) and J2 

(‘‘Appendix J2’’). DOE also prescribes a 

test method for measuring the moisture 

absorption and retention characteristics 

of new lots of energy test cloth, which 

is used in testing clothes washers, at 

appendix J3 to subpart B (‘‘Appendix 

J3’’). Commercial clothes washers 

(‘‘CCWs’’) are included in the list of 

‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is 

authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) The 

test procedures for CCWs must be the 

same as those established for RCWs. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) The following 

sections discuss DOE’s authority to 

establish test procedures for RCWs and 

CCWs and relevant background 

information regarding DOE’s 

consideration of test procedures for 

these products and equipment. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, 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) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA 

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. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(7)) Title III, Part C3 of EPCA, 

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

section 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment. This equipment 

includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) 

Both RCWs and CCWs 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 must 

use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to 

DOE that their products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), and 

(2) making representations about the 

efficiency of those consumer products 

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

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

products and equipment comply with 

relevant standards promulgated under 

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

6316(a)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products and 

equipment established under EPCA 

generally supersede State laws and 

regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

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

grant waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

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

6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)) 

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 and equipment, 

respectively. EPCA requires that any test 

procedures prescribed or amended 

under this section be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

measure energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product or equipment during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and not be unduly 

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

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

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49142 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

4EPCA does not contain an analogous provision 

for commercial equipment. 

5 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011– 

01). 

6 IEC 62087, Methods of measurement for the 

power consumption of audio, video, and related 

equipment (Edition 3.0, 2011–04). 

7 DOE has historically provided a 75-day 

comment period for test procedure NOPRs, 

consistent with the comment period requirement 

for technical regulations in the North American 

Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico 

(‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993); the 

North American Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act, Public Law 103–182, 107 Stat. 

2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA Implementation Act’’); and 

Executive Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation of the 

North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ 58 FR 

69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, Congress repealed 

the NAFTA Implementation Act and has replaced 

NAFTA with the Agreement between the United 

States of America, the United Mexican States, and 

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

2018, 134 Stat. 11, thereby rendering E.O. 12889 

inoperable. Consequently, since the USMCA is 

consistent with EPCA’s public comment period 

requirements and normally requires only a 

minimum comment period of 60 days for technical 

regulations, DOE now provides a 60-day public 

comment period for test procedure NOPRs. 

8 In this NOPR, to distinguish different versions 

of each test method, DOE uses the following 

nomenclature: Appendix [letter]-[year of 

amendment]. For example, the original version of 

Appendix J is referred to as Appendix J–1977. The 

version as amended by the August 1997 Final Rule 

is referred to as Appendix J–1997, and so forth. 

9 In that rulemaking, DOE also adopted 

procedures to measure standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption into the energy efficiency 

metrics in the then-newly created Appendix J2. 

Manufacturers were not required to incorporate 

those changes until the compliance date of an 

amended standard. 77 FR 13887, 13932. Amended 

standards were then adopted through a direct final 

rule that required the use of Appendix J2 for RCWs 

manufactured on or after the 2015 compliance date. 

77 FR 32308, 32313 (May 31, 2012). The newly 

proposed Appendix J in this NOPR follows a 

similar approach because manufacturers would not 

be required to incorporate the amendments 

proposed in Appendix J until the compliance date 

of an amended standard. 

Standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption must be incorporated into 

the overall energy efficiency, energy 

consumption, or other energy descriptor 

for each covered product unless the 

current test procedures already account 

for and incorporate standby and off 

mode energy consumption or such 

integration is technically infeasible. If 

an integrated test procedure is 

technically infeasible, DOE must 

prescribe a separate standby mode and 

off mode energy use test procedure for 

the covered product, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) 4

Any such amendment must consider the 

most current versions of the IEC 

Standard 62301 5 and IEC Standard 

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

6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, including RCWs, 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)) 

If the Secretary determines, on his 

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. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) The 

comment period on a proposed rule to 

amend a test procedure shall be at least 

60 days and may not exceed 270 

days.7 Id. 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. Id. If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. 

EPCA requires the test procedures for 

CCWs to be the same as the test 

procedures established for RCWs. (42 

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

procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires 

that DOE evaluate, at least once every 7 

years, the test procedures for CCWs to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

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

DOE is publishing this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) in 

satisfaction of the 7-year review 

requirement specified in EPCA. (42 

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

U.S.C.6314(a)(1)) 

B. Background 

As discussed, DOE’s existing test 

procedures for clothes washers appear 

in Appendix J1, Appendix J2, and 

Appendix J3. 

DOE originally established its clothes 

washer test procedure, codified at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J 

(‘‘Appendix J’’),8 in a final rule 

published Sept. 28, 1977. 42 FR 49802 

(‘‘September 1977 Final Rule’’). Since 

that time, the test procedure has 

undergone several amendments that are 

relevant to this rulemaking, summarized 

as follows and described in additional 

detail in a request for information 

(‘‘RFI’’) that DOE published on May 22, 

2020. 85 FR 31065 (‘‘May 2020 RFI’’). 

DOE amended Appendix J in August 

1997 (62 FR 45484 (Aug. 27, 1997); 

‘‘August 1997 Final Rule’’) and January 

2001 (66 FR 3313 (Jan. 12, 2001); 

‘‘January 2001 Final Rule’’). The August 

1997 Final Rule also established an 

Appendix J1. 62 FR 45484. DOE 

amended Appendix J1 in the January 

2001 Final Rule (66 FR 3313) and in 

March 2012. 77 FR 13887 (Mar. 7, 2012) 

(‘‘March 2012 Final Rule’’). The March 

2012 Final Rule also established a new 

test procedure at Appendix J2 and 

removed the obsolete Appendix J–2001. 

Id.9

DOE most recently amended both 

Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 in a final 

rule published on August 5, 2015. 80 FR 

46729 (‘‘August 2015 Final Rule’’). The 

August 2015 Final Rule also moved the 

test cloth qualification procedures from 

Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 to the 

newly created Appendix J3. 80 FR 

46729, 46735. 

The current version of the test 

procedure at Appendix J2 includes 

provisions for determining modified 

energy factor (‘‘MEF’’) and integrated 

modified energy factor (‘‘IMEF’’) in 

cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle 

(‘‘ft3/kWh/cycle’’); and water factor 

(‘‘WF’’) and integrated water factor 

(‘‘IWF’’) in gallons per cycle per cubic 

feet (‘‘gal/cycle/ft3’’). RCWs 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2018, must meet current energy 

conservation standards, which are based 

on IMEF and IWF, determined using 

Appendix J2. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4); 10 

CFR 430.23(j)(2)(ii) and (4)(ii). CCWs 

manufactured after January 1, 2018 must 

meet current energy conservation 

standards, which are based on MEF and 

IWF, determined using Appendix J2. 10 

CFR 431.154 and 10 CFR 431.156(b). 

DOE published the May 2020 RFI to 

initiate an effort to determine whether 

to amend the current test procedures for 

clothes washers. 85 FR 31065. DOE 

requested comment on specific aspects 

of the current test procedure, including 

product definitions and configurations, 

testing conditions and instrumentation, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49143 

10The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop test procedures for 

clothes washers. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–TP– 

0011, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011). The references are 

arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment 

docket ID number, page of that document). 

11 Information regarding the ongoing RCW and 

CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings 

can be found at docket numbers EERE–2017–BT– 

STD–0014 and EERE–2019–BT–STD–0044, 

respectively. 

measurement methods, representative 

usage and efficiency factors, and metric 

definitions. 85 FR 31065, 31067–31082 

(May 22, 2020). In response to 

stakeholder requests, DOE re-opened the 

comment period for the May 2020 RFI. 

85 FR 38106 (June 25, 2020). 

On December 16, 2020, DOE 

established separate product classes for 

top-loading RCWs with a cycle time of 

less than 30 minutes and for frontloading RCWs with a cycle time of less 

than 45 minutes. 85 FR 81359 

(‘‘December 2020 Final Rule’’). DOE is 

re-evaluating the new short-cycle 

product classes in response to Executive 

Order 13900, ‘‘Protecting Public Health 

and the Environment and Restoring 

Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.’’ 

86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). In addition, 

stakeholders and interested parties filed 

multiple lawsuits challenging the 

December 2020 Final Rule, and DOE has 

received several petitions for 

reconsideration of the December 2020 

Final Rule. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the May 2020 RFI from the interested 

parties listed in Table I.1. 

TABLE I.1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO MAY 2020 RFI 

Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, National 

Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council.

Joint Commenters ......................... Efficiency Organizations. 

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

Electrolux Home Products ....................................................................... Electrolux ....................................... Manufacturer. 

GE Appliances ......................................................................................... GEA ............................................... Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ..................................................... NEEA ............................................. Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, San 

Diego Gas & Electric Company.

California Investor-Owned Utilities 

(‘‘CA IOUs’’).

Utilities. 

Samsung Electronics America ................................................................ Samsung ........................................ Manufacturer. 

Underwriters Laboratories ....................................................................... UL .................................................. Third-Party Test Laboratory. 

Whirlpool Corporation .............................................................................. Whirlpool ........................................ Manufacturer. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.10

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

update Appendix J2 as follows: 

(1) Further specify supply water 

temperature test conditions and water 

meter resolution requirements; 

(2) Add specifications for measuring 

wash water temperature using 

submersible data loggers; 

(3) Expand the load size table to 

accommodate clothes container 

capacities up to 8.0 cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’); 

(4) Define ‘‘user-adjustable automatic 

water fill control;’’ 

(5) Specify the applicability of the 

wash time setting for clothes washers 

with a range of wash time settings; 

(6) Specify how the energy test cycle 

flow charts apply to clothes washers 

that internally generate hot water; 

(7) Specify that the energy test cycle 

flow charts are to be evaluated using the 

Maximum load size; 

(8) Specify that testing is to be 

conducted with any network settings 

disabled if instructions are available to 

the user to disable these functions; 

(9) Further specify the conditions 

under which data from a test cycle 

would be discarded; 

(10) Add product-specific 

enforcement provisions to accommodate 

the potential for test cloth lot-to-lot 

variation in remaining moisture content 

(‘‘RMC’’); 

(11) Delete obsolete definitions, 

metrics, and the clothes washer-specific 

waiver section; and 

(12) Move additional test cloth related 

specifications to Appendix J3. 

In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing 

to update 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix J3, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Moisture Absorption and 

Retention Characteristics,’’ as follows: 

(1) Consolidate all test cloth-related 

provisions, including those proposed to 

be moved from Appendix J2; 

(2) Reorganize sections for improved 

readability; and 

(3) Codify the test cloth material 

verification procedure as used by 

industry. 

In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing 

to create a new appendix J to 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, ‘‘Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy 

Consumption of Automatic and SemiAutomatic Clothes Washers,’’ which 

would be used for the evaluation and 

issuance of any updated efficiency 

standards, as well as to determine 

compliance with the updated standards, 

should DOE determine that amended 

standards are warranted based on the 

criteria established by EPCA.11 The 

proposed new Appendix J would 

include the following additional 

provisions beyond those proposed as 

amendments to Appendix J2: 

(1) Modify the hot water supply target 

temperature and clothes washer preconditioning requirements; 

(2) Modify the Extra-Hot Wash 

threshold temperature; 

(3) Add measurement and calculation 

of average cycle time; 

(4) Reduce the number of required test 

cycles by requiring the use of no more 

than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

cycles, and no more than two Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse cycles; 

(5) Reduce the number of required test 

cycles by removing the need for one or 

more cycles used for measuring RMC; 

(6) Reduce the number of load sizes 

from three to two for units with 

automatic water fill controls; 

(7) Modify the load size definitions 

consistent with two, rather than three, 

load sizes; 

(8) Update the water fill levels to be 

used for testing to reflect the modified 

load size definitions; 

(9) Specify the installation of singleinlet clothes washers, and simplify the 

test procedure for semi-automatic 

clothes washers; 

(10) Define new performance metrics 

that are functions of the weightedaverage load size rather than clothes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49144 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

container capacity: ‘‘energy efficiency 

ratio,’’ ‘‘active-mode energy efficiency 

ratio,’’ and ‘‘water efficiency ratio;’’ 

(11) Update the number of annual 

clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; 

and 

(12) Update the number of hours 

assigned to low-power mode to be based 

on the clothes washer’s measured cycle 

time rather than an assumed fixed 

value. 

Finally, in this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing to remove Appendix J1 and to 

update the relevant sections of 10 CFR 

parts 429, 430 and 431 in accordance 

with the edits discussed previously, and 

to modify the product-specific 

enforcement provisions regarding the 

determination of RMC. 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the current test procedures as well as 

the reason for the proposed change. 

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

Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Attribution 

Specifies a water meter resolution of no larger than 

0.1 gallons.

Requires a water meter with a resolution no larger 

than 0.01 gallons if the hot water use is less than 

0.1 gallons, in Appendices J and J2.

Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Does not specify how to install clothes washers with 

a single inlet.

Specifies installing clothes washers with a single 

inlet to the cold water inlet, in Appendix J.

Provide further direction for 

unaddressed feature. 

Specifies a hot water supply temperature of 130– 

135 °F.

Specifies a hot water supply temperature of 120– 

125 °F, in Appendix J.

Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Defines the Extra-Hot Wash threshold as 135 °F ....... Specifies an Extra-Hot Wash threshold of 140 °F, in 

Appendix J.

Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Specifies a target water supply temperature at the 

high end of the water supply temperature range.

Removes the target water temperature specification, 

in Appendices J and J2.

Reduce test burden. 

Specifically allows the use of temperature indicating 

labels for measuring wash water temperature.

Adds specification for using a submersible temperature logger to measure wash water temperature, 

in Appendices J and J2.

Reduce test burden. 

Specifies different pre-conditioning requirements for 

water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers.

Requires the same pre-conditioning requirements 

for all clothes washers, in Appendix J.

Improve reproducibility of test results. 

Specifies the test load sizes for clothes container capacities up to 6.0 ft3.Specifies the test load sizes for clothes container 

capacities up to 8.0 ft3, in Appendices J and J2.

Response to waiver. 

Requires 3 tested load sizes on clothes washers with 

automatic water fill control systems.

Reduces the number of load sizes to test to 2, and 

specifies new load sizes, in Appendix J.

Reduce test burden. 

Defines load sizes for each 0.1 ft3 increment in 

clothes container capacity.

Redefines load sizes for each increment in clothes 

container capacity, consistent with reduction from 

3 to 2 load sizes, in Appendix J.

Maintain representativeness. 

Defines water fill levels to use with each tested load 

sizes on clothes washers with manual water fill 

control systems.

Changes the water fill levels consistent with the updated load sizes, in Appendix J.Maintain representativeness. 

Requires testing up to 3 Warm Wash temperature 

selections.

Requires testing a maximum of 2 Warm Wash temperature selections, in Appendix J.Reduce test burden. 

Specifies that the RMC is to be measured on separate cycle(s) from the energy test cycle.Specifies that the RMC is to be measured on all energy test cycles, in Appendix J.Reduce test burden, improve representativeness of test results. 

Provides product-specific enforcement provisions to 

address anomalous RMC results that are not representative of a basic model’s performance.

Provides additional product-specific enforcement 

provisions to accommodate differences in RMC 

values that may result from DOE using a different 

test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer 

for testing and certifying the basic model, for Appendices J and J2.

Accommodate potential source of 

variation in enforcement testing. 

Specifies that the starting weight of the test cloth 

may be up to 104 percent of bone-dry.

Requires that the test cloth be bone-dry at the start 

of every test cycle, in Appendix J.

Improve reproducibility of test results. 

Does not specify a measure of cycle time ................. Specifies provisions for measuring cycle time, in Appendix J.Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Specifies discarding data from a wash cycle that provides a visual or audio indicator to alert the user 

that an out-of-balance condition has been detected, or that terminates prematurely if an out-ofbalance condition is detected.

Specifies discarding the test data if during a wash 

cycle the clothes washer signals the user by 

means of a visual or audio alert that an out-ofbalance condition has been detected or terminates prematurely, in Appendices J and J2.

Response to test laboratory question. 

Does not explicitly state how to test semi-automatic 

clothes washers.

Provides explicit test provisions for testing semiautomatic clothes washers, in Appendix J.Provide further direction for 

unaddressed feature. 

Does not explicitly address the required configuration 

for network-connected functionality.

Specifies that clothes washers with connected 

functionality shall be tested with the network-connected functions disabled if such settings can be 

disabled by the end-user, and the product’s user 

manual provides instructions on how to do so, in 

Appendices J and J2.

Improve reproducibility of test results. 

Defines metrics that are dependent on capacity 

(IMEF, MEF, IWF).

Specifies new metrics that are dependent on the 

weighted-average load size, in Appendix J.

Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Estimates the number of annual use cycles for 

clothes washers as 295, based on the 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’) 

data.

Updates the estimate to 234 cycles per year, based 

on the latest available 2015 RECS data, in Appendix J.

Update with more recent consumer usage data. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49145 

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

Continued 

Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Attribution 

Estimates the number of hours spent in low-power 

mode as 8,465, based on 295 cycles per year and 

an assumed 1-hour cycle time.

Calculates the number of hours spent in low-power 

mode for each clothes washer based on 234 cycles per year and measured cycle time, in Appendix J.

Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Does not specify how to test a clothes washer that 

does not provide water inlet hoses.

Specifies using a water inlet hose length of no more 

than 72 inches, in Appendix J.

Response to test laboratory question. 

Does not provide an explicit definition for ‘‘user-adjustable automatic water fill controls’’ or ‘‘wash 

time’’.

Provides a definition for ‘‘user-adjustable automatic 

water fill controls,’’ in Appendix J and for ‘‘wash 

time,’’ in Appendices J and J2.

Improve readability. 

Specifies that user-adjustable automatic clothes 

washers must be tested with the water fill setting 

in the most or least energy-intensive setting without defining energy-intensive.

Changes the wording to specify selecting the setting 

based on the most, or least, amount of water 

used, in Appendices J and J2.

Response to test laboratory question. 

Does not specify on which load size to evaluate the 

energy test cycle flow charts.

Specifies evaluating the flow charts using the maximum load size for Appendix J2 and the large 

load size for Appendix J.

Response to test laboratory question, improve reproducibility of 

test results. 

Does not explicitly address how to evaluate the Cold/ 

Cold energy test cycle flow chart for clothes washers that internally generate hot water.

Explicitly addresses clothes washers that internally 

generate hot water, in Appendices J and J2.

Response to test laboratory question. 

Does not provide direction for all control panel styles 

on clothes washers that offer a range of wash time 

settings.

Clarifies how to test cycles with a range of wash 

time settings, in Appendices J and J2.

Improve readability. 

Includes test cloth verification specifications in Appendix J2.Moves all test cloth related provisions to Appendix 

J3.

Improve readability. 

Does not include all aspects of test cloth verification 

procedures performed by industry.

Codifies additional test cloth verification procedures 

performed by industry, in Appendix J3.

Codify industry practice. 

Contains obsolete provisions ...................................... Updates or deletes obsolete provisions, including 

Appendix J1 in its entirety.

Improve readability. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments to Appendix 

J2 and Appendix J3 described in section 

III of this document would not alter the 

measured efficiency of clothes washers, 

and that the proposed test procedures 

would not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments in the new 

Appendix J would alter the measured 

efficiency of clothes washers, in part 

because the amended test procedures 

would adopt a different energy 

efficiency metric and water efficiency 

metric than in the current test 

procedure. Because the proposed new 

Appendix J would be used for the 

evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, DOE is proposing 

that use of new Appendix J, if finalized, 

would not be required until the 

compliance date of any updated 

standards. Discussion of DOE’s 

proposed actions are addressed in detail 

in section III of this document. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

describes the proposed amendments to 

the test procedures for residential and 

commercial clothes washers. This NOPR 

includes issues identified in previous 

rulemakings and discusses additional 

issues that DOE has become aware of 

since the completion of the August 2015 

Final Rule. DOE seeks input from the 

public to assist with its consideration of 

the proposed amendments presented in 

this document. In addition, DOE 

welcomes comments on other relevant 

issues that may not specifically be 

identified in this document. 

A. General Comments 

DOE received a number of general 

comments from stakeholders, as 

summarized below. 

AHAM commented generally that no 

test can be considered ‘‘reasonably 

designed’’ under EPCA if the test is not 

accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. 

AHAM stated that test procedures with 

significant variation do not allow 

consumers to make informed purchase 

decisions based on energy use/ 

efficiency and do not adequately serve 

the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2) AHAM 

also claimed that as energy conservation 

standards become more stringent, 

minimizing variation in test procedure 

results becomes more important because 

of the need for manufacturers to 

conservatively rate their products. 

AHAM asserted that lack of uniform test 

results requires manufacturers to rate 

more conservatively, which effectively 

makes the standard more stringent in 

practice. Id. 

AHAM commented that the clothes 

washer test procedure is one of the most 

burdensome DOE test procedures for 

consumer appliances. AHAM provided 

an example that a full-featured clothes 

washer (one that includes manual and 

user-adjustable automatic water fill 

control systems (‘‘WFCS’’), a heater, 

four warm wash temperatures, warm 

rinse, and selectable spin speeds) could 

require more than 70 test cycles per unit 

under Appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 5 at 

pp. 4–5) GEA similarly commented that 

DOE should work to reduce test burden 

for full-featured clothes washers, stating 

that requiring 70 individual cycles for a 

single test of certain clothes washers 

demonstrates that the clothes washer 

test procedure has become overly 

complicated and fails to fulfill the 

representativeness requirement under 

the EPCA. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

AHAM requested that if DOE 

implements any changes that will 

significantly impact measured energy, 

DOE should require compliance with 

the revised test procedure on the same 

date as the next amended energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

washers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 16) 

Electrolux, GEA, and Whirlpool 

support AHAM’s comments to the RFI. 

(Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 1; GEA, No. 13 

at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 7 at p. 1) GEA 

incorporates them into its own 

comments by reference. (GEA, No. 13 at 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49146 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

p. 1) Whirlpool further supports a 

reasonable balancing of the DOE test 

procedure, considering repeatability, 

reproducibility, representativeness, and 

testing burden. (Whirlpool, No. 7 at p. 

1) 

As stated, 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 or equipment during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and not be unduly 

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

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

described in this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing a number of changes to be 

implemented in a proposed new 

Appendix J that DOE has tentatively 

concluded would significantly reduce 

test burden while maintaining or 

improving the representativeness of test 

results. In addition, both the 

amendments to Appendix J2 and the 

proposed new Appendix J are intended 

to further improve the repeatability and 

reproducibility of test results, as 

described in the relevant sections of this 

document. 

DOE is proposing to establish a new 

test procedure at a new Appendix J at 

10 CFR part 430 subpart B. Any changes 

to the test procedure that would impact 

measured efficiency would be provided 

in this proposed new Appendix J, which 

DOE would use for the evaluation and 

issuance of updated efficiency 

standards. Therefore, DOE is proposing 

that use of new Appendix J would not 

be required until the compliance date of 

any updated standards that are based on 

new Appendix J. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(C)). DOE also proposes to 

state in the introductory text to both 

Appendix J2 and the proposed new 

Appendix J that Appendix J2 is required 

to determine compliance with energy 

conservation standards until any such 

amended standards are adopted. 

B. Scope of Coverage 

This NOPR covers those consumer 

products that meet the definition of 

‘‘clothes washer,’’ as codified at 10 CFR 

430.2. 

EPCA does not define the term 

‘‘clothes washer.’’ 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, semi-automatic clothes 

washers, and other clothes washers. 10 

CFR 430.2. 

An ‘‘automatic clothes washer’’ is a 

class of clothes washer that has a 

control system that is capable of 

scheduling a preselected combination of 

operations, such as regulation of water 

temperature, regulation of the water fill 

level, and performance of wash, rinse, 

drain, and spin functions without the 

need for user intervention subsequent to 

the initiation of machine operation. 

Some models may require user 

intervention to initiate these different 

segments of the cycle after the machine 

has begun operation, but they do not 

require the user to intervene to regulate 

the water temperature by adjusting the 

external water faucet valves. Id. 

A ‘‘semi-automatic clothes washer’’ is 

a class of clothes washer that is the 

same as an automatic clothes washer 

except that user intervention is required 

to regulate the water temperature by 

adjusting the external water faucet 

valves. Id. 

‘‘Other clothes washer’’ means a class 

of clothes washer that is not an 

automatic or semi-automatic clothes 

washer. Id. 

This NOPR also covers commercial 

equipment that meets the definition of 

‘‘commercial clothes washer.’’ 

‘‘Commercial clothes washer’’ is defined 

as a soft-mount front-loading or softmount top-loading clothes washer 

that— 

(A) Has a clothes container compartment 

that— 

(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is 

not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and 

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

more than 4.0 cubic feet; and 

(B) Is designed for use in— 

(i) Applications in which the occupants of 

more than one household will be using the 

clothes washer, such as multi-family housing 

common areas and coin laundries; or 

(ii) Other commercial applications. 

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

DOE is not proposing any changes to 

the scope of products and equipment 

covered by its clothes washer test 

procedures, or to the relevant 

definitions. 

C. Testing Conditions and 

Instrumentation 

1. Water Meter Resolution 

Section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 requires 

the use of water meters (in the hot and 

cold water lines) with a resolution no 

larger than 0.1 gallons and a maximum 

error no greater than 2 percent of the 

measured flow rate. DOE has observed 

that some clothes washers use very 

small amounts of hot water on some 

temperature selections, on the order of 

0.1 gallons or less. 85 FR 31065, 31069. 

For example, some clothes washers have 

both Cold and Tap Cold temperature 

selections, and the Cold selection may 

use a fraction of a gallon of hot water. 

85 FR 31065, 31070. DOE believes that 

Appendix J2 may not provide the 

necessary resolution to accurately and 

precisely measure the hot water usage of 

such temperature selections. Id. In the 

May 2020 RFI, DOE requested input on 

whether to amend section 2.5.5 of 

Appendix J2 to require that water 

meters must have a resolution more 

precise than 0.1 gallons. Id. 

The Joint Commenters encouraged 

DOE to require a water meter with 

greater precision than that of the current 

specification to ensure that the test 

procedures are accurately representing 

energy use. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at 

p. 3) 

AHAM commented that requiring 

more precise water meters could 

provide a benefit by increasing the 

accuracy of the measurements but could 

also increase the burden due to the cost 

of obtaining these meters that could 

become overly burdensome. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 7) 

GEA supported moving to a 0.01- 

gallon resolution for water meters. GEA 

stated that it uses water meters with this 

resolution and has encountered 

reproducibility issues when using a 

water meter with only 0.1-gallon 

resolution. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Whirlpool commented that requiring 

a more precise water meter is not 

justified. Whirlpool estimates that a 

manufacturer without these meters 

installed could face a cost of over 

$100,000 to purchase and install them, 

and cautioned that the need for a more 

precise water meter needs to be 

balanced with the cost burden. 

(Whirlpool, No. 7 at p. 1) 

DOE has identified clothes washers 

on the market that use less than 0.1 

gallons of hot water on certain 

temperature selections or load sizes 

required for testing. In DOE’s experience 

with such clothes washers, the 

maximum load size typically uses more 

than 0.1 gallons of hot water on each of 

the available temperature selections 

(providing indication of which 

temperature selections use hot water), 

whereas the average and minimum load 

sizes may use a quantity less than 0.1 

gallons. For these clothes washers, the 

existing water meter resolution of 0.1 

gallons is insufficient to provide an 

accurate measurement of hot water 

consumption, i.e., the volume of hot 

water measured is less than the 

resolution of the water meter. To 

improve the representativeness of the 

water measurement, DOE is proposing a 

requirement to use a water meter with 

greater precision for clothes washers 

that use less than 0.1 gallons of hot 

water. DOE’s testing suggests that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49147 

12As noted, some models may provide or 

accommodate a Y-shaped hose to connect the 

separate cold and hot water faucets or supply lines. 

clothes washers that use such low 

volumes of heated water represent a 

minority of units on the market. 

Requiring greater water meter precision 

for all clothes washers would represent 

an undue burden for those clothes 

washer models for which water meters 

with the currently required level of 

precision provide representative results. 

DOE is therefore proposing that the hot 

water meter must have a resolution no 

larger than 0.01 gallons only for clothes 

washers with hot water usage less than 

0.1 gallons in any of the individual 

cycles within the energy test cycle. All 

other clothes washers may continue to 

be tested using a water meter with a 

resolution no larger than 0.1 gallons. As 

noted by GEA’s comment, some 

manufacturers may already be using 

water meters with this greater 

resolution, and DOE’s experience 

working with third-party laboratories 

indicates that at least some third-party 

laboratories already use water meters 

with this greater resolution. 

DOE is proposing to include in 

section 2.5.5 of both the proposed new 

Appendix J and Appendix J2 the 

following specification: ‘‘If the volume 

of hot water for any individual cycle 

within the energy test cycle is less than 

0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot water 

meter must have a resolution no larger 

than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters).’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require a hot water meter 

resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons for 

clothes washers that use less than 0.1 

gallons in any of the individual cycles 

within the energy test cycle. DOE 

requests comment on the extent to 

which manufacturers and test 

laboratories already use water meters 

with this greater resolution. DOE also 

requests comment on whether 

proposing this requirement for 

Appendix J2 would require 

manufacturers to retest any basic 

models that have already been certified 

under the existing water meter 

resolution requirements. 

2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines 

Section 2.10 of Appendix J2 provides 

specifications for installing a clothes 

washer, referencing both the hot water 

and cold water inlets. Additionally, 

section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 specifies 

that a water meter must be installed in 

both the hot and cold water lines. DOE 

is aware of RCWs on the market that 

have a single water inlet rather than 

separate hot and cold water inlets. 85 

FR 31065, 31070. DOE has observed two 

types of single-inlet RCWs: (1) Semiautomatic clothes washers, which are 

generally intended to be connected to a 

kitchen or bathroom faucet and which 

require user intervention to regulate the 

water temperature by adjusting the 

external water faucet valves; and (2) 

automatic clothes washers intended to 

be connected only to a cold water inlet, 

and which regulate the water 

temperature through the use of an 

internal heating element to generate any 

hot water used during the cycle. Id. 

DOE stated in the May 2020 RFI that 

it understood that a ‘‘Y’’-shaped hose or 

other similar device may be provided by 

the manufacturer on some automatic 

models to allow separate cold and hot 

water supply lines to be connected to 

the single inlet on the unit; however, 

other models may not include such a 

connector. Id. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

inadvertently attributed the use of a Yshaped hose to automatic single-inlet 

clothes washers (emphasis added)— 

rather, DOE intended to describe that 

semi-automatic single-inlet clothes 

washers may provide or accommodate 

the use of a Y-shaped hose, based on its 

experience with testing semi-automatic 

clothes washers. 

For single-inlet semi-automatic 

clothes washers (i.e., the first example 

described previously), DOE has 

observed that these clothes washers are 

most often designed to be connected to 

a kitchen or bathroom faucet, with a 

single hose connecting the faucet to the 

single inlet on the clothes washer (i.e., 

both cold and hot water are supplied to 

the clothes washer through a single 

hose).12 The user regulates the water 

temperature externally by adjusting the 

faucet(s) to provide cold, warm, or hot 

water temperatures for the wash and 

rinse portions of the cycle. 

Section 3.2.3.2 of Appendix J2 

provides setup instructions for semiautomatic clothes washers regarding the 

configuration of both cold and hot water 

faucets during testing. Specifically, the 

test procedure specifies that to obtain a 

hot inlet water temperature, open the 

hot water faucet completely and close 

the cold water faucet; for a warm inlet 

water temperature, open both hot and 

cold water faucets completely; and for a 

cold inlet water temperature, close the 

hot water faucet and open the cold 

water faucet completely. In the 

laboratory setup defined by section 2.2 

of Appendix J2, the cold and hot water 

supplies are provided as separate 

hookups, in contrast to most faucets in 

residential settings, in which the cold 

and hot water supply lines combine 

internally within the faucet into a single 

output. Thus, the instructions in section 

3.2.3.2 of Appendix J2 can be conducted 

only for either a semi-automatic clothes 

washer with both hot and cold water 

inlets (of which no such models are 

currently on the market, according to 

DOE research), or a single-inlet semiautomatic clothes washer installed with 

a Y-shaped hose or other similar device 

that combines the cold and hot water 

supply lines to connect to the single 

inlet on the unit (simulating most 

residential faucets, which combine the 

cold and hot water supply lines 

internally, as described). Appendix J2 

does not, however, explicitly prescribe 

the use of a Y-shaped hose. 

As described in the May 2020 RFI, 

without the use of a Y-shaped hose, 

connecting a single-inlet semi-automatic 

clothes washer to only a single water 

supply would limit the available water 

temperature to either 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit (‘‘°F’’) (provided by the cold 

water supply) or 135 °F (provided by the 

hot water supply), based on the supply 

water specifications currently provided 

in section 2.2 of Appendix J2. 85 FR 

31065, 31070. In effect, only Cold Wash/ 

Cold Rinse or Hot Wash/Hot Rinse 

could be tested with a single-hose 

installation. Id. As noted, Appendix J2 

does not provide explicit direction on 

how to connect a single-inlet semiautomatic clothes washer to enable 

testing at other wash/rinse 

temperatures. Id. Therefore, DOE 

requested information on whether and 

how consumers using this type of 

clothes washer adjust their water 

temperature for the wash and rinse 

portions of the cycle and requested 

comments, data, and information on the 

typical connection and representative 

average use of single-inlet semiautomatic clothes washers. 

Additionally, DOE requested 

information on how manufacturers are 

currently testing single-inlet semiautomatic clothes washers under 

Appendix J2. Id. 

No comments were received regarding 

installation or testing of single-inlet 

semi-automatic clothes washers. 

Based on the previous discussion, 

DOE maintains that additional direction 

in the test procedure is warranted for 

single-inlet semi-automatic clothes 

washers to produce test results that 

reflect representative consumer usage of 

cold, warm, and hot wash/rinse 

temperatures. DOE considered three 

potential changes to address the 

installation of single-inlet semiautomatic clothes washers: (1) Require 

the use of a Y-shaped hose, which 

would be used to connect the single 

inlet of the clothes washer to both the 

cold and hot water supply connections; 

(2) connect the single inlet of the clothes 

washer to a single water supply 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49148 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

13Section 2.3 of Appendix J2 specifies 

maintaining water pressure of 35 pounds per square 

inch gauge (‘‘psig’’) ± 2.5 psig on both the cold and 

hot water supply lines. These tolerances could 

result in a pressure difference of up to 5 psig 

between the two lines. 

14Measured characteristics of a semi-automatic 

clothes washer cycle include total water 

consumption, electrical energy consumption, cycle 

time, and bone-dry and cycle complete load 

weights. See section III.D.8.b of this document for 

more details. 

15 DOE’s certification compliance database is 

available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/CCMS-4-Clothes_Washers.html. DOE 

identified the following single-inlet automatic 

models: WFW3090J**, WFW5090J**, 

WFC8090G**. Analysis conducted in March 2021. 

16For example, water-heating clothes washers or 

clothes washers with thermostatically controlled 

water valves. 

connection with a non-fixed 

temperature output that can be 

nominally set to 60 °F (for cold), 97.5 °F 

(for warm), or 135 °F (for hot), for 

example; or (3) require connection to 

only the cold water supply, enabling 

testing of only the Cold/Cold wash/rinse 

temperature, and calculate the energy 

and water performance at other wash/ 

rinse temperatures formulaically from 

the Cold/Cold cycle data. As discussed 

in detail in the following paragraphs, 

DOE is proposing to adopt option 3 in 

this NOPR. 

Regarding option 1, requiring the use 

of a Y-shaped hose would provide a 

simple and low-cost approach for 

testing of cold, warm, and hot wash/ 

rinse temperatures on single-inlet semiautomatic clothes washers. The Yshaped hose would mimic the 

functionality provided by most 

residential faucets, and thus would 

provide a representative installation 

setup. However, by connecting the cold 

and hot lines to each other, differences 

in water pressure 13 between the two 

sides can result in unequal and 

unrepeatable water flow rates through 

the cold and hot sides. 

Regarding option 2, (requiring a nonfixed temperature supply line that can 

be set to the specified cold, warm, or hot 

temperature), DOE tentatively concludes 

that such a requirement could present 

undue test burden on laboratories that 

do not currently implement variabletemperature supply water controls and 

instrumentation, given the relatively 

low number of single-inlet semiautomatic models on the market that 

would be tested each year. In addition, 

because temperature sensors are 

typically calibrated around the target 

temperature being measured, varying 

the temperature of the supply line 

between 60 °F and 120 °F could result in 

less accurate inlet water temperature 

measurements. 

Regarding option 3, (connecting to the 

cold water inlet only, testing only on the 

Cold/Cold cycle, and determining 

performance at other temperatures 

numerically), as discussed further in 

section III.D.8.b of this document, 

energy and water performance at 

temperatures other than Cold Wash/ 

Cold Rinse can be calculated 

numerically using test data from the 

Cold/Cold cycle because the measured 

characteristics 14 of a semi-automatic 

clothes washer cycle do not depend on 

the inlet water temperature. Therefore, 

DOE tentatively concludes that 

representative test results can be 

obtained with a minimal number of test 

cycles using this approach, which DOE 

proposes to incorporate into the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE is proposing in this NOPR to 

make this change only in the proposed 

new Appendix J because connecting to 

only the cold water inlet may differ 

from how such units are currently being 

tested by manufacturers and laboratories 

under Appendix J2. DOE seeks 

information about implementing this 

change to Appendix J2 as well, 

specifically regarding how single-inlet 

semi-automatic clothes washers are 

being tested and any potential impact 

on the measured energy use of these 

clothes washers on the market. 

See section III.D.8 of this document 

for a full discussion of other proposed 

edits to testing provisions for semiautomatic clothes washers and a list of 

related issues on which DOE seeks 

comment. 

For a single-inlet automatic clothes 

washer, DOE discussed in the May 2020 

RFI the use of a Y-shaped hose to allow 

both cold and hot water supply lines to 

be connected to the single inlet on the 

unit. 85 FR 31065, 31070 (emphasis 

added). DOE requested comments or 

information on how single-inlet 

automatic clothes washers are typically 

installed by consumers. Id. 

AHAM commented that it is not 

aware of a Y-shaped hose connecter 

being used for typical installation of 

single-inlet automatic clothes washers. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7) 

As described previously, DOE 

inadvertently attributed the use of a Yshaped hose to automatic, rather than 

semi-automatic, single-inlet clothes 

washers. DOE is not aware of any singleinlet automatic clothes washers that 

require the use of a Y-shaped hose 

connector because such clothes washers 

internally generate any hot water 

needed for the cycle. Based on a review 

of models currently certified in DOE’s 

compliance certification database, DOE 

is aware of three models of single-inlet 

automatic clothes washers currently 

available on the market.15 DOE’s 

examination of user manuals for each of 

these single-inlet automatic clothes 

washers indicates that the instructions 

accompanying these products direct that 

they be connected to the cold water 

supply. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing in this 

NOPR to specify that all single-inlet 

automatic clothes washers be installed 

to the cold water supply only. As 

discussed above, DOE is proposing to 

include this provision in the proposed 

new Appendix J only. The proposed 

edit would specify in section 2.10.1 of 

the proposed new Appendix J that if the 

clothes washer has only one water inlet, 

connect the inlet to the cold water 

supply in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require all single-inlet 

clothes washers to be installed to the 

cold water supply only. DOE also 

requests comment on whether this 

requirement should be included in only 

the proposed new Appendix J, or 

whether, if adopted, it should be 

included as an amendment to Appendix 

J2. 

3. Water Supply Temperatures 

a. Hot Water Supply Temperature 

Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 requires 

maintaining the hot water supply 

temperature between 130 °F (54.4 

degrees Celsius (‘‘°C’’)) and 135 °F (57.2 

°C), using 135 °F as the target 

temperature. 

DOE has revised the hot water supply 

temperature requirements several times 

throughout the history of the clothes 

washer test procedures to remain 

representative of household water 

temperatures at the time of each 

analysis. When establishing the original 

clothes washer test procedure at 

Appendix J in 1977, DOE specified a hot 

water supply temperature of 140 °F ± 

5 °F for clothes washers equipped with 

thermostatically controlled inlet water 

valves. 42 FR 49802, 49808. In the 

August 1997 Final Rule, DOE specified 

in Appendix J1 that for clothes washers 

in which electrical energy consumption 

or water energy consumption is affected 

by the inlet water temperatures,16 the 

hot water supply temperature cannot 

exceed 135 °F (57.2 °C); and for other 

clothes washers, the hot water supply 

temperature is to be maintained at 

135 °F ±5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C). 62 FR 

45484, 45497. DOE maintained these 

same requirements in the original 

version of Appendix J2. In the August 

2015 Final Rule, DOE adjusted the 

allowable tolerance of the hot water 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49149 

17Lutz, JD, Renaldi, Lekov A, Qin Y, and Melody 

M, ‘‘Hot Water Draw Patterns in Single Family 

Houses: Findings from Field Studies,’’ LBNL Report number LBNL–4830E (May 2011). Available at 

www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2k24v1kj. 

supply temperature in section 2.2 of 

Appendix J2 to between 130 °F (54.4 °C) 

and 135 °F (57.2 °C) for all clothes 

washers, but maintained 135 °F as the 

target temperature. 80 FR 46729, 46734– 

46735. 

DOE analyzed household water 

temperatures as part of the test 

procedure final rule for residential and 

commercial water heaters published 

July 11, 2014. 79 FR 40541 (‘‘July 2014 

Water Heater Final Rule’’). In the July 

2014 Water Heater Final Rule, DOE 

revised the hot water delivery 

temperature from 135 °F to 125 °F based 

on an analysis of data showing that the 

average set point temperature for 

consumer water heaters in the field is 

124.2 °F (51.2 °C), which was rounded 

to the nearest 5 °F, resulting in a test set 

point temperature of 125 °F. 79 FR 

40541, 40554. Additionally, a 2011 

compilation of field data across the 

United States and southern Ontario by 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(‘‘LBNL’’) 17 found a median daily outlet 

water temperature of 122.7 °F (50.4 °C). 

Id. Further, DOE noted in the July 2014 

Water Heater Final Rule that water 

heaters are commonly set with 

temperatures in the range of 120 °F to 

125 °F. Id. 

Additionally, DOE’s consumer 

dishwasher test procedure, codified at 

10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix C1 

(‘‘Appendix C1’’), specifies a hot water 

supply temperature of 120 °F ± 2 °F for 

water-heating dishwashers designed for 

heating water with a nominal inlet 

temperature of 120 °F, which includes 

nearly all consumer dishwashers 

currently on the U.S. market. Section 

2.3.2 of Appendix C1. This water supply 

temperature is intended to be 

representative of household hot water 

temperatures. 

Table III.1 summarizes the various hot 

water temperature data considered for 

the present rulemaking. 

TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF FIELD SURVEYS OF WATER HEATER TEMPERATURE

Source Description Temperature 

(°F) 

May 2011 LBNL Report ............................ Median daily outlet water temperature ........................................................................ 122.7 

July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule .......... Average set point temperature for consumer water heaters in the field ..................... 124.2 

July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule .......... Common water heater setpoints .................................................................................. 120–125 

Appendix C1 ............................................. Dishwasher test procedure supply temperature .......................................................... 120 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comments on whether DOE should 

consider updating the hot water supply 

temperature specification for the clothes 

washer test procedures to be within the 

range of 120 °F to 125 °F, providing 

better consistency with DOE’s test 

procedures for dishwashers and 

consumer water heaters. 85 FR 31065, 

31069. 

AHAM suggested that product design 

changes may be required if DOE amends 

the clothes washer test procedures to 

harmonize the hot water supply 

temperature with the dishwasher test 

procedure. AHAM stated that changing 

the hot water supply temperature 

specification would impact measured 

efficiency, and DOE would thus need to 

address that change in the 

accompanying standards rulemaking. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 6) 

GEA stated that there is little benefit 

to consumers by moving the target 

temperature to 120 °F. If DOE does 

change the target temperature, GEA is 

concerned about the change in 

measured hot water energy usage. (GEA, 

No. 13 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs recommended keeping 

the target temperature at 135 °F to 

prevent the growth of Legionella 

bacteria. The CA IOUs referenced the 

American Society of Sanitary 

Engineering (‘‘ASSE’’) Scald Awareness 

Task Group and Unified Plumbing Code 

(‘‘UPC’’) recommendations that hot 

water temperature should be 130–140 °F 

to eliminate the risk of Legionella 

growth. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 14–15) 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

DOE should consider changing the 

target temperature to 120 °F, because 

120 °F is the hot water supply 

temperature for the consumer 

dishwasher test procedure and is a 

common water heater set point. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3) However, 

the Joint Commenters also stated that 

the 135 °F target temperature may be 

appropriate to maintain as average set 

points increase in the field due to 

Legionella concerns. The Joint 

Commenters encouraged DOE to 

investigate which hot water supply 

temperature would be most 

representative. Id. 

UL supports specifying the hot water 

supply temperature to be consistent 

with hot water heater outlet 

temperatures, as supported by field 

data. (UL, No. 9 at p. 1) 

Samsung recommended that DOE 

specify a hot water supply temperature 

of 120 ± 2 °F, consistent with the 

temperature specified in the consumer 

dishwasher test procedure. Samsung 

also commented that the U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

recommends this temperature to 

consumers as the safest set point for 

water heaters to avoid scalds. (Samsung, 

No. 6 at p. 3) 

NEEA encouraged DOE to investigate 

the hot water supply temperature that 

would be most representative of field 

use. NEEA added that water heater set 

points may increase closer to the 

Appendix J2-specified 135 °F in the 

future, due to concerns about Legionella 

bacteria growth. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 26) 

NEEA also recommended that DOE 

consider heat losses in the pipes and 

static water in the supply line in the 

field, which are likely to lower clothes 

washer inlet hot temperatures relative to 

water heater set points. Id. 

Based on the analysis of recent water 

temperature data summarized in Table 

III.1, DOE is proposing to update the hot 

water supply temperature in the 

proposed new Appendix J from 130– 

135 °F to 120–125 °F. DOE preliminarily 

concludes that an inlet temperature of 

120–125 °F is more representative of 

consumer hot water temperatures than 

the range of 130–135 °F currently 

specified in Appendix J2. 

In addition, section 4.1.2 of Appendix 

J2 calculates the hot water energy 

consumption for each tested load size, 

by multiplying the hot water 

consumption for each tested load size, 

by ‘‘T,’’ the temperature rise, and by 

‘‘K,’’ the specific heat of water. In 

Appendix J2, T is defined as 75 °F, 

which represents the nominal difference 

between the hot and cold water inlet 

temperatures. In this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing to use a value for T of 65 °F 

in the proposed new Appendix J, 

consistent with the differential between 

the nominal values for the proposed hot 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49150 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

18See comment number 22 in Docket number 

EERE–2011–BT–TP–0042. Available at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE–2011–BT–TP– 

0042. 

19ASHRAE Guideline 12, ‘‘Minimizing the Risk 

of Legionellosis Associated with Building Water 

Systems,’’ states that the temperature range most 

favorable for amplification of legionellae bacteria is 

77¥108 °F (25¥42 °C) and recommends that when 

practical, hot water should be stored at 

temperatures of 120 °F (49 °C) or above. The 

guideline states that hot water should be stored 

above 140 °F (60 °C) for high-risk settings such as 

in health care facilities and nursing homes. For 

more information visit: www.ashrae.org. 

20Section 1.25 of Appendix J2 defines the Normal 

cycle as the cycle recommended by the 

manufacturer (considering manufacturer 

instructions, control panel labeling, and other 

markings on the clothes washer) for normal, regular, 

or typical use for washing up to a full load of 

normally-soiled cotton clothing. For machines 

where multiple cycle settings are recommended by 

the manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use 

for washing up to a full load of normally-soiled 

cotton clothing, then the Normal cycle is the cycle 

selection that results in the lowest IMEF or MEF 

value. 

21 DOE analyzed test data from 2 top-loading and 

15 front-loading models representing 7 different 

manufacturers and 9 different brands. 

22World Health Organization. ‘‘Boil Water.’’ 

Available at: www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/ 

dwq/Boiling_water_01_15.pdf. 

23National Health Service. ‘‘Can clothes and 

towels spread germs?’’ Available at: www.nhs.uk/ 

common-health-questions/infections/can-clothesand-towels-spread-germs/. 

water supply temperature (120–125 °F) 

and the cold water supply temperature 

(55–60 °F). 

DOE agrees with AHAM and GEA that 

changing the hot water supply 

temperature would likely impact 

measured efficiency because hot water 

energy consumption is a significant 

component in the calculation of the 

IMEF metric. As a result, DOE is 

proposing to update the hot water 

supply temperature only in the 

proposed new Appendix J and not in 

existing Appendix J2. Therefore, DOE’s 

proposal would not affect the measured 

efficiency of clothes washers currently 

tested using Appendix J2. The ongoing 

RCW and CCW energy conservation 

standards rulemakings would consider 

the impact of this proposed 

modification to the hot water supply 

temperature on measured efficiency. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the hot water supply 

temperature for the proposed new 

Appendix J from 130–135 °F to 120– 

125 °F. DOE seeks more recent data on 

hot water supply temperatures in 

consumer clothes washer installations. 

DOE also requests comment on any 

potential impact to testing costs that 

may occur by harmonizing temperatures 

between the clothes washer and 

dishwasher test procedures, and the 

impacts on manufacturer burden 

associated with any changes to the hot 

water supply temperature. 

In the NOPR preceding the July 2014 

Water Heater Final Rule, DOE cited a 

comment from Applied Energy 

Technology,18 which stated that water 

temperatures in the range of 120 °F are 

adequate to prevent Legionella growth 

as long as the water is maintained at a 

temperature ‘‘high enough, long enough, 

and often enough.’’ 78 FR 66202, 66219 

(Nov. 4, 2013). In that NOPR, DOE also 

cited the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) guideline 19

which states that hot water should be 

stored above 140 °F only for high-risk 

applications (such as health-care 

facilities and nursing homes). 78 FR 

66202, 66218 (Nov. 4, 2013). Moreover, 

the specification of hot water supply 

temperature in the clothes washer test 

procedure is intended to be 

representative of consumer clothes 

washer installations, as supported by 

the data described previously. The 

target temperature defined in the clothes 

washer test procedure does not and 

would not introduce any regulatory 

requirement on water heater 

manufacturers, installers, or consumers 

regarding the set point temperature that 

can be chosen for any individual water 

heater installation. 

b. Extra-Hot Wash Determination 

Clothes washers are tested using an 

energy test cycle that is comprised of 

certain cycles taking into consideration 

all cycle settings available to the end 

user. Section 2.12 of Appendix J2. 

Figure 2.12.5 of Appendix J2 specifies 

that for the energy test cycle to include 

an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, the 

clothes washer must have an internal 

heater and the Normal cycle 20 must, in 

part, contain a wash/rinse temperature 

selection that has a wash temperature 

greater than 135 °F. The 135 °F threshold 

matches the current hot water inlet 

target temperature, as specified in 

section 2.2 of Appendix J2. 

DOE has revised the Extra-Hot wash 

temperature parameters previously. In 

the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE 

changed the minimum hot water supply 

temperature from 140 °F in Appendix J– 

1977 to 135 °F in Appendix J1–1997, 

and also revised the threshold 

temperature for Extra-Hot Wash from 

140 °F to 135 °F accordingly. 62 FR 

45484, 45497. As noted, Appendix J2 

retains this threshold temperature of 

135 °F for Extra-Hot Wash. 

As described previously, DOE is 

proposing to update the hot water inlet 

temperature from 135 °F to 125 °F (see 

section III.C.3.a of this document). This 

proposed change to the hot water inlet 

temperature prompted DOE to reassess 

the threshold temperature for the ExtraHot wash temperature. Because the 

inclusion of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse in the energy test cycle requires 

the clothes washer to have an internal 

heater, the threshold temperature is not 

limited to the input temperature. 

DOE testing of a broad range of 

clothes washers 21 indicates that over 70 

percent of Extra-Hot cycles have a wash 

water temperature that exceeds 140 °F, 

despite the threshold temperature for 

Extra-Hot Wash changing to 135 °F in 

the August 1997 Final Rule. 

Furthermore, DOE research indicates 

that 140 °F is widely cited as a threshold 

for achieving sanitization by 

organizations including the World 

Health Organization and the United 

Kingdom’s National Health Service.22 23

Based on DOE’s data indicating that a 

majority of existing Extra-Hot cycles 

have wash water temperatures that 

exceed 140 °F, and based on the cited 

reports finding that washing textiles at 

140 °F is an accepted sanitation 

threshold, DOE proposes specifying the 

Extra-Hot Wash threshold as 140 °F. 

Based on the research described above, 

DOE preliminarily concludes that a 

temperature threshold of 140 °F would 

align with 140 °F as an accepted 

temperature threshold for sanitization, 

and therefore may be more 

representative of consumer expectations 

and usage of the Extra-Hot Wash cycle, 

than the current 135 °F threshold. 

In addition to improving 

representativeness, changing the ExtraHot Wash temperature threshold to 

140 °F could potentially reduce test 

burden. As discussed more fully in 

section III.C.4 of this document, a 

threshold of 140 °F would enable easier 

confirmation that an Extra-Hot 

temperature has been achieved when 

measuring wash temperature with nonreversible temperature indicator labels, 

as permitted by section 3.3 of Appendix 

J2. Temperature indicator labels are 

widely available with a 140 °F indicator, 

whereas DOE is not aware of any 

commercially available temperature 

indicator labels that provide a 135 °F 

indicator. 

In summary, DOE is proposing to 

specify in the proposed new Appendix 

J that the minimum temperature 

threshold for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse is 140 °F. This change would be 

reflected in the proposed Extra Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart in section 

2.12 of the proposed new Appendix J as 

well as any references to this 

temperature threshold elsewhere 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49151 

throughout the proposed new Appendix 

J. 

DOE recognizes that for the 30 percent 

of units with Extra-Hot Wash 

temperatures that do not exceed 140 °F, 

DOE’s proposal to change the Extra-Hot 

Wash definition may impact measured 

efficiency. Therefore, in this NOPR, 

DOE is proposing to include the 

amended Extra-Hot Wash temperature 

parameter only in the proposed new 

Appendix J and not in existing 

Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and 

CCW energy conservation standards 

rulemakings would consider the impact 

of any modifications to the Extra-Hot 

Wash definition on measured efficiency. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to specify in the proposed new 

Appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash/ 

Cold Rinse designation would apply to 

a wash temperature greater than or 

equal to 140 °F. DOE requests any 

additional data on the wash temperature 

of cycles that meet the Appendix J2 

definition of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse. DOE is also interested in data and 

information on any potential impact to 

testing costs that may occur by changing 

the Extra-Hot Wash temperature 

threshold, and the impacts on 

manufacturer burden associated with 

any changes to the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse definition. 

c. Target Water Supply Temperature 

Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies 

that the hot water supply temperature 

must be maintained between 130 °F 

(54.4 °C) and 135 °F (57.2 °C), using 

135 °F as the target temperature. Based 

on experience working with third-party 

test laboratories, as well as its own 

testing experience, DOE recognizes that 

maintaining 135 °F as the target 

temperature for the hot water supply 

may be difficult given that the target 

temperature of 135 °F lies at the edge, 

rather than the midpoint, of the 

allowable temperature range of 130 °F to 

135 °F. 85 FR 31065, 31069. On 

electronic temperature-mixing valves 

commonly used by test laboratories, the 

output water temperature is maintained 

within an approximately two-degree 

tolerance above or below a target 

temperature programmed by the user 

(e.g., if the target temperature is set at 

135 °F, the controller may provide water 

temperatures ranging from 133 °F to 

137 °F). Id. To ensure that the hot water 

inlet temperature remains within the 

allowable range of 130 °F to 135 °F, such 

a temperature controller would need to 

be set to around the midpoint of the 

range, which conflicts with the test 

procedure requirement to use 135 °F as 

the target temperature. Id. An analogous 

difficulty exists for the cold water 

supply temperature. Section 2.2 of 

Appendix J2 specifies maintaining a 

cold water temperature between 55 °F 

and 60 °F, using 60 °F as the target. 

In the May 2020 NOPR, DOE 

requested comments on whether it 

should consider changes to the target 

temperature or allowable range of 

temperature specified for the hot and 

cold water inlets, and if so, what 

alternate specifications should be 

considered. Id. 

UL commented that it supports the 

change to an equal sided tolerance for 

the hot and cold water inlet temperature 

requirements. (UL, No. 9 at p. 1) 

AHAM also supported DOE updating 

the target water temperature to have a 

tolerance and nominal value (rather 

than any temperature within the range) 

specified as the target, i.e., X ± Y, with 

nominal (X) as the target. (AHAM, No. 

5 at p. 6) 

The CA IOUs supported a change in 

the water supply temperature tolerance 

to ± 2.5 °F around the target 

temperature, claiming that it may create 

a more repeatable test procedure and 

decrease the number of failed test runs. 

(CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 15) 

GEA supported a hot water target 

temperature adjustment to 132.5 ± 

2.5 °F, stating that doing so would align 

the test procedure with engineering best 

practices. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

DOE recognizes the widespread 

support for defining a temperature range 

centered around a target midpoint of the 

range. Although this would appear to 

reflect current test laboratory practice, 

DOE is concerned that specifying a cold 

water target temperature of 57.5 °F in 

Appendix J2 and the proposed new 

Appendix J, or specifying a hot water 

target temperature of 132.5 °F for 

Appendix J2 or 122.5 °F for the 

proposed new Appendix J, could imply 

that the test procedure requires a 

precision of 0.5 °F in temperature 

control, which could create undue test 

burden. Furthermore, DOE is concerned 

that defining a ‘‘target’’ temperature, 

whether as currently defined or defined 

as the midpoint of the range, could 

unintentionally imply that a test would 

be invalid if the water temperature 

remains within the allowable range, but 

not centered exactly around the target. 

For these reasons, DOE is proposing 

to remove the ‘‘target’’ temperature 

associated with each water supply 

temperature range, and to instead define 

only the allowable temperature range. 

