[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21816-21821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07915]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 21816]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]
RIN 1904-AD98


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Clothes Washers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notification of data availability (``NODA'').

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 1, 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding test procedures for 
residential clothes washers (``RCWs''), which will be used as the basis 
for evaluating, issuing, and determining compliance with updated energy 
conservation standards, should such standards be established. On 
September 29, 2021, DOE published a preliminary analysis of energy 
conservation standards for RCWs, which presented preliminary 
translations between the energy and water efficiency metrics as 
measured by the current test procedure and new energy and water 
efficiency metrics as measured by the proposed test procedure. In this 
NODA, DOE is publishing the results of additional testing conducted in 
furtherance of the development of the translations between the current 
test procedure and the proposed new test procedure. DOE requests 
comments, data, and information regarding the data.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NODA no later than May 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, comments may be submitted by email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1655797865637b7364557a79627e73654177657e736424262721454252262627225673733872797338717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f4c60617c7a626a7d4c63607b676a7c586e7c676a7d3d3f3e385c5b4b3f3f3e3b4f6a6a216b606a21686079">[email protected]</span></a>. Include docket number 
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 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 the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, email, 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 coronavirus 2019 (``COVID-
19'') pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments 
via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. 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 telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section III of this document 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8f9c8c8d4d1d9d6dbddebccd9d6dcd9cadccbe9cdddcbccd1d7d6cbf8dddd96dcd7dd96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d495a4a4b8bdb5bab7b187a0b5bab0b5a6b0a785a1b1a7a0bdbbbaa794b1b1fab0bbb1fab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0bb91849882899edebd93b99e849f8398b09881de949f95de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="521933263a202b3c7c1f311b3c263d213a123a237c363d377c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#622312120e0b030c01073116030c060310061133170711160b0d0c112207074c060d074c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c283b2b2aeaba3aca1a791b6a3aca6a3b0a6b193b7a7b1b6abadacb182a7a7eca6ada7eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Discussion
    A. Characteristics Impacting the Translation Equations
    1. Remaining Moisture Content
    2. Portable Units With Manual Water Fill Control Systems
    B. Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washers
III. Public Participation

I. Background

    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. These products 
include consumer (residential) clothes washers,\3\ the subject of this 
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \3\ DOE uses the ``residential'' nomenclature and ``RCW'' 
abbreviation for consumer clothes washers in order to distinguish 
from the ``CCW'' abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers, 
which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The currently applicable energy conservation standards for RCWs are 
established in terms of a minimum allowable integrated modified energy 
factor (``IMEF''), measured in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle 
(``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''), and maximum allowable integrated water factor 
(``IWF''), measured in gallons per cycle per cubic

[[Page 21817]]

