33316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s (‘‘DOE’’) 

test procedures for residential and 

commercial clothes washers to further 

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. This final rule also 

establishes 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 new test procedure will be 

used for the evaluation and issuance of 

updated efficiency standards, as well as 

to determine compliance with the 

updated standards, should such 

standards be established. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

July 1, 2022. The amendments will be 

mandatory for product testing starting 

November 28, 2022. Manufacturers will 

be required to use the amended test 

procedure until the compliance date of 

any final rule establishing amended 

energy conservation standards based on 

the newly established test procedure. At 

such time, manufacturers will be 

required to begin using the newly 

established test procedure. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain materials listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on July 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, some documents listed in the 

index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

A link to 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. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket contact the Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

incorporates 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 AATCC, 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.N of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. General Comments 

B. Scope of Applicability 

C. Testing Conditions and Instrumentation 

1. Water Meter Resolution 

2. Installation of Single-Inlet Machines 

3. Water Supply Temperatures 

4. Extra-Hot Wash Determination 

5. Wash Water Temperature Measurement 

6. 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 

6. Capacity Measurement 

7. Identifying and Addressing 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. 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 New Appendix J 

8. Proposed Deletions and Simplifications 

9. Typographical Errors 

10. Symbology 

I. Test Cloth Provisions 

1. Test Cloth Specification 

2. Consolidation to Appendix J3 

J. Product-Specific RMC Enforcement 

Provisions 

K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards 

L. Effective and Compliance Dates 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33317 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

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

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

3For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

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, Audio, video and related 

equipment—Methods of measurement for power 

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

2018). 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by 

Reference 

V. 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 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 under EPCA (42 

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

(2) making other representations about 

the efficiency of those products (42 

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

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

products comply with any relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

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

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products and 

equipment established under EPCA 

generally supersede State laws and 

regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

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

grant waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

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

6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(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 shall 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 (as 

determined by the Secretary) or period 

of use and shall not be unduly 

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

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

In addition, EPCA requires that DOE 

amend its test procedures for all covered 

products to integrate measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption into the overall energy 

efficiency, energy consumption, or other 

energy descriptor, unless the current 

test procedure already incorporates the 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, or if such integration is 

technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) 4 If an integrated test 

procedure is technically infeasible, DOE 

must prescribe separate standby mode 

and off mode energy use test procedures 

for the covered product, if a separate 

test is technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such amendment 

must consider the most current versions 

of the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 62301 5

and IEC Standard 62087 6 as applicable. 

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

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 her 

own behalf or in response to a petition 

by any interested person, that a test 

procedure should be prescribed or 

amended, the Secretary shall promptly 

publish in the Federal Register 

proposed test procedures and afford 

interested persons an opportunity to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments with respect to such 

procedures. The comment period on a 

proposed rule to amend a test procedure 

shall be at least 60 days and may not 

exceed 270 days. In prescribing or 

amending a test procedure, the 

Secretary shall take into account such 

information as the Secretary determines 

relevant to such procedure, including 

technological developments relating to 

energy use or energy efficiency of the 

type (or class) of covered products 

involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33318 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

7 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 13888, 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 appendix 

J 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. 8The current appendix J2 test procedure defines 

modified energy factor as ‘‘MEF’’ (i.e., without the 

‘‘J2’’ subscript). In the CCW test procedure 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.152, DOE defines the 

term ‘‘MEFJ2’’ to mean modified energy factor as 

determined in section 4.5 of appendix J2. As 

discussed in a CCW test procedure final rule 

published December 3, 2014, since the calculated 

value of modified energy factor in appendix J2 is 

not equivalent to the calculated value of modified 

energy factor in appendix J1, DOE added the ‘‘J2’’ 

subscript to the appendix J2 MEF descriptor to 

avoid any potential ambiguity that would result 

from using the same energy descriptor for both test 

procedures. 79 FR 71624, 71626. To maintain 

consistency with this approach, this final rule adds 

the ‘‘J2’’ subscript to the MEF metric defined in 

section 4.5 of appendix J2. See section III.H.10 of 

this document. 

9Request from Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (EERE–2016–BT–TP–0011–0020) 

available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE2016-BT-TP-0011-0020. 

EPCA requires the test procedures for 

CCWs to be the same as the test 

procedures established for RCWs. (42 

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

procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires 

that DOE evaluate, at least once every 7 

years, the test procedures for CCWs to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

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

DOE is publishing this final rule 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’’), 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 notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that DOE 

published on September 1, 2021. 86 FR 

49140 (‘‘September 2021 NOPR’’). 

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 13888 (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.7 Id. 

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 (‘‘MEFJ2’’) 8 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 on or after January 1, 

2018, must meet current energy 

conservation standards, which are based 

on MEFJ2 and IWF, determined using 

appendix J2. 10 CFR 431.154 and 10 

CFR 431.156(b). 

On May 22, 2020, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) (‘‘May 

2020 RFI’’) to initiate an effort to 

determine whether to amend the current 

test procedures for clothes washers. 85 

FR 31065. In the September 2021 NOPR, 

DOE responded to stakeholders’ 

comments on the May 2020 RFI, and 

proposed amendments to appendix J2 

and appendix J3 as well as to establish 

a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix J (‘‘appendix J’’) 

that would establish new energy 

efficiency metrics: The 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 

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

the water efficiency metric for both 

RCWs and CCWs (replacing IWF); as 

well as incorporate a number of 

revisions to improve test procedure 

representativeness and reduce test 

burden. 86 FR 49140. 

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 reevaluated 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 

received several petitions for 

reconsideration of the December 2020 

Final Rule. Following the re-evaluation 

of the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE 

published a NOPR on August 11, 2021, 

that proposed to repeal the short-cycle 

product classes. 86 FR 43970. DOE 

repealed the short-cycle product classes 

in a final rule published on January 19, 

2022. 87 FR 2673. 

The comment period of the September 

2021 NOPR was initially set to close on 

November 1, 2021. 86 FR 49140. In 

response to a stakeholder request,9 on 

October 28, 2021, DOE published a 

notice (‘‘October 2021 Notice’’) 

extending the comment period until 

November 29, 2021. 86 FR 59652. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the September 2021 NOPR from the 

interested parties listed in Table I.1. 

TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 2021 NOPR 

Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule Commenter type 

Anonymous .............................................................................................. Anonymous .................................... Individual. 

John Oeisratnas ...................................................................................... Oeisratnas ..................................... Individual. 

Kenneth Warren ...................................................................................... Warren ........................................... Individual. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33319 

10The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

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). 

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. 

TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 2021 NOPR—Continued 

Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule Commenter type 

Micah Mutrux ........................................................................................... Mutrux ............................................ Individual. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council.Joint Efficiency Advocates ............. Efficiency Organizations. 

Ameren, ComEd, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ................. Joint Commenters ......................... Efficiency Organization & Utilities. 

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

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

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sempra Energy, Southern California Edison (collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities).CA IOUs ........................................ Utilities. 

People’s Republic of China ..................................................................... P.R. China ..................................... Nation. 

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

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

Whirlpool commented that it supports 

AHAM’s comments on the September 

2021 NOPR. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2) 

GEA also commented that it supports 

AHAM’s comments on the September 

2021 NOPR, and incorporated AHAM’s 

comments by reference. (GEA, No. 32 at 

p. 2) 

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 Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE amends 

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 adaptive 

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 or correct obsolete 

definitions, metrics, and the clothes 

washer-specific waiver section; and 

(12) Move additional test cloth related 

specifications to appendix J3. 

In this final rule, DOE also updates 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 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 final rule, DOE also adds 

appendix J to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of Automatic 

and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers,’’ 

which will 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 new 

appendix J will include the following 

additional provisions beyond the 

amendments to appendix J2: 

(1) Modify the hot water supply 

temperature range; 

(2) Modify the clothes washer preconditioning requirements; 

(3) Modify the Extra-Hot Wash 

threshold temperature; 

(4) Add measurement and calculation 

of average cycle time; 

(5) 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; 

(6) Reduce the number of required test 

cycles by removing the need for one or 

more cycles used for measuring RMC; 

(7) Reduce the number of load sizes 

from three to two for units currently 

tested with three load sizes; 

(8) Modify the load size definitions 

consistent with two, rather than three, 

load sizes; 

(9) Update the water fill levels to be 

used for testing to reflect the modified 

load size definitions; 

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

test procedure for semi-automatic 

clothes washers; 

(11) Define new performance metrics 

that are based on the weighted-average 

load size rather than clothes container 

capacity: ‘‘energy efficiency ratio,’’ 

‘‘active-mode energy efficiency ratio,’’ 

and ‘‘water efficiency ratio;’’ 

(12) Update the final moisture content 

assumption in the drying energy 

formula; 

(13) Update the number of annual 

clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; 

and 

(14) 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 final rule, DOE is 

removing appendix J1 and updating the 

relevant sections of 10 CFR parts 429, 

430 and 431 in accordance with the 

edits discussed previously, and 

modifying the product-specific 

enforcement provisions regarding the 

determination of RMC. 

The adopted amendments are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the test procedure provision prior to the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33320 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

amendment, as well as the reason for 

the adopted change. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN APPENDIX J2 TEST PROCEDURE

Current Appendix J2 test procedure Amended Appendix J2 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.

Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Specifies a target water supply temperature at the 

high end of the water supply temperature range.

Specifies the midpoint of the allowable range as the 

target water temperature.

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.Reduce test burden. 

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.

Response to waiver. 

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.

Accommodate potential source of 

variation in enforcement testing. 

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.

Response to test laboratory question. 

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.

Improve reproducibility of test results. 

Does not provide an explicit definition for ‘‘user-adjustable adaptive water fill controls’’ or ‘‘wash time’’.Provides a definition for ‘‘user-adjustable adaptive 

water fill controls’’ and for ‘‘wash time’’.

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.

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.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.

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.

Improve readability. 

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

J3.

Improve readability. 

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

appendix J1 in its entirety.

Improve readability. 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN APPENDIX J TEST PROCEDURE IN COMPARISON TO APPENDIX J2 

Current Appendix J2 test procedure New Appendix J 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.

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.

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.

Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Defines the Extra-Hot Wash threshold as 135 °F ....... Specifies an Extra-Hot Wash threshold of 140 °F ..... Improve representativeness of test 

results and reduce test burden. 

Specifies a target water supply temperature at the 

high end of the water supply temperature range.

Specifies the midpoint of the allowable range as the 

target water temperature.

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.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.

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.

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.

Reduce test burden. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33321 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN APPENDIX J TEST PROCEDURE IN COMPARISON TO APPENDIX J2—Continued 

Current Appendix J2 test procedure New Appendix J test procedure Attribution 

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.

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.Maintain representativeness. 

Requires testing up to 3 Warm Wash temperature 

selections.

Requires testing a maximum of 2 Warm Wash temperature selections.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.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.

Accommodate potential source of 

variation in enforcement testing. 

Does not specify a measure of cycle time ................. Specifies provisions for measuring cycle time .......... 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.

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.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.

Improve reproducibility of test results. 

Defines metrics that are based on clothes container 

capacity (IMEF, MEFJ2, IWF).

Specifies new metrics that are based on the weighted-average load size (EER, AEER, WER).Improve representativeness of test 

results. 

Calculates the energy required for a clothes dryer to 

remove the remaining moisture of the test load assuming a final moisture content of 4 percent.

Updates the assumed final moisture content to 2 

percent.

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.

Update with more recent consumer usage data. 

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.

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.

Response to test laboratory question. 

Does not provide an explicit definition for ‘‘user-adjustable adaptive water fill controls’’ or ‘‘wash time’’.Provides a definition for ‘‘user-adjustable adaptive 

water fill controls’’ and for ‘‘wash time’’.

Improve readability. 

Categorizes water fill control systems into automatic 

fill or manual fill categories.

Categorizes water fill control systems based on how 

the user interacts with the controls and whether 

the water fill level is based on the size or weight 

of the clothing load.

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.

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 large 

load size.

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.

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.

Improve readability. 

TABLE II.3—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN APPENDIX J3 TEST PROCEDURE

Current Appendix J3 test procedure Amended Appendix J3 test procedure Attribution 

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

J3.

Improve readability. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33322 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II.3—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN APPENDIX J3 TEST PROCEDURE—Continued 

Current Appendix J3 test procedure Amended Appendix J3 test procedure Attribution 

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. 

DOE has determined that the 

amendments to appendix J2 and 

appendix J3 described in section III of 

this document and adopted in this 

document will not alter the measured 

efficiency of clothes washers or require 

retesting or recertification solely as a 

result of DOE’s adoption of the 

amendments to the test procedures, and 

that the proposed test procedures would 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

DOE has determined that the 

amendments in the new appendix J 

would alter the measured efficiency of 

clothes washers, in part because the 

amended test procedure adopts a 

different energy efficiency metric and 

water efficiency metric than in the 

current test procedures. However, use of 

new appendix J is not required until the 

compliance date of any standards 

amended based on the test procedure in 

appendix J, should such amendments be 

adopted. Discussion of DOE’s actions 

are addressed in detail in section III of 

this document. 

The effective date for the amendments 

adopted in this final rule is 30 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Representations of 

energy use or energy efficiency must be 

based on testing in accordance with the 

amended appendix J2 test procedures 

beginning 180 days after the publication 

of this final rule. Manufacturers will be 

required to certify compliance using the 

new appendix J test procedure 

beginning on the compliance date of any 

final rule establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for clothes 

washers that are published after the 

effective date of this final rule. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

describes the amendments made to the 

test procedures for residential and 

commercial clothes washers. 

A. General Comments 

DOE received a number of general 

comments from stakeholders, as 

summarized below. 

Oeiratnas, Warren, and an anonymous 

commenter expressed general support of 

the September 2021 NOPR. (Oeisratnas, 

No. 24 at p. 1; Warren, No. 15 at p. 1; 

Anonymous, No. 23 at p. 1) Another 

anonymous commenter expressed 

general support of improving efficiency 

in clothes washers. (Anonymous, No. 21 

at p. 1) 

AHAM commented in opposition to 

DOE publishing the RCW energy 

conservation standards preliminary 

analysis on September 29, 2021 

(‘‘September 2021 RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis’’; 86 FR 53886) 

before finalizing a test procedure, or 

before the comment period on the 

September 2021 NOPR closed. (AHAM, 

No. 27 at p. 3) AHAM stated that 

although DOE provided some additional 

time for comment on both the test 

procedure and the preliminary analysis 

for standards, having both rules open for 

comment at the same time and before 

commenters have had sufficient time to 

evaluate and conduct the proposed test 

procedure does not allow commenters 

to meaningfully comment on either the 

proposed test procedure or the 

preliminary analysis. (Id.) AHAM also 

commented that, while it recognizes and 

supports DOE’s interest in moving the 

clothes washer energy conservation 

standards and test procedure 

rulemakings forward, DOE should have 

released its test procedure proposal 

before conducting its RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis so that DOE could 

receive feedback on the test procedure 

proposal before proceeding with its 

analysis. (Id.) AHAM concluded that it 

is likely that DOE will need to conduct 

additional analyses based on the 

finalized test procedure before 

proposing a new energy conservation 

standard. (Id.) 

GEA expressed concern with the 

development of an energy conservation 

standard for a product without a set test 

procedure. (GEA, No. 32 at p. 2) GEA 

stated that without a finalized test 

procedure, it is difficult to effectively 

comment on the September 2021 RCW 

Standards Preliminary Analysis, 

particularly due to complexities of 

comparing data between new appendix 

J and appendix J2 test procedures. (Id.) 

GEA recommended that DOE accept and 

consider feedback generated by the 

testing program coordinated by AHAM, 

and that DOE complete the ongoing test 

procedure rulemaking before moving 

forward with the RCW standards 

rulemaking. (Id.) 

In response to AHAM and GEA’s 

comments regarding the publication of 

the September 2021 NOPR and the 

September 2021 RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis, neither the prior 

version nor the current version of DOE’s 

‘‘Procedures, Interpretations, and 

Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation Standards 

and Test Procedures for Consumer 

Products and Certain Commercial/ 

Industrial Equipment’’ found in 

appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’) specify that 

a final amended test procedure will be 

issued prior to issuing standards preNOPR rulemaking documents (e.g., a 

standards preliminary analysis). See 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(Jan. 1, 2020 edition); 86 FR 70892, 

70928 (Dec. 13, 2021). Rather, the prior 

version of the Process Rule provided 

that test procedure rulemakings 

establishing methodologies used to 

evaluate proposed energy conservation 

standards would be finalized at least 

180 days prior to publication of a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Section 8(d) of 

appendix A of 10 CFR part 430 subpart 

C (Jan. 1, 2020 edition). The current 

version of the Process Rule generally 

provides that new test procedures and 

amended test procedures that impact 

measured energy use or efficiency will 

be finalized at least 180 days prior to the 

close of the comment period for a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 86 FR 70892, 

70928. DOE will continue to conduct 

additional analyses based on this 

finalized test procedure before 

proposing any new energy conservation 

standards, and stakeholders will be 

provided an opportunity to comment on 

any updated analysis as part of any 

proposal published regarding amended 

standards. 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

not proceed with its determination on a 

clothes washer energy conservation 

standard until there is adequate data 

showing the accuracy, repeatability, and 

reproducibility of new appendix J and 

changes to appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 27 

at pp. 2–3) AHAM added that it is 

currently unable to provide detailed 

comment on the accuracy, repeatability, 

reproducibility, and test burden 

associated with the new test procedure. 