Specifically, the cold water supply 

temperature range would be defined as 

55 °F to 60 °F in both Appendix J2 and 

the proposed new Appendix J; the hot 

water supply temperature range in 

Appendix J2 would be defined as 130 °F 

to 135 °F; and the hot water supply 

temperature range in the proposed new 

Appendix J would be defined as 120 °F 

to 125 °F. Defining allowable water 

supply temperature ranges instead of 

specific target temperatures at the upper 

end of the allowable ranges would 

reduce the difficulty of maintaining 

water supply temperatures within the 

desired ranges. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove the target 

temperatures and instead specify water 

supply temperature ranges as 55 °F to 

60 °F for cold water in both Appendix 

J2 and the proposed new Appendix J, 

130 °F to 135 °F for hot water in 

Appendix J2, and 120 °F to 125 °F for 

hot water in the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

4. Wash Water Temperature 

Measurement 

In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE 

amended section 3.3 of Appendix J2, 

‘‘Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse,’’ to allow 

the use of non-reversible temperature 

indicator labels to confirm that a wash 

temperature greater than 135 °F had 

been achieved. 80 FR 46729, 46753. 

Since the publication of the August 

2015 Final Rule, DOE has become aware 

that some third-party laboratories 

measure wash temperature using selfcontained temperature sensors in a 

waterproof capsule placed inside the 

clothes washer drum during testing. 85 

FR 31065, 31069. In the May 2020 RFI, 

DOE requested comments on 

manufacturers’ or test laboratories’ 

experience with these or any other 

methods for determining the 

temperature during a wash cycle that 

may reduce manufacturer burden, 

including the reliability and accuracy of 

those methods. Id. 

UL commented that it has not found 

any temperature labels that read exactly 

135 °F, but rather only labels that 

provide 10 °F increments between 

130 °F and 140 °F. (UL, No 9 at p. 2) UL 

added that if a label does not change at 

140 °F but does change at 130 °F, there 

is no way of knowing if the water 

temperature reached 135 °F without 

running an additional test run with a 

data logger. Id. UL also commented that 

if DOE requires temperature loggers for 

measuring the internal water 

temperature, DOE should prescribe a 

specific method, for increased lab-to-lab 

reproducibility. Id. 

AHAM similarly commented that the 

non-reversible temperature indicator 

labels currently specified in the test 

procedure do not work well because the 

labels available on the market do not 

easily identify when 135 °F is reached, 

as they typically provide 10 °F 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49152 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

24See e.g., www.maximintegrated.com/en/ 

products/ibutton-one-wire/data-loggers/ 

DS1923.html/product-details/tabs-3, 

www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/ibuttonone-wire/ibutton/DS9107.html, and 

www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/interface/ 

universal-serial-bus/DS9490.html. 

increments, and none are available in 

increments of 125 °F to 135 °F. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at pp. 6–7) According to AHAM, 

testers must estimate when 135 °F is 

reached on labels that are currently 

available. Thus, AHAM suggests that 

DOE consider permitting the use of 

submersible temperature loggers. Id. 

As discussed by UL and AHAM, DOE 

is aware that none of the temperature 

indicator labels available on the market 

provide an indicator at 135 °F, the 

current Extra-Hot Wash water 

temperature threshold. Because of this, 

temperature indicator labels can be used 

to confirm that the water temperature 

reached 135 °F only if the water 

temperature exceeds 140 °F. The 

temperature indicator labels are unable 

to identify an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse cycle if the temperature of the 

cycle is greater than 135 °F but less than 

140 °F. DOE recognizes the potential 

benefit of other methods of 

measurement to supplement or replace 

the temperature indicator labels. 

DOE investigated submersible 

temperature loggers as suggested by 

AHAM. DOE found submersible 

temperature loggers available for less 

than $175 and available with a 

resolution of 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) or better and 

an accuracy of ±0.5 °C (0.9 °F) for water 

temperatures between –10 °C (14 °F) and 

+65 °C (149 °F).24 In testing with such 

temperature loggers, DOE found them 

small enough in size to be able to embed 

within the test load during testing. 

However, DOE testing indicated a 5 to 

10-minute time lag in measuring 

dynamically changing temperatures, 

which is likely due to the thermal mass 

of the waterproof capsule. As a result of 

this time lag, if a clothes washer’s wash 

water temperature were to reach 135 °F 

only briefly, then a submersible 

temperature logger may not record that 

135 °F had been reached. DOE 

concludes that, similar to temperature 

indicator labels, a submersible 

temperature logger indicating a 

temperature higher than 135 °F can 

provide confirmation that the water 

temperature reached 135 °F, but failure 

to record a temperature of 135 °F does 

not necessarily determine that the 

temperature threshold for the Extra-Hot 

Wash cycle has not been achieved. For 

clothes washers with sustained water 

temperatures greater than 135 °F but less 

than 140 °F, submersible temperature 

loggers may provide potentially reduced 

test burden, compared to using 

temperature indicator labels. 

For Appendix J2, DOE is proposing to 

allow the use of a submersible 

temperature logger as an additional 

temperature measurement option to 

confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash 

temperature greater than 135 °F has been 

achieved during the wash cycle. DOE is 

proposing that the submersible 

temperature logger must have a time 

resolution of at least 1 data point every 

5 seconds and a temperature 

measurement accuracy of ±1 °F. As 

described currently for temperature 

indicator labels, DOE would include a 

note that failure to measure a 

temperature of 135 °F would not 

necessarily indicate of the lack of an 

Extra-Hot Wash temperature. However, 

such a result would not be conclusive 

due to the lack of verification of that the 

required water temperature was 

achieved, in which case an alternative 

method must be used to confirm that an 

extra-hot wash temperature greater than 

135 °F has been achieved during the 

wash cycle. 

Because DOE is proposing to change 

the Extra-Hot Wash water temperature 

threshold to 140 °F for the proposed 

new Appendix J, commercially available 

temperature indicator labels with 

indications at 140 °F would be able to be 

used more readily to determine whether 

the water temperature reached the 

Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold. 

DOE is also proposing to allow the 

usage of a submersible temperature 

logger in the proposed new Appendix J 

as an option to confirm that an ExtraHot Wash temperature greater than 

140 °F has been achieved during the 

wash cycle. Like the temperature 

threshold of 135 °F in Appendix J2, 

failure to measure a temperature of 

140 °F would not necessarily indicate 

the lack of an Extra-Hot Wash 

temperature. However, such a result 

would not be conclusive due to the lack 

of verification of that the required water 

temperature was achieved, in which 

case an alternative method must be used 

to confirm that an extra-hot wash 

temperature greater than 140 °F has been 

achieved during the wash cycle. 

Lastly, DOE is proposing to move the 

description of allowable temperature 

measuring devices from section 3.3 of 

Appendix J2 to section 2.5.4 of both 

Appendix J2 and the proposed new 

Appendix J (‘‘Water and air temperature 

measuring devices’’), specifying the use 

of non-reversible temperature indicator 

labels in new section 2.5.4.1, and 

adding specifications for the use of 

submersible temperature loggers to new 

section 2.5.4.2 of both Appendix J2 and 

the proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow the use of a 

submersible temperature logger in 

Appendix J2 and the proposed new 

Appendix J as an option to confirm that 

an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater 

than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold has 

been achieved during the wash cycle. 

DOE requests data and information 

confirming (or disputing) DOE’s 

discussion of the benefits and 

limitations of using a submersible 

temperature logger, including DOE’s 

determination that a submersible 

logger’s failure to measure a temperature 

greater than the Extra-Hot Wash 

threshold does not necessarily indicate 

that the cycle under test does not meet 

the definition of an Extra-Hot Wash/ 

Cold Rinse cycle. 

5. Pre-Conditioning Requirements 

Section 2.11 of Appendix J2 specifies 

the procedure for clothes washer preconditioning. The current preconditioning procedure requires that 

any clothes washer that has not been 

filled with water in the preceding 96 

hours, or any water-heating clothes 

washer that has not been in the test 

room at the specified ambient 

conditions for 8 hours, must be preconditioned by running it through a 

Cold Rinse cycle and then draining it to 

ensure that the hose, pump, and sump 

are filled with water. The purpose of 

pre-conditioning is to promote 

repeatability and reproducibility of test 

results by ensuring a consistent starting 

state for each test, as well as to promote 

the representativeness of test results by 

ensuring that the clothes washer is 

operated consistent with the defined 

ambient conditions. In particular, the 

additional specification for waterheating clothes washers was first 

suggested in a supplemental NOPR 

published on April 22, 1996, (‘‘April 

1996 SNOPR’’), in which DOE 

expressed concern about the testing of 

water-heating clothes washers that may 

have been stored at a temperature 

outside of the specified ambient 

temperature range (75 °F ± 5 °F) prior to 

testing. 61 FR 17589, 17594–17595. DOE 

stated that the energy consumed in a 

water-heating clothes washer may be 

affected by the ambient temperature. Id. 

Thus, if the ambient temperature prior 

to and during testing is relatively hot, 

then less energy will be consumed than 

under typical operating conditions, i.e., 

the test will understate the clothes 

washer’s energy consumption. Id. 

Conversely, if the ambient temperature 

prior to and during the test is relatively 

cold, then the energy consumption will 

be overstated. Id. In the subsequent 

August 1997 Final Rule, DOE added the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49153 

25As noted, CCWs are limited under the statutory 

definition to a maximum capacity of 3.5 cubic feet 

for horizontal-axis CCWs and 4.0 cubic feet for 

vertical-axis CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(21)) 

pre-conditioning requirement for waterheating clothes washers, which requires 

water-heating units to be preconditioned if they had not been in the 

test room at ambient conditions for 8 

hours. 62 FR 45484, 45002, 45009, 

45010. 

DOE is concerned that the energy use 

of non-water-heating clothes washers 

could also be affected by the starting 

temperature of the clothes washer, 

particularly those that implement 

temperature control by measuring 

internal water temperatures during the 

wash cycle. For example, if the ambient 

temperature prior to testing is relatively 

hot, causing the internal components of 

the clothes washer to be at a higher 

temperature than the specified ambient 

temperature range, less hot water may 

be consumed during the test than 

otherwise would be if the starting 

temperature of the clothes washer is 

within the specified ambient 

temperature range. Noting that thirdparty test laboratories cannot 

necessarily identify whether a unit is a 

water-heating clothes washer or not, 

DOE is proposing to require the same 

pre-conditioning procedure for both 

water-heating and non-water-heating 

clothes washers, which would minimize 

the influence of ambient temperature on 

energy use and alleviate the need for 

third-party test laboratories to determine 

whether a clothes washer is waterheating or not. If adopted, this proposed 

change may impact the measured energy 

use of non-water-heating clothes 

washers that implement temperature 

control by measuring internal water 

temperatures during the wash cycle. 

Due to the potential impact on the 

measured energy use, DOE is proposing 

this change only for the proposed new 

Appendix J, which would be used for 

the evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, and to determine 

compliance with those standards. DOE 

is therefore proposing that use of the 

proposed new Appendix J, if finalized, 

would not be required until the 

compliance date of any updated 

standards. 

In addition, the proposed 

amendments to the pre-conditioning 

requirements would eliminate the 

differentiation between ‘‘water-heating 

clothes washer’’ and ‘‘non-water heating 

clothes washer,’’ which are defined 

terms in the test procedure. Therefore, 

DOE is also proposing to remove the 

definitions of ‘‘water-heating clothes 

washer’’ and ‘‘non-water-heating clothes 

washer’’ from section 1 of the proposed 

new Appendix J. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to specify the same preconditioning requirements for all 

clothes washers and to remove the 

‘‘water-heating clothes washer’’ and 

‘‘non-water-heating clothes washer’’ 

definitions in the proposed new 

Appendix J. DOE also requests 

information regarding whether test 

laboratories typically pre-condition 

water-heating and non-water-heating 

clothes washers using the same 

procedure. 

D. Cycle Selection and Test Conduct 

1. Tested Load Sizes 

Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 provides the 

minimum, average, and maximum load 

sizes to be used for testing based on the 

measured capacity of the clothes 

washer. The table defines capacity 

‘‘bins’’ in 0.1 ft3 increments. The load 

sizes for each capacity bin are 

determined as follows: 

b Minimum load is 3 pounds (‘‘lb’’) 

for all capacity bins; 

b Maximum load (in lb) is equal to 

4.1 times the mean clothes washer 

capacity of each capacity bin (in ft3); 

and 

b Average load is the arithmetic 

mean of the minimum load and 

maximum load. 

These three load sizes are used for 

testing clothes washers with automatic 

WFCS. Clothes washers with manual 

WFCS are tested with only the 

minimum and maximum load sizes. 

a. Expanding the Load Size Table 

DOE originally introduced the load 

size table in Appendix J1–1997, which 

accommodated clothes container 

capacities up to 3.8 ft3. 62 FR 45484, 

45513. In the March 2012 Final Rule, 

DOE expanded Table 5.1 in both 

Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 to 

accommodate clothes container 

capacities up to 6.0 ft3. 77 FR 13887, 

13910. DOE extrapolated the load sizes 

to 6.0 ft3 using the same equations to 

define the maximum and average load 

sizes as described above. 

On May 2, 2016 and April 10, 2017, 

DOE granted waivers to Whirlpool and 

Samsung, respectively, for testing 

RCWs 25 with capacities between 6.0 

and 8.0 ft3, by further extrapolating 

Table 5.1 using the same equations to 

define the maximum and average load 

sizes as described. 81 FR 26215; 82 FR 

17229. DOE’s regulations in 10 CFR 

430.27 contain provisions allowing any 

interested person to seek a waiver from 

the test procedure requirements if 

certain conditions are met. A waiver 

allows manufacturers to use an alternate 

test procedure in situations where the 

DOE test procedure cannot be used to 

test the product or equipment, or where 

use of the DOE test procedure would 

generate unrepresentative results. 10 

CFR 430.27(a)(1) DOE’s regulations at 10 

CFR 430.27(l) require that as soon as 

practicable after the granting of any 

waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal 

Register a NOPR to amend its 

regulations so as to eliminate any need 

for the continuation of such waiver. As 

soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will 

publish in the Federal Register a final 

rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l). 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether to extrapolate 

Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 to 

accommodate RCW capacities up to 8.0 

ft3, and if so, appropriate methods for 

extrapolation. 85 FR 31065, 31077. DOE 

received comments from multiple 

interested parties regarding the 

definition of load sizes more generally, 

which DOE addresses in section 

III.D.1.b of this document. DOE received 

no comments regarding the expansion of 

the load size table itself. 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

expand Table 5.1 in both Appendix J2 

and the proposed new Appendix J to 

accommodate clothes washers with 

capacities up to 8.0 ft3. In Appendix J2, 

DOE proposes to expand Table 5.1 using 

the same equations as the current table, 

as described above, and consistent with 

the load size tables provided in the two 

granted waivers. For the proposed new 

Appendix J, DOE proposes a revised 

methodology for defining the load sizes 

in each capacity bin in Table 5.1, as 

further discussed in section III.D.1.b of 

this document. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the load size table 

in both Appendix J2 and the proposed 

new Appendix J to accommodate RCWs 

with capacities up to 8.0 ft3. 

b. Defining New Load Sizes 

As discussed in the previous section, 

Appendix J2 currently defines three 

load sizes for automatic clothes washers 

(minimum, average, and maximum) for 

each capacity bin in Table 5.1 of the 

appendix. In this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing for the proposed new 

Appendix J to define two load sizes for 

automatic clothes washers (small and 

large) for each capacity bin, which are 

intended to represent the same load size 

distribution underlying the existing 

three load sizes. DOE has tentatively 

concluded that this would substantially 

reduce test burden while maintaining or 

improving representativeness. The 

following paragraphs describe the 

development of the current load size 

definitions to provide context and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49154 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

26The full data set presented by AHAM is 

available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2006-TP-0065-0027. 

27See the table titled ‘‘Relationship of Water Fill 

Factors to Cumulative Load Size Distribution’’ on 

page 22 of the data presented by AHAM as part of 

the rulemaking that culminated in the August 1997 

Final Rule, available at www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027. 

justification for DOE’s proposed 

changes. 

The current load size definitions (i.e., 

the defining of three load sizes, and the 

equations used to determine each of the 

three load sizes) are based on consumer 

usage data analyzed during the test 

procedure rulemaking that culminated 

in the August 1997 Final Rule. As part 

of that rulemaking, AHAM presented to 

DOE data from the Procter & Gamble 

Company (‘‘P&G’’) showing the 

distribution of consumer load sizes for 

2.4 ft3 and 2.8 ft3 clothes washers, 

which represented typical clothes 

washer capacities at the time (1995).26

The 1995 P&G data indicated that the 

distribution of consumer load sizes 

followed an approximate normal 

distribution slightly skewed towards the 

lower end of the size range. Figure III.1 

shows the summarized data presented 

by AHAM. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE 

defined three load sizes—minimum, 

average, and maximum—to represent 

this normal distribution. 62 FR 45484, 

45490. The minimum load size 

represented approximately the 14th 

percentile of the distribution (i.e., the 

lower 14 percent of the cumulative 

distribution); the average load size 

represented approximately the 14th 

through 88th percentile (i.e., the middle 

74 percent of the cumulative 

distribution); and the maximum load 

size represented approximately the 88th 

through 100th percentile (i.e., the upper 

12 percent of the cumulative 

distribution).27 Figure III.2 illustrates 

the boundaries representing the three 

defined load sizes overlaid with the 

P&G load distribution data. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.001</GPH>

IARQIWASID 

EMoclNonn1IDiaer-6--PAODa11 I 20-~===================-- 18.,.-------:::..::---------, JI Avtnp •S.7t.t,s 16 

14 

12 

16 

14 

12 

% 10 

1. 

6 

4 

2 

% 10 

I 

6 

4 

2 

0 .,_..,....""'_,. ....... -"1!""-"t--~-+--t--+---+.--, o . ....,......,~1--t....,.-+-+-+--t--+-..,...,.._......,... 

0 l 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 9 10 11 12 

\.OADSIZE 

0 1 2 · l 4 5 6 1 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 

LOADSIZE 

C 100 

0 

M 90 

M IO u 

L '10 

.A 60 T 

I: 50 

V 40 £ 

30' 

"' 20 

10 

0 

0 1 2 

. Cumulative Percent 

· · (Both sizes Combined) 

STANDARD WASHERS 

3 

Comfimcll Data for Repke 

an4 IM)e W11hen 

Average Load 5%0"' 6.2 Lbs 

4 5 6 7 I 9 JO I J 12• 13 

U>~Sl'l.E 

Figure 111.11995 Procter & Gamble Consumer Load Size Distributions as Provided by 

AHAM 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49155 

28For capacities in the range of 0.0 to 0.8 ft3, a 

fixed load size of 3 lb was defined for all three test 

load sizes. 

29 In effect, the ‘‘average’’ load size is intended to 

represent the median load size washed by 

consumers. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

In the August 1997 Final Rule, these 

load size relationships were scaled 

across the range of 0.8 ft3 to 3.8 ft3

capacities 28 using the equations 

described above: Minimum load size 

fixed at 3 lb for all capacity bins; 

maximum load size calculated as 4.1 

times the mean clothes washer capacity 

of each capacity bin; and average load 

size calculated as the mean of the 

minimum and maximum load sizes. 62 

FR 45484, 45504, 45513. Within each 

capacity bin, the three defined load 

sizes were intended to approximate a 

normal distribution of consumer load 

sizes. As noted, the load size table in 

Appendix J1–1997 was extrapolated to 

6.0 ft3 in the March 2012 Final Rule, 

applicable to both Appendix J1 and 

Appendix J2. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

data and information on whether the 

minimum, average, and maximum load 

size definitions in Table 5.1 are 

representative of the range of load sizes 

used by consumers for each capacity bin 

in the table, particularly for largercapacity RCWs. 85 FR 31065, 31078. 

UL commented that in order to make 

load sizes more equitable for the 

widening range of clothes washer 

capacities, all three load sizes should be 

proportional to capacity, similar to the 

current definition of maximum load. UL 

suggested that minimum and average 

load sizes could be proportional to the 

maximum load size (e.g., minimum and 

average load sizes could be 25 percent 

and 50 percent of maximum load size, 

respectively). (UL, No. 9 at p. 4) 

Fixing the minimum load size at 3 lb 

represents the need for consumers to 

wash a small load of laundry (for 

example, a single outfit of clothing) 

regardless of the capacity of the clothes 

washer. The ‘‘average’’ load size as 

constructed in Appendix J2 represents 

the middle of the range of load sizes 29

washed by consumers (i.e., the 

approximate peak of the roughly normal 

distribution of load sizes). As described 

below, DOE is proposing in the 

proposed new Appendix J to define two, 

rather than three, load sizes, and each 

of the two load sizes would be defined 

as a function of capacity. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

amend the average and maximum load 

sizes in Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 to use 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.002</GPH>

'ti. 

~ C 

cu 

::s 

tr 

! 

LI. 

'ti. 

~ 

i 

-::s 

E 

a 

20.--.............. - ........ - ...................... ....... JI 

If 

14 

12· 

JO 

I 

' 4 

2 

0 

I I 

I I 

100 ,-----r----,----,"'"7,""-,;_;::::::----, 90 I I ,_ 

" --------~-------T------ I I 

70 

60 

I I 

I I 

I 

I so _______ ......,... _____ _ 

o . I 

30' 

20 

10 

I 

I 

I 

load Size (lbs) 

Figure 111.2 Illustrative Depiction of the Three Load Sizes Representing the Normal 

Distribution of Consumer Loads from the 1995 Procter & Gamble Data 
49156 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

30Lloyd Harrington of Energy Efficient Strategies, 

Australia. Supporting data and corresponding 

presentations: eedal2017.uci.edu/wp-content/ 

uploads/Thursday-17-Harrington.pdf. 

31According to CA IOUs, the data represent 310 

wash cycles across 105 California households. (CA 

IOUs, No. 8 at p. 7) 

32NEEA’s estimate of 4.4 ft3 average capacity in 

2019 is based on NEEA’s 2019 ENERGY STAR 

Retail Products Platform data. 

33 ‘‘Washing machine user habits: A report on 

wash temperature and load size habits among 

CHOICE Members.’’ 2011. Prepared for the 

Australian Department of Climate Change and 

Energy. Not publicly published, but can be made 

available upon request to Simon Newman, 

Residential Energy Efficiency Branch, Energy 

Security and Efficiency Division, Department of 

Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, PO Box 

2013, Canberra, ACT 2601. 39 Personal 

Communication. Lloyd Harington, Energy Efficient 

Strategies. 17 June 2020. 

a logarithmic relationship between 

capacity and load size. (CA IOUs, No. 8 

at pp. 1–4) The CA IOUs presented data 

from a 2016 Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (‘‘PG&E’’) field survey (‘‘2016 

PG&E survey’’) that recorded load size 

and capacity data, and showed a 

logarithmic relationship between load 

size and capacity for clothes washers 

with capacities from 2–5 ft3. In the 

range of 2 ft3 to approximately 5 ft3

capacity, the 2016 PG&E survey showed 

slightly higher average consumer load 

sizes than would be defined by Table 

5.1 in Appendix J2 for a clothes washer 

of the same capacity. The CA IOUs 

commented that extrapolating this 

relationship to smaller and largercapacity clothes washers, however, 

would result in a smaller consumer load 

sizes than would be defined by Table 

5.1 of the current Appendix J2. Id. The 

CA IOUs also commented that a similar 

logarithmic trend was found in an 

Australian clothes dryer study.30

Although the Australian study relates to 

residential clothes dryers, the CA IOUs 

asserted that the operation of clothes 

washers and clothes dryers are closely 

linked. Id. The CA IOUs commented 

that the 2016 PG&E survey excludes 

households outside of the ‘‘hot-dry’’ 

Southwestern region of the United 

States, as well as households that rely 

on CCWs to wash their clothes, and 

requested that DOE conduct a larger 

national survey or study existing 

surveys to explore the relationship 

between capacity and average load size 

before making any changes to Table 5.1 

of Appendix J2 to ensure that the test 

procedure produces results that most 

represent an average use cycle. Id. 

DOE appreciates the CA IOUs 

providing consumer usage data from the 

2016 PG&E field survey. While the 

conclusions from this data may be 

instructive as a point of comparison, 

these data are limited in that they 

represent usage in a single season 

(summer), in a single state (California), 

and only around three wash cycles per 

participating household.31

Notwithstanding these limitations, the 

results indicate that within the range of 

2 to approximately 5 ft3, which 

encompasses the large majority of units 

on the market, the load sizes defined by 

Appendix J2 are reasonably close to the 

load sizes observed in the 2016 PG&E 

field study. Regarding the Australian 

clothes dryer study, while these data 

provide a point of comparison, usage 

patterns of Australian consumers do not 

necessarily represent the usage patterns 

of U.S. consumers. DOE is not aware of, 

and the CA IOUs have not provided, any 

data or information that would suggest 

that Australian usage patterns are the 

same as U.S. usage patterns. Further, 

clothes dryer load sizes may differ from 

clothes washer loads for reasons which 

may depend on region or localized 

customs (for example, line drying 

clothing may be more common in hot, 

dry climates). DOE is not aware of, nor 

have the CA IOUs provided, any data to 

suggest how Australian dryer load sizes 

relate to Australian clothes washer load 

sizes. DOE also observes that a 

logarithmic trend may not represent the 

best characterization of the Australian 

data. 

NEEA recommended that, if DOE 

were to adopt an efficiency metric that 

is a function of capacity, DOE should 

eliminate the current average load 

calculation method and replace it with 

a fixed 7.6 lb load, which it believes 

would be more representative. NEEA 

cited its 2014 laundry field study that 

found an average clothes washer load 

size of 7.6 lb, which NEEA 

characterized as being close to the 

average load size of 8.5 lb that 

corresponds with the 2010 marketweighted average capacity of 3.5 ft3. 

NEEA stated, however, that the marketweighted average capacity as of 2019 

has increased to 4.4 ft3, for which 

Appendix J2 defines an average load 

size of 10.4 lb.32 (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 

22–24) NEEA compared this 10.4 lb 

average load size to three Australian 

field studies that found an average load 

size of approximately 6.6 lb. NEEA 

further referenced another Australian 

research study conducted by Choice 33

in which consumers were instructed to 

fully fill the clothes container. The 

resulting average load size measured 

during the study was 8 lb, which NEEA 

described as significantly less than an 

amount that the clothes container could 

hold. Id. NEEA asserted that using a 

fixed average load size of 7.6 lb would 

increase representativeness, stating that 

the growing inconsistency between 

field-measured average load size and 

Appendix J2-calculated average load 

size indicates that average load size is 

independent of clothes washer capacity 

and is relatively small. Id. NEEA also 

stated that using a fixed average load 

size would reduce test burden, since 

less work would be required by the 

laboratory to build an inventory of 

custom Appendix J2-defined average 

loads for each clothes washer capacity. 

NEEA recommended that if DOE were to 

determine a field average load size for 

the United States, DOE could conduct a 

study similar to the referenced Choice 

study but with a representative group of 

consumers in the United States. Id. 

DOE appreciates NEEA providing the 

consumer usage data from the 2014 

laundry study. DOE does not agree with 

NEEA’s conclusion that the 2014 

laundry study confirms that the field 

average load size is independent of 

clothes container size and is relatively 

small. In support of its assertion, NEEA 

presented data indicating that current 

(2019) average capacity has increased to 

4.4 ft3, for which Appendix J2 defines 

an average load size of 10.4 lb. However, 

NEEA did not present any field data 

demonstrating average consumer load 

sizes for a sample of clothes washers 

with an average capacity of 4.4 ft3. 

Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn 

from the 2014 laundry study regarding 

how consumer load sizes may have 

changed as average clothes washer 

capacity has increased from around 3.5 

ft3 in 2010 to 4.4 ft3 in 2019. Regarding 

NEEA’s summary of the three Australian 

field studies, DOE reiterates that the 

usage patterns of Australian consumers 

do not necessarily represent the usage 

patterns of U.S. consumers. DOE notes 

that the summaries of the Electrolux and 

Fisher & Paykel surveys provided by 

NEEA do not identify the average 

capacity of the clothes washers in the 

survey samples. Therefore, no 

conclusions can be drawn regarding 

how the average consumer load size of 

6.6 lb from the surveys compares to the 

load size that Appendix J2 would 

prescribe for a U.S. clothes washer of 

the same size. While DOE agrees that 

using a fixed average load size could 

decrease test burden by avoiding the 

need to inventory different average load 

sizes for each possible capacity, for the 

reasons described above, DOE 

preliminarily concludes that the data 

provided by NEEA do not justify using 

a fixed average load size across all 

clothes container capacities. 

The Joint Commenters also 

encouraged DOE to consider specifying 

an average load size that is a constant 

value independent of capacity. (Joint 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49157 

34LUFs are weighting factors that represent the 

percentage of wash cycles that consumers run with 

a given load size. 

Commenters, No. 10 at pp. 4–5) 

According to the Joint Commenters, the 

introduction of large-capacity clothes 

washers to the market, combined with 

the structure of Table 5.1 in Appendix 

J2, has led to the weighted-average load 

size for the largest clothes washers being 

significantly greater than that for small 

clothes washers. For example, the Joint 

Commenters stated that the weightedaverage load size for a 6.0 ft3 clothes 

washer (13.68 lb) is around 60 percent 

larger than the weighted-average load 

size for a 3.5 ft3 clothes washer (8.68 lb). 

Id. The Joint Commenters also 

referenced NEEA’s laundry field study, 

which the Joint Commenters 

characterized as finding no clear 

correlation between clothes washer 

capacity and load size. The Joint 

Commenters expressed concern that the 

current test procedure may not be 

representative of an average cycle use 

for large-capacity clothes washers. Id. 

As noted previously, DOE preliminary 

concludes that the data provided by 

NEEA, as referenced by the Joint 

Commenters, do not demonstrate that 

using a fixed average load size would be 

representative of U.S. consumer usage. 

DOE also notes that the assertion made 

by NEEA and the Joint Commenters— 

that consumer average load sizes are 

smaller than DOE’s Appendix J2 load 

sizes—conflicts with the data 

summarized above from the CA IOUs, 

which suggest consumer average load 

sizes for clothes washers in the range of 

2 to 5 ft3 capacity that are larger than 

the Appendix J2 load sizes. These 

conflicting conclusions, combined with 

the noted limitations of each data set, do 

not provide justification for DOE to 

change the average load sizes in Table 

5.1 of Appendix J2. 

As noted, DOE is proposing to replace 

the minimum, maximum, and average 

load sizes with two new load sizes in 

the proposed new Appendix J, 

designated as ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘large.’’ In 

the paragraphs that follow, DOE 

explains its rationale for (1) reducing 

the number of load sizes from three to 

two, and (2) defining the two load sizes 

for each capacity bin. 

As discussed in section III.A of this 

document, AHAM and GEA commented 

on the current test burden associated 

with conducting the Appendix J2 test 

procedure. While DOE acknowledges 

the theoretical possibility of Appendix 

J2 requiring up to 70 test cycles, DOE is 

not aware of any products currently or 

historically on the market that would 

require this maximum number of test 

cycles. In DOE’s experience, in practice 

the number of test cycles is around 6 

cycles for clothes washers with very few 

and basic features; around 15–20 cycles 

for the most typical configurations on 

the market; and around 35 cycles for the 

most feature-rich models that would 

trigger the greatest number of required 

test cycles in Appendix J2. 

Nevertheless, DOE seeks to find 

opportunities for reducing the test 

burden associated with its test 

procedures, while maintaining 

representative, repeatable, and 

reproducible test results. 

One of the key contributors to the 

total number of required cycles is the 

requirement to test three load sizes for 

each wash/rinse temperature selection 

required for testing on clothes washers 

with automatic WFCS (which represent 

the majority of the market). As 

described previously, the three load 

sizes were devised to approximate a 

normal distribution of consumer load 

sizes. At the time of the August 1997 

Final Rule, clothes washer control 

panels were not as feature-rich as 

current models available on the market, 

and DOE had not contemplated that 

future clothes washer models could 

require testing up to 35 cycles. 

Given the increasing prevalence of 

more feature-rich clothes washer models 

that require a higher number of test 

cycles under Appendix J2, DOE is 

proposing to reduce test burden by 

reducing the number of defined load 

sizes for the proposed new Appendix J 

from three to two for clothes washers 

with automatic WFCS. The following 

paragraphs discuss how DOE proposes 

to define the two load sizes for each 

capacity bin. 

The new proposed small and large 

load sizes would continue to represent 

the same roughly normal distribution 

presented in the 1995 P&G data 

described above. The weighted-average 

load size using the proposed small and 

large load sizes would match the 

weighted-average load size using the 

current minimum, average, and 

maximum load sizes. As proposed, the 

small and large load sizes would have 

equal load usage factors (‘‘LUFs’’) 34 of 

0.5. The small and large load sizes 

would represent approximately the 25th 

and 75th percentiles of the normal 

distribution, respectively. Each of these 

points is discussed in greater detail in 

the paragraphs that follow. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

Figure III.3 illustrates how the 

proposed new small and large load sizes 

would overlay with the P&G load 

distribution data. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49158 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

As noted, DOE defined the proposed 

new load sizes and LUFs such that the 

weighted-average load size equals the 

weighted-average load size of the 

current minimum, average, and 

maximum load definitions for clothes 

washers with automatic WFCS, and thus 

will produce test results with equivalent 

representativeness. As noted in DOE’s 

responses to comments above, DOE is 

not aware of any more recent, nationally 

representative field data indicating that 

the consumer load size distribution in 

relation to clothes washer capacity has 

changed since the introduction of the 

three load sizes in the August 1997 

Final Rule. 

Further, defining the small and large 

loads to represent approximately the 

25th and 75th percentiles of the normal 

distribution balances the need to 

capture as large of a load size range as 

possible while remaining representative 

of the ‘‘peak’’ of the load distribution 

curve, which represents the most 

frequently used load sizes. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing that 

the small and large load sizes be 

calculated using Equation III.1 and 

Equation III.2, respectively. 

Small load size [lb] = 0.90 × Capacity 

[ft3] + 2.34 

Equation III.1 Proposed Determination 

of the Small Test Load Size 

Large load size [lb] = 3.12 × Capacity 

[ft3] + 0.72 

Equation III.2 Proposed Determination 

of the Large Test Load Size 

As noted, clothes washers with 

manual WFCS are tested only with the 

minimum and maximum load sizes, in 

contrast to clothes washers with 

automatic WFCS, which are tested with 

all three load sizes. Given DOE’s 

proposal to define only two load sizes 

in the proposed new Appendix J, the 

same two load sizes could be used for 

all clothes washers, regardless of 

whether a clothes washer’s WFCS is 

automatic or manual. 

DOE’s proposal would reduce test 

burden under the proposed new 

Appendix J by requiring only two load 

sizes to be tested instead of three for 

clothes washers with automatic WFCS. 

Specifically, the number of cycles tested 

would be reduced by 33 percent for 

clothes washers with automatic WFCS, 

which represent a large majority of 

clothes washers on the market. 

DOE’s proposed water fill selections 

corresponding to the new small and 

large load sizes are further discussed in 

section III.D.2 of this document. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to replace the minimum, 

maximum, and average load sizes with 

the small and large load sizes in the 

proposed new Appendix J. DOE seeks 

comment on how reducing the number 

of load sizes tested would impact the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.003</GPH>

';J!. 

> u 

C 

cu 

::, 

t:J" 

cu 

u.. "" 

';J!. 

cu 

> 

·-... 

m 

-::, 

E 

::, 

u 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

1()0 

90 

80 

70 

60 

so 

40 

30 

20 

lO 

0 

Small 

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

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Load Size (lbs) 

Large 

Figure 111.3 Illustrative Depiction of the Two Load Sizes Representing the Normal 

Distribution of Consumer Loads from the 1995 Procter & Gamble Data 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49159 

35See p. 20 of the AHAM document at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE–2006–TP– 

0065–0027; specifically, the conclusions that 

‘‘consumers are not good judges of clothes load 

size’’ and ‘‘consumers overuse maximum fill level.’’ 

36As described in section III.H.3.b of this 

document, DOE is proposing to update the phrase 

‘‘the setting that will give the most energy-intensive 

result’’ to ‘‘the setting that uses the most water’’ 

(and likewise for the setting that will give the least 

energy-intensive result) to reflect the original intent 

of this provision. 

representativeness of test results. DOE 

also requests data and information to 

quantify the reduction in test burden 

that would result from reducing the 

number of load sizes from three to two 

for clothes washers with automatic 

WFCS. 

2. Water Fill Setting Selections for the 

Proposed Load Sizes 

Section 3.2.6 of Appendix J2 

prescribes the water fill setting 

selections to use with each load size 

based on the type of WFCS on the 

clothes washer. As discussed in section 

III.D.1.b of this document, DOE is 

proposing that the proposed new 

Appendix J test newly-defined small 

and large load sizes, rather than the 

minimum, maximum, and average load 

sizes used in Appendix J2. To test 

clothes washers using these new small 

and large load sizes, the appropriate 

water fill setting selections would also 

need to be provided in the proposed 

new Appendix J for each load size for 

each type of WFCS. 

Appendix J2 defines two main types 

of WFCS: manual WFCS, which 

‘‘requires the user to determine or select 

the water fill level,’’ and automatic 

WFCS, which ‘‘does not allow or require 

the user to determine or select the water 

fill level, and includes adaptive WFCS 

and fixed WFCS.’’ Sections 1.22 and 1.5 

of Appendix J2, respectively. Section 

3.2.6.2 of Appendix J2 further 

distinguishes between user-adjustable 

and not-user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS. Additionally, section 3.2.6.3 of 

Appendix J2 accommodates clothes 

washers that have both an automatic 

WFCS and an alternate manual WFCS. 

Proposed amendments to the definitions 

of fixed WFCS and user-adjustable 

automatic WFCS are further discussed 

in section III.H.3.a of this document. 

Section 3.2.6.1 of the current 

Appendix J2 specifies that clothes 

washers with a manual WFCS are set to 

the maximum water level available for 

the wash cycle under test for the 

maximum test load size and the 

minimum water level available for the 

wash cycle under test for the minimum 

test load size. 

Section 3.2.6.2.1 of Appendix J2 

specifies that clothes washers with nonuser-adjustable automatic WFCS are 

tested using the specified maximum, 

minimum, and average test load sizes, 

and that the maximum, minimum, and 

average water levels are selected by the 

control system when the respective test 

loads are used (i.e., no selection of water 

fill level is required by the user). 

Section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 

specifies that clothes washers with useradjustable automatic WFCS undergo 

four tests. The first test is conducted 

using the maximum test load and with 

the automatic WFCS set in the setting 

that will give the most energy intensive 

result. The second test is conducted 

with the minimum test load and with 

the automatic WFCS set in the setting 

that will give the least energy intensive 

result. The third test is conducted with 

the average test load and with the 

automatic WFCS set in the setting that 

will give the most energy intensive 

result for the given test load. The fourth 

test is conducted with the average test 

load and with the automatic WFCS set 

in the setting that will give the least 

energy intensive result for the given test 

load. The energy and water 

consumption for the average test load 

and water level are calculated as the 

average of the third and fourth tests. 

As discussed in section III.D.1.b of 

this document, DOE is proposing that 

the proposed new Appendix J test 

newly-defined small and large load 

sizes, rather than the minimum, 

maximum, and average load sizes used 

in Appendix J2. To test clothes washers 

using these new small and large load 

sizes, the appropriate water fill setting 

selections would also need to be 

provided in the proposed new 

Appendix J for each load size for each 

type of WFCS. 

For manual WFCS clothes washers, 

DOE first considered maintaining the 

current water fill level settings as 

specified in Appendix J2 (i.e., testing 

the proposed small load with the 

minimum water level setting available 

and testing the proposed large load with 

the maximum water level setting 

available). However, the proposed small 

load is larger than the current minimum 

load, and using the minimum water fill 

setting for the larger-sized ‘‘small’’ load 

may not be representative of consumer 

use. In other words, while the minimum 

water fill level setting may provide an 

appropriate amount of water for 

washing the ‘‘minimum’’ load size, it 

may not provide sufficient water for 

washing the ‘‘small’’ load size as 

proposed. Further, the 1995 P&G data 

showed that when using a clothes 

washer with manual WFCS, consumers 

tend to select more water than is 

minimally necessary for the size of the 

load being washed.35

Based on these considerations, DOE is 

instead proposing to specify the use of 

the second-lowest water fill level setting 

for the proposed small load size. 

Although DOE is not aware of any 

clothes washers with manual WFCS 

currently on the market with only two 

water fill level settings available, DOE 

proposes to accommodate such a design 

by specifying that if the water fill level 

selector has two settings available for 

the wash cycle under test, the minimum 

water fill level setting would be selected 

for the small load size, consistent with 

the current specification in Appendix 

J2. In all cases, the water fill level 

selector would be set for the large load 

size to the maximum water fill level 

setting available for the wash cycle 

under test, consistent with the current 

specification in Appendix J2 for testing 

the maximum load size. 

For clothes washers with non-useradjustable automatic WFCS, no changes 

would be required because the water fill 

levels are determined automatically by 

the WFCS. 

As discussed, section 3.2.6.2.2 of 

Appendix J2 specifies that clothes 

washers with user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS require four test cycles: one test 

at the most energy-intensive setting 36

using the maximum load size, one test 

at the least energy-intensive setting 

using the minimum load size, one test 

at the least energy-intensive setting 

using the average load size, and one test 

at the most energy-intensive setting 

using the average load size. As 

described in section III.D.1.b of this 

document, DOE’s proposal would 

reduce the number of test load sizes 

from three to two, which would 

necessitate a change to these 

instructions for clothes washers with 

user-adjustable WFCS. To accommodate 

the proposed ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘large’’ load 

sizes in the proposed new Appendix J, 

DOE is proposing to require testing 

clothes washers with user-adjustable 

WFCS using the large test load size at 

the setting that provides the most 

energy-intensive result, and the small 

test load size at the setting that provides 

the least energy-intensive result. This 

proposal would capture the same range 

of water fill performance as the current 

test procedure (i.e., capturing the range 

of least-intensive to most-intensive 

results). Additional tests could be 

considered, for example: Testing the 

small test load size at the setting that 

provides the most energy-intensive 

result and the large test load size at the 

setting that provides the least energyintensive result. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that requiring 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49160 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

37The originally proposed test would have 

required testing at the 20/40/60/80 percent 

positions. 

these two additional cycles beyond the 

two proposed cycles would create 

additional test burden with little, if any, 

improvement to representativeness 

compared to the proposal. 

In summary, DOE tentatively 

concludes that the proposed changes to 

the water fill level settings, in 

conjunction with the proposed changes 

to the load sizes and the applicable 

LUFs, would continue to produce 

representative test results for each type 

of WFCS. Collectively, this combination 

of amendments would continue to 

approximate the same consumer usage 

patterns that provide the foundation for 

the current Appendix J2 test procedure. 

DOE recognizes that for some models, 

these proposed amendments could 

change the measured efficiency. As 

noted, DOE is proposing to include the 

changes to the water fill level 

specifications only in the proposed new 

Appendix J, which DOE would use for 

the evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards. Thus, DOE is 

proposing that use of the proposed new 

Appendix J, if finalized, would not be 

required until such time as the energy 

conservation standards are amended 

using the measured efficiency as 

determined under Appendix J. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to change the water fill level 

selections in the proposed new 

Appendix J for clothes washers with 

manual and user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS to reflect the proposed small and 

large test load sizes. DOE seeks data and 

information on how the proposed 

changes to the water fill level selection 

for clothes washers with manual and 

user-adjustable automatic WFCS would 

impact test procedure 

representativeness. 

3. Determination of Warm Wash Tested 

Settings 

Section 3.5 of Appendix J2 states that 

if a clothes washer has four or more 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature 

selections, either all discrete selections 

shall be tested, or the clothes washer 

shall be tested at the 25-percent, 50- 

percent, and 75-percent positions of the 

temperature selection device between 

the hottest hot (≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) wash 

and the coldest cold wash. If a selection 

is not available at the 25, 50 or 75- 

percent position, in place of each such 

unavailable selection, the next warmer 

temperature selection shall be used. 

DOE refers to the latter provision as the 

‘‘25/50/75 test.’’ Section 3.6 of 

Appendix J2 states that the 25/50/75 test 

provision also applies to the Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse temperature 

selection. 

DOE first established the 25/50/75 test 

in Appendix J1–1997 to address the test 

burden for clothes washers that offer a 

large number of warm wash temperature 

selections, if the test procedure were to 

require testing all warm temperature 

selections. 62 FR 45484, 45497. DOE 

had originally proposed a similar 

method 37 in the April 1996 SNOPR for 

clothes washers having infinite warm 

wash selections that are nonuniformly 

distributed. 61 FR 17589, 17599. In the 

August 1997 Final Rule, DOE 

considered clothes washers with more 

than three warm wash temperatures to 

be clothes washers with infinite warm 

wash temperature selections, therefore 

allowing them to also use the 25/50/75 

test. 62 FR 45484, 45498. DOE 

concluded at that time that testing at the 

various test points of the temperature 

range, with a requirement to test to the 

next higher selection if a temperature 

selection is not available at a specified 

test point, would provide data 

representative of the warm wash 

temperature selection offerings. Id. 

DOE notes that the 25/50/75 test was 

adopted before the widespread use of 

electronic controls, which now allow for 

the assignment of wash water 

temperatures that may not reflect the 

physical spacing between temperature 

selections on the control panel. For 

example, with electronic controls, the 

25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent 

positions on the dial may not 

necessarily correspond to 25-percent, 

50-percent, and 75-percent temperature 

differences between the hottest and 

coldest selections. DOE is aware of 

clothes washers on the market with four 

or more warm wash temperature 

selections, in which the temperature 

selections located at the 25, 50, and 75- 

percent positions are low-temperature 

cycles that have wash temperatures only 

a few degrees higher than the coldest 

wash temperature; whereas the 

temperature selection labeled ‘‘Warm’’ 

is located beyond the 75-percent 

position on the temperature selection 

dial and is therefore not included for 

testing under the 25/50/75 test. 85 FR 

31065, 31073. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on the representativeness of 

using the 25/50/75 test on clothes 

washers with electronic controls, 

particularly for clothes washers in 

which the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 

75-percent positions on the dial do not 

correspond to 25-percent, 50-percent, 

and 75-percent temperature increments 

between the hottest and coldest 

selections. Id. DOE also requested 

comment on whether there is a less 

burdensome means for the test 

procedure to be reasonably designed to 

measure energy use or efficiency of the 

clothes washer during a representative 

average use cycle. 

AHAM opposed any changes to the 

25/50/75 test for clothes washers with 

four or more warm/cold temperature 

selections, stating that changes are not 

necessary. AHAM asserted that 

introducing any change could lead to 

increased test burden with no evident 

benefit to consumers or energy savings. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 13) 

The CA IOUs supported DOE 

amending the 25/50/75 test to define 

positions along the temperature range 

instead of positions along the 

temperature selection device. The CA 

IOUs expressed concern that the current 

25/50/75 test significantly 

underestimates energy usage of clothes 

washers in situations where positions 

along the temperature selection device 

do not match positions along the 

temperature range. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at 

p. 16) 

The Joint Commenters expressed 

concern that the 25/50/75 test for 

clothes washers with four or more 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature 

selections is not representative because, 

for some clothes washers, the 25- 

percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent 

positions on the temperature dial may 

not accurately represent the 25-percent, 

50-percent, and 75-percent temperature 

differences between the coldest and 

hottest selections. The Joint 

Commenters encouraged DOE to amend 

the 25/50/75 test so that it adequately 

represents the energy use of all clothes 

washers’ Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

temperature selections. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3) 

NEEA recommended that DOE 

characterize the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

temperature selections using a single 

test run on the wash temperature setting 

labeled ‘‘Warm’’ in order to increase 

representativeness of real-world use. 

NEEA expressed concern that the 

current test procedure likely 

underestimates hot water use and adds 

unnecessary test burden. (NEEA, No. 12 

at pp. 18–20) NEEA added that its 

recommended change would eliminate 

up to six test runs from the test 

procedure (three load sizes at two wash/ 

rinse temperatures). NEEA expects that 

this benefit would affect a sizeable 

percentage of the market, given NEEA’s 

estimate that more than 75 percent of 

clothes washers sold in the Northwest 

have three or more discrete Warm 

Wash/Cold Rinse temperature 

selections. Id. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49161 

38As discussed in sections III.D.4.a and III.D.5 of 

this document, DOE is proposing to require 

measurements of RMC and cycle time for each 

tested cycle. 

39The term ‘‘spin settings’’ refers to spin times or 

spin speeds. The maximum spin setting results in 

a lower (better) RMC. 

40On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse 

option, RMC must be measured on both Cold Rinse 

and Warm Rinse, with the final RMC calculated as 

a weighted average using TUFs of 73 percent for 

Cold Rinse and 27 percent for Warm Rinse. DOE 

has observed very few clothes washer models on 

the market that offer Warm Rinse. For simplicity 

throughout this discussion, DOE references the 

testing requirements for clothes washers that offer 

Cold Rinse only. 

41As described in more detail in section III.G.4 

of this document, TUFs are weighting factors that 

represent the percentage of time that consumers 

choose a particular wash/rinse temperature 

selection for the wash cycle. 

DOE is proposing to require testing of 

both the hottest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

setting and the coldest Warm Wash/ 

Cold Rinse setting for all clothes 

washers in the proposed new Appendix 

J instead of the 25/50/75 test. Water 

consumption, electrical energy 

consumption, and all other measured 

values 38 would be averaged between 

the two tested cycles to represent the 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycle. DOE is 

proposing to make the same changes to 

the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle in 

the proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE’s proposal would decrease the 

test burden under the proposed new 

Appendix J for clothes washers that 

offer more than two Warm Wash/Cold 

Rinse or Warm Wash/Warm Rinse 

temperature settings, which DOE 

estimates represent around half of the 

market, by reducing the number of 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse tested cycles from 

three to two. Because this proposed 

approach may, however, change the 

measured energy use of clothes washers 

that offer more than two Warm Wash/ 

Cold Rinse or Warm Wash/Warm Rinse 

settings, the proposed edits would not 

apply to Appendix J2 and therefore 

would not affect the measured 

efficiency of existing clothes washers. 

The ongoing RCW and CCW energy 

conservation standards rulemakings 

would consider the impact of any 

modifications to the measured 

efficiency using the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

DOE tentatively concludes that the 

proposed approach in the proposed new 

Appendix J would maintain 

representativeness by continuing to 

capture the complete range of Warm 

Wash temperatures available for 

selection (i.e., by relying on an average 

of the hottest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

setting and the coldest Warm Wash/ 

Cold Rinse setting). For models that are 

currently tested using the 25/50/75 test 

and for which certain ‘‘Warm’’ settings 

are located beyond the 75-percent 

position on the temperature selection 

dial and therefore not included for 

testing, DOE’s proposal would capture 

entire range of available Warm Wash 

temperatures available to the consumer, 

and therefore would improve 

representativeness. 

DOE acknowledges that NEEA’s 

suggestion to characterize the Warm 

Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections 

using a single test run on the wash 

temperature setting labeled ‘‘Warm’’ 

would reduce test burden even further 

by requiring just a single test cycle. 

However, DOE tentatively concludes 

that testing a single Warm Wash 

temperature on a clothes washer that 

offers multiple Warm Wash selections to 

the user may not provide as accurate a 

representation of consumer usage as 

DOE’s proposal, which captures the full 

range of available Warm Wash 

temperatures. In addition, DOE is 

concerned that defining the tested 

temperature as the setting labeled 

‘‘Warm’’ would create ambiguity for 

clothes washers that offer multiple 

Warm Wash temperatures but for which 

no setting is expressly labeled ‘‘Warm.’’ 

For example, DOE is aware of clothes 

washers that use descriptors such as 

‘‘Colors,’’ ‘‘Brights,’’ and ‘‘Whites’’ to 

describe the different wash temperature 

selections available to the user. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to require in the proposed new 

Appendix J testing only the hottest and 

the coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

settings. DOE seeks data and 

information on how this proposed 

change to the Warm Wash temperature 

settings required for testing would 

impact representativeness, testing costs, 

and manufacturer burden. 

As noted, based on its market 

research, DOE estimates that roughly 

half of all clothes washer models on the 

U.S. market offer more than two Warm 

Wash/Cold Rinse temperature settings. 

For these units, DOE’s proposal to 

simplify the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

settings required for testing may impact 

measured efficiency. Therefore, in this 

NOPR, DOE is proposing to change the 

Warm Wash tested settings only in the 

proposed new Appendix J and not in 

the existing Appendix J2. The ongoing 

RCW and CCW energy conservation 

standards rulemakings would consider 

the impact of these modifications to the 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse tested cycles on 

measured efficiency. 

4. Remaining Moisture Content 

Section 3.8.4 of Appendix J2 requires 

that for clothes washers that have 

multiple spin settings 39 available 

within the energy test cycle that result 

in different RMC values, the maximum 

and minimum extremes of the available 

spin settings must be tested with the 

maximum load size on the Cold/Cold 

temperature selection.40 The final RMC 

is the weighted average of the maximum 

and minimum spin settings, with the 

maximum spin setting weighted at 75 

percent and the minimum spin setting 

weighted at 25 percent. The RMC 

measurement is used to calculate the 

drying energy component of IMEF. On 

most clothes washers, the drying energy 

component represents the largest 

portion of energy captured in the MEF 

and IMEF metric. 

DOE is aware of clothes washers on 

the market that offer multiple spin 

settings, but which offer only the 

maximum spin setting on the Cold/Cold 

temperature selection. 85 FR 31065, 

31073. This results in the lower spin 

setting not being factored into the RMC 

calculation, despite being available at 

other temperature selections in the 

energy test cycle. As defined in the 

Temperature Use Factor (‘‘TUF’’) 41

Table 4.1.1 in Appendix J2, the Cold/ 

Cold temperature selection represents 

37 percent of consumer temperature 

selections, whereas the other available 

temperature selections, for which the 

lower spin settings would be available 

on such a unit, represent a combined 63 

percent of consumer temperature 

selections. Id. DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the existing RMC 

measurement procedure may not 

provide representative test results on 

certain clothes washer models. 

a. Revised Calculation 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on testing clothes washers that 

offer only the maximum spin setting on 

the Cold/Cold temperature selection but 

provide lower spin settings on other 

temperature selections. Id. DOE 

suggested that, RMC could be measured 

at the default spin setting for each 

temperature selection and averaged 

using the TUFs. Id. 

AHAM stated that it is not necessary 

to address clothes washers with spin 

settings that are only available on 

certain temperature selections because 

the current method of RMC calculation 

is representative of an average use cycle. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 13) 

Samsung commented that clothes 

washers with spin settings that are 

available only on certain temperature 

selections make the current test 

procedure unrepresentative of real 

world use, since customers can select an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49162 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

42 DOE notes that in NEEA’s comment, this range 

was cited as 0.3–0.9, but the data in the table 

presented by NEEA displayed a range of 0.3–1.1 

percentage points between the RMCs at maximum 

and minimum speed. 

43 37% is the TUF for the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

temperature selection as specified in Table 4.1.1 of 

Appendix J2. 

un-tested, and potentially more energyintensive mode, in order to access the 

spin speed they intend to use. Samsung 

suggested that for such units, DOE 

consider requiring an additional test at 

another temperature setting where the 

spin speed is selectable. (Samsung, No. 

6 at pp. 2–3) 

NEEA commented that it was not 

aware of any units with spin speeds that 

are available only on certain 

temperature selections, but asserted that 

Appendix J2’s current RMC test does 

not represent the range of RMCs 

expected in the field, even when 

maximum and minimum speeds are 

tested as specified in Appendix J2. 

NEEA presented RMC data from its 

testing of three top-selling clothes 

washer models, which demonstrated a 

difference in RMC of 0.3–1.1 percentage 

points between maximum and 

minimum speed.42 (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 

5) NEEA described laboratory testing it 

conducted to isolate and measure 

variables that affect RMC: testing was 

performed on 12 top-selling RCW 

models (including six front-loading and 

five top-loading), representing over five 

manufacturers, and spanning the range 

of efficiencies available on the market; 

two CCWs were tested as well. (NEEA 

at No. 12, pp. 2–13) NEEA stated its 

testing was performed according to the 

DOE Appendix J2 procedure, except 

that the RMC was calculated for all test 

runs performed; an encoder noninvasively measured revolutions per 

minute during test runs; and some tests 

were performed at different load sizes or 

using different cycle selections. Based 

on its data, NEEA stated that the current 

Appendix J2 RMC test does not 

represent the RMC of an average clothes 

washer cycle. NEEA asserted that the 

RMC test procedure prescribed in 

Appendix J2 represents a ‘‘best-case’’ 

scenario for RMC conditions—every 

other test that NEEA performed at 

alternate temperatures, load sizes, and 

cycle types increased the RMC value 

relative to the Appendix J2-tested value. 

Id. NEEA commented that, according to 

its testing, the primary difference in 

RMC for a given clothes washer was due 

to programmed spin differences such as 

spin time, and not differences in load 

size. Id. NEEA’s stated that its test data 

show that among all the clothes washers 

tested, spin time was, on average, 7 

minutes longer using the Cold Wash/ 

Cold Rinse temperature selection with 

the maximum spin selection than when 

using the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

temperature selection with the default 

spin selection. These differences 

resulted in an RMC difference of an 

average of 10 percentage points. Id. 

NEEA recommended that DOE measure 

RMC at the default spin setting for each 

temperature selection and load size, and 

average those RMC values using TUFs 

and LUFs. NEEA stated that this 

approach will reduce test burden by 

removing the need for a separate test 

run exclusively for measuring RMC, 

increase representativeness by capturing 

RMC for all load sizes and water 

temperatures, and potentially result in 

significant energy savings for clothes 

dryers in the future. Id. 

The Joint Commenters and CA IOUs 

supported NEEA’s comments and urged 

DOE to amend the test procedure to 

measure RMC for all load sizes and 

temperature selections, and to weight 

the measurements using LUFs and TUFs 

because doing so would improve the 

representativeness of the test procedure. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 10 at pp. 1–2; 

CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 6–7) The Joint 

Commenters stated that the current test 

procedure is likely significantly 

underestimating drying energy use and 

is leading to inaccurate efficiency 

ratings. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 

1) 

DOE is proposing an amended 

method for measuring RMC in the 

proposed new Appendix J that would 

require measuring RMC on each of the 

energy test cycles using the default spin 

settings, and determining the final RMC 

by weighting the individual RMC 

measurements using the same TUFs and 

LUFs that apply to the water and energy 

measurements. DOE notes that this 

proposal is largely consistent with the 

approach recommended by NEEA and 

supported by the Joint Commenters and 

CA IOUs. 