foot (``gal/cycle/ft\3\''). Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations 
(``CFR'') 430.32(g)(4). DOE currently defines four classes of RCWs: 
Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') capacity); 
top-loading, standard (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity); front-loading, 
compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity); and front-loading, standard 
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity). Id.
    Representations of energy or water consumption of RCWs, including 
demonstrating compliance with the currently applicable energy 
conservation standards, must be based on results generated using the 
test procedure for RCWs at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 
(``appendix J2''). See Note to appendix J2.
    On September 1, 2021, DOE published a test procedure notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''; ``September 2021 NOPR'') proposing to 
establish a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
J (``appendix J''), which would establish new energy efficiency 
metrics: an energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') and a water efficiency 
ratio (``WER''). 86 FR 49140. As proposed, EER would be defined as the 
weighted-average load size in pounds (``lbs'') divided by the sum of 
(1) the per-cycle machine energy, (2) the per-cycle water heating 
energy, (3) the per-cycle drying energy, and (4) the per-cycle standby 
and off mode energy consumption, in kWh. Id. at 86 FR 49172. As 
proposed, WER would be defined as the weighted-average load size in lbs 
divided by the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash 
cycles, in gallons. Id. at 86 FR 49173. For both EER and WER, a higher 
value would indicate more efficient performance. Id.
    On September 29, 2021, DOE published a preliminary analysis of 
energy conservation standards for RCWs (``September 2021 Preliminary 
Analysis''). 80 FR 53886. In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, 
DOE evaluated the per-cycle energy and water consumption values and 
resulting EER and WER metrics as determined using the version of 
appendix J proposed in the September 2021 NOPR. Id. at 80 FR 53889. DOE 
presented the evaluated potential efficiency levels using the 
efficiency metrics under both the currently applicable appendix J2 test 
procedure and the then-proposed appendix J test procedure in order to 
assist interested parties in understanding how the analysis based on 
the proposed appendix J metrics compares to performance as measured 
under the appendix J2 test procedure (i.e., how the potential 
efficiency levels based on EER and WER metrics align with the existing 
IMEF and IWF metrics). Id.
    In support of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE tested a 
sample of RCWs under both appendix J2 and appendix J as proposed in the 
September 2021 NOPR. In chapter 5 of the preliminary technical support 
document (``TSD'') accompanying the September 2021 Preliminary 
Analysis, DOE first defined preliminary efficiency levels to be used as 
the basis for the analysis in terms of the existing modified energy 
factor (``MEF'') and IWF metrics. DOE also published preliminary 
translation formulas for converting IMEF values into EER values, and 
for converting IWF values into WER values, for each product class.\4\ 
As described in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD, DOE supplemented its 
tested data set with ``predicted'' EER and WER values based on results 
from how a clothes washer performed under appendix J2 testing and on 
the clothes washer's physical and operational characteristics. DOE also 
published an explanation of how the predictive tool was developed, 
including a table listing the impacts to each underlying variable that 
were assumed as part of the predictive analysis. See section 5.3.3.2 of 
the preliminary TSD. DOE explained that it planned to continue testing 
additional units to appendix J to increase the number of tested, rather 
than predicted, EER and WER values in future stages of the rulemaking. 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The TSD (corrected) is available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    DOE has tested additional RCW models to both appendix J2 and 
proposed appendix J in order to provide additional data points for the 
translation equations and to eliminate the need to rely on 
``predicted'' EER and WER values in the translation analysis. In a 
separate spreadsheet accompanying this NODA and available in the 
rulemaking docket, DOE publishes the test results for each RCW model 
and updated translation equations that include these additional data 
points as well as the data points from units tested for the September 
2021 Preliminary Analysis.
    DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 NOPR 
suggesting that DOE use a value of 2 percent rather than 4 percent as 
the final moisture content (``FMC'') assumption in the calculation of 
drying energy. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-
0011, No. 28 at pp. 5-6; CA IOUs, Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011, No. 
29 at pp. 8-9) \5\ DOE is still reviewing and considering these 
comments and all other comments received in response to the September 
2021 NOPR. Because this issue in particular would directly affect the 
translation equations between appendix J2 and proposed appendix J, in 
the spreadsheet accompanying this NODA, DOE has published two sets of 
translations corresponding to an FMC of 4 percent and 2 percent, 
respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the docket for DOE's rulemaking to develop test 
procedures for RCWs and CCWs. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011, 
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). These references are 
arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page 
of that document).
    \6\ These two sets of data are presented in separate tabs of the 
accompanying spreadsheet which can be found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is also publishing a table of key characteristics associated 
with each tested model, including the following:
    <bullet> Product class; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Product class corresponds to the product class as analyzed 
in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, as discussed further in 
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> For top-loading clothes washers: Agitator or wash plate;
    <bullet> Portable models identified;
    <bullet> Combination washer-dryer models identified;
    <bullet> Type of water fill control system (``WFCS'');
    <bullet> Cabinet width;
    <bullet> Presence or absence of internal water heater;
    <bullet> Clothes container capacity; and
    <bullet> Test cloth lot used for each test.
    These test data are available in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0044.
    DOE notes that it is also still reviewing and considering comments 
received in response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, 
particularly with regard to the definition of product classes. The data 
presented in the NODA correspond largely to the preliminary product 
classes identified in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, with 
additional considerations as discussed further in this NODA. DOE does 
not intend to convey any determinations regarding product class 
definitions through this NODA.