(Id.) In particular, AHAM stated that it 

cannot provide detailed comment on the 

following topics: Pre-conditioning 

requirements (see section III.C.6 of this 

document), defining new test load sizes 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33323 

12AHAM’s comments on semi-automatic clothes 

washers include comments on temperature 

selection, temperature usage factors, cycles required 

for test, and the general implementation of the 

proposed test provisions for semi-automatic clothes 

washers. All of these aspects are discussed in 

section III.D.8 of this document. 

13Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020. 

14See, for example, Table 5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the 

RCW preliminary analysis TSD describes the 

impact of each proposed test procedure revision on 

each individual component of the efficiency 

metrics. The Residential Clothes Washers Energy 

Conservation Standards Preliminary Technical 

Support Document is available at 

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

15 DOE uses the term ‘‘baseline’’ to refer to 

performance that is minimally compliant with the 

applicable standard. 

and their associated load usage factors 

(see section III.D.1.b of this document), 

water fill setting selections for the 

proposed load sizes (see section III.D.2 

of this document), the revised 

calculation of RMC (see section III.D.4.a 

of this document), semi-automatic 

clothes washers 12 (see section III.D.8 of 

this document), replacing capacity with 

weighted-average load sizes in the 

efficiency metrics (see section III.E.1 of 

this document), and inverting the water 

efficiency metric (see section III.E.2 of 

this document). (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 

4–8) AHAM stated that it and its 

members have developed a robust 

testing plan to evaluate the proposed 

test procedure changes, but will not 

have the testing completed until the end 

of 2021, and will need much of January 

2022 to aggregate and present the results 

to DOE. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 2–3) 

AHAM commented that, while AHAM 

appreciates DOE’s consideration of 

AHAM’s October 11, 2021 comment 

extension request,13 the 28-day 

comment period extension DOE 

provided as part of the October 2021 

Notice is still not sufficient for AHAM 

and its members to provide a full set of 

meaningful comments. (Id.) AHAM 

stated that it plans to continue testing 

and, when it is complete, will provide 

an additional comment to DOE based on 

the test results. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented that industry 

testing regarding proposed new 

appendix J is ongoing. (Whirlpool, No. 

26 at pp. 2–3) Whirlpool commented 

that, given the magnitude of changes 

proposed for the new appendix J test 

procedure, Whirlpool did not have 

adequate time to complete and analyze 

all desired testing during the comment 

period for the September 2021 NOPR. 

(Id.) Whirlpool also commented that it 

is taking appropriate steps in its test 

laboratory to ensure proper testing to 

new appendix J. (Id.) Whirlpool added 

that its comments on the September 

2021 NOPR are preliminary, and that its 

comments may need to be 

supplemented or corrected once 

investigative testing is completed. (Id.) 

In particular, Whirlpool stated that it 

cannot provide detailed comments on 

the following topics: Tested load sizes 

(see section III.D.1 of this document), 

the efficiency metrics (see section III.E 

of this document), and consumer usage 

assumptions (see section III.G of this 

document). (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 7– 

11) 

GEA commented that it is 

participating in testing organized by 

AHAM to test 26 models across seven 

test laboratories to evaluate the 

proposed changes to the clothes washer 

test procedure. (GEA, No. 32 at p. 2) 

GEA expressed concern that GEA and 

other AHAM members are devoting 

substantial financial resources to this 

testing, and that DOE is not 

accommodating this test plan by failing 

to provide the February 1, 2021 

comment deadline extension originally 

proposed by AHAM. (Id.) GEA added 

that it is particularly concerned about 

the impact of the proposed new metrics, 

which are based on weighted-average 

load size instead of capacity, and the 

impact of DOE’s proposed changes to 

the load usage factors. (Id.) 

DOE appreciates the efforts described 

by AHAM and manufacturers in 

conducting testing to evaluate the 

proposed changes to the clothes washer 

test procedure. DOE welcomes and 

encourages interested parties to submit 

test data in support of the RCW 

standards rulemaking. DOE notes that 

much of the reservation expressed by 

AHAM and manufacturers was with 

regard to the impact on measured 

energy as a result of the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure. 

Impacts on measured energy use 

between the then-current appendix J2 

and the proposed appendix J test 

procedures were factored into the 

September 2021 RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis and presented in 

the accompanying Technical Support 

Document (‘‘TSD’’).14 Specifically, 

testing and modeling of results between 

the two test procedures were used to 

generate preliminary translations (i.e., 

‘‘crosswalks’’) between the appendix J2 

and appendix J metrics for each defined 

efficiency level. To the extent that 

provisions of appendix J result in higher 

measured energy compared to appendix 

J2, such impacts were factored into the 

crosswalk of baseline 15 and higher 

efficiency levels. As stated in chapter 5, 

section 5.3.3.3 of the preliminary 

analysis TSD, DOE plans to continue 

testing additional units to appendix J as 

finalized in this document and will 

continue to refine its approach for 

determining appropriate crosswalk 

translations in future stages of the 

standards rulemaking. Details regarding 

the expected impacts on measured 

energy are discussed in greater detail 

throughout sections III.C, III.D, and III.E 

of this document. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed introductory text to both 

appendix J2 and the proposed new 

appendix J that provides the timeline for 

use of appendix J2 and appendix J. 86 

FR 49140, 49146, 49205, 49218. 

P.R. China recommended that DOE 

clarify the relationship between new 

appendix J and appendix J2, and the 

implementation timeline of new 

appendix J and appendix J2. (P.R. 

China, No. 25 at p. 3) 

As discussed, DOE is establishing a 

new test procedure at a new appendix 

J at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, which 

DOE would use for the evaluation and 

issuance of updated efficiency 

standards. Use of new appendix J is not 

required until the compliance date of 

any new or amended standards that are 

based on new appendix J. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(C)). 

This final rule maintains the 

introductory notes in appendix J and 

appendix J2 as proposed in the 

September 2021 NOPR, while updating 

the reference date from January 1, 2021, 

to January 1, 2022. Specifically: 

• 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 the January 1, 2022 

edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. 

• Before the date 180 days following 

publication of this final rule, 

representations must be based upon 

results generated either under appendix 

J2 as amended in this final rule or under 

appendix J2 as it appeared in the 10 

CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of 

January 1, 2022. 

• On or after 180 days following 

publication of this final rule, but before 

the compliance date of any amended 

standards for clothes washers, any 

representations must be made based 

upon results generated using appendix 

J2 as amended in this final rule. 

• On or after the compliance date of 

any future amended standards provided 

in § 430.32(g) or in § 431.156 that are 

published after January 1, 2022, any 

representations must be based upon 

results generated using appendix J. 

DOE further notes that any 

representations related to energy or 

water consumption of RCWs or CCWs 

must be made in accordance with the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33324 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., 

appendix J or appendix J2) when 

determining compliance with the 

relevant standard and that 

manufacturers may also use appendix J 

to certify compliance with any amended 

standards prior to the applicable 

compliance date for those standards. 

Warren suggested that DOE be more 

specific in how the proposed 

regulations would be enforced, 

including who would be responsible to 

verify regulation requirements, the 

necessary amount of funding to support 

this rule, and the expected process by 

which clothes washers are to be 

inspected. (Warren, No. 15 at p. 1) 

DOE specifies certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

regulations for consumer products and 

commercial and industry equipment 

covered by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards program at 10 CFR part 429. 

Subpart A to part 429 specifies general 

provisions; subpart B to part 429 

(‘‘Certification’’) sets forth the 

procedures for manufacturers to certify 

that their covered products and covered 

equipment comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards; and 

subpart C to part 429 (‘‘Enforcement’’) 

describes the enforcement authority of 

DOE to ensure compliance with the 

conservation standards and regulations. 

B. Scope of Applicability 

This final rule 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 final rule 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 changing the scope of 

products and equipment covered by its 

clothes washer test procedures, or the 

relevant definitions, in this final rule. 

C. Testing Conditions and 

Instrumentation 

1. Water Meter Resolution 

Section 2.5.5 of the previous 

appendix J2 required the use of water 

meters (in both 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. As discussed in the 

September 2021 NOPR, 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. 86 FR 49140, 

49146. 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. Id. 

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. Id. 

For these clothes washers, a water meter 

resolution of 0.1 gallons would be 

insufficient to provide an accurate 

measurement of hot water consumption 

because the volume of hot water 

measured would be less than the 

resolution of the water meter. Id. As 

discussed in the September 2021 NOPR, 

DOE’s testing suggests that clothes 

washers that use such low volumes of 

heated water represent a minority of 

units on the market. Id. DOE tentatively 

concluded that 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. Id. DOE therefore proposed the 

use of a hot water meter with more 

precise resolution only for clothes 

washers with hot water usage less than 

0.1 gallons in any of the individual 

cycles within the energy test cycle. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to specify 

in section 2.5.5 of both appendix J2 and 

new appendix J that 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). 86 FR 49140, 

49147. DOE requested comment on this 

proposal, and on the extent to which 

manufacturers and test laboratories 

already use water meters with this 

greater resolution. Id. DOE also 

requested comment on whether this 

proposal would require manufacturers 

to retest any basic models that have 

already been certified under the existing 

water meter resolution requirements. Id. 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that they support DOE’s 

proposal to require higher water meter 

resolution for hot water use 

measurements. (Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 3–4) However, 

the Joint Efficiency Advocates 

recommended that instead of requiring 

a water meter resolution of 0.01 gallons 

for clothes washers that use less than 

0.1 gallons of water, DOE should require 

a water meter resolution of 0.01 gallons 

for all hot water use measurements. (Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates added 

that requiring a resolution no larger than 

0.01 gallons if hot water use is less than 

0.1 gallons suggests that hot water usage 

is known prior to testing. (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates concluded that 

requiring a 0.01-gallon resolution would 

more accurately reflect hot water and 

energy usage. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

support DOE’s proposal to require a 

water meter resolution of 0.01 gallons 

for clothes washers that use less than 

0.1 gallons of water. (CA IOUs, No. 29 

at p. 6) However, the CA IOUs stated 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33325 

16As noted, some models may provide or 

accommodate a Y-shaped hose to connect the 

separate cold and hot water faucets or supply lines. 

17Measured 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 of this document for 

more details. 

that it is difficult to discern whether the 

higher resolution provision would be 

required, since the test laboratory would 

need previous knowledge that there is a 

low-level use of hot water prior to the 

test. (Id.) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE 

to consider requiring the 0.01-gallon 

resolution for all products tested under 

appendix J2 and new appendix J, or 

alternatively provide clarification for 

how a testing laboratory would know 

prior to testing that it would need to use 

0.01-gallon-resolution water meters. 

(Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

proposal to require a water meter 

resolution of 0.01 gallons for clothes 

washers that use less than 0.1 gallons of 

hot water could provide a benefit by 

increasing the accuracy of the 

measurements, but could increase test 

burden due to the cost of obtaining 

higher-resolution meters. (AHAM, No. 

27 at p. 8) AHAM additionally 

commented that DOE’s water meter 

resolution proposal may not be 

practical, since laboratories outside of 

those operated by manufacturers may 

not have insight into which cycles use 

less than 0.1 gallons of hot water. (Id.) 

In response to comments that the 

volume of hot water would need to be 

known prior to testing in order to use 

a water meter with the correct 

resolution, DOE notes that this concern 

would likely apply only to third-party 

laboratories, since manufacturers would 

have advance knowledge of the 

expected water usage of their own 

products. DOE acknowledges that it may 

not be possible for a third-party test 

laboratory to know in advance the 

expected water usage of a clothes 

washer. In DOE’s experience, in 

practice, an examination of test results 

during testing can yield insights as to 

whether a clothes washer is using less 

than 0.1 gallons of hot water. As one 

example, as described earlier in this 

section, if the maximum load size uses 

close to 0.1 gallons of hot water on a 

particular temperature setting, the 

average and minimum load sizes are 

likely to use a quantity less than 0.1 

gallons. As another example, 

laboratories may be aware of trends 

among models from the same product 

lines, such as models containing both 

‘‘Tap Cold’’ and ‘‘Cold’’ settings that use 

very little hot water on the ‘‘Cold’’ 

setting. As yet another example, other 

measured parameters such as water 

pressure can indicate when a water 

valve is opened on the clothes washer; 

e.g., a test cycle that indicates no hot 

water use (in the case where a water 

meter with 0.1 gallon resolution is 

used), but for which the water pressure 

data indicated a brief opening of the hot 

water valve, would suggest that a 

smaller quantity of hot water may have 

been used and that a more precise water 

meter resolution is required. 

DOE tentatively concluded in the 

September 2021 NOPR that most, if not 

all, third-party laboratories already have 

water meters with the more precise 

resolution. DOE also estimated the cost 

of a water meter that provides the 

proposed resolution, including 

associated hardware, to be around $600 

for each device. 86 FR 49140, 49191. 

DOE reiterates these cost estimates in 

section III.K.1 of this document. DOE 

received no comments in response to 

the September 2021 NOPR regarding 

DOE’s estimated cost of a water meter. 

DOE determines in this final rule that 

for clothes washers that use less than 

0.1 gallons of hot water on certain 

temperature selections required for 

testing, the use of the more precise 

water meters would improve the 

reproducibility of testing and the 

representativeness of the results without 

being unduly burdensome. DOE also 

determines that requiring greater water 

meter precision for all clothes washers 

(i.e., as opposed to only those that use 

less than 0.1 gallons of hot water on 

certain temperature selections) would 

represent an undue burden for those 

clothes washer models for which water 

meters with the currently required level 

of precision provide representative 

results. For these reasons and those 

discussed above, DOE is finalizing its 

proposal, consistent with the September 

2021 NOPR, by amending section 2.5.5 

of both appendix J2 and new appendix 

J to specify that 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. 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. 86 

FR 49140, 49147. 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. 

For single-inlet semi-automatic 

clothes washers, 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).16

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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

stated that additional direction in the 

test procedure is warranted to produce 

test results that reflect representative 

consumer usage of cold, warm, and hot 

wash/rinse temperatures. Id. DOE 

therefore proposed for testing of semiautomatic RCWs to require connection 

to only the cold water supply in new 

appendix J, enabling testing of only the 

Cold/Cold wash/rinse temperature, and 

proposed to calculate the energy and 

water performance at other wash/rinse 

temperatures formulaically from the 

Cold Wash/Cold Rinse (‘‘Cold/Cold’’) 

cycle data. 86 FR 49140, 49148. DOE 

asserted that the energy and water 

performance at temperatures other than 

Cold/Cold could be calculated 

numerically using test data from the 

Cold/Cold cycle, because the measured 

characteristics 17 of a semi-automatic 

clothes washer cycle do not depend on 

the inlet water temperature. 86 FR 

49140, 49148. DOE proposed to make 

this change only in the 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. Id. DOE requested 

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. Id. 

For single-inlet automatic clothes 

washers, in the September 2021 NOPR, 

DOE proposed to specify that all singleinlet automatic clothes washers be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33326 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

18For example, water-heating clothes washers or 

clothes washers with thermostatically controlled 

water valves. 

19Lutz, 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. 

installed to the cold water supply only, 

based on a review of user manuals. 86 

FR 49140, 49148. DOE proposed to 

include this provision in the new 

appendix J only. Id. The proposed edit 

to section 2.10.1 of the new appendix J 

is that if the clothes washer has only 

one water inlet, the inlet would be 

connected to the cold water supply in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. Id. DOE requested 

comment on this proposal, and on 

whether this requirement should be 

included in only the new appendix J, or 

whether, if adopted, it should be 

included as an amendment to appendix 

J2. Id. 

P.R. China commented in support of 

requiring single-inlet clothes washers to 

be installed to the cold water supply 

only. (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3) P.R. 

China also recommended that DOE add 

test methods that would evaluate singleinlet clothes washers’ heating functions 

using different programs where the 

water is heated to different 

temperatures. (Id.) DOE received no 

comments regarding how single-inlet 

clothes washers are being tested 

currently to appendix J2 or whether the 

proposed amendments should also be 

adopted in appendix J2. 

In response to P.R. China’s 

recommendation, DOE notes that a 

single-inlet clothes washer with a 

heating function would be classified as 

an automatic single-inlet clothes washer 

and as such would be tested using the 

temperature selections determined to be 

part of the energy test cycle using the 

flowcharts provided in section 2.12 of 

appendix J2 or new appendix J. 

For the reasons discussed, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal to require in 

section 2.10.1 of the new appendix J 

that a clothes washer with only one 

water inlet be connected to the cold 

water supply in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. DOE is 

unable to determine whether these 

amendments would change how such 

units are currently being tested by 

manufacturers and laboratories under 

appendix J2 and therefore is not 

adopting these amendments in 

appendix J2. As described further in 

section III.D.8 of this document, DOE is 

also finalizing its proposal for semiautomatic clothes washers in new 

appendix J to require testing of only the 

Cold/Cold wash/rinse temperature and 

to calculate the energy and water 

performance at other wash/rinse 

temperatures formulaically from the 

Cold/Cold cycle data. 

3. Water Supply Temperatures 

a. Hot Water Supply Temperature 

Section 2.2 of appendix J2 requires 

maintaining the hot water supply 

temperature between 130 degrees 

Fahrenheit (‘‘°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,18 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 

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. 

As noted in the September 2021 

NOPR, 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’’) 19 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, section 2.3.2. of 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. This water supply temperature 

is intended to be representative of 

household hot water temperatures. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to update the hot water supply 

temperature in the new appendix J from 

130–135 °F to 120–125 °F. Id. 