DOE tentatively concludes (based on 

its test observations as described above 

and the test results presented by NEEA) 

that the current method of measuring 

RMC may no longer produce test results 

that measure energy and water use 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use, particularly as 

the prevalence of clothes washers with 

complex electronic controls continues 

to increase in the market. On a clothes 

washer with basic controls (e.g., in 

which the available spin settings are the 

same regardless of what wash/rinse 

temperature is selected), measuring 

RMC using only the Cold/Cold cycle 

would be expected to provide RMC 

results that are equally representative of 

the other available wash/rinse 

temperatures, which as noted comprise 

the majority of consumer cycle 

selections. However, on a clothes 

washers in which the selection of wash/ 

rinse temperature affects which spin 

settings are available to be selected, 

measuring RMC using only the Cold/ 

Cold cycle may not necessarily provide 

results that measure energy and water 

use during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use (i.e., across the 

range of wash/rinse temperature options 

selected by consumers, as represented 

by the temperature use factors). 

The data presented by NEEA 

illustrates how, on average, the spin 

portion of the cycle on the setting used 

to measure RMC (i.e., the maximum 

spin setting on the Cold Wash/Cold 

Rinse temperature setting) may not be 

representative of the spin characteristics 

and resulting RMC measurement of 

other temperature selections comprising 

the energy test cycle. Specifically, the 

data presented by NEEA suggest that the 

specific cycle configuration from which 

RMC is measured is programed with a 

longer spin time than other temperature 

settings available to the consumer, 

resulting in a significantly better RMC 

measurement than would be 

experienced by the consumer on the 

majority of wash cycles performed. 

The proposed update to the RMC 

measurement would provide a more 

representative measure of RMC than the 

current test procedures because RMC 

would be measured on all of the energy 

test cycles rather than only the Cold 

Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, which 

represent only 37 percent of consumer 

cycles and may not share the same RMC 

performance as the other 63 percent of 

consumer cycles.43

Regarding Samsung’s suggestion to 

require an additional RMC test at a 

different temperature setting that would 

provide the spin speed that is 

unavailable on the Cold setting, DOE 

tentatively concludes that its proposed 

approach would provide a more 

representative measure of RMC by 

capturing RMC across all the 

temperature settings within the energy 

test cycle. 

Because RMC directly affects drying 

energy, which is a large component in 

the calculation of IMEF, it is important 

that the RMC value be representative of 

all test cycles. DOE’s proposal would 

make the RMC calculation consistent 

with how hot water energy, electrical 

energy, and water usage are calculated, 

i.e., by testing multiple load sizes and 

temperatures and averaging these values 

using LUFs and TUFs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49163 

44See section III.D.4.b of this document for the 

definition of the term ‘‘bone-dry.’’ 

DOE tentatively concludes that this 

proposal would reduce overall test 

burden. The proposal would require 

weighing the cloth before and after each 

test cycle, but would avoid the need to 

perform extra cycles for capturing both 

the maximum and minimum spin 

settings available on the clothes washer 

if such spin settings are not activated by 

default as part of the energy test cycle. 

In DOE’s experience, a majority of 

clothes washers offer multiple spin 

settings, thus requiring between one and 

eight RMC cycles, depending on the 

specific options available on the clothes 

washer. Appendix J2 currently requires 

measuring the test load weight before 

each cycle in order to verify that the 

load is bone-dry.44 To DOE’s 

knowledge, many laboratories already 

measure and record the test load weight 

after each test cycle as a means for 

identifying potential cycle anomalies or 

to provide additional data that can be 

used to verify quality control 

retrospectively. In cases where a 

laboratory currently does not measure 

the weight after completion of the cycle, 

DOE’s proposal would incur a de 

minimis amount of additional time to 

weigh the load after the cycle, which 

can be performed using the same scale 

used to weigh the load at the beginning 

of the cycle. For these reasons DOE does 

not expect the additional collection of 

data to result in additional test burden. 

This proposal would likely impact the 

measured RMC value and thus would 

impact a clothes washer’s IMEF value. 

Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing the revised RMC procedure 

only in the proposed new Appendix J 

and not in existing Appendix J2. The 

ongoing RCW and CCW energy 

conservation standards rulemakings 

would consider the impact of any 

modifications to the RMC calculation on 

measured efficiency. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to revise the RMC procedure so 

that RMC would be measured at the 

default spin setting for each temperature 

selection and load size, and the 

individual RMC values would be 

averaged using TUFs and LUFs to 

calculate the final RMC. DOE seeks data 

and information regarding how this 

change to the RMC calculation would 

impact testing costs and manufacturer 

test burden. 

DOE further requests comment on 

whether DOE should implement any 

changes to the RMC calculation in 

Appendix J2 to address clothes washers 

with spin settings that are available only 

on certain temperature selections. 

b. Definition of Bone-Dry 

In section 1.6 of Appendix J2, the 

term ‘‘bone-dry’’ is defined as a 

condition of a load of test cloth that has 

been dried in a dryer at maximum 

temperature for a minimum of 10 

minutes, removed and weighed before 

cool down, and then dried again for 10- 

minute periods until the final weight 

change of the load is 1 percent or less. 

The bone-dry definition was first 

established in the September 1977 Final 

Rule. 42 FR 49801, 49807–49808. In the 

March 2012 Final Rule, DOE added a 

specification to section 2.6 of Appendix 

J2 requiring that the dryer used for 

drying the cloth to bone-dry must heat 

the test cloth (and stuffer cloths) above 

210 °F (99 °C). 77 FR 13888, 13924. 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, 

NEEA recommended that DOE update 

its procedure for achieving bone-dry test 

cloth to harmonize with Annex G of IEC 

Standard 60456, ‘‘Clothes washing 

machines for household use—Methods 

for measuring the performance’’ Edition 

5.0 (‘‘IEC 60456’’). (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 

26) In particular, NEEA recommended 

that DOE consider the tumble dryer 

specifications in Section G.2 of IEC 

60456, the dryer inlet temperature 

measurement method, and the 

requirement that the weight of the bonedry load change be no more than 1 

percent or 0.044 lb (whichever is 

smaller) between 10-minute drying 

periods (Section G.3 of IEC 60456). Id. 

DOE is not aware of any problems 

with the current bone-dry definition 

that would justify changing the bonedry definition as NEEA has suggested. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

specifying a weight change of no more 

than 1 percent or 0.044 lb (whichever is 

smaller) would increase the test burden 

because for a majority of tested loads, 

the 0.044 lb requirement would apply, 

which would be more stringent than the 

existing 1 percent requirement. DOE has 

not identified, and commenters have not 

suggested, any problems with the 

current approach. In the absence of data 

indicating any problems with the 

current procedure, DOE is not proposing 

any changes to the bone-dry definition 

or associated dryer temperature 

measurement method in this NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on its 

tentative conclusion not to propose 

changes to the bone-dry definition and 

associated dryer temperature 

measurement method. 

c. Starting Moisture Content 

Section 2.9.1 of Appendix J2 requires 

the test load for energy and water 

consumption measurements to be bonedry prior to the first cycle of the test, 

and allows the test load to be dried to 

a maximum of 104 percent of the bonedry weight for subsequent testing. This 

allowance effectively allows for an 

increase to the starting moisture content 

of the load from 1 percent moisture (as 

implied in the definition of ‘‘bone-dry’’ 

in section 1 of Appendix J2) to 4 percent 

moisture, which creates two concerns. 

First, for the largest clothes washers 

on the market, which use the largest test 

load sizes, a 4 percent tolerance can 

represent up to 1 lb of additional water 

weight in a starting test load. DOE is 

concerned that the range of starting 

water weights that this provision allows 

could reduce the repeatability and 

reproducibility of test results, 

particularly for larger clothes washers. 

Second, as described in section 

III.D.4.a of this document, DOE is 

proposing to require the measurement of 

RMC for all tested cycles in the 

proposed new Appendix J. The RMC of 

each tested cycle would be calculated 

based on the bone-dry weight at the start 

of the cycle. Allowing the bone-dry 

weight to vary within a range of 1 

percent to 4 percent moisture at the 

beginning of each tested cycle would 

introduce variability into the RMC 

calculation. 

Therefore, to improve repeatability 

and reproducibility of test results, DOE 

is proposing in new Appendix J to 

remove the provision that allows for a 

starting test load weight of 104 percent 

of the bone-dry weight, and instead 

require that each test cycle use a bonedry test load. DOE is not proposing to 

make any changes to section 2.9.1 of 

Appendix J2, recognizing that such a 

change could impact measured energy 

efficiency. 

In DOE’s experience, most test 

laboratories use the bone-dry weight as 

the starting weight of each test load 

rather than a starting weight up to 104 

percent of bone-dry, as allowed by 

section 2.9.1 of Appendix J2. If a test 

laboratory does make use of this 

provision in section 2.9.1 of Appendix 

J2, the requirement to use the bone-dry 

weight would add no more than 10 

minutes of drying time per cycle to 

ensure that the test load has reached the 

bone-dry requirement. In DOE’s 

experience, most test laboratories dry 

the load from the previous test cycle 

while the next cycle is being tested on 

the clothes washer, such that a minor 

increase in drying time would not affect 

the overall time required to conduct the 

test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that each test cycle 

use a bone-dry test load in the proposed 

new Appendix J. DOE requests 

comment on whether test laboratories 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49164 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

45Under this approach, any value of total 

refrigerated volume of a basic model reported to 

DOE in a certification of compliance in accordance 

with § 429.14(b)(2) must be calculated using the 

CAD-derived volume(s) and the applicable 

provisions in the test procedures in 10 CFR part 430 

for measuring volume, and must be within 2 

percent, or 0.5 ft3 (0.2 ft3 for compact products), 

whichever is greater, of the volume of a production 

unit of the basic model measured in accordance 

with the applicable test procedure in 10 CFR part 

430. (See 10 CFR 429.72(c).) 

46For the table tennis ball approach, the clothes 

container is filled with specified table tennis balls, 

and an empirically determined equation is provided 

to convert the number of balls into a capacity value. 

The water approach is similar to the approach 

provided in section 3.1 of Appendix J2. 

start test cycles with the test load at 

bone-dry or at up to 104 percent of the 

bone-dry weight. DOE further requests 

feedback on its assessment that this 

change would not affect test burden. 

5. Cycle Time Measurement 

The current test procedure does not 

specify a measurement for average cycle 

time. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

base the allocation of annual combined 

low-power mode hours on the measured 

average cycle time rather than a fixed 

value of 8,465 hours, for the proposed 

new Appendix J (see section III.G.3 of 

this document). DOE is therefore 

proposing to require the measurement of 

average cycle time for the proposed new 

Appendix J. Calculating the annual 

standby mode and off mode hours using 

the measured average cycle time would 

provide a more representative basis for 

determining the energy consumption in 

the combined low-power modes for the 

specific clothes washer under test. 

DOE is proposing to define the overall 

average cycle time of a clothes washer 

model as the weighted average of the 

individual cycle times for each wash 

cycle configuration conducted as part of 

the test procedure, using the TUFs and 

LUFs for the weighting. Using the 

weighted-average approach would align 

the average cycle time calculation with 

the calculations for determining 

weighted-average energy and water use. 

These proposed changes would apply 

only to the proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE does not expect the 

measurement of cycle time to increase 

test burden. To DOE’s knowledge, test 

laboratories are either already 

measuring cycle time for all tested 

cycles or using data acquisition systems 

to record electronic logs of each cycle, 

from which determining the cycle time 

would require minimal additional work. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to add cycle time 

measurements and to calculate average 

cycle time using the weighted-average 

method in the proposed new Appendix 

J. DOE also requests comment on its 

assertion that adding cycle time 

measurements and a calculation of a 

weighted-average cycle time would not 

increase testing costs or overall test 

burden. 

6. Capacity Measurement 

Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides 

the procedure for measuring the clothes 

container capacity, which represents the 

maximum usable volume for washing 

clothes. The clothes container capacity 

is measured by filling the clothes 

container with water and using the 

weight of the water to determine the 

volume of the clothes container. For 

front-loading clothes washers, this 

procedure requires positioning the 

clothes washer on its back surface such 

that the door opening of the clothes 

container faces upwards and is leveled 

horizontally. 

a. Computer-Aided Design 

DOE is aware that for some frontloading clothes washers, positioning the 

clothes washer on its back surface may 

be impractical or unsafe, particularly for 

very large or heavy clothes washers or 

those with internal components that 

could be damaged by the procedures 

specified in section 3.1 of Appendix J2. 

85 FR 31065, 31072. On other clothes 

washers, filling the clothes container 

volume as described could be difficult 

or impractical, particularly for clothes 

washers with concave or otherwise 

complex door geometries. Id. 

Recognizing these challenges, in the 

May 2020 RFI, DOE considered whether 

to allow manufacturers to determine the 

clothes container capacity by 

performing a calculation of the volume 

based upon computer-aided design 

(‘‘CAD’’) models of the basic model in 

lieu of physical measurements of a 

production unit of the basic model. 85 

FR 31065, 31072. DOE allows a CADbased approach for consumer 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, as specified at 10 CFR 

429.72(c).45 In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

requested comments on whether to 

allow CAD-based determination of 

clothes container capacity for clothes 

washers in lieu of physical 

measurements of a production unit of 

the basic model. Id. DOE also requested 

comments on the impacts on 

manufacturer burden associated with 

any such change to the capacity 

measurement procedure. Id. 

AHAM stated that the current volume 

measurement procedure works well as 

written, and AHAM does not believe it 

is necessary to allow for CAD-based 

determination of volume, stating that it 

would add unnecessary complexity to 

the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 

10) 

UL commented that while 

manufacturers could easily use CAD 

models of their clothes washer 

containers in order to measure capacity, 

third-party laboratories would still need 

to use the water-filling method. UL 

suggested that in order to eliminate the 

necessity of the water-filling method, 

manufacturers could submit CAD 

drawings to DOE as part of the 

certification process. (UL, No. 9 at p. 3) 

NEEA commented that DOE should 

not allow manufacturers to declare 

capacities that cannot be verified by a 

third party (such as manufacturerreported CAD-based determinations). 

(NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 26–27) 

No information is available at this 

time to determine how a capacity rating 

based on a CAD model would compare 

to the measured capacity using the 

procedure defined in Appendix J2. DOE 

is not proposing to allow CAD-based 

capacity measurement at this time. 

b. Alternative Measurements 

In test procedures established in 

certain other jurisdictions (e.g., Europe, 

the United Arab Emirates, Australia, 

and New Zealand), clothes washer 

capacity is represented in terms of the 

weight of clothing (e.g., kilograms or 

pounds) that may be washed, rather 

than the physical volume of the clothes 

container. Furthermore, some of these 

test procedures allow for the clothes 

washer capacity to be declared by the 

manufacturer, representing the 

maximum weight of clothing that the 

clothes washer is designed to 

successfully clean. 85 FR 31065, 31072. 

Some of the alternate representations 

of clothes washer capacity that DOE 

could consider include: 

• A weight-based capacity, such as 

pounds of clothing, which could be 

derived from the measured volume of 

the clothes container in a similar 

manner to the way that the maximum 

test load is currently specified in Table 

5.1 of Appendix J2 based on the 

measured clothes container volume. 

• A clothes container capacity that is 

declared by the manufacturer using an 

industry-standard methodology. For 

example, IEC 60456 provides two 

optional methodologies for determining 

clothes container capacity, using either 

table tennis balls or water.46

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether to consider any 

changes to the representation of clothes 

washer capacity, including, but not 

limited to, a weight-based capacity or 

manufacturer-declared capacity based 

on industry-standard methodology. 85 

FR 31065, 31072. Specifically, DOE 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49165 

requested comment on whether the two 

methodologies provided in IEC 60456 

provide capacity measurements that 

result in a test method that measures the 

energy use of the clothes washer during 

a representative average use cycle or 

period of use. Id. 

AHAM supported the continued use 

of the current DOE clothes washer 

volume measurement, stating that it is 

accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. 

AHAM opposed any changes of the 

representation of clothes washer volume 

to a weight-based measurement or other 

manufacturer-declared capacity 

because, to AHAM’s knowledge, there is 

not a repeatable, reproducible way to do 

so. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 10–12) AHAM 

described work it has performed over 

the past decade to develop a test 

procedure to evaluate capacity in terms 

of the weight of clothes that can be 

effectively washed and rinsed, similar to 

various international approaches. Id. As 

part of its investigation, AHAM tested 

cleaning, rinsing, and gentleness on 

nine randomly selected units to develop 

a baseline performance. AHAM stated 

that the results of this testing showed 

that the variation of the performance 

scores was too high to yield repeatable 

or reproducible results. Id. AHAM 

stated that any DOE effort to formulate 

a similar procedure would likely meet 

similar challenges. Id. 

Electrolux supported AHAM’s 

position that alternative capacity 

measurement methods should not be 

considered. Electrolux stated that the 

water volume-based method in use 

today is easy for third-party laboratories 

to use, and provides the best and most 

accurate data for the DOE test method. 

Electrolux stated that the water method 

is neither too restrictive nor too 

burdensome. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 1) 

NEEA commented that DOE should 

maintain a single method of 

measurement of volumetric capacity, as 

it does currently in Appendix J2. 

(NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 26–27) NEEA 

stated that DOE should not allow 

multiple methods of capacity 

measurement under the test method, 

stating that this can lead to 

inconsistency and inequitable 

application of the test procedure that 

includes a maximum load size based on 

basket capacity. Id. NEEA also 

commented that DOE should not allow 

manufacturer declarations of capacity 

that cannot be verified by a third party 

(such as manufacturer reported CADbased determinations). Id. NEEA cited 

the potentially high burden that would 

be associated with including washing 

performance testing that would be 

required for a manufacturer-reported 

weight capacity. Id. 

DOE appreciates details and insights 

from stakeholders and industry 

regarding efforts to investigate this 

issue. DOE is not proposing to specify 

any alternatives to the current capacity 

measurement procedure at this time. 

c. Modifications to the Existing Capacity 

Method 

Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides 

the methodology for determining 

clothes container capacity. In the March 

2012 Final Rule, DOE revised the 

clothes container capacity measurement 

to better reflect the actual usable 

capacity compared to the previous 

measurement procedures. 77 FR 13887, 

13917. In the August 2015 Final Rule, 

DOE further added to the capacity 

measurement procedure a revised 

description of the maximum fill volume 

for front-loading clothes washers, as 

well as illustrations of the boundaries 

defining the uppermost edge of the 

clothes container for top-loading 

vertical-axis clothes washers and the 

maximum fill volume for horizontalaxis clothes washers. 80 FR 46729, 

46733. 

For top-loading vertical-axis clothes 

washers, DOE defined the uppermost 

edge of the clothes container as the 

uppermost edge of the rotating portion 

of the wash basket. 77 FR 13887, 13917– 

13918. DOE also concluded that the 

uppermost edge is the highest 

horizontal plane that a dry clothes load 

could occupy in a top-loading verticalaxis clothes washer that would allow 

clothing to interact with the water and 

detergent properly. Id. 

Samsung recommended that DOE 

reconsider the capacity measurement 

guideline for top-loading clothes 

washers. Samsung stated that volume 

should be measured up to the 

manufacturer-recommended fill line, 

instead of measuring up to the top of the 

rotating portion of the clothes container. 

Samsung added that the discrepancy 

between measured volume and 

manufacturer-recommended fill line 

may overstate the energy and water 

efficiency in the test method compared 

to real-world use. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 

2) 

DOE discussed its justification for the 

current fill level definition for toploading clothes washers as part of the 

March 2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 13888, 

13917–13920. The fill level 

recommended by Samsung corresponds 

to ‘‘Fill Level 1’’ as described in the 

March 2012 Final Rule, while the 

current definition as the uppermost 

edge of the rotating portion of the wash 

basket corresponds to ‘‘Fill Level 2’’ as 

described in the March 2012 Final Rule. 

As DOE explained in the March 2012 

Final Rule, by respecting manufacturer 

recommendations, Fill Level 1 would 

best ensure wash performance is 

maintained, and thus is the most 

consumer-relevant fill level. However, 

should clothing occupy the space 

between Fill Level 1 and Fill Level 2 

during a wash cycle, the clothing could 

be cleaned sufficiently because water 

can still be contained within that 

volume. Clothing above Fill Level 2, 

however, is not likely to be cleaned 

sufficiently because it would be outside 

the wash basket during the wash cycle 

and risks being damaged if it becomes 

entangled on stationary fixtures such as 

the tub cover or other mechanical 

components of the clothes washer 

during the wash cycle. Id. For these 

reasons, DOE adopted Fill Level 2 for 

determining the capacity of top-loading 

clothes washers. 

DOE is not aware of any changes to 

product designs since the March 2012 

Final Rule that would cause DOE to 

reevaluate its conclusions about the 

most appropriate capacity fill level. In 

DOE’s experience since the March 2012 

Final Rule, the existing capacity fill 

definition is implemented consistently 

by test laboratories and results in 

repeatable and reproducible 

measurements of capacity. DOE is 

therefore not proposing any changes to 

the existing capacity measurement 

method. 

DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination to maintain the 

current capacity measurement method. 

7. Anomalous Cycles 

Section 3.2.9 of Appendix J2 specifies 

discarding the data from a wash cycle 

that ‘‘provides a visual or audio 

indicator to alert the user that an out-ofbalance condition has been detected, or 

that terminates prematurely if an out-ofbalance condition is detected, and thus 

does not include the agitation/tumble 

operation, spin speed(s), wash times, 

and rinse times applicable to the wash 

cycle under test.’’ In the May 2020 RFI, 

DOE sought input on whether the test 

procedure should, in addition to out-ofbalance conditions, also require 

discarding data for wash cycles in 

which any other anomalous behavior 

may be observed. 85 FR 31065, 31070. 

DOE also requested information on 

whether the test procedure should 

explicitly require that any wash cycle 

for which data was discarded due to 

anomalous behavior must also be 

repeated to obtain data without the 

anomalous behavior to be included in 

the energy test cycle. Id. 

NEEA requested more specific 

guidance on when test cycle data should 

be considered anomalous to ensure test 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49166 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

procedure consistency, specifically 

whether a ‘‘visual or audio’’ indicator 

includes tub cabinet hits, a paused spin 

cycle, anomalous revolutions per 

minute (‘‘rpm’’), an ‘‘unbalanced’’ 

indication on the control panel, or any 

other type of signal. NEEA stated that 

inconsistencies among test laboratory 

interpretations of this provision could 

lead to repeatability and reproducibility 

issues. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 17) 

UL commented that DOE should 

consider amending section 3.2.9 of 

Appendix J2 to specify whether the term 

‘‘audio indicator’’ includes only 

electronic tones from the clothes washer 

(e.g., beeps), or if it also includes 

mechanical noises from the machinery 

itself (e.g., the cabinet hitting due to an 

unbalanced load). UL added that 

unbalanced visual indicators (such as a 

machine control panel displaying ‘‘ul’’ 

for unbalanced load) may last for only 

a few seconds and could be easily 

missed. (UL, No. 9 at p. 2) UL also 

suggested that wash water use data be 

discarded if consumption and/or cycle 

time differ vastly from other cycles run 

on the machine, since cycle time may be 

altered if a clothes washer adds an extra 

rinse to redistribute an unbalanced load. 

Id. 

AHAM commented that sometimes a 

cycle may not terminate due to an outof-balance or other anomalous behavior, 

and that some models do not provide 

audio or visual indicators to notify the 

consumer that an anomalous condition 

was detected and fixed by the machine. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 7–8) According to 

AHAM, these actions benefit the 

consumer—instead of requiring 

consumer interaction during the cycle, 

the clothes washer addresses the 

anomalous behavior and finishes the 

cycle. AHAM added that this also often 

saves energy and water by finishing the 

cycle with some incrementally 

increased water or energy usage instead 

of requiring a cycle to be canceled and 

completely re-run. Id. AHAM stated that 

it is unlikely that these anomalous 

conditions happen frequently when 

consumers use the clothes washer and 

that test runs exhibiting these 

conditions should be considered 

invalid. Id. In response to DOE’s 

question about how anomalous behavior 

can be detected without an indicator 

and during the test of only one unit, 

AHAM commented that a spot check 

verification test would be the only 

means for doing so. AHAM added that 

should anomalous behavior occur 

during a single test, more units will 

almost always be tested as part of DOE’s 

enforcement procedures or ENERGY 

STAR verification procedures, and that 

at that time, anomalous behavior would 

become evident and would be a signal 

to the laboratory that the outlier test run 

should be discarded. Id. According to 

AHAM, a trained technician—whether 

at a manufacturer laboratory or a thirdparty laboratory—should similarly be 

able to tell that there was a power 

interruption at some point in the 

duration of the cycle due to software 

detecting an issue, stopping the cycle, 

and taking action to fix it (e.g., 

redistributing the load). Id. 

AHAM recommended that DOE add 

language to the test procedure 

specifying that if there is a visual or 

audio indicator that would alert the user 

about anomalous behavior, or if there 

are other indicators that suggest 

anomalous behavior, the test be stopped 

and the results discarded. Id. According 

to AHAM, without this change, 

manufacturers may need to redesign 

products to terminate at any indication 

of anomalous behavior rather than 

automatically resolve the issue for the 

consumer. AHAM added that the ability 

of a clothes washer to correct itself 

without terminating the cycle is an 

important consumer utility. Id. To 

address possible circumvention 

concerns (e.g., that a product would be 

designed to perform this way), AHAM 

proposed that DOE consider a similar 

approach to IEC 60456 (Section 8.2.5 

and the accompanying note which 

references Section 9.1), which limits the 

number of additional test runs and 

requires reporting the reason for the 

rejection of a test run. Id. 

Electrolux supported the suggestion 

that energy data obtained from a cycle 

that may be acting erratically or 

abnormally in any way should be 

discarded. Electrolux recommended that 

DOE consider a possible manufacturersupplied cycle status code that would 

be available to any test agency following 

completion of a cycle, which would 

monitor the cycle for anomalous 

behavior and provide an error code 

indicating not to use that cycle data. 

Electrolux additionally supported 

AHAM’s comments on this issue. 

(Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges that as clothes 

washer technology has improved, 

certain clothes washers are designed to 

self-correct out-of-balance loads or make 

other adjustments to the operation of the 

unit to complete the cycle without 

alerting the consumer or requiring user 

intervention. DOE also recognizes the 

benefit of objective and observable 

criteria to determine when an 

anomalous cycle has occurred, based on 

a single test, such that the data from that 

anomalous cycle should be discarded. 

To provide more objective and 

observable criteria, DOE proposes that 

data from a wash cycle would be 

discarded if either: The washing 

machine signals to the user by means of 

an audio or visual alert that an offbalance condition has occurred; or the 

wash cycle terminates prematurely and 

thus does not include the agitation/ 

tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash 

times, and rinse times applicable to the 

wash cycle under test. The proposed 

reference to an audio or visual alert 

refers to a warning sound initiated by 

the clothes washer, or visual cue such 

as a flashing light or persistent error 

code, that is provided to the user to 

actively inform the user that a problem 

has occurred; as opposed to a more 

passive indication such as the cabinet 

hitting the side or a change in the 

projected cycle duration, which could 

go unnoticed by the user or which itself 

may not be an indication of an out-ofbalance load that warrants discarding 

the data for a test cycle. To emphasize 

this intent, DOE is proposing to change 

the current phrase ‘‘provides a visual or 

audio indicator to alert the user’’ to 

‘‘signals to the user by means of a visual 

or audio alert’’ in both section 3.2.9 of 

Appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 of the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE is also proposing to change the 

current phrase ‘‘terminates prematurely 

if an out-of-balance condition is 

detected’’ to simply ‘‘terminates 

prematurely,’’ in recognition that other 

factors beyond an out-of-balance 

condition could also cause a wash cycle 

to terminate prematurely (e.g., a clogged 

filter, mechanical malfunction, etc.), 

and that for any such reason, the data 

from that wash cycle would be 

discarded. 

DOE is further proposing nonsubstantive wording changes to section 

3.2.9 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 

of the proposed new Appendix J to 

make explicit that if data are discarded 

for the reasons described in these 

sections, the wash cycle is repeated. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed criteria for determining 

whether test data are to be discarded. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

the proposal that test data are discarded 

if a washing machine either signals to 

the user by means of a visual or audio 

alert that an out-of-balance condition 

has occurred or terminates prematurely. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

additional or alternate criteria would 

provide objective and observable 

indication during a single test that test 

data are to be discarded. 

8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 

Section III.C.2 of this document 

discussed the installation of semiautomatic clothes washers for testing. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49167 

47 DOE notes that the apportionment between 

Warm/Warm and Warm/Cold was different for 

automatic clothes washers and semi-automatic 

clothes washers in Appendix J–1977. DOE is 

proposing a TUF apportionment between Warm/ 

Warm and Warm/Cold that is proportional to the 

apportionment in Table 6.1 of Appendix J–1977. 

This section discusses the wash/rinse 

temperature selections and TUFs 

applicable to semi-automatic clothes 

washers. As noted, semi-automatic 

clothes washers are defined at 10 CFR 

430.2 as 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. DOE’s test 

procedure requirements at 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(2)(ii) state that the use of 

Appendix J2 is required to determine 

IMEF for both automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers. 

Semi-automatic clothes washers 

inherently do not provide wash/rinse 

temperature selections on the control 

panel, as any combination of cold, 

warm, and hot wash temperatures and 

rinse temperatures are provided by the 

user’s adjustment of the external water 

faucet valves. The following discussion 

provides relevant historical context on 

this issue. 

Section 6.1 of Appendix J–1977 and 

Appendix J–1997 provided separate 

TUFs explicitly for semi-automatic 

clothes washers for the following wash/ 

rinse temperature combinations: Hot/ 

Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm, 

Warm/Cold, and Cold/Cold. The 

specification of these TUFs indicated 

that these six wash/rinse temperature 

combinations were required for testing. 

Section 3.2.2.6 of Appendix J–1977 and 

Appendix J–1997 and section 3.2.3.1.6 

of Appendix J1–1997 and Appendix J1– 

2001 provided a table indicating the 

following external water faucet valve 

positions required to achieve each wash 

and rinse temperature selection: 

• Hot: Hot valve completely open, 

cold valve closed; 

• Warm: Hot valve completely open, 

cold valve completely open; and 

• Cold: Hot valve closed, cold valve 

completely open. 

Inherently, testing the Hot/Hot, 

Warm/Warm, and Cold/Cold 

temperature combinations require no 

changes to the water faucet valve 

positions between the wash and rinse 

portions of the cycle. However, testing 

the Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, and Warm/ 

Cold temperature combinations requires 

the test administrator to manually 

regulate the water temperature between 

the wash and rinse portions of the cycle 

by adjusting the external water faucet 

valves. As reflected in DOE’s definition 

of semi-automatic clothes washer, user 

intervention is required to regulate the 

water temperature of all semi-automatic 

clothes washers (i.e., user regulation of 

water temperature is the distinguishing 

characteristic of a semi-automatic 

clothes washer). See 10 CFR 430.2. 

When it established Appendix J1– 

1997, DOE combined all of the TUF 

tables—for both automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers—that were 

provided in section 5 and section 6 of 

Appendix J–1997 into a single 

condensed table in Table 4.1.1 of 

Appendix J1–1997. 62 FR 45484, 45512. 

In contrast to Appendix J–1997, which 

provided separate TUF tables for every 

possible set of available wash/rinse 

temperature selections, the simplified 

table in Appendix J1–1997 was 

organized into columns based on the 

number of wash temperature selections 

available on a clothes washer. Warm 

rinse was considered separately within 

each column of the table. Id. In the 

current version of Appendix J2, Table 

4.1.1 remains a single simplified table, 

although in the August 2015 Final Rule, 

DOE clarified the column headings by 

listing the wash/rinse temperature 

selections applicable to each column. 80 

FR 46729, 46782. 

The simplified Table 4.1.1 in 

Appendix J2 does not state which 

column(s) of the table are applicable to 

semi-automatic clothes washers. In the 

May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE stated 

that it was not aware of any semiautomatic clothes washers on the 

market. 77 FR 32307, 32317. However, 

DOE is currently aware of several semiautomatic clothes washer models 

available in the U.S. market. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

input on whether to amend the test 

procedure with regard to the specificity 

of wash/rinse test combinations for 

semiautomatic clothes washers in 

Appendix J2, and whether those 

updates would provide test results that 

measure energy efficiency and water use 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use, and whether they 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. 85 FR 31065, 31077. 

No comments were received regarding 

these aspects of the test procedure for 

semi-automatic clothes washers. The 

following sections describe DOE’s 

proposals for specifying how to test 

semi-automatic clothes washers. 

a. Temperature Selections and Usage 

Factors 

DOE is proposing to specify how to 

test semi-automatic clothes washers in 

the proposed new Appendix J. In this 

section, DOE describes its proposals to 

specify which temperatures to test and 

which TUFs to apply to the measured 

results. 

As described above, Appendix J–1977 

required testing six wash/rinse 

temperature combinations: Hot/Hot, 

Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm, 

Warm/Cold and Cold/Cold. The TUFs in 

Table 6.1 of Appendix J–1977 used the 

same general usage factors for semiautomatic clothes washers as for 

automatic clothes washers. 42 FR 49802, 

49810. For example, the Cold/Cold TUF 

of 0.15 was the same for both types, and 

the sum of Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm and Hot/ 

Cold (with a total TUF of 0.30) for semiautomatic clothes washers was the same 

as the TUF for Hot/Cold on an 

automatic clothes washer with only 

three temperature selections. 

DOE updated the TUFs in the August 

1997 Final Rule, based on P&G data 

provided by AHAM. 62 FR 45484, 

45491. Currently, Table 4.1.1 of 

Appendix J2 does not include TUFs for 

all six of the temperatures required for 

testing in Appendix J–1977. 

DOE considered requiring that semiautomatic clothes washers be tested 

with the same six temperature settings 

as in Appendix J–1977. Table III.2 lists 

potential TUF values that could be used 

if DOE were to require testing all six 

possible temperature combinations. 

These values follow the same pattern 

that was used in Table 6.1 of Appendix 

J–1977, such that the sum of all 

temperature selections with a Hot Wash 

add up to 0.14 and the sum of all 

temperature selections with a Warm 

Wash add up to 0.49,47 consistent with 

the current TUFs for Hot/Cold and 

Warm/Cold as defined in Table 4.1.1 of 

Appendix J2. 

TABLE III.2—POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE

USAGE FACTORS FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC CLOTHES WASHERS REFLECTING SIX REQUIRED TEMPERATURE

COMBINATIONS

Wash/rinse temperature 

selection 

Potential TUF 

values 

Hot/Hot .................................. 0.07 

Hot/Warm .............................. 0.05 

Hot/Cold ................................ 0.02 

Warm/Warm .......................... 0.38 

Warm/Cold ............................ 0.11 

Cold/Cold .............................. 0.37 

By including all six possible 

temperature combinations, Table 6.1 of 

Appendix J–1977 included wash/rinse 

temperature settings that require the 

water temperature to be changed 

between the wash portion and the rinse 

portion of the cycle (i.e., Hot/Warm, 

Hot/Cold, and Warm/Cold), and wash/ 

rinse temperature settings that do not 

require any water temperature change 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49168 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

48These water use determinations are based on 

the water faucet positions specified in section 

3.2.3.2 of Appendix J2, which as described 

previously, specifies that to obtain a hot inlet water 

temperature, open the hot water faucet completely 

and close the cold water faucet; for a warm inlet 

water temperature, open both hot and cold water 

faucets completely; and for a cold inlet water 

temperature, close the hot water faucet and open 

the cold water faucet completely. 

(i.e., Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/ 

Cold). In Table 6.1 of Appendix J–1977, 

temperature settings that do not require 

a water temperature change had higher 

usage factors than temperatures settings 

that do require a water temperature 

change, reflecting that consumers are 

more likely to use a single temperature 

for the entire duration of the cycle than 

to change the temperature between the 

wash and rinse portions of the cycle. 

In implementing specific provisions 

for testing semi-automatic clothes 

washers in the proposed new Appendix 

J, DOE is proposing to require testing 

only those temperature settings that do 

not require a water temperature change 

(i.e., Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/ 

Cold). As indicated, by the TUFs from 

Appendix J–1977 and Appendix J–1997, 

consumers are more likely to use a 

single temperature for the entire 

duration of the cycle than to change the 

temperature between the wash and rinse 

portions of the cycle. Changing the 

temperature between the wash and rinse 

portions of the cycle would require the 

consumer to monitor the operation of 

the clothes washer and adjust the 

temperature at the appropriate time. It is 

expected that consumers are more likely 

not to interact with the operation of the 

clothes washer during operation of the 

unit, once it has been started. Not 

requiring testing of temperature 

combinations that would require the 

user to change the temperature between 

wash and rinse would reduce test 

burden significantly, while producing 

results that are representative of 

consumer usage. DOE tentatively 

concludes that requiring testing all six 

possible temperature combinations 

would present undue burden compared 

to testing only those temperature 

combinations that do not require a water 

temperature change. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal for testing semi-automatic 

clothes washers in the proposed new 

Appendix J that would require testing 

only the wash/rinse temperature 

combinations that do not require a wash 

temperature change between the wash 

and rinse portions of the cycle (i.e., Hot/ 

Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/Cold). 

To define the TUFs for these three 

temperature combinations, DOE 

proposes to use the TUFs from the 

existing column of Table 4.1.1 of 

Appendix J2 specified for testing clothes 

washers with Hot/Cold, Warm/Cold, 

and Cold/Cold temperature selections, 

and presented in Table III.3. To further 

simplify the test procedure, since DOE 

is proposing to require testing only 

those temperature selections that do not 

require a change in the water 

temperature, DOE is proposing to label 

these selections ‘‘Hot,’’ ‘‘Warm,’’ and 

‘‘Cold,’’ respectively (as opposed to 

‘‘Hot/Hot’’, ‘‘Warm/Warm’’, and ‘‘Cold/ 

Cold’’). 

TABLE III.3—POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE

USAGE FACTORS FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC CLOTHES WASHERS REFLECTING THREE REQUIRED TEMPERATURE

COMBINATIONS

Temperature selection Potential TUF 

values 

Hot ........................................ 0.14 

Warm .................................... 0.49 

Cold ...................................... 0.37 

DOE requests feedback on its proposal 

to test semi-automatic clothes washers 

using TUF values of 0.14 for Hot, 0.49 

for Warm, and 0.37 for Cold. 

DOE further requests comment on 

whether the temperature selections and 

TUFs that DOE has proposed for semiautomatic clothes washers would be 

representative of consumer use; and if 

not, which temperature selections and 

TUF values would better reflect 

consumer use. 

DOE recognizes that these proposed 

specifications for testing semi-automatic 

clothes washers may differ from how 

manufacturers are currently testing 

semi-automatic clothes washers under 

Appendix J2 (which, as described, does 

not provide explicit instructions for 

semi-automatic clothes washers). 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to include 

these provisions only in the proposed 

new Appendix J, which would be used 

for the evaluation and issuance of 

updated efficiency standards, and 

would not be required until the 

compliance date of any updated 

standards. However, DOE could 

consider replicating these changes in 

Appendix J2 as well, to provide greater 

clarity on how to test semi-automatic 

clothes washers using Appendix J2. 

DOE requests comment on whether to 

include explicit instructions for how to 

test semi-automatic clothes washers in 

Appendix J2, and if so, whether DOE 

should implement the same procedures 

being proposed for the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

DOE requests feedback on how 

manufacturers of semi-automatic clothes 

washers are currently testing their 

products using Appendix J2. 

b. Cycles Required for Test 

Inherent to semi-automatic clothes 

washer operation is that the clothes 

washer provides the same cycle 

operation for a given load size and cycle 

setting, regardless of the water 

temperature that the user provides. As 

a result, when testing a semi-automatic 

clothes washer, machine energy 

consumption, total water consumption, 

bone-dry weight, cycle-completion 

weight, and cycle time for a given load 

size are unaffected by wash/rinse 

temperature. When testing a given load 

size, only the relative amount of cold 

and hot water consumption is based on 

the water temperature provided by the 

user. For the Cold cycle as proposed, all 

of the water used is cold; for the Hot 

cycle as proposed, all of the water used 

is hot; and for the Warm cycle as 

proposed, half of the water used is cold 

and half is hot.48 Based on these 

relationships, for a given load size, once 

one of the test cycles has been 

performed and the total water 

consumption determined, the relative 

amounts of cold and hot water for the 

other required cycles can be determined 

formulaically rather than needing to be 

determined through testing. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

testing all three of the proposed 

temperature selections would be 

unnecessary, and that only a single test 

cycle is required for a given load size. 

DOE is proposing in the proposed new 

Appendix J to require testing only the 

Cold cycle, and to determine the 

representative values for the Hot and 

Warm cycles formulaically based on the 

values measured for the Cold cycle. This 

approach would reduce the test burden 

for semi-automatic clothes washers by 

requiring only two test cycles be 

conducted (using the small and large 

test loads with the Cold cycle) as 

opposed to six cycles (using the small 

and large test loads with the Cold, 

Warm, and Hot cycles) and obtaining 

the other required values through 

calculation. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require semi-automatic 

clothes washers to test only the Cold 

cycle, and to determine the 

representative values for the Warm and 

Hot cycles formulaically, for the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE notes that if it were to require 

measuring all six temperature options 

listed in Table III.2 of this document 

(Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/ 

Warm, Warm/Cold, and Cold/Cold), the 

determination of hot and cold water use 

would be more complicated for 

temperature selections that require a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49169 

49 DOE assumes that by clothes washer 

performance, NEEA means cleaning and rinsing 

performance. 

water temperature change. The tester 

would first need to determine the 

proportion of wash water to rinse water, 

in order to be able to apportion the total 

volume of cold and hot water used 

between wash and rinse for each of the 

temperature selections determined 

formulaically. 

DOE requests comment on the test 

burden associated with determining the 

apportionment between wash water use 

and rinse water use on semi-automatic 

clothes washers. 

c. Implementation 

To implement the changes described 

above for semi-automatic clothes 

washers, DOE is proposing to create a 

section 3.4 in the proposed new 

Appendix J (see discussion in section 

III.H.7 of this document for an 

explanation of how section 3 of the 

proposed new Appendix J would be 

structured) specifying the cycles 

required for testing semi-automatic 

clothes washers. Section 3.4.1 would 

specify the required test measurements 

for the Cold cycle and would define 

variables for each measured value. 

Section 3.4.2 would specify the 

formulas used to calculate the 

representative values for the Warm and 

Hot cycles, based on the measured 

values from the Cold cycle. 

DOE is also proposing to create a 

section 2.12.2 in the proposed new 

Appendix J to state that the energy test 

cycle for semi-automatic clothes 

washers includes only the Cold Wash/ 

Cold Rinse (‘‘Cold’’) test cycle. DOE 

would also create a section 2.12.1, 

which would parallel the current 

section 2.12 in Appendix J2 and would 

be identified as applying to automatic 

clothes washers. DOE is further 

proposing to specify that section 3.2.1 of 

the proposed new Appendix J (which 

would mirror section 3.2.4 of Appendix 

J2) would apply only to automatic 

clothes washers. 

9. Optional Cycle Modifiers 

Section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 states 

that for clothes washers with electronic 

control systems, the manufacturer 

default settings must be used for any 

cycle selections, except for (1) the 

temperature selection, (2) the wash 

water fill levels, or (3) if necessary, the 

spin speeds on wash cycles used to 

determine RMC. Specifically, the 

manufacturer default settings must be 

used for wash conditions such as 

agitation/tumble operation, soil level, 

spin speed on wash cycles used to 

determine energy and water 

consumption, wash times, rinse times, 

optional rinse settings, water heating 

time for water-heating clothes washers, 

and all other wash parameters or 

optional features applicable to that wash 

cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature 

or setting (other than wash/rinse 

temperature, water fill level selection, or 

spin speed on wash cycles used to 

determine RMC) that is activated by 

default on the wash cycle under test 

must be included for testing unless the 

manufacturer instructions recommend 

not selecting this option, or recommend 

selecting a different option, for washing 

normally soiled cotton clothing. 

DOE has observed a trend towards 

increased availability of optional cycle 

modifiers such as ‘‘deep fill,’’ and ‘‘extra 

rinse,’’ among others. 85 FR 31065, 

31076. These optional settings may 

significantly impact the water and/or 

energy consumption of the clothes 

washer when activated. Id. DOE has 

observed that the default setting of these 

optional settings on the Normal cycle is 

most often in the off position; i.e., the 

least energy- and water-intensive 

setting. Id. The growing presence of 

such features may, however, be 

indicative of an increase in consumer 

demand and/or usage of these features. 

Id. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought 

comment on whether testing cycle 

settings other than the manufacturer 

default settings would measure the 

energy efficiency and water use of the 

clothes washer during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. Id. 

DOE also sought comment on whether 

the non-default selections required by 

the current DOE test procedure meet 

this requirement. Id. DOE additionally 

requested information regarding how 

frequently consumers use ‘‘deep fill,’’ 

‘‘extra rinse,’’ or other cycle modifiers, 

as well as whether (and if so, by how 

much) such modifiers may increase the 

energy or water consumption of a wash 

cycle compared to the default settings 

on the Normal cycle. Id. DOE requested 

comment on whether testing these 

features in the default settings would 

produce test results that measure energy 

efficiency and water use of clothes 

washers during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use, and the 

burden of such testing on 

manufacturers. Id. 

AHAM opposed testing of cycle 

settings other than the manufacturer 

default and recommended that DOE 

should not test every possible clothes 

washer cycle or combination of options. 

AHAM stated that it does not believe 

optional cycle modifiers are used in 

most cycles—they exist to provide 

additional choices to the consumer and 

increase customer satisfaction. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at pp. 14–15) AHAM, stated that 

testing these optional cycle modifiers 

could increase test burden without a 

corresponding benefit in improving 

consumer representativeness, and that 

DOE should only measure cycles that 

are representative of an average use 

cycle or period of use, as required by 

EPCA. Id. AHAM commented that any 

potential future test procedure change 

or calculation approach must take into 

account the frequency with which 

consumers use optional features and the 

impact such usage has on energy. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 4) 

Electrolux also opposed additional 

testing for cycle modifiers. Electrolux 

commented that cycle modifiers are 

included on clothes washers for special 

purposes and are not intended for fulltime use. According to Electrolux, these 

modifiers may be unavailable for 

specific test cycles and are never a 

default option due to their specific use. 

Electrolux stated that adding these to an 

energy calculation would require 

extensive survey of their use by 

consumers. Electrolux further 

commented that the variety and number 

of cycle modifiers on machines on the 

market make it difficult to track and 

understand usage of the modifiers. 

(Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 3) 

The CA IOUs supported the 

investigation of the usage frequency of 

cycle modifiers, stating that the 

increased presence of such modifiers 

implies that there is a market desire for 

such features and that clothes washers 

are being used with these cycle settings 

at a non-trivial frequency. (CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at p. 16) 

NEEA commented that, since options 

such as ‘‘extra water’’ and/or ‘‘deep fill’’ 

improve clothes washer performance,49

it is likely that many consumers use 

these options even if they are not 

enabled by default. NEEA stated that 

these alternative settings should 

therefore be included in the test 

procedure. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 21) 

The Joint Commenters encouraged 

DOE to capture the impact of cycle 

modifiers such as ‘‘deep fill’’ and ‘‘extra 

rinse’’ on energy and water use. The 

Joint Commenters expressed concern 

that since the default position for these 

modifiers is most often ‘‘off,’’ the test 

procedure is effectively assigning a 

value of zero to the energy and water 

use of these features, which is likely not 

representative. According to the Joint 

Commenters, the test procedure may 

therefore be significantly 

underestimating energy and/or water 

use of clothes washers with these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49170 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

50 ‘‘Demand response features’’ refers to product 

functionality that can be controlled by the ‘‘smart 

grid’’ to improve the overall operation of the 

electrical grid, for example by reducing energy 

consumption during peak periods and/or shifting 

power consumption to off-peak periods. 

optional cycle modifiers. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 10 at p. 4) 

Samsung suggested that DOE amend 

section 2.8 of Appendix J2 to note that 

at test load sizes ‘‘Max’’ and ‘‘Min’’ for 

manual and automatic water control 

systems, the corresponding water fill 

setting should require the use of any 

user-selectable options to change water 

level in order to reflect real-world 

minimum and maximum fill levels. 

(Samsung, No. 6 at p. 3) 

DOE is not aware of any consumer 

usage data concerning the use of 

optional cycle modifiers, nor did 

interested parties provide any such data. 

Although DOE maintains that the 

growing presence of such features may 

be indicative of an increase in consumer 

usage of these features, DOE lacks 

consumer usage data that would be 

required to incorporate the testing of 

such features in the test procedure. 

Therefore, DOE is not proposing to 

change the current requirement to use 

the manufacturer default settings for 

optional cycle modifiers. 

In response to Samsung’s comment, 

DOE notes that in section 3.2.7 of 

Appendix J2, wash water fill levels are 

excluded from the list of cycle options 

for which the manufacturer default 

settings must be used. Selecting the 

most (or least) energy intensive water 

fill setting as required in section 

3.2.6.2.2 for clothes washers with useradjustable automatic WFCS would 

therefore require changing an optional 

cycle modifier from its default position 

if doing so would provide the most (or 

least) energy intensive result. 

Finally, as discussed in section III.D.4 

of this document, DOE is proposing in 

the proposed new Appendix J to require 

measuring RMC on each tested cycle 

using the default spin settings for each 

cycle. Consistent with this proposal, 

DOE is proposing to remove ‘‘spin 

speeds on wash cycles used to 

determine RMC’’ from the list of cycle 

settings that are excluded from the 

requirement to use the manufacturer 

default settings in section 3.2.4 

(Manufacturer default settings) of the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current requirement to 

use the manufacturer default settings for 

optional cycle modifiers. 

10. Clothes Washers With Connected 

Functionality 

DOE is aware of several ‘‘connected’’ 

RCW models currently on the market, 

from at least four major manufacturers. 

85 FR 31065, 31068. These products 

offer optional wireless network 

connectivity to enable features such as 

remote monitoring and control via 

smartphone, as well as certain demand 

response features 50 available through 

partnerships with a small number of 

local electric utilities. Id. In addition, 

connected features are available via 

certain external communication 

modules for CCWs. Id. However, DOE is 

not aware of any CCW models currently 

on the market that incorporate 

connected features directly into the 

unit. Id. 

As noted previously, section 3.2.7 of 

Appendix J2 specifies using the 

manufacturer default settings for any 

cycle selections except temperature 

selection, wash water fill level, or spin 

speed. Furthermore, section 3.9.1 of 

Appendix J2 specifies performing the 

combined low-power mode testing 

without changing any control panel 

settings used for the active mode wash 

cycle. With regard to the measurement 

of network mode energy use 

specifically, DOE stated in the March 

2012 Final Rule that ‘‘DOE cannot 

thoroughly evaluate these [IEC Standard 

62301 (Second Edition)] network mode 

provisions, as would be required to 

justify their incorporation into DOE’s 

test procedures at this time.’’ 77 FR 

13887, 13899. DOE notes that although 

an individual appliance may consume a 

relatively small amount of power in 

network mode, the potential exists for 

energy-related benefits that more than 

offset this additional power 

consumption if the appliance can be 

controlled by the ‘‘smart grid’’ to 

consume power during non-peak 

periods. 85 FR 31065, 31068. 

If connected features on a clothes 

washer affect its inactive mode power 

consumption in the as-shipped 

configuration (e.g., by energizing a 

wireless communication chip on the 

circuit board by default), such impact 

would be measured by the current test 

procedure provisions in section 3.9 of 

Appendix J2 for measuring combined 

low-power mode power. Whereas, if the 

inactive mode power consumption is 

not affected unless the consumer 

actively enables the connected 

functionality on the unit, any 

incremental inactive mode power 

consumption resulting from the 

connected features would not be 

measured by the current test procedure, 

because the test procedure does not 

include instructions for activating any 

such features before performing the lowpower mode measurement. Similarly, 

any incremental energy consumption in 

active mode, or any other modes of 

operation impacted by the product’s 

connected features, would not be 

measured as part of the current DOE test 

procedure, because the test cycle 

requirements in section 3.2.7 of 

Appendix J2 do not include instructions 

for activating any such features before 

performing the active mode test cycles. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on its characterization of 

connected RCWs, and any CCWs, 

currently on the market. Id. Specifically, 

DOE requested input on the types of 

features or functionality enabled by 

connected clothes washers that exist on 

the market or that are under 

development. Id. DOE also sought 

comment on adding a clarifying 

provision that would require testing to 

be conducted with any network 

functionality turned off, or without 

measuring or reporting the energy use of 

the clothes washer in network mode. Id. 

DOE also requested data on the 

percentage of users purchasing 

connected RCWs who activate the 

connected capabilities, and, for those 

users, the percentage of the time when 

the connected functionality of the RCW 

is activated and using additional energy. 

Id. 

The CA IOUs recommended that 

network-capable RCWs be tested with 

connected functions activated to capture 

the energy use associated with these 

functions, especially as connected 

clothes washers become more prevalent. 

The CA IOUs commented that while 

network capabilities may use a small 

amount of power compared to the active 

washing cycle, these features often 

operate year-round and could 

potentially consume a significant 

amount of energy annually. (CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at pp. 12–13) The CA IOUs added 

that capturing the energy consumption 

associated with connected features 

should not hinder their continued 

development. Id. 

The Joint Commenters recommended 

that DOE incorporate a measurement of 

‘‘network mode’’ power consumption to 

provide consumers with information 

about any additional energy 

consumption associated with connected 

features. The Joint Commenters stated 

that, although it asserts that DOE is 

concerned about impeding innovation, 

the power consumption associated with 

‘‘network mode’’ may be accounted for 

in energy conservation standards so as 

not to hinder the availability of models 

with connected features. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 10 at p. 2) 

NEEA recommended that DOE 

develop a method for measuring 

standby mode energy use of clothes 

washers with connected functionality, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49171 

since connected clothes washers are 

becoming more prevalent and sales of 

connected RCWs have been increasing. 

NEEA also commented that Wi-Fienabled appliances tend to experience a 

wide variation of energy use, depending 

on the circuit design and silicon used, 

so it will be important to measure 

individual clothes washer energy use in 

this context. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 20– 

21) 

AHAM commented that there is not 

yet adequate consumer use data on 

connected features to justify amending 

the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 

5) AHAM stated that consumer use and 

understanding of new technologies 

continues to evolve and inform 

manufacturers’ designs. According to 

AHAM, some consumers do not even 

connect their network-enabled 

appliances to use the available features. 

Id. AHAM stated that DOE should 

ensure that the clothes washer test 

procedure does not prematurely address 

new designs which may not yet have an 

average use or be in common use, and 

that doing so could stifle innovation. Id. 

DOE recognizes the potential benefits 

that could be provided by connected 

capability, such as providing energy 

saving benefits to consumers, enabling 

peak load shifting on the electrical grid, 

and other consumer-related benefits. 

While a number of connected clothes 

washers are currently on the market 

with varying implementations of 

connected features, DOE is not aware of 

any data available, nor did interested 

parties provide any such data, regarding 

the consumer use of connected features. 

Therefore, DOE is unable to establish a 

representative test configuration for 

assessing the energy consumption of 

connected functionality for clothes 

washers. 

As noted previously, while DOE’s 

current test procedure does not 

specifically consider energy use of 

network features, the test procedure 

may result in the measurement of the 

energy use of connected features in 

inactive mode. Specifically, as 

discussed, any energy use of connected 

features would be measured in section 

3.9 of Appendix J2 for measuring 

combined low-power mode power if the 

connected features are enabled in the 

‘‘as-shipped’’ configuration. If the 

consumer is required to actively enable 

the connected functionality, however, 

such energy consumption would not be 

measured. Similarly, any incremental 

energy consumption in active mode, or 

any other modes of operation impacted 

by the product’s connected features, 

would not be measured because the test 

cycle requirements in section 3.2.7 of 

Appendix J2 do not include instructions 

for activating any such features before 

performing the active mode test cycles. 

Given the lack of data to establish a 

test configuration that would be 

representative of consumer use of 

connected features on clothes washers, 

DOE is proposing to amend section 3.2.7 

of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.4 of the 

proposed new Appendix J to specify 

that network settings (on clothes 

washers with network capabilities) must 

be disabled during testing if such 

settings can be disabled by the end-user, 

and the product’s user manual provides 

instructions on how to do so. 

If, however, connected functionality 

cannot be disabled by the end-user or 

the product’s user manual does not 

provide instruction for disabling 

connected functionality that is enabled 

by default, then the unit must be tested 

with the network capability in the 

factory default setting as specified in the 

current test procedure. DOE has 

preliminarily determined that if 

connected functionality cannot be 

disabled, or the product’s user manual 

does not provide instruction for 

disabling the function, it is more 

representative to include the energy 

consumption of the clothes washer in 

the default condition, including the 

enabled connected function, than to 

exclude the energy consumption 

associated with the connected feature. 

As such, the energy consumption of a 

connected function that cannot be 

disabled would continue to be 

measured, as in the current test 

procedure. DOE notes that this approach 

is consistent with the approach 

proposed in the test procedure 

supplemental NOPR for microwave 

ovens published on August 3, 2021. 86 

FR 41759. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed amendment to Appendix J2 

and the proposed new Appendix J to 

specify that network settings (on clothes 

washers with network capabilities) must 

be disabled during testing if such 

settings can be disabled by the end-user, 

and the product’s user manual provides 

instructions on how to do so. 

DOE seeks the following information 

regarding connected clothes washers, 

which could inform future test 

procedure considerations: 

DOE requests feedback on its 

characterization of connected clothes 

washers currently on the market. 

Specifically, DOE requests input on the 

types of features or functionality 

enabled by connected clothes washers 

that exist on the market or that are 

under development. 

DOE requests data on the percentage 

of users purchasing connected clothes 

washers, and, for those users, the 

percentage of the time when the 

connected functionality of the clothes 

washer is used. 

DOE requests data on the amount of 

additional or reduced energy use of 

connected clothes washers. 

DOE requests data on the pattern of 

additional or reduced energy use of 

connected clothes washers; for example, 

whether it is constant, periodic, or 

triggered by the user. 

DOE requests information on any 

existing testing protocols that account 

for connected features of clothes 

washers, as well as any testing protocols 

that may be under development within 

the industry. 

E. Metrics 

1. Replacing Capacity With WeightedAverage Load Size 

As discussed, the current energy 

efficiency standards for RCWs are based 

on the IMEF metric, measured in ft3/ 

kWh/cycle, as calculated in section 4.6 

of Appendix J2. IMEF is calculated as 

the capacity of the clothes container (in 

ft3) divided by the total clothes washer 

energy consumption (in kWh) per cycle. 

The total clothes washer energy 

consumption per cycle is the sum of: (a) 

The machine electrical energy 

consumption; (b) the hot water energy 

consumption; (c) the energy required for 

removal of the remaining moisture in 

the wash load; and (d) the combined 

low-power mode energy consumption. 