A. Characteristics Impacting the Translation Equations

    Based on the analysis presented in the accompanying spreadsheet, 
DOE has tentatively determined that remaining moisture content 
(``RMC'') and WFCS type have a significant impact on the translation 
equations. DOE performed an in-depth analysis of both of these topics, 
as detailed in the following sections.

[[Page 21818]]

1. Remaining Moisture Content
    The RMC is a measure of the amount of water remaining in the 
clothing load after completion of the clothes washer cycle. The RMC 
value is used to calculate the total per-cycle energy consumption for 
removal of moisture from the clothes washer test load in a clothes 
dryer to an assumed final moisture content, i.e., the ``drying 
energy,'' which is one of the factors contained within both the IMEF 
and EER metrics. Lower values of RMC result in less drying energy and 
thus represent more-efficient performance.
    Section 3.8.2 of appendix J2 requires that the RMC be calculated 
based on a test run with the maximum load size on the Cold Wash/Cold 
Rinse (``Cold/Cold'') temperature selection. Section 3.8.4 of appendix 
J2 requires that for clothes washers that have multiple spin settings 
\8\ 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.\9\ In this case, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``spin settings'' refers to spin times or spin 
speeds. The maximum spin setting results in a lower (better) RMC.
    \9\ On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse option, 
appendix J2 requires that RMC be measured on both Cold Rinse and 
Warm Rinse, with the final RMC calculated as a weighted average 
using temperature use factors (``TUFs'') of 73 percent for Cold 
Rinse and 27 percent for Warm Rinse. DOE has observed very few RCW 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix J as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR would require 
measuring RMC on each of the energy test cycles (i.e., each load size 
and each wash/rinse temperature combination included for testing) using 
the default spin settings, which may not necessarily be the maximum 
spin setting. In section 4.3 of proposed appendix J, the final RMC is 
calculated by weighting the individual RMC measurements using the same 
temperature and load size weighting factors that apply to the water and 
energy measurements.
    Multiple factors can affect the RMC of a particular cycle, 
including the spin speed and the duration of the spin portion of the 
wash cycle. The size of the load can also affect RMC--generally, larger 
load sizes result in lower (better) RMC values, whereas smaller load 
sizes result in higher (worse) RMC values. These factors result in 
different measured RMC values for appendix J as proposed and appendix 
J2, specifically because under proposed appendix J, RMC would be 
measured across a wider range of cycles (compared to only the Cold/Cold 
cycle in appendix J2) and because the appendix J load sizes as proposed 
would be smaller than the appendix J2 maximum load size (on which the 
appendix J2 RMC measurement is based).
    In addition to these factors, differences in the test cloth ``lot'' 
used for testing can further affect the measured RMC value. DOE 
preliminarily concluded in the September 2021 NOPR 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 3 RMC percentage points. 86 
FR 49140, 49190. DOE has identified the test cloth lot number 
associated with each test in the spreadsheet accompanying this NODA.
    In the interest of improving the translation equations as presented 
in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE has conducted an in-
depth analysis of the differences in RMC between the appendix J2 and 
proposed appendix J test procedures. For each unit that DOE tested, DOE 
examined the cycle-by-cycle test results to determine the key driver 
behind the difference in RMC when testing to proposed appendix J as 
compared to appendix J2. Based on this analysis, DOE has identified 
three categories of spin implementations that result in differences 
between the proposed appendix J RMC value and the appendix J2 RMC 
value, described as follows.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The accompanying spreadsheet specifies the spin 
implementation type identified by DOE for each unit in the test 
sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> The first type, referred to as ``consistent spin'' 
throughout the remainder of this NODA, is illustrative of units in 
which the characteristics of the spin cycle (e.g., spin speed, spin 
time) are consistent across temperature selections. On these units, RMC 
values measured on Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and Extra Hot/Cold cycles are 
substantially similar to the RMC value measured on the Cold/Cold cycle.
    <bullet> The second type, referred to as ``Cold/Cold optimized 
spin'' throughout the remainder of this NODA, is illustrative of units 
in which the spin cycle is optimized on the Cold/Cold setting with 
maximum load size, corresponding to the one cycle combination for which 
RMC is measured under appendix J2. On these units, the spin portion of 
the cycle is significantly faster or longer on the Cold/Cold setting 
with a maximum load size than for the other temperature settings or 
load sizes that are tested as part of the energy test cycle.
    <bullet> The third type, referred to as ``non-default maximum 
spin'' throughout the remainder of this NODA, is illustrative of units 
in which the maximum spin speed setting (which is tested under appendix 
J2) is not the default spin speed setting on the Normal cycle. On these 
units, the default spin speed setting tested under proposed appendix J 
would provide a lower-speed spin or a shorter spin portion of the 
cycle.
    For clothes washers with ``consistent spin,'' the only source of 
difference between the measured RMC values under proposed appendix J 
and appendix J2 is the use of smaller load sizes for proposed appendix 
J. The observed difference in RMC between the two test procedures is 
relatively consistent among models from different manufacturers of RCWs 
with this characteristic, as discussed further in this section.
    For clothes washers with ``Cold/Cold optimized spin'' the 
difference between the measured RMC values under proposed appendix J 
and appendix J2 is due to a combination of both the smaller load sizes 
for proposed appendix J and the different spin behavior on the 
temperature settings other than Cold/Cold. The observed difference in 
RMC between the two test procedures varies significantly among models 
from different manufacturers of RCWs with ``Cold/Cold optimized spin,'' 
depending on the degree to which the Cold/Cold RMC differs from the RMC 
on all other tested cycles.
    For clothes washers with ``non-default maximum spin,'' the 
difference between the measured RMC values under proposed appendix J 
and appendix J2 is due to a combination of both the smaller load sizes 
for proposed appendix J and the different spin behavior on the maximum 
and default spin settings. Similar to units with ``Cold/Cold optimized 
spin,'' the observed difference in RMC between the two test procedures 
varies significantly among models from different manufacturers of RCWs 
with ``non-default maximum spin,'' depending on the degree to which the 
maximum spin setting differs from the default spin setting.
    The RMC value is the most significant contributor to both the IMEF 
metric measured by appendix J2 and the EER metric measured by proposed 
appendix J. Because of the more significant