Additionally, DOE proposed to change 

the value of ‘‘T,’’ the temperature rise 

that represents the nominal difference 

between the hot and cold water inlet 

temperatures, from 75 °F to 65 °F, 

consistent with the differential between 

the nominal values for the proposed hot 

water supply temperature (120–125 °F) 

and the cold water supply temperature 

(55–60 °F). 86 FR 49140, 49149–49150. 

DOE requested 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. 86 FR 49140, 

49150. 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented in support of DOE 

specifying a hot water supply 

temperature of 120–125 °F and 

decreasing the temperature rise from 

75 °F to 65 °F accordingly. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 3) 

Referencing DOE’s discussion in the 

July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule and 

the September 2021 NOPR, the Joint 

Efficiency Advocates stated that a hot 

water supply temperature of 120–125 °F 

would better reflect current clothes 

washer usage conditions than the 135 °F 

temperature specified in the current test 

procedure. (Id.) The comment also 

noted that the proposed reduction of the 

hot water temperature rise for appendix 

J was reasonable. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to specify the 

clothes washer hot water supply 

temperature range from 120 to 125 °F, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33327 

20Calculated as 20 gallons (gal) × 75 °F 

temperature rise × 0.0024 kWh/gal/°F specific heat 

of water, per section 4.1.2 of appendix J2. 

21Calculated as 20 gal × 65 °F temperature rise × 

0.0024 kWh/gal/°F. 

22Calculated as 20 gal × 10 °F temperature rise × 

0.0024 kWh/gal/°F × 100% assumed efficiency. 

stating that it is a reasonable 

representation of real-world supply 

temperatures. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 

at p. 10) 

AHAM commented that if DOE 

proceeds with adjusting the hot water 

temperature to 125 °F, all provisions 

within the test procedure relating to 

maximum water temperature should be 

adjusted to 125 °F as well, including the 

flow charts within the test procedure. 

(AHAM, No. 27 at p. 9) AHAM added 

that the flow charts have been helpful 

to manufacturers and test laboratories, 

and that it is therefore critical that they 

be properly adjusted to account for the 

temperature change. (Id.) AHAM also 

commented that this change could limit 

customer choice with respect to 

temperature controls, asserting that 

since the proposed temperature 

requirement for the Extra-hot Wash/ 

Cold Rinse cycle would be 140 °F, but 

the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle would 

not be able to get above 125 °F without 

the use of an internal water heater, a 

clothes washer with a temperature 

setting between 125 °F and 140 °F would 

experience a negative impact to its 

energy use. (Id.) AHAM added that this 

change would mean that manufacturers 

would no longer realistically be able to 

offer consumers temperatures between 

125 °F and 140 °F, and that product 

redesign would be required. (Id.) AHAM 

added that additional testing may 

illuminate this concern and, if so, 

AHAM would provide DOE with more 

information. (Id.) 

In response to AHAM’s comment that 

decreasing the hot inlet supply 

temperature to a range of 120 to 125 °F 

would result in greater measured energy 

for a clothes washer with a temperature 

setting between 125 °F and 140 °F due to 

the need to use an internal water heater, 

DOE expects that the overall measured 

energy use of a temperature setting 

between 125 °F and 140 °F would 

remain roughly the same even with the 

reduced hot water inlet temperature. 

The total measured energy for each 

cycle includes both the machine 

electrical energy (which includes any 

energy expended for internal water 

heating) as well as the energy used to 

heat the water externally in a water 

heater (i.e., the water heating energy). 

As discussed further in section III.G.6 of 

this document, the calculation of water 

heating energy assumes a 100 percent 

efficient external electric water heater. 

DOE would expect an internal water 

heater within a clothes washer to 

operate similarly at a thermal efficiency 

of roughly 100 percent. Accordingly, for 

a given wash temperature, the amount 

of thermal energy measured by the test 

procedure is roughly the same 

regardless of whether the heated water 

is supplied by an external water heater 

or an internal water heating element 

within the clothes washer, or a 

combination of both. 

As an example, consider a clothes 

washer with a hot wash temperature of 

135 °F and a test cycle that uses 20 

gallons of water. Under the appendix J2 

test procedure with a nominal hot water 

supply temperature of 135 °F, all 20 

gallons would be hot water, externally 

heated with an associated water heating 

energy of 3.6 kWh.20 Using instead a 

nominal hot water supply temperature 

of 125 °F, the same test cycle would 

similarly use 20 gallons of externallyheated water (heated to 125 °F rather 

than 135 °F), plus additional internal 

water heating to increase the 

temperature by an additional 10 °F to 

135 °F. In this scenario, the external 

water heating energy would be 

calculated as 3.12 kWh,21 and the 

internal water heater would be expected 

to use around 0.48 kWh,22 for a total of 

3.6 kWh (matching the first scenario). 

As exemplified, DOE concludes that 

any change in the balance between 

externally heated water and internally 

heated water as a result of changing the 

inlet supply temperature would have 

negligible, if any, impact on overall 

energy use and therefore would not 

limit a manufacturer’s ability to 

continue to offer wash temperatures 

between 125 °F and 140 °F. As discussed 

previously, any impacts to measured 

energy, however minor, as a result of 

changes to the hot water supply inlet 

temperature were accounted for in the 

crosswalk between the appendix J2 and 

appendix J metrics developed for the 

September 2021 RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis. DOE will 

continue to consider any such impacts 

in future stages of the standards 

rulemaking. Furthermore, given DOE’s 

determination that a hot water supply 

temperature range of 120 °F to 125 °F is 

more representative of household hot 

water temperatures, any change in 

measured energy as a result of changing 

the hot water supply inlet temperature 

would be more representative of 

consumer use. 

For the reasons discussed previously, 

DOE is finalizing its proposal to update 

the hot water supply temperature in the 

new appendix J from 130–135 °F to 120– 

125 °F, and to update the value of ‘‘T’’ 

to 65 °F accordingly, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR. DOE reiterates 

that any impacts to measured energy as 

a result of changes to the hot water inlet 

supply temperature will be accounted 

for in the crosswalk between the 

appendix J2 and appendix J metrics as 

part of the ongoing standards analysis, 

such that DOE does not expect the 

changes implemented in this final rule 

to require significant product redesign. 

b. Target Water Supply Temperatures 

Section 2.2 of appendix J2 specified 

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. Section 

2.2 of appendix J2 specified maintaining 

a cold water temperature between 55 °F 

and 60 °F, using 60 °F as the target 

temperature. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to remove the ‘‘target’’ 

temperature associated with each water 

supply temperature range, and to 

instead define only the allowable 

temperature range. 86 FR 49140, 49151. 

Based on experience working with 

third-party test laboratories, as well as 

its own testing experience, DOE 

recognizes that maintaining a target 

temperature for the water supply that 

represents one edge of the allowable 

temperature range, rather than the 

midpoint, may be difficult. Id. On 

electronic temperature-mixing valves 

commonly used by test laboratories, the 

output water temperature is maintained 

within an approximately 2-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 water 

inlet temperature remains within the 

allowable range, such a temperature 

controller would need to be set to 

around the midpoint of the range, which 

conflicts with the test procedure 

requirement. Id. 

Specifically, DOE proposed in the 

September 2021 NOPR that the cold 

water supply temperature range be 

defined as 55 °F to 60 °F in both 

appendix J2 and the new appendix J; the 

hot water supply temperature range in 

appendix J2 be defined as 130 °F to 

135 °F; and the hot water supply 

temperature range in the new appendix 

J be defined as 120 °F to 125 °F. Id. 

DOE requested 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 new appendix J, 130 °F to 135 °F 

for hot water in appendix J2, and 120 °F 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33328 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

23Section 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 MEFJ2

value. 

to 125 °F for hot water in the new 

appendix J. Id. 

Whirlpool stated that it opposes 

DOE’s proposal to remove the target 

temperatures from the proposed hot or 

cold water supply temperature 

requirements, stating that DOE provided 

no strong rationale to remove them. 

(Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 5–6) 

Whirlpool further commented that 

removing the target condition could 

reduce reproducibility by increasing the 

chances that test laboratories will 

conduct testing throughout the entire 

allowable range, rather than test at or 

near a single target temperature. (Id.) 

For example, as stated by Whirlpool, the 

absence of a target temperature may 

force manufacturers to be extremely 

conservative in the testing and 

certification of products and always test 

at the part of the range that produces the 

least energy efficient results. (Id.) 

Whirlpool expressed concern that 

removing the target temperature could 

increase the overall variation between 

laboratory test results. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that it opposes 

DOE’s proposal to specify a target 

temperature range instead of a target 

temperature. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 9– 

10) AHAM recommended that DOE 

align its proposed test procedure with 

other DOE test procedures in which the 

target temperature has a tolerance and 

nominal target, rather than any 

temperature within a specified range 

(e.g., X ± Y with nominal X as the 

target), in order to increase 

reproducibility. (Id.) AHAM commented 

that while it recognizes that any value 

within a temperature range would be a 

valid test, a target nominal temperature 

would discourage test laboratories from 

testing at one end of the range or the 

other. (Id.) AHAM further commented 

that a need for a repeatable, 

reproducible test is increasing since 

manufacturers’ ability to conservatively 

rate and ensure continued compliance 

with standards decreases as energy 

conservation standards get more 

stringent. (Id.) AHAM also added that 

removing the target temperature would 

have an impact on calculating the water 

heating energy, since the temperature 

rise between the cold and hot water 

supply temperatures would be less 

certain. (Id.) 

Considering comments received, DOE 

recognizes that specifying a target 

temperature for the supply water may be 

helpful in ensuring reproducible test 

results. DOE also recognizes, as 

discussed, that best practice by 

laboratories is to configure the water 

temperature controller setpoint to the 

midpoint of the temperature range in 

order to accommodate fluctuations both 

above and below the setpoint, thus 

ensuring that the water inlet 

temperature remains within the 

allowable range throughout the duration 

of testing. For these reasons, in this final 

rule, DOE is amending the temperature 

supply specifications to specify 

targeting the midpoint of each range. 

DOE reiterates that specifying a target 

temperature setpoint is intended to 

promote reproducibility of results and 

does not invalidate test data that is not 

centered around the target temperature 

but remains within the specified 

allowable range. 

DOE further notes that by targeting 

the midpoint of both the hot water 

temperature range and the cold water 

temperature range, the value of ‘‘T’’ 

used in the water heating energy 

formula (as discussed in section III.C.3.a 

of this document) represents the 

difference between the targeted values 

for both appendix J2 and new appendix 

J. 

4. Extra-Hot Wash Determination 

Clothes washers are tested using an 

energy test cycle determined by 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 23 must, in part, contain a wash/ 

rinse temperature selection that has a 

wash temperature greater than 135 °F. 

The 135 °F threshold matches the high 

end of the hot water inlet temperature 

range 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 

revised the threshold temperature for 

Extra-Hot Wash from 140 °F to 135 °F in 

conjunction with changing the 

minimum hot water supply temperature 

in appendix J from 140 °F in appendix 

J to 135 °F. 62 FR 45484, 45497. As 

noted, appendix J2 retains this 

threshold temperature of 135 °F for 

Extra-Hot Wash. 

As described in the September 2021 

NOPR, the proposal to update the hot 

water inlet temperature from 130–135 °F 

to 120–125 °F in new appendix J 

prompted DOE to reassess the threshold 

temperature for the Extra-Hot wash 

temperature in new appendix J. 86 FR 

49140, 49150. 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. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

indicated that based on test data from a 

broad range of clothes washers, over 70 

percent of Extra-Hot cycles have a wash 

water temperature that exceeds 140 °F. 

86 FR 49140, 49150. Furthermore, DOE 

research indicated that 140 °F is widely 

cited as a threshold for achieving 

sanitization. Id. DOE therefore proposed 

specifying in new appendix J that the 

Extra-Hot Wash threshold be 140 °F. Id. 

DOE preliminarily concluded 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 an Extra-Hot Wash cycle, 

than the current 135 °F threshold. Id. 

In addition to improving 

representativeness, DOE noted in the 

September 2021 NOPR that changing 

the Extra-Hot Wash temperature 

threshold to 140 °F could potentially 

reduce test burden. Id. As discussed 

more fully in section III.C.5 of this 

document, a threshold of 140 °F would 

enable easier confirmation that an ExtraHot temperature has been achieved 

when measuring wash temperature with 

non-reversible temperature indicator 

labels, as permitted by section 3.3 of 

appendix J2. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

specify in the new appendix J that the 

Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse designation 

would apply to a wash temperature 

greater than or equal to 140 °F. 86 FR 

49140, 49151. DOE also requested any 

additional data on the wash temperature 

of cycles that meet the appendix J2 

definition of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold 

Rinse. Id. DOE also expressed interest 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. Id. 

Whirlpool commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to change the Extra-Hot 

Wash temperature threshold to 140 °F 

because that is the minimum threshold 

temperature for various international 

clothes sanitization standards, including 

the standards published by the World 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33329 

24See discussion of wash temperature 

measurements in section III.C.4 of this document. 

Health Organization. (Whirlpool, No. 26 

at p. 5) Whirlpool additionally 

suggested that there should be 

consideration of some tolerance on top 

of this threshold temperature at 140 °F 

(e.g., 2 °F). (Id.) Whirlpool further 

explained that without including a 

tolerance, a manufacturer using this 

Extra-Hot temperature setting for 

sanitization may be penalized for 

conservatively setting higher Extra-Hot 

temperature settings beyond 140 °F to 

account for temperature variation 

during a sanitization period. (Id.) 

Whirlpool added that, using 

submersible temperature loggers to 

measure water temperatures, as 

proposed in the September 2021 

NOPR,24 there should be no issue 

identifying when such an Extra-Hot 

water temperature threshold (e.g., 142 °F 

or 143 °F) is reached. (Id.) 

DOE notes that the Extra-Hot Wash 

temperature is a threshold temperature, 

rather than a target temperature; as 

such, defining a tolerance on the 140 °F 

threshold, as suggested by Whirlpool, 

would not be appropriate. Adding a 

tolerance to the threshold value would 

effectively result in raising the threshold 

value by the tolerance amount. DOE 

notes that the current Extra-Hot Wash 

threshold of 135 °F does not have a 

defined tolerance. Any wash 

temperature that meets or exceeds the 

threshold temperature would be 

considered an Extra-Hot Wash. For 

these reasons, DOE is not adding a 

tolerance to the threshold value for the 

Extra-Hot Wash water temperature in 

this final rule. 

As discussed previously, any impacts 

to measured energy as a result of 

changes to the definition of Extra-Hot 

Wash were accounted for in the 

crosswalk between the appendix J2 and 

appendix J metrics developed for the 

September 2021 RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis. DOE will 

continue to consider any such impacts 

in future stages of the standards 

rulemaking. 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

is finalizing its proposal, consistent 

with the September 2021 NOPR, to 

specify in the new appendix J that the 

minimum temperature threshold for the 

Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is 140 °F. 

This change is reflected in the Extra-Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart and the Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart in section 

2.12.1 of the new appendix J, as well as 

any references to this temperature 

threshold elsewhere throughout the new 

appendix J. DOE reiterates that any 

impacts to measured energy as a result 

of changes to the definition of Extra-Hot 

Wash will be accounted for in the 

crosswalk between the appendix J2 and 

appendix J metrics as part of the 

ongoing standards analysis, such that 

DOE does not expect the changes 

implemented in this final rule to require 

significant product redesign. 

5. Wash Water Temperature 

Measurement 

Section 3.3 of appendix J2 allows the 

use of non-reversible temperature 

indicator labels to confirm that a wash 

temperature greater than the Extra-Hot 

Wash threshold temperature of 135 °F 

has been achieved. As discussed in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is aware 

that none of the temperature indicator 

labels on the market provide an 

indicator at 135 °F, the current Extra-Hot 

Wash water temperature threshold. 86 

FR 49140, 49152. 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. Id. Such 

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. Id. DOE recognizes the potential 

benefit of other methods of 

measurement to supplement or replace 

the temperature indicator labels. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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 for appendix J2, and greater than 

140 °F for new appendix J. Id. DOE 

proposed that the submersible 

temperature logger must have a time 

resolution of at least one data point 

every 5 seconds and a temperature 

measurement accuracy of ±1 °F. Id. As 

described currently for temperature 

indicator labels, the proposed 

amendment included a note that failure 

to measure a temperature of 135 °F 

would not necessarily indicate of the 

lack of an Extra-Hot Wash temperature. 

Id. 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. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to allow the use of a 

submersible temperature logger in 

appendix J2 and 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. Id. DOE 

also requested 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. Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposal to allow the use of a 

submersible temperature logger, but 

noted that the shift in the Extra-Hot 

Wash temperature threshold makes this 

change less necessary than it may have 

been in the past. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 

10) 

Whirlpool commented in support of 

DOE’s proposal to allow for the use of 

a submersible temperature logger as an 

additional temperature measurement 

option to confirm that the Extra-Hot 

Wash temperature threshold has been 

achieved during the wash cycle. 

(Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 6) 

DOE also proposed in the September 

2021 NOPR 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 nonreversible 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. 86 FR 49140, 

49152. 

DOE received no comments in 

response to its proposal to move the 

description of allowable temperature 

measuring devices. 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to allow the 

use of a submersible temperature logger 

in appendix J2 and 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 

also finalizes its proposal, consistent 

with the September 2021 NOPR, to 

restructure section 2.5.4 of appendix J2 

and new appendix J as described. 