The current energy efficiency 

standards for CCWs are based on the 

MEFJ2 metric, measured in ft3/kWh/ 

cycle, as determined in section 4.5 of 

Appendix J2. The MEFJ2 metric differs 

from the IMEF metric by not including 

the combined low-power mode energy 

consumption in the total clothes washer 

energy consumption per cycle. 

The current water efficiency 

standards for both RCWs and CCWs are 

based on the IWF metric, measured in 

gal/cycle/ft3, as calculated in section 

4.2.13 of Appendix J2. IWF is calculated 

as the total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption (in gallons) for all wash 

cycles divided by the capacity of the 

clothes container (in ft3). 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on whether to consider 

changing the energy or water efficiency 

metrics for RCWs or CCWs to maintain 

consistency with any changes to the 

capacity metric or for other reasons. 85 

FR 31065, 31080. DOE included several 

examples such as incorporating the 

weighted-average weight of test cloth 

test load, which would result in energy 

efficiency metric expressed in terms of 

pounds of clothing per kWh per cycle. 

Id. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49172 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

51NEEA stated that that it considers these data to 

be preliminary and that additional testing would 

provide more clarity. 

AHAM stated that DOE does not need 

to change the energy efficiency or water 

efficiency metrics. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 

16) 

The CA IOUs recommended changing 

IWF and IMEF to eliminate their 

relationship to capacity. The CA IOUs 

stated that by normalizing with the 

capacity of a clothes washer, the current 

metrics create a built-in bias towards 

larger-capacity machines, as the 

minimum- and average-sized test loads 

are not purely scaled with the clothes 

washer’s capacity. The CA IOUS stated 

that this leads to larger-capacity clothes 

washers washing a smaller fraction of 

clothing compared to their capacity. The 

CA IOUs commented that in order to 

remove this bias, IMEF and IWF should 

be normalized with the weightedaverage load size of clothing washed 

(e.g., IMEF would be measured in lb/ 

kWh/cycle instead of ft3/kWh/cycle). 

(CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5) The CA IOUs 

stated that this amendment would 

create a more representative 

performance metric of an average 

clothes washer use cycle and would also 

improve alignment with the clothes 

dryer performance metric. Id. 

The Joint Commenters encouraged 

DOE to consider basing efficiency 

metrics on pounds of clothes washed 

instead of capacity of the clothes 

washer. According to the Joint 

Commenters, basing efficiency metrics 

on clothes washer capacity creates a 

bias towards large-capacity clothes 

washers, since weighted-average load 

size is much greater for large-capacity 

clothes washers than it is for smallcapacity clothes washers. The Joint 

Commenters encouraged DOE to instead 

consider alternative efficiency metrics 

based on the LUF-weighted-average load 

size for a given clothes washer capacity. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 5) 

NEEA commented that the current 

DOE test procedure allows largercapacity clothes washers to use more 

energy and water per pound of textiles 

washed than smaller-capacity clothes 

washers with the same IMEF ratings. 

NEEA has also observed that IMEF 

generally increases with capacity in the 

most recent models to come into the 

market. NEEA stated that due to the 

increase in average clothes washer 

capacity from 3.5 ft3 to 4.4 ft3, this issue 

is becoming more prevalent. (NEEA, No. 

12 at pp. 13–17) NEEA conducted 

testing under conditions that it 

characterized as more realistic than DOE 

test conditions and summarized the 

results as demonstrating that on a lb/ 

kWh basis, larger-capacity clothes 

washers perform less efficiently than 

smaller-capacity clothes washers.51

Based on these results, NEEA concluded 

that large-capacity clothes washers may 

use more energy than small-capacity 

clothes washers when operating with 

typical load sizes and wash 

temperatures. Id. NEEA recommended 

that, to better address the efficiency of 

the largest-capacity clothes washers in 

the market, DOE should consider 

adopting an alternative energy 

efficiency metric such as pounds of 

textile per kWh, which would be based 

on the LUF-weighted load size, and the 

LUF-weighted and TUF-weighted 

energy use per cycle. NEEA also 

recommended that DOE consider 

developing an energy conservation 

standard that is a function of capacity, 

so that larger-capacity clothes washers 

would need to meet higher IMEF and 

lower IWF levels than smaller clothes 

washers. Id. NEEA noted that this 

would be similar to the way standards 

for refrigerators, room air conditioners, 

and water heaters are a function of 

adjusted volume, cooling capacity, and 

storage volume, respectively. NEEA 

calculated that making these changes 

could result in 1–2 quads of energy 

savings over a 30-year period associated 

with increased efficiency of largecapacity clothes washers. Id. 

As noted throughout the discussion 

previously, under Appendix J2, energy 

use (the denominator of the IMEF and 

MEF equations) scales with weightedaverage load size, whereas capacity (the 

numerator of the IMEF and MEF 

equations) scales with maximum load 

size. This provides an inherent 

numerical advantage to large-capacity 

clothes washers that is disproportionate 

to the efficiency advantage that can be 

achieved through ‘‘economies of scale’’ 

associated with washing larger loads. 

This advantage means that a largercapacity clothes washer consumes more 

energy to wash a pound of clothes than 

a smaller-capacity clothes washer with 

the same IMEF rating. This relationship 

applies similarly to water efficiency 

through the IWF equation. As noted in 

the comments summarized previously, 

this disproportionate benefit increases 

as average clothes washer capacity 

increases over time. To avoid providing 

bias for large-capacity clothes washers, 

DOE is proposing to change the energy 

and water efficiency metrics in the 

proposed new Appendix J by replacing 

the capacity term with the weightedaverage load size, in pounds. Under this 

proposed change, energy and water use 

would scale proportionally with 

weighted-average load size in the IMEF, 

MEF, and IWF formulas and thus 

eliminate the efficiency bias currently 

provided to large-capacity clothes 

washers. 

EPCA defines energy efficiency as 

‘‘the ratio of the useful output of 

services from a consumer product to the 

energy use of such product.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(5); 42 U.S.C. 6311(3)) In the 

current efficiency metrics, clothes 

washer capacity is used to represent the 

measure of useful output. DOE has 

tentatively determined that clothing 

load size (i.e., the weight of clothes 

cleaned), expressed as the weightedaverage load size, may better represent 

the ‘‘useful output’’ of a clothes washer. 

Were DOE to finalize the proposed 

metric change, changes to the energy 

conservation standards would be 

addressed in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to replace the capacity term 

with weighted-average load size in the 

energy efficiency metrics and the water 

efficiency metric in the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

In addition, DOE is proposing to 

rename the efficiency metrics to avoid 

any confusion between the proposed 

new metrics and the existing metrics. 

DOE is proposing to designate energy 

efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) as the energy 

efficiency metric for RCWs (replacing 

IMEF); active-mode energy efficiency 

ratio (‘‘AEER’’) as the energy efficiency 

metric for CCWs (replacing MEFJ2); and 

water efficiency ratio (‘‘WER’’) as the 

water efficiency metric for both RCWs 

and CCWs (replacing IWF). As 

proposed, EER would be calculated as 

the quotient of the weighted-average 

load size (in lb) divided by the total 

clothes washer energy consumption (in 

kWh) per cycle; and AEER would be 

calculated as the quotient of the 

weighted-average load size (in lb) 

divided by the total clothes washer 

energy consumption (in kWh) per cycle 

not including the combined low-power 

mode energy consumption. Section 

III.E.2 of this document describes how 

WER would be calculated. 

DOE is also proposing to establish 

provisions in 10 CFR 430.23(j) to specify 

the procedure for determining EER and 

WER for RCWs, and in 10 CFR 431.154 

to specify the procedure for determining 

AEER and WER for CCWs. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed names for the proposed new 

efficiency metrics: Energy efficiency 

ratio (EER), active-mode energy 

efficiency ratio (AEER), and water 

efficiency ratio (WER). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49173 

52Part (A) provides the calculation when 

electrically heated water is used. Part (B) provides 

the calculation when gas-heated or oil-heated water 

is used. 

53These equations include the machine electrical 

energy consumption, hot water energy 

consumption, and combined low-power mode 

energy consumption; they exclude the energy 

consumption for removal of moisture from the test 

load (i.e., the ‘‘drying energy’’). 

54See section III.G.1 of this document for DOE’s 

proposal to modify the representative average 

clothes washer use per year. 

55The maximum capacity in the original load size 

table in Appendix J1–1997 was 3.8 ft3. 

2. Inverting the Water Metric 

As described previously, IWF is 

calculated in section 4.2.13 of Appendix 

J2 as the total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption (in gallons) for all wash 

cycles divided by the capacity of the 

clothes container (in ft3). Unlike the 

IMEF metric, in which a higher number 

indicates more efficient performance, a 

lower IWF value indicates more 

efficient performance. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on whether to consider any 

changes to the water efficiency metric 

defined in the test procedure to 

maintain consistency with any changes 

to the capacity metric or for any other 

purpose, including those described for 

the energy efficiency metric, and 

whether it would be appropriate to 

invert the existing calculation such that 

a higher value of IWF would represent 

more efficient performance. 85 FR 

31065, 31080. 

The CA IOUs supported inverting the 

IWF and WF metrics to better align with 

the IMEF and MEF metrics. (CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at p. 6) Additionally, the CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE should consider 

changing the name of the updated 

metrics in order to alert customers and 

relevant stakeholders of the 

implications of the change. Id. 

DOE is proposing to invert the water 

metric, in conjunction with replacing 

the capacity term with weighted-average 

load size, as described in the previous 

section. By inverting the metric, a 

higher value would represent more 

efficient performance, consistent with 

the energy efficiency metrics. In 

addition, by inverting the metric, the 

proposed WER metric would represent 

the ratio of the useful output of services 

to the water use of the product, 

consistent with EPCA’s definition of 

energy efficiency as described. 

DOE is proposing to define WER in 

the proposed new Appendix J as the 

quotient of the weighted-average load 

size (in lb) divided by the total weighted 

per-cycle water consumption for all 

wash cycles (in gallons). 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to invert the water efficiency 

metric and calculate the newly defined 

WER metric as the quotient of the 

weighted-average load size divided by 

the total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption for all wash cycles. 

3. Annual Energy Use 

The annual energy consumption of an 

RCW tested according to Appendix J2 is 

calculated as part of the estimated 

annual operating cost calculations at 10 

CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B).52 In each 

equation, annual energy consumption is 

calculated by multiplying the per-cycle 

energy consumption 53 by the 

representative average RCW use of 295 

cycles per year.54 The annual operating 

cost is provided to the consumer on the 

Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

EnergyGuide label for RCWs. 

DOE considered whether to make 

changes to the method for calculating 

annual energy use so that the 

calculation more directly reflects annual 

energy use during a representative 

average use cycle. DOE also considered 

whether changes to the overall 

calculation methodology would 

improve the usefulness of the 

information presented to the consumer 

on the product label. 

According to the current calculation 

methodology, all clothes washers are 

assumed to be used for 295 cycles per 

year, while the per-cycle energy reflects 

a weighted-average load size based on 

the clothes washer capacity. Therefore, 

the annual energy calculation reflects an 

annual volume of laundered clothing 

that scales with clothes washer capacity. 

For example, the current annual energy 

calculation methodology is based on an 

annual laundry volume of 2,258 pounds 

for a 3.0-ft3 RCW and 4,036 pounds for 

a 6.0-ft3 RCW. 85 FR 31065, 31081. 

Under the current annual energy 

calculation methodology, the 

information presented on the product 

label would indicate that a largercapacity RCW would use significantly 

more annual energy than a smallercapacity model with the same IMEF 

rating. This is because the largercapacity RCW’s label would be based on 

a significantly larger amount of annual 

laundry than the smaller-capacity 

model, as illustrated above. Whereas, if 

compared on the basis of an equivalent 

volume of laundered clothing, both 

RCWs could be expected to use the 

same amount of annual energy since 

they have the same IMEF efficiency 

rating. This potential disparity may 

limit the ability of an individual 

consumer to use the information 

presented on the product label to 

compare the differences in expected 

energy use among RCW models with the 

same rated energy efficiency but 

different capacities. 

When DOE originally developed the 

annual energy calculation methodology 

at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), the test 

procedure accommodated clothes 

washers with capacities up to 3.8 ft3.55

An increasingly wide range of RCW 

capacities are available on the market, 

ranging from less than 1.0 ft3 to greater 

than 6.0 ft3. As the range of capacities 

increases, the effect of capacity on the 

represented annual energy cost becomes 

more pronounced. 

Given the increasingly wide range of 

RCW capacities available on the market, 

and the significant changes over time in 

estimated annual RCW cycles, DOE 

considered whether any changes are 

warranted for the annual energy and 

annual water calculations to ensure that 

the results continue to reflect 

representative average use for all clothes 

washer sizes, to harmonize with any 

changes to other metrics within the DOE 

test procedures, and to continue to 

provide useful comparative information 

to consumers. 85 FR 31065, 31081. DOE 

described two examples in the May 

2020 RFI: 

• Revising the annual energy and 

annual water calculation methodology 

from being based on a fixed number of 

annual cycles to a fixed number of 

annual pounds of clothing. 

• Varying the annual number of wash 

cycles based on clothes washer capacity, 

rather than a fixed number of annual 

cycles for all clothes washers. Id. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

data and information regarding whether 

and how the annual number of wash 

cycles varies as a function of clothes 

washer capacity. Id. DOE also requested 

feedback on whether DOE should 

consider any changes to the annual 

energy or annual water calculation 

methodology and the burden associated 

with these potential changes. Id. 

NEEA recommended that DOE change 

the annual energy metric to use an 

average number of pounds of textiles 

washed annually instead of using an 

average number of cycles per year. 

NEEA stated that its research found that 

neither number of cycles nor load size 

scales with capacity, suggesting that this 

change would provide a more effective 

comparison of clothes washers with 

different capacities. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 

25) 

The CA IOUs supported DOE’s 

current method of basing annual energy 

calculations on a fixed number of wash 

cycles per year, rather than using a fixed 

amount of clothing washed per year. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49174 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

56The unavailability provision is applicable to 

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

57The ENERGY STAR ‘‘Test Method for 

Determining Residential Clothes Washer Cleaning 

Performance’’ is available at www.energystar.gov/ 

sites/default/files/asset/document/ 

Test%20Method%20for%20Determining%

20Residential%20Clothes%20Washer%

20Cleaning%20Performance%20- 

%20July%202018_0.pdf. 

The CA IOUs commented that annual 

energy calculations based on a fixed 

amount of clothing washed would 

contradict the test procedure that 

acknowledges that clothes washers of 

different sizes wash different amounts 

of clothing, as identified in LUFs and 

test load sizes. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 

11–12) The CA IOUs further 

recommended that DOE investigate 

whether the fixed number of cycles per 

year should be changed to be more 

representative of average use in larger 

households, since larger households 

tend to have larger-capacity clothes 

washers, and larger-capacity clothes 

washers run more cycles per year, as 

detailed in Table HC3.4 and Figure 3.9 

of the 2015 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’) data. Id. 

The CA IOUs also recommended that 

if DOE changes the annual energy 

calculation from a fixed number of 

annual wash cycles to a fixed amount of 

clothing washed, this change should 

also be reflected in the rest of the test 

procedure to capture any operational 

difference by capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 8 

at p. 12) 

Notwithstanding the potential 

limitations of DOE’s current approach of 

calculating annual energy consumption, 

as described previously, in the absence 

of any new nationally representative 

data showing either a constant annual 

weight of washed laundry, or a 

correlation between clothes washer 

capacity and annual weight of washed 

laundry, DOE is not proposing to change 

the methodology for calculating annual 

energy use. DOE could, however, 

consider such a change should 

additional data or information become 

available, as previously described. 

DOE requests data on the annual 

amount of laundry washed by 

consumers, and whether the annual 

amount of laundry washed by 

consumers is correlated with clothes 

washer capacity. 

4. Representation Requirements 

Representation requirements for 

RCWs and CCWs are codified at 10 CFR 

429.20(a) and 10 CFR 429.46(a), 

respectively. 

DOE is proposing to specify that the 

sampling requirements for RCWs 

specified at 10 CFR 429.20(a)(2)(ii) 

would also apply to the new proposed 

EER and WER metrics. DOE is 

proposing to clarify that the capacity 

specified in 10 CFR 429.20(a)(3) is the 

clothes container capacity (emphasis 

added). 

DOE is proposing to specify that the 

sampling requirements specified for 

CCWs at 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(ii) would 

also apply to the new proposed AEER 

and WER metrics. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed updated representation and 

sampling requirements for RCWs and 

CCWs. 

F. Cleaning Performance 

EPCA requires DOE to consider any 

lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

(and certain commercial equipment, 

including CCWs) likely to result from 

the imposition of potential new or 

amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) 

EPCA prohibits DOE from prescribing 

an amended or new standard if the 

Secretary finds that interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States in any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States 

at the time of the Secretary’s finding. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 56

EPCA authorizes DOE to design test 

procedures that measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, water use (in the 

case of showerheads, faucets, water 

closets and urinals), or estimated annual 

operating cost of a covered product 

during a representative average use 

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

6293(b)(3)) DOE regulates only the 

energy and water efficiency of clothes 

washers. Manufacturers may design 

their products to prioritize any of the 

other consumer-relevant performance 

characteristics, including cleaning 

performance. As such, DOE’s clothes 

washer test procedures do not prescribe 

a method for testing clothes washer 

cleaning performance. 

Samsung commented that a product 

should perform at least its basic 

cleaning function during the energy test 

cycle so that consumers can purchase 

products that perform their basic 

function effectively, while saving energy 

and water. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 2) 

Samsung added that unless clothes 

washers perform at a minimum level of 

acceptable functionality on the Normal 

cycle, consumers may use other energyor water-intensive modes and 

unknowingly sacrifice energy efficiency. 

Id. To ensure products perform their 

basic functionality, Samsung 

recommended that DOE incorporate by 

reference the ENERGY STAR ‘‘Test 

Method for Determining Residential 

Clothes Washer Cleaning 

Performance’’ 57 as a new appendix to 

the test procedure. Id. 

Electrolux encouraged DOE to 

introduce an independent cleaning and 

rinsing performance test into the energy 

test procedure, because Electrolux is 

concerned that as more cycles become 

available to consumers, they are less 

likely to select the more efficient energy 

test cycle due to performance concerns. 

(Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 2) Electrolux 

added that tying performance testing to 

the energy test cycle could give 

consumers visibility into the tradeoff 

between efficiency and cleaning/rinsing 

performance, and place the energy test 

cycle as a more prominent cycle that is 

efficient and has high cleaning 

performance. Id. Electrolux stated that if 

DOE were to add a new cleaning and 

rinsing test, it should be developed 

based on proven industry standards in 

use, such as IEC 60456, AHAM HLW– 

1–2013, ‘‘Performance Evaluation 

Procedures for Household Clothes 

Washers’’ (‘‘AHAM HLW–1–2013’’), or 

AS/NZS 2040.1:2005, ‘‘Performance of 

household electrical appliances— 

Clothes washing machines Methods for 

measuring performance, energy and 

water consumption’’ (‘‘AS/NZS 

2040.1:2005’’). Id. Electrolux stated that 

these industry cleaning standards do not 

have the repeatability and 

reproducibility required for establishing 

limits or boundaries, but Electrolux 

supported their use for reporting and 

comparison purposes. Id. According to 

Electrolux, adding new cleaning and 

rinsing metrics would not significantly 

increase testing burden because 

manufacturers already extensively 

perform cleaning and rinsing testing on 

the energy test cycle. Id. Electrolux 

suggested the following specific testing 

criteria: (1) Incorporate by reference 

cleaning and rinsing performance test 

procedures; (2) test the same machines 

used for energy testing; (3) test the 

energy test cycle and settings used for 

the energy testing; (4) test with a load 

size based on DOE average capacity and 

using load types defined in the cleaning 

standard; (5) limit load sizes to one or 

two; (6) limit wash and rinse 

temperature combinations to those that 

differentiate performance the most, such 

as one cold, one hot, and one warmest 

warm; (7) weight multiple tests using 

TUFs from Appendix J2; and (8) average 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49175 

machine cleaning and rinsing 

performance scores. Id. 

As noted, EPCA authorizes DOE to 

design test procedures that measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, water use 

(in the case of showerheads, faucets, 

water closets and urinals), or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

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

6293(b)(3)) Also as noted, in 

determining whether a new or amended 

energy conservation standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

DOE to consider any lessening of the 

utility or the performance likely to 

result from the imposition of a new 

standard. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)). 

As indicated by comments summarized 

above, multiple test procedures from 

industry and international organizations 

are available for measuring clothes 

washer cleaning performance (among 

other attributes). DOE may conduct 

research and testing that uses these or 

other established test methods as part of 

an energy conservation standards 

rulemaking to evaluate any lessening of 

the utility or the performance of the 

covered products likely to result from 

the imposition of potential new or 

amended standards, as required by 

EPCA. For example, in the most recent 

energy conservation standards final rule 

for CCWs, published on December 15, 

2014 (‘‘December 2014 Final Rule’’), 

DOE conducted performance testing 

using AHAM’s HLW–1–2010 test 

procedure to quantitatively evaluate 

potential impacts on cleaning 

performance, rinsing performance, and 

solid particle removal as a result of 

higher standard levels. 79 FR 74492, 

74506. 

DOE is not, however, proposing to 

add a cleaning performance test 

procedure to the proposed new 

Appendix J or to Appendix J2 in this 

NOPR. 

G. Consumer Usage Assumptions 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

information on whether, in accordance 

with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), the consumer 

usage factors incorporated into the test 

procedure produce test results that 

measure energy efficiency and water use 

of clothes washers during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use. 85 FR 31065, 31077. DOE 

also sought comment on whether testing 

cycle configurations with usage factors 

below a certain percentage would be 

unduly burdensome to conduct and 

would not be considered to be 

reasonably designed to measure energy 

and water use during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use 

because they are rarely used by 

consumers. Id. 

AHAM commented generally that it 

supports updating the test procedure to 

reflect average use cycles, but 

commented that any updates must 

reflect changes observed in national, 

statistically significant field use studies 

and must not impact repeatability or 

reproducibility, or be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 5 

at p. 12) AHAM stated that should it 

find data that would assist DOE in its 

rulemaking, it will provide it as soon as 

possible. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 15) 

Discussion and consideration of 

consumer usage assumptions are 

provided in the following paragraphs. 

1. Annual Number of Wash Cycles 

Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 provides 

the representative average number of 

annual clothes washer cycles to 

translate the annualized inactive and off 

mode energy consumption 

measurements into a per-cycle value 

applied to each active mode wash cycle. 

Separately, the number of annual wash 

cycles is also referenced in DOE’s test 

procedure provisions at 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(i)(A) and (B), (j)(1)(ii)(A) 

and (B), and (j)(3)(i) and (ii) to calculate 

annual operating cost and annual water 

consumption of a clothes washer. 

In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE 

estimated the representative number of 

annual wash cycles per RCW to be 392, 

which represented the average number 

of cycles per year from 1986 through 

1994, based on P&G survey data 

provided to DOE as described in a 

NOPR published on March 23, 1995. 60 

FR 15330, 1533; 62 FR 45484, 45501. 

In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE 

updated the representative number of 

wash cycles per year to 295 based on an 

analysis of the 2005 RECS data. 77 FR 

13887, 13909. More recently, in the May 

2020 RFI, DOE presented an analysis of 

the 2009 RECS data, which suggests 284 

cycles per year, and of the 2015 RECS 

data (the most recent available) which 

suggests 234 cycles per year. 85 FR 

31065, 31079. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

data and information on whether any 

further adjustments to the number of 

annual wash cycles are warranted to 

reflect current RCW consumer usage 

patterns, as suggested by RECS data. Id. 

AHAM supported using 2015 RECS 

data as a basis for determining annual 

use cycles. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 15) 

AHAM stated that its survey of members 

found that the average number of annual 

cycles is 233, which supports DOE’s 

analysis of the 2015 RECS data 

indicating 234 cycles per year. Id. 

NEEA supported keeping the current 

number of wash cycles per year or 

increasing it slightly. (NEEA, No. 12 at 

p. 24) NEEA stated that findings from its 

2014 laundry study indicate 313 annual 

use cycles for RCWs. Id. NEEA stated 

that its study was developed to 

represent the distribution of average 

household size, which NEEA claims 

principally determines the number of 

annual laundry cycles. Id. NEEA 

recommended that DOE not use the 

RECS methodology, which NEEA stated 

relies on consumer recollection of 

typical number of clothes washer loads, 

and which NEEA asserts is likely to be 

less accurate. Id. 

DOE appreciates the submission of 

data by NEEA but notes that the survey 

results represent regional usage (the 

Pacific Northwest) during a 4 to 6-week 

period in 2012, as described in the 

referenced report. As such, these 

findings do not provide a basis for 

estimated national average usage. In lieu 

of such data, DOE finds that the 2015 

RECS survey is the most reliable source 

available for nationally representative 

annual usage data. 

Based on the data from the 2015 RECS 

survey, DOE is proposing to update the 

number of annual wash cycles to 234 in 

the proposed new Appendix J. This 

update would impact the per-cycle lowpower mode energy consumption value 

included in the calculation of IMEF and 

EER. The per-cycle low-power mode 

energy consumption would be divided 

by a smaller number (i.e., 234 instead of 

295), and would therefore increase by 

around 25%. See further discussion of 

the proposed changes to the calculation 

of low-power mode energy in section 

III.G.3 of this document. 

DOE is not proposing to change the 

number of annual wash cycles in 

Appendix J2 because such a change 

would impact measured energy 

efficiency. DOE proposes to make such 

changes only in the proposed new 

Appendix J, which would be used for 

the evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, and for 

determining compliance with those 

standards. 

In addition to other changes discussed 

in section III.H.6 of this document, DOE 

is proposing to update 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(i) and (j)(3)(i) such that the 

annual operating cost and annual water 

consumption calculation would reflect 

the new proposed number of annual 

wash cycles when a clothes washer is 

tested using the proposed new 

Appendix J, if finalized. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the number of 

annual wash cycles to 234 in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49176 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

58The ENERGY STAR Specification of Clothes 

Dryer Requirements Version 1.1 requires the use of 

Appendix D2 for clothes dryers to obtain ENERGY 

STAR certification. 

proposed new Appendix J and 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(i) and (j)(3)(i). 

2. Drying Energy Assumptions 

Section 4.3 of Appendix J2 provides 

an equation for calculating total percycle energy consumption for removal 

of moisture from the clothes washer test 

load in a clothes dryer, i.e., the ‘‘drying 

energy.’’ DOE first introduced the 

drying energy equation in Appendix J1 

as part of the August 1997 Final Rule. 

The drying energy calculation is based 

on the following three assumed values: 

(1) A clothes dryer final moisture 

content of 4 percent; (2) the nominal 

energy required for a clothes dryer to 

remove moisture from a pound of 

clothes (‘‘DEF’’) of 0.5 kWh/lb; and (3) 

a clothes dryer usage factor (‘‘DUF’’) of 

0.91, representing the percentage of 

clothes washer loads dried in a clothes 

dryer. 

a. Dryer Final Moisture Content 

DOE’s test procedure for clothes 

dryers, codified at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix D1 (‘‘Appendix 

D1’’), prescribes a final moisture content 

between 2.5 and 5.0 percent, which is 

consistent with the 4-percent final 

moisture content value in the clothes 

washer test procedure for determining 

the drying energy. However, DOE’s 

alternate clothes dryer test procedure, 

codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix D2 (‘‘Appendix D2’’), 

prescribes a final moisture content 

between 1 and 2.5 percent for timer 

dryers, which are clothes dryers that can 

be preset to carry out at least one 

operation that is terminated by a timer, 

but may also be manually controlled 

without including any automatic 

termination function. For automatic 

termination control dryers, which can 

be preset to carry out at least one 

sequence of operations to be terminated 

by means of a system assessing, directly 

or indirectly, the moisture content of the 

load, the test cycle is deemed invalid if 

the clothes dryer terminates the cycle at 

a final moisture content greater than 2 

percent. Section 3.3.2 of Appendix D2. 

In the final rule establishing Appendix 

D2, DOE determined a clothes dryer 

final moisture content of 2 percent using 

the DOE test load to be more 

representative in that, generally, 

consumers would find a final moisture 

content higher than this level 

unacceptable. 78 FR 49607, 49625 (Aug. 

14, 2013). Timer dryers are allowed a 

range of final moisture contents during 

the test because DOE concluded that it 

would be unduly burdensome to require 

the tester to dry the test load to an exact 

final moisture content; however, the 

measured test cycle energy consumption 

for timer dryers is normalized to 

calculate the energy consumption 

required to dry the test load to 2-percent 

final moisture content. Id. 

Manufacturers may elect to use 

Appendix D2 to demonstrate 

compliance with the January 1, 2015, 

energy conservation standards; 

however, the procedures in Appendix 

D2 need not be performed to determine 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers at this time. 

See introductory paragraph to Appendix 

D1. Use of Appendix D2 is, however, 

required for ENERGY STAR 

certification.58

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

information to determine whether to 

revise the clothes dryer final moisture 

content in the clothes washer test 

procedure. 85 FR 31065, 31079. 

AHAM opposed changing the final 

moisture content to align with DOE’s 

clothes dryer test procedure in 

Appendix D2 because the current value 

of 4 percent is consistent with 

Appendix D1, which is still the 

mandatory test procedure and the one 

most often used. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 15) 

Samsung supported changing the final 

moisture content value in the drying 

energy calculation in Appendix J2 from 

4 percent to 2 percent to align with the 

DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 

Appendix D2, because automatic 

termination dryers represent a majority 

of the clothes dryer market, and 

Appendix D2 has been recognized by 

stakeholders as representative of how 

automatic termination dryers are used 

by consumers. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 4) 

Samsung added that the Appendix D1 

test procedure was intended as a 

stopgap measure to test ‘‘sensor dryers’’ 

using ‘‘non-sensing’’ settings, and that 

the Appendix D1 procedure does not 

represent how the ‘‘sensor dry’’ 

products are used by consumers as 

accurately as the Appendix D2 test 

procedure. Id. 

The Joint Commenters and CA IOUs 

supported changing the final moisture 

content value in the drying energy 

calculation from 4 percent to 2 percent 

in order to align with the clothes dryer 

test procedure in Appendix D2. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 10 at p. 4; CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at p. 9) 

Although clothes dryer manufacturers 

may optionally use Appendix D2 to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

current energy conservation standards, 

Appendix D1 provides the basis for the 

current clothes dryer energy 

conservation standard levels and, as 

noted by AHAM, is the test procedure 

used as the basis for certification for the 

majority of models on the market. In 

this NOPR, DOE is not proposing to 

change the assumed final moisture 

content of 4 percent in the drying 

energy calculation, which aligns with 

Appendix D1. However, DOE could 

reevaluate updating the assumed final 

moisture content in the clothes washer 

test procedure based on future updates 

to clothes dryer test procedures or 

standards, among other factors. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the assumed final moisture 

content of 4 percent in the drying 

energy equation, or whether it should 

update the assumed final moisture 

content to 2 percent to align with DOE’s 

Appendix D2 clothes dryer test 

procedure. 

b. Nominal Dryer Energy 

The DEF represents the nominal 

energy required for a clothes dryer to 

remove moisture from clothes. The 

value of 0.5 kWh/lb was first proposed 

in the March 23, 1995 NOPR. 60 FR 

15330, 15336. DOE received no 

comments on this proposal and 

introduced this DEF value into 

Appendix J1 in the August 1997 Final 

Rule. 62 FR 45484, 45489. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

information to determine whether to 

revise the DEF value as a result of the 

2015 updates to the DOE clothes dryer 

test procedure and any market changes 

due to the most recent energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

dryers. 85 FR 31065, 31079. 

AHAM proposed that DOE should 

lower DEF because of the existence of 

more efficient clothes dryers. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at pp. 15–16). AHAM did not 

propose an amended DEF value but 

commented that one would need to be 

determined based on the efficiency of 

products in the market. Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

current DEF represents a reasonable and 

conservative estimate for residential 

clothes dryers based on their analysis of 

current consumer clothes dryer 

standards and market share data from 

the most recent energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for clothes dryers. 

(CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 9–11) 

NEEA recommended that DOE retain 

the current DEF, or increase it slightly 

to what NEEA stated would be a more 

representative value, such as 0.66 kWh/ 

lb, as used by the Northwest Regional 

Technical Forum. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 

25–26) NEEA stated that its research 

showed that residential clothes dryers 

use more energy in the field than what 

is predicted by the dryer test procedure. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49177 

59April 2011 Clothes Dryers Energy Conservation 

Standards Final Rule Technical Support Document, 

Chapter 9. Available at www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053. 

60C. Wilkes et al. 2005. ‘‘Quantification of 

Exposure-Related Water Uses for Various U.S. 

Subpopulations.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development. 

Report No. EPA/600/R–06/003. Washington, DC. 

December 2005. Available at www.wilkestech.com/ 

205edrb06_Final_Water_Use_Report.pdf. 

61These studies appeared in the July 1998, July 

1999, and August 2000 issues of Consumer Reports, 

as cited by EPA. 

Id. NEEA recommended that if DOE 

retains the current DEF, DOE should 

revisit this issue once the clothes dryer 

test procedure has been adjusted to 

better reflect real-world energy use. Id. 

As noted by the CA IOUs, the current 

estimate of 0.5 kWh/lb is consistent 

with the estimates that DOE developed 

to reflect the current installed base of 

clothes dryers as part of the most recent 

energy conservation standards final rule 

for clothes dryers.59 In lieu of any 

additional data representing national 

average clothes dryer usage, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that a DEF of 0.5 

kWh/lb remains representative of the 

nominal energy required for a clothes 

dryer to remove moisture from clothes. 

DOE is, therefore, not proposing to 

change the value of DEF at this time. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current DEF value of 

0.5 kWh/lb. 

c. Dryer Usage Factor 

The DUF represents the percentage of 

clothes washer loads dried in a clothes 

dryer and is used in section 4.3 of 

Appendix J2 in the equation for 

calculating the per-cycle drying energy. 

In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE 

originally established a DUF value of 

0.84, which was based in part on data 

provided by P&G, as described in the 

April 1996 SNOPR. 61 FR 17589, 17592; 

62 FR 45484, 45489. In the March 2012 

Final Rule, DOE revised the DUF in 

Appendix J2 to 0.91 based on updated 

consumer usage data from 2005 RECS. 

77 FR 13887, 13913–13914. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

information to determine whether to 

revise the DUF value. 85 FR 31065, 

31078. 

NEEA supported keeping the DUF at 

0.91 or raising it to a slightly higher 

value. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 25) NEEA 

calculated a DUF of 0.935, using data 

from its own study. Id. 

DOE appreciates the submission of 

data by NEEA but notes that its survey 

results represent regional usage (the 

Pacific Northwest) during a 4 to 6-week 

period in 2012, as described in its 

report. As such, NEEA’s suggested DUF 

value of 0.935 does not represent 

national average usage. DOE is not 

aware of data or information that would 

indicate that a value other than 0.91 

should be considered and so is not 

proposing to change the DUF in this 

NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current DUF value of 

0.91. 

3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions 

Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 allocates 

8,465 combined annual hours for 

inactive and off modes. If a clothes 

washer offers a switch, dial, or button 

that can be optionally selected by the 

user to achieve a lower-power inactive/ 

off mode than the default inactive/off 

mode, section 4.4 of Appendix J2 

assigns half of those hours (i.e., 4,232.5 

hours) to the default inactive/off mode 

and the other half to the optional 

lowest-power inactive/off mode. This 

allocation is based on an assumption 

that if a clothes washer offers such a 

feature, consumers will select the 

optional lower-power mode half of the 

time. 77 FR 13887, 13904. The 

allocation of 8,465 hours to combined 

inactive and off modes is based on 

assumptions of 1 hour per cycle and 295 

cycles per year, resulting in 295 active 

mode hours (for a total of 8,760 hours 

per year for all operating modes). As 

described in the September 2010 NOPR 

and confirmed in the March 2012 Final 

Rule, the estimate of 1 hour per cycle 

was based on a 2005 report from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) 60 that summarized test data 

from three issues of the Consumer 

Reports magazine, which showed toploading clothes washers with ‘‘normal’’ 

cycle times of 37–55 minutes and frontloading clothes washers with ‘‘normal’’ 

cycle times of 51–105 minutes.61

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

input on whether the annual hours 

allocated to combined inactive and off 

modes, as well as the assumed 50- 

percent split between default inactive/ 

off mode and any optional lower-power 

inactive/off mode, result in a test 

method that measures the energy 

efficiency of the clothes washer during 

a representative average use cycle or 

period of use and would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 85 FR 31065, 

31079. 

No comments were received regarding 

the assumed 50-percent split between 

default inactive/off mode and any 

optional lower-power inactive/off mode. 

Other issues regarding low-power mode, 

specifically regarding CCWs, are further 

discussed in section III.G.7 of this 

document. 

For the proposed new Appendix J, 

DOE is proposing to update the number 

of hours spent in low-power mode from 

a fixed 8,465 total hours to a formula 

based on the clothes washer’s measured 

cycle time, as discussed in section 

III.D.5 of this document, and the 

updated number of annual cycles, as 

discussed in section III.G.1 of this 

document. This proposal would allow 

for a more representative allocation of 

hours between active mode and lowpower mode. DOE is not proposing to 

make these changes to Appendix J2 

because doing so would likely change 

the measured efficiency, and DOE 

proposes to make such changes only in 

the proposed new Appendix J, which 

would be used for the evaluation and 

issuance of updated efficiency 

standards, and for determining 

compliance with those standards. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the number of hours 

spent in low-power mode from a fixed 

8,465 total hours to a formula based on 

measured cycle time and an assumed 

number of annual cycles. 

4. Temperature Usage Factors 

TUFs are weighting factors that 

represent the percentage of wash cycles 

for which consumers choose a particular 

wash/rinse temperature selection. The 

TUFs in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2 are 

based on the TUFs established in 

Appendix J1–1997. As described in the 

April 1996 SNOPR, DOE established the 

TUFs in Appendix J1–1997 based on an 

analysis of consumer usage data 

provided by P&G, AHAM, General 

Electric Company, and Whirlpool, as 

well as linear regression analyses 

performed by P&G and the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(‘‘NIST’’). 61 FR 17589, 17593. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on current consumer usage 

frequency of the wash/rinse temperature 

selections required for testing in 

Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31077. DOE 

also requested input on whether 

requiring the testing of temperature 

selections with low TUFs (for example, 

the current Table 4.1.1 lists TUFs 

including 5, 9, and 14 percent) is 

consistent with the EPCA requirement 

that the test procedure be reasonably 

designed to measure the energy use or 

efficiency of the clothes washer during 

a representative average use cycle or 

period of use, and not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. Id. 

NEEA and the CA IOUs commented 

that they support the existing TUF 

values. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 22; CA 

IOUs, No. 8 at p. 7) The CA IOUs 

provided temperature selection data 

from the 2016 PG&E survey, which 

found that wash temperature and rinse 

temperature usage data aligned 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49178 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

62The CA IOUs did not define the terms ‘‘very 

small,’’ ‘‘small,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘large,’’ or ‘‘very 

large.’’ 

reasonably well with TUFs from Table 

4.1.1 of Appendix J2. (CA IOUs, No. 8 

at p. 7–8) As summarized by CA IOUs, 

the 2016 PG&E survey indicated the 

following selection frequencies of each 

wash temperature setting: Cold (45 

percent), Warm (46 percent), Hot (7 

percent), and Sanitize (1 percent). Id. 

For the rinse temperature setting, 21 

percent of cycles used warm rinse, 51 

percent used cold rinse, and 28 percent 

reported no separate rinse temperature. 

Id. 

The CA IOUs supported measuring 

energy and water use of all relevant 

cycle selections in Table 4.1.1 of 

Appendix J2, including those with 

lower TUFs, in order to fully capture 

energy use in a representative average 

use cycle or period of use, as required 

by EPCA. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 7) 

As previously mentioned in section 

III.A of this document, AHAM 

commented that, in the worst-case 

scenario of a product with every feature 

(one that includes manual and useradjustable automatic WFCS, a heater, 

four warm wash temperatures, warm 

rinse, and selectable spin speeds), over 

half of the test cycles have 1 percent or 

less overall contribution to the total 

energy efficiency. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 4) 

AHAM emphasized that temperature 

use factors play a role in the overall 

burden of the test procedure. Id. 

DOE appreciates the CA IOUs’ data 

regarding consumer usage of different 

wash temperatures. As noted 

previously, the results from the 2016 

PG&E survey are instructive as a point 

of comparison, but limited in 

geographic and seasonal representation, 

and represent only a small number of 

wash cycles per participating 

household. DOE is not aware of any 

nationally representative consumer 

usage data that demonstrate a change in 

temperature setting usage; therefore, 

DOE is not proposing any changes to the 

TUF values at this time. 

In response to AHAM’s comment 

regarding the test burden caused by 

TUFs that represent a relatively smaller 

percentage of consumer usage, DOE is 

proposing to implement several other 

changes to the proposed new Appendix 

J that would reduce test burden while 

maintaining representativeness. In 

particular, DOE is proposing to reduce 

the number of Warm Wash tested 

settings, as discussed in section III.D.3 

of this document; to reduce the number 

of tested load sizes, as further discussed 

in section III.D.1.b of this document; 

and to measure RMC on the energy test 

cycle rather than requiring separate 

additional cycles for measuring RMC, as 

further discussed in section III.D.4 of 

this document. Nonetheless, testing the 

full range of wash temperatures 

available to consumers on the Normal 

cycle is necessary to fully capture the 

energy and water use of a representative 

use cycle/period of use of a clothes 

washer. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current TUF values. 

5. Load Usage Factors 

As described previously, LUFs are 

weighting factors that represent the 

percentage of wash cycles that 

consumers run with a given load size. 

Table 4.1.3 of Appendix J2 provides two 

sets of LUFs based on whether the 

clothes washer has a manual WFCS or 

automatic WFCS. 

For a clothes washer with a manual 

WFCS, the two LUFs represent the 

percentage of wash cycles for which 

consumers choose the maximum water 

fill level and minimum water fill level 

in conjunction with the maximum and 

minimum load sizes, respectively. For a 

clothes washer with an automatic 

WFCS, the three LUFs represent the 

percentage of cycles for which the 

consumer washes a minimum-size, 

average-size, and maximum-size load 

(for which the clothes washer 

determines the water fill level). As 

discussed in section III.D.1.b of this 

document, the values of these LUFs are 

intended to approximate a normal 

distribution that is slightly skewed 

towards the minimum load size. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

data on current consumer usage as 

related to the LUFs and whether any 

updates to the LUFs in Table 4.1.3 of 

Appendix J2 are warranted to reflect 

current consumer usage patterns. 85 FR 

31065, 31077. DOE specifically 

requested comment on whether the use 

of certain LUFs in the test procedure is 

consistent with the EPCA requirement 

that the test procedure be reasonably 

designed to measure energy and water 

use during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use without being 

unduly burdensome to conduct, because 

certain load sizes may be rarely used by 

consumers. Id. 

The CA IOUs provided load size data 

from the 2016 PG&E survey that showed 

the following load size usage: Very 

small (3 percent), small (11 percent), 

medium (28 percent), large (45 percent), 

and very large (14 percent).62 (CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at pp. 8–9) The CA IOUs stated 

that international research supports the 

conclusion that large loads represent a 

more significant portion of consumer 

operation than currently represented by 

Table 4.1.3 of Appendix J2. Id. The CA 

IOUs recommended that DOE consider 

the results from the 2016 PG&E survey 

in updating the LUFs. Id. 

NEEA presented its test data showing 

that 36 percent of consumer loads are 

small (less than 6 lb), 52 percent are 

medium (6 lb to 12 lb), and 11 percent 

are large (12 lb or more). (NEEA, No. 12 

at p. 22) NEEA recommended, based on 

its testing data, that DOE update the 

LUFs to place higher weightings on 

small- and average-sized loads, and less 

weighting on maximum-sized loads. Id. 

DOE notes that, as discussed 

previously in this document, the data 

presented from both NEEA and the CA 

IOUs are regional in scope and do not 

necessarily represent national U.S.- 

average usage. In addition, DOE notes 

that the two data sets offer opposing 

conclusions with regard to load size 

usage factors. 

As previously discussed in section 

III.D.1.b of this document, DOE is 

proposing to replace the minimum, 

maximum, and average load sizes with 

the small and large load sizes in the 

proposed new Appendix J. DOE has 

defined the small and large load sizes 

such that the small and large load sizes 

each have an equal (50–50) weighting. 

As such, DOE is proposing to update the 

LUFs in the proposed new Appendix J 

to 0.5 for both the small and the large 

load size. Because this proposal 

simplifies the LUF definitions by using 

the same LUFs regardless of clothes 

washer WFCS, a separate LUF table is 

no longer needed. DOE is therefore 

proposing to remove the LUF Table 

4.1.3 and define the LUFs as 0.5 in the 

equations where the LUFs are first used 

in section 4.1.3 of the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the LUFs for the 

small and large load sizes to be equal to 

0.5, consistent with the proposed load 

size definitions in the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

6. Water Heater Assumptions 

Section 4.1.2 of Appendix J2 provides 

equations for calculating total per-cycle 

hot water energy consumption for all 

water fill levels tested. The hot water 

energy consumption is calculated by 

multiplying the measured volume of hot 

water by a constant fixed temperature 

rise of 75 °F and by the specific heat of 

water, defined as 0.00240 kilowatthours per gallon per degree Fahrenheit 

(‘‘kWh/gal-°F’’). No efficiency or loss 

factor is included in this calculation, 

which implies an electric water heater 

efficiency of 100 percent. Similarly, 

section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2 provides an 

equation for calculating total per-cycle 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49179 

63The Federal Trade Commission’s EnergyGuide 

label for RCWs includes the estimated annual 

operating cost using natural gas water heating. 

64The apartment building included 14 clothes 

washers for 272 apartments. www.energystar.gov/ia/ 

products/appliances/clotheswash/508_

ColesvilleTowers.pdf. 

65Additional information can be found at the 

California Energy Commission’s Low-Power Mode 

docket: efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/ 

DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=17-AAER-12. 

hot water energy consumption using 

gas-heated or oil-heated water, for 

product labeling requirements.63 This 

equation includes a multiplication 

factor ‘‘e,’’ representing the nominal gas 

or oil water heater efficiency, defined as 

0.75. These water-heating energy 

equations estimate the energy required 

by the household water heater to heat 

the hot water used by the clothes 

washer. Per-cycle hot water energy 

consumption is one of the four energy 

components in the IMEF metric. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

input on whether any updates were 

warranted to the water heater efficiency 

values implied in section 4.1.2 and 

provided in section 4.1.4 of Appendix 

J2. 85 FR 31065, 31079. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

update the gas and oil efficiency factor 

in section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2, and 

include a new efficiency factor for 

electric water heaters in the rest of 

section 4.1 of Appendix J2, to account 

for heat losses in the hot water 

distribution system. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at 

p. 15) 

The CA IOUs did not provide specific 

recommendations or data that could be 

used to justify updating the gas and oil 

efficiency factor, or for a new efficiency 

factor to account for any heat losses in 

the hot water distribution system. DOE 

is unaware of any nationally 

representative data regarding heat losses 

in residential water distribution 

systems. 

In the absence of such data, DOE is 

not proposing any changes to the 

assumed water heater efficiency factors 

in the clothes washer test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current water heater 

efficiency assumptions. 

7. Commercial Clothes Washer Usage 

As mentioned in section I of this 

document, CCWs are included in the list 

of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE 

is authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) 

EPCA requires the test procedures for 

CCWs to be the same as those 

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

6314(a)(8)) 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

include CCW use patterns when 

determining the number of average use 

cycles, annual loads of laundry, and 

LUF values. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 8– 

9, 12–14) The CA IOUs stated that 

according to Table HC3.4 of the 2015 

RECS data, 17.6 percent of respondents 

rely on CCWs to wash their clothing. 

The CA IOUs commented that, due to 

the exclusion of CCW usage data, DOE’s 

analysis undercounts the average annual 

use cycles. Id. The CA IOUs cited an 

ENERGY STAR case study at an 

apartment building in Maryland that 

reported 1,138 cycles per CCW per year, 

with each CCW servicing more than 19 

apartments.64 According to the CA 

IOUs, this implies that the RECS annual 

cycle use analysis provided by DOE in 

the September 2010 NOPR represents an 

undercounting of the average annual use 

cycles due to a lack of representation of 

CCWs. Id. 

The CA IOUs also suggested that DOE 

develop a DEF for CCWs that is different 

than the DEF for RCWs. (CA IOUs, No. 

8 at p. 11) The CA IOUs recommended 

that DOE calculate this DEF by 

investigating any changes to market 

share distribution of consumer clothes 

dryers since the 2011 clothes dryer 

standards rulemaking, and by 

incorporating energy use and market 

share implications for CCWs. Id. 

NEEA, the CA IOUs, and the Joint 

Commenters recommended that DOE 

require standby/low power mode testing 

for CCWs, and that low-power mode 

energy consumption should be 

incorporated into the energy efficiency 

metric for CCWs. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 

18; Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 2; CA 

IOUs, No. 8 at p. 13) NEEA reported 

data from its test program that showed 

CCWs have an average standby power of 

6.4 watts compared to 0.5 watts for 

RCWs. NEEA stated that although CCWs 

have more active wash cycles than 

RCWs, CCWs still spend a significant 

amount of time in low power mode. 

According to NEEA, low-power mode 

energy use in CCWs can be reduced 

cost-effectively in a variety of ways. 

(NEEA, No. 12 at p. 18) The CA IOUs 

further commented that transitioning 

CCWs’ efficiency metric to IMEF could 

align with the California Energy 

Commission’s Low Power Modes 

Roadmap.65 (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 13) 

NEEA’s standby power data for CCWs 

falls within with the range of test results 

described by DOE in the December 2014 

Final Rule. As part of its market 

assessment and engineering analysis for 

the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

performed an in-depth evaluation of the 

standby and off mode power 

characteristics of a representative 

sample of CCWs spanning a wide range 

of display types, payment systems, and 

communication features. 79 FR 74492, 

74501. DOE observed that 

manufacturers offer a variety of display 

and payment functionalities that can be 

selected independently from the basic 

model. The standby power associated 

with these different display and 

payment functionalities varies from 0.88 

to 11.77 watts. Id. The lowest standby 

power levels are associated with models 

having no vend price display and no 

coin or card payment options (often 

referred to as ‘‘push-to-start’’ models). 

These models are typically used in 

small multi-family housing facilities 

offering free laundry, or in other 

commercial applications not requiring 

fare payment. Such models are not 

suitable for coin-operated laundry or 

most other multi-family housing 

facilities. Id. The highest standby power 

levels are associated with models 

having a digital vend price display, coin 

or debit card payment system, and 

advanced features such as dynamic or 

cycle-based pricing controls, built-in 

logging capabilities, and remote 

auditing features. These models are 

typically used in coin-operated 

laundries located in competitive 

markets. Id. 

In the December 2014 Final Rule, 

DOE determined not to include lowpower mode energy in the CCW energy 

efficiency metric. Id. DOE determined 

that promulgating an amended standard 

that included low-power mode energy 

could enable backsliding and that the 

IMEF metric would not provide a useful 

means for differentiating the active 

mode characteristics of different CCW 

models. Id. Because of the wide 

variations in standby power, CCWs with 

significantly different active mode 

ratings could have similar IMEF ratings 

depending on their control panel 

functionalities, and vice versa. This 

would diminish the usefulness of the 

IMEF metric as a means for 

differentiating the active mode 

characteristics of different CCW models. 

Id. 

Moreover, as noted, EPCA requires 

the test procedures for CCWs to be the 

same as those established for RCWs. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) Creating load, 

temperature, or dryer usage factors 

specific to CCWs within the RCW test 

procedure would effectively create a 

separate test procedure for CCWs 

because the LUF, TUF, DUF, and DEF 

values are integral to the calculations of 

per-cycle energy and water use, on 

which the regulated metrics for RCWs 

and CCWs are based. 

Regarding annual use cycles, DOE 

notes that in calculating national energy 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49180 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

savings as part of the analysis 

conducted during CCW energy 

conservation standards rulemakings, 

DOE uses CCW-specific usage data for 

factors such as annual use cycles, the 

proportion of gas versus electric water 

heating, and others. This ensures that 

the analysis of energy savings and 

national impacts as part of a CCW 

standards rulemaking accurately reflects 

CCW usage. Any determination 

regarding whether to include low-power 

mode energy use in the energy 

efficiency metric for CCWs would be 

made as part of the ongoing energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

CCWs. 

DOE is not proposing any changes to 

CCW usage factors or to the CCW energy 

efficiency metric in this NOPR. 

H. Clarifications 

In this section of the NOPR, DOE is 

proposing amendments to its test 

procedures for clothes washers at 

Appendix J2 that DOE has tentatively 

determined would not alter the 

measured efficiency of clothes washers. 

The proposed amendments either codify 

guidance on the existing regulations, 

provide more specificity in the test 

procedure provisions, provide improved 

organization of each section, or correct 

formatting errors in DOE’s clothes 

washer test procedures. 

1. Water Inlet Hose Length 

DOE has observed an increasing trend 

of water inlet hoses not being included 

with the purchase of a new clothes 

washer. DOE has received questions 

from test laboratories asking how to 

install a clothes washer that does not 

include water inlet hoses among the 

installation hardware. 

Multiple styles of water inlet hoses 

(different materials, lengths, durability, 

etc.) are commercially available from 

appliance and hardware retailers. While 

most such products intended for 

consumer use would be appropriate for 

installing a clothes washer, DOE seeks 

to provide additional direction to avoid 

the use of a hose designed for niche 

purposes (i.e., to ensure 

representativeness) as well as to ensure 

reproducible results among different 

laboratories. Specifically, DOE observes 

a wide range of hose lengths available 

on the market, and recognizes that using 

an excessively long hose could result in 

the water temperature or pressure at the 

clothes washer inlet deviating 

significantly from the temperature and 

pressure at the test fixture. Based on a 

review of water inlet hoses available at 

major retailers, the most common 

lengths for clothes washer hoses range 

from 3–6 feet (‘‘ft’’). DOE is therefore 

proposing to specify the use of hoses 

that do not exceed 72 inches in length 

(6 ft) in section 2.10.1 of the proposed 

new Appendix J. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to specify the use of hoses not 

to exceed 72 inches in length in the 

proposed new Appendix J. DOE also 

requests comment on the length of inlet 

hose typically used for testing. 

DOE could also consider this change 

for Appendix J2, but is not proposing it 

in this NOPR because of the potential 

for this change to impact measured 

energy efficiency. DOE proposes to 

make such changes only in the proposed 

new Appendix J, which would be used 

for the evaluation and issuance of 

updated efficiency standards, and for 

determining compliance with those 

standards. 

2. Water Fill Selection Availability 

Table 2.8 within section 2.8 of 

Appendix J2 requires that, for clothes 

washers with manual WFCS, each 

temperature selection that is part of the 

energy test cycle be tested using both 

the minimum and maximum water fill 

levels, using the minimum and 

maximum load sizes, respectively. 

Section 3.2.6 of Appendix J2 describes 

these water fill levels as the minimum 

and maximum water levels available for 

the wash cycle under test. DOE has 

observed one RCW model with 

electronic controls in which the 

maximum water fill level on the unit 

cannot be selected with all of the 

temperature selections required for 

testing; i.e., on at least one temperature 

setting, the maximum water fill that can 

be selected is one of the intermediate fill 

levels on the unit. In such cases 

generally, the ‘‘reduced maximum’’ 

water fill level for a particular 

temperature setting may not be 

appropriate for use with the maximum 

load size required for that particular 

cycle under test. Using a maximum load 

size with a reduced maximum water fill 

level may not provide results that 

measure energy efficiency and water use 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use, since the 

unavailability of the ‘‘full maximum’’ 

water fill level for that particular cycle 

under test would suggest that the 

particular temperature selection is not 

intended to be used with a maximum 

load size. 

The RCW model with this 

characteristic is no longer available on 

the market, and DOE is not aware of any 

other clothes washer models currently 

on the market with this characteristic. 

As described further in this discussion, 

DOE is not proposing any amendments 

in this NOPR to address the potential for 

the maximum load size required by the 

test procedure to conflict with the 

maximum load size intended or able to 

be washed on such a cycle. 

Nevertheless, DOE considered 

comments received from interested 

parties on this issue and seeks 

additional comment on several 

approaches that DOE has considered 

that could address this issue in the test 

procedure. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment from interested parties on how 

the test procedure should accommodate 

clothes washers in which the maximum 

available water fill level may differ 

depending on the temperature selection. 

85 FR 31065, 31073. 

Samsung stated that it believes that 

because some clothes washers do not 

offer all water level selections for all 

temperature options, the current test 

procedure is unrepresentative of realworld use. According to Samsung, if the 

energy test cycle cannot be run at all 

temperature and water fill options, 

consumers may switch to a non-tested, 

and potentially more energy-intensive, 

mode in order to access the water level 

and temperature they intend to use. 

Samsung suggested that DOE consider 

amending the test procedure to require 

testing of other cycles, in addition to the 

Normal cycle, for which all water level 

selections are available. (Samsung, No. 

6 at pp. 2–3) 

AHAM commented that it is not 

necessary to amend the test procedure 

to include directions for testing clothes 

washers with water fill levels that are 

only available at certain temperature 

settings. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 12) AHAM 

commented that while consumers have 

options available for other needs, the 

Normal cycle remains the most 

representative of customer use, and 

there have not been any data to prove 

otherwise. AHAM emphasized that the 

purpose of testing is to test the most 

used, or ‘‘representative,’’ cycle and that 

the Normal cycle has been and remains 

that cycle. Id. Furthermore, AHAM 

commented that DOE has achieved its 

objectives by limiting water and energy 

use and restrictions on options in the 

most commonly used cycle while also 

allowing for consumer choice. AHAM 

stated that it may have more data on this 

issue at a future time. Id. 

The suggestion by Samsung to require 

testing of other cycles for which all 

water level selections are available 

would mirror the approached used in 

the flowcharts in section 2.12 of 

Appendix J2 for determining the wash/ 

rinse temperatures that comprise energy 

test cycle. For each wash/rinse 

temperature selection other than Cold/ 

Cold, the flowcharts require deviating 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49181 

from the Normal cycle (as that term is 

defined in section 1.25 of Appendix J2) 

if the particular wash/rinse temperature 

combination is not offered on the 

Normal cycle but is offered on one of 

the other cycle selections on the clothes 

washer. DOE could consider amending 

the flowcharts to incorporate the 

availability of load sizes in conjunction 

with the availability of wash/rinse 

temperature selections, for example. 