[[Page 21819]]

variation in RMC between the two test procedures for ``Cold/Cold 
optimized spin'' and ``non-default maximum spin'' units, the 
correlation between IMEF and EER for these units is less strong (i.e., 
lower ``R-squared'' values for the best-fit line) than for ``consistent 
spin'' units.
    To investigate strategies for defining translation equations with a 
stronger correlation between IMEF and EER, DOE developed a second set 
of EER values based on an ``adjusted'' RMC value (substituted for the 
measured RMC value) that assumes a ``consistent spin'' characteristic 
for each unit in the test sample. Under this approach, only the change 
in load size would be assumed to impact the RMC values measured under 
proposed appendix J as compared to appendix J2. DOE's test data 
indicate that the smaller load sizes under proposed appendix J result 
in an increase in RMC of 4 percentage points compared to the RMC values 
measured under appendix J2 using the maximum load size. Therefore, for 
this approach, DOE calculated an ``adjusted RMC'' for each unit as the 
tested RMC value under appendix J2 plus 4 percentage points. DOE 
substituted this adjusted RMC for the RMC value in the drying energy 
equation within the EER calculation. As demonstrated in the second set 
of ``adjusted'' translation plots, this approach produces translation 
equations with significantly higher R-squared values, indicating a 
stronger correlation between IMEF and EER.
    Comments submitted by a manufacturer in response to the September 
2021 NOPR suggest that, were DOE to amend standards based on appendix J 
as proposed, manufacturers that currently use ``Cold/Cold optimized 
spin'' or ``non-default maximum spin''--which yield lower (i.e., 
better) RMC values on the Cold/Cold temperature setting compared to RMC 
values obtained using the other temperature settings for RCWs with 
``Cold/Cold optimized spin,'' and on the maximum spin setting for RCWs 
with ``non-default maximum spin''--would likely implement similar 
strategies to decrease the RMC across all cycles required for testing 
under appendix J as proposed. (EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011, Whirlpool, No. 26 
at p. 8-9). Specifically, for ``Cold/Cold optimized spin'' units, 
manufacturers would likely increase the spin speeds or spin durations 
across all temperature settings to match the spin behavior of the Cold/
Cold temperature setting. For ``non-default maximum spin'' units, 
manufacturers would likely make the maximum spin speed the default spin 
setting to provide the lowest possible (i.e., best possible) RMC 
measurement under appendix J as proposed.
    DOE requests comment on whether, if DOE were to establish amended 
RCW standards based on appendix J as proposed, manufacturers that 
currently use the ``Cold/Cold optimized spin'' strategy for their RCWs 
would modify the spin behavior across all temperature settings to match 
the spin behavior of the Cold/Cold temperature setting; and whether 
manufacturers that currently use the ``non-default maximum spin'' 
strategy for their RCWs would design the maximum spin speed to be the 
default spin setting. DOE further requests comment on the impact of 
such changes to the energy and water use, other aspects of consumer-
relevant performance, and life-cycle cost of RCWs.
    If DOE were to use the ``adjusted'' EER values (based on 
``adjusted'' RMC) as the basis for developing the IMEF-to-EER 
translation equations, DOE requests comment on how DOE should factor 
into its analysis the changes that manufacturers may implement in 
response to such an approach (i.e., faster or longer spin speeds across 
all cycles for ``Cold/Cold optimized spin'' units, and setting the 
maximum speed as the default spin setting for ``non-default maximum 
spin'' units).
    In the document available in the rulemaking docket, DOE presents 