6. 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33330 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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)) 

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 would understate the clothes 

washer’s energy consumption. Id. 

Conversely, if the ambient temperature 

prior to and during the test is relatively 

cold, then the test would overstate the 

clothes washer’s energy consumption. 

Id. In the subsequent August 1997 Final 

Rule, DOE added the pre-conditioning 

requirement for water-heating clothes 

washers, which requires water-heating 

units to be pre-conditioned if they had 

not been in the test room at ambient 

conditions for 8 hours. 62 FR 45484, 

45002, 45009, 45010. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

expressed concern 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. 86 FR 49140, 49153. 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. Id. Noting that thirdparty test laboratories cannot 

necessarily identify whether a unit is a 

water-heating clothes washer or not, 

DOE proposed to require preconditioning for all clothes washers that 

have not been in the test room at the 

specified ambient condition for 8 hours, 

regardless of whether the clothes washer 

is water-heating or non-water-heating. 

86 FR 49140, 49153. DOE proposed to 

make this change only in new appendix 

J, due to the potential impact on the 

measured energy use. Id. 

DOE requested comment on this 

proposal and requested information 

regarding whether test laboratories 

typically pre-condition water-heating 

and non-water-heating clothes washers 

using the same procedure. Id. 

DOE also proposed in the September 

2021 NOPR to remove the definitions of 

‘‘water-heating clothes washer’’ and 

‘‘non-water-heating clothes washer’’ 

from section 1 of the proposed new 

appendix J, since the differentiation 

between these terms would no longer be 

needed. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to specify 

preconditioning of all clothes washers 

before measurement in order to ensure 

reproducibility. (Joint Commenters, No. 

31 at p. 10) 

Whirlpool commented that, pending 

results from investigative testing, 

Whirlpool tentatively agrees with DOE’s 

proposal to require the pre-conditioning 

procedure for all clothes washers 

because it would reduce overall 

variation, and would remove any 

possible small advantage from leftover 

warm water or warmer components 

from the previous cycle(s). (Whirlpool, 

No. 26 at p. 6) 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to require 

pre-conditioning for all clothes washers 

that have not been in the test room at 

the specified ambient condition for 8 

hours, regardless of whether the clothes 

washer is water-heating or non-waterheating, in new appendix J. DOE also 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to remove 

the definitions of ‘‘water-heating clothes 

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

washer’’ from section 1 of new appendix 

J. 

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: 

• Minimum load is 3 pounds (‘‘lb’’) 

for all capacity bins; 

• Maximum load (in lb) is equal to 

4.1 times the mean clothes washer 

capacity of each capacity bin (in ft3); 

and 

• 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 

water fill control systems (‘‘WFCS’’). 

Clothes washers with manual WFCS are 

tested with only the minimum and 

maximum load sizes. 

a. Expanding the Load Size Table 

Table 5.1 of appendix J2 previously 

accommodated clothes washers with 

capacities up to 6.0 ft3. 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 

above. 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 requires 

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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to expand Table 5.1 in both 

appendix J2 and the new appendix J to 

accommodate clothes washers with 

capacities up to 8.0 ft3. 86 FR 49140, 

49153. In appendix J2, DOE proposed 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. Id. For the new 

appendix J, DOE proposed to expand 

Table 5.1 based on a revised 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33331 

26The full data set presented by AHAM is 

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

27Hannas, Benjamin; Gilman, Lucinda. 2014. 

Dryer Field Study (Report#E14 287). Portland, OR. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available 

online at: neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study. 

28NEEA’s estimate of 4.4 ft3 average capacity in 

2019 is based on NEEA’s 2019 ENERGY STAR 

Retail Products Platform data. 

29LUFs are weighting factors that represent the 

percentage of wash cycles that consumers run with 

a given load size and are discussed further in 

section III.G.5 of this document. 

methodology for defining the load sizes, 

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

of this document. Id. DOE requested 

comment on its proposal to expand the 

load size table in both appendix J2 and 

the new appendix J to accommodate 

RCWs with capacities up to 8.0 ft3. Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposal to expand the load size 

table in appendix J2 and new appendix 

J to accommodate clothes washers with 

capacities up to 8.0 ft3. (AHAM, No. 27 

at p. 10) 

For the reasons stated above, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to expand 

Table 5.1 in both appendix J2 and the 

new appendix J to accommodate clothes 

washers with capacities up to 8.0 ft3. 

DOE further discusses the termination 

of the subject waivers in section III.L of 

this document. 

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. 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 

P&G data’’).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. 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

(‘‘NEEA’’) submitted a comment that 

cited data from a 2014 Field Study 

published on November 10, 2014 (‘‘2014 

NEEA Field Study’’).27 86 FR 49140, 

49156. The 2014 NEEA Field Study 

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. Id. 

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.28 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. Id. 

As stated in the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE did not agree with NEEA’s 

conclusion that the 2014 NEEA field 

study confirms that the field average 

load size is independent of clothes 

container size and is relatively small. Id. 

In particular, 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. Id. Therefore, DOE 

stated in the September 2021 NOPR that 

no conclusions could be drawn from the 

2014 NEEA Field 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. Id. While DOE agreed 

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 concluded that the data 

provided by NEEA do not justify using 

a fixed average load size across all 

clothes container capacities. Id. DOE 

stated in the September 2021 NOPR that 

it 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. 86 FR 

49140, 49158. 

Given the increasing prevalence of 

more feature-rich clothes washer models 

that require a higher number of test 

cycles under appendix J2, DOE 

proposed in the September 2021 NOPR 

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. Specifically, DOE proposed to 

replace the minimum, maximum, and 

average load sizes for automatic clothes 

washers with two new load sizes in the 

new appendix J, designated as ‘‘small’’ 

and ‘‘large.’’ 86 FR 49140, 49157. 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 

previously. The weighted-average load 

size using the proposed small and large 

load sizes would match the weightedaverage load size using the current 

minimum, average, and maximum load 

sizes. The small and large load sizes 

would represent approximately the 25th 

and 75th percentiles of the normal 

distribution, respectively. As proposed, 

the small and large load sizes would 

have equal load usage factors 

(‘‘LUFs’’) 29 of 0.5. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to 

calculate the ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘large’’ load 

sizes using Equation III.1 and Equation 

III.2, respectively. 86 FR 49140, 49158. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.014</GPH>
33332 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

30 In the September 2021 NOPR, the set of joint 

commenters including Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project, American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of 

America, and Natural Resources Defense Council 

was abbreviated as the ‘‘Joint Commenters’’ and this 

is how the CA IOUs refer to them in their comment. 

In this document, that same set of commenters is 

abbreviated as the ‘‘Joint Efficiency Advocates,’’ 

and are therefore referred to as such here. 

31Foster Porter, Suzanne; Denkenberger, Dave. 

2020. Coming Clean: Revealing Real-World 

Efficiency of Clothes Washers. Portland, OR. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available 

online at: neea.org/resources/coming-cleanrevealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded that the new 

small and large load sizes would 

substantially reduce test burden while 

maintaining or improving 

representativeness. 86 FR 49140, 49153. 

DOE’s proposal would reduce test 

burden under the new appendix J by 

requiring only two load sizes to be 

tested instead of three for clothes 

washers with automatic WFCS. Id. 86 

FR at 49158. 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. Id. DOE tentatively concluded 

that this proposal would maintain 

representativeness because 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 

previously. Id. at 86 FR 49157. 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, and 

thus would produce test results with 

equivalent representativeness. 86 FR 

49140, 49158. Further, defining the 

small and large loads to represent 

approximately the 25th and 75th 

percentiles of the normal distribution 

could improve representativeness by 

balancing the goal of capturing 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. Id. 

As noted in the September 2021 

NOPR, 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 in appendix J2. 86 

FR 49140, 49158. Given DOE’s proposal 

to define only two load sizes in the 

proposed new appendix J, DOE 

proposed in the September 2021 NOPR 

that the same two load sizes be used for 

all clothes washers, regardless of 

whether a clothes washer’s WFCS is 

automatic or manual. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to replace the minimum, 

maximum, and average load sizes with 

the small and large load sizes in the new 

appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49158–49159. 

DOE sought comment on how reducing 

the number of load sizes tested would 

impact the representativeness of test 

results. Id. DOE also requested 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. Id. 

The Joint Commenters, CA IOUs, and 

Joint Efficiency Advocates expressed 

concern that the 1995 P&G data used to 

determine the representative load sizes 

for new appendix J are out of date. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8–9; CA 

IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3–5; Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4–5) The Joint 

Commenters and Joint Efficiency 

Advocates further commented that 

capacities represented in the P&G study 

(2.4 and 2.8 ft3) are much smaller than 

the current market average of 4.4 ft3, 

and asserted that extrapolation of the 

P&G data may not be appropriate, 

especially as DOE proposes to extend its 

test procedure to include basket sizes 

from 6.0 to 8.0 ft3. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 31 at pp. 8–9; Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4–5) The CA 

IOUs noted that, at the time of the 1995 

P&G Study, the ‘‘regular’’ 2.4 ft3 and 

‘‘large’’ 2.8 ft3 clothes washers had 

average load sizes of 5.7 lb and 6.7 lb, 

respectively; but as the average tub 

volume has since increased to almost 

4.0 ft3, the average clothes washer on 

the market today uses a weightedaverage test load size of 9.7 lb. (CA 

IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3–5) The Joint 

Commenters also commented that 

clothes washers in 1995, when the P&G 

study was published, were much less 

feature rich than today, and that the 

P&G study may not represent consumer 

choice about load size on modern 

clothes washers. (Joint Commenters, No. 

31 at pp. 8–9) The Joint Commenters 

stated as an example that consumers 

may separate a single load into multiple 

smaller loads to tailor the available 

washing cycles to the textiles. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs presented data from a 

forthcoming paper titled ‘‘PG&E Home 

Energy Use Study—Laundry Weight 

Report,’’ (‘‘2021 PG&E data’’), which 

surveyed 97 California households and 

which the CA IOUs characterized as 

finding no significant relationship 

between clothes washer capacity and 

load size. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3–5) 

The CA IOUs commented that these 

findings from the PG&E study align with 

comments made by NEEA and the Joint 

Efficiency Advocates 30 in response to 

the May 2020 RFI, which the CA IOUs 

characterized as also finding no 

correlation between clothes washer 

capacity and load size. (Id.) The CA 

IOUs further commented that the 

findings from the 2021 PG&E data do 

not reflect what is represented in Table 

5.1 of appendix J2 and new appendix J. 

(Id.) In their comment on the September 

2021 NOPR, the CA IOUs categorized 

the 2021 PG&E data by capacity: Clothes 

washers with capacities less than 4.0 ft3, 

clothes washers with capacities between 

4.0 and 5.0 ft3, and clothes washers with 

capacities greater than 5.0 ft3. (Id.) Each 

capacity category showed a roughly 

normal distribution in load size, but the 

average load size was roughly the same 

for all three categories: 8.01 lb for 

clothes washers smaller than 4.0 ft3, 

8.34 lb for clothes washers between 4.0 

and 5.0 ft3, and 7.17 for clothes washers 

larger than 5.0 ft3. (Id.) The CA IOUs 

commented that, in contrast, Table 5.1 

in new appendix J would define load 

sizes of 8.25 lb for clothes washers 

smaller than 4.0 ft3, 10.28 lb for clothes 

washers between 4.0 and 5.0 ft3, and 

12.28 for clothes washers larger than 5.0 

ft3. (Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates also 

commented that using the proposed 

large and small load sizes continues to 

result in test loads for large-capacity 

washers being significantly greater than 

those for smaller clothes washers. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4– 

5) For example, the small and large 

loads for a 6.0 ft3 clothes washer are 

7.74 and 19.44 lb, respectively, 

compared to load sizes of 5.49 and 11.64 

lb, respectively, for a 3.5 ft3 clothes 

washer. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates commented that a large 

difference in load sizes between 

capacities is not consistent with the 

2014 NEEA Field Study or with the 

2021 PG&E data presented by the CA 

IOUs in response to the September 2021 

NOPR. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates expressed concern that larger 

capacity clothes washers may be less 

efficient than smaller capacity clothes 

washers when washing a load of 7 to 8 

lb, which they asserted is a load size 

more representative of real-world 

conditions. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates also referenced a 2020 report 

published by NEEA titled ‘‘Coming 

Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency 

of Clothes Washers’’ 31 (‘‘2020 NEEA 

Report’’), which presented test results 

from 12 RCWs and suggested that an 

efficiency rank order change was 

observed when testing the appendix J2- 

specified maximum load versus a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33333 

constant load of 8.45 lb. (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates summarized an 

example from the 2020 NEEA Report 

showing that among front-loading 

RCWs, the largest unit in the sample 

demonstrated the most efficient 

performance at the maximum load, but 

the least efficient performance using the 

constant 8.45 lb load. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters commented 

that they understand DOE’s reasons for 

rejecting the data from the 2014 NEEA 

Field Study on the grounds that they are 

regional and seasonal in nature, and that 

they represent a limited sample size. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8–9) 

The CA IOUs expressed a similar 

sentiment, and stated that they 

acknowledge DOE’s concerns regarding 

the potential limitations of regional 

studies such as the ones presented by 

the CA IOUs’ in response to the May 

2020 RFI. (CA IOUs, NO. 29 at pp. 3– 

5) 

The Joint Commenters, CA IOUs, and 

Joint Efficiency Advocates 

recommended that DOE conduct further 

investigation regarding load sizes. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8–9; CA 

IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3–5; Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 4–5) The Joint 

Commenters and CA IOUs 

recommended that, before the next 

clothes washer test procedure update, 

DOE should commission a nationally 

representative field laundry study to 

improve representativeness of modern 

load sizes. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at 

pp. 8–9; CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 3–5) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

encouraged DOE to investigate the 

relationship between clothes washer 

capacity and energy/water use at a 

constant load size and to consider 

specifying constant load sizes across all 

capacities. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, 

No. 28 at pp. 4–5) 

Additionally, the Joint Commenters 

commented that there was no 

information available on the 1995 P&G 

study to confirm whether the study was 

nationally, annually, and statistically 

representative of households in the U.S. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 8–9) 

The Joint Commenters expressed 

concern that the P&G study may not be 

more geographically and seasonally 

relevant than the more recent NEEA 

laundry study. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters also added that NEEA is 

planning to update its regional laundry 

study and would welcome a 

conversation with DOE to determine 

how its regional data could be made 

more relevant or complementary to 

DOE’s own study. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that it appreciates 

DOE’s proposal to reduce the number of 

load sizes tested from three to two, 

stating that at a first glance, it appears 

that DOE’s proposed new load sizes will 

reduce test burden. (AHAM, No. 27 at 

p. 4) AHAM commented, however, that 

it must complete its testing in order to 

more holistically evaluate DOE’s 

proposal and provide feedback to DOE 

on the reduction in test burden and the 

representativeness of test results. (Id.) 

AHAM added that the proposed new 

load sizes could lead to a need for 

significant product redesign, and could 

potentially impact RMC. (Id.) 

Samsung recommended that DOE 

continue to use three test load sizes. 

(Samsung, No. 30 at pp. 2–3) Samsung 

explained that while reducing the 

number of load sizes would reduce test 

burden and represent the same 

statistical load usage distribution as in 

appendix J2, automatic WFCSs have 

been generally designed to detect three 

to four discrete load levels (e.g., 

minimum, average, maximum, and full). 

(Id.) Samsung expressed concern that 

reducing the test load to two sizes could 

result in manufacturers changing the 

load detection algorithm designs to 

detect a lower number of discrete load 

levels, which could increase the amount 

of water and energy use by consumers. 

(Id.) Samsung further explained that 

changing from three to two load sizes 

could result in clothes washers using a 

larger amount of water than necessary 

for loads smaller than the ‘‘small’’ load, 

and more water for loads larger than the 

‘‘large’’ load. (Id.) 

P.R. China recommended that DOE 

increase the proposed large load size. 

(P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 3) P.R. China 

commented that, since the proposed 

small and large load sizes are relatively 

smaller than the current average and 

maximum load sizes, they only evaluate 

the energy consumption of a clothes 

washer that is loaded with half or less 

of the full capacity. (Id.) P.R. China 

expressed concern that using the 

proposed small and large load sizes 

would not be reflective of energy 

consumption for a clothes washer that is 

heavily or fully loaded, which P.R. 

China asserted is more common in 

normal use. (Id.) 

DOE greatly appreciates the 

additional consumer usage data 

provided by commenters and submitted 

to the docket for DOE’s consideration. 

The 2021 PG&E data suggests that a 

roughly normal distribution of load 

sizes remains applicable across the 

range of clothes washer capacities 

represented in the report (roughly 3.3 to 

5.3 ft3), consistent with the trend from 

the 1995 P&G data. DOE also 

acknowledges that the results of the 

2021 PG&E data are suggestive that 

consumers may not be consistently 

loading larger capacity machines with 

proportionately larger load sizes (on 

average), as is implied by the 

relationship between load sizes and 

capacity defined in Table 5.1 of 

appendix J2. DOE remains concerned, 

however, that the 2021 PG&E data is not 

nationally representative. DOE would 

expect clothing load composition to 

vary significantly among regions of the 

United States (e.g., warmer and colder 

climates, urban and rural households), 

which could coincide with different 

load size patterns in clothes washer 

usage. DOE is also mindful that 

population demographics (e.g., 

household size, age of household 

members, etc.) could also affect laundry 

usage patterns. DOE also notes that the 

results from the 2021 PG&E data conflict 

with 2016 PG&E data presented 

previously by the CA IOUs in response 

to the May 2020 RFI, which suggested 

that consumer average load sizes for 

clothes washers in the range of 2 to 5 

ft3 capacity are larger than the appendix 

J2 load sizes. 86 FR 49140, 49157. The 

conflicting conclusions between the 

submitted reports as well as their 

limited geographic representation do 

not provide sufficient justification for 

DOE to change the relationship of load 

size with capacity at this time. 