DOE could also consider other 

approaches that would maintain the use 

of the Normal cycle in such cases; for 

example, specifying the use of a 

modified load size if the maximum load 

size defined by the test procedure 

conflicts with the maximum load size 

intended or able to be washed on such 

a cycle. 

DOE notes an important distinction 

between the requirements of EPCA and 

AHAM’s comment regarding the 

purpose of the test procedure. As 

discussed, EPCA requires that test 

procedures produce test results that 

measure energy efficiency or energy use 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use (among other 

considerations). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) AHAM’s comment 

suggests that testing other cycles for 

models with certain characteristics is 

not necessary because, according to 

AHAM, the Normal cycle remains the 

most representative of customer use. 

However, EPCA does not require that 

the results of the test procedure be 

representative of the average use of 

consumers across all models of clothes 

washers; rather, EPCA requires that the 

results of the test procedure be 

representative of the energy (and water) 

use of the particular model being tested. 

Although the Normal cycle may be the 

most commonly used cycle across all 

clothes washers on the market, the 

‘‘representative average use cycle or 

period of use’’ might differ for a model 

in which the maximum water fill level 

on the unit cannot be selected with all 

of the temperature selections required 

for testing. 

As stated, DOE is not proposing any 

changes at this time to address the 

potential for the maximum load size 

required by the test procedure to 

conflict with the maximum load size 

intended or able to be washed using the 

cycle required for testing. To the extent 

that models with this characteristic 

were to be reintroduced the market, 

more research would be needed to 

address any potential concerns 

regarding representative use. 

Finally, DOE notes that the amended 

load sizes proposed for new Appendix 

J (in which the ‘‘large’’ load size is 

smaller than the ‘‘maximum’’ load size 

currently defined by Appendix J2) 

would obviate the need for any changes 

to the test procedure for the one RCW 

model of concern. 

DOE requests comment on whether it 

should amend the test procedure to 

accommodate potential future clothes 

washer models for which the maximum 

load size required by the test procedure 

conflicts with the maximum load size 

intended or able to be washed with the 

cycle required for testing. If so, DOE 

seeks additional comment on the 

approaches it has considered, or on any 

other approaches that could be 

considered, that would address this 

issue in the test procedure. 

3. Water Fill Control Systems 

a. Definitions 

Section 1.5 of Appendix J2 defines 

‘‘automatic water fill control system’’ as 

a clothes washer WFCS that does not 

allow or require the user to determine 

or select the water fill level, and 

includes adaptive WFCS and fixed 

WFCS. Section 1.4 of Appendix J2 

defines ‘‘adaptive water fill control 

system’’ as a clothes washer automatic 

WFCS that is capable of automatically 

adjusting the water fill level based on 

the size or weight of the clothes load 

placed in the clothes container. Section 

1.14 of Appendix J2 defines ‘‘fixed 

water fill control system’’ as a clothes 

washer automatic WFCS that 

automatically terminates the fill when 

the water reaches an appropriate level 

in the clothes container. Section 

3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 provides 

testing instructions for a ‘‘useradjustable’’ automatic WFCS, which is 

described in that section as an 

automatic water fill control that affects 

the relative wash water levels. 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, 

NEEA and the Joint Commenters 

recommended that DOE develop new 

definitions for WFCS to address the 

current variety and sophistication of 

clothes washer fill options and the range 

of possible consumer use. NEEA stated 

that the market has shifted away from 

the two main types of WFCS currently 

defined in Appendix J2, and that NEEA 

has encountered many types of 

combined WFCS. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 

21; Joint Commenters, No. 10 at pp. 3– 

4) 

To provide additional specificity to 

both Appendix J2 and the proposed new 

Appendix J, DOE is proposing revisions 

to some of the WFCS definitions, as 

follows. 

DOE proposes to amend the definition 

of ‘‘fixed water fill control system’’ to 

mean ‘‘a clothes washer automatic water 

fill control system that automatically 

terminates the fill when the water 

reaches a pre-defined level that is not 

based on the size or weight of the 

clothes load placed in the clothes 

container, without allowing or requiring 

the user to determine or select the water 

fill level.’’ This proposed amendment to 

the definition would specify that the 

water fill level for this type of WFCS is 

pre-defined (i.e., fixed) and does not 

vary based on the size or weight of the 

load. The proposal would incorporate 

the same terminology used in the other 

WFCS definitions so as to more clearly 

articulate how a fixed WFCS relates to 

the other defined WFCS. This amended 

definition would be included in the 

proposed new Appendix J as well. 

To provide greater specificity 

regarding user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS, DOE is proposing to add a 

definition of a ‘‘user-adjustable 

automatic water fill control system’’ to 

section 1 of both Appendix J2 and the 

proposed new Appendix J. DOE is 

proposing to define a user-adjustable 

automatic WFCS as ‘‘an automatic 

clothes washer fill control system that 

allows the user to adjust the amount of 

water that the machine provides, which 

is based on the size or weight of the 

clothes load placed in the clothes 

container.’’ Given DOE’s proposal to 

create a definition of user-adjustable 

automatic WFCS, DOE proposes to 

simplify the wording of section 3.2.6.2.2 

of Appendix J2 from ‘‘[c]onduct four 

tests on clothes washers with user 

adjustable automatic water fill controls 

that affect the relative wash water 

levels’’ to ‘‘[c]onduct four tests on 

clothes washers with user-adjustable 

automatic water fill controls.’’ For the 

proposed new Appendix J, section 

3.2.3.2.2 would state ‘‘For the large test 

load size, set the water fill selector to 

the setting that uses the most water. For 

the small test load size, set the water fill 

selector to the setting that uses the least 

water.’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed changes to the definition of 

‘‘fixed water fill control system’’ and on 

its proposal to add a definition for 

‘‘user-adjustable automatic water fill 

control system.’’ 

b. ‘‘Most Energy Intensive’’ Wording for 

User-Adjustable Automatic Water Fill 

Control Systems 

As discussed, section 3.2.6.2.2 of 

Appendix J2 specifies how to test 

clothes washers with user-adjustable 

automatic WFCS. Four tests are 

required: 

b A test using the maximum test load 

size and with the WFCS set in the 

setting that will give the most energy 

intensive result; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

66For example, in the April 1996 Interim Waiver, 

DOE stated the following: However, the 

‘‘sensitivity’’ or relative fill amounts of the 

automatic water fill mode can be reprogrammed in 

the secondary programming mode, thus resulting in 

an increase in energy consumption above the 

manual mode result. 61 FR 18125, 18127. 

67See section III.D.1.b of this document for a 

discussion of the definition of the new ‘‘large’’ test 

load size. 

b a test using the minimum test load 

size and with the WFCS set in the 

setting that will give the least energy 

intensive result; 

b a test using the average test load 

size and with the WFCS set in the 

setting that will give the most energy 

intensive result; and 

b a test using the average test load 

size and with the WFCS set in the 

setting that will give the least energy 

intensive result. 

DOE has received questions from a 

test laboratory regarding how to 

determine which setting is the most 

‘‘energy intensive’’ for the purposes of 

this provision. Depending on the 

quantity and temperature of water under 

consideration—as well as whether the 

term ‘‘energy intensive’’ is intended to 

include machine electrical energy, hot 

water heating energy, and/or drying 

energy—the setting that uses the most 

(or least) amount of water may not 

correspond to the most (or least) amount 

of energy. While the amount of water 

used in a wash cycle can be readily 

determined, measuring and calculating 

the amount of energy consumption 

requires more time and effort, 

particularly if energy consumption 

includes a combination of machine 

electrical energy, hot water heating 

energy, and/or drying energy. 

The provisions requiring testing the 

most and least energy intensive settings 

were initially proposed in response to 

an interim waiver granted to GEA for a 

clothes washer with user-adjustable 

adaptive WFCS. 61 FR 57794, 57795 

(Nov. 8, 1996; ‘‘November 1996 

NOPR’’), referencing interim waiver 

case no. CW–004, 61 FR 18125 (Apr. 24, 

1996; ‘‘April 1996 Interim Waiver’’). 

These testing provisions were adopted 

in the August 1997 Final Rule 62 FR 

45484, 45487. 

At the time of the November 1996 

NOPR, the applicable energy efficiency 

metric (i.e., energy factor) did not 

include the drying energy component, 

and the energy conservation standards 

at the time did not regulate the water 

efficiency of clothes washers. As 

evident throughout the discussions in 

the April 1996 Interim Waiver, 

November 1996 NOPR, and August 1997 

Final Rule, absent the consideration of 

drying energy and water efficiency, DOE 

used the terms ‘‘most energy intensive’’ 

and ‘‘least energy intensive’’ 

synonymously with discussing the 

water fill amounts.66 The terms ‘‘most 

energy intensive’’ and ‘‘least energy 

intensive’’ were originally employed to 

provide direction of the water fill 

amounts required for testing of the 

adaptive WFCS. In no part of any of 

these three documents did DOE discuss 

the possibility that the highest (or 

lowest) water fill amount would not also 

correspond to the most (or least) energy 

intensive setting. In the context of the 

user-adjustable automatic WFCS 

provisions, the test conditions are to 

provide instruction as to the required 

water fill level, and not require a 

determination of energy intensity. 

As the test procedures and energy 

conservation standards have been 

amended, the measured energy use 

accounts for more than just that which 

correlates to the water fill level. 

However, use of the energy intensity 

terminology remained in the useradjustable automatic WFCS provisions. 

Given the evolution of clothes washer 

control systems and operation since the 

August 1997 Final Rule, more precise 

language is needed to avoid an 

unnecessary determination of whether 

the highest (or lowest) water fill amount 

on a user-adjustable automatic WFCS 

corresponds to the most (or least) energy 

intensive setting. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing to change the wording of both 

section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 and 

section 3.2.3.2.2 of the proposed new 

Appendix J, to update the phrase ‘‘the 

setting that will give the most energy 

intensive result’’ to ‘‘the setting that 

uses the most water’’ to reflect the 

original intent of this provision. 

Similarly, DOE is proposing to update 

the phrase ‘‘the setting that will give the 

least energy intensive result’’ to ‘‘the 

setting that uses the least water.’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the wording of 

section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 and 

section 3.2.3.2.2 of the proposed new 

Appendix J from ‘‘the setting that will 

give the most energy intensive result’’ to 

‘‘the setting that uses the most water;’’ 

and from ‘‘the setting that will give the 

least energy intensive result’’ to ‘‘the 

setting that uses the least water.’’ 

4. Energy Test Cycle Flowcharts 

In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE 

implemented a series of flowcharts to 

determine the wash/rinse temperature 

selections required for testing in section 

2.12 of Appendix J2. 80 FR 46730, 

46744. 

a. Clarification of Load Size To Be Used 

for Temperature Comparisons 

Figure 2.12.5 of Appendix J2, which 

is the flow chart used for the 

determination of the Extra-Hot Wash/ 

Cold Rinse temperature selection, asks if 

the wash/rinse temperature selection 

has a wash temperature greater than 

135 °F. DOE is aware that for some 

clothes washer on the market, the 

answer to that question could differ 

depending on what load size is used, 

i.e., the wash temperature may exceed 

135 °F only on certain load sizes, 

meaning that the determination of 

whether the temperature selection is 

classified as Hot Wash/Cold Rinse or 

Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse would 

depend on the load size used for making 

the determination. More generally, all of 

the flowcharts in section 2.12 require 

comparing wash and rinse water 

temperatures across different 

temperature selections, without 

specifying a load size to be used for 

making these comparisons. 

DOE is proposing to specify using the 

maximum load size to evaluate the flow 

chart for clothes washers tested to 

Appendix J2, and the large load size for 

the proposed new Appendix J.67 The 

maximum/large load size is the load 

size expected to use the most water 

(compared to the other load sizes) under 

each appendix, and in DOE’s 

experience, larger quantities of water 

(particularly hot water) provide a more 

reliable determination of the relative 

differences in water temperature among 

the various temperature settings. 

Therefore, the maximum/large load size 

is likely to provide the most repeatable 

and reproducible end result for each 

flowchart. 

DOE notes that Figure 2.12.1 of 

Appendix J2, which is the flow chart 

used for the determination of the Cold 

Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection, 

provides direction for cases where 

multiple wash temperature selections in 

the Normal cycle do not use any hot 

water for any of the water fill levels or 

test load sizes required for testing. For 

Appendix J2, DOE is proposing that the 

new clarifying language would not 

apply to the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

temperature settings in order to avoid 

the potential need for retesting under 

Appendix J2 if a clothes washer was 

tested in a manner inconsistent with 

this proposed change. For the proposed 

new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to 

delete from the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

flowchart (Figure 2.12.1) the clause 

applying it to all tested load sizes, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49183 

68On most electromechanical dials, the rotational 

position of the dial corresponds to the desired wash 

time. The user rotates the dial from the initial ‘‘off’’ 

position to the desired wash time position, and after 

starting the wash cycle, the dial rotates throughout 

the progression of the wash cycle until it reaches 

the ‘‘off’’ position at the end of the cycle. In 

contrast, an electronic dial contains a fixed number 

of selectable positions, and the dial remains in the 

selected position for the duration of the wash cycle. 

69See section III.H.7 of this document for a 

discussion of the structure of section 3 of the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

to instead require the use of the large 

size, consistent with all the other wash/ 

rinse temperature selection flowcharts. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that the energy test 

cycle flow charts be evaluated using the 

large load size for all wash/rinse 

temperature settings in the proposed 

new Appendix J. DOE also requests 

comment on its proposal to require that 

the energy test cycle flow charts be 

evaluated using the maximum load size, 

except for the Cold/Cold flow chart, in 

Appendix J2. 

b. Clothes Washers That Generate All 

Hot Water Internally 

As described in section III.C.2 of this 

document, DOE is aware of single-inlet 

clothes washers on the market that 

intake only cold water and internally 

generate all hot water required for a 

cycle by means of an internal heating 

element. As observed on the market, 

these clothes washers offer Cold, Warm, 

Hot, and/or Extra Hot temperature 

selections. As part of determining the 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature 

selection, the instruction box in the 

flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix 

J2 refers to ‘‘. . . multiple wash 

temperature selections in the Normal 

cycle [that] do not use any hot water for 

any of the water fill levels or test load 

sizes required for testing . . .’’ In the 

May 2020 RFI, DOE considered 

rephrasing the text in Figure 2.12.1 of 

Appendix J2 to say ‘‘. . . use or 

internally generate any heated water 

. . .’’ (emphasis added) so that the 

wording of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix 

J2 explicitly addresses clothes washers 

that internally generate hot water. 85 FR 

31065, 31074. This change would be 

consistent with DOE’s interpretation of 

the current Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

flowchart and subsequent flowcharts for 

the Warm Wash and Hot Wash 

temperature selections for this type of 

clothes washer. Id. DOE requested input 

on this rephrasing. Id. 

UL supported changing the wording 

of Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 to 

specifically address clothes washers that 

internally generate heated water. (UL, 

No. 9 at p. 3) 

AHAM stated that it does not oppose 

rephrasing Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 

to specifically address clothes washers 

that internally generate all hot water 

used for a cycle by means of internal 

heating elements, and believes it would 

be a useful clarification. (AHAM, No. 5 

at p. 13) 

As suggested in the May 2020 RFI, 

DOE proposes rephrasing the text in 

Figure 2.12.1 of both Appendix J2 and 

the proposed new Appendix J to say 

‘‘. . . use or internally generate any 

heated water . . .’’ (emphasis added) so 

that the wording of the Cold Wash/Cold 

Rinse flowchart in both appendices 

explicitly addresses clothes washers 

that internally generate hot water. 85 FR 

31065, 31074. In this NOPR, DOE is 

further proposing to rephrase the 

description of Warm Wash/Warm Rinse 

in Figure 2.12.4 of both Appendix J2 

and the proposed new Appendix J to 

state ‘‘. . . rinse temperature selections 

that add or internally generate hot water 

. . .’’ (emphasis added), for the same 

reasons. 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to update the flowcharts for 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/ 

Warm Rinse in both Appendix J2 and 

the proposed new Appendix J to 

explicitly address clothes washers that 

internally generate hot water. 

5. Wash Time Setting 

Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 defines 

how to select the wash time setting on 

a clothes washer. If no one wash time 

is prescribed for the wash cycle under 

test, the wash time setting is the higher 

of either the minimum or 70 percent of 

the maximum wash time available, 

regardless of the labeling of suggested 

dial locations. Hereafter in this 

document, DOE refers to this provision 

as the ‘‘70-percent test.’’ 

In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE 

added instructions to the wash time 

section of Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 

that specified the direction of rotation of 

electromechanical dials, and that the 70- 

percent test applies regardless of the 

labeling of suggested dial locations. 77 

FR 13887, 13927. In the August 2015 

Final Rule, DOE specified that, if 70- 

percent of the maximum wash time is 

not available on a dial with a discrete 

number of wash time settings, the nexthighest setting greater than 70-percent 

must be chosen. 80 FR 46729, 46745. 

a. Electronic vs. Electromechanical Dials 

DOE has observed on the market 

clothes washers that have an electronic 

cycle selection dial designed to visually 

simulate a conventional 

electromechanical dial.68 85 FR 31065, 

31075. In particular, DOE has observed 

clothes washers with an electronic dial 

that offers multiple Normal cycle 

selections; for example, ‘‘Normal-Light,’’ 

‘‘Normal-Medium,’’ and ‘‘NormalHeavy,’’ with the descriptor referring to 

the soil level of the clothing. On such 

clothes washers, the only difference 

between the three Normal cycles 

apparent to consumers when performing 

each cycle may be the wash time, 

although other less observable 

parameters may also differ. Although 

the electronic dial simulates the visual 

appearance of an electromechanical 

dial, the electronic dial is programmed 

with a preestablished set of wash cycle 

parameters, including wash time, for 

each of the discrete cycle selections 

presented on the machine. Id. For this 

type of cycle selection dial, each of the 

discrete cycle selection options 

represents a selectable ‘‘wash cycle’’ as 

referred to in section 3.2.5 of Appendix 

J2, and a wash time is prescribed for 

each available wash cycle. Therefore, for 

clothes washers with this type of 

electronic dial, the wash cycle selected 

for testing must correspond to the wash 

cycle that meets the definition of 

Normal cycle in section 1.25 of 

Appendix J2. The wash time setting 

thus would be the prescribed wash time 

for the selected wash cycle; i.e., the 70- 

percent test would not apply to this type 

of dial. Id. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

requested feedback on whether to 

further clarify section 3.2.5 of Appendix 

J2 regarding electronic cycle selection 

dials that visually simulate 

conventional electromechanical dials. 

Id. 

AHAM suggested that section 3.2.5 of 

Appendix J2 could be clarified by 

specifying that the instructions 

pertaining to electromechanical dials 

(regarding resetting the dial and turning 

it to reach the appropriate setting) also 

pertain to timers that control wash time. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 14) 

DOE agrees with AHAM’s suggestion 

and is proposing to amend section 

3.2.5.3 of both Appendix J2 and the 

proposed new Appendix J by adding the 

words ‘‘or timer’’ after the words 

‘‘electromechanical dial’’ in order to 

clarify the application of the 

instructions to electronic cycle selection 

dials. 

DOE is further proposing to revise the 

wording of section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 

and section 3.2.2 of the proposed new 

Appendix J 69 by changing the first 

sentence of the section to read, ‘‘If the 

cycle under test offers a range of wash 

time settings, the wash time setting shall 

be the higher of either the minimum 70 

percent of the maximum wash time 

available for the wash cycle under test, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49184 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

70 In this context, ‘‘agitation’’ refers to the wash 

action of a top-loading clothes washer, whereas 

‘‘tumble’’ refers to the wash action of a frontloading clothes washer. 

regardless of the labeling of suggested 

dial locations’’ (emphasis added). DOE 

is also proposing to separate section 

3.2.5 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 

of the proposed new Appendix J into 

two subsections: Section 3.2.5.1 (in 

Appendix J2) and section 3.2.2.1 (in the 

proposed new Appendix J), which 

specifies the wash time setting for a 

clothes washer cycle with a range of 

wash time settings; and section 3.2.5.2 

(in Appendix J2) and 3.2.2.2 (in the 

proposed new Appendix J), which 

specifies the dial rotation procedure for 

a clothes washer equipped with an 

electromechanical dial or timer that 

rotates in both directions. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify the wording of the 

wash time setting specifications in 

section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 and section 

3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J. 

b. Direction of Dial Rotation 

Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 states 

that, for clothes washers with 

electromechanical dials controlling 

wash time, the dial must be turned in 

the direction of increasing wash time to 

reach the appropriate wash time setting. 

DOE is aware that not all 

electromechanical dials currently on the 

market can be turned in the direction of 

increasing wash time. 85 FR 31065, 

31075. On such models, the dial can 

only be turned in the direction of 

decreasing wash time. DOE believes that 

the direction of rotation need only be 

prescribed on a clothes washer with an 

electromechanical dial that can rotate in 

both directions. Id. In the May 2020 RFI, 

DOE requested comment on its 

understanding of the functioning of 

dials currently on the market, 

specifically with regard to the 

direction(s) of rotation and whether the 

wording of section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 

warrants revision to specify that the 

requirement to rotate the dial in the 

direction of increasing wash time 

applies only to dials that can rotate in 

both directions. Id. 

UL commented that it supports 

specifying that the requirement to rotate 

the dial in the direction of increasing 

wash time applies only to dials that can 

rotate in both directions, because some 

dials only rotate in one direction. (UL, 

No. 9 at p. 3) 

AHAM supported amending section 

3.2.5 of Appendix J2 to specify that the 

requirement to rotate the dial in the 

direction of increasing wash time 

applies only to dials that can rotate in 

both directions. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 14) 

DOE notes general support for its 

suggestion to specify that the 

requirement to rotate the dial in the 

direction of increasing wash time 

applies only to dials that can rotate in 

both directions. In this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing to add a clause in section 

3.2.5.2 of Appendix J2 and section 

3.2.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix 

J that would specify that the 

requirement to rotate the dial in the 

direction of increasing wash time would 

only apply to dials that can rotate in 

both directions. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to add a clause in section 

3.2.5.2 of Appendix J2 and section 

3.2.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix 

J stating that the requirement to rotate 

the dial in the direction of increasing 

wash time would only apply to dials 

that can rotate in both directions. 

c. ‘‘Wash Time’’ Definition 

The 70-percent test described above 

does not explicitly define how to 

calculate ‘‘wash time.’’ In the May 2020 

RFI, DOE was considering whether to 

state that the phrase ‘‘wash time’’ in 

section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 refers to 

the period of agitation or tumble. 85 FR 

31065, 31975. This clarification would 

be consistent with the historical context 

of this section of the test procedure. In 

Appendix J–1997, section 2.10 Clothes 

washer setting refers to ‘‘actual wash 

time’’ as the ‘‘period of agitation.’’ In 

Appendix J–2001, DOE renamed section 

2.10 Wash time (period of agitation or 

tumble) setting.70 66 FR 3313, 3330. 

When establishing Appendix J1 in the 

August 1997 Final Rule, DOE did not 

include reference to ‘‘period of agitation 

or tumble’’ in section 2.10 of Appendix 

J1. 62 FR 45484, 45510. DOE did not 

address this difference from Appendix 

J–1977 in the preamble of the August 

1997 Final Rule or the NOPRs that 

preceded that final rule, but given the 

continued reference to ‘‘wash time’’ in 

Appendix J1, did not intend to change 

the general understanding that wash 

time refers to the wash portion of the 

cycle, which includes agitation or 

tumble time. DOE has since further 

amended section 2.10 of both Appendix 

J1 and Appendix J2 as part of the March 

2012 Final Rule and August 2015 Final 

Rule (in which section 2.10 was 

renumbered as section 3.2.5), with no 

discussion in these final rules of the 

statement that remained in Appendix J– 

2001, where wash time was referred to 

in the title of section 2.10 as the period 

of agitation or tumble time. DOE further 

notes that in current RCW models on 

the market, agitation or tumble may be 

periodic or continuous during the wash 

portion of the cycle. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on whether DOE should 

consider reincorporating language into 

section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 to state that 

the term ‘‘wash time’’ refers to the wash 

portion of the cycle, including agitation 

or tumble time. 85 FR 31065, 31076. 

UL suggested that the phrase ‘‘wash 

time’’ include agitation or tumble time, 

which can be periodic throughout the 

wash cycle. (UL, No. 9 at p. 3) UL 

specified in particular that wash time 

could be defined as starting when the 

clothes washer starts filling with water, 

agitating or tumbling, or a combination 

of both; and as ending when the clothes 

washer drains the water from the wash 

portion of the cycle. Id. 

AHAM agreed with DOE’s proposal to 

state that ‘‘wash time’’ refers to the 

period of agitation or tumble. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 14) 

In order to provide further clarity in 

evaluating the wash time setting 

requirements of section 3.2.5 of 

Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the 

proposed new Appendix J, DOE is 

proposing to define the term ‘‘wash 

time’’ in section 1 of both Appendix J2 

and the proposed new Appendix J as 

‘‘the wash portion of the cycle, which 

begins when the cycle is initiated and 

includes the agitation or tumble time, 

which may be periodic or continuous 

during the wash portion of the cycle.’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to add a definition of ‘‘wash 

time’’ to section 1 of both Appendix J2 

and the proposed new Appendix J. 

6. Annual Operating Cost Calculation 

DOE provides in 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(ii) the method for 

calculating the estimated annual 

operating cost for automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers, when using 

Appendix J2. In the March 2012 Final 

Rule, DOE assigned the symbol ‘‘ETLP’’ 

to represent combined low-power mode 

energy consumption. However, in that 

rule, DOE used a different symbol 

(‘‘ETSO’’) in updating section 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(ii) to represent the same 

value. 77 FR 12888, 13937–13948. DOE 

is proposing to update the symbol 

nomenclature in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii) 

to match the symbol nomenclature in 

Appendix J2. 

In addition, to differentiate between 

values determined using Appendix J2 

from values determined using the 

proposed new Appendix J throughout 

10 CFR 430.23(j), DOE is proposing to 

add a number ‘‘2’’ to each of the 

symbols representing values derived 

from Appendix J2 (e.g., ETLP2) that are 

not already designated accordingly. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49185 

71Test loads must consist of energy test cloths 

and no more than five energy stuffer clothes per 

load to achieve the proper weight. 

DOE further notes that the formula for 

calculating the estimated annual 

operating cost for automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers when gasheated or oil-heated water is used, 

provided in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B), is 

missing a pair of parentheses. The ‘‘N2’’ 

multiplier is intended to apply to all of 

the other factors in the equation, but the 

lack of parentheses around the ‘‘MET2’’ 

through ‘‘CBTU’’ terms erroneously 

applies it to only the first term of the 

sum. DOE is proposing to correct this 

error. 

Since DOE is proposing to remove 

Appendix J1, DOE is also proposing to 

update 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), which 

currently specifies the formulas for 

calculating the estimated annual 

operating cost for automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers when using 

Appendix J1, with the formulas for 

calculating the estimated annual 

operating cost for automatic and semiautomatic clothes washers when using 

the proposed new Appendix J. These 

proposed formulas are analogous to the 

formulas in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii). As 

discussed further in section III.H.7 of 

this document, the proposed new 

Appendix J does not include a separate 

calculation for ‘‘ETE’’ (the sum of 

machine electrical energy (‘‘MET’’) and 

hot water heating energy (‘‘HET’’), as 

currently defined in section 4.1.7 of 

Appendix J2). Therefore, DOE’s 

proposed revisions to 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(i) replace ETE with the 

individual components MET + HET. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed updates to the annual 

operating cost calculations in 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1). 

7. Structure of the Proposed New 

Appendix J 

As part of the creation of the proposed 

new Appendix J, DOE is proposing 

several changes to the structure of the 

test procedure as compared to the 

current Appendix J2 to improve 

readability, as follows. 

DOE is proposing to better organize 

section 2.8 of the proposed new 

Appendix J, as compared to the parallel 

section in Appendix J2. Currently, 

section 2.8 of Appendix J2 crossreferences the load size table to 

determine the three load sizes, specifies 

the allowable composition of energy test 

cloths and energy stuffer cloths in each 

load,71 and provides a table showing 

required test load sizes and water fill 

settings for each type of WFCS. In the 

proposed new Appendix J, section 2.8.1 

would contain the specifications for 

determining the load sizes; section 2.8.2 

would contain the specifications 

describing the allowable composition of 

energy test cloths and energy stuffer 

cloths in each load; and the table 

specifying the required test load sizes 

and water fill settings for each type of 

WFCS would not be included. This 

table would be no longer needed in the 

proposed new Appendix J because the 

same two load sizes (small and large) 

would be used for all WFCS types. 

Section 2.9 of Appendix J2 is named 

‘‘Use of test loads’’ and provides 

specifications for drying each load to 

bone-dry prior to use and instructions 

for loading the test cloth into the clothes 

washer. DOE is proposing to title 

section 2.9 of the proposed new 

Appendix J ‘‘Preparation and loading of 

test loads’’ and to include a statement 

that the procedures described in section 

2.9 to prepare and load each test load 

are applicable when performing the 

testing procedures in section 3 of the 

appendix. 

Section 3.2 of Appendix J2 is titled 

‘‘Procedure for measuring water and 

energy consumption values on all 

automatic and semi-automatic washers’’ 

and specifies conducting testing under 

the energy test cycle (3.2.1); provides a 

table that cross-references to each 

relevant test section in section 3 of the 

appendix (3.2.2); and provides 

specifications for: Configuring the hot 

and cold water faucets (3.2.3); selecting 

the wash/rinse temperature selection 

(3.2.4); selecting the wash time setting 

(3.2.5); selecting water fill levels for 

each type of WFCS (3.2.6); using 

manufacturer default settings (3.2.7); 

testing active washing mode only 

(3.2.8); and discarding anomalous data 

(3.2.9). DOE is proposing to title section 

3.2 of the proposed new Appendix J as 

simply ‘‘Cycle settings’’ and to organize 

the section as follows: The contents in 

section 3.2.1 of Appendix J2 would be 

instead included within the instructions 

of a new section 3.3 (as described 

below); the contents of section 3.2 of 

Appendix J2, including the table, would 

not be included as the contents would 

be redundant with the proposed 

sections 3.3 and 3.4; the contents of 

section 3.2.3 of Appendix J2 would not 

be included, as the hot and cold water 

faucet instructions would no longer be 

necessary given the proposed changes 

described in section III.C.2 of this 

document regarding the installation of 

single-inlet clothes washers; and 

sections 3.2.4 through 3.2.9 of Appendix 

J2 would be included as sections 3.2.1 

through 3.2.6, respectively, and include 

any relevant edits as discussed 

throughout this document. 

Currently, sections 3.3 through 3.7 of 

Appendix J2 contain detailed 

instructions for testing each wash/rinse 

temperature available in the energy test 

cycle: Extra Hot/Cold (3.3); Hot/Cold 

(3.4); Warm/Cold (3.5); Warm/Warm 

(3.6); and Cold/Cold (3.7). The content 

and structure of each of these sections 

is nearly identical, except for two 

caveats: (1) Describing the use of 

temperature indicator labels in section 

3.3 to verify the presence of an Extra 

Hot wash; and (2) describing the 25/50/ 

75 test, described in section III.D.3 of 

this document, for clothes washers that 

offer four or more Warm/Cold or Warm/ 

Warm selections. To significantly 

simplify this part of test procedure, and 

because the use of temperature indicator 

labels would be moved to section 2.5.4 

of the proposed new Appendix J and the 

25/50/75 test would no longer be 

applicable under the proposals outlined 

in section III.D.3 of this document, DOE 

is proposing to combine the common 

language from sections 3.3 through 3.7 

in Appendix J2 into a single section 3.3 

in the proposed new Appendix J for 

automatic clothes washers and an 

analogous section 3.4 for semiautomatic clothes washers. Section 3.3 

of the proposed new Appendix J would 

also provide a table designating the 

symbol definitions of each required 

measured value for each wash/rinse 

temperature selection and load size. As 

discussed in section III.D.8.c of this 

document, section 3.4 of the proposed 

new Appendix J would provide the 

same information for semi-automatic 

clothes washes. 

Section 3.8 of Appendix J2 specifies 

the procedure for measuring and 

calculating RMC. As described in 

section III.D.4 of this document, DOE is 

proposing in the proposed new 

Appendix J to require measuring the 

RMC of each tested cycle within the 

energy test cycle, and to calculate final 

RMC using TUFs and LUFs, consistent 

with how hot water energy, electrical 

energy, and water usage are calculated. 

Under this proposed change, the RMC 

values would be calculated in section 4 

(‘‘Calculation of Derived Results From 

Test Measurements’’) of the proposed 

new Appendix J. Given these proposed 

changes, the current specifications in 

section 3.8 of Appendix J2 would not 

apply to the proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE is therefore proposing not to 

include the RMC provisions from 

section 3 in Appendix J2 in the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE is proposing to include sections 

3.9 and 3.10 of Appendix J2 in the 

proposed new Appendix J as sections 

3.5 and 3.6, respectively, and to provide 

the appropriate cross-references. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Section 3.10 of Appendix J2 (section 

3.6 in the proposed new Appendix J) is 

titled ‘‘Energy consumption for the 

purpose of determining the cycle 

selection(s) to be included in the energy 

test cycle’’ and specifies the following: 

Establishing the test conditions and 

setting the cycle selections (3.10.1); 

using the maximum test load size 

(3.10.2); using the maximum water fill 

level available (3.10.3); including only 

the active washing mode (3.10.4); and 

calculating ‘‘total energy consumption’’ 

using a defined equation (3.10.5). DOE 

is proposing to simplify section 3.6 in 

the proposed new Appendix J by 

condensing the specifications of 

sections 3.10.1 through 3.10.4 in 

Appendix J2 into a single statement in 

section 3.6.1 of the proposed new 

Appendix J to use the cycle settings as 

described in section 3.2 of the proposed 

new Appendix J. Current section 3.10.5 

of Appendix J2 would be included in 

the proposed new Appendix J as section 

3.6.2. 

Sections 3 and 4 of Appendix J2 

assign various different subscripts to 

each symbol definition to denote load 

size and wash/rinse temperature 

selection, among other attributes. 

Currently, Appendix J2 uses the 

subscript ‘‘x’’ to denote the maximum 

load size and the subscript ‘‘m’’ to 

denote the Extra Hot/Cold temperature 

selection. In the proposed new 

Appendix J, DOE proposes to use new 

subscripts to represent the large load 

size (‘‘L’’) and the small load size (‘‘S’’). 

Because the maximum load size would 

no longer apply in the proposed new 

Appendix J, DOE is proposing to update 

the subscript for Extra-Hot/Cold 

temperature selection from ‘‘m’’ to ‘‘x’’ 

(since ‘‘x’’ is more intuitive in 

representing ‘‘Extra’’). These changes 

would apply to sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.6 and 

4 in the proposed new Appendix J. 

Additionally, throughout section 4 of 

Appendix J2, the symbol ‘‘F’’ is used to 

refer to load usage factors. For greater 

clarity in the proposed new Appendix J, 

DOE is proposing to use the symbol 

‘‘LUF’’ throughout section 4 to represent 

the load usage factors, rather than the 

symbol ‘‘F.’’ 

Section 4.1.7 of Appendix J2 specifies 

calculating ‘‘Total per-cycle energy 

consumption when electrically heated 

water is used,’’ assigned as symbol 

‘‘ETE,’’ as the sum of machine electrical 

energy and hot water heating energy. 

ETE was originally defined in section 4.6 

of Appendix J–1977 and at the time 

represented the total measured energy 

consumption, since the drying energy 

(‘‘DE’’) and ETLP were not yet included 

as part of the clothes washer test 

procedure. Currently, however, the total 

measured energy consumption would be 

more accurately represented by the sum 

of HET, MET, DE, and ETLP. Because the 

calculation of ETE as an intermediate 

step is now obsolete, DOE is proposing 

to not include the definition of ETE from 

section 4.1.7 of the proposed new 

Appendix J, as well as all edit crossreferences to ETE (within sections 4.5 

and 4.6 of the proposed new Appendix 

J and 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i)(A) as 

proposed). In these instances, DOE is 

proposing to replace ETE with its 

component parts: HET and MET. 

Section 4.2 of Appendix J2 provides 

the calculation of water consumption 

and is structured with multiple 

subsections. Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.5 

of Appendix J2 provide for the 

calculation of total water consumption 

for each load size within each wash/ 

rinse temperature selection by summing 

the measured values of hot water and 

cold water: Extra Hot/Cold (4.2.1); Hot/ 

Cold (4.2.2); Warm/Cold (4.2.3); Warm/ 

Warm (4.2.4); and Cold/Cold (4.2.5). In 

sections 4.2.6 through 4.2.10 of 

Appendix J2, the total weighted water 

consumption for each wash/rinse 

temperature selection is calculated by 

combining the water consumption 

values for each load size as calculated 

in 4.2.1 through 4.2.5 using the LUFs. In 

section 4.2.11 of Appendix J2, the total 

weighted water consumption for all 

wash cycles is calculated by combining 

the values calculated in sections 4.2.6 

through 4.2.10 (representing each wash/ 

rinse temperature) using the TUFs. DOE 

notes that this order of calculations 

(which combines the measured values 

from the individual cycles first using 

LUFs, then combines the resulting 

values using TUFs) is the reverse order 

used for the machine electrical and hot 

water heating energy calculations in 

section 4.1 of Appendix J2 (which 

combines the measured values from the 

individual cycles first using TUFs, then 

combines the resulting values using 

LUFs). In the proposed new Appendix 

J, DOE is proposing to organize section 

4.2 to simplify the calculations and to 

provide consistency between the water 

consumption calculations and the 

energy calculations (i.e., to combine the 

measured values from the individual 

cycles first using TUFs, then combine 

the resulting values using LUFs). 

Accordingly, section 4.2.1 of the 

proposed new Appendix J would define 

the per-cycle total water consumption 

for each large load size tested (summing 

the hot and cold water consumption for 

each load size and temperature setting), 

and 4.2.2 would similarly define the 

per-cycle total water consumption for 

each large small size tested. Section 

4.2.3 of the proposed new Appendix J 

would provide for the calculation of the 

per-cycle total water consumption for 

all load sizes, using the TUFs to 

calculate the weighted average of all 

temperature settings for each load size. 

Finally, section 4.2.4 of the proposed 

new Appendix J would calculate the 

total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption, using the LUFs to 

calculate the weighted average over the 

two load sizes. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed structure of the proposed new 

Appendix J to simplify and improve 

readability as compared to Appendix J2. 

8. Proposed Deletions and 

Simplifications 

DOE proposes to remove Appendix J1 

to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along 

with all references to Appendix J1 in 10 

CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. Appendix 

J1 applied only to RCWs manufactured 

before March 7, 2015 and CCWs 

manufactured before January 1, 2018 

and is therefore not applicable to 

models manufactured on or after those 

dates. Use of Appendix J2 to subpart B 

of 10 CFR part 430 is currently required 

for any representations of energy or 

water consumption of both RCWs and 

CCWs, including demonstrating 

compliance with the currently 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. As discussed, DOE proposes 

to maintain the current naming of 

Appendix J2, and to establish a new test 

procedure at Appendix J, which would 

be used for the evaluation and issuance 

of updated efficiency standards, and for 

determining compliance with those 

standards. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove Appendix J1 to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with 

all references to Appendix J1 in 10 CFR 

parts 429, 430, and 431. 

Given DOE’s proposal to update the 

energy and water metrics in the 

proposed new Appendix J, as described 

in section III.E of this document, DOE 

proposes to include references to the 

proposed new metrics EER, AEER, and 

WER in place of references to the WF, 

IWF, MEF, and IMEF metrics, as 

appropriate, in the proposed new 

Appendix J. Given that the WF metric 

is no longer the basis for energy 

conservation standards for either RCWs 

or CCWs, DOE proposes to remove the 

calculation of WF in section 4.2.12 of 

Appendix J2, as well as any references 

to WF in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 

431. Similarly, given that MEF is no 

longer the basis for energy conservation 

standards for RCWs, DOE proposes to 

remove references to MEF from 10 CFR 

429.20 and 10 CFR 430.23. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49187 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove obsolete metric 

definitions. 

DOE proposes to delete the following 

definitions from section 1 of Appendix 

J2 because they are either no longer 

used within the appendix currently, or 

would no longer be used given DOE’s 

proposed amendments in this NOPR: 

‘‘adaptive control system,’’ ‘‘compact,’’ 

‘‘manual control system,’’ ‘‘standard,’’ 

and ‘‘thermostatically controlled water 

valves.’’ 

Section 1.13 of Appendix J2 defines 

the energy test cycle as follows: Energy 

test cycle means the complete set of 

wash/rinse temperature selections 

required for testing, as determined 

according to section 2.12 [of Appendix 

J2]. Within the energy test cycle, the 

following definitions apply: 

(a) Cold Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/ 

rinse temperature selection determined 

by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 

2.12.1 of this appendix. 

(b) Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/ 

rinse temperature selection determined 

by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 

2.12.2 of this appendix. 

(c) Warm Wash/Cold Rinse is the 

wash/rinse temperature selection 

determined by evaluating the flowchart 

in Figure 2.12.3 of this appendix. 

(d) Warm Wash/Warm Rinse is the 

wash/rinse temperature selection 

determined by evaluating the flowchart 

in Figure 2.12.4 of this appendix. 

(e) Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the 

wash/rinse temperature selection 

determined by evaluating the flowchart 

in Figure 2.12.5 of this appendix. 

Parts (a) through (e) of this definition 

are redundant with the flowchart 

definitions provided in section 2.12 of 

Appendix J2. Therefore, DOE proposes 

to simplify the definition of energy test 

cycle in both Appendix J2 and the 

proposed new Appendix J by keeping 

only the first sentence of the current 

definition: Energy test cycle means the 

complete set of wash/rinse temperature 

selections required for testing, as 

determined according to section 2.12. 

DOE also proposes to remove section 

1.30 of Appendix J2, ‘‘Symbol usage,’’ to 

rename section 1 of Appendix J2 

(currently ‘‘Definitions and Symbols’’) 

‘‘Definitions,’’ and name section 1 of the 

proposed new Appendix J ‘‘Definitions’’ 

accordingly. Throughout the 

appendices, each symbol is defined at 

each usage, making this section 

unnecessary for executing the test 

procedure. DOE notes that most other 

test procedures in subpart B to part 430 

do not include a symbol usage section. 

DOE also proposes to remove the 

numbering of all definitions in section 

1 of Appendix J2, and in section 2 of 

Appendix J3, and instead list the 

definitions in alphabetical order. This 

would simplify cross-references to 

defined terms and would allow for 

easier editing in the future by avoiding 

the need to renumber all the definitions 

(and associated cross-references) any 

time a definition is added or deleted. 

The proposed new Appendix J reflects 

these changes as proposed for Appendix 

J2. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to delete the following 

definitions from section 1 of Appendix 

J2: ‘‘adaptive control system,’’ 

‘‘compact,’’ ‘‘manual control system,’’ 

‘‘standard,’’ and ‘‘thermostatically 

controlled water valves.’’ DOE also 

requests comment on its proposal to 

simplify the definition of ‘‘energy test 

cycle.’’ DOE also requests comment on 

its proposal to remove section 1.30 

‘‘Symbol usage’’ from Appendix J2. 

Lastly, DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove the numbering of all 

definitions in section 1 of Appendix J2 

and section 2 of Appendix J3, and to 

instead list the definitions in 

alphabetical order. 

DOE further proposes to remove 

section 6, Waivers and Field Testing, 

from Appendix J2 and not include a 

parallel section in the proposed new 

Appendix J. The language of section 6 

of Appendix J2 was first introduced as 

section 7 in Appendix J–1997 and has 

been maintained through successive 

amendments of the test procedures. 

DOE notes, however, that none of the 

waivers sought by manufacturers to date 

have made use of these provisions. 

Instead, the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27 

(Petitions for waiver and interim 

waiver) provide comprehensive 

instructions regarding DOE’s waiver 

process. DOE tentatively concludes that 

the information presented in section 6 

of Appendix J2 is unnecessary given the 

regulatory language of 10 CFR 430.27. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove section 6, Waivers 

and Field Testing, of Appendix J2 and 

proposal not to include a parallel 

section in the proposed new Appendix 

J. 

9. Typographical Errors 

In an effort to improve the readability 

of the text in certain sections of 10 CFR 

430.23 and Appendix J2, DOE is 

proposing to make minor typographical 

corrections and formatting 

modifications as follows. These minor 

proposed modifications are not 

intended to change the substance of the 

test methods or descriptions provided in 

these sections. The language of the 

proposed new Appendix J reflects these 

corrections. 

The test procedure provisions at 10 

CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B) contain a 

definition for ‘‘CKWH,’’ which is 

duplicative with the same definition 

provided in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(A). 

DOE proposes to remove the duplicate 

definition of CKWH from 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B). 

DOE is proposing to correct two 

misspellings in section 2.8 of Appendix 

J2 referring to energy stuffer cloths 

(currently ‘‘clothes’’) and test load sizes 

(currently ‘‘siszes’’). DOE is also 

proposing to correct the spelling of 

‘‘discrete’’ in section 3.2.5 of Appendix 

J2 (currently ‘‘discreet’’) and of ‘‘test 

cycle’’ in section 3.6 of Appendix J2 

(currently ‘‘testy’’). DOE is also 

proposing to spell out the word 

‘‘percent’’ in the paragraph in section 

3.2.5 of Appendix J2. 

Currently in Appendix J2, the drying 

energy abbreviation is DE. This notation 

is inconsistent with the notation used 

for machine electrical energy and hot 

water heating energy (MET and HET, 

respectively). DOE is proposing to 

standardize the notation used for drying 

energy throughout sections 3 and 4 of 

the proposed new Appendix J, such that 

it is listed as DET. DOE could consider 

also making this change in Appendix J2, 

but understands that changing the 

symbol definition could require test 

laboratories to update test templates that 

use the DE symbol as currently defined 

in Appendix J2. 

DOE is also proposing to rename 

section 2 in Appendix J2 from ‘‘Testing 

Conditions’’ to ‘‘Testing Conditions and 

Instrumentation’’ to more fully reflect 

the contents of this section. 

In several instances throughout 

Appendix J2, the qualifier ‘‘of this 

appendix’’ is missing in section crossreferences. DOE is proposing to rectify 

these omissions. DOE is also proposing 

to clarify references to Appendix J3 in 

Appendix J2, and vice-versa, by using 

‘‘to this subpart.’’ Finally, DOE proposes 

to update all cross-references as needed, 

following the edits proposed in this 

NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to make the minor 

typographical corrections and 

formatting modifications described in 

this section. 

I. Test Cloth Provisions 

Appendix J2 requires using 

specialized test cloth as the material 

comprising each tested load. DOE 

originally developed the energy test 

cloth specifications as part of the 

January 2001 Final Rule, based on the 

results of a detailed investigation of the 

cloth material used by industry for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

72 ‘‘Development of a Standardized Energy Test 

Cloth for Measuring Remaining Moisture Content in 

a Residential Clothes Washer.’’ U.S. Department of 

Energy: Buildings, Research and Standards. May 

2000. Available online at www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2006-STD-0064-0277. 

73The RMC measurement is an important aspect 

of DOE’s clothes washer test procedure because the 

RMC value determines the drying energy, which is 

the largest contributor to IMEF. Based on the 

Technical Support Documents from the March 2012 

Final Rule, drying energy represents 65 percent of 

the total energy for a 2015 baseline-efficiency toploading standard RCW, and 72 percent for a 2015 

baseline-efficiency front-loading standard RCW. 

testing.72 In particular, DOE observed 

that the material properties of the 

energy test cloth had a significant effect 

on the RMC measurement,73 which as 

discussed was added to Appendix J1– 

2001 to measure the effectiveness of the 

final spin cycle in removing moisture 

from the wash load. As described in the 

test cloth report, the final specifications 

for the energy test cloth were developed 

to be representative of a consumer load: 

A 50-percent cotton/50-percent 

polyester blended material was 

specified to approximate the typical mix 

of cotton, cotton/polyester blend, and 

synthetic articles that are machinewashed by consumers. In developing 

the test cloth specifications, DOE also 

considered: 

b Manufacturability: A 50/50 cottonpolyester momie weave was specified 

because at the time, such cloth was 

produced in high volume, had been 

produced to a consistent specification 

for many years, and was expected to be 

produced on this basis for the 

foreseeable future. 66 FR 3314, 3331. 

b Consistency in test cloth 

production: The cloth material 

properties were specified in detail, 

including fiber content, thread count, 

and fabric weight; as well as 

requirements to verify that water 

repellent finishes are not applied to the 

cloth. Id. 

b Consistency of the RMC 

measurement among different lots: A 

procedure was developed to generate 

correction factors for each new ‘‘lot’’ 

(i.e., batch) of test cloth to normalize test 

results and ensure consistent RMC 

measurements regardless of which lot is 

used for testing. Id. 

1. Test Cloth Specification 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comments on manufacturers’ and testing 

laboratories’ experience with the current 

test cloth specifications and whether 

DOE should consider any changes to the 

energy test cloth specifications to 

reduce burden and improve testing 

results. 85 FR 31065, 31071. 

AHAM commented that it would 

strongly oppose changing from the 

uniform test cloth to a more varied load. 

AHAM stated that the clothes washer 

test procedure requires the use of a 

uniform test cloth to produce repeatable 

and reproducible results. (AHAM, No. 5 

at p. 3) According to AHAM, the 

introduction of a ‘‘real-world’’ load that 

includes items with different weights, 

sizes, and materials could introduce 

significant variation in the test 

procedure. AHAM stated that sufficient 

data have not been provided that would 

demonstrate acceptable repeatability 

and reproducibility using a ‘‘real-world’’ 

test load. Id. 

GEA recommended that DOE not 

change the current test cloth 

specifications, noting that significant 

work has gone into addressing the 

myriad complexities with test cloth 

variation. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

DOE is not proposing any changes to 

the test cloth specification. 

2. Consolidation to Appendix J3 

Appendix J3 specifies a qualification 

procedure that must be conducted on all 

new lots of energy test cloth prior to the 

use of such test cloths in any clothes 

washer test procedure. This 

qualification procedure provides a set of 

correction factors that correlate the 

measured RMC values of the new test 

cloth lot with a set of standard RMC 

values established as the historical 

reference point. These correction factors 

are applied to the RMC test results in 

section 3.8.2.6 of Appendix J2 to ensure 

the repeatability and reproducibility of 

test results performed using different 

lots of test cloth. The measured RMC of 

each clothes washer has a significant 

impact on the final IMEF value. 

DOE is proposing several structural 

changes to Appendix J3 to consolidate 

all of the test cloth specifications and 

procedures (some of which are currently 

located in Appendix J2) that must be 

evaluated on each new lot of test cloth. 

Consolidating into a single test 

procedure will improve the overall 

logical flow of both test procedures and 

clarify that the test cloth procedures 

need not be conducted for each clothes 

washer under test. As described further, 

the proposed changes would remove 

from Appendix J2 specifications and 

procedures that are not intended to be 

completed for every clothes washer test. 

The proposed edits would also formally 

codify additional qualification 

procedures that are currently conducted 

for every new lot of test cloth. 

a. Test Cloth Requirements in Appendix 

J2 

Section 2.7 of Appendix J2 (‘‘Test 

cloths’’) contains specifications and 

procedures regarding the test cloth. 

Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 specify the 

unfinished and finished dimensions, 

maximum lifetime, and marking 

requirements for energy test cloth and 

energy stuffer cloths, respectively. 

These sections also specify that mixed 

lots of material must not be used for 

testing. Section 2.7.3 specifies a 

procedure for preconditioning new test 

cloth, which requires performing a 

series of five wash cycles on all new 

(unused) test cloths before the cloth can 

be used for clothes washer tests. Section 

2.7.4 provides the material 

specifications (fabric type, fabric weight, 

thread count, and fiber content) for the 

energy test cloths and energy stuffer 

cloths, as well as three industry test 

methods that must be performed to 

confirm the absence of any waterrepellent finishes and to measure the 

cloth shrinkage after preconditioning. 

Section 2.7.5 references Appendix J3 for 

performing the standard extractor 

procedure to measure the moisture 

absorption and retention characteristic 

of each new lot of cloth. 

Several of these provisions within 

section 2.7 of Appendix J2 are not 

intended to be conducted as part of each 

individual clothes washer test 

performed under Appendix J2. Based on 

discussions with the AHAM Test Cloth 

Task Force, DOE is aware that some of 

the test cloth provisions in section 2.7 

of Appendix J2 are performed by a 

third-party laboratory on each new lot of 

test cloth, avoiding the need for 

manufacturers and test laboratories to 

perform the same procedures for each 

individual clothes washer test. 85 FR 

31065, 31071. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comments on whether to consolidate 

into Appendix J3 provisions from 

section 2.7 of Appendix J2 that relate 

only to the testing of the test cloth and 

are not required to be performed for 

each individual Appendix J2 clothes 

washer test. Id. DOE also sought 

comment on whether to remove these 

provisions entirely. Id. 

AHAM supported the consolidation of 

section 2.7 of Appendix J2 provisions 

into Appendix J3, stating that doing so 

would mitigate testing burden. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 9) 

NEEA supported reorganization of the 

test procedure to put all test cloth 

qualification and lot correction 

information into the separate Appendix 

J3 test procedure, as this would add 

clarity and improve ease of use. (NEEA, 

No. 12 at p. 25) 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

move most of the specifications from 

section 2.7 of Appendix J2 to Appendix 

J3. Section 2.7 of Appendix J2 would 

retain the following specifications, 

which are relevant to the conduct of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49189 

individual clothes washer tests: The 

maximum lifetime specification, 

marking requirements, and the 

requirement that mixed lots of material 

must not be used for testing. All other 

specifications from section 2.7 of 

Appendix J2 would be moved to 

Appendix J3. DOE would add a general 

statement in section 2.7 of Appendix J2 

that the test cloth material and 

dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in Appendix J3. These 

proposed changes are also reflected in 

the proposed new Appendix J. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to consolidate into Appendix 

J3 the test cloth specifications and 

procedures from section 2.7 of 

Appendix J2 that are not intended to be 

conducted as part of each individual 

clothes washer test performed under 

Appendix J2. 

b. Test Cloth Requirements in Appendix 

J3 

Industry has developed a process in 

which the qualification procedure 

described above is performed by a thirdparty laboratory, and the results are 

reviewed and approved by the AHAM 

Test Cloth Task Force, after which the 

new lot of test cloth is made available 

for purchase by manufacturers and test 

laboratories. 85 FR 31065, 31071. 

DOE has received a request from 

members of the AHAM Test Cloth 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. Industry 

practice is to perform this ‘‘uniformity 

check’’ before conducting the procedure 

to develop the RMC correction factors 

currently specified in the DOE test 

procedure, as described previously. Id. 

Specifically, the uniformity check 

involves performing an RMC 

measurement on nine bundles of sample 

cloth representing the beginning, 

middle, and end locations of the first, 

middle, and last rolls of cloth in a new 

lot. Id. The coefficient of variation 

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. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought 

comment on whether it is necessary to 

specify any qualification procedure that 

must be conducted on all new lots of 

energy test cloth prior to use of such test 

cloths, as opposed to simply providing 

requirements for the test cloth without 

specifying in DOE’s regulations the 

procedure for achieving those 

requirements. Id. Industry could then 

continue with its current 

prequalification process, making 

changes as it determined necessary to 

improve that process, without the need 

to seek permission from DOE and 

participate in a rulemaking proceeding 

to make such improvements. Id. DOE 

also requested comments on whether it 

is necessary to incorporate the 

aforementioned test cloth uniformity 

check into Appendix J3, or whether the 

current regulations, with the existing 

requirements for test cloth and 

qualification procedure, are sufficient to 

ensure the quality of the test cloth. Id. 

DOE requested comment on any burden 

that results from the current 

qualification procedure, or would result 

from incorporating the discussed 

uniformity check, particularly for small 

businesses. Id. 

AHAM commented that the existing 

cloth uniformity test is effective and 

does not need to be changed. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 9) AHAM added that DOE 

should consider requiring that each load 

that is used for testing contains a mix of 

cloth from the beginning, middle, and 

end of the lot so that it is representative 

of the entire lot. AHAM further added 

that more sampling may be necessary if 

test cloth lot sizes increase. Id. 

With regards to DOE’s consideration 

of test burden, AHAM commented that 

the current process works well, and that 

it is not necessary to develop a 

particular qualification procedure. Id. 

NEEA encouraged DOE to adopt an 

additional test cloth qualification 

procedure if one is needed to maintain 

reproducibility, as it would improve 

transparency. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 25) 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

codify in Appendix J3 the ‘‘uniformity 

check’’ described above and to 

restructure Appendix J3 to improve the 

overall logical flow of the procedure. 

The sections of Appendix J3 are 

currently structured as follows: (1) 

Objective; (2) Definitions; (3) Testing 

Conditions; (4) Test Loads; (5) Test 

Measurements; (6) Calculation of RMC 

Correction Curve; and (7) Application of 

the RMC Correction Curve. 

DOE is proposing to update the 

objectives included in section 1 to 

specify that Appendix J3 now includes: 

(1) Specifications for the energy test 

cloth to be used for testing clothes 

washers; (2) procedures for verifying 

that new lots of energy test cloth meet 

the defined material specifications; and 

(3) procedures for developing the RMC 

correction coefficients. 

In section 2 of Appendix J3, DOE is 

proposing to add a definition for the 

term ‘‘roll,’’ which refers to a subset of 

a lot, and to remove the definition of 

roll from Appendix J2. 

DOE is proposing to create a new 

section 3, ‘‘Energy Test Cloth 

Specifications,’’ that would specify the 

test cloth material, dimensions, and use 

requirements as currently specified in 

section 2.7 of Appendix J2. 

DOE is proposing to change the title 

of current section 3 of Appendix J3, 

newly renumbered as section 4, from 

‘‘Testing Conditions’’ to ‘‘Equipment 

Specifications.’’ This section would 

contain the specifications for the 

extractor (currently specified in section 

3.2) and the bone-dryer (currently 

specified in section 3.3). DOE proposes 

to merge the current specification in 

section 3.1 of Appendix J3 (which 

specifies the extractor spin conditions to 

be used) with the proposed edits to 

newly renumbered section 8 (‘‘RMC 

Correction Curve Procedure’’), as 

described below. 

DOE is proposing to create a new 

section 5, ‘‘Pre-Conditioning 

Instructions,’’ in Appendix J3 that 

would specify the instructions for preconditioning test cloth, as currently 

specified in section 4.1 of Appendix J3, 

with a clarifying wording change. 

