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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

21816 

Vol. 87, No. 71 

Wednesday, April 13, 2022 

1All 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). 

2For 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. 

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: 

ConsumerClothesWasher2017

STD0014@ee.doe.gov. 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/EERE2017-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: 

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 public meeting, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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)) 

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 (‘‘ft3/kWh/ 

cycle’’), and maximum allowable 

integrated water factor (‘‘IWF’’), 

measured in gallons per cycle per cubic 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21817 

4The TSD (corrected) is available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030. 

5See 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). 

6These two sets of data are presented in separate 

tabs of the accompanying spreadsheet which can be 

found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0014-0044. 

7Product class corresponds to the product class 

as analyzed in the September 2021 Preliminary 

Analysis, as discussed further in this section. 

foot (‘‘gal/cycle/ft3’’). 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 (‘‘ft3’’) capacity); 

top-loading, standard (1.6 ft3 or greater 

capacity); front-loading, compact (less 

than 1.6 ft3 capacity); and front-loading, 

standard (1.6 ft3 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. 

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

DOE is also publishing a table of key 

characteristics associated with each 

tested model, including the following: 

• Product class; 7

• For top-loading clothes washers: 

Agitator or wash plate; 

• Portable models identified; 

• Combination washer-dryer models 

identified; 

• Type of water fill control system 

(‘‘WFCS’’); 

• Cabinet width; 

• Presence or absence of internal 

water heater; 

• Clothes container capacity; and 

• Test cloth lot used for each test. 

These test data are available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
21818 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8The term ‘‘spin settings’’ refers to spin times or 

spin speeds. The maximum spin setting results in 

a lower (better) RMC. 

9On 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. 

10The accompanying spreadsheet specifies the 

spin implementation type identified by DOE for 

each unit in the test sample. 

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. 

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-bycycle 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

• 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. 

• 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. 

• The third type, referred to as ‘‘nondefault 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21819 

11Products marketed as ‘‘portable’’ are generally 

mounted on caster wheels, which allows the clothes 

washer to be moved more easily. 

12Section 1 of appendix J2 defines a manual 

WFCS as a WFCS that requires the user to 

determine or select the water fill level. 

13Section 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. 

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 Rsquared 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 ‘‘nondefault 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-toEER 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. 

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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
21820 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

14 DOE’s product certification database is 

available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/CCMS-4-Clothes_Washers.html#q=Product_

Group_s%3A%22Clothes%20Washers%22. 

15Semi-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). 

16Companion 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. 

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 toploading 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 toploading 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 Rsquared value) than the single 

translation equation in which toploading 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 toploading 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 semiautomatic 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. 

DOE’s analysis of product literature 

for each top-loading compact model 

indicates that all of the automatic toploading 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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 ConsumerClothes

Washer2017STD0014@ee.doe.gov 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0376; Airspace 

Docket No. 22–ANE–4] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Amendment of Class E 

Airspace; Montpelier, VT 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend Class E surface airspace and 

Class E airspace extending upward from 

700 feet above the surface at Edward F. 

Knapp State Park, Montpelier, VT, due 

to the decommissioning of the Mount 

Mansfield non-directional beacon (NDB) 

and cancellation of associated 

approaches, as well as updating the 

airport’s geographic coordinates. 

Controlled airspace is necessary for the 

safety and management of instrument 

flight rules (IFR) operations in the area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 31, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; 

Telephone: (800) 647–5527, or (202) 

366–9826. You must identify the Docket 

No. FAA–2022–0376; Airspace Docket 

No. 22–ANE–4 at the beginning of your 

comments. You may also submit 

comments through the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11F Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

online at https://www.faa.gov/air_

traffic/publications/. For further 

information, you can contact the 

Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

Telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 

John Fornito, Operations Support 

Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 

30337; Telephone (404) 305–6364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority, as it would 

amend airspace in Montpelier, VT, to 

support IFR operations in the area. 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

comment on this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (Docket No. FAA– 

2022–0376 and Airspace Docket No. 22– 

ANE–4) and be submitted in triplicate to 

DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES

section for the address and phone 

number). You may also submit 

comments through the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Persons wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2022–0376, Airspace 

Docket No. 22–ANE–4.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

All communications received before 

the specified closing date for comments 

will be considered before taking action 

on the proposed rule. The proposal 

contained in this document may be 

changed in light of the comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

comment closing date. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1