DOE continues to welcome additional 

data that could be used to inform future 

changes to the test load sizes. DOE 

potentially would consider a collection 

of diverse regional studies as a proxy for 

a single nationally representative data 

set. As suggested by the Joint 

Commenters, DOE welcomes further 

dialogue to determine how additional 

regional data could be made more 

relevant or complementary to DOE’s 

consideration of potential further 

amendments to the test procedure. 

DOE also appreciates AHAM’s 

intention to provide test data for DOE to 

consider when it becomes available. 

DOE reiterates that any impacts to 

measured energy, however minor, as a 

result of changes to the load size 

definitions were accounted for in the 

crosswalk between the appendix J2 and 

appendix J metrics developed for the 

September 2021 RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis. DOE will 

continue to consider any such impacts 

in future stages of the standards 

rulemaking. 

In response to Samsung’s concern that 

reducing the number of load sizes to 

two could result in manufacturers 

changing the load detection algorithms 

in way that could increase water and 

energy use, DOE acknowledges that the 

small and large load sizes proposed for 

appendix J represent a narrower range 

than the range represented by the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33334 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

32As discussed, the small and load sizes 

proposed for appendix J are defined at 

approximately the 25th and 75th percentiles of the 

normal distribution, respectively; whereas the 

minimum and maximum load sizes under appendix 

J2 are defined at approximately the 14th and 88th 

percentiles of the normal distribution, respectively, 

as described in the September 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 

49140, 49154. 

33 DOE assumes that the maximum load size 

defined in appendix J2 represents 100 percent full 

capacity. 

minimum and maximum load sizes 

specified in appendix J2.32 DOE expects 

that any changes that manufacturers 

would make to the load detection 

algorithms to optimize performance 

when tested to appendix J (which 

Samsung asserted could result in fewer 

discrete water fill levels) would be 

balanced against consumer expectation 

that when using an adaptive fill setting, 

the quantity of water determined by the 

clothes washer appropriately matches 

the size of the load. Changing the test 

procedure load size definitions does not 

preclude clothes washer manufacturers 

from designing load sensing algorithms 

from detecting any number of discrete 

load levels. DOE further notes that the 

historical data and more recent data 

discussed in this section indicate that 

consumer load size distribution follows 

a roughly normal distribution. Any 

impacts due to the type of load 

detection changes described by 

Samsung would be expected to affect 

the ‘‘tail ends’’ of the normal 

distribution, which by definition 

represent relatively low consumer 

usage; i.e., the very small and very large 

load sizes that could be impacted are 

not as representative of average 

consumer use as the range of load sizes 

represented by the small and large load 

sizes as proposed. Weighing all of these 

factors, DOE has determined that the 

use of two load sizes as proposed in the 

September 2021 NOPR provides a 

reasonable balance between 

considerations of representativeness and 

test burden as required by EPCA. 42 

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

In response to P.R. China’s comment 

on the distribution of load sizes, DOE 

does not agree with the assertion that 

small and large load sizes as proposed 

in the September 2021 NOPR represent 

half or less than half of the full capacity. 

As proposed, the large load size in 

appendix J represents roughly 80 

percent of the maximum load size 

defined in appendix J2; i.e., roughly 80 

percent of the full capacity of a clothes 

washer.33 As discussed, historical and 

recent data indicate that U.S. consumer 

load size distribution follows a roughly 

normal distribution, such that the 

maximum load size is much less 

commonly used than the load sizes 

proposed for appendix J. 

Taking into consideration the 

discussion presented in the September 

2021 NOPR, comments submitted by 

interested parties in response to DOE’s 

proposals, and DOE’s analysis and 

response to comments, DOE finalizes its 

proposal, consistent with the September 

2021 NOPR, to replace the minimum, 

maximum, and average load sizes with 

the small and large load sizes in new 

appendix J. As discussed, DOE 

welcomes any opportunities to continue 

working with interested parties to 

collect nationally representative data on 

the relationship between load size and 

capacity. DOE reiterates that any 

impacts to measured energy as a result 

of changes to the tested load sizes will 

be accounted for in the crosswalk 

between the appendix J2 and appendix 

J metrics as part of the ongoing 

standards analysis, such that DOE does 

not expect the changes implemented in 

this final rule to require significant 

product redesign. 

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, consistent 

with the proposal in the September 

2021 NOPR, DOE is defining new small 

and large load sizes in appendix J, in 

contrast to the minimum, maximum, 

and average load sizes defined in 

appendix J2. 86 FR 49140, 49159– 

49160. To test clothes washers using 

these new small and large load sizes, the 

appropriate water fill setting selections 

also needs to be provided in the 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. 

Amendments to the definitions of fixed 

WFCS and user-adjustable WFCS are 

further discussed in section III.H.3.a of 

this document. 

Section 3.2.6.1 of 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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to specify the use of the 

second-lowest water fill level setting for 

the proposed small load size, and the 

maximum water fill level setting for the 

proposed large load size for clothes 

washers with manual WFCS. 86 FR 

49140, 49159. DOE proposed to use the 

second-lowest water fill level setting for 

the proposed small size because 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, 

particularly because consumers tend to 

select more water than is minimally 

necessary for the size of the load being 

washed. Id. Although DOE was not 

aware of any clothes washers with 

manual WFCS currently on the market 

with only two water fill level settings 

available, DOE also proposed 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33335 

34As described in section III.H.3.b of this 

document, DOE is updating 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 energyintensive result) to reflect the original intent of this 

provision. 

35As discussed in sections III.D.4.a and III.D.5 of 

this document, DOE is requiring measurements of 

wet weight, and cycle time for each tested cycle 

under new appendix J. 

water fill level setting would be selected 

for the small load size, consistent with 

the current specification in appendix J2. 

Id. 

To accommodate the proposed 

‘‘small’’ and ‘‘large’’ load sizes in the 

new appendix J, DOE proposed to 

require testing clothes washers with 

user-adjustable WFCS using the small 

test load size at the setting that provides 

the least energy-intensive 34 result, and 

the large test load size at the setting that 

provides the most energy-intensive 

result. Id. This proposal captures the 

same range of water fill performance as 

the current test procedure (i.e., 

capturing the range of least-intensive to 

most-intensive results). Id. 

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

are required because the water fill levels 

are determined automatically by the 

WFCS. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to change the water fill level 

selections in the new appendix J for 

clothes washers with manual and useradjustable automatic WFCS to reflect 

the proposed small and large test load 

sizes. 86 FR 49140, 49160. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposed water fill 

level selections for manual WFCSs in 

new appendix J. (Joint Commenters, No. 

31 at p. 10). The Joint Commenters 

commented that DOE’s proposal 

establishes a reasonable representation 

of normal consumer use given the load 

sizes proposed in new appendix J. (Id.) 

Although AHAM did not comment 

specifically on the proposed changes to 

the water fill level selections, AHAM 

did comment on DOE’s proposed 

definitions for certain types of WFCSs. 

DOE summarizes and addresses these 

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

document. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to change 

the water fill level selections in the new 

appendix J for clothes washers with 

manual and user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS to reflect the proposed small and 

large test load sizes. 

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 (‘‘Warm/Cold’’) 

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 

(‘‘Warm/Warm’’) temperature selection. 

DOE first established the 25/50/75 test 

in appendix J1 as part of the August 

1997 Final Rule 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. 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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

noted 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. 86 FR 

49140, 49160. 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. Id. 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. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to require testing of both the 

hottest Warm/Cold setting and the 

coldest Warm/Cold setting for all 

clothes washers in the new appendix J 

instead of the current provisions to 

either test all warm wash selections or 

conduct the 25/50/75 test. 86 FR 49140, 

49161. Water consumption, electrical 

energy consumption, and all other 

measured values 35 would be averaged 

between the two tested cycles to 

represent the Warm/Cold cycle. Id. DOE 

proposed to make the same changes to 

the Warm/Warm cycle in the new 

appendix J. Id. DOE’s proposal would 

decrease the test burden under the new 

appendix J for clothes washers that offer 

more than two Warm/Cold or Warm/ 

Warm temperature settings, which DOE 

estimates represent around half of the 

market, by reducing the number of 

Warm/Cold and Warm/Warm tested 

cycles from three to two. Id. 

Because this proposed approach may 

change the measured energy use of 

clothes washers that offer more than two 

Warm/Cold or Warm/Warm settings, the 

proposed edits were not proposed for 

appendix J2 and therefore would not 

affect the measured efficiency of 

existing clothes washers. Id. As 

discussed previously, any impacts to 

measured energy as a result of changes 

to the required warm wash settings were 

accounted for in the crosswalk between 

the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics 

developed for the September 2021 RCW 

Standards Preliminary Analysis. DOE 

will continue to consider any such 

impacts in future stages of the standards 

rulemaking. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded that the proposed 

approach in the 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/Cold 

setting and the coldest Warm/Cold 

setting). Id. 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. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33336 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

36The term ‘‘spin settings’’ refers to spin times or 

spin speeds. The maximum spin setting results in 

a lower (better) RMC. 

37On 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 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. 

require in the new appendix J testing 

only the hottest and the coldest Warm/ 

Cold settings. Id. DOE also requested 

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. 

Id. 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that DOE’s proposal to 

require testing on the hottest Warm/ 

Cold and coldest Warm/Cold settings for 

all clothes washers instead of the ‘‘25/ 

50/75’’ test will more accurately reflect 

energy usage of Warm Wash settings 

while decreasing burden. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at pp. 2– 

3) 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to test and 

average the hottest and coldest Warm/ 

Cold temperatures and encouraged DOE 

to apply an identical approach to 

clothes washers with Warm/Warm 

settings. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at 

pp. 3–4) The Joint Commenters further 

agreed with DOE’s tentative 

determination that DOE’s proposal 

concerning Warm/Cold testing would 

reduce test burden by eliminating test 

runs for clothes washers with more than 

two Warm/Cold settings, and increase 

representation of typical hot water use 

of clothes washer by testing temperature 

selections that would not have been 

tested using the 25/50/75 rule. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that, while it 

appreciates DOE’s attempt to ease 

testing burden in its proposal by only 

requiring testing on the hottest and 

coldest Warm/Cold settings for all 

clothes washers, using only coldest and 

hottest of the warm cycles could 

increase the measured water heating 

energy in the IMEF calculation. (AHAM, 

No. 27 at pp. 10–11) AHAM asserted 

that in order to offset this increase in 

water heating energy, the hottest warm 

setting would need to be redesigned 

with a reduced temperature, resulting in 

the hottest warm setting being cooler 

than what consumers expect for a warm 

setting. (Id.) AHAM also commented 

that additional testing is required to 

determine whether detergents, 

especially laundry pods, will dissolve as 

well at lower temperatures. (Id.) Lastly, 

AHAM stated that this change will 

impact measured energy and 

commented that this impact needs to be 

accounted for in any energy 

conservation standard that DOE 

develops. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented that DOE’s 

proposal to require testing on the hottest 

and coldest Warm/Cold temperatures 

may eliminate the ability of 

manufacturers to offer a warm and/or 

hot wash setting for consumers that 

meets the temperature level(s) and 

performance that they expect on their 

clothes washer, especially from Warm/ 

Cold temperature settings. (Whirlpool, 

No. 26 at pp. 7–8) Whirlpool added that 

these impacts could also become 

compounded by any amendment to 

clothes washer standards. (Id.) 

Whirlpool also expressed concern that 

lower warm and/or hot wash 

temperatures could impact cleaning 

performance since most detergents, 

especially lower cost detergents and 

laundry pods, are designed to be most 

effective at current wash temperatures. 

(Id.) 

DOE notes that the reservations 

expressed by AHAM and Whirlpool are 

related to the impact on measured 

energy as a result of this proposed 

amendment to the test procedure. As 

discussed previously, impacts on 

measured energy use between the thencurrent appendix J2 and the proposed 

appendix J test procedures were 

factored into the crosswalk relating the 

appendix J2 and appendix J metrics 

developed for the September 2021 RCW 

Standards Preliminary Analysis, such 

that DOE does not expect the changes 

implemented in this final rule to require 

any significant changes to wash water 

temperatures. In particular, any increase 

in measured energy as a result of this 

amendment would be factored into the 

crosswalk (i.e., manufacturers would 

not necessarily be required to decrease 

wash temperatures to ‘‘offset’’ any 

increase in measured energy under 

appendix J). 

Specifically, as presented in Table 

5.3.7 in chapter 5 of the preliminary 

TSD, DOE determined through testing 

that this amendment would result in a 

17 percent increase, on average, in the 

water heating energy use for clothes 

washers with 3 or more Warm/Cold 

temperature settings, in which the two 

coldest Warm/Cold temperatures use 

much less hot water than the hottest 

Warm/Cold temperature. This increase 

was factored into the metric 

translations. 

In response to the Joint Commenters’ 

request that DOE consider applying an 

identical approach to clothes washers 

with Warm/Warm settings, DOE’s 

proposal in the September 2021 NOPR 

applied to both Warm/Cold and Warm/ 

Warm settings. 

For the reasons discussed, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to require in 

the new appendix J testing only the 

hottest and the coldest Warm/Cold and 

Warm/Warm settings. DOE reiterates 

that any impacts to measured energy as 

a result of changes to the tested warm 

wash settings will be accounted for in 

the crosswalk between the appendix J2 

and appendix J metrics as part of the 

ongoing standards analysis, such that 

DOE does not expect the changes 

implemented in this final rule to require 

any significant changes to wash water 

temperatures. 

4. Remaining Moisture Content 

Section 3.8.4 of appendix J2 requires 

that for clothes washers that have 

multiple spin settings 36 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.37 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 MEFJ2

and IMEF metrics. 

a. Revised Calculation 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded 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. 86 FR 49140, 

49162. 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. Id. However, 

on a clothes washer in which the 

selection of wash/rinse temperature 

affects which spin settings are available 

to be selected, measuring RMC using 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33337 

38As 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. 

39 37 percent is the TUF for the Cold/Cold 

temperature selection as specified in Table 4.1.1 of 

appendix J2. 

40The Joint Commenters referenced NEEA’s 

comment on the May 2020 RFI in which NEEA 

estimated the potential savings over a 30-year 

period, assuming the change in the RMC 

measurement would lead to clothes washer 

manufacturers changing their machines to make the 

spin portion of all temperature settings match the 

current spin portion of the Cold/Cold setting. 

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). Id. For 

example, data presented by NEEA in 

response to the May 2020 RFI suggested 

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. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed an amended method for 

measuring RMC in the 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 Temperature Usage Factors 

(‘‘TUFs’’) 38 and LUFs that apply to the 

water and energy measurements. Id. 

DOE asserted that 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/Cold 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.39 Id. DOE also tentatively 

concluded that this proposal would 

reduce overall test burden. 86 FR 49140, 

49163. 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. 

Id. 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. Id. 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. 

DOE acknowledged that its proposal 

would likely impact the measured RMC 

value and thus would impact a clothes 

washer’s IMEF value. 86 FR 49140, 

49163. Therefore, DOE proposed the 

revised RMC procedure only in the 

proposed new appendix J and not in 

appendix J2. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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. Id. 

DOE sought data and information 

regarding how this change to the RMC 

calculation would impact testing costs 

and manufacturer test burden. Id. DOE 

further requested 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. Id. 

Samsung commented in support of 

DOE’s proposed changes to the RMC 

measurement, stating that the changes 

would make the metric more 

representative of real-world usage. 

(Samsung, No. 30 at p. 3) 

The CA IOUs commented in support 

of DOE’s proposal to measure RMC as a 

part of all energy test cycles, stating that 

it would improve the representativeness 

of the drying energy measurement, 

which is the largest component of 

energy use. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that DOE’s proposed 

amendment to measure RMC for all 

cycles tested rather than on a single 

cold-cold test cycle would more 

accurately estimate drying energy usage 

than the current method. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 2) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted 

that, using appendix J2, clothes washers 

that only offer the maximum spin speed 

on the Cold/Cold cycle have lower spin 

settings at other temperature settings 

that are not being factored into the RMC 

calculation, even though these cycles 

represent the majority of cycles used by 

consumers, according to the TUFs. (Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates also 

cited data from the 2020 NEEA Report 

that showed significant IMEF rank order 

changes between washers when 

comparing RMC values measured on 

Cold/Cold cycles and RMC values 

measured on Warm/Cold cycles for the 

same test loads. (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates concluded that 

DOE’s proposal to measure RMC for 

each energy test cycle at the default spin 

setting and calculate an overall RMC 

using TUF- and LUF-weighted averages 

would make drying energy usage 

calculations more consistent with the 

other energy and water usage 

calculations, and that the proposed 

amendment would improve 

representativeness and provide more 

accurate relative rankings of clothes 

washers by better capturing real-world 

RMC and drying energy usage. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to measure 

RMC at the default spin setting for each 

test cycle. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at 

pp. 2–3) The Joint Commenters added 

that measuring RMC at the default 

setting would reduce test burden, 

increase representativeness, and could 

potentially result in an estimated 1.0 

quad of energy savings for clothes 

dryers.40 (Id.) The Joint Commenters 

further commented that DOE’s proposed 

RMC measurement changes would be 

one of the best opportunities to improve 

the test procedure for three reasons: 

drying energy use is the largest and 

most important contributor to IMEF, 

and would remain the most significant 

contributor to the proposed EER and 

AEER metrics; according to the Joint 

Commenters, default spin settings are 

more representative of real-world use 

instead of the ‘‘best case’’ scenario; and 

testing RMC under different temperature 

settings and load sizes revealed 

substantial rank order changes. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented that DOE’s 

proposed change to the RMC 

measurement would likely have 

significant implications on Whirlpool’s 

product design, cost, performance, and 

customer satisfaction. (Whirlpool, No. 