revised translation equations using both approaches: Tested RMC and EER 
values (shown as purple columns and graphs) and ``adjusted'' RMC and 
EER values (shown as red columns and graphs).
    DOE requests comment on its analysis of RMC and on the translation 
equations resulting from the two different approaches described in this 
section.
2. Portable Units With Manual Water Fill Control Systems
    DOE's test data indicate that RCWs marketed as ``portable'' \11\ 
have a significantly different correlation between IMEF and EER than 
``stationary'' clothes washers. An examination of the test sample 
indicates that all of the portable units in the test sample use manual 
WFCS, whereas all of the stationary units in DOE's test sample use 
either automatic WFCS or provide both manual and automatic WFCSs. 
Generally, the portable units have a higher (better) EER value than 
stationary units at the same IMEF rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Products marketed as ``portable'' are generally mounted on 
caster wheels, which allows the clothes washer to be moved more 
easily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The observed difference in correlation is due, at least in part, to 
how load size is calculated under proposed appendix J and appendix J2 
for units with manual WFCS,\12\ as compared to units with automatic 
WFCS.\13\ For units with a manual WFCS, the weighted-average load size 
calculated under proposed appendix J is significantly different than 
that calculated under appendix J2. Under appendix J2, weighted-average 
load size for units with manual WFCS is calculated by applying 
weighting factors of 0.72 and 0.28 to the maximum and minimum load 
sizes, respectively. Under proposed appendix J, the weighted-average 
load size for units with manual WFCS is calculated as a simple average 
of the large and small load sizes (i.e., weighting factors of 0.5 and 
0.5 for the large and small load sizes, respectively). The proposed 
appendix J calculation results in a smaller weighted-average load size 
than that calculated under appendix J2 for units with a manual WFCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Section 1 of appendix J2 defines a manual WFCS as a WFCS 
that requires the user to determine or select the water fill level.
    \13\ Section 1 of appendix J2 defines an automatic WFCS as a 
WFCS that does not allow or require the user to determine or select 
the water fill level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparison, for units with automatic WFCS, the weighted-average 
load size is equivalent under appendix J as proposed and appendix J2. 
Under appendix J2, weighted-average load size is calculated by applying 
weighting factors of 0.12, 0.74, and 0.14 to the maximum, average, and 
minimum load sizes, respectively. As discussed in the September 2021 
NOPR, DOE defined the load sizes in proposed appendix J such that the 
weighted-average load size using the small and large load sizes defined 
in appendix J matches the weighted-average load size using the minimum, 
average, and maximum load sizes defined in appendix J2. 86 FR 49140, 
49157-49158.
    DOE is aware of some top-loading stationary RCWs that offer both 
manual and automatic WFCSs. For these units, both appendix J2 and 
proposed appendix J require testing both WFCSs; calculating the average 
of the tested values (one from each water fill control system) for each 
measured variable (i.e., machine electrical energy, hot water heating 
energy, drying energy, and water consumption); and using the average 
value for each variable in the final calculations of the respective 
efficiency metrics. For these units, the difference in correlation due 
to the use of a manual WFCS is reduced by half as a result of the 
averaging with the automatic WFCS results.
    DOE reviewed the market and observes that top-loading portable 
units are the only RCWs on the market that