Currently, the second paragraph of 

section 4.1 in Appendix J3 specifies 

‘‘Perform five complete wash-rinse-spin 

cycles, the first two with current AHAM 

Standard detergent Formula 3 and the 

last three without detergent.’’ The last 

sentence of that paragraph specifies: 

‘‘Repeat the cycle with detergent and 

then repeat the cycle three additional 

times without detergent, bone drying 

the load between cycles (for a total of 

five complete wash-rinse-spin cycles).’’ 

DOE is concerned that the wording of 

the last sentence could be misconstrued 

as requiring the repeating of the entire 

sequence of five wash-rinse-spin cycles 

specified in the first sentence. To avoid 

this potential misinterpretation, DOE is 

proposing to replace the last sentence 

with the following: ‘‘Dry the load to 

bone-dry between each of the five washrinse-spin cycles.’’ 

DOE is proposing to create a new 

section 6, ‘‘Extractor Run Instructions,’’ 

in Appendix J3 that would specify the 

instructions for testing test cloth in the 

extractor at specific spin speed and time 

conditions, as currently listed in 

sections 5.1 through 5.10 of Appendix 

J3, with some minor organizational 

changes. 

DOE is proposing to create a new 

section 7, ‘‘Test Cloth Material 

Verification Procedure,’’ in Appendix J3 

that codifies the ‘‘uniformity check’’ 

procedure described above. 

DOE is proposing to add a new 

section 8, ‘‘RMC Correction Curve 

Procedure,’’ in Appendix J3 which 

would consolidate the provisions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49190 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

74 DOE maintains an historical record of the 

standard extractor test data and final correction 

curve coefficients for each approved lot of energy 

test cloth. These are available through DOE’s web 

page for standards and test procedures for 

residential clothes washers at www.energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/downloads/clothes-washer-test-clothcorrection-factor-information. 

75See discussion in the August 2015 Final Rule 

in which DOE described that limiting RMC 

variation to 2 RMC percentage points would limit 

the variation in the overall MEF or IMEF 

calculation to roughly 5 percent. 80 FR 46730, 

46756. 

76The RMC characteristics of historical Lot 3 

represent the ‘‘standard RMC values’’ defined in 

Table 6.1 of Appendix J3. 

77 DOE is proposing to use the phrase ‘‘may 

apply’’, as opposed to ‘‘shall apply’’, to allow for 

appropriate discretion by DOE. If ‘‘shall’’ were to 

be used instead, DOE would be required to seek the 

test cloth lot information from the manufacturer in 

every such case, since lot number is not a reported 

value. Alternatively, DOE could require reporting of 

the lot number used to certify each basic model. 

currently specified in sections 5 and 6 

of Appendix J3. 

DOE is proposing to renumber section 

7 to section 9 in Appendix J3 and to 

update any applicable cross references. 

Finally, given the broader scope of 

Appendix J3 as proposed by these 

amendments, DOE is proposing to 

rename Appendix J3 from ‘‘Uniform 

Test Method for Measuring the Moisture 

Absorption and Retention 

Characteristics of New Energy Test 

Cloth Lots’’ to ‘‘Energy Test Cloth 

Specifications and Procedures for 

Determining Correction Coefficients of 

New Energy Test Cloth Lots.’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed edits to Appendix J3 to codify 

the ‘‘uniformity check’’ procedure and 

to restructure Appendix J3 to improve 

the overall logical flow of the procedure. 

J. Product-Specific RMC Enforcement 

Provisions 

DOE provides product-specific 

enforcement provisions for all clothes 

washers at 10 CFR 429.134(c), which 

specify provisions for determining RMC. 

10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(i) specifies that the 

measured RMC value of a tested unit 

will be considered the tested unit’s final 

RMC value if the measured RMC value 

is within two RMC percentage points of 

the certified RMC value of the basic 

model (expressed as a percentage), or is 

lower than the certified RMC value. 10 

CFR 429.134(c)(1)(ii) specifies that if the 

measured RMC value of a tested unit is 

more than two RMC percentage points 

higher than the certified RMC value of 

the basic model, DOE will perform two 

additional replications of the RMC 

measurement procedure, each pursuant 

to the provisions of section 3.8.5 of 

Appendix J2, for a total of three 

independent RMC measurements of the 

tested unit. The average of the three 

RMC measurements will be the tested 

unit’s final RMC value and will be used 

as the basis for the calculation of percycle energy consumption for removal 

of moisture from the test load for that 

unit. 

As described in sections I.B and III.I 

of this document, DOE uses the 

procedures specified in Appendix J3 to 

evaluate the moisture absorption and 

retention characteristics of each new lot 

of test cloth. The results are used to 

develop a unique correction curve for 

each new lot of test cloth, which helps 

ensure that a consistent RMC 

measurement is obtained for any test 

cloth lot used during testing. The 

correction factors developed for each 

new cloth lot are used to adjust the 

‘‘uncorrected’’ RMC measurements 

obtained when performing an Appendix 

J2 test on an individual clothes washer 

model.74 Without the application of 

correction factors, the uncorrected RMC 

values for a given spin setting can vary 

by more than 10 RMC percentage points. 

The application of correction factors is 

intended to significantly reduce this lotto-lot variation in RMC results. 

Multiple interested parties have 

presented confidential data to DOE 

suggesting that despite the application 

of correction factors, the ‘‘corrected’’ 

RMC values can vary by up to three 

RMC percentage points among different 

test cloth lots. A variation of three RMC 

percentage points can lead to over a 5- 

percent variation in IMEF rating.75 DOE 

conducted an internal analysis of the 

confidential data, in which DOE 

investigated three potential sources of 

the observed variation in corrected RMC 

values: (1) Test-to-test variation masking 

as lot-to-lot variation; (2) spin cycle 

anomalies masking as lot-to-lot 

variation; and (3) choice of Lot 3 as the 

reference lot.76 Based on DOE’s 

investigations, none of these three 

hypotheses explained the observed lotto-lot variation in corrected RMC values 

in the data presented by the interested 

parties. 

Based on these investigations, DOE 

preliminarily concludes that although 

the application of correction factors for 

each test cloth lot significantly reduces 

the lot-to-lot variation in RMC (from 

over 10 percentage points uncorrected), 

the current methodology may be limited 

to reducing lot-to-lot variation in 

corrected RMC to around three RMC 

percentage points. 

Recognizing this potential for lot-tolot variation of up to three RMC 

percentage points (corrected), DOE 

proposes to extend its product-specific 

enforcement provisions for clothes 

washers to accommodate up to a 3- 

percentage point variation in the 

corrected RMC measurement based on 

the test cloth lot used for testing. The 

following paragraphs describe DOE’s 

proposed approach for implementation 

of these provisions. 

DOE proposes to modify the text of 10 

CFR 429.134(c)(1) to state that its 

provisions address anomalous RMC 

results that are not representative of a 

basic model’s performance, as well as 

differences in RMC values that may 

result from DOE using a different test 

cloth lot than was used by the 

manufacturer for testing and certifying 

the basic model. 

DOE proposes to specify the 

enforcement provisions when testing 

according to the proposed new 

Appendix J at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(i), 

and when testing according to 

Appendix J2 at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(ii). 

Under the provisions for Appendix J2, 

DOE proposes new subsection (ii)(A), 

which would specify that the procedure 

for determining RMC will be performed 

once in its entirety, pursuant to the test 

requirements of section 3.8 of Appendix 

J2, for each unit tested (as currently 

specified at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)). 

DOE proposes new subsection (ii)(B), 

which would specify that if the 

measured RMC value of a tested unit is 

equal to or lower than the certified RMC 

value of the basic model (expressed as 

a percentage), the measured RMC value 

will be considered the tested unit’s final 

RMC value and will be used as the basis 

for the calculation of per-cycle energy 

consumption for removal of moisture 

from the test load for that unit 

(consistent with the current 

specifications at 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(1)(i)). 

DOE proposes new subsection 10 CFR 

429.134(ii)(C), which would specify that 

if the difference between the measured 

RMC value and the certified RMC value 

of the basic model is less than or equal 

to two RMC percentage points, the 

measured RMC value of a tested unit 

will be considered the tested unit’s final 

RMC value unless DOE used a different 

test cloth lot than was used by the 

manufacturer for testing and certifying 

the basic model; in which case, DOE 

may 77 apply the proposed new 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(E) of the same 

section if the difference between the 

measured and certified RMC values 

would affect the unit’s compliance with 

the applicable standards. 

DOE proposes new subsection 10 CFR 

429.134 (ii)(D)—which would address 

anomalous RMC results that are not 

representative of a basic model’s 

performance—specifying that if the 

measured RMC value of a tested unit is 

more than two RMC percentage points 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49191 

higher than the certified RMC value of 

the basic model, DOE will perform two 

replications of the RMC measurement 

procedure, each pursuant to the 

provisions of section 3.8.5 of Appendix 

J2, for a total of three independent RMC 

measurements of the tested unit; and 

that average of the three RMC 

measurements will be calculated (as 

currently specified at 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(1)(ii)). Within this section, a 

new subsection 10 CFR 429.134 

(ii)(D)(1) would specify that if the 

average of the three RMC measurements 

is equal to or lower than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model, the 

average RMC value will be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value. A new 

subsection 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(D)(2) 

would specify that if the average of the 

three RMC measurements is higher than 

the certified RMC value of the basic 

model, the average RMC value will be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value unless DOE used a different test 

cloth lot than was used by the 

manufacturer for testing and certifying 

the basic model; in which case, DOE 

may apply a new proposed paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii)(E) of the same section if the 

difference between the average and 

certified RMC values would affect the 

unit’s compliance with the applicable 

standards. 

The proposed new subsection (ii)(E)— 

which would address differences in 

RMC values that may result from DOE 

using a different test cloth lot—specifies 

two potential courses of action if DOE 

uses a different test cloth lot than was 

used by the manufacturer for testing and 

certifying the basic model. New 

subsection 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(E)(1) 

would specify that if the difference 

between the tested unit’s measured 

RMC value (or average RMC value 

pursuant to the new proposed paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii)(D) of the same section) and the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

is less than or equal to three RMC 

percentage points, then the certified 

RMC value of the basic model may be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value. New subsection 10 CFR 429.134 

(ii)(E)(2) would specify that if the tested 

unit’s measured RMC value (or average 

RMC value pursuant to paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii)(D) of the same section) is more 

than three RMC percentage points 

higher than the certified RMC value of 

the basic model, then a value three RMC 

percentage points less than the 

measured RMC value may be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value. 

For testing conducted according to the 

proposed new Appendix J, several 

modifications would be made to the 

procedures described for Appendix J2 

due to the revised methodology for 

measuring RMC in the proposed new 

Appendix J, as described in section 

III.D.4 of this document (specifically, 

that in the proposed new Appendix J, 

RMC would be measured for each 

individual test cycle as opposed to 

measured using a separate set of 

additional test cycles, as is required by 

Appendix J2). The provisions for the 

proposed new Appendix J would not 

include the specifications for 10 CFR 

429.134 (ii)(A) or 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(D) 

as described previously. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to extend its product-specific 

enforcement provisions for clothes 

washers to accommodate up to a 3- 

percentage point variation in the 

corrected RMC measurement based on 

the test cloth lot used for testing. DOE 

also requests comment on alternate 

enforcement approaches that could be 

implemented. 

K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, 

and Other Topics 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

EPCA requires that test procedures 

proposed by DOE not be unduly 

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

6293(b)(3)) The following sections 

discuss DOE’s evaluation of estimated 

costs and savings associated with the 

amendments proposed in this NOPR. 

a. Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 

Proposed Amendments 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedures for clothes 

washers by: 

(1) Further specifying supply water 

temperature test conditions and water 

meter resolution requirements; 

(2) Adding specifications for 

measuring wash water temperature 

using submersible data loggers; 

(3) Expanding the load size table to 

accommodate clothes container 

capacities up to 8.0 ft3; 

(4) Defining user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS; 

(5) Specifying the applicability of the 

wash time setting for clothes washers 

with a range of wash time settings; 

(6) Specifying how the energy test 

cycle flow charts apply to clothes 

washers that internally generate hot 

water; 

(7) Specifying that the energy test 

cycle flow charts be evaluated using the 

Maximum load size; 

(8) Specifying that testing is to be 

conducted with any network settings 

disabled if instructions are available to 

the user to disable these functions; 

(9) Further specifying the conditions 

under which data from a test cycle 

would be discarded; 

(10) Adding a product-specific 

enforcement provision to accommodate 

the potential for test cloth lot-to-lot 

variation in RMC; 

(11) Deleting obsolete definitions, 

metrics, and the clothes washer-specific 

waiver section; 

(12) Consolidating all test clothrelated specifications in Appendix J3; 

(13) Reorganizing sections of 

Appendix J3 for improved readability; 

and 

(14) Codifying the test cloth material 

verification procedure as used by 

industry. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these proposed amendments to 

Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 would 

not be unduly burdensome for 

manufacturers to conduct and would 

not result in the need for any re-testing. 

The proposal to remove the target 

inlet water temperatures from the 

specified range of temperatures would 

allow test laboratories to select the 

optimal water temperature target for 

their water supply system within the 

prescribed range (e.g., choosing the 

midpoint of the range as the target). This 

could reduce test burden by reducing 

the potential for invalid cycles to occur 

due to a deviation in water temperatures 

outside the specified range. 

The proposal to require more precise 

hot water meters for clothes washers 

with hot water usage less than 0.1 

gallons in any of the energy test cycles 

would require additional cost to 

upgrade existing water meters if a 

manufacturer or test laboratory expects 

to test such clothes washers but does 

not already have a water meter with the 

proposed more precise resolution. Based 

on a market survey of water meters, the 

cost of a water meter that provides the 

proposed resolution, including 

associated hardware, is around $600 for 

each device. DOE recognizes that 

laboratories may have multiple test 

stands, and that each test stand would 

likely be upgraded with the more 

precise hot water meter (if such an 

upgrade is required). As an example, for 

a laboratory with 10 test stands, the 

material cost associated with installing 

a more precise hot water meter would 

total approximately $6,000. However, as 

discussed, at least one manufacturer 

already uses water meters with the 

proposed more precise resolution, and 

DOE’s experience working with thirdparty laboratories indicates that most, if 

not all, third-party laboratories already 

use water meters with this resolution. 

DOE has not included the potential 

costs associated with this proposal 

based on stakeholder comment and 

DOE’s knowledge of third-party 

laboratory capabilities that suggest that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49192 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

laboratories that test clothes washers 

with hot water usage less than 0.1 

gallons already use water meters with 

the proposed more precise resolution. 

The proposal to explicitly allow for 

the use of submersible temperature 

loggers would specify an additional 

means for determining wash water 

temperatures to confirm whether a wash 

temperature greater than 135 °F (defined 

as an Extra Hot Wash) has been 

achieved during the wash cycle. As 

discussed, other methods for measuring 

wash water temperatures may provide 

inconclusive results, thus requiring retesting of cycles or additional 

‘‘exploratory’’ testing to accurately 

determine the wash water temperature. 

Explicitly providing for the use of 

submersible temperature loggers may 

avoid the need for such additional 

testing. Based on a market survey of 

submersible data loggers, the cost of a 

submersible data logger is around $230 

for each device. As discussed, 

laboratories may have multiple test 

stands, and DOE expects that a 

laboratory would purchase a separate 

data logger for each test stand. As an 

example, for a laboratory with 10 test 

stands, the material cost associated with 

purchasing submersible data loggers for 

each test stand would total around 

$2,300. DOE expects that the recurring 

cost savings enabled by the use of 

submersible temperature loggers (due to 

reducing the need for re-testing certain 

cycles or performing additional 

exploratory testing) would substantially 

outweigh the one-time purchase cost 

associated with each device and 

therefore has not included this cost in 

its summary of costs associated with 

this NOPR. 

DOE requests comment, specifically 

from manufacturers and third-party test 

laboratories, on whether costs would be 

incurred for each laboratory as a result 

of the proposals in this NOPR to specify 

more precise hot water meters and to 

explicitly allow the use of submersible 

temperature loggers; and if so, the total 

incurred cost associated with outfitting 

each test stand with the specified 

instrumentation. DOE also requests 

comment on the potential cost savings 

to be expected from enabling the use of 

submersible temperature loggers. 

The proposal to extend the load size 

table would apply only to clothes 

washers with capacities exceeding 6.0 

ft3. Any such clothes washers currently 

on the market have already been granted 

a test procedure waiver from DOE, 

which specifies the same extended 

capacity table. 

The proposal to more explicitly define 

user-adjustable automatic WFCS would 

provide greater specification of DOE’s 

existing definitions and could 

potentially alleviate test burden 

resulting from an incorrect application 

of the existing language. The proposals 

specifying updated language regarding 

cycle selection for clothes washers with 

a range of wash time settings would 

improve repeatability and 

reproducibility without imposing any 

additional test burden. The proposal to 

specify how the energy test cycle flow 

charts apply to clothes washers that 

internally generate hot water reflects 

DOE’s interpretation of the current Cold 

Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart and 

subsequent flowcharts for the Warm 

Rinse temperature selections for this 

type of clothes washer; in addition, 

comments from interested parties 

suggest that this interpretation is 

generally consistent with that of 

manufacturers and third-party 

laboratories. The proposal to specify 

that the energy test cycle flow charts be 

evaluated using the Maximum load size 

would improve repeatability and 

reproducibility without imposing any 

additional test burden. 

The proposal to specify that network 

settings must be disabled for testing 

under Appendix J2 would impact only 

clothes washers with network settings 

that are enabled by default. DOE is not 

aware of any clothes washers currently 

on the market that meet these 

characteristics, and as such DOE does 

not expect this proposal to change how 

any current models are tested. 

The proposal to add product-specific 

enforcement provisions to accommodate 

the potential for lot-to-lot variation in 

RMC would extend current productspecific enforcement provisions for 

clothes washers to accommodate up to 

a 3-percentage point variation in the 

corrected RMC measurement based on 

the test cloth lot used for testing, and 

would not impact manufacturers’ testing 

costs. 

The proposal to delete obsolete 

definitions, metrics, and the waiver 

section would not impact 

manufacturers’ testing costs because 

these sections of the test procedure are 

no longer in use. 

The proposal to move all test clothrelated sections of the test procedures 

into Appendix J3 would simplify 

Appendix J2 without any changes to the 

test conduct or cost to manufacturers. 

The proposal to add additional test 

cloth qualification procedures to 

Appendix J3 would not affect 

manufacturer cost because the proposal 

would codify existing industry-standard 

practices. 

DOE requests comment on its 

characterization of the expected costs of 

the proposed amendments to Appendix 

J2 and Appendix J3 and on DOE’s 

preliminary determination that the 

proposed amendments would not be 

unduly burdensome. 

b. Appendix J Proposed Test Procedure 

In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing 

a new Appendix J that would include, 

in addition to the amendments 

discussed previously for Appendix J2, 

significant additional changes that 

would affect the measured efficiency of 

a clothes washer. Because DOE would 

use the new Appendix J for the 

evaluation and issuance of any updated 

efficiency standards, and for 

determining compliance with those 

standards, the use of the proposed new 

Appendix J would not be required until 

such a time as compliance with any 

amended energy conservation standards 

that are developed with consideration of 

new Appendix J are required. The 

ongoing energy conservation standards 

rulemakings for RCWs and CCWs would 

consider the impact of such changes to 

manufacturers. The differences between 

Appendix J2 (as proposed in this NOPR) 

and the proposed Appendix J are the 

following: 

(1) Modifying the hot water supply 

temperature range; 

(2) Modifying the clothes washer preconditioning requirements; 

(3) Modifying the Extra-Hot Wash 

threshold temperature; 

(4) Adding a measurement and 

calculation of average cycle time; 

(5) Requiring the testing of no more 

than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

cycles, and no more than two Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse cycles; 

(6) Measuring RMC on each cycle 

within the energy test cycle, rather than 

on cycles specifically dedicated to 

measuring RMC; 

(7) Reducing the number of load sizes 

from three to two for units with 

automatic WFCS; 

(8) Modifying the load size definitions 

consistent with two, rather than three, 

load sizes; 

(9) Updating the water fill levels to be 

used for testing to reflect the modified 

load size definitions; 

(10) Specifying the installation of 

single-inlet clothes washers, and 

simplifying the test procedure for semiautomatic clothes washers; 

(11) Defining new performance 

metrics that are functions of the 

weighted-average load size rather than 

clothes container capacity; 

(12) Updating the number of annual 

clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; 

and 

(13) Updating the number of hours 

assigned to low-power mode to be based 

on the clothes washer’s average 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49193 

78www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. 

Last accessed on June 24, 2021. 

79These savings assume the savings from 

reducing the number of load sizes have already 

been implemented. 

80These savings assume the savings from 

reducing the number of load sizes and from 

reducing the number of Warm Wash temperature 

selections under test have already been 

implemented. 

81 DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ‘‘17– 

3027 Mechanical Engineering Technologists and 

Technicians’’ from the most recent BLS 

Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics 

(May 2020) to estimate the hourly wage rate of a 

technician assumed to perform this testing. See 

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm. Last 

accessed on May 26, 2021. 

82 DOE used the December 2020 ‘‘Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation’’ to estimate that for 

‘‘Private Industry Workers,’’ ‘‘Wages and Salaries’’ 

are 70.3 percent of the total employee 

compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

archives/ecec_03182021.pdf. Last accessed on May 

26, 2021. 

83 $29.27 ÷ 0.703 = $41.64. 

84 testgewebe.de/en/products/ballast-loads-baseload-textiles/doe-energy-test-cloth/. Last accessed 

and converted to U.S. dollars on July 8, 2021. 

85AHAM Trends in Energy Efficiency, 2018. 

measured cycle time rather than an 

assumed fixed value. 

The proposal to require the 

measurement of cycle time could result 

in an increase in test burden if a 

laboratory is not currently measuring 

cycle time. However, although cycle 

time is not currently required to be 

measured, it is DOE’s understanding 

that test laboratories already measure 

cycle time or use a data acquisition 

system to record electronic logs of each 

test cycle, from which average cycle 

time can be readily determined such 

that any increase in test burden would 

be de minimis. Therefore, DOE 

preliminarily concludes that the 

proposal to require measurement of 

cycle time is unlikely to result in an 

increase in test burden. Furthermore, 

none of the other proposed changes for 

Appendix J would result in an increase 

in test burden. As described in the 

paragraphs that follow, DOE has 

tentatively determined that several of 

the proposed changes would result in a 

substantial decrease in test burden. 

To determine the potential savings to 

manufacturers, DOE first estimated the 

number of RCW and CCW models that 

are currently certified, using data from 

DOE’s publicly available Compliance 

Certification Database (‘‘CCMS’’).78 DOE 

identified approximately 25 

manufacturers selling an estimated 702 

basic models of RCWs and 67 basic 

models of CCWs. 

To enable an estimate of cost savings 

associated with specific features, as 

described in the paragraphs that follow, 

DOE developed representative market 

samples consisting of 100 basic models 

of RCWs and 10 basic models of CCWs 

(representing approximately 15 percent 

of the total basic models for each) that 

capture the range of available 

functionalities and options available to 

consumers. To develop these market 

samples, DOE selected a sample of basic 

models for which detailed product 

features could be determined from 

product brochures and other marketing 

materials, representing all major 

manufacturers and product designs 

currently on the market, and spanning 

all available efficiency levels. 

The proposal to reduce the number of 

load sizes from three to two for units 

with an automatic WFCS would reduce 

test burden for all clothes washers with 

an automatic WFCS. DOE’s 

representative market sample suggests 

that 11 percent of RCWs have a manual 

WFCS and therefore would experience 

no change in test burden as a result of 

this proposal. Whereas, 89 percent of 

RCWs on the market would experience 

a reduction in test burden as follows: 20 

percent of RCWs would experience a 

reduction in test burden of 2 to 4 cycles; 

54 percent of RCWs would experience a 

reduction in test burden of 5 to 8 cycles; 

and 15 percent of RCWs would 

experience a reduction in test burden of 

more than 9 cycles. DOE’s 

representative mark sample suggests 

that all CCWs have an automatic WFCS 

and therefore DOE estimates that 70 

percent of CCWs would experience a 

reduction in test burden of 3 or 4 cycles 

and that 30 percent of CCWs would 

experience a reduction in test burden of 

5 cycles. Based on these estimates, DOE 

estimates a weighted-average test 

burden reduction of 5.1 cycles per RCW, 

and 3.7 cycles per CCW. 

The proposal to reduce the number of 

required test cycles by requiring the use 

of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold 

Rinse cycles, and no more than two 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles, would 

reduce the number of tested cycles for 

any clothes washer offering more than 

two Warm Wash temperatures. Based on 

DOE’s representative market sample, 

DOE estimates that 49 percent of RCWs 

offer two or fewer Warm Wash 

temperature options and therefore 

would experience no change; 44 percent 

of RCWs would experience a reduction 

in test burden of 2 cycles; and 7 percent 

of RCWs would experience a reduction 

in test burden of 4 cycles. DOE 

estimates that 70 percent of CCWs 

would experience no change and that 30 

percent of CCWs would experience a 

reduction in test burden of 4 cycles. 

Based on these estimates, DOE estimates 

a weighted-average additional test 

burden reduction of 1.2 cycles per RCW, 

and 0.6 cycles per CCW.79

The proposal to reduce the number of 

required test cycles by measuring RMC 

on each tested cycle instead of 

measuring it on dedicated RMC cycles 

would remove the need for one or more 

cycles used for measuring RMC for any 

clothes washer offering more than one 

spin speed selectable on the Normal 

cycle. Based on DOE’s representative 

market sample, DOE estimates that 45 

percent of RCWs would experience no 

change; 27 percent of RCWs would 

experience a reduction in test burden of 

1 cycle; 27 percent of RCWs would 

experience a reduction in test burden of 

2 cycles; and 1 percent of RCWs would 

experience a reduction in test burden of 

4 cycles. DOE estimates that no CCWs 

would experience a reduction in test 

burden from this change. Based on these 

estimates, DOE estimates a weightedaverage additional test burden reduction 

of 0.9 cycles per RCW.80

The proposal to simplify the test 

procedure for semi-automatic clothes 

washers would reduce test burden for 

all semi-automatic clothes washers by 

10 cycles. DOE has determined that 

approximately 2 percent of RCW basic 

models in CCMS are semi-automatic 

and is not aware of any semi-automatic 

CCWs. DOE therefore estimates a 

weighted-average additional test burden 

reduction of 0.2 cycles per RCW. 

To estimate the cost savings 

associated with the amendments that 

are expected to reduce the number of 

cycles required for testing, DOE 

estimated each RCW cycle to have a 

duration of 1 hour, and each CCW cycle 

to have a duration of 45 minutes. Based 

on data from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ (‘‘BLS’s’’) Occupational 

Employment and Wage Statistics, the 

mean hourly wage for mechanical 

engineering technologists and 

technicians is $29.27.81 Additionally, 

DOE used data from BLS’s Employer 

Costs for Employee Compensation to 

estimate the percent that wages 

comprise the total compensation for an 

employee. DOE estimates that wages 

make up 70.3 percent of the total 

compensation for private industry 

employees.82 Therefore, DOE estimated 

that the total hourly compensation 

(including all fringe benefits) of a 

technician performing the testing is 

$41.64.83

Based on a July 2021 price list from 

the test cloth manufacturer, the cost of 

the test cloth required for performing 

testing is $7.47 per cloth.84 Based on an 

average RCW capacity of 4.14 ft3,85 the 

load sizes associated with testing an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49194 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

86The load sizes associated with a 4.14 ft3 clothes 

washer are 3.0 lb (minimum), 10.0 lb (average), and 

17.0 lb (maximum) under Appendix J2; and 6.1 lb 

(small) and 13.65 lb (large) under proposed 

Appendix J, resulting in an average load size of 10.0 

lb under Appendix J2 or 9.9 lb under Appendix J. 

For the purpose of the calculations in this analysis, 

DOE used 10.0 lb to represent the average load size. 

87Section 2.7.1 of Appendix J2 specifies that each 

energy test cloth must not be used for more than 

60 test runs (after preconditioning). 

88 1 × $41.64 + $5.35 = $46.99. 

89 DOE calculated the average CCW capacity 

based on the average capacity of the representative 

sample of CCWs presented in chapter 5 of the 

technical support document accompanying the 

December 2014 Final Rule. Available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BTSTD-0020-0036. 

90The load sizes associated with a 3.17 ft3 clothes 

washer are 3.0 lb (minimum), 7.95 lb (average), and 

12.9 lb (maximum) under Appendix J2; and 5.2 lb 

(small) and 10.55 lb (large) under proposed 

Appendix J, resulting in an average load size of 7.95 

lb under Appendix J2 or 7.9 lb under Appendix J. 

For the purpose of the calculations in this analysis, 

DOE used 7.95 lb to represent the average load size. 

91 0.75 × $41.64 + $4.36 = $35.59. 

92 7.4 × $46.99 = $348. 

93 4.3 × $35.59 = $153. 

average-capacity RCW,86 and the 

maximum allowable usage of 60 test 

cycles per cloth,87 DOE estimates a total 

material cost of $5.35 per wash cycle on 

average across all RCWs on the market. 

Using these material costs, labor rates 

and time estimates, DOE estimates that 

the reduction in burden of a single test 

cycle on an RCW would provide $46.99 

in costs savings 88 for tests conducted at 

an in-house test facility. Based on 

discussions with manufacturers over the 

course of multiple rulemakings, DOE 

understands that the majority of 

manufacturer testing is conducted at inhouse test facilities. 

Based on an average CCW capacity of 

3.17 ft3,89 the load sizes associated with 

testing an average-capacity CCW,90 and 

the maximum allowable usage of 60 test 

cycles per cloth, DOE estimates a total 

material cost of $4.36 per wash cycle on 

average across all CCWs on the market. 

Using these material costs, labor rates 

and time estimates, DOE estimates that 

the reduction in burden of a single test 

cycle on a CCW would provide $35.59 

in costs savings 91 for tests conducted at 

an in-house test facility. 

Based on these estimates, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the use of 

proposed new Appendix J would result 

in a total burden reduction of 7.4 cycles 

per RCW on average, which results in an 

average saving of $348 per basic model 

of RCW.92 For CCWs, use of proposed 

new Appendix J would result in a total 

burden reduction of 4.3 cycles per CCW 

on average, which results in an average 

saving of $153 per basic model of 

CCW.93

Based on these estimates, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

proposed new test procedure at 

Appendix J would not be unduly 

burdensome for manufacturers to 

conduct. 

DOE requests comment on any aspect 

of the estimated testing costs and 

savings associated with DOE’s proposed 

test procedures. 

2. Harmonization With Industry 

Standards 

DOE’s established practice is to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct or would not produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (as specified in 

EPCA) or estimated operating costs of 

that product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. 

Section 8(c) of Appendix A of 10 CFR 

part 430 subpart C; 10 CFR 431.4. In 

cases where the industry standard does 

not meet EPCA statutory criteria for test 

procedures, DOE will make 

modifications through the rulemaking 

process to these standards as the DOE 

test procedures. 

The test procedures for clothes 

washers at the proposed new Appendix 

J and Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 

incorporate by reference certain 

provisions of IEC Standard 62301 that 

provide test conditions, testing 

equipment, and methods for measuring 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption. These appendices also 

reference AATCC test methods for 

qualifying new batches of test cloth, and 

AHAM Standard Test Detergent 

Formula 3 for preconditioning new test 

cloths. DOE is not aware of any existing 

industry test procedures for clothes 

washers that measure energy and water 

efficiency. 

AHAM commented on the May 2020 

RFI that it is about to begin 

development of its own clothes washer 

energy test procedure based on 

Appendix J2, which will address many 

of the issues DOE raised in the May 

2020 RFI. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5) For 

example, AHAM stated that it plans to 

investigate methods of reducing test 

burden, including through review of 

relevant customer usage data. (AHAM, 

No. 5 at p. 4) AHAM suggested that DOE 

eventually incorporate AHAM’s test 

procedure by reference. (AHAM, No. 5 

at p. 5) AHAM invited DOE, as well as 

other entities that are able to contribute 

technical resources to the effort, to 

participate in the task force. Id. 

The CA IOUs opposed the adoption of 

industry test procedures without 

modification without DOE conducting 

an independent assessment of 

representativeness in a public 

rulemaking to allow adequate 

stakeholder discussion and review. (CA 

IOUs, No. 8 at p. 16) 

DOE is aware of two clothes washer 

test procedures established by industry: 

AHAM HLW–1–2013 and IEC 60456. 

AHAM’s existing clothes washer 

procedure, AHAM HLW–1–2013, does 

not include a procedure for measuring 

energy and water. IEC 60456 includes 

tests for water and energy use, water 

extraction (i.e., RMC), washing 

performance, rinsing performance, and 

wool shrinkage. DOE notes several key 

differences between IEC 60456 and 

DOE’s test procedure, including: 

(1) IEC 60456 uses manufacturerdeclared capacity or, in the absence of 

a declared capacity, specifies two 

alternative capacity measurement 

procedures: A table tennis ball method 

(in which the drum is filled with table 

tennis balls) and a water fill method, 

which more closely resembles DOE’s 

capacity measurement method. 

However, the water fill method for toploading clothes washers corresponds to 

‘‘Fill Level 1,’’ as discussed in section 

III.D.6.c of this document, in contrast to 

DOE’s currently specified ‘‘Fill Level 2.’’ 

(2) IEC 60456 defines two types of 

load materials that can be used: A 100- 

percent cotton load, consisting of sheets, 

pillowcases, and towels; or a synthetics/ 

blends load (65-percent polyester, 35- 

percent cotton), consistent of men’s 

shirt and pillowcases. IEC 60456 

requires a distribution in age (i.e., 

number of cycles that have been 

performed) for each different item type 

comprising the load. 

(3) The procedure for determining 

water and energy consumption (section 

8.6 of IEC 60456) specifies that the test 

load shall be subjected to 

‘‘performance’’ testing, which requires 

operating a reference clothes washer in 

parallel with the unit under test; using 

a test load that includes stain strips 

used to evaluate cleaning performance; 

and using detergent as specified. 

(4) IEC 60456 does not define the 

‘‘Normal’’ cycle or energy test cycle; 

rather, the procedures in IEC 60456 are 

generic and can be applied to any wash 

program or cycle selections defined by 

the tester. 

DOE tentatively concludes that IEC 

60456 does not meet EPCA statutory 

criteria, in that IEC 60456 would be 

unduly burdensome to conduct and 

would not produce test results that 

reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, 

water use, or estimated operating costs 

of a clothes washer during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use for a U.S. consumer. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49195 

94All 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). 

95For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

96For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

3. Other Test Procedure Topics

In addition to the issues identified

earlier in this document, DOE welcomes 

comment on any other aspect of the 

existing test procedures for clothes 

washers. Note that DOE also issued an 

RFI to seek more information on 

whether its test procedures are 

reasonably designed, as required by 

EPCA, to produce results that measure 

the energy use or efficiency of a product 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use. 84 FR 9721 (Mar. 

18, 2019). DOE particularly seeks 

comment on this issue as it pertains to 

the test procedures for clothes washers, 

as well as information that would help 

DOE create a procedure that is not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. 

Comments regarding repeatability and 

reproducibility are also welcome. 

L. Compliance Date and Waivers

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends

a test procedure, all representations of 

energy efficiency and energy use, 

including those made on marketing 

materials and product labels, must be 

made in accordance with that amended 

test procedure, beginning 180 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

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

To the extent the new test procedure at 

Appendix J proposed in this document 

is required only for the evaluation and 

issuance of updated efficiency 

standards, use of new Appendix J, if 

finalized, would not be required until 

the compliance date of any updated 

standards. Section 8(d) of appendix A to 

10 CFR part 430 subpart C; 10 CFR 

431.4. 

If DOE were to publish amended test 

procedures, 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.)

Upon the compliance date of test 

procedure provisions of an amended 

test procedure, should DOE issue a such 

an amendment, any waivers that had 

been previously issued and are in effect 

that pertain to issues addressed by such 

provisions are terminated. 10 CFR 

430.27(h)(2); 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2). 

Recipients of any such waivers would 

be required to test the products subject 

to the waiver according to the amended 

test procedures as of the compliance 

date of the amended test procedures. 

The amendments proposed in this 

NOPR pertain to issues addressed by 

waivers granted to Whirlpool (case no. 

CW–026) and Samsung (case no. CW– 

027). 81 FR 26215; 82 FR 17229, 

respectively. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory

Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(‘‘OMB’’) has determined that this test 

procedure rulemaking does not 

constitute ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 

4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was 

not subject to review under the 

Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website: https://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed 

this proposed rule under the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. The following 

sections detail DOE’s IRFA for this test 

procedure rulemaking. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is

Being Considered

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),94 requires 

that, at least once every 7 years, DOE 

evaluate test procedures for RCWs. (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6317) EPCA also 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. 

2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

EPCA, as amended, authorizes DOE to

regulate the energy efficiency of a 

number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part B95 of EPCA 

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. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(7)) Title III, Part C 96 of EPCA, 

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

§ 441(a), established the Energy

Conservation Program for Certain

Industrial Equipment. This equipment

includes CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H))

Both RCWs and CCWs are the subject of

this document.

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, including RCWs, 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)) 

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)) 

3. Description and Estimate of Small

Entities Regulated

DOE uses the Small Business 

Administration’s (‘‘SBA’’) small 

business size standards to determine 

whether manufacturers qualify as small 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49196 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

97Available online at: www.sba.gov/document/ 

support--table-size-standards. 

businesses, which are listed by the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’). The SBA considers 

a business entity to be a small business, 

if, together with its affiliates, it employs 

less than a threshold number of workers 

specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 

NAICS code for clothes washers is 

335220, major household appliance 

manufacturing. The threshold number 

for NAICS code 335220 is 1,500 

employees.97 This employee threshold 

includes all employees in a business’s 

parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. DOE identified 15 original 

equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of 

covered products and equipment. Of 

those companies, one is a small 

business that offers a single model of 

RCWs. 

DOE requests comment on its initial 

determination that there is one small, 

domestic OEM of RCWs and no small, 

domestic OEMs of CCWs. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 by (1) 

further specifying supply water 

temperature test conditions; (2) further 

specifying water meter resolution 

requirements; (3) adding specifications 

for measuring wash water temperature 

using submersible data loggers; (4) 

expanding the load size table to 

accommodate up to 8.0 ft3 in capacity; 

(5) defining user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS; (6) specifying more explicitly the 

cycle selection for clothes washers with 

a range of wash time settings; (7) 

specifying how the energy test cycle 

flow charts apply to clothes washers 

that internally generate hot water; (8) 

specifying that the energy test cycle 

flow charts be evaluated using the 

Maximum load size; (9) specifying that 

testing is to be conducted with any 

network settings disabled if instructions 

are available to the user to disable these 

functions; (10) further specifying the 

conditions under which data from a test 

cycle would be discarded; (11) adding a 

product-specific enforcement provision 

to accommodate the potential for lot-tolot variation in RMC; (12) deleting 

obsolete definitions, metrics, and the 

clothes washer-specific waiver section; 

(13) consolidating all test cloth-related 

specifications in Appendix J3; and (14) 

codifying the test cloth material 

verification procedure as used by 

industry into Appendix J3. DOE has 

initially determined these proposed 

amendments to Appendix J2 and 

Appendix J3 would not result in 

manufacturers needing to re-rate clothes 

washers. The amendment (2) above may 

require more precise hot water meters 

for clothes washers with hot water usage 

less than 0.1 gallons in any of the energy 

test cycles. However, DOE’s analysis of 

the small manufacturer’s product 

offering indicates that the amendment 

would not apply and no capital 

expenditures would be necessary for the 

business. 

Next, this NOPR proposes to specify 

a new Appendix J, to be applicable 

upon the compliance date of any future 

amended energy conservation standards 

for clothes washers. The proposed new 

Appendix J would include 

modifications beyond Appendix J2 that: 

(1) Modify the hot water supply target 

temperature and clothes washer preconditioning requirements; (2) modify 

the Extra-Hot Wash threshold 

temperature; (3) add measurement and 

calculation of average cycle time; (4) 

reduce the number of required test 

cycles by requiring the use of no more 

than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

cycles, and no more than two Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse cycles; (5) reduce the 

number of required test cycles by 

removing the need for one or more 

cycles used for measuring RMC; (6) 

reduce the number of load sizes from 

three to two for units with automatic 

water fill controls; (7) modify the load 

size definitions consistent with two, 

rather than three, load sizes; (8) update 

the water fill levels to be used for testing 

to reflect the modified load size 

definitions; (9) specify the installation 

of single-inlet clothes washers, and 

simplify the test procedure for semiautomatic clothes washers; (10) define 

new performance metrics that are 

functions of the weighted-average load 

size rather than clothes container 

capacity: ‘‘energy efficiency ratio,’’ 

‘‘active-mode energy efficiency ratio,’’ 

and ‘‘water efficiency ratio’’; (11) update 

the number of annual clothes washer 

cycles from 295 to 234; and (12) update 

the number of hours assigned to lowpower mode to be based on the clothes 

washer’s measured cycle time rather 

than an assumed fixed value. Due to the 

reduction in number of loads and 

number of wash cycles, the proposed 

new Appendix J would be less 

burdensome than Appendix J2 for 

industry. However, the small 

manufacturer would need to re-rate its 

one model when any future amended 

energy conservation standard requires 

the use of the proposed new Appendix 

J. The cost of re-rating one model would 

have a cost of less than $1000. DOE 

estimates this to be less than 0.1 percent 

of revenue for the small manufacturer. 

DOE requests comment on its initial 

determination that the proposed 

amendments would result in small 

incremental test burdens on the small 

business manufacturers of RCWs and 

CCWs in the United States. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

today. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

DOE considered alternative test 

methods and modifications to the test 

procedures for RCWs and CCWs, and 

tentatively determined that there are no 

better alternatives than the 

modifications and procedures proposed 

in this NOPR. DOE expects the 

proposed amendments to Appendix J2 

to result in zero cost to the small 

manufacturer. DOE expects the new 

Appendix J would have no impact 

before an amended energy conservation 

standard is adopted. After an amended 

energy conservation standard is 

adopted, DOE expects the proposed new 

Appendix J to have de minimis cost 

impact on the small manufacturer. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed $8 

million may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) 

Additionally, section 504 of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act, 

42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for 

the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 

under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens’’ that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and part 1003 for additional details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of RCWs and CCWs 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49197 

products and commercial equipment, 

including RCWs and CCWs. (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. 

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 proposed rule, DOE proposes 

test procedure amendments that it 

expects will be used to develop and 

implement future energy conservation 

standards for residential and 

commercial clothes washers. 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 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction, (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

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

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

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

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

https://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. 

DOE examined this proposed rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49198 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

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

files/2019/12/f70/ 

DOE%20Final%20Updated

%20IQI%20Guidelines%

20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this proposed rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedures for 

measuring the energy efficiency of 

RCWs and CCWs is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

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

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

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

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedures for clothes washers 

would continue to incorporate testing 

methods contained in certain sections of 

the following commercial standards: 

AATCC Test Method 79–2010, AATCC 

Test Method 118–2007, AATCC Test 

Method 135–2010, and IEC 62031. DOE 

has evaluated these standards and is 

unable to conclude whether it fully 

complies with the requirements of 

section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether 

it was developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review.) DOE will 

consult with both the Attorney General 

and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by AATCC, titled 

‘‘Absorbency of Textiles,’’ AATCC Test 

Method 79–2010. DOE also proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by AATCC, titled 

‘‘Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon 

Resistance Test,’’ AATCC Test Method 

118–2007. AATCC 79–2010 and AATCC 

118–2007 are industry-accepted test 

procedure that verify the presence or 

absence of water repellent finishes on 

fabric by measuring the water 

absorbency and oil repellency of the 

fabric, respectively. 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by AATCC, titled 

‘‘Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after 

Home Laundering,’’ AATCC Test 

Method 135–2010. AATCC 135–2010 is 

an industry-accepted test procedure for 

measuring dimensional changes in 

fabric (‘‘shrinkage’’) due to laundering. 

All three of these AATCC test 

methods are currently incorporated by 

reference for use in Appendix J2. This 

NOPR proposes to transfer the 

references to these test methods to 

Appendix J3. Copies of AATCC test 

methods can be obtained from AATC, 

P.O. Box 12215, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27709, (919) 549–3526, or by going 

to www.aatcc.org. 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by IEC, titled 

‘‘Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power,’’ 

(Edition 2.0, 2011–01), IEC 62301. IEC 

62301 is an industry-accepted test 

procedure for measuring standby energy 

consumption. IEC 62301 is currently 

incorporated by reference for use in 

Appendix J2, which references specific 

provisions of the industry standard. See 

10 CFR 430.3(o)(6). This NOPR proposes 

to include the same references in the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

Copies of IEC 62301 available from 

the American National Standards 

Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, 

New York, NY 10036, (212) 642–4900, 

or by going to webstore.ansi.org. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar are 

listed in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=

68&action=viewlive. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

Additionally, you may request an inperson meeting to be held prior to the 

close of the request period provided in 

the DATES section of this document. 

Requests for an in-person meeting may 

be made by contacting Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program staff at 

(202) 287–1445 or by email: Appliance_

Standards_Public_Meetings@ee.doe.gov. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49199 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this proposed 

rulemaking, or who is representative of 

a group or class of persons that has an 

interest in these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the webinar. Such 

persons may submit requests to speak 

by sending an email to 

ResClothesWasher2016TP0011@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar and may also use 

a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

webinar. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar and 

until the end of the comment period, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings and any 

aspect of the rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the webinar, allow time 

for prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document and will be accessible on the 

DOE website. In addition, any person 

may buy a copy of the transcript from 

the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

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

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email two wellmarked copies: One copy of the 

document marked confidential 

including all the information believed to 

be confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked non-confidential with 

the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. DOE will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require a hot water meter 

resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons for 

clothes washers that use less than 0.1 

gallons in any of the individual cycles 

within the energy test cycle. DOE 

requests comment on the extent to 

which manufacturers and test 

laboratories already use water meters 

with this greater resolution. DOE also 

requests comment on whether 

proposing this requirement for 

Appendix J2 would require 

manufacturers to retest any basic 

models that have already been certified 

under the existing water meter 

resolution requirements. 

(2) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require all single-inlet 

clothes washers to be installed to the 

cold water supply only. DOE also 

requests comment on whether this 

requirement should be included in only 

the proposed new Appendix J, or 

whether, if adopted, it should be 

included as an amendment to Appendix 

J2. 

(3) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the hot water supply 

temperature for the proposed new 

Appendix J from 130–135 °F to 120– 

125 °F. DOE seeks more recent data on 

hot water supply temperatures in 

consumer clothes washer installations. 

DOE also requests comment on any 

potential impact to testing costs that 

may occur by harmonizing temperatures 

between the clothes washer and 

dishwasher test procedures, and the 

impacts on manufacturer burden 

associated with any changes to the hot 

water supply temperature. 

(4) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to specify in the proposed new 

Appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash/ 

Cold Rinse designation would apply to 

a wash temperature greater than or 

equal to 140 °F. DOE requests any 

additional data on the wash temperature 

of cycles that meet the Appendix J2 

definition of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse. DOE is also interested in data and 

information on any potential impact to 

testing costs that may occur by changing 

the Extra-Hot Wash temperature 

threshold, and the impacts on 

manufacturer burden associated with 

any changes to the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse definition. 

(5) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove the target 

temperatures and instead specify water 

supply temperature ranges as 55 °F to 

60 °F for cold water in both Appendix 

J2 and the proposed new Appendix J, 

130 °F to 135 °F for hot water in 

Appendix J2, and 120 °F to 125 °F for 

hot water in the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

(6) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow the use of a 

submersible temperature logger in 

Appendix J2 and the proposed new 

Appendix J as an option to confirm that 

an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater 

than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold has 

been achieved during the wash cycle. 

DOE requests data and information 

confirming (or disputing) DOE’s 

discussion of the benefits and 

limitations of using a submersible 

temperature logger, including DOE’s 

determination that a submersible 

logger’s failure to measure a temperature 

greater than the Extra-Hot Wash 

threshold does not necessarily indicate 

that the cycle under test does not meet 

the definition of an Extra-Hot Wash/ 

Cold Rinse cycle. 

(7) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to specify the same preconditioning requirements for all 

clothes washers and to remove the 

‘‘water-heating clothes washer’’ and 

‘‘non-water-heating clothes washer’’ 

definitions in the proposed new 

Appendix J. DOE also requests 

information regarding whether test 

laboratories typically pre-condition 

water-heating and non-water-heating 

clothes washers using the same 

procedure. 

(8) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the load size table 

in both Appendix J2 and the proposed 

new Appendix J to accommodate RCWs 

with capacities up to 8.0 ft3. 

(9) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to replace the minimum, 

maximum, and average load sizes with 

the small and large load sizes in the 

proposed new Appendix J. DOE seeks 

comment on how reducing the number 

of load sizes tested would impact the 

representativeness of test results. DOE 

also requests data and information to 

quantify the reduction in test burden 

that would result from reducing the 

number of load sizes from three to two 

for clothes washers with automatic 

WFCS. 

(10) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to change the water fill level 

selections in the proposed new 

Appendix J for clothes washers with 

manual and user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS to reflect the proposed small and 

large test load sizes. DOE seeks data and 

information on how the proposed 

changes to the water fill level selection 

for clothes washers with manual and 

user-adjustable automatic WFCS would 

impact test procedure 

representativeness. 

(11) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to require in the proposed new 

Appendix J testing only the hottest and 

the coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

settings. DOE seeks data and 

information on how this proposed 

change to the Warm Wash temperature 

settings required for testing would 

impact representativeness, testing costs, 

and manufacturer burden. 

(12) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to revise the RMC procedure so 

that RMC would be measured at the 

default spin setting for each temperature 

selection and load size, and the 

individual RMC values would be 

averaged using TUFs and LUFs to 

calculate the final RMC. DOE seeks data 

and information regarding how this 

change to the RMC calculation would 

impact testing costs and manufacturer 

test burden. 

(13) DOE further requests comment on 

whether DOE should implement any 

changes to the RMC calculation in 

Appendix J2 to address clothes washers 

with spin settings that are available only 

on certain temperature selections. 

(14) DOE requests comment on its 

tentative conclusion not to propose 

changes to the bone-dry definition and 

associated dryer temperature 

measurement method. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49201 

(15) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that each test cycle 

use a bone-dry test load in the proposed 

new Appendix J. DOE requests 

comment on whether test laboratories 

start test cycles with the test load at 

bone-dry or at up to 104 percent of the 

bone-dry weight. DOE further requests 

feedback on its assessment that this 

change would not affect test burden. 

(16) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to add cycle time 

measurements and to calculate average 

cycle time using the weighted-average 

method in the proposed new Appendix 

J. DOE also requests comment on its 

assertion that adding cycle time 

measurements and a calculation of a 

weighted-average cycle time would not 

increase testing costs or overall test 

burden. 

(17) DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination to maintain the 

current capacity measurement method. 

(18) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed criteria for determining 

whether test data are to be discarded. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

the proposal that test data are discarded 

if a washing machine either signals to 

the user by means of a visual or audio 

alert that an out-of-balance condition 

has occurred or terminates prematurely. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

additional or alternate criteria would 

provide objective and observable 

indication during a single test that test 

data are to be discarded. 

(19) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal for testing semi-automatic 

clothes washers in the proposed new 

Appendix J that would require testing 

only the wash/rinse temperature 

combinations that do not require a wash 

temperature change between the wash 

and rinse portions of the cycle (i.e., Hot/ 

Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/Cold). 

(20) DOE requests feedback on its 

proposal to test semi-automatic clothes 

washers using TUF values of 0.14 for 

Hot, 0.49 for Warm, and 0.37 for Cold. 

(21) DOE further requests comment on 

whether the temperature selections and 

TUFs that DOE has proposed for semiautomatic clothes washers would be 

representative of consumer use; and if 

not, which temperature selections and 

TUF values would better reflect 

consumer use. 

(22) DOE requests comment on 

whether to include explicit instructions 

for how to test semi-automatic clothes 

washers in Appendix J2, and if so, 

whether DOE should implement the 

same procedures being proposed for the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

(23) DOE requests feedback on how 

manufacturers of semi-automatic clothes 

washers are currently testing their 

products using Appendix J2. 

(24) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require semi-automatic 

clothes washers to test only the Cold 

cycle, and to determine the 

representative values for the Warm and 

Hot cycles formulaically, for the 

proposed new Appendix J. 

(25) DOE requests comment on the 

test burden associated with determining 

the apportionment between wash water 

use and rinse water use on semiautomatic clothes washers. 

(26) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current requirement to 

use the manufacturer default settings for 

optional cycle modifiers. 

(27) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed amendment to Appendix J2 

and the proposed new Appendix J to 

specify that network settings (on clothes 

washers with network capabilities) must 

be disabled during testing if such 

settings can be disabled by the end-user, 

and the product’s user manual provides 

instructions on how to do so. 

(28) DOE requests feedback on its 

characterization of connected clothes 

washers currently on the market. 

Specifically, DOE requests input on the 

types of features or functionality 

enabled by connected clothes washers 

that exist on the market or that are 

under development. 

(29) DOE requests data on the 

percentage of users purchasing 

connected clothes washers, and, for 

those users, the percentage of the time 

when the connected functionality of the 

clothes washer is used. 

(30) DOE requests data on the amount 

of additional or reduced energy use of 

connected clothes washers. 

(31) DOE requests data on the pattern 

of additional or reduced energy use of 

connected clothes washers; for example, 

whether it is constant, periodic, or 

triggered by the user. 

(32) DOE requests information on any 

existing testing protocols that account 

for connected features of clothes 

washers, as well as any testing protocols 

that may be under development within 

the industry. 

(33) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to replace the capacity term 

with weighted-average load size in the 

energy efficiency metrics and the water 

efficiency metric in the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

(34) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed names for the proposed new 

efficiency metrics: energy efficiency 

ratio (EER), active-mode energy 

efficiency ratio (AEER), and water 

efficiency ratio (WER). 

(35) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to invert the water efficiency 

metric and calculate the newly defined 

WER metric as the quotient of the 

weighted-average load size divided by 

the total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption for all wash cycles. 

(36) DOE requests data on the annual 

amount of laundry washed by 

consumers, and whether the annual 

amount of laundry washed by 

consumers is correlated with clothes 

washer capacity. 

(37) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed updated representation and 

sampling requirements for RCWs and 

CCWs. 

(38) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the number of 

annual wash cycles to 234 in the 

proposed new Appendix J and 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(i) and (j)(3)(i). 

(39) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the assumed final moisture 

content of 4 percent in the drying 

energy equation, or whether it should 

update the assumed final moisture 

content to 2 percent to align with DOE’s 

Appendix D2 clothes dryer test 

procedure. 

(40) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current DEF value of 

0.5 kWh/lb. 

(41) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current DUF value of 

0.91. 

(42) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the number of hours 

spent in low-power mode from a fixed 

8,465 total hours to a formula based on 

measured cycle time and an assumed 

number of annual cycles. 

(43) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current TUF values. 

(44) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the LUFs for the 

small and large load sizes to be equal to 

0.5, consistent with the proposed load 

size definitions in the proposed new 

Appendix J. 

(45) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining the current water heater 

efficiency assumptions. 

(46) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to specify the use of hoses not 

to exceed 72 inches in length in the 

proposed new Appendix J. DOE also 

requests comment on the length of inlet 

hose typically used for testing. 

(47) DOE requests comment on 

whether it should amend the test 

procedure to accommodate potential 

future clothes washer models for which 

the maximum load size required by the 

test procedure conflicts with the 

maximum load size intended or able to 

be washed with the cycle required for 

testing. If so, DOE seeks additional 

comment on the approaches it has 

considered, or on any other approaches 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49202 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

that could be considered, that would 

address this issue in the test procedure. 

(48) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed changes to the definition of 

‘‘fixed water fill control system’’ and on 

its proposal to add a definition for 

‘‘user-adjustable automatic water fill 

control system.’’ 

(49) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the wording of 

section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 and 

section 3.2.3.2.2 of the proposed new 

Appendix J from ‘‘the setting that will 

give the most energy intensive result’’ to 

‘‘the setting that uses the most water;’’ 

and from ‘‘the setting that will give the 

least energy intensive result’’ to ‘‘the 

setting that uses the least water.’’ 

(50) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that the energy test 

cycle flow charts be evaluated using the 

large load size for all wash/rinse 

temperature settings in the proposed 

new Appendix J. DOE also requests 

comment on its proposal to require that 

the energy test cycle flow charts be 

evaluated using the maximum load size, 

except for the Cold/Cold flow chart, in 

Appendix J2. 

(51) DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to update the flowcharts for 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/ 

Warm Rinse in both Appendix J2 and 

the proposed new Appendix J to 

explicitly address clothes washers that 

internally generate hot water. 

(52) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify the wording of the 

wash time setting specifications in 

section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 and section 

3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J. 

(53) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to add a clause in section 

3.2.5.2 of Appendix J2 and section 

3.2.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix 

J stating that the requirement to rotate 

the dial in the direction of increasing 

wash time would only apply to dials 

that can rotate in both directions. 

(54) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to add a definition of ‘‘wash 

time’’ to section 1 of both Appendix J2 

and the proposed new Appendix J. 

(55) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed updates to the annual 

operating cost calculations in 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1). 

(56) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed structure of the proposed new 

Appendix J to simplify and improve 

readability as compared to Appendix J2. 

(57) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to delete Appendix J1 to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with 

all references to Appendix J1 in 10 CFR 

parts 429, 430, and 431. 

(58) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove obsolete metric 

definitions. 

(59) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to delete the following 

definitions from section 1 of Appendix 

J2: ‘‘adaptive control system,’’ 

‘‘compact,’’ ‘‘manual control system,’’ 

‘‘standard,’’ and ‘‘thermostatically 

controlled water valves.’’ DOE also 

requests comment on its proposal to 

simplify the definition of ‘‘energy test 

cycle.’’ DOE also requests comment on 

its proposal to remove section 1.30 

‘‘Symbol usage’’ from Appendix J2. 

Lastly, DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove the numbering of all 

definitions in section 1 of Appendix J2 

and section 2 of Appendix J3, and to 

instead list the definitions in 

alphabetical order. 

(60) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove section 6, Waivers 

and Field Testing, of Appendix J2 and 

proposal not to include a parallel 

section in the proposed new Appendix 

J. 