26 at pp. 8–9) Whirlpool also noted that 

RMC accounts for over 70 to 75 percent 

of energy measured by the IMEF. (Id.) 

Whirlpool further commented that, 

since today’s clothes washers are 

designed and tested for appendix J2, 

product redesign would be necessary 

because, without modifying clothes 

washer spinning strategies for the 

proposed RMC measurement method in 

new appendix J, Whirlpool expects the 

measured RMC of its clothes washer 

models under the proposed 

amendments to increase significantly. 

(Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 9) Specifically, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33338 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Whirlpool explained that measuring 

RMC on smaller loads leads to a higher 

RMC because smaller loads do not 

experience as much compression 

against the drum during spinning as 

larger loads. (Id.) Whirlpool also 

commented that their concern about 

RMC measurement is especially 

pronounced for baseline top-loading 

clothes washers, which do not spin as 

fast as front-loading clothes washers for 

a variety of technical reasons. (Id.) 

Whirlpool explained that in order to 

address DOE’s proposed RMC change, 

Whirlpool would need to increase spin 

speeds and have longer high-spin 

plateau times. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that 

these changes would ultimately lead to 

enormous stress placed on the clothes 

washers and would degrade their 

overall reliability. (Id.) Whirlpool 

commented that they would need to 

make changes to the motor, tub 

composition, and other structural 

changes to the washer, all of which 

would add product cost. (Id.) Whirlpool 

also expressed concerns related to 

consumers’ perception of these changes, 

including increased cost and 

performance concerns such as increased 

vibration and noise from faster and 

longer spins, in addition to longer cycle 

times from longer high-spin plateaus. 

(Id.) Whirlpool also stated that 

consumers may also notice that the 

overall electrical energy of the clothes 

washer increases as clothes washers 

spin longer and faster. (Id.) Whirlpool 

also commented that an increase in 

measured mechanical energy could lead 

to the annual energy consumption 

reported on the Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’) EnergyGuide label 

showing that a new model uses more 

energy (i.e., appears less efficient) than 

a model currently owned by a 

consumer. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that it opposes 

changing the RMC calculation in 

appendix J2, stating that the proposed 

changes would impact measured energy. 

(AHAM, No. 27 at p. 11) 

DOE also received comments from 

interested parties suggesting that DOE 

add an RMC adjustment factor to 

account for test cloth material 

composition. These comments are 

discussed in section III.I.1 of this 

document. 

DOE notes that the reservations 

expressed by AHAM and Whirlpool, 

particularly with regard to implications 

for product design and performance, 

stem from the impact on measured 

energy as a result of this proposed 

amendment to the test procedure. As 

discussed previously, impacts on 

measured energy use between the thencurrent appendix J2 and the proposed 

appendix J test procedures were 

factored into the crosswalk relating to 

the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics 

developed for the September 2021 RCW 

Standards Preliminary Analysis. 

Specifically, as presented in Table 5.3.7 

in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD, 

DOE determined through testing that 

this amendment would result in a 3.8 

percent increase in drying energy for 

units in which the spin cycle is 

consistent across temperature selections 

and thus the primary factor affecting 

measured RMC is the smaller load sizes; 

a 27 percent increase in drying energy 

for units in which the spin cycle is 

significantly faster or longer on the 

Cold/Cold setting (which would be 

tested under appendix J2) than on the 

other temperature settings (which 

would all be tested under appendix J); 

and a 21 percent increase in drying 

energy for units in which the default 

spin speed setting on the Normal cycle 

(which would be tested under appendix 

J) is not the maximum spin speed 

setting (which would be tested under 

appendix J2). These increases in RMC 

under appendix J were factored into the 

metric translations. As stated in the 

September 2021 RCW Standards 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE plans to 

continue testing additional units to 

appendix J and will continue to refine 

its approach for determining 

appropriate crosswalk translations in 

future stages of the standards 

rulemaking. 

For the reasons discussed, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to require 

measuring RMC on each of the energy 

test cycles in appendix J 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 has determined that the 

amendment to the RMC measurement 

provides a more representative measure 

of RMC because RMC is measured on all 

of the energy test cycles. DOE also 

concludes that this amendment reduces 

overall test burden. DOE reiterates that 

any impacts to measured energy as a 

result of changes to the RMC calculation 

will be accounted for in the crosswalk 

between the appendix J2 and appendix 

J metrics as part of the ongoing 

standards analysis, such that DOE does 

not expect the changes implemented in 

this final rule to require significant 

product redesign. 

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. 

In the absence of data or information 

indicating any problems with the 

current procedure, DOE did not propose 

any changes to the bone-dry definition 

or associated dryer temperature 

measurement method in the September 

2021 NOPR. 86 FR 49140, 49163. DOE 

requested comment on its tentative 

conclusion not to propose changes to 

the bone-dry definition and associated 

dryer temperature measurement 

method. Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposal not to change the bonedry definition and associated dryer 

temperature measurement method, 

stating that changes would be 

unnecessary. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 11) 

For the reasons discussed, this final 

rule does not make any changes to the 

bone-dry definition or 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. In the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that 

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. 

86 FR 49140, 49163. 

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. Id. DOE 

expressed concern 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. Id. 

Second, as described in section 

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

requiring the measurement of RMC for 

all tested cycles in the new appendix J. 

Id. The RMC of each tested cycle is 

calculated based on the bone-dry weight 

at the start of the cycle. Id. 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. Id. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33339 

41For example, DOE testing indicates that a 

typical clothes washer may use a gallon or more of 

water (i.e., over 8.3 lb of water) per lb of test cloth 

load. Furthermore, the specific heat of cotton and 

polyester fiber is around one-third of the specific 

heat of water. Based on these parameters, each 1 °F 

of elevated temperature in a given test load would 

result in no more than a 0.04 °F temperature rise in 

the wash water used for that cycle. (Calculated as 

1 ÷ 8.3 ÷ 3). 

Therefore, to improve repeatability 

and reproducibility of test results, DOE 

proposed 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 bone-dry test 

load. Id. 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. Id. DOE 

estimated that 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. Id. 

DOE did not anticipate that this 

proposal would increase test burden 

because, 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. 

Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to require that each test cycle 

use a bone-dry test load in the new 

appendix J. Id. DOE requested 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. 86 FR 49140, 49163–49164. 

DOE further requested feedback on its 

assessment that this change would not 

affect test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49164. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to require 

bone-drying of textile loads before the 

start of each test run. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10) The Joint 

Commenters further asserted that bonedrying the test load before each run 

would improve repeatability and 

reproducibility, given that RMC would 

be measured for each test run. (Id.) The 

Joint Commenters concluded that, since 

test laboratories must dry the test load 

before using it, DOE’s proposal 

represents minimal to no additional test 

burden. (Id.) 

AHAM commented in opposition to 

DOE’s proposal to require each test 

cycle to use a bone-dry test load. 

(AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM 

commented that while it understands 

the theoretical reason for this proposal, 

it may not be practically possible 

because as soon as the load cools, it 

starts to collect humidity. Therefore, 

AHAM asserted that it would not be 

possible for test laboratories to meet this 

requirement. (Id.) 

P.R. China recommended that if each 

test cycle uses a bone-dry test load, DOE 

should add requirements to the 

temperature of the test load to make 

sure the test cloth is at ambient 

temperature prior to testing. (P.R. China, 

No. 25 at p. 3) 

In response to AHAM’s comments, 

DOE acknowledges that the concerns 

DOE expressed regarding the potential 

for over 1 lb of moisture in the starting 

‘‘dry’’ load would apply only to the 

largest load sizes, and that for the large 

majority of tested loads, the potential 

amount of moisture in the starting dry 

load would be a smaller weight. DOE 

notes that the ‘‘large’’ test load sizes in 

appendix J implemented in this final 

rule are smaller than the ‘‘maximum’’ 

test load sizes defined in appendix J2 

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

document), which partially alleviates 

this concern. DOE’s testing experience 

also confirms AHAM’s statement that a 

test cloth load begins to collect moisture 

as soon as the drying cycle is complete. 

DOE therefore concludes that logistical 

constraints during testing could create 

challenges for test laboratories to meet 

a bone-dry requirement for each 

individual test cycle. 

In response to P.R. China’s comment 

on adding a requirement that the load be 

at ambient temperature prior to testing, 

DOE does not expect that the 

temperature of the load prior to the start 

of the test cycle would have a 

significant impact on energy use for two 

reasons. First, DOE’s teardowns of 

clothes washers conducted for the 

standards preliminary analysis indicate 

that most clothes washers measure wash 

water temperature either as the water 

enters the clothes washer through the 

inlet valves or within the detergent 

mixing chamber, such that the 

temperature of the test load would not 

affect the relative amounts of hot and 

cold water usage. Second, even for 

clothes washers that may measure the 

water temperature near the bottom of 

the wash tub in proximity to the load, 

the thermal mass of the test cloth fabric 

is significantly less than thermal mass of 

the amount of water used during the 

wash portion of the cycle, such that any 

residual heat contained within the test 

cloth would have a negligible impact on 

the temperature of the water.41

For these reasons, DOE is not 

adopting the proposal from the 

September 2021 NOPR and is including 

in appendix J the provision from section 

2.9.1 of appendix J2 to allow the test 

load to be dried to a maximum of 104 

percent of the bone-dry weight for 

subsequent testing. Because each 

subsequent test load may not always 

start at the bone-dry weight, DOE is also 

not adopting the proposal from the 

September 2021 NOPR to require 

recording the bone-dry weight of the test 

load weight prior to each cycle. DOE 

notes that it is continuing to require that 

the bone-dry weight of each test load 

(which would be measured once at the 

start of testing) be used in calculating 

the RMC for each test cycle. 

5. Cycle Time 

a. Inclusion of a Cycle Time 

Measurement 

The current test procedure does not 

specify a measurement for average cycle 

time. In the September 2021 NOPR, 

DOE is proposed 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 new appendix J (see 

section III.G.3 of this document). 86 FR 

49140, 49164. DOE therefore also 

proposed to require the measurement of 

average cycle time for the new appendix 

J. Id. 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. Id. 

DOE proposed to define the overall 

average cycle time of a clothes washer 

model in new appendix J 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. Id. Using the weightedaverage approach would align the 

average cycle time calculation with the 

calculations for determining weightedaverage energy and water use. Id. 

DOE noted that it does not expect the 

measurement of cycle time to increase 

test burden. Id. 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. 

Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to add cycle time 

measurements and to calculate average 

cycle time using the weighted-average 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33340 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

method in the new appendix J. Id. DOE 

also requested 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. Id. 

Samsung commented in support of 

DOE’s proposal to require reporting of 

weighted-average cycle time, stating that 

it would provide useful information for 

consumers comparing average cycle 

time differences between clothes washer 

models. (Samsung, No. 30 at p. 3) 

The CA IOUs commented in support 

of DOE’s proposal to measure cycle time 

on all test cycles and to include an 

average cycle time calculation, stating 

that there are significant consumer 

benefits in this information being 

disclosed. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2) The 

CA IOUs also recommended that DOE 

report average cycle time in the 

Compliance Certification Management 

System (‘‘CCMS’’) database, and that 

DOE work with the FTC to incorporate 

average cycle time into product labeling. 

(Id.) 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to measure 

the cycle time of each test cycle and to 

calculate a weighted-average cycle time. 

(Joint Commenters, No 31 at p. 5) The 

Joint Commenters further agreed with 

DOE’s tentative determination that 

DOE’s cycle time measurement proposal 

would create no additional test burden 

since most test laboratories use time 

series data acquisition systems that 

obtain cycle time measurements 

automatically. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters also commented that 

DOE’s cycle time proposal would 

increase the representativeness of the 

low-power-mode energy usage, and 

would standardize cycle time marketing 

claims by establishing a standardized 

approach for measuring cycle times. 

(Id.) The Joint Commenters also 

encouraged DOE to require the reporting 

of average cycle time as part of clothes 

washer certification, stating that it 

would increase consumers’ access to 

relevant information on cycle time, 

which the Joint Commenters asserted is 

an important aspect of clothes washer 

performance; increase transparency of 

reported energy efficiency metrics by 

clarifying how the energy efficiency 

metric is derived for a given clothes 

washer; and lead to continuous 

improvement of the test procedure over 

time since having access to additional 

data on cycle time would enable DOE 

and other stakeholders to continually 

evaluate the value of cycle time 

measurement in future rulemakings. 

(Id.) 

AHAM commented in opposition to 

DOE’s proposal to include a 

measurement of cycle time and a 

calculation of weighted-average cycle 

time. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM 

commented that while cycle time is a 

key consideration for consumer utility, 

DOE properly accounts for cycle time in 

its evaluation of possible amended 

standards. (Id.) 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

determines that requiring test 

laboratories to include cycle time 

measurement would not increase test 

burden. DOE also determines that 

defining 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. 

With regard to AHAM’s comment 

opposing the proposed cycle time 

measurement on the basis that DOE 

accounts for cycle time in its evaluation 

of possible amended standards, DOE 

notes that the purpose of implementing 

a measurement of cycle time in the test 

procedure would differ from the 

purpose of evaluating cycle time as part 

of an energy conservation standards 

analysis. In an energy conservation 

standards analysis, cycle time could be 

evaluated, for example, to determine 

whether higher efficiency levels under 

consideration would require longer 

cycle times. Whereas, the purpose of the 

cycle time measurement as proposed in 

the September 2021 NOPR is to provide 

a more representative allocation of 

standby and off mode hours for a unit 

under test. Evaluating cycle time as part 

of an energy conservation standards 

analysis would not contribute to 

providing more representative test 

results when testing to the DOE test 

procedure. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

September 2021 NOPR and in the 

preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, to require cycle 

time measurement in new appendix J. 

As discussed in section III.G.3 of this 

document, also consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes 

its proposal 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 new appendix J. 

DOE notes it is not amending the 

certification or reporting requirements 

for clothes washers in this final rule to 

require reporting of cycle time 

measurements. Instead, DOE may 

consider proposals to amend the 

certification requirements and reporting 

for RCWs and CCWs under a separate 

rulemaking regarding appliance and 

equipment certification. 

b. Definition of Cycle Time 

Section 3.2.8 of appendix J2 specifies 

that for each wash cycle tested, include 

the entire active washing mode and 

exclude any delay start or cycle finished 

modes. ‘‘Active washing mode’’ is 

defined in section 1.2 of appendix J2 as 

‘‘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.’’ 

‘‘Delay start mode’’ is defined in section 

1.12 of appendix J2 as ‘‘an active mode 

in which activation of washing mode is 

facilitated by a timer.’’ ‘‘Cycle finished 

mode’’ is defined in section 1.11 of 

appendix J2 as ‘‘an active mode that 

provides continuous status display, 

intermittent tumbling, or air circulation 

following operation in active washing 

mode.’’ 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

recommended that DOE further clarify 

the definition of a clothes washer cycle. 

(Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 

6) The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that some clothes washers 

may enter a new mode between the 

completion of the main cycle and 

subsequent standby mode. (Id.) The 

Joint Efficiency Advocates asserted that 

it is not clear whether energy usage in 

these scenarios is being captured by 

either the active mode or standby mode 

testing. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates also noted that, while the 

DOE test procedure for clothes dryers 

codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix D2 (‘‘appendix D2’’) specifies 

when the cycle shall be considered 

complete, there is no clear definition of 

what constitutes the beginning and end 

of a clothes washer cycle in the new 

appendix J. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

provide additional details in new 

appendix J to better define cycle time, 

stating that on some clothes washers the 

end of the cycle is unclear. (CA IOUs, 

No. 29 at p. 2) For example, the CA 

IOUs noted that some clothes washers 

have wrinkle-free settings in which the 

clothes washer tumbles the clothes once 

every 15 minutes for up to 12 hours 

after the cycle has finished. (Id.) The CA 

IOUs suggested that, similar to the way 

appendix D2 treats clothes dryers with 

similar wrinkle-free settings, DOE 

should include these types of extended 

cycle operations in the test procedure if 

they are activated by default or 

instructed by the manufacturer for 

normal use. (Id.) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33341 

In response to the Joint Efficiency 

Advocates and the CA IOUs’ requests to 

clarify the cycle time definition, DOE 

reiterates that the requirement of section 

3.2.8 in appendix J2 (and section 3.2.5 

of appendix J as proposed) states 

explicitly that each wash cycle must 

include the entire active washing mode 

and exclude any delay start or cycle 

finished modes. A mode between 

completion of the main cycle and 

subsequent standby mode (including, 

for example, a wrinkle-free setting 

described by the CA IOUs), would be 

considered a cycle finished mode. DOE 

determines that the specification in 

section 3.2.8 of appendix J2 and section 

3.2.5 of new appendix J to include only 

active washing mode, and to exclude 

delay start and cycle finish modes, 

provides sufficient specification 

regarding the wash cycle operations that 

comprise a complete cycle, and on 

which the measurement of cycle time is 

to be based. 