[[Page 21820]]

use a manual WFCS exclusively. DOE further observes that all RCWs that 
are marketed as portable have a manual WFCS. DOE is not aware of any 
top-loading portable RCWs that use an automatic WFCS or any top-loading 
stationary RCWs that offer only a manual WFCS.
    Recognizing this difference in correlation, DOE has presented an 
alternate set of translation equations that separate top-loading 
portable RCWs (which use a manual WFCS) from top-loading stationary 
RCWs (which provide either automatic WFCS or both manual and automatic 
WFCSs). Each of the separate translation equations has a stronger 
correlation (i.e., higher R-squared value) than the single translation 
equation in which top-loading portable and top-loading stationary 
products are combined.
    In future stages of the standards rulemaking, DOE would consider 
whether separate translation equations should be used for top-loading 
portable RCWs with a manual WFCS.
    DOE requests comment on whether any top-loading stationary RCWs 
with only a manual WFCS, or any top-loading portable RCWs with an 
automatic WFCS, are available on the market.
    DOE further requests comment on whether top-loading portable RCWs 
with a manual WFCS should be evaluated using a separate translation 
equation from top-loading stationary RCWs with an automatic WFCS.

B. Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washers

    DOE's RCW product certification database \14\ includes both 
automatic clothes washer models and semi-automatic \15\ clothes washer 
models certified within the top-loading compact product class. While 
the certification database does not differentiate between automatic and 
semi-automatic configurations, DOE conducted an analysis of product 
literature for each certified model to identify the configuration of 
each model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DOE's product certification database is available at 
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Clothes_Washers.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Clothes%20Washers%22.
    \15\ Semi-automatic clothes washer is 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 
has previously defined a design standard for top-loading, semi-
automatic clothes washers, requiring such products to have an 
unheated rinse water option. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis of product literature for each top-loading compact 
model indicates that all of the automatic top-loading compact models 
included in the certification database are ``companion'' clothes 
washers, which are designed to serve as an auxiliary clothes washer for 
washing a small or delicate load while simultaneously washing a 
``normal'' load in the accompanying standard-size RCW.\16\ Semi-
automatic clothes washers have a single water inlet generally intended 
to be intermittently connected to a kitchen or bathroom faucet and 
require user intervention to regulate the water temperature by 
adjusting the external water faucet valves. These two product types 
exhibit significantly different design and performance characteristics. 
In this NODA, DOE presents data only for automatic ``companion'' type 
top-loading compact RCWs. DOE is continuing to test and analyze semi-
automatic top-loading RCWs in support of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Companion clothes washers are currently available in two 
different configurations: (1) Integrated into (i.e., built into) the 
cabinet above a standard-size front-loading RCW, and (2) built into 
a pedestal drawer for installation underneath a standard-size front-
loading RCW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Companion clothes washers are currently available from two 
manufacturers. DOE has included one unit from each manufacturer in its 
data set, as presented in the accompanying spreadsheet.

III. Public Participation

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
document, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, 
data, and other information using any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. 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 in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') 
will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to

[[Page 21821]]

500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of 
supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment 
processing and posting time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94d7fbfae7e1f9f1e6d7f8fbe0fcf1e7c3f5e7fcf1e6a6a4a5a3c7c0d0a4a4a5a0d4f1f1baf0fbf1baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9aa86879a9c848c9baa85869d818c9abe889a818c9bdbd9d8debabdadd9d9d8dda98c8cc78d868cc78e869f">[email protected]</span></a> two well-marked 
copies: One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all 
the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the 
document marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to 
be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the 
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its 
determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 8, 
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for 
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-07915 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


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