(61) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to make the minor 

typographical corrections and 

formatting modifications described in 

this section. 

(62) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to consolidate into Appendix 

J3 the test cloth specifications and 

procedures from section 2.7 of 

Appendix J2 that are not intended to be 

conducted as part of each individual 

clothes washer test performed under 

Appendix J2. 

(63) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed edits to Appendix J3 to codify 

the ‘‘uniformity check’’ procedure and 

to restructure Appendix J3 to improve 

the overall logical flow of the procedure. 

(64) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to extend its product-specific 

enforcement provisions for clothes 

washers to accommodate up to a 3- 

percentage point variation in the 

corrected RMC measurement based on 

the test cloth lot used for testing. DOE 

also requests comment on alternate 

enforcement approaches that could be 

implemented. 

(65) DOE requests comment, 

specifically from manufacturers and 

third-party test laboratories, on whether 

costs would be incurred for each 

laboratory as a result of the proposals in 

this NOPR to specify more precise hot 

water meters and to explicitly allow the 

use of submersible temperature loggers; 

and if so, the total incurred cost 

associated with outfitting each test 

stand with the specified 

instrumentation. DOE also requests 

comment on the potential cost savings 

to be expected from enabling the use of 

submersible temperature loggers. 

(66) DOE requests comment on its 

characterization of the expected costs of 

the proposed amendments to Appendix 

J2 and Appendix J3 and on DOE’s 

preliminary determination that the 

proposed amendments would not be 

unduly burdensome. 

(67) DOE requests comment on any 

aspect of the estimated testing costs and 

savings associated with DOE’s proposed 

test procedures. 

(68) DOE requests comment on its 

initial determination that there is one 

small, domestic OEM of RCWs and no 

small, domestic OEMs of CCWs. 

(69) DOE requests comment on its 

initial determination that the proposed 

amendments would result in small 

incremental test burdens on the small 

business manufacturers of RCWs and 

CCWs in the United States. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on August 5, 2021, 

by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49203 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 5, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429, 430, and 431 of chapter II of 

title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as 

set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 429.20 is amended by 

revising introductory paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) and (ii), and (a)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.20 Residential clothes washers. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Any represented value of the 

integrated water factor, the estimated 

annual operating cost, the energy or 

water consumption, or other measure of 

energy or water consumption of a basic 

model for which consumers would favor 

lower values shall be greater than or 

equal to the higher of: 

* * * * * 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

integrated modified energy factor, 

energy efficiency ratio, water efficiency 

ratio, or other measure of energy or 

water consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

lower of: 

* * * * * 

(3) The clothes container capacity of 

a basic model reported in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(2) of this section 

shall be the mean of the measured 

clothes container capacity, C, of all 

tested units of the basic model. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 429.46 is amended by 

revising introductory paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.46 Commercial clothes washers. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

modified energy factor, active-mode 

energy efficiency ratio, water efficiency 

ratio, or other measure of energy or 

water consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be greater than or equal to 

the higher of: 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 429.134 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Clothes washers—(1) 

Determination of Remaining Moisture 

Content. These provisions address 

anomalous remaining moisture content 

(RMC) results that are not representative 

of a basic model’s performance, as well 

as differences in RMC values that may 

result from DOE using a different test 

cloth lot than was used by the 

manufacturer for testing and certifying 

the basic model. 

(i) When testing according to 

appendix J to subpart B of part 430: 

(A) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is equal to or lower than the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

(expressed as a percentage), the 

measured RMC value will be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value and 

will be used as the basis for the 

calculation of per-cycle energy 

consumption for removal of moisture 

from the test load for that unit. 

(B) If the measured RMC value is 

higher than the certified RMC value of 

the basic model, the measured RMC 

value of a tested unit will be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value unless 

DOE used a different test cloth lot than 

was used by the manufacturer for testing 

and certifying the basic model; in which 

case, DOE may apply paragraph 

(c)(1)(i)(C) of this section if the 

difference between the measured and 

certified RMC values would affect the 

unit’s compliance with the applicable 

standards. 

(C) If DOE uses a different test cloth 

lot than was used by the manufacturer 

for testing and certifying the basic 

model: 

(1) If the difference between the tested 

unit’s measured RMC value and the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

is less than or equal to three RMC 

percentage points, then the certified 

RMC value of the basic model may be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value. 

(2) If the tested unit’s measured RMC 

value is more than three RMC 

percentage points higher than the 

certified RMC value of the basic model, 

then a value three RMC percentage 

points less than the measured RMC 

value may be considered the tested 

unit’s final RMC value. 

(ii) When testing according to 

appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430: 

(A) The procedure for determining 

remaining moisture content (RMC) will 

be performed once in its entirety, 

pursuant to the test requirements of 

section 3.8 of appendix J2 to subpart B 

of part 430, for each unit tested. 

(B) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is equal to or lower than the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

(expressed as a percentage), the 

measured RMC value will be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value and 

will be used as the basis for the 

calculation of per-cycle energy 

consumption for removal of moisture 

from the test load for that unit. 

(C) If the difference between the 

measured RMC value and the certified 

RMC value of the basic model is less 

than or equal to two RMC percentage 

points, the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit will be considered the tested 

unit’s final RMC value unless DOE used 

a different test cloth lot than was used 

by the manufacturer for testing and 

certifying the basic model; in which 

case, DOE may apply paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii)(E) of this section if the 

difference between the measured and 

certified RMC values would affect the 

unit’s compliance with the applicable 

standards. 

(D) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is more than two RMC 

percentage points higher than the 

certified RMC value of the basic model, 

DOE will perform two replications of 

the RMC measurement procedure, each 

pursuant to the provisions of section 

3.8.5 of appendix J2 to subpart B of part 

430, for a total of three independent 

RMC measurements of the tested unit. 

The average of the three RMC 

measurements will be calculated. 

(1) If the average of the three RMC 

measurements is equal to or lower than 

the certified RMC value of the basic 

model, the average RMC value will be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value. 

(2) If the average of the three RMC 

measurements is higher than the 

certified RMC value of the basic model, 

the average RMC value will be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value unless DOE used a different test 

cloth lot than was used by the 

manufacturer for testing and certifying 

the basic model; in which case, DOE 

may apply paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(E) of this 

section if the difference between the 

average and certified RMC values would 

affect the unit’s compliance with the 

applicable standards. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49204 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(E) If DOE uses a different test cloth 

lot than was used by the manufacturer 

for testing and certifying the basic 

model: 

(1) If the difference between the tested 

unit’s measured RMC value (or average 

RMC value pursuant to paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii)(D) of this section) and the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

is less than or equal to three RMC 

percentage points, then the certified 

RMC value of the basic model may be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value. 

(2) If the tested unit’s measured RMC 

value (or average RMC value pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D) of this section) is 

more than three RMC percentage points 

higher than the certified RMC value of 

the basic model, then a value three RMC 

percentage points less than the 

measured RMC value may be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value. 

* * * * * 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 6. Section 430.3 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (o)(6) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(d) AATCC. American Association of 

Textile Chemists and Colorists, P.O. Box 

12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709, (919) 549–3526, or go to 

www.aatcc.org. 

(1) AATCC Test Method 79–2010, 

Absorbency of Textiles, Revised 2010, 

IBR approved for appendix J3 to subpart 

B. 

(2) AATCC Test Method 118–2007, 

Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance 

Test, Revised 2007, IBR approved for 

appendix J3 to subpart B. 

(3) AATCC Test Method 135–2010, 

Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after 

Home Laundering, Revised 2010, IBR 

approved for appendix J3 to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(6) IEC 62301 (‘‘IEC 62301’’), 

Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power, (Edition 

2.0, 2011–01), IBR approved for 

appendices C1, D1, D2, F, G, H, I, J, J2, 

N, O, P, Q, X, X1, Y, Z, BB, and CC to 

subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 430.23 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (j)(2)(i); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (j)(2)(ii) as 

(j)(2)(i); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (j)(2)(ii); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (j)(3)(i); 

■ f. Removing paragraph (j)(4)(i); 

■ g. Redesignating paragraph (j)(4)(ii) as 

(j)(4)(i); 

■ h. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (j)(4)(i); 

■ i. Adding paragraph (j)(4)(ii); and 

■ j. Revising paragraph (j)(5). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) When using appendix J (see the 

note at the beginning of appendix J), 

(A) When electrically heated water is 

used, 

(N × (MET + HET + ETLP) × CKWH) 

Where: 

N = the representative average residential 

clothes washer use of 234 cycles per year 

according to appendix J, 

MET = the total weighted per-cycle machine 

electrical energy consumption, in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 

according to section 4.1.6 of appendix J, 

HET = the total weighted per-cycle hot water 

energy consumption using an electrical 

water heater, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

determined according to section 4.1.3 of 

appendix J, 

ETLP = the per-cycle combined low-power 

mode energy consumption, in kilowatthours per cycle, determined according to 

section 4.6.2 of appendix J, and 

CKWH = the representative average unit cost, 

in dollars per kilowatt-hour, as provided 

by the Secretary. 

(B) When gas-heated or oil-heated 

water is used, 

(N × (((MET + ETLP) × CKWH) + (HETG × 

CBTU))) 

Where: 

N, MET, ETLP, and CKWH are defined in 

paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) of this section, 

HETG = the total per-cycle hot water energy 

consumption using gas-heated or oilheated water, in Btu per cycle, 

determined according to section 4.1.4 of 

appendix J, and 

CBTU = the representative average unit cost, 

in dollars per Btu for oil or gas, as 

appropriate, as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(ii) When using appendix J2 (see the 

note at the beginning of appendix J2), 

(A) When electrically heated water is 

used 

(N2 × (ETE2 + ETLP2) × CKWH) 

Where: 

N2 = the representative average residential 

clothes washer use of 295 cycles per year 

according to appendix J2, 

ETE2 = the total per-cycle energy 

consumption when electrically heated 

water is used, in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, determined according to section 

4.1.7 of appendix J2, 

ETLP2 = the per-cycle combined low-power 

mode energy consumption, in kilowatthours per cycle, determined according to 

section 4.4 of appendix J2, and 

CKWH = the representative average unit cost, 

in dollars per kilowatt-hour, as provided 

by the Secretary. 

(B) When gas-heated or oil-heated 

water is used, 

(N2 × (((MET2 + ETLP2) × CKWH) + (HETG2

× CBTU))) 

Where: 

N2, ETLP2, and CKWH are defined in (j)(1)(ii)(A) 

of this section, 

MET2 = the total weighted per-cycle machine 

electrical energy consumption, in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 

according to section 4.1.6 of appendix J2, 

HETG2 = the total per-cycle hot water energy 

consumption using gas-heated or oilheated water, in Btu per cycle, 

determined according to section 4.1.4 of 

appendix J2, and 

CBTU = the representative average unit cost, 

in dollars per Btu for oil or gas, as 

appropriate, as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The energy efficiency ratio for 

automatic and semi-automatic clothes 

washers is determined according to 

section 4.9 of appendix J (when using 

appendix J). The result shall be rounded 

off to the nearest 0.1 pound per 

kilowatt-hour per cycle. 

(3) * * * 

(i) When using appendix J, the 

product of the representative averageuse of 234 cycles per year and the total 

weighted per-cycle water consumption 

in gallons per cycle determined 

according to section 4.2.4 of appendix J. 

* * * * * 

(4)(i) The integrated water factor must 

be determined according to section 

4.2.12 of appendix J2, with the result 

rounded to the nearest 0.1 gallons per 

cycle per cubic foot. 

(ii) The water efficiency ratio for 

automatic and semi-automatic clothes 

washers is determined according to 

section 4.7 of appendix J (when using 

appendix J). The result shall be rounded 

off to the nearest 0.1 pound per gallon 

per cycle. 

(5) Other useful measures of energy 

consumption for automatic or semiautomatic clothes washers shall be those 

measures of energy consumption that 

the Secretary determines are likely to 

assist consumers in making purchasing 

decisions and that are derived from the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49205 

application of appendix J or appendix 

J2, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Appendix J to subpart B of part 430 

is added 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 

Note: Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under Appendix J2 to determine 

compliance with the relevant standards for 

clothes washers from § 430.32(g)(4) and from 

§ 431.156(b) as they appeared in January 1, 

2021 edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. 

Specifically, before [Date 180 days following 

publication of the final rule] representations 

must be based upon results generated either 

under Appendix J2 as codified on [Date 30 

days following publication of the final rule] 

or under Appendix J2 as it appeared in the 

10 CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of 

January 1, 2021. Any representations made 

on or after [Date 180 days following 

publication of the final rule] but before the 

compliance date of any amended standards 

for clothes washers must be made based 

upon results generated using Appendix J2 as 

codified on [Date 30 days following 

publication of the final rule]. 

Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under Appendix J to determine 

compliance with any amended standards for 

clothes washers provided in § 430.32(g) and 

in § 431.156 that are published after January 

1, 2021. Any representations related to 

energy or water consumption of residential or 

commercial clothes washers must be made in 

accordance with the appropriate appendix 

that applies (i.e., Appendix J or Appendix J2) 

when determining compliance with the 

relevant standard. Manufacturers may also 

use Appendix J to certify compliance with 

any amended standards prior to the 

applicable compliance date for those 

standards. 

1. Definitions 

Active mode means a mode in which the 

clothes washer is connected to a mains 

power source, has been activated, and is 

performing one or more of the main functions 

of washing, soaking, tumbling, agitating, 

rinsing, and/or removing water from the 

clothing, or is involved in functions 

necessary for these main functions, such as 

admitting water into the washer or pumping 

water out of the washer. Active mode also 

includes delay start and cycle finished 

modes. 

Active-mode energy efficiency ratio means 

the quotient of the weighted-average load 

size divided by the total clothes washer 

energy consumption per cycle, with such 

energy consumption expressed as the sum of 

the machine electrical energy consumption, 

the hot water energy consumption, and the 

energy required for removal of the remaining 

moisture in the wash load. 

Active washing mode means a mode in 

which the clothes washer is performing any 

of the operations included in a complete 

cycle intended for washing a clothing load, 

including the main functions of washing, 

soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or 

removing water from the clothing. 

Adaptive water fill control system means a 

clothes washer automatic water fill control 

system that is capable of automatically 

adjusting the water fill level based on the size 

or weight of the clothes load placed in the 

clothes container. 

Automatic water fill control system means 

a clothes washer water fill control system 

that does not allow or require the user to 

determine or select the water fill level, and 

includes adaptive water fill control systems 

and fixed water fill control systems. 

Bone-dry means a condition of a load of 

test cloth that has been dried in a dryer at 

maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 

minutes, removed and weighed before cool 

down, and then dried again for 10 minute 

periods until the final weight change of the 

load is 1 percent or less. 

Clothes container means the compartment 

within the clothes washer that holds the 

clothes during the operation of the machine. 

Cold rinse means the coldest rinse 

temperature available on the machine, as 

indicated to the user on the clothes washer 

control panel. 

Combined low-power mode means the 

aggregate of available modes other than 

active washing mode, including inactive 

mode, off mode, delay start mode, and cycle 

finished mode. 

Cycle finished mode means an active mode 

that provides continuous status display, 

intermittent tumbling, or air circulation 

following operation in active washing mode. 

Delay start mode means an active mode in 

which activation of active washing mode is 

facilitated by a timer. 

Energy efficiency ratio means the quotient 

of the weighted-average load size divided by 

the total clothes washer energy consumption 

per cycle, with such energy consumption 

expressed as the sum of: 

(a) The machine electrical energy 

consumption; 

(b) The hot water energy consumption; 

(c) The energy required for removal of the 

remaining moisture in the wash load; and 

(d) The combined low-power mode energy 

consumption. 

Energy test cycle means the complete set of 

wash/rinse temperature selections required 

for testing, as determined according to 

section 2.12 of this appendix. 

Fixed water fill control system means a 

clothes washer automatic water fill control 

system that automatically terminates the fill 

when the water reaches a pre-defined level 

that is not based on the size or weight of the 

clothes load placed in the clothes container, 

without allowing or requiring the user to 

determine or select the water fill level. 

IEC 62301 means the test standard 

published by the International 

Electrotechnical Commission, entitled 

‘‘Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power,’’ Publication 

62301, Edition 2.0 2011–01 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

Inactive mode means a standby mode that 

facilitates the activation of active mode by 

remote switch (including remote control), 

internal sensor, or timer, or that provides 

continuous status display. 

Load usage factor means the percentage of 

the total number of wash loads that a user 

would wash a particular size (weight) load. 

Lot means a quantity of cloth that has been 

manufactured with the same batches of 

cotton and polyester during one continuous 

process. 

Manual water fill control system means a 

clothes washer water fill control system that 

requires the user to determine or select the 

water fill level. 

Normal cycle means the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer 

(considering manufacturer instructions, 

control panel labeling, and other markings on 

the clothes washer) for normal, regular, or 

typical use for washing up to a full load of 

normally-soiled cotton clothing. For 

machines where multiple cycle settings are 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

normal, regular, or typical use for washing up 

to a full load of normally-soiled cotton 

clothing, then the Normal cycle is the cycle 

selection that results in the lowest EER or 

AEER value. 

Off mode means a mode in which the 

clothes washer is connected to a mains 

power source and is not providing any active 

or standby mode function, and where the 

mode may persist for an indefinite time. 

Standby mode means any mode in which 

the clothes washer is connected to a mains 

power source and offers one or more of the 

following user oriented or protective 

functions that may persist for an indefinite 

time: 

(a) Facilitating the activation of other 

modes (including activation or deactivation 

of active mode) by remote switch (including 

remote control), internal sensor, or timer; 

(b) Continuous functions, including 

information or status displays (including 

clocks) or sensor-based functions. 

A timer is a continuous clock function 

(which may or may not be associated with a 

display) that provides regular scheduled 

tasks (e.g., switching) and that operates on a 

continuous basis. 

Temperature use factor means, for a 

particular wash/rinse temperature setting, the 

percentage of the total number of wash loads 

that an average user would wash with that 

setting. 

User-adjustable automatic water fill 

control system means an automatic clothes 

washer fill control system that allows the 

user to adjust the amount of water that the 

machine provides, which is based on the size 

or weight of the clothes load placed in the 

clothes container. 

Wash time means the wash portion of the 

cycle, which begins when the cycle is 

initiated and includes the agitation or tumble 

time, which may be periodic or continuous 

during the wash portion of the cycle. 

Water efficiency ratio means the quotient 

of the weighted-average load size divided by 

the total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption for all wash cycles in gallons. 

2. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation 

2.1 Electrical energy supply. 

2.1.1 Supply voltage and frequency. 

Maintain the electrical supply at the clothes 

washer terminal block within 2 percent of 

120, 120/240, or 120/208Y volts as applicable 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

to the particular terminal block wiring 

system and within 2 percent of the nameplate 

frequency as specified by the manufacturer. 

If the clothes washer has a dual voltage 

conversion capability, conduct test at the 

highest voltage specified by the 

manufacturer. 

2.1.2 Supply voltage waveform. For the 

combined low-power mode testing, maintain 

the electrical supply voltage waveform 

indicated in Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 

62301 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3). If the power measuring instrument 

used for testing is unable to measure and 

record the total harmonic content during the 

test measurement period, total harmonic 

content may be measured and recorded 

immediately before and after the test 

measurement period. 

2.2 Supply water. Maintain the 

temperature of the hot water supply at the 

water inlets between 120 °F (48.9 °C) and 

125 °F (51.7 °C). Maintain the temperature of 

the cold water supply at the water inlets 

between 55 °F (12.8 °C) and 60 °F (15.6 °C). 

2.3 Water pressure. Maintain the static 

water pressure at the hot and cold water inlet 

connection of the clothes washer at 35 

pounds per square inch gauge (psig) ± 2.5 

psig (241.3 kPa ± 17.2 kPa) when the water 

is flowing. 

2.4 Test room temperature. For all clothes 

washers, maintain the test room ambient air 

temperature at 75 ± 5 °F (23.9 ± 2.8 °C) for 

active mode testing and combined low-power 

mode testing. Do not use the test room 

ambient air temperature conditions specified 

in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 for 

combined low-power mode testing. 

2.5 Instrumentation. Perform all test 

measurements using the following 

instruments, as appropriate: 

2.5.1 Weighing scales. 

2.5.1.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The 

scale used for weighing test cloth must have 

a resolution of no larger than 0.2 oz (5.7 g) 

and a maximum error no greater than 0.3 

percent of the measured value. 

2.5.1.2 Weighing scale for clothes 

container capacity measurement. The scale 

used for performing the clothes container 

capacity measurement must have a resolution 

no larger than 0.50 lbs (0.23 kg) and a 

maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent 

of the measured value. 

2.5.2 Watt-hour meter. The watt-hour 

meter used to measure electrical energy 

consumption must have a resolution no 

larger than 1 Wh (3.6 kJ) and a maximum 

error no greater than 2 percent of the 

measured value for any demand greater than 

50 Wh (180.0 kJ). 

2.5.3 Watt meter. The watt meter used to 

measure combined low-power mode power 

consumption must comply with the 

requirements specified in Section 4, 

Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301. If the power 

measuring instrument used for testing is 

unable to measure and record the crest factor, 

power factor, or maximum current ratio 

during the test measurement period, the crest 

factor, power factor, and maximum current 

ratio may be measured and recorded 

immediately before and after the test 

measurement period. 

2.5.4 Water and air temperature 

measuring devices. The temperature devices 

used to measure water and air temperature 

must have an error no greater than ±1 °F (±0.6 

°C) over the range being measured. 

2.5.4.1 Non-reversible temperature 

indicator labels, adhered to the inside of the 

clothes container, may be used to confirm 

that an extra-hot wash temperature greater 

than or equal to 140 °F has been achieved 

during the wash cycle, under the following 

conditions. The label must remain 

waterproof, intact, and adhered to the wash 

drum throughout an entire wash cycle; 

provide consistent maximum temperature 

readings; and provide repeatable temperature 

indications sufficient to demonstrate that a 

wash temperature of greater than or equal to 

140 °F has been achieved. The label must 

have been verified to consistently indicate 

temperature measurements with an accuracy 

of ±1 °F. If using a temperature indicator label 

to test a front-loading clothes washer, adhere 

the label along the interior surface of the 

clothes container drum, midway between the 

front and the back of the drum, adjacent to 

one of the baffles. If using a temperature 

indicator label to test a top-loading clothes 

washer, adhere the label along the interior 

surface of the clothes container drum, on the 

vertical portion of the sidewall, as close to 

the bottom of the container as possible. 

2.5.4.2 Submersible temperature loggers 

placed inside the wash drum may be used to 

confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature 

greater than or equal to 140 °F has been 

achieved during the wash cycle, under the 

following conditions. The submersible 

temperature logger must have a time 

resolution of at least 1 data point every 5 

seconds and a temperature measurement 

accuracy of ±1 °F. Due to the potential for a 

waterproof capsule to provide a thermal 

insulating effect, failure to measure a 

temperature of 140 °F does not necessarily 

indicate the lack of an extra-hot wash 

temperature. However, such a result would 

not be conclusive due to the lack of 

verification of the water temperature 

requirement, in which case an alternative 

method must be used to confirm that an 

extra-hot wash temperature greater than or 

equal to 140 °F has been achieved during the 

wash cycle. 

2.5.5 Water meter. A water meter must be 

installed in both the hot and cold water lines 

to measure water flow and/or water 

consumption. The water meters must have a 

resolution no larger than 0.1 gallons (0.4 

liters) and a maximum error no greater than 

2 percent for the water flow rates being 

measured. If the volume of hot water for any 

individual cycle within the energy test cycle 

is less than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot 

water meter must have a resolution no larger 

than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters). 

2.5.6 Water pressure gauge. A water 

pressure gauge must be installed in both the 

hot and cold water lines to measure water 

pressure. The water pressure gauges must 

have a resolution of 1 pound per square inch 

gauge (psig) (6.9 kPa) and a maximum error 

no greater than 5 percent of any measured 

value. 

2.6 Bone-dryer. The dryer used for drying 

the cloth to bone-dry must heat the test cloth 

load above 210 °F (99 °C). 

2.7 Test cloths. The test cloth material 

and dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in appendix J3 to this subpart. 

The energy test cloth and the energy stuffer 

cloths must be clean and must not be used 

for more than 60 test runs (after 

preconditioning as specified in section 5 of 

appendix J3 to this subpart). All energy test 

cloth must be permanently marked 

identifying the lot number of the material. 

Mixed lots of material must not be used for 

testing a clothes washer. The moisture 

absorption and retention must be evaluated 

for each new lot of test cloth using the 

standard extractor Remaining Moisture 

Content (RMC) procedure specified in 

appendix J3 to this subpart. 

2.8 Test Loads. 

2.8.1 Test load sizes. Create small and 

large test loads as defined in Table 5.1 of this 

appendix based on the clothes container 

capacity as measured in section 3.1 of this 

appendix. 

2.8.2 Test load composition. Test loads 

must consist primarily of energy test cloths 

and no more than five energy stuffer cloths 

per load to achieve the proper weight. 

2.9 Preparation and loading of test loads. 

Use the following procedures to prepare and 

load each test load for testing in section 3 of 

this appendix. 

2.9.1 Test loads for energy and water 

consumption measurements must be bonedry prior to each test cycle. 

2.9.2 Prepare the energy test cloths for 

loading by grasping them in the center, 

lifting, and shaking them to hang loosely, as 

illustrated in Figure 2.9.2 of this appendix. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49207 

For all clothes washers, follow any 

manufacturer loading instructions provided 

to the user regarding the placement of 

clothing within the clothes container. In the 

absence of any manufacturer instructions 

regarding the placement of clothing within 

the clothes container, the following loading 

instructions apply. 

2.9.2.1 To load the energy test cloths in 

a top-loading clothes washer, arrange the 

cloths circumferentially around the axis of 

rotation of the clothes container, using 

alternating lengthwise orientations for 

adjacent pieces of cloth. Complete each cloth 

layer across its horizontal plane within the 

clothes container before adding a new layer. 

Figure 2.9.2.1 of this appendix illustrates the 

correct loading technique for a vertical-axis 

clothes washer. 

2.9.2.2 To load the energy test cloths in 

a front-loading clothes washer, grasp each 

test cloth in the center as indicted in section 

2.9.2 of this appendix, and then place each 

cloth into the clothes container prior to 

activating the clothes washer. 

2.10 Clothes washer installation. Install 

the clothes washer in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

2.10.1 Water inlet connections. If the 

clothes washer has 2 water inlets, connect 

the inlets to the hot water and cold water 

supplies, in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. If the clothes 

washer has only 1 water inlet, connect the 

inlet to the cold water supply, in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions. Use the 

water inlet hoses provided with the clothes 

washer; otherwise use commercially 

available water inlet hoses, not to exceed 72 

inches in length, in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

2.10.2 Low-power mode testing. For 

combined low-power mode testing, install 

the clothes washer in accordance with 

Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301, 

disregarding the provisions regarding 

batteries and the determination, 

classification, and testing of relevant modes. 

2.11 Clothes washer pre-conditioning. If 

the clothes washer has not been filled with 

water in the preceding 96 hours, or if it has 

not been in the test room at the specified 

ambient conditions for 8 hours, pre-condition 

it by running it through a cold rinse cycle 

and then draining it to ensure that the hose, 

pump, and sump are filled with water. 

2.12 Determining the energy test cycle. 

2.12.1 Automatic clothes washers. To 

determine the energy test cycle, evaluate the 

wash/rinse temperature selection flowcharts 

in the order in which they are presented in 

this section. Use the large load size to 

evaluate each flowchart. The determination 

of the energy test cycle must take into 

consideration all cycle settings available to 

the end user, including any cycle selections 

or cycle modifications provided by the 

manufacturer via software or firmware 

updates to the product, for the basic model 

under test. The energy test cycle does not 

include any cycle that is recommended by 

the manufacturer exclusively for cleaning, 

deodorizing, or sanitizing the clothes washer. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.004</GPH> EP01SE21.005</GPH>

Figure 2.9.2-Grasping Energy Test Cloths in the Center, Lifting, and Shaking to Hang 

Loosely 

Figure 2.9.2.1-Loading Energy Test Cloths into a Top-Loading Clothes Washer 

~I-Axis:. 

View from.the Top 

Front 
49208 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.006</GPH> EP01SE21.007</GPH>

Figure 2.12.1.1-Determination of Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse ("Cold/Cold") 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash temperature selection with the coldest 

wash temperature available in the Normal cycle, paired with a cold rinse. 

If multiple wash temperature selections in the Normal cycle do not use or 

intemaUy generate any hot water. Cold Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash 

temperature selection among these with the highest energy consumption 

(as measured according to section 3.6 of this appendix), and the others 

are excluded from testing and from consideration as the Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse or Warm Wash/Cold Rinse. 

Fi ure 2.12.1.2-Determination of Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

Hot Wash/Cold Rinse ("Hot/Cold") 

Among all cycle selections available on 

the clothes washer, does the clothes 

washer offer a wash/rinse temperature 

selection that meets all of the following 

criteria? 

• Wash temperature greater than the 

wash temperature of the Cold 

Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Cold rinse 

Yes 

Other than any wash temperature 

selections excluded as a result of the 

determination of Cold Wash/Cold Rinse, 

does the Normal cycle contain the wash 

temperature selection indicated on the 

control panel as the hottest wash 

temperature selection less than 140°F 

available on the clothes washer? 

• No • • • Ill 

Ill 

• Ill 

Ill 

• • •••••••••••••• 

No 

•••• The energy test cycle does not 

include a Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. 

Yes 

Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the 

wash/rinse temperature selection in 

the Normal cycle that meets all of the 

following criteria: 

• Wash temperature greater than the 

wash temperature of the 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Hottest available wash temperature 

less than 140°F 

• Cold rinse 

Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse 

temperature selection, among all cycle 

selections available on the clothes washer, 

that meets all of the following criteria: 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Hottest available wash temperature less 

than 140°F 

• Cold rinse 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49209 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.008</GPH>

Fi ure 2.12.1.3-Determination of Warm Wash/Cold Rinse 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse "Warm/Cold" 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse includes·the 

Other than any wash temperature selections hottest and the. coldest washlrinse 

excluded as a result of the determination of temperatore selections in the Normal 

Cold WashlCOldRinse, does the Normal cycle Yes cycle that meet all of the fOUowing 

contain any washlrinse temperature selections criteria: 

that meet an of the foHowing criteria? l-alll9f • Wash temperature less than the 

• Wash temperature less than the wash wash temperature of the 

temperature of the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse Hot Wash/ColdRinse 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash • Wash temperature greater than the 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse wash temperature of the 

• Cold rinse Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Cold rinse 

• 

No : 

Does the clothes washer offer any washlrinse 

temperature selections, among all cycle 

selections available on the clothes washer, 

that meet all of the foUowing criteria? No 

The energy test cycle does not 

include a Warm Wash/Cold Rinse. • Wash temperature less than the wash 

temperature of the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

••• 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Cold rinse 

Yes 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse is the washlrinse temperature 

selection with the greatest energy consumption ( as 

measured according to section 3.6 of this appendix) 

among all cycle selections available on the clothes ._ ___ • 111 washer that meet all of the following criteria: 

• Wash temperature less than the wash temperature 

of the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Cold rinse 
49210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.009</GPH>

Figure 2.12.1.4-Determination of Warm Wash/Warm Rinse 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse ("Warm/Warm") 

Yes 

Warm Rinse is the hottest rinse temperature 

selection available In the Normal cycle. 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse includes the hottest and 

the coldest wash temperature selections in the 

Does the Normal cycle 

offer any rinse temperature 

selections that add or 

intemaUy generate hot 

water? 

,___ Normal cycle that meet all of the following criteria: 

• • • No • 

• • 

Does the clothes washer 

offer any rinse temperature 

selections that add 

Yes 

• Wash temperature less than the wash 

temperature of the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Can be paired with the Warm Rinse 

Warm Rinse is the hottest rinse temperature 

selection available on the clothes washer among all 

cycle selections available on the clothes washer. 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse is the wash temperature 

or intemany generate hot 

water, among all cycle 

selections available on the 

clothes washer? 

,__.,. selection that uses the greatest amount of energy 

No 

• • • • • • • 

The energy test cycle does not 

include a Warm Wash/Warm Rinse. 

(as measured according to section 3.6 of this 

appendix) among all cycle selections available on 

the clothes washer that meet all of the following 

criteria: 

• Wash temperature less than the wash 

temperature of the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Can be paired with the Warm Rinse. 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49211 

2.12.2. Semi-automatic clothes washers. 

The energy test cycle for semi-automatic 

clothes washers includes only the Cold 

Wash/Cold Rinse (‘‘Cold’’) test cycle. Energy 

and water use for all other wash/rinse 

temperature combinations are calculated 

numerically in section 3.4.2 of this appendix. 

3. Test Measurements 

3.1 Clothes container capacity. Measure 

the entire volume that a clothes load could 

occupy within the clothes container during 

active mode washer operation according to 

the following procedures: 

3.1.1 Place the clothes washer in such a 

position that the uppermost edge of the 

clothes container opening is leveled 

horizontally, so that the container will hold 

the maximum amount of water. For frontloading clothes washers, the door seal and 

shipping bolts or other forms of bracing 

hardware to support the wash drum during 

shipping must remain in place during the 

capacity measurement. If the design of a 

front-loading clothes washer does not 

include shipping bolts or other forms of 

bracing hardware to support the wash drum 

during shipping, a laboratory may support 

the wash drum by other means, including 

temporary bracing or support beams. Any 

temporary bracing or support beams must 

keep the wash drum in a fixed position, 

relative to the geometry of the door and door 

seal components, that is representative of the 

position of the wash drum during normal 

operation. The method used must avoid 

damage to the unit that would affect the 

results of the energy and water testing. For 

a front-loading clothes washer that does not 

include shipping bolts or other forms of 

bracing hardware to support the wash drum 

during shipping, the laboratory must fully 

document the alternative method used to 

support the wash drum during capacity 

measurement, include such documentation 

in the final test report, and pursuant to 

§ 429.71 of this chapter, the manufacturer 

must retain such documentation as part its 

test records. 

3.1.2 Line the inside of the clothes 

container with a 2 mil thickness (0.051 mm) 

plastic bag. All clothes washer components 

that occupy space within the clothes 

container and that are recommended for use 

during a wash cycle must be in place and 

must be lined with a 2 mil thickness (0.051 

mm) plastic bag to prevent water from 

entering any void space. 

3.1.3 Record the total weight of the 

machine before adding water. 

3.1.4 Fill the clothes container manually 

with either 60 °F ± 5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C) or 

100 °F ± 10 °F (37.8 °C ± 5.5 °C) water, with 

the door open. For a top-loading vertical-axis 

clothes washer, fill the clothes container to 

the uppermost edge of the rotating portion, 

including any balance ring. Figure 3.1.4.1 of 

this appendix illustrates the maximum fill 

level for top-loading clothes washers. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.010</GPH>

Figure 2.12.1.5---Determination of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse ("Extra-Hot/Cold") 

Does the clothes washer have 

an internal water heater? 

Yes 

No 

•••• The energy test cycle does not include an 

Extra-Hot Wash/ColdRihse. 

Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the 

Does the Normal cycle contain wash/rinse temperature selection ln the 

Normal cycle that meets au of the 

any wash/rinse temperature Yes foUoWing criteria: 

selections that meet au of the • Highest available wash temperature 

following criteria? ---~M 

• wash temperature greater than .... greater than or equal to 140°F 

• Cold rinse 

or equal to 140°F • Intended forwashing clothing. 

• Cold rinse 

• Intended forwashing clothing other wash temperature selection(s)that have a wash temperature greater than or 

• No • • 

Yes 

equal to 140°F are excluded from testing . 

Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the 

wash/rinse temperature selection With the 

greatest energy consumption (as measured 

according to section 3.6 of this appendix) 

among all cycle selections available on 

Does the clothes washer offer any 

wash/rinse temperature 

selections, among all cycle 

selections available on the 

clothes washer, that meet au of 

the foUowing criteria? I-■~_,. the clothes washer that meet au of the foUowing criteria: 

• Wash temperature greater than 

or equal to 140°F 

• Cold rinse 

• Intended for washing clothing 

No 

• • • 

The energy test cycle does not include 

an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. 

• Wash temperature greater than or equal 

to 140°F 

• Cold rinse 

• Intended for washing clothing. 

other wash temperature selection(s) that 

have a wash temperature greater than or 

equal to 140°F are excluded from testing. 
49212 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

For a front-loading horizontal-axis clothes 

washer, fill the clothes container to the 

highest point of contact between the door 

and the door gasket. If any portion of the 

door or gasket would occupy the measured 

volume space when the door is closed, 

exclude from the measurement the volume 

that the door or gasket portion would occupy. 

For a front-loading horizontal-axis clothes 

washer with a concave door shape, include 

any additional volume above the plane 

defined by the highest point of contact 

between the door and the door gasket, if that 

area can be occupied by clothing during 

washer operation. For a top-loading 

horizontal-axis clothes washer, include any 

additional volume above the plane of the 

door hinge that clothing could occupy during 

washer operation. Figure 3.1.4.2 of this 

appendix illustrates the maximum fill 

volumes for all horizontal-axis clothes 

washer types. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

For all clothes washers, exclude any 

volume that cannot be occupied by the 

clothing load during operation. 

3.1.5 Measure and record the weight of 

water, W, in pounds. 

3.1.6 Calculate the clothes container 

capacity as follows: 

C = W/d 

where: 

C = Capacity in cubic feet (liters). 

W = Mass of water in pounds (kilograms). 

d = Density of water (62.0 lbs/ft3 for 100 °F 

(993 kg/m3 for 37.8 °C) or 62.3 lbs/ft3 for 

60 °F (998 kg/m3 for 15.6 °C)). 

3.1.7 Calculate the clothes container 

capacity, C, to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot for 

the purpose of determining test load sizes per 

Table 5.1 of this appendix and for all 

subsequent calculations that include the 

clothes container capacity. 

3.2 Cycle settings. 

3.2.1 Wash/rinse temperature selection. 

For automatic clothes washers, set the wash/ 

rinse temperature selection control to obtain 

the desired wash/rinse temperature selection 

within the energy test cycle. 

3.2.2 Wash time setting. 

3.2.2.1 If the cycle under test offers a 

range of wash time settings, the wash time 

setting shall be the higher of either the 

minimum or 70 percent of the maximum 

wash time available for the wash cycle under 

test, regardless of the labeling of suggested 

dial locations. If 70 percent of the maximum 

wash time is not available on a dial with a 

discrete number of wash time settings, 

choose the next-highest setting greater than 

70 percent. 

3.2.2.2 If the clothes washer is equipped 

with an electromechanical dial or timer 

controlling wash time that rotates in both 

directions, reset the dial to the minimum 

wash time and then turn it in the direction 

of increasing wash time to reach the 

appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting 

is passed, return the dial to the minimum 

wash time and then turn in the direction of 

increasing wash time until the appropriate 

setting is reached. 

3.2.3 Water fill level settings. 

3.2.3.1 Clothes washers with manual 

water fill control system. For the large test 

load size, set the water fill level selector to 

the maximum water fill level setting 

available for the wash cycle under test. If the 

water fill level selector has two settings 

available for the wash cycle under test, for 

the small test load size, select the minimum 

water fill level setting available for the wash 

cycle under test. 

If the water fill level selector has more than 

two settings available for the wash cycle 

under test, for the small test load size, select 

the second-lowest water fill level setting. 

3.2.3.2 Clothes washers with automatic 

water fill control system. 

3.2.3.2.1 Not user-adjustable. The water 

level is automatically determined by the 

water fill control system. 

3.2.3.2.2 User-adjustable. For the large 

test load size, set the water fill selector to the 

setting that uses the most water. For the 

small test load size, set the water fill selector 

to the setting that uses the least water. 

3.2.3.3 Clothes washers with automatic 

water fill control system and alternate 

manual water fill control system. If a clothes 

washer with an automatic water fill control 

system allows user selection of manual 

controls as an alternative, test both manual 

and automatic modes and, for each mode, 

calculate the energy consumption (HET, MET, 

and DET) and water consumption (QT) values 

as set forth in section 4 of this appendix. 

Then, calculate the average of the two values 

(one from each mode, automatic and manual) 

for each variable (HET, MET, DET, and QT) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.011</GPH> EP01SE21.012</GPH>

Figure 3.1.4.1-Maximum Fill Level for the Clothes Container Capacity 

Measurement of Top-Loading Vertical-Axis Clothes Washers 

Outer tub 

Wash basket 

Tub cover Balance Ring Maximum Fill Level 

(Uppermost edge of 

the rotating portion) 

Figure 3.1.4.2-Maximum Fill Level for the Clothes Container Capacity 

Measurement of Horizontal-Axis Clothes Washers 

Outer tub 

L_ Top-Loading __I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49213 

and use the average value for each variable 

in the final calculations in section 4 of this 

appendix. 

3.2.4 Manufacturer default settings. For 

clothes washers with electronic control 

systems, use the manufacturer default 

settings for any cycle selections, except for 

(1) the temperature selection, (2) the wash 

water fill levels, or (3) network settings. If the 

clothes washer has network capabilities, the 

network settings must be disabled throughout 

testing if such settings can be disabled by the 

end-user and the product’s user manual 

provides instructions on how to do so. For 

all other cycle selections, the manufacturer 

default settings must be used for wash 

conditions such as agitation/tumble 

operation, soil level, spin speed, wash times, 

rinse times, optional rinse settings, water 

heating time for water heating clothes 

washers, and all other wash parameters or 

optional features applicable to that wash 

cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature or 

setting (other than wash/rinse temperature, 

water fill level selection, or network settings 

on clothes washers with network 

capabilities) that is activated by default on 

the wash cycle under test must be included 

for testing unless the manufacturer 

instructions recommend not selecting this 

option, or recommend selecting a different 

option, for washing normally soiled cotton 

clothing. For clothes washers with control 

panels containing mechanical switches or 

dials, any optional settings, except for the 

temperature selection or the wash water fill 

levels, must be in the position recommended 

by the manufacturer for washing normally 

soiled cotton clothing. If the manufacturer 

instructions do not recommend a particular 

switch or dial position to be used for washing 

normally soiled cotton clothing, the setting 

switch or dial must remain in its as-shipped 

position. 

3.2.5 For each wash cycle tested, include 

the entire active washing mode and exclude 

any delay start or cycle finished modes. 

3.2.6 Anomalous Test Cycles. If during a 

wash cycle the clothes washer: a) signals to 

the user by means of a visual or audio alert 

that an out-of-balance condition has been 

detected; or b) terminates prematurely and 

thus does not include the agitation/tumble 

operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and 

rinse times applicable to the wash cycle 

under test, discard the test data and repeat 

the wash cycle. Document in the test report 

the rejection of data from any wash cycle 

during testing and the reason for the 

rejection. 

3.3 Test cycles for automatic clothes 

washers. Perform testing on each wash/rinse 

temperature selection available in the energy 

test cycle was defined in section 2.12.1 of 

this appendix. Test each load size as defined 

in section 2.8 of this appendix with its 

associated water fill level defined in section 

3.2.3 of this appendix. For each test cycle, 

measure and record the bone-dry weight of 

the test load before the start of the cycle. 

Place the test load in the clothes washer and 

initiate the cycle under test. Measure the 

values for hot water consumption, cold water 

consumption, electrical energy consumption, 

and cycle time for the complete cycle. Record 

the weight of the test load immediately after 

completion of the cycle. Table 3.3 of this 

appendix provides the symbol definitions for 

each measured value. 

TABLE 3.3—SYMBOL DEFINITIONS OF MEASURED VALUES FOR AUTOMATIC CLOTHES WASHER TEST CYCLES

Wash/rinse 

temperature 

selection 

Load size Bone-dry 

weight Hot water Cold water Electrical energy Cycle time 

Cycle 

complete 

weight 

Extra-hot/cold ............. Large .............. WIxL ............... HxL ................. CxL ................. ExL ................. TxL ................. WCxL

Small .............. WIxS ............... HxS ................. CxS ................. ExS ................. TxS ................. WCxS

Hot/Cold ..................... Large .............. WIhL ............... HhL ................ ChL ................ EhL ................. ThL ................. WChL

Small .............. WIhS ............... HhS ................. ChS ................. EhS ................. ThS ................. WChS

Warm/Cold * ................ Large .............. WIwL .............. HwL ................ CwL ................ EwL ................ TwL ................ WCwL

Small .............. WIwS .............. HwS ................ CwS ................ EwS ................ TwS ................ WCwS

Warm/Warm * ............. Large .............. WIwwL ........... HwwL ............. CwwL ............. EwwL ............. TwwL .............. WCwwL

Small .............. WIwwS ............ HwwS ............. CwwS ............. EwwS .............. TwwS .............. WCwwS

Cold/Cold ................... Large .............. WIcL ............... HcL ................. CcL ................. EcL ................. TcL ................. WCcL

Small .............. WIcS ............... HcS ................. CcS ................. EcS ................. TcS ................. WCcS

* If two cycles are tested to represent the Warm/Cold selection or the Warm/Warm selection, calculate the average of the two tested cycles and 

use that value for all further calculations. 

3.4 Test cycles for semi-automatic clothes 

washers. 

3.4.1 Test Measurements. Perform testing 

on each wash/rinse temperature selection 

available in the energy test cycle as defined 

in section 2.12.2 of this appendix. Test each 

load size as defined in section 2.8 of this 

appendix with the associated water fill level 

defined in section 3.2.3 of this appendix. For 

each test cycle, measure and record the bonedry weight of the test load before the start of 

the cycle. Place the test load in the clothes 

washer and initiate the cycle under test. 

Measure the values for cold water 

consumption, electrical energy consumption, 

and cycle time for the complete cycle. Record 

the weight of the test load immediately after 

completion of the cycle. Table 3.4.1 of this 

appendix provides symbol definitions for 

each measured value for the Cold 

temperature selection. 

TABLE 3.4.1—SYMBOL DEFINITIONS OF MEASURED VALUES FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC CLOTHES WASHER TEST CYCLES

Temperature 

selection Load size Bone-dry weight Hot water Cold water Electrical energy Cycle time 

Cycle 

complete 

weight 

Cold ............................ Large .............. WIcL ............... not measured CcL ................. EcL ................. TcL ................. WCcL

Small .............. WIcS ............... not measured CcS ................. EcS ................. TcS ................. WCcS

3.4.2 Calculation of Hot and Warm 

measured values. In lieu of testing, the 

measured values for the Hot and Warm 

cycles are calculated based on the measured 

values for the Cold cycle, as defined in 

section 3.4.1 of this appendix. Table 3.4.2 of 

this appendix provides the symbol 

definitions and calculations for each value 

for the Hot and Warm temperature selections. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49214 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3.4.2—SYMBOL DEFINITIONS AND CALCULATION OF MEASURED VALUES FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC CLOTHES WASHER

TEST CYCLES

Temperature 

selection Load size Bone-dry weight Hot water Cold water Electrical energy Cycle time 

Cycle 

complete 

weight 

Hot ............................. Large .............. WIhL = WIcL ... HhL = CcL ...... ........................ EhL = EcL ....... ThL = TcL ....... WChL = WCcL

Small .............. WIhS = WIcS .. HhS = CcS ...... ........................ EhS = EcS ...... ThS = TcS ...... WChS = WCcS

Warm ......................... Large .............. WIwL = WIcL .. HwL = CcL ÷ 2 CwL = CcL ÷ 2 EwL = EcL ...... TwL = TcL ...... WCwL = WCcL

Small .............. WIwS = WIcS HwS = CcS ÷ 2 CwS = CcS ÷ 2 EwS = EcS ..... TwS = TcS ...... WCwS = WCcS

3.5 Combined low-power mode power. 

Connect the clothes washer to a watt meter 

as specified in section 2.5.3 of this appendix. 

Establish the testing conditions set forth in 

sections 2.1, 2.4, and 2.10.2 of this appendix. 

3.5.1 Perform combined low-power mode 

testing after completion of an active mode 

wash cycle included as part of the energy test 

cycle; after removing the test load; without 

changing the control panel settings used for 

the active mode wash cycle; with the door 

closed; and without disconnecting the 

electrical energy supply to the clothes washer 

between completion of the active mode wash 

cycle and the start of combined low-power 

mode testing. 

3.5.2 For a clothes washer that takes some 

time to automatically enter a stable inactive 

mode or off mode state from a higher power 

state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, 

note 1 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3), allow sufficient time 

for the clothes washer to automatically reach 

the default inactive/off mode state before 

proceeding with the test measurement. 

3.5.3 Once the stable inactive/off mode 

state has been reached, measure and record 

the default inactive/off mode power, Pdefault, 

in watts, following the test procedure for the 

sampling method specified in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301. 

3.5.4 For a clothes washer with a switch, 

dial, or button that can be optionally selected 

by the end user to achieve a lower-power 

inactive/off mode state than the default 

inactive/off mode state measured in section 

3.5.3 of this appendix, after performing the 

measurement in section 3.5.3 of this 

appendix, activate the switch, dial, or button 

to the position resulting in the lowest power 

consumption and repeat the measurement 

procedure described in section 3.5.3 of this 

appendix. Measure and record the lowestpower inactive/off mode power, Plowest, in 

Watts. 

3.6 Energy consumption for the purpose 

of determining the cycle selection(s) to be 

included in the energy test cycle. This section 

is implemented only in cases where the 

energy test cycle flowcharts in section 2.12.1 

of this appendix require the determination of 

the wash/rinse temperature selection with 

the highest energy consumption. 

3.6.1 For the wash/rinse temperature 

selection being considered under this 

section, establish the testing conditions set 

forth in section 2 of this appendix. Select the 

applicable cycle selection and wash/rinse 

temperature selection. For all wash/rinse 

temperature selections, select the cycle 

settings as described in section 3.2 of this 

appendix. 

3.6.2 Measure each wash cycle’s 

electrical energy consumption (EL) and hot 

water consumption (HL). Calculate the total 

energy consumption for each cycle selection 

(ETL), as follows: 

ETL = EL + (HL × T × K) 

Where: 

EL is the electrical energy consumption, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle. 

HL is the hot water consumption, expressed 

in gallons per cycle. 

T = nominal temperature rise = 65 °F (36.1 

°C). 

K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per 

gallon per degree F = 0.00240 kWh/gal- 

°F (0.00114 kWh/L-°C). 

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

4.1 Hot water and machine electrical 

energy consumption of clothes washers. 

4.1.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted hot 

water consumption for all load sizes tested. 

Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted 

hot water consumption for the large test load 

size, VhL, and the small test load size, VhS, 

expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per 

cycle) and defined as: 

(a) VhL = [HxL × TUFx] + [HhL × TUFh] + 

[HwL × TUFw] + [HwwL × TUFww] + [HcL

× TUFc] 

(b) VhS = [HxS × TUFx] + [HhS × TUFh] + 

[HwS × TUFw] + [HwwS × TUFww] + [HcS

× TUFc] 

Where: 

HxL, HhL, HwL, HwwL, HcL, HxS, HhS, HwS, 

HwwS, and HcS are the hot water 

consumption values, in gallons per-cycle 

(or liters per cycle) as measured in 

section 3.3 of this appendix for 

automatic clothes washers or section 3.4 

of this appendix for semi-automatic 

clothes washers. 

TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, and TUFc are 

temperature use factors for Extra-Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse, Warm Wash/ 

Warm Rinse, and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

temperature selections, respectively, as 

defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix. 

TABLE 4.1.1—TEMPERATURE USE FACTORS

Wash/rinse temperature selections available in 

the energy test cycle 

Clothes washers with cold rinse only Clothes washers with both cold and 

warm rinse 

C/C H/C 

C/C 

H/C 

W/C 

C/C * 

XH/C 

H/C 

C/C 

XH/C 

H/C 

W/C 

C/C 

HC/C 

W/C 

W/W 

C/C 

XH/C 

H/C 

W/W 

C/C 

XH/C 

H/C 

W/C 

W/W 

C/C 

TUFx (Extra-Hot/Cold) ...................................... .................... .................... .................... 0.14 0.05 .................... 0.14 0.05 

TUFh (Hot/Cold) ................................................ .................... 0.63 0.14 ** 0.49 0.09 0.14 ** 0.22 0.09 

TUFw (Warm/Cold) ........................................... .................... .................... 0.49 .................... 0.49 0.22 .................... 0.22 

TUFww (Warm/Warm) ...................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 0.27 0.27 0.27 

TUFc (Cold/Cold) .............................................. 1.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 

* This column applies to all semi-automatic clothes washers. 

** On clothes washers with only two wash temperature selections <140 °F, the higher of the two wash temperatures is classified as a Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, in accordance with the wash/rinse temperature definitions within the energy test cycle. 

4.1.2 Total per-cycle hot water energy 

consumption for all load sizes tested. 

Calculate the total per-cycle hot water energy 

consumption for the large test load size, HEL, 

and the small test load size, HES, expressed 

in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as: 

(a) HEL = [VhL × T × K] = Total energy when 

the large test load is tested. 

(b) HES = [VhS × T × K] = Total energy when 

the small test load is tested. 

Where: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49215 

VhL and VhS are defined in section 4.1.1 of 

this appendix. 

T = Temperature rise = 65 °F (36.1 °C). 

K = Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours per 

gallon per degree F = 0.00240 kWh/gal- 

°F (0.00114 kWh/L-°C). 

4.1.3 Total weighted per-cycle hot water 

energy consumption. Calculate the total 

weighted per-cycle hot water energy 

consumption, HET, expressed in kilowatthours per cycle and defined as: 

HET = [HEL × LUFL] + [HES × LUFS] 

Where: 

HEL and HES are defined in section 4.1.2 of 

this appendix. 

LUFL = Load usage factor for the large test 

load = 0.5. 

LUFS = Load usage factor for the small test 

load = 0.5. 

4.1.4 Total per-cycle hot water energy 

consumption using gas-heated or oil-heated 

water, for product labeling requirements. 

Calculate for the energy test cycle the percycle hot water consumption, HETG, using 

gas-heated or oil-heated water, expressed in 

Btu per cycle (or megajoules per cycle) and 

defined as: 

HETG = HET × 1/e × 3412 Btu/kWh or HETG

= HET × 1/e × 3.6 MJ/kWh. 

Where: 

e = Nominal gas or oil water heater efficiency 

= 0.75. 

HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this 

appendix. 

4.1.5 Per-cycle machine electrical energy 

consumption for all load sizes tested. 

Calculate the total per-cycle machine 

electrical energy consumption for the large 

test load size, MEL, and the small test load 

size, MES, expressed in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle and defined as: 

(a) MEL = [ExL × TUFx] + [EhL × TUFh] + [EwL

× TUFw] + [EwwL × TUFww] + [EcL × 

TUFc] 

(b) MES = [ExS × TUFx] + [EhS × TUFh] + [EwS

× TUFw] + [EwwS × TUFww] + [EcS × 

TUFc] 

Where: 

ExL, EhL, EwL, EwwL, EcL, ExS, EhS, EwS, 

EwwS, and EcS are the electrical energy 

consumption values, in kilowatt-hours 

per cycle as measured in section 3.3 of 

this appendix for automatic clothes 

washers or section 3.4 of this appendix 

for semi-automatic clothes washers. 

TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, and TUFc are 

defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix. 

4.1.6 Total weighted per-cycle machine 

electrical energy consumption. Calculate the 

total weighted per-cycle machine electrical 

energy consumption, MET, expressed in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as: 

MET = [MEL × LUFL] + [MES × LUFS] 

Where: 

MEL and MES are defined in section 4.1.5 of 

this appendix. 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

4.2 Water consumption of clothes 

washers. 

4.2.1 Per cycle total water consumption 

for each large load size tested. Calculate the 

per-cycle total water consumption of the 

large test load for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse cycle, QxL, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, 

QhL, Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QwL, 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle, QwwL, and 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QcL, defined as: 

(a) QxL = HxL + CxL

(b) QhL = HhL + ChL

(c) QwL = HwL + CwL

(d) QwwL = HwwL + CwwL

(e) QcL = HcL + CcL

Where: 

HxL, HhL, HwL, HwwL, HcL, CxL, ChL, CwL, 

CwwL, and CcL are defined in section 3.3 

of this appendix for automatic clothes 

washers or section 3.4 of this appendix 

for semi-automatic clothes washers. 

4.2.2 Per cycle total water consumption 

for each small load size tested. Calculate the 

per-cycle total water consumption of the 

small test load for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse cycle, QxS, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, 

QhS, Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QwS, 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle, QwwS, and 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, QcS, defined as: 

(a) QxS = HxS + CxS

(b) QhS = HhS + ChS

(c) QwS = HwS + CwS

(d) QwwS = HwwS + CwwS

(e) QcS = HcS + CcS

Where: 

HxS, HhS, HwS, HwwS, HcS, CxS, ChS, CwS, 

CwwS, and CcS are defined in section 3.3 

of this appendix for automatic clothes 

washers or section 3.4 of this appendix 

for semi-automatic clothes washers. 

4.2.3 Per-cycle total water consumption 

for all load sizes tested. Calculate the total 

per-cycle water consumption for the large 

test load size, QL, and the small test load size, 

QS, expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters 

per cycle) and defined as: 

(a) QL = [QxL × TUFx] + [QhL × TUFh] + 

[QwL × TUFw] + [QwwL × TUFww] + 

[QcL × TUFc] 

(b) QS = [QxS × TUFx] + [QhS × TUFh] + [QwS

× TUFw] + [QwwS × TUFww] + [QcS × 

TUFc] 

Where: 

QxL, QhL, QwL, QwwL, and QcL are defined 

in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

QxS, QhS, QwS, QwwS, and QcS are defined 

in section 4.2.2 of this appendix. 

TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, and TUFc are 

defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix. 

4.2.4 Total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption. Calculate the total per-cycle 

water consumption, QT, expressed in gallons 

per cycle (or liters per cycle) and defined as: 

QT = [QL × LUFL] + [QS × LUFS] 

Where: 

QL and QS are defined in section 4.2.3 of this 

appendix. 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

4.3 Remaining moisture content (RMC). 

4.3.1 Per cycle remaining moisture 

content for each large load size tested. 

Calculate the per-cycle remaining moisture 

content of the large test load for the ExtraHot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCxL, Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMChL, Warm 

Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCwL, Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse cycle, RMCwwL, and Cold 

Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCcL, defined as: 

(a) RMCxL = (WCxL¥WIxL)/WIxL

(b) RMChL = (WChL¥WIhL)/WIhL

(c) RMCwL = (WCwL¥WIwL)/WIwL

(d) RMCwwL = (WCwwL¥WIwwL)/WIwwL

(e) RMCcL = (WCcL¥WIcL)/WIcL

Where: 

WCxL, WChL, WCwL, WCwwL, WCcL, WIxL, 

WIhL, WIwL, WIwwL, and WIcL are the 

bone-dry weights and cycle completion 

weights as measured in section 3.3 of 

this appendix for automatic clothes 

washers or section 3.4 of this appendix 

for semi-automatic clothes washers. 