For these reasons, DOE is not adding 

a definition of cycle time to either 

appendix J2 or new appendix J. 

Regarding the suggestion by CA IOUs 

that DOE include extended cycle 

operations in the test procedure if they 

are activated by default or instructed by 

the manufacturer for normal use, DOE 

addressed the exclusion of cycle 

finished mode in the March 2012 Final 

Rule. Upon consideration of data and 

estimates provided in the NOPR 

published September 21, 2010 (75 FR 

57556), additional energy consumption 

estimates provided in the supplemental 

NOPR published August 9, 2011 (76 FR 

49238), the uncertainty regarding 

consumer usage patterns, and the 

additional test burden that would be 

required, DOE determined in the March 

2012 Final Rule to adopt an ‘‘alternate 

approach’’ to account for the energy use 

in cycle finished mode. 77 FR 13888, 

13896. Under this approach, all lowpower mode hours are allocated to the 

inactive and off modes, and the lowpower mode power is then measured in 

the inactive and off modes, depending 

on which of these modes is present. Id. 

None of the information provided in 

comments in response to the September 

2021 NOPR would lead DOE to a 

different conclusion regarding the 

exclusion of cycle finished mode. 

For these reasons, DOE is not 

amending in appendix J2 or 

implementing in new appendix J any 

provisions for measuring operation in 

cycle finished mode. 

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. For all clothes washers, 

any volume that cannot be occupied by 

clothing load during operation is 

excluded. 

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 13888, 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 13888, 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. 

As discussed in the September 2021 

NOPR, 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. 86 

FR 49140, 49165. 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. Id. DOE therefore did not 

propose any changes to the existing 

capacity measurement method. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

tentative determination to maintain the 

current capacity measurement method. 

Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposal to not specify any 

alternatives to the current capacity 

measurement procedure, stating that it 

is accurate, repeatable, and 

reproducible. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to retain the 

current capacity measurement test 

procedure, stating that it ensures 

reproducibility and enables third-party 

verification. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 

at p. 11) 

P.R. China recommended that DOE 

emphasize in the capacity measurement 

procedure that the groove on the rubber 

door seal of front-loading clothes 

washers should not be included in the 

capacity calculation. (P.R. China, No. 25 

at pp. 3–4) 

In response to P.R. China’s 

recommendation, DOE notes that the 

groove on the rubber door seal of frontloading clothes washers cannot be 

occupied by the clothing load during 

operation, and therefore is already 

excluded from the capacity 

measurement. In practice, during the 

measurement of a front-loading clothes 

washer’s capacity, the groove on the 

rubber door seal would be covered by 

the plastic bag specified in section 3.1.2 

of appendix J2 for lining the inside of 

the clothes container for the purpose of 

the capacity measurement, and therefore 

would not be included in the capacity 

measurement. 

For the reasons stated previously, 

DOE makes no changes to the capacity 

measurement method in this final rule. 

7. Identifying and Addressing 

Anomalous Cycles 

Section 3.2.9 of appendix J2 

previously specified discarding the 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-of-balance 

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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

discussed that as clothes washer 

technology has improved, certain 

clothes washers are designed to selfcorrect 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. 86 FR 49140, 49166. DOE 

also recognized 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. Id. 

To provide more objective and 

observable criteria, DOE proposed that 

data from a wash cycle would be 

discarded if either: The washing 

machine signals to the user by means of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33342 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. Id. 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 drum 

hitting the side of the cabinet 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-of-balance load that warrants 

discarding the data for a test cycle. Id. 

To emphasize this intent, DOE proposed 

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 new appendix J. Id. 

DOE also proposed 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. Id. 

DOE further proposed nonsubstantive wording changes to section 

3.2.9 of appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 of 

the new appendix J to make explicit that 

if data are discarded for the reasons 

described in these sections, the wash 

cycle is repeated. Id. 

DOE requested comment on the 

proposed criteria for determining 

whether test data are to be discarded. Id. 

Specifically, DOE requested 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. Id. DOE requested 

comment on whether additional or 

alternate criteria would provide 

objective and observable indication 

during a single test that test data are to 

be discarded. Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposed definition for 

anomalous test cycles, but with one 

suggested change to replace ‘‘. . .b) 

terminates prematurely and thus does 

not include the agitation/tumble 

operation . . .’’ with ‘‘. . . b) terminates 

prematurely; or c) does not include the 

agitation/tumble operation . . .’’ 

(AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 12–13) AHAM 

commented that an anomalous cycle 

may not always terminate prematurely, 

but may instead only be apparent from 

the objective and observable criteria 

such as agitation/tumble operation, spin 

speeds, wash times, and rinse times 

applicable to the cycle under test. (Id.) 

AHAM further commented that a cycle 

may not terminate prematurely due to 

anomalous behavior because, in order to 

benefit the consumer, the clothes 

washer will address the anomalous 

behavior and finish the cycle without 

alerting the consumer or requiring 

consumer interaction. (Id.) AHAM noted 

that, in addition to benefitting the 

consumer, addressing anomalous 

behavior 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 recommended that test cycles 

exhibiting signs of anomalous behavior 

without alerting the consumer should be 

considered invalid because they will 

likely impact test results if they occur 

during a test cycle by increasing energy 

and/or water consumption for that 

particular test, and it is unlikely that 

anomalous conditions happen 

frequently when consumers use the 

clothes washer. (Id.) While AHAM 

recognizes that third-party test 

laboratories may not know when a 

clothes washer changes its operation 

due to anomalous behavior without an 

audio/visual indicator, a proposal to 

require such an indicator would 

necessitate product changes that add 

unnecessary product cost. (Id.) AHAM 

further asserted that consumers may be 

dissatisfied if their clothes washer 

presents an audio/visual alert instead of 

fixing anomalous behavior 

automatically for the user because the 

user may have to fix the issue 

themselves, or make a service call. (Id.) 

GEA provided specific support of 

AHAM’s comments regarding this 

proposed amendment. (GEA, No. 32 at 

p. 3) 

Whirlpool commented in agreement 

with DOE’s proposal on anomalous 

cycles to recognize that there may be 

other factors beyond an out-of-balance 

condition that could cause a wash cycle 

to terminate prematurely. (Whirlpool, 

No. 26 at p. 10) Whirlpool suggested, 

however, that DOE adopt AHAM’s 

recommendation presented in its 

comments from the May 2020 RFI to 

determine anomalous cycles even when 

there are no visual or audio alerts to the 

user to indicate that something 

anomalous has occurred during the 

cycle. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that 

not alerting the user to anomalous 

clothes washer behavior is beneficial to 

the consumer, since alerting the 

consumer to anomalous behavior may 

result in the consumer incorrectly 

believing something is seriously wrong 

with the unit, which could lead to a 

service call or visit from the 

manufacturer. (Id.) Since consumer 

intervention may not be needed to fix 

anomalous behavior, Whirlpool 

suggested that DOE should not require 

that the clothes washer signal the user 

by means of a visual or audio alert. (Id.) 

Whirlpool also commented that adding 

a visual or audio alert adds unnecessary 

costs. (Id.) 

GEA commented that it appreciates 

DOE’s evaluation of the issue of 

anomalous cycles during testing. (GEA, 

No. 32 at pp. 2–3) GEA specified that 

the high spin speeds required by current 

energy conservation standards 

combined with increasing clothes 

washer capacity can lead to the need for 

clothes washers to adjust their normal 

cycle to ensure safe and effective cycles. 

(Id.) GEA also commented that handling 

of anomalous cycles without notifying 

the user is an important consumer 

feature that saves energy and 

consumers’ time. (Id.) GEA further 

explained that requiring a consumer 

notification for an anomalous cycle that 

otherwise successfully washes and 

spins the load may lead to unnecessary 

rewash of cleaned clothing, which could 

lead to a waste of energy. (Id.) 

DOE did not intend its proposal to be 

a design requirement. Rather, the intent 

of the proposal was to specify objective 

and observable criteria that—if observed 

on a particular unit under test—would 

indicate that the test data are to be 

discarded. The proposal would not 

require all clothes washers to provide 

audio or visual alerts if anomalies are 

detected. As stated above, DOE 

acknowledges the consumer benefit and 

potential energy savings benefit of 

clothes washers that are able to address 

anomalous behavior and finish the cycle 

without requiring consumer interaction. 

DOE expects that such anomalous 

cycles would occur infrequently and 

only under limited circumstances; more 

frequent occurrence would potentially 

indicate that such cycle behavior may 

be representative of what a consumer of 

that model would experience. 

For the purpose of specifying criteria 

by which test data must be discarded, 

DOE reiterates the importance of 

specifying objective and observable 

criteria that could be used by an 

independent laboratory to determine 

when an anomalous cycle has occurred, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33343 

based on a single test, such that the data 

from that anomalous cycle would be 

discarded. 

For these reasons, DOE finalizes its 

proposal, consistent with the September 

2021 NOPR, to further specify objective 

and observable criteria that, if were to 

occur during testing, require the test 

data to be discarded, and the test cycle 

repeated. This amendment applies to 

both appendix J2 and appendix J. 

8. Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers 

Section III.C.2 of this document 

discussed the installation of semiautomatic clothes washers for testing. 

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. As discussed in the 

September 2021 NOPR, inherently, 

testing the Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and 

Cold/Cold wash/rinse 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 adjust the 

external water faucet valves between the 

wash and rinse portions of the cycle by. 

As reflected in DOE’s definition of semiautomatic 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. 

Table 4.1.1 in appendix J2 contains 

columns that list TUFs based on the 

temperature selections available in the 

energy test cycle. Table 4.1.1 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 semi-automatic clothes washers 

on the market. 77 FR 32307, 32317. 

However, DOE is currently aware of 

several semi-automatic clothes washer 

models available in the U.S. market. 

a. Temperature Selections and Usage 

Factors 

Appendix J as established in the 

September 1977 Final Rule 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 the 

1977 version of appendix J 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 the 1977 version of appendix 

J. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

considered requiring that semiautomatic clothes washers be tested 

with the same six temperature settings 

as in the 1977 version of appendix J. 86 

FR 49140, 49167. 

By including all six possible 

temperature combinations, Table 6.1 of 

the 1977 version of appendix J 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 (i.e., Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and 

Cold/Cold). 86 FR 49140, 49167–49168. 

In Table 6.1 of the 1977 version of 

appendix J, 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. 86 FR 49140, 

49168. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to require testing only those 

temperature settings that do not require 

a water temperature change (i.e., Hot/ 

Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/Cold) for 

semi-automatic clothes washers in new 

appendix J. As indicated by the TUFs 

from the 1977 version of appendix J, 

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. Id. 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. Id. 

DOE expects 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. Id. 

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. Id. DOE tentatively 

concluded 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. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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). Id. 

To define the TUFs for these three 

temperature combinations, DOE 

proposed 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.1. To further 

simplify the test procedure, since DOE 

proposed to require testing only those 

temperature selections that do not 

require a change in the water 

temperature, DOE proposed to label 

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

‘‘Cold,’’ respectively (as opposed to 

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

Cold’’). 

TABLE III.1—TEMPERATURE USAGE

FACTORS FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC

CLOTHES WASHERS REFLECTING

THREE REQUIRED TEMPERATURE

COMBINATIONS PROPOSED IN THE

SEPTEMBER 2021 NOPR 

Wash/rinse temperature 

selection 

Proposed TUF 

Values 

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

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33344 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

42These water use determinations are based on 

the water faucet positions specified in section 

3.2.3.2 of appendix J2, which 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. 

TABLE III.1—TEMPERATURE USAGE

FACTORS FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC

CLOTHES WASHERS REFLECTING

THREE REQUIRED TEMPERATURE

COMBINATIONS PROPOSED IN THE

SEPTEMBER 2021 NOPR—Continued 

Wash/rinse temperature 

selection 

Proposed TUF 

Values 

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

DOE requested 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. 

Id. DOE further requested comment on 

whether the temperature selections and 

TUFs that DOE 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. Id. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal regarding 

temperature selection for semiautomatic clothes washers. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11) The Joint 

Commenters further commented that 

consumers are unlikely to monitor the 

progress of a semi-automatic clothes 

washer cycle to change inlet water 

temperature mid-cycle. (Id.) 

P.R. China recommended that DOE 

use different TUFs for automatic and 

semi-automatic clothes washers, and 

that DOE investigate more consumer 

usage data before determining TUF 

values for semi-automatic clothes 

washers. (P.R. China, No. 25 at p. 4) P.R. 

China commented that, as far as it 

knows, hot water is rarely used in semiautomatic clothes washers. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that if AHAM’s 

test data supports DOE’s proposal, the 

proposal should apply only to products 

plumbed to both hot and cold water 

supplies to avoid penalizing products 

designed to be plumbed with only cold 

water. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 7) 

In response to P.R. China’s comment 

that DOE should use different TUFs for 

automatic and semi-automatic clothes 

washers, the history of DOE’s test 

specifications for semi-automatic 

clothes washers reflects DOE’s historical 

understanding that consumers of semiautomatic clothes washers select among 

cold, warm, and hot wash temperatures 

with similar frequencies as consumers 

of automatic clothes washer. As 

discussed above, in the 1977 version of 

appendix J, the TUFs for automatic and 

semi-automatic clothes washers were 

aligned. DOE maintained this general 

alignment in appendix J through 

subsequent revisions of the test 

procedure in the August 1997 Final 

Rule and January 2001 Final Rule. In the 

initial version of appendix J1 

established in the August 1997 Final 

Rule, DOE further maintained this 

alignment in combining the TUFs for 

both automatic and semi-automatic 

clothes washers into a single table of 

TUFs applicable to all types of clothes 

washers. DOE maintained this single 

table in subsequent versions of 

appendix J1 as amended by the January 

2001 Final Rule, March 2012 Final Rule, 

and August 2015 Final Rule; as well as 

appendix J2 as established in the March 

2012 Final Rule and subsequently 

amended in the August 2015 Final Rule. 

P.R. China presented no data to support 

its assertion that the TUFs for semiautomatic clothes washers should be 

different than for automatic clothes 

washers. Lacking any more recent data 

or information to suggest that DOE’s 

historical understanding of consumer 

usage of semi-automatic clothes washers 

has changed in this regard, DOE 

maintains the alignment of the TUFs 

between semi-automatic and automatic 

clothes washers, as proposed in the 

September 2021 NOPR. 

In response to AHAM’s comment that 

the proposed TUFs should apply to only 

products plumbed to both hot and cold 

water supplies, DOE is not aware of any 

semi-automatic clothes washers that are 

plumbed to both hot and cold water 

supplies. In DOE’s review of products 

on the market, all semi-automatic 

clothes washers are designed with a 

single water inlet that consumers 

connect to a water faucet, such as a 

kitchen faucet, that has the ability to 

provide water at a range of 

temperatures. Therefore, DOE does not 

make a distinction between semiautomatic clothes washers plumbed to 

both hot and cold water supplies—were 

such products to be brought to the 

market—and those plumbed with only 

cold water. To the extent that provisions 

of appendix J for semi-automatic clothes 

washers result in higher measured 

energy compared to appendix J2, 

impacts on measured energy use 

between the then-current appendix J2 

and the proposed appendix J test 

procedures would be factored into the 

crosswalk relating the appendix J2 and 

appendix J metrics as part of the 

ongoing standards analysis. 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to test semiautomatic clothes washers under 

appendix J using only the wash/rinse 

temperature combinations that do not 

require a temperature change between 

the wash and rinse portions of the cycle 

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

Cold). Also consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes 

its proposal to define TUF values of 0.14 

for Hot, 0.49 for Warm, and 0.37 for 

Cold in appendix J for semi-automatic 

clothes washers. 

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. 86 

FR 49140, 49168. 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. Id. 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. Id. 

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.42 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. Id. Therefore, DOE 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. Id. In the September 2021 NOPR, 

DOE proposed in 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. Id. This 

approach would reduce the test burden 

for semi-automatic clothes washers by 

requiring only two test cycles to 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. Id. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33345 

DOE also noted that if it were to 

require measuring six temperature 

selections (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 water temperature change. 

86 FR 49140, 49168–49169. 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. 86 FR 49140, 49169. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

require semi-automatic clothes washers 

to be tested using only the Cold cycle, 

and to determine the representative 

values for the Warm and Hot cycles 

formulaically, for the proposed new 

appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49168. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding the proposal to require semiautomatic 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. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to require 

semi-automatic clothes washers to be 

tested using only the Cold cycle, and to 

determine the representative values for 

the Warm and Hot cycles formulaically, 

for the proposed new appendix J. 

c. Implementation 

To implement the changes described 

above for semi-automatic clothes 

washers, DOE proposed in the 

September 2021 NOPR to create a 

section 3.4 in the new appendix J (see 

discussion in section III.H.7 of this 

document for an explanation of how 

section 3 of the new appendix J was 

proposed to be structured) specifying 

the cycles required for testing semiautomatic clothes washers. 86 FR 49140, 

49169. DOE proposed a new section 

3.4.1 that would specify the required 

test measurements for the Cold cycle 

and would define variables for each 

measured value and a new section 3.4.2 

that 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. 

Id. 