4.3.2 Per cycle remaining moisture 

content for each small load size tested. 

Calculate the per-cycle remaining moisture 

content of the small test load for the ExtraHot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCxS, Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMChS, Warm 

Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCwS, Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse cycle, RMCwwS, and Cold 

Wash/Cold Rinse cycle, RMCcS, defined as: 

(a) RMCxS = (WCxS¥WIxS)/WIxS

(b) RMChS = (WChS¥WIhS)/WIhS

(c) RMCwS = (WCwS¥WIwS)/WIwS

(d) RMCwwS = (WCwwS¥WIwwS)/WIwwS

(e) RMCcS = (WCcS¥WIcS)/WIcS

Where: 

WCxS, WChS, WCwS, WCwwS, WCcS, WIxS, 

WIhS, WIwS, WIwwS, and WIcS are the 

bone-dry weights and cycle completion 

weights as measured in section 3.3 of 

this appendix for automatic clothes 

washers or section 3.4 of this appendix 

for semi-automatic clothes washers. 

4.3.3 Per-cycle remaining moisture 

content for all load sizes tested. Calculate the 

per-cycle temperature-weighted remaining 

moisture content for the large test load size, 

RMCL, and the small test load size, RMCS, 

defined as: 

(a) RMCL = [RMCxL × TUFx] + [RMChL × 

TUFh] + [RMCwL × TUFw] + [RMCwwL

× TUFww] + [RMCcL × TUFc] 

(b) RMCS = [RMCxS × TUFx] + [RMChS × 

TUFh] + [RMCwS × TUFw] + [RMCwwS

× TUFww] + [RMCcS × TUFc] 

Where: 

RMCxL, RMChL, RMCwL, RMCwwL, and 

RMCcL are defined in section 4.3.1 of 

this appendix. 

RMCxS, RMChS, RMCwS, RMCwwS, and 

RMCcS are defined in section 4.3.2 of 

this appendix. 

TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, and TUFc are 

defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix. 

4.3.4 Weighted per-cycle remaining 

moisture content. Calculate the weighted percycle remaining moisture content, RMCT, 

defined as: 

RMCT = [RMCL × LUFL] + [RMCS × LUFS] 

Where: 

RMCL and RMCS are defined in section 4.3.3 

of this appendix. 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

4.3.5 Apply the RMC correction curve as 

described in section 9 of appendix J3 to this 

subpart to calculate the corrected remaining 

moisture content, RMCcorr, expressed as a 

percentage as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49216 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

RMCcorr = (A × RMCT + B) × 100% 

Where: 

A and B are the coefficients of the RMC 

correction curve as defined in section 8.7 

of appendix J3 to this subpart. 

RMCT = As defined in section 4.3.4 of this 

appendix. 

4.4 Per-cycle energy consumption for 

removal of moisture from test load. Calculate 

the per-cycle energy required to remove the 

remaining moisture of the test load, DET,

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and 

defined as: 

DET = [(LUFL × Large test load weight) + 

(LUFS × Small test load weight)] × 

(RMCcorr¥4%) × (DEF) × (DUF) 

Where: 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

Large and small test load weights are defined 

in Table 5.1 of this appendix. 

RMCcorr = As defined in section 4.3.5 of this 

appendix. 

DEF = Nominal energy required for a clothes 

dryer to remove moisture from clothes = 

0.5 kWh/lb (1.1 kWh/kg). 

DUF = Dryer usage factor, percentage of 

washer loads dried in a clothes dryer = 

0.91. 

4.5 Cycle time. 

4.5.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted 

cycle time for all load sizes tested. Calculate 

the per-cycle temperature-weighted cycle 

time for the large test load size, TL, and the 

small test load size, TS, expressed in minutes, 

and defined as: 

(a) TL = [TxL × TUFx] + [ThL × TUFh] + [TwL

× TUFw] + [TwwL × TUFww] + [TcL × 

TUFc] 

(b) TS = [TxS × TUFx] + [ThS × TUFh] + [TwS

× TUFw] + [TwwS × TUFww] + [TcS × 

TUFc] 

Where: 

TxL, ThL, TwL, TwwL, TcL, TxS, ThS, TwS, 

TwwS, and TcS are the cycle time values, 

in minutes as measured in section 3.3 of 

this appendix for automatic clothes 

washers or section 3.4 of this appendix 

for semi-automatic clothes washers. 

TUFx, TUFh, TUFw, TUFww, and TUFc are 

temperature use factors for Extra-Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse, Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, 

Warm Wash/Cold Rinse, Warm Wash/ 

Warm Rinse, and Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

temperature selections, respectively, as 

defined in Table 4.1.1 of this appendix. 

4.5.2 Total weighted per-cycle cycle time. 

Calculate the total weighted per-cycle cycle 

time, TT, expressed in minutes, rounded to 

the nearest minute, and defined as: 

TT = [TL × LUFL] + [TS × LUFS] 

Where: 

TL and TS are defined in section 4.5.1 of this 

appendix. 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

4.6 Combined low-power mode energy 

consumption. 

4.6.1 Annual hours in default inactive/off 

mode. Calculate the annual hours spent in 

default inactive/off mode, Sdefault, expressed 

in hours and defined as: 

Sdefault = [8,760¥(234 × TT/60)]/N 

Where: 

TT = As defined in section 4.5.2 of this 

appendix, in minutes. 

N = Number of inactive/off modes, defined 

as 1 if no optional lowest-power 

inactive/off mode is available; otherwise 

2. 

8,760 = Total number of hours in a year. 

234 = Representative average number of 

clothes washer cycles in a year. 

60 = Conversion from minutes to hours. 

4.6.2 Per-cycle combined low-power 

mode energy consumption. Calculate the percycle combined low-power mode energy 

consumption, ETLP, expressed in kilowatthours per cycle and defined as: 

ETLP = [(Pdefault × Sdefault) + (Plowest × Slowest)] 

× Kp/234 

Where: 

Pdefault = Default inactive/off mode power, in 

watts, as measured in section 3.5.3 of 

this appendix. 

Plowest = Lowest-power inactive/off mode 

power, in watts, as measured in section 

3.5.4 of this appendix for clothes 

washers with a switch, dial, or button 

that can be optionally selected by the 

end user to achieve a lower-power 

inactive/off mode than the default 

inactive/off mode; otherwise, Plowest = 0. 

Sdefault = Annual hours in default inactive/off 

mode, as calculated in section 4.6.1 of 

this appendix. 

Slowest = Annual hours in lowest-power 

inactive/off mode, defined as 0 if no 

optional lowest-power inactive/off mode 

is available; otherwise equal to Sdefault, as 

calculated in section 4.6.1 of this 

appendix. 

Kp = Conversion factor of watt-hours to 

kilowatt-hours = 0.001. 

234 = Representative average number of 

clothes washer cycles in a year. 

4.7 Water efficiency ratio. Calculate the 

water efficiency ratio, WER, expressed in 

pounds per gallon per cycle (or kilograms per 

liter per cycle), as: 

WER = [(LUFL × Large test load weight) + 

(LUFS × Small test load weight)]/QT

Where: 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

Large and small test load weights are defined 

in Table 5.1 of this appendix. 

QT = As defined in section 4.2.4 of this 

appendix. 

4.8 Active-mode energy efficiency ratio. 

Calculate the active-mode energy efficiency 

ratio, AEER, expressed in pounds per 

kilowatt-hour per cycle (or kilograms per 

kilowatt-hour per cycle) and defined as: 

AEER = [(LUFL × Large test load weight) + 

(LUFS × Small test load weight)]/(MET + 

HET + DET) 

Where: 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

Large and small test load weights are defined 

in Table 5.1 of this appendix. 

MET = As defined in section 4.1.6 of this 

appendix. 

HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this 

appendix. 

DET = As defined in section 4.4 of this 

appendix. 

4.9 Energy efficiency ratio. Calculate the 

energy efficiency ratio, EER, expressed in 

pounds per kilowatt-hour per cycle (or 

kilograms per kilowatt-hour per cycle) and 

defined as: 

EER = [(LUFL × Large test load weight) + 

(LUFS × Small test load weight)]/(MET + 

HET + DET + ETLP) 

Where: 

LUFL and LUFS are defined in section 4.1.3 

of this appendix. 

Large and small test load weights are defined 

in Table 5.1 of this appendix. 

MET = As defined in section 4.1.6 of this 

appendix. 

HET = As defined in section 4.1.3 of this 

appendix. 

DET = As defined in section 4.4 of this 

appendix. 

ETLP = As defined in section 4.6.2 of this 

appendix. 

5. Test Loads 

TABLE 5.1—TEST LOAD SIZES

Container volume Small load Large load 

cu. ft. liter 

lb kg lb kg 

≥< ≥< 

0.00–0.80 ........... 0.00–22.7 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 

0.80–0.90 ........... 22.7–25.5 3.10 1.41 3.35 1.52 

0.90–1.00 ........... 25.5–28.3 3.20 1.45 3.70 1.68 

1.00–1.10 ........... 28.3–31.1 3.30 1.50 4.00 1.81 

1.10–1.20 ........... 31.1–34.0 3.40 1.54 4.30 1.95 

1.20–1.30 ........... 34.0–36.8 3.45 1.56 4.60 2.09 

1.30–1.40 ........... 36.8–39.6 3.55 1.61 4.95 2.25 

1.40–1.50 ........... 39.6–42.5 3.65 1.66 5.25 2.38 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49217 

TABLE 5.1—TEST LOAD SIZES—Continued 

Container volume Small load Large load 

cu. ft. liter 

lb kg lb kg 

≥< ≥< 

1.50–1.60 ........... 42.5–45.3 3.75 1.70 5.55 2.52 

1.60–1.70 ........... 45.3–48.1 3.80 1.72 5.85 2.65 

1.70–1.80 ........... 48.1–51.0 3.90 1.77 6.20 2.81 

1.80–1.90 ........... 51.0–53.8 4.00 1.81 6.50 2.95 

1.90–2.00 ........... 53.8–56.6 4.10 1.86 6.80 3.08 

2.00–2.10 ........... 56.6–59.5 4.20 1.91 7.10 3.22 

2.10–2.20 ........... 59.5–62.3 4.30 1.95 7.45 3.38 

2.20–2.30 ........... 62.3–65.1 4.35 1.97 7.75 3.52 

2.30–2.40 ........... 65.1–68.0 4.45 2.02 8.05 3.65 

2.40–2.50 ........... 68.0–70.8 4.55 2.06 8.35 3.79 

2.50–2.60 ........... 70.8–73.6 4.65 2.11 8.70 3.95 

2.60–2.70 ........... 73.6–76.5 4.70 2.13 9.00 4.08 

2.70–2.80 ........... 76.5–79.3 4.80 2.18 9.30 4.22 

2.80–2.90 ........... 79.3–82.1 4.90 2.22 9.60 4.35 

2.90–3.00 ........... 82.1–85.0 5.00 2.27 9.90 4.49 

3.00–3.10 ........... 85.0–87.8 5.10 2.31 10.25 4.65 

3.10–3.20 ........... 87.8–90.6 5.20 2.36 10.55 4.79 

3.20–3.30 ........... 90.6–93.4 5.25 2.38 10.85 4.92 

3.30–3.40 ........... 93.4–96.3 5.35 2.43 11.15 5.06 

3.40–3.50 ........... 96.3–99.1 5.45 2.47 11.50 5.22 

3.50–3.60 ........... 99.1–101.9 5.55 2.52 11.80 5.35 

3.60–3.70 ........... 101.9–104.8 5.65 2.56 12.10 5.49 

3.70–3.80 ........... 104.8–107.6 5.70 2.59 12.40 5.62 

3.80–3.90 ........... 107.6–110.4 5.80 2.63 12.75 5.78 

3.90–4.00 ........... 110.4–113.3 5.90 2.68 13.05 5.92 

4.00–4.10 ........... 113.3–116.1 6.00 2.72 13.35 6.06 

4.10–4.20 ........... 116.1–118.9 6.10 2.77 13.65 6.19 

4.20–4.30 ........... 118.9–121.8 6.15 2.79 14.00 6.35 

4.30–4.40 ........... 121.8–124.6 6.25 2.83 14.30 6.49 

4.40–4.50 ........... 124.6–127.4 6.35 2.88 14.60 6.62 

4.50–4.60 ........... 127.4–130.3 6.45 2.93 14.90 6.76 

4.60–4.70 ........... 130.3–133.1 6.55 2.97 15.25 6.92 

4.70–4.80 ........... 133.1–135.9 6.60 2.99 15.55 7.05 

4.80–4.90 ........... 135.9–138.8 6.70 3.04 15.85 7.19 

4.90–5.00 ........... 138.8–141.6 6.80 3.08 16.15 7.33 

5.00–5.10 ........... 141.6–144.4 6.90 3.13 16.50 7.48 

5.10–5.20 ........... 144.4–147.2 7.00 3.18 16.80 7.62 

5.20–5.30 ........... 147.2–150.1 7.05 3.20 17.10 7.76 

5.30–5.40 ........... 150.1–152.9 7.15 3.24 17.40 7.89 

5.40–5.50 ........... 152.9–155.7 7.25 3.29 17.70 8.03 

5.50–5.60 ........... 155.7–158.6 7.35 3.33 18.05 8.19 

5.60–5.70 ........... 158.6–161.4 7.45 3.38 18.35 8.32 

5.70–5.80 ........... 161.4–164.2 7.50 3.40 18.65 8.46 

5.80–5.90 ........... 164.2–167.1 7.60 3.45 18.95 8.60 

5.90–6.00 ........... 167.1–169.9 7.70 3.49 19.30 8.75 

6.00–6.10 ........... 169.9–172.7 7.80 3.54 19.60 8.89 

6.10–6.20 ........... 172.7–175.6 7.90 3.58 19.90 9.03 

6.20–6.30 ........... 175.6–178.4 7.95 3.61 20.20 9.16 

6.30–6.40 ........... 178.4–181.2 8.05 3.65 20.55 9.32 

6.40–6.50 ........... 181.2–184.1 8.15 3.70 20.85 9.46 

6.50–6.60 ........... 184.1–186.9 8.25 3.74 21.15 9.59 

6.60–6.70 ........... 186.9–189.7 8.30 3.76 21.45 9.73 

6.70–6.80 ........... 189.7–192.6 8.40 3.81 21.80 9.89 

6.80–6.90 ........... 192.6–195.4 8.50 3.86 22.10 10.02 

6.90–7.00 ........... 195.4–198.2 8.60 3.90 22.40 10.16 

7.00–7.10 ........... 198.2–201.0 8.70 3.95 22.70 10.30 

7.10–7.20 ........... 201.0–203.9 8.80 3.99 23.05 10.46 

7.20–7.30 ........... 203.9–206.7 8.85 4.01 23.35 10.59 

7.30–7.40 ........... 206.7–209.5 8.95 4.06 23.65 10.73 

7.40–7.50 ........... 209.5–212.4 9.05 4.11 23.95 10.86 

7.50–7.60 ........... 212.4–215.2 9.15 4.15 24.30 11.02 

7.60–7.70 ........... 215.2–218.0 9.25 4.20 24.60 11.16 

7.70–7.80 ........... 218.0–220.9 9.30 4.22 24.90 11.29 

7.80–7.90 ........... 220.9–223.7 9.40 4.26 25.20 11.43 

7.90–8.00 ........... 223.7–226.5 9.50 4.31 25.50 11.57 

Notes: 

(1) All test load weights are bone-dry weights. 

(2) Allowable tolerance on the test load weights is ±0.10 lbs (0.05 kg). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49218 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Appendix J1 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 9. Remove and reserved Appendix J1 

to subpart B of part 430. 

■ 10. Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory note and 

section 1; 

■ b. Revising the heading for section 2; 

■ c. Revising section 2.2; 

■ d. Adding section 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2; 

■ e. Revising sections 2.5.5, 2.7 and 

2.12; 

■ f. Removing sections 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 

2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.7.4.1, 2.7.4.2, 2.7.4.3, 

2.7.4.4, 2.7.4.5, 2.7.4.6, 2.7.4.6.1, 

2.7.4.6.2, 2.7.4.7, and 2.7.5; 

■ g. Removing ‘‘energy stuffer clothes’’ 

and adding in its place, ‘‘energy stuffer 

cloths’’ in section 2.8; 

■ h. Removing ‘‘Siszes’’ and adding in 

its place, ‘‘Sizes’’ in the title of Table 

2.8; 

■ i. Revising section 3.2.5; 

■ j. Adding sections 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2; 

■ k. Revising sections 3.2.6.2.2, 3.2.7 

and 3.2.9; 

■ l. Revising sections 3.3 and 3.6; 

■ m. Removing ‘‘section 7 of appendix 

J3’’ and adding in its place, ‘‘section 9 

of appendix J3’’, and removing ‘‘section 

6.1 of appendix J3’’ and adding in its 

place, ‘‘section 8.7 of appendix J3’’ in 

sections 3.8.2.6, 3.8.3.2, and 3.8.3.4; 

■ n. Removing section 4.2.12; 

■ o. Redesignating section 4.2.13 as 

4.2.12; 

■ p. Revising Table 5.1; and 

■ q. Removing section 6. 

The additions and revisions 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 

Note: Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under Appendix J2 to determine 

compliance with the relevant standards for 

clothes washers from § 430.32(g)(4) and from 

§ 431.156(b) as they appeared in January 1, 

2021 edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. 

Specifically, before [Date 180 days following 

publication of the final rule] representations 

must be based upon results generated either 

under Appendix J2 as codified on [Date 30 

days following publication of the final rule] 

or under Appendix J2 as it appeared in the 

10 CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of 

January 1, 2021. Any representations made 

on or after [Date 180 days following 

publication of the final rule] but before the 

compliance date of any amended standards 

for clothes washers must be made based 

upon results generated using Appendix J2 as 

codified on [Date 30 days following 

publication of the final rule]. Manufacturers 

must use the results of testing under 

Appendix J to determine compliance with 

any amended standards for clothes washers 

provided in 10 CFR 430.32(g) and in 

§ 431.156 that are published after January 1, 

2021. Any representations related to energy 

or water consumption of residential or 

commercial clothes washers must be made in 

accordance with the appropriate appendix 

that applies (i.e., Appendix J or Appendix J2) 

when determining compliance with the 

relevant standard. Manufacturers may also 

use Appendix J to certify compliance with 

any amended standards prior to the 

applicable compliance date for those 

standards. 

1. Definitions 

Active mode means a mode in which the 

clothes washer is connected to a mains 

power source, has been activated, and is 

performing one or more of the main functions 

of washing, soaking, tumbling, agitating, 

rinsing, and/or removing water from the 

clothing, or is involved in functions 

necessary for these main functions, such as 

admitting water into the washer or pumping 

water out of the washer. Active mode also 

includes delay start and cycle finished 

modes. 

Active washing mode means a mode in 

which the clothes washer is performing any 

of the operations included in a complete 

cycle intended for washing a clothing load, 

including the main functions of washing, 

soaking, tumbling, agitating, rinsing, and/or 

removing water from the clothing. 

Adaptive water fill control system means a 

clothes washer automatic water fill control 

system that is capable of automatically 

adjusting the water fill level based on the size 

or weight of the clothes load placed in the 

clothes container. 

Automatic water fill control system means 

a clothes washer water fill control system 

that does not allow or require the user to 

determine or select the water fill level, and 

includes adaptive water fill control systems 

and fixed water fill control systems. 

Bone-dry means a condition of a load of 

test cloth that has been dried in a dryer at 

maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 

minutes, removed and weighed before cool 

down, and then dried again for 10 minute 

periods until the final weight change of the 

load is 1 percent or less. 

Clothes container means the compartment 

within the clothes washer that holds the 

clothes during the operation of the machine. 

Cold rinse means the coldest rinse 

temperature available on the machine, as 

indicated to the user on the clothes washer 

control panel. 

Combined low-power mode means the 

aggregate of available modes other than 

active washing mode, including inactive 

mode, off mode, delay start mode, and cycle 

finished mode. 

Cycle finished mode means an active mode 

that provides continuous status display, 

intermittent tumbling, or air circulation 

following operation in active washing mode. 

Delay start mode means an active mode in 

which activation of active washing mode is 

facilitated by a timer. 

Energy test cycle means the complete set of 

wash/rinse temperature selections required 

for testing, as determined according to 

section 2.12 of this appendix. 

Fixed water fill control system means a 

clothes washer automatic water fill control 

system that automatically terminates the fill 

when the water reaches a pre-defined level 

that is not based on the size or weight of the 

clothes load placed in the clothes container, 

without allowing or requiring the user to 

determine or select the water fill level. 

IEC 62301 means the test standard 

published by the International 

Electrotechnical Commission, entitled 

‘‘Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power,’’ Publication 

62301, Edition 2.0 2011–01 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

Inactive mode means a standby mode that 

facilitates the activation of active mode by 

remote switch (including remote control), 

internal sensor, or timer, or that provides 

continuous status display. 

Integrated modified energy factor means 

the quotient of the cubic foot (or liter) 

capacity of the clothes container divided by 

the total clothes washer energy consumption 

per cycle, with such energy consumption 

expressed as the sum of: 

(a) The machine electrical energy 

consumption; 

(b) The hot water energy consumption; 

(c) The energy required for removal of the 

remaining moisture in the wash load; and 

(d) The combined low-power mode energy 

consumption. 

Integrated water factor means the quotient 

of the total weighted per-cycle water 

consumption for all wash cycles in gallons 

divided by the cubic foot (or liter) capacity 

of the clothes washer. 

Load usage factor means the percentage of 

the total number of wash loads that a user 

would wash a particular size (weight) load. 

Lot means a quantity of cloth that has been 

manufactured with the same batches of 

cotton and polyester during one continuous 

process. 

Manual water fill control system means a 

clothes washer water fill control system that 

requires the user to determine or select the 

water fill level. 

Modified energy factor means the quotient 

of the cubic foot (or liter) capacity of the 

clothes container divided by the total clothes 

washer energy consumption per cycle, with 

such energy consumption expressed as the 

sum of the machine electrical energy 

consumption, the hot water energy 

consumption, and the energy required for 

removal of the remaining moisture in the 

wash load. 

Non-water-heating clothes washer means a 

clothes washer that does not have an internal 

water heating device to generate hot water. 

Normal cycle means the cycle 

recommended by the manufacturer 

(considering manufacturer instructions, 

control panel labeling, and other markings on 

the clothes washer) for normal, regular, or 

typical use for washing up to a full load of 

normally-soiled cotton clothing. For 

machines where multiple cycle settings are 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

normal, regular, or typical use for washing up 

to a full load of normally-soiled cotton 

clothing, then the Normal cycle is the cycle 

selection that results in the lowest IMEF or 

MEF value. 

Off mode means a mode in which the 

clothes washer is connected to a mains 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49219 

power source and is not providing any active 

or standby mode function, and where the 

mode may persist for an indefinite time. 

Standby mode means any mode in which 

the clothes washer is connected to a mains 

power source and offers one or more of the 

following user oriented or protective 

functions that may persist for an indefinite 

time: 

(a) Facilitating the activation of other 

modes (including activation or deactivation 

of active mode) by remote switch (including 

remote control), internal sensor, or timer; 

(b) Continuous functions, including 

information or status displays (including 

clocks) or sensor-based functions. 

(c) A timer is a continuous clock function 

(which may or may not be associated with a 

display) that provides regular scheduled 

tasks (e.g., switching) and that operates on a 

continuous basis. 

Temperature use factor means, for a 

particular wash/rinse temperature setting, the 

percentage of the total number of wash loads 

that an average user would wash with that 

setting. 

User-adjustable automatic water fill 

control system means an automatic clothes 

washer fill control system that allows the 

user to adjust the amount of water that the 

machine provides, which is based on the size 

or weight of the clothes load placed in the 

clothes container. 

Wash time means the wash portion of the 

cycle, which begins when the cycle is 

initiated and includes the agitation or tumble 

time, which may be periodic or continuous 

during the wash portion of the cycle. 

Water factor means the quotient of the total 

weighted per-cycle water consumption for 

cold wash divided by the cubic foot (or liter) 

capacity of the clothes washer. 

Water-heating clothes washer means a 

clothes washer where some or all of the hot 

water for clothes washing is generated by a 

water heating device internal to the clothes 

washer. 

2. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation 

* * * * * 

2.2 Supply water. Maintain the 

temperature of the hot water supply at the 

water inlets between 130 °F (54.4 °C) and 

135 °F (57.2 °C). Maintain the temperature of 

the cold water supply at the water inlets 

between 55 °F (12.8 °C) and 60 °F (15.6 °C). 

* * * * * 

2.5.4 * * * 

2.5.4.1 Non-reversible temperature 

indicator labels, adhered to the inside of the 

clothes container, may be used to confirm 

that an extra-hot wash temperature greater 

than 135 °F has been achieved during the 

wash cycle, under the following conditions. 

The label must remain waterproof, intact, 

and adhered to the wash drum throughout an 

entire wash cycle; provide consistent 

maximum temperature readings; and provide 

repeatable temperature indications sufficient 

to demonstrate that a wash temperature of 

greater than 135 °F has been achieved. The 

label must have been verified to consistently 

indicate temperature measurements with an 

accuracy of ±1 °F if the label provides a 

temperature indicator at 135 °F. If the label 

does not provide a temperature indicator at 

135 °F, the label must have been verified to 

consistently indicate temperature 

measurements with an accuracy of ±1 °F if 

the next-highest temperature indicator is 

greater than 135 °F and less than 140 °F, or 

±3 °F if the next-highest temperature 

indicator is 140 °F or greater. If the label does 

not provide a temperature indicator at 135 °F, 

failure to activate the next-highest 

temperature indicator does not necessarily 

indicate the lack of an extra-hot wash 

temperature. However, such a result would 

not be conclusive due to the lack of 

verification of the water temperature 

requirement, in which case an alternative 

method must be used to confirm that an 

extra-hot wash temperature greater than 

135 °F has been achieved during the wash 

cycle. If using a temperature indicator label 

to test a front-loading clothes washer, adhere 

the label along the interior surface of the 

clothes container drum, midway between the 

front and the back of the drum, adjacent to 

one of the baffles. If using a temperature 

indicator label to test a top-loading clothes 

washer, adhere the label along the interior 

surface of the clothes container drum, on the 

vertical portion of the sidewall, as close to 

the bottom of the container as possible. 

2.5.4.2 Submersible temperature loggers 

placed inside the wash drum may be used to 

confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature 

greater than 135 °F has been achieved during 

the wash cycle, under the following 

conditions. The submersible temperature 

logger must have a time resolution of at least 

1 data point every 5 seconds and a 

temperature measurement accuracy of ±1 °F. 

Due to the potential for a waterproof capsule 

to provide a thermal insulating effect, failure 

to measure a temperature of 135 °F does not 

necessarily indicate the lack of an extra-hot 

wash temperature. However, such a result 

would not be conclusive due to the lack of 

verification of the water temperature 

requirement, in which case an alternative 

method must be used to confirm that an 

extra-hot wash temperature greater than 

135 °F has been achieved during the wash 

cycle. 

2.5.5 Water meter. A water meter must be 

installed in both the hot and cold water lines 

to measure water flow and/or water 

consumption. The water meters must have a 

resolution no larger than 0.1 gallons (0.4 

liters) and a maximum error no greater than 

2 percent for the water flow rates being 

measured. If the volume of hot water for any 

individual cycle within the energy test cycle 

is less than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot 

water meter must have a resolution no larger 

than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters). 

* * * * * 

2.7 Test cloths. The test cloth material 

and dimensions must conform to the 

specifications in appendix J3 to this subpart. 

The energy test cloth and the energy stuffer 

cloths must be clean and must not be used 

for more than 60 test runs (after 

preconditioning as specified in section 5 of 

appendix J3 to this subpart). All energy test 

cloth must be permanently marked 

identifying the lot number of the material. 

Mixed lots of material must not be used for 

testing a clothes washer. The moisture 

absorption and retention must be evaluated 

for each new lot of test cloth using the 

standard extractor Remaining Moisture 

Content (RMC) procedure specified in 

appendix J3 to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

2.12 Determining the energy test cycle. To 

determine the energy test cycle, evaluate the 

wash/rinse temperature selection flowcharts 

in the order in which they are presented in 

this section. Except for Cold Wash/Cold 

Rinse, use the maximum load size to evaluate 

each flowchart. The determination of the 

energy test cycle must take into consideration 

all cycle settings available to the end user, 

including any cycle selections or cycle 

modifications provided by the manufacturer 

via software or firmware updates to the 

product, for the basic model under test. The 

energy test cycle does not include any cycle 

that is recommended by the manufacturer 

exclusively for cleaning, deodorizing, or 

sanitizing the clothes washer. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49220 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.013</GPH> EP01SE21.014</GPH>

Figure 2.12.1-Determination of Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse ("Cold/Cold") 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse ls the wash temperature selection with the coldest 

wash temperature available in the Normal cycle, paired with· a cold rinse. 

If multiple wasn temperature selections in the Normal cycle do not use or 

internally generate any hot water for any of the water fill levels or test load 

sizes required for testing, Cold Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash temperature 

selection among these with the highest energy consumption (as 

measured according to section 3.10 of this appendix), and the others are 

excluded from testing and from consideration as the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

or Warm Wash/Cold Rinse. 

Figure 2.12.2-Determination of Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

• ••••••••• 

EP01SE21.015</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

......... li!lllilMlllil• 1 iuu111 ,. ·nn»p

',. I ..., Ii I ! '31 I. ~. 

, hf au h J , · h

191 . r1

I a I . . • ?' • .· • i . r I
49222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.016</GPH>

Figure 2.12.4-Determination of Warm Wash/Warm Rinse 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse ("Warm/Warm") 

Does the Normal cycle 

offer any rinse temperature 

selections that add or 

internally generate hot 

water? 

Ill 

Ill 

• No • 

Ill 

Does the clothes washer 

offer any rinse temperature 

selections that add 

or internally generate hot 

water, among all cycle 

selections available on the 

clothes washer? 

No 

II 

II 

Ill 

Ill 

1111 

Ill 

Ill 

Yes 

Yes 

The energy test cycle does not 

include a Warm Wash/Warm Rinse. 

Warm Rinse is the hottest rinse temperature 

selection available in the Normal cycle. 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse includes all wash 

temperature selections in the Normal cycle that 

meet all of the following criteria: 

• Wash temperature less than the wash 

temperature of the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Can be paired with the Warm Rinse 

Warm Rinse is the hottest rinse temperature 

selection available on the clothes washer among all 

cycle selections available on the clothes washer. 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse is the wash temperature 

selection that uses the greatest amount of energy 

(as measured according to section 3.10 of this 

appendix) among all cycle selections available on 

the clothes washer that meet all of the following 

criteria: 

• Wash temperature less than the wash 

temperature of the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Wash temperature greater than the wash 

temperature of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse 

• Can be paired with the Warm Rinse. 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49223 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

3. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

3.2.5 Wash time setting. 

3.2.5.1 If the cycle under test offers a 

range of wash time settings, the wash time 

setting shall be the higher of either the 

minimum or 70 percent of the maximum 

wash time available for the wash cycle under 

test, regardless of the labeling of suggested 

dial locations. If 70 percent of the maximum 

wash time is not available on a dial with a 

discrete number of wash time settings, 

choose the next-highest setting greater than 

70 percent. 

3.2.5.2 If the clothes washer is equipped 

with an electromechanical dial or timer 

controlling wash time that rotates in both 

directions, reset the dial to the minimum 

wash time and then turn it in the direction 

of increasing wash time to reach the 

appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting 

is passed, return the dial to the minimum 

wash time and then turn in the direction of 

increasing wash time until the appropriate 

setting is reached. 

* * * * * 

3.2.6 * * * 

* * * * * 

3.2.6.2.2 User-adjustable. Conduct four 

tests on clothes washers with user-adjustable 

automatic water fill controls. Conduct the 

first test using the maximum test load and 

with the automatic water fill control system 

set in the setting that uses the most water. 

Conduct the second test using the minimum 

test load and with the automatic water fill 

control system set in the setting that uses the 

least water. Conduct the third test using the 

average test load and with the automatic 

water fill control system set in the setting 

that uses the most water. Conduct the fourth 

test using the average test load and with the 

automatic water fill control system set in the 

setting that uses the least water. Average the 

results of the third and fourth tests to obtain 

the energy and water consumption values for 

the average test load size. 

* * * * * 

3.2.7 Manufacturer default settings. For 

clothes washers with electronic control 

systems, use the manufacturer default 

settings for any cycle selections, except for 

(1) the temperature selection, (2) the wash 

water fill levels, (3) if necessary, the spin 

speeds on wash cycles used to determine 

remaining moisture content, or (4) network 

settings. If the clothes washer has network 

capabilities, the network settings must be 

disabled throughout testing if such settings 

can be disabled by the end-user and the 

product’s user manual provides instructions 

on how to do so. For all other cycle 

selections, the manufacturer default settings 

must be used for wash conditions such as 

agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01SE21.017</GPH>

Figure 2.12.5-Determination of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse 

Exira-Hot WashlCold !Rinse ('11Extra-Hot/Cold") 

D~ the dothll, wablr l:lave 

Im lntefnali water hlldtr? 

Ill 

No ill 

ill 

~- Ooll lbl ~ Wl1llffl\lr mferm'I)'' 

Nik'~,~·•*'•·· nltctkms 

~ 

avalll'.llil M N 

dalhn \lllBllher, l:tltll meet at of 

ltll, ~ crttetrla'? 

• WUl'I t11~111 ~,, um 

136"'F 

• Coldne 

ii lntlndtd fo!"'\ll!Bffllrl; ~ 

No ,. 1111 

The IW!e11))! 1le1t eyclie dol1 il'd. lndllde 

1111ft Ef:11:t-Hot Wsah#Cold R/mlll, 
49224 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

speed on wash cycles used to determine 

energy and water consumption, wash times, 

rinse times, optional rinse settings, water 

heating time for water heating clothes 

washers, and all other wash parameters or 

optional features applicable to that wash 

cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature or 

setting (other than wash/rinse temperature, 

water fill level selection, spin speed on wash 

cycles used to determine remaining moisture 

content, or network settings on clothes 

washers with network capabilities) that is 

activated by default on the wash cycle under 

test must be included for testing unless the 

manufacturer instructions recommend not 

selecting this option, or recommend selecting 

a different option, for washing normally 

soiled cotton clothing. For clothes washers 

with control panels containing mechanical 

switches or dials, any optional settings, 

except for (1) the temperature selection, (2) 

the wash water fill levels, or (3) if necessary, 

the spin speeds on wash cycles used to 

determine remaining moisture content, must 

be in the position recommended by the 

manufacturer for washing normally soiled 

cotton clothing. If the manufacturer 

instructions do not recommend a particular 

switch or dial position to be used for washing 

normally soiled cotton clothing, the setting 

switch or dial must remain in its as-shipped 

position. 

* * * * * 

3.2.9 Anomalous Test Cycles. 

If during a wash cycle the clothes washer: 

(a) Signals to the user by means of a visual 

or audio alert that an out-of-balance 

condition has been detected; or (b) terminates 

prematurely and thus does not include the 

agitation/tumble operation, spin speed(s), 

wash times, and rinse times applicable to the 

wash cycle under test, discard the test data 

and repeat the wash cycle. Document in the 

test report the rejection of data from any 

wash cycle during testing and the reason for 

the rejection. 

3.3 Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. Measure 

the water and electrical energy consumption 

for each water fill level and test load size as 

specified in sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.3 of 

this appendix for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse as defined within the energy test cycle. 

* * * * * 

3.6 Warm Wash/Warm Rinse. Measure 

the water and electrical energy consumption 

for each water fill level and/or test load size 

as specified in sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3 of 

this appendix for the applicable Warm Wash/ 

Warm Rinse temperature selection(s), as 

defined within the energy test cycle. For a 

clothes washer with fewer than four discrete 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature 

selections, test all Warm Wash/Warm Rinse 

selections. For a clothes washer that offers 

four or more Warm Wash/Warm Rinse 

selections, test at all discrete selections, or 

test at 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent 

positions of the temperature selection device 

between the hottest hot (≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) 

wash and the coldest cold wash. If a selection 

is not available at the 25, 50 or 75 percent 

position, in place of each such unavailable 

selection use the next warmer setting. For 

each reportable value to be used for the 

Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature 

selection, calculate the average of all Warm 

Wash/Warm Rinse temperature selections 

tested pursuant to this section. 

* * * * * 

5. Test Loads 

TABLE 5.1—TEST LOAD SIZES

Container volume Minimum load Maximum load Average load 

cu. ft. liter 

lb kg lb kg lb kg 

≥< ≥< 

0.00–0.80 ........... 0.00–22.7 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 3.00 1.36 

0.80–0.90 ........... 22.7–25.5 3.00 1.36 3.50 1.59 3.25 1.47 

0.90–1.00 ........... 25.5–28.3 3.00 1.36 3.90 1.77 3.45 1.56 

1.00–1.10 ........... 28.3–31.1 3.00 1.36 4.30 1.95 3.65 1.66 

1.10–1.20 ........... 31.1–34.0 3.00 1.36 4.70 2.13 3.85 1.75 

1.20–1.30 ........... 34.0–36.8 3.00 1.36 5.10 2.31 4.05 1.84 

1.30–1.40 ........... 36.8–39.6 3.00 1.36 5.50 2.49 4.25 1.93 

1.40–1.50 ........... 39.6–42.5 3.00 1.36 5.90 2.68 4.45 2.02 

1.50–1.60 ........... 42.5–45.3 3.00 1.36 6.40 2.90 4.70 2.13 

1.60–1.70 ........... 45.3–48.1 3.00 1.36 6.80 3.08 4.90 2.22 

1.70–1.80 ........... 48.1–51.0 3.00 1.36 7.20 3.27 5.10 2.31 

1.80–1.90 ........... 51.0–53.8 3.00 1.36 7.60 3.45 5.30 2.40 

1.90–2.00 ........... 53.8–56.6 3.00 1.36 8.00 3.63 5.50 2.49 

2.00–2.10 ........... 56.6–59.5 3.00 1.36 8.40 3.81 5.70 2.59 

2.10–2.20 ........... 59.5–62.3 3.00 1.36 8.80 3.99 5.90 2.68 

2.20–2.30 ........... 62.3–65.1 3.00 1.36 9.20 4.17 6.10 2.77 

2.30–2.40 ........... 65.1–68.0 3.00 1.36 9.60 4.35 6.30 2.86 

2.40–2.50 ........... 68.0–70.8 3.00 1.36 10.00 4.54 6.50 2.95 

2.50–2.60 ........... 70.8–73.6 3.00 1.36 10.50 4.76 6.75 3.06 

2.60–2.70 ........... 73.6–76.5 3.00 1.36 10.90 4.94 6.95 3.15 

2.70–2.80 ........... 76.5–79.3 3.00 1.36 11.30 5.13 7.15 3.24 

2.80–2.90 ........... 79.3–82.1 3.00 1.36 11.70 5.31 7.35 3.33 

2.90–3.00 ........... 82.1–85.0 3.00 1.36 12.10 5.49 7.55 3.42 

3.00–3.10 ........... 85.0–87.8 3.00 1.36 12.50 5.67 7.75 3.52 

3.10–3.20 ........... 87.8–90.6 3.00 1.36 12.90 5.85 7.95 3.61 

3.20–3.30 ........... 90.6–93.4 3.00 1.36 13.30 6.03 8.15 3.70 

3.30–3.40 ........... 93.4–96.3 3.00 1.36 13.70 6.21 8.35 3.79 

3.40–3.50 ........... 96.3–99.1 3.00 1.36 14.10 6.40 8.55 3.88 

3.50–3.60 ........... 99.1–101.9 3.00 1.36 14.60 6.62 8.80 3.99 

3.60–3.70 ........... 101.9–104.8 3.00 1.36 15.00 6.80 9.00 4.08 

3.70–3.80 ........... 104.8–107.6 3.00 1.36 15.40 6.99 9.20 4.17 

3.80–3.90 ........... 107.6–110.4 3.00 1.36 15.80 7.16 9.40 4.26 

3.90–4.00 ........... 110.4–113.3 3.00 1.36 16.20 7.34 9.60 4.35 

4.00–4.10 ........... 113.3–116.1 3.00 1.36 16.60 7.53 9.80 4.45 

4.10–4.20 ........... 116.1–118.9 3.00 1.36 17.00 7.72 10.00 4.54 

4.20–4.30 ........... 118.9–121.8 3.00 1.36 17.40 7.90 10.20 4.63 

4.30–4.40 ........... 121.8–124.6 3.00 1.36 17.80 8.09 10.40 4.72 

4.40–4.50 ........... 124.6–127.4 3.00 1.36 18.20 8.27 10.60 4.82 

4.50–4.60 ........... 127.4–130.3 3.00 1.36 18.70 8.46 10.85 4.91 

4.60–4.70 ........... 130.3–133.1 3.00 1.36 19.10 8.65 11.05 5.00 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49225 

TABLE 5.1—TEST LOAD SIZES—Continued 

Container volume Minimum load Maximum load Average load 

cu. ft. liter 

lb kg lb kg lb kg 

≥< ≥< 

4.70–4.80 ........... 133.1–135.9 3.00 1.36 19.50 8.83 11.25 5.10 

4.80–4.90 ........... 135.9–138.8 3.00 1.36 19.90 9.02 11.45 5.19 

4.90–5.00 ........... 138.8–141.6 3.00 1.36 20.30 9.20 11.65 5.28 

5.00–5.10 ........... 141.6–144.4 3.00 1.36 20.70 9.39 11.85 5.38 

5.10–5.20 ........... 144.4–147.2 3.00 1.36 21.10 9.58 12.05 5.47 

5.20–5.30 ........... 147.2–150.1 3.00 1.36 21.50 9.76 12.25 5.56 

5.30–5.40 ........... 150.1–152.9 3.00 1.36 21.90 9.95 12.45 5.65 

5.40–5.50 ........... 152.9–155.7 3.00 1.36 22.30 10.13 12.65 5.75 

5.50–5.60 ........... 155.7–158.6 3.00 1.36 22.80 10.32 12.90 5.84 

5.60–5.70 ........... 158.6–161.4 3.00 1.36 23.20 10.51 13.10 5.93 

5.70–5.80 ........... 161.4–164.2 3.00 1.36 23.60 10.69 13.30 6.03 

5.80–5.90 ........... 164.2–167.1 3.00 1.36 24.00 10.88 13.50 6.12 

5.90–6.00 ........... 167.1–169.9 3.00 1.36 24.40 11.06 13.70 6.21 

6.00–6.10 ........... 169.9–172.7 3.00 1.36 24.80 11.25 13.90 6.30 

6.10–6.20 ........... 172.7–175.6 3.00 1.36 25.20 11.43 14.10 6.40 

6.20–6.30 ........... 175.6–178.4 3.00 1.36 25.60 11.61 14.30 6.49 

6.30–6.40 ........... 178.4–181.2 3.00 1.36 26.00 11.79 14.50 6.58 

6.40–6.50 ........... 181.2–184.1 3.00 1.36 26.40 11.97 14.70 6.67 

6.50–6.60 ........... 184.1–186.9 3.00 1.36 26.90 12.20 14.95 6.78 

6.60–6.70 ........... 186.9–189.7 3.00 1.36 27.30 12.38 15.15 6.87 

6.70–6.80 ........... 189.7–192.6 3.00 1.36 27.70 12.56 15.35 6.96 

6.80–6.90 ........... 192.6–195.4 3.00 1.36 28.10 12.75 15.55 7.05 

6.90–7.00 ........... 195.4–198.2 3.00 1.36 28.50 12.93 15.75 7.14 

7.00–7.10 ........... 198.2–201.0 3.00 1.36 28.90 13.11 15.95 7.23 

7.10–7.20 ........... 201.0–203.9 3.00 1.36 29.30 13.29 16.15 7.33 

7.20–7.30 ........... 203.9–206.7 3.00 1.36 29.70 13.47 16.35 7.42 

7.30–7.40 ........... 206.7–209.5 3.00 1.36 30.10 13.65 16.55 7.51 

7.40–7.50 ........... 209.5–212.4 3.00 1.36 30.50 13.83 16.75 7.60 

7.50–7.60 ........... 212.4–215.2 3.00 1.36 31.00 14.06 17.00 7.71 

7.60–7.70 ........... 215.2–218.0 3.00 1.36 31.40 14.24 17.20 7.80 

7.70–7.80 ........... 218.0–220.9 3.00 1.36 31.80 14.42 17.40 7.89 

7.80–7.90 ........... 220.9–223.7 3.00 1.36 32.20 14.61 17.60 7.98 

7.90–8.00 ........... 223.7–226.5 3.00 1.36 32.60 14.79 17.80 8.07 

■ 11. Appendix J3 to subpart B of part 

430 is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix J3 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Energy Test Cloth Specifications and 

Procedures for Determining Correction 

Coefficients of New Energy Test Cloth 

Lots 

Note: DOE maintains an historical record 

of the standard extractor test data and final 

correction curve coefficients for each 

approved lot of energy test cloth. These can 

be accessed through DOE’s web page for 

standards and test procedures for residential 

clothes washers at DOE’s Building 

Technologies Office Appliance and 

Equipment Standards website. 

1. Objective 

This appendix includes the following: (1) 

Specifications for the energy test cloth to be 

used for testing clothes washers; (2) 

procedures for verifying that new lots of 

energy test cloth meet the defined material 

specifications; and (3) 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. 

2. Definitions 

AHAM means the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers. 

Bone-dry means a condition of a load of 

test cloth that has been dried in a dryer at 

maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 

minutes, removed and weighed before cool 

down, and then dried again for 10 minute 

periods until the final weight change of the 

load is 1 percent or less. 

Lot means a quantity of cloth that has been 

manufactured with the same batches of 

cotton and polyester during one continuous 

process. 

Roll means a subset of a lot. 

3. Energy Test Cloth Specifications 

The energy test cloths and energy stuffer 

cloths must meet the following 

specifications: 

3.1 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 this appendix. 

3.2 Nominal fabric type. Pure finished 

bleached cloth made with a momie or granite 

weave, which is nominally 50 percent cotton 

and 50 percent polyester. 

3.3 Fabric weight. 5.60 ± 0.25 ounces per 

square yard (190.0 ± 8.4 g/m2). 

3.4 Thread count. 65 × 57 per inch (warp 

× fill), ±2 percent. 

3.5 Fiber content of warp and filling yarn. 

50 percent ± 4 percent cotton, with the 

balance being polyester, open end spun, 15/ 

1 ± 5 percent cotton count blended yarn. 

3.6 Water repellent finishes, such as 

fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes, must 

not be applied to the test cloth. 

3.7. Test cloth dimensions. 

3.7.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test 

cloth must be made from energy test cloth 

material, as specified in section 3.1 of this 

appendix, that is 24 ± 1⁄2 inches by 36 ± 1⁄2

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

has been hemmed to 22 ± 1⁄2 inches by 34 ± 1⁄2 inches (55.9 ± 1.3 cm by 86.4 ± 1.3 cm) 

before washing. 

3.7.2 Energy stuffer cloth. The energy 

stuffer cloth must be made from energy test 

cloth material, as specified in section 3.1 of 

this appendix, that is 12 ± 1⁄4 inches by 12 

± 1⁄4 inches (30.5 ± 0.6 cm by 30.5 ± 0.6 cm) 

and has been hemmed to 10 ± 1⁄4 inches by 

10 ± 1⁄4 inches (25.4 ± 0.6 cm by 25.4 ± 0.6 

cm) before washing. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
49226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3.8 The test cloth must be clean and must 

not be used for more than 60 test runs (after 

pre-conditioning as specified in section 5 of 

this appendix). All test cloth must be 

permanently marked identifying the lot 

number of the material. Mixed lots of 

material must not be used for testing a 

clothes washer according to appendix J or 

appendix J2 to this subpart. 

4. Equipment Specifications 

4.1 Extractor. Use a North Star 

Engineered Products Inc. (formerly Bock) 

Model 215 extractor (having a basket 

diameter of 20 inches, height of 11.5 inches, 

and volume of 2.09 ft3), with a variable speed 

drive (North Star Engineered Products, P.O. 

Box 5127, Toledo, OH 43611) or an 

equivalent extractor with same basket design 

(i.e., diameter, height, volume, and hole 

configuration) and variable speed drive. 

Table 4.1 of this appendix shows the 

extractor spin speed, in revolutions per 

minute (RPM), that must be used to attain 

each required g-force level. 

TABLE 4.1—EXTRACTOR SPIN SPEEDS

FOR EACH TEST CONDITION

‘‘g Force’’ RPM 

100 ............................................ 594 ± 1 

200 ............................................ 840 ± 1 

350 ............................................ 1,111 ± 1 

500 ............................................ 1,328 ± 1 

650 ............................................ 1,514 ± 1 

4.2 Bone-dryer. The dryer used for drying 

the cloth to bone-dry must heat the test cloth 

and energy stuffer cloths above 210 °F (99 

°C). 

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, and before any clothes 

washer testing using appendix J or appendix 

J2 to this subpart: 

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). Dry the load to bone-dry 

between each of the five wash-rinse-spin 

cycles. 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). 

6. Extractor Run Instructions 

Use the following instructions for 

performing each of the extractor runs 

specified throughout section 7 and section 8 

of this appendix: 

6.1 Test load size. Use a test load size of 

8.4 lbs. 

6.2 Measure the average RMC for each 

sample loads as follows: 

6.2.1 Dry the test cloth until it is bone-dry 

according to the definition in section 2 of this 

appendix. Record the bone-dry weight of the 

test load (WI). 

6.2.2 Prepare the test load for soak by 

grouping four test cloths into loose bundles. 

Create the bundles by hanging four cloths 

vertically from one corner and loosely 

wrapping the test cloth onto itself to form the 

bundle. Bundles should be wrapped loosely 

to ensure consistency of water extraction. 

Then place the bundles into the water to 

soak. Eight to nine bundles will be formed 

depending on the test load. The ninth bundle 

may not equal four cloths but can incorporate 

energy stuffer cloths to help offset the size 

difference. 

6.2.3 Soak the test load for 20 minutes in 

10 gallons of soft (<17 ppm) water. The entire 

test load must be submerged. Maintain a 

water temperature of 100 °F ± 5 °F (37.8 °C ± 

2.8 °C) at all times between the start and end 

of the soak. 

6.2.4 Remove the test load and allow each 

of the test cloth bundles to drain over the 

water bath for a maximum of 5 seconds. 

6.2.5 Manually place the test cloth 

bundles in the basket of the extractor, 

distributing them evenly by eye. The 

draining and loading process must take no 

longer than 1 minute. Spin the load at a fixed 

speed corresponding to the intended 

centripetal acceleration level (measured in 

units of the acceleration of gravity, g) ± 1g for 

the intended time period ± 5 seconds. Begin 

the timer when the extractor meets the 

required spin speed for each test. 

6.2.6 Record the weight of the test load 

immediately after the completion of the 

extractor spin cycle (WC). 

6.2.7 Calculate the remaining moisture 

content of the test load as (WC ¥ WI)/WI. 

6.2.8 Draining the soak tub is not 

necessary if the water bath is corrected for 

water level and temperature before the next 

extraction. 

6.2.9 Drying the test load in between 

extraction runs is not necessary. However, 

the bone-dry weight must be checked after 

every 12 extraction runs to make sure the 

bone-dry weight is within tolerance (8.4 ± 0.1 

lbs). Following this, the test load must be 

soaked and extracted once before continuing 

with the remaining extraction runs. Perform 

this extraction at the same spin speed used 

for the extraction run prior to checking the 

bone-dry weight, for a time period of 4 

minutes. Either warm or cold soak 

temperature may be used. 

7. Test Cloth Material Verification Procedure 

7.1 Material Properties Verification. The 

test cloth manufacturer must supply a 

certificate of conformance to ensure that the 

energy test cloth and stuffer cloth samples 

used for prequalification testing meet the 

specifications in section 3 of this appendix. 

The material properties of one energy test 

cloth from each of the first, middle, and last 

rolls must be evaluated as follows, prior to 

pre-conditioning: 

7.1.1 Dimensions. Each hemmed energy 

test cloth must meet the size specifications in 

section 3.7.1 of this appendix. Each hemmed 

stuffer cloth must meet the size specifications 

in section 3.7.2 of this appendix. 

7.1.2 Oil repellency. Perform AATCC Test 

Method 118–2007, Oil Repellency: 

Hydrocarbon Resistance Test, (incorporated 

by reference, see § 430.3), to confirm the 

absence of ScotchguardTM or other waterrepellent finish. An Oil Repellency Grade of 

0 (Fails Kaydol) is required. 

7.1.3 Absorbency. Perform AATCC Test 

Method 79–2010, Absorbency of Textiles, 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3), to 

confirm the absence of ScotchguardTM or 

other water-repellent finish. The time to 

absorb one drop must be on the order of 1 

second. 

7.2 Uniformity Verification. The 

uniformity of each test cloth lot must be 

evaluated as follows. 

7.2.1 Pre-conditioning. Pre-condition the 

energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths 

used for uniformity verification, as specified 

in section 5 of this appendix. 

7.2.2 Distribution of samples. Test loads 

must be comprised of cloth from three 

different rolls from the sample lot. Each roll 

from a lot must be marked in the run order 

that it was made. The three rolls are selected 

based on the run order such that the first, 

middle, and last rolls are used. As the rolls 

are cut into cloth, fabric must be selected 

from the beginning, middle, and end of the 

roll to create separate loads from each 

location, for a total of nine sample loads 

according to Table 7.2.2. 

TABLE 7.2.2—DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE LOADS FOR PREQUALIFICATION

TESTING

Roll No. Roll 

location 

First .................................... Beginning. 

Middle. 

End. 

Middle ................................ Beginning. 

Middle. 

End. 

Last .................................... Beginning. 

Middle. 

End. 

7.2.3 Measure the remaining moisture 

content of each of the nine sample test loads, 

as specified in section 6 of this appendix, 

using a centripetal acceleration of 350g 

(corresponding to 1111 ± 1 RPM) and a spin 

duration of 15 minutes ± 5 seconds. 

7.2.4 Repeat section 7.2.3 of this 

appendix an additional two times and 

calculate the arithmetic average of the three 

RMC values to determine the average RMC 

value for each sample load. It is not 

necessary to dry the load to bone-dry the load 

before the second and third replications. 

7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation 

(CV) of the nine average RMC values from 

each sample load. The CV must be less than 

or equal to 1 percent for the test cloth lot to 

be considered acceptable and to perform the 

standard extractor RMC testing. 

8. RMC Correction Curve Procedure 

8.1 Pre-conditioning. Pre-condition the 

energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49227 

used for RMC correction curve 

measurements, as specified in section 5 of 

this appendix. 

8.2 Distribution of samples. Test loads 

must be comprised of randomly selected 

cloth at the beginning, middle and end of a 

lot. Two test loads may be used, with each 

load used for half of the total number of 

required tests. Separate test loads must be 

used from the loads used for uniformity 

verification. 

8.3 Measure the remaining moisture 

content of the test load, as specified in 

section 6 of this appendix at five g-force 

levels: 100 g, 200 g, 350 g, 500 g, and 650 

g, using two different spin times at each g 

level: 4 minutes and 15 minutes. Table 4.1 

of this appendix provides the corresponding 

spin speeds for each g-force level. 

8.4 Repeat section 8.3 of this appendix 

using soft (<17 ppm) water at 60 °F ± 5 °F 

(15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C). 

8.5 Repeat sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 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 Average the values of the 3 

replications performed for each extractor 

condition specified in section 8.3 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 average RMC values calculated 

in section 8.6 of this appendix (RMCcloth): 

RMCstandard ∼ A × RMCcloth + B 

where A and B are coefficients of the linear 

least-squares fit. 

TABLE 8.7—STANDARD RMC VALUES (RMCstandard) 

‘‘g Force’’ 

RMC percentage 

Warm soak Cold soak 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

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

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

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

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

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

8.8 Perform an analysis of variance with 

replication test using two factors, spin speed 

and lot, to check the interaction of speed and 

lot. Use the values from section 8.6 of this 

appendix and Table 8.7 of this appendix in 

the calculation. The ‘‘P’’ value of the Fstatistic for interaction between spin speed 

and lot in the variance analysis must be 

greater than or equal to 0.1. If the ‘‘P’’ value 

is less than 0.1, the test cloth is unacceptable. 

‘‘P’’ is a theoretically based measure of 

interaction based on an analysis of variance. 

9. Application of the RMC Correction Curve 

9.1 Using the coefficients A and B 

calculated in section 8.7 of this appendix: 

RMCcorr = A × RMC + B 

9.2 Apply this RMC correction curve to 

measured RMC values in appendix J and 

appendix J2 to this subpart. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 13. Section 431.152 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.152 Definitions concerning 

commercial clothes washers. 

AEER means active-mode energy 

efficiency ratio, in pounds per kilowatthour per cycle (lbs/kWh/cycle), as 

determined in section 4.8 of appendix J 

to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter 

(when using appendix J). 

Basic model means all units of a given 

type of covered product (or class 

thereof) manufactured by one 

manufacturer, having the same primary 

energy source, and which have 

essentially identical electrical, physical, 

and functional (or hydraulic) 

characteristics that affect energy 

consumption, energy efficiency, water 

consumption, or water efficiency. 

Commercial clothes washer means a 

soft-mounted front-loading or softmounted top-loading clothes washer 

that— 

(1) 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 

(2) 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. 

IWF means integrated water factor, in 

gallons per cubic feet per cycle (gal/cu 

ft/cycle), as determined in section 4.2.12 

of appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 

of this chapter (when using appendix 

J2). 

MEFJ2 means modified energy factor, 

in cu ft/kWh/cycle, as determined in 

section 4.5 of appendix J2 to subpart B 

of part 430 (when using appendix J2). 

WER means water efficiency ratio, in 

pounds per gallon per cycle (lbs/gal/ 

cycle), as determined in section 4.7 of 

appendix J to subpart B of part 430 of 

this chapter (when using appendix J). 

■ 14. Section 431.154 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.154 Test procedures. 

The test procedures for clothes 

washers in appendix J2 to subpart B of 

part 430 of this chapter must be used to 

determine compliance with the energy 

conservation standards at § 431.156(b). 

[FR Doc. 2021–17018 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3