DOE also proposed to create a section 

2.12.2 in the new appendix J to state 

that the energy test cycle for semiautomatic clothes washers includes only 

the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse (‘‘Cold’’) test 

cycle. Id. DOE also proposed to 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. Id. DOE 

further proposed to specify that section 

3.2.1 of the new appendix J (which 

would mirror section 3.2.4 of appendix 

J2) would apply only to automatic 

clothes washers. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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. 86 FR 49140, 49168. DOE 

also requested feedback on how 

manufacturers of semi-automatic clothes 

washers are currently testing their 

products using appendix J2. Id. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding the proposed implementation 

details for including explicit 

instructions on how to test semiautomatic clothes washers in appendix 

J. DOE also did not receive any 

comments on how manufacturers of 

semi-automatic clothes washers are 

currently testing their products using 

appendix J2 or whether to include 

explicit instructions for how to test 

semi-automatic clothes washers in 

appendix J2. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

finalizes its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to create a 

section 3.4 in the new appendix J 

specifying the cycles required for testing 

semi-automatic clothes washers, 

including a new section 3.4.1 that 

specifies the required test measurements 

for the Cold cycle and defines variables 

for each measured value; and a new 

section 3.4.2 that specifies the formulas 

used to calculate the representative 

values for the Warm and Hot cycles, 

based on the measured values from the 

Cold cycle. DOE also finalizes its 

proposal, consistent with the September 

2021 NOPR, to create a section 2.12.2 in 

the new appendix J to state that the 

energy test cycle for semi-automatic 

clothes washers includes only the Cold 

test cycle. 

9. Optional Cycle Modifiers 

Section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 

previously stated 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. 86 FR 49140, 49169. 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. 

DOE suggested that the growing 

presence of such features may, however, 

be indicative of an increase in consumer 

demand and/or usage of these features. 

Id. 

As noted in the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE is not aware of any 

consumer usage data concerning the use 

of optional cycle modifiers, nor did 

interested parties provide any such data. 

86 FR 49140, 49170. 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. Id. Therefore, DOE 

did not propose to change the current 

requirement to use the manufacturer 

default settings for optional cycle 

modifiers. Id. 

As discussed in section III.D.4 of this 

document, new appendix J requires 

measuring RMC on each tested cycle 

using the default spin settings for each 

cycle. Id. Consistent with this change 

from appendix J2, DOE proposed in the 

September 2021 NOPR 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 

new appendix J. Id. 

DOE requested comment on 

maintaining the current requirement to 

use the manufacturer default settings for 

optional cycle modifiers. Id. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33346 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

43Section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 states that 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) if necessary, the 

spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine 

remaining moisture content. (emphasis added) 

44 ‘‘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. 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

encouraged DOE to investigate the usage 

of cycle modifiers and consumer spin 

cycle selection behaviors, and their 

impact on energy and water use. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 7) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated 

that they agree with DOE’s statement in 

the September 2021 NOPR that cycle 

modifiers have a growing presence, as 

evidenced by the fact that ‘‘deep fill’’ is 

a clothes washer selection filter on 

certain appliance vendors’ websites. 

(Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

asserted that cycle modifiers such as 

‘‘deep fill’’ are being captured by the 

test procedure only in certain cases. 

(e.g., user-adjustable automatic clothes 

washers that have the ‘‘deep fill’’ setting 

on the water level control, which would 

be captured by the provision in section 

3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2, versus clothes 

washers that have a separate ‘‘deep fill’’ 

button that would be considered a cycle 

modifier and would not be tested under 

the proposed amended test procedure). 

(Id.) The Joint Efficiency Advocates also 

restated their comments in response to 

the May 2020 RFI, that if the test 

procedure requires testing of optional 

cycle modifiers only in their default 

position, and the default settings for 

optional modifiers are most often in the 

‘‘off’’ position, the test procedure 

effectively assigns a value of zero to the 

energy and water use of those features, 

which the Joint Efficiency Advocates 

asserted is not representative of 

consumer use. (Id.) Additionally, the 

Joint Efficiency Advocates commented 

that while DOE’s proposal to measure 

RMC on each energy test cycle using the 

default spin setting is an improvement 

upon the current RMC testing method, 

consumers may still select spin settings 

that are not the default setting, and that 

the proposed amended test procedure 

may not accurately reflect real-world 

energy usage. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates therefore concluded that 

DOE should pursue data regarding 

consumer behavior for spin setting 

selection at different temperature cycles. 

(Id.) 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

conduct exploratory research testing on 

cycle modifiers and consider future 

amendments to the test procedure to 

ensure that the energy conservation 

standards are representative of actual 

field energy and water use. (CA IOUs, 

No. 29 at p. 6) The CA IOUs also 

recommended that DOE invest in a 

national study to determine how 

consumers use additional cycle 

modifiers on a national scale. (Id.) 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposal to maintain the current 

requirement to use the manufacturer 

default settings for optional cycle 

modifiers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 14) 

AHAM also commented that it agrees 

with DOE’s proposal 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. (Id.) 

Regarding the Joint Efficiency 

Advocates’ assertion that certain 

implementations of ‘‘deep fill’’ would 

be captured by the test procedure but 

that a separate deep fill button would be 

considered a cycle modifier and not be 

tested, the language of section 3.2.7 

regarding use of default settings during 

testing does not apply to wash water fill 

levels.43 Irrespective of how a deep fill 

feature is implemented on the control 

panel (e.g., whether as a setting on the 

water level control or as separate ‘‘deep 

fill’’ button), the ‘‘deep fill’’ option 

would be tested if the feature meets the 

definition of a user-adjustable adaptive 

WFCS (see further discussion of this 

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

document). 

DOE recognizes, as discussed, that 

clothes washer control panels continue 

to become more complex. The plethora 

of cycle modifiers available— 

implemented differently by each 

manufacturer—creates a significant 

challenge in collecting data on 

consumer usage and in considering test 

procedures for these features that would 

be representative of an average use cycle 

or period of use without being unduly 

burdensome to conduct, as required by 

EPCA. DOE lacks data and information 

that could provide insights into average 

consumer use of cycle modifiers. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to specify in 

section 3.2.4 of new appendix J the use 

of manufacturer default settings for 

optional cycle modifiers other than 

temperature selections and wash water 

fill levels, and 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. 

10. Clothes Washers With Connected 

Functionality 

DOE is aware of several ‘‘connected’’ 

RCW models currently on the market, 

from at least six major manufacturers. 

As discussed in the September 2021 

NOPR, 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 44

available through partnerships with a 

small number of local electric utilities. 

86 FR 49140, 49170. 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 previously specified 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. 

As discussed in the September 2021 

NOPR, 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. Id. 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. Id. 

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. 

Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

recognized the potential benefits that 

could be provided by connected 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33347 

45The October 12, 2021 test procedure final rule 

for refrigeration products is available online at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-TP0004-0029. 

capability, such as providing energy 

saving benefits to consumers, enabling 

peak load shifting on the electrical grid, 

and other consumer-related benefits. 86 

FR 49140, 49171. 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 

regarding the consumer use of 

connected features. Id. 

DOE also noted that while the 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. 86 

FR 49140, 49171. 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. Id. If the 

consumer is required to actively enable 

the connected functionality, however, 

such energy consumption would not be 

measured. Id. 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. 

Id. 

Given the lack of data to establish a 

test configuration that would be 

representative of consumer use of 

connected features on clothes washers, 

DOE proposed to amend section 3.2.7 of 

appendix J2 and section 3.2.4 of the 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. Id. 

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, DOE proposed that the unit 

must be tested with the network 

capability in the factory default setting 

as specified in the current test 

procedure. Id. DOE 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. Id. As such, the 

energy consumption of a connected 

function that cannot be disabled would 

continue to be measured, as in the 

current test procedure. Id. This 

approach is consistent with the 

microwave ovens supplemental NOPR 

published on August 3, 2021, and with 

the consumer clothes dryer final rule 

published on October 8, 2021. 86 FR 

41759 and 86 FR 56608. 

DOE requested 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. 86 FR 

49140, 49171. DOE also requested 

information and data regarding 

connected clothes washers that could 

inform future test procedure 

considerations. Id. 

Whirlpool stated that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to specify that network 

settings on clothes washers with 

connected functionality should be 

disabled during testing if such settings 

can be disabled by the end user, and if 

the product’s user manual provides 

instructions on how to do so. 

(Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 11) 

AHAM commented that it does not 

oppose the intent behind DOE’s 

proposal regarding network-connected 

clothes washers, but recommended that 

DOE refrain from using the term 

‘‘disabled’’ and instead adopt 

terminology consistent with IEC 

Standard 62301, ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power,’’ Edition 2.0, 2011–01. (AHAM, 

No. 27 at p. 14) Specifically, AHAM 

noted that the definition of ‘‘low power 

mode’’ in IEC 62301 has three 

conditions: Off, standby, and network. 

(Id.) AHAM added that the power 

consumption in standby and network 

modes are often negligible, but are not 

always zero. (Id.) AHAM expressed 

concern that DOE’s use of the term 

‘‘disable’’ could mean that power 

consumption must be zero, which may 

lead to confusion and inaccurate testing. 

(Id.) AHAM recommended that instead 

of calling for connected functionality to 

be disabled, DOE should adopt the use 

of ‘‘low power mode’’ as defined in IEC 

62301 as a setting in which the testing 

of connected products may occur. (Id.) 

AHAM added that the approach in IEC 

62301 is desirable because connected 

functionalities are still evolving, as are 

the use cases that connected devices 

employ, and the low power definition in 

IEC 62301 allows for more flexibility 

while offering the clarity DOE seeks 

when it comes to connected 

functionality testing for clothes washers. 

(Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

recommended that DOE test clothes 

washers with network-connected 

functionality in their as-shipped setting 

for both the active cycle and low-power 

modes. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 

28 at p. 4) The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates commented that while they 

support clarifying the instructions for 

network-connected functionality testing, 

they are concerned that DOE’s proposal 

to test clothes washers with the 

network-connected functions disabled if 

such settings can be disabled by the 

end-user via user manual instructions 

would allow many clothes washers to be 

tested with connected functionality 

disabled even though those functions 

may not be disabled in the field. (Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates asserted 

that if a clothes washer with connected 

functionality is shipped with those 

features enabled, it is unlikely that most 

consumers will take the necessary steps 

to disable those features. (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates therefore 

concluded that DOE’s proposal for 

testing network-connected functionality 

would not be representative of the 

model’s standby power consumption. 

(Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

support testing all products with 

connected functionality in their asshipped configuration. (CA IOUs, No. 29 

at p. 7) The CA IOUs added that there 

is existing precedent for testing 

network-connected functions in their asshipped configurations that was 

established under the October 12, 2021 

test procedure final rule for refrigeration 

products.45 (Id.) The CA IOUs also 

commented that for clothes washers that 

have directions to disable networkconnected functionality, there is no 

information available to confirm 

whether consumers disable these 

functions and at what rate they do so. 

(Id.) The CA IOUs further asserted that 

without specific consumer use 

information, it is reasonable to assume 

consumers will operate networkconnected clothes washers in their asshipped condition, and that anything to 

the contrary would imply a direct action 

by the consumer for which no 

supporting data exists. (Id.) The CA 

IOUs requested that if such data does 

exist, DOE should publish this 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33348 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

46The October 2021 consumer clothes dryers test 

procedure final rule is available online at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-TP0034-0039. 

information for all stakeholders to view. 

(Id.) 

The Joint Commenters commented 

that they disagree with DOE’s proposal 

to disable connected functionality 

during testing. (Joint Commenters, No. 

31 at pp. 5–6) The Joint Commenters 

instead recommended that DOE require 

testing connected functionality for all 

clothes washers in the as-shipped 

configuration. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters commented that their 

technical research shows that clothes 

washers with connected functionality 

may use varying amounts of energy on 

low power mode, and that data trends 

predict that connected functionality will 

likely be present in 25 percent of RCWs 

by 2023. (Id.) The Joint Commenters 

further commented that testing 

connected functionality for all clothes 

washers in the as-shipped condition 

would reduce test burden since the test 

technician would not need to disable 

connected functionality before low 

power mode testing. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters also stated that testing 

connected functionality in the asshipped configuration would be more 

representative of typical use, asserting 

that consumers are more likely to use 

the clothes washer as shipped, instead 

of making extra efforts to disable 

connected functionality, even if they 

choose not to use it. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters also added that DOE’s 

general approach in clothes washers and 

in other product categories is to use the 

default position for most features. (Id.) 

Mutrux recommended that DOE 

implement a more nuanced tracking of 

the standby states of connected 

appliances since, according to the 

Electronics Device & Networks Annex 

(‘‘EDNA’’), network-connected clothes 

washers are expected to see a ‘‘high rate 

of proliferation.’’ (Mutrux, No. 19 at pp. 

1–2) Mutrux cited EDNA data showing 

that smart appliances draw an average 

of 0.4 watts on standby mode, and that 

the worldwide energy consumption of 

standby power by smart appliances is 

predicted to be 7 terawatt-hours in 2025. 

(Id.) Mutrux recommended that DOE 

test the three standby configurations 

proposed by the Edison Electric 

Institute to amend energy conservation 

standards for appliances: Standby nonconnected (for traditional clothes 

washers that do not have ‘‘smart’’ 

features and cannot connect to any 

external network or device); standby 

connected (for ‘‘smart’’ clothes washers 

that connect to smart home networks or 

smart devices); and standby 

disconnected (for ‘‘smart’’ clothes 

washers that have the ability to 

disconnect from smart home networks 

and smart devices based on user 

command or as a default mode if it 

detects problems with the 

communication network). (Id.) Mutrux 

suggested test procedure provisions that 

would address the configuration for 

network-connected functionality. (Id.) 

Mutrux’s proposal specified that clothes 

washers should be tested either (1) 

without any connectivity if the washing 

machine does not have ‘‘smart’’ features 

and cannot connect to any external 

network or device, or (2) both (a) with 

network-connected settings disabled (if 

connected settings can be disabled by 

the end-user and the product’s user 

manual provides instructions on how to 

do so) or on their ‘‘default mode’’ if the 

clothes washer detects problems with 

the communication network and (b) 

with their network-connected functions 

enabled. (Id.) 

As discussed, DOE is aware of a 

number of clothes washers on the 

market with varying implementations of 

connected functionality. On such 

products, DOE has observed 

inconsistent implementations of these 

connected features across different 

brands, and that the design and 

operation of these features is 

continuously evolving as the nascent 

market continues to grow for these 

products. 

DOE remains unaware 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 during an average period of 

use. 

Furthermore, as noted, while DOE’s 

prior test procedure did not explicitly 

require the measurement of energy use 

associated with any connected features, 

the previous test procedure, in its 

required measurement of standby mode 

and off mode power, may have captured 

the energy used by features that provide 

connected functionality. Specifically, 

any energy use of such connected 

features may have been measured in 

section 3.9 of previous appendix J2 if 

manufacturers’ instructions specify that 

the features be turned on, or if the 

connected functionality is enabled by 

default when the unit is powered on. If, 

however, a manufacturer does not 

provide such an instruction, and the 

product ships with connected features 

disabled, then such energy consumption 

would not have been measured under 

the prior test procedure because the test 

cycle requirements in section 3.2.7 of 

appendix J2 did not include instructions 

for activating any such features before 

performing the active mode test cycles. 

Therefore, to ensure the repeatability 

and comparability of test results 

between models, especially those with 

connected functionality, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to specify in 

section 3.2.7 of appendix J2 and section 

3.2.4 of the new appendix J 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 has determined that if network 

functionality cannot be disabled by the 

consumer, or if the manufacturer’s user 

manual does not provide instruction for 

disabling the function, including the 

energy consumption of the enabled 

network function is more representative 

than excluding the energy consumption 

associated with the network function. 

For such products, the energy 

consumption of a connected function 

that cannot be disabled will continue to 

be measured, as in the previous test 

procedure. 

Regarding AHAM’s comment on use 

of the term ‘‘disabled,’’ DOE does not 

agree that the term ‘‘disable’’ implies 

that the power consumption must be 

zero. The wording implemented in this 

final rule specifies that ‘‘. . . the 

network settings must be disabled 

throughout testing if such settings can 

be disabled by the end-user . . .’’ No 

implication regarding the resulting 

power consumption is intended by this 

instruction. DOE also notes that this 

wording maintains consistency with the 

clothes dryer test procedures as 

amended by the final rule published 

October 8, 2021 (‘‘October 2021 clothes 

dryer Final Rule’’).46 86 FR 56608. 

Regarding consideration of alternate 

methodologies for categorizing and 

testing low power modes (e.g., through 

further reference to IEC 62301 or to 

procedures developed by Edison 

Electric Institute, as suggested by 

commenters), DOE developed its lowpower mode definitions and test 

provisions in the March 2012 Final Rule 

consistent with the requirements of 

EPCA to integrate measures of standby 

mode and off mode energy consumption 

into the overall energy efficiency, 

energy consumption, or other energy 

descriptor, while considering the most 

current version of IEC 62301; (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) while also considering 

EPCA requirements that any test 

procedures shall be reasonably designed 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33349 

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 shall not be unduly 

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

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

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 water heating 

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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

noted that energy use (the denominator 

of the IMEF and MEFJ2 equations) scales 

with weighted-average load size, 

whereas capacity (the numerator of the 

IMEF and MEFJ2 equations) scales with 

maximum load size. 86 FR 49140, 

49172. 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. Id. 

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. Id. This 

relationship applies similarly to water 

efficiency through the IWF equation. Id. 

As noted in the comments summarized 

in the September 2021 NOPR, this 

disproportionate benefit increases as 

average clothes washer capacity 

increases over time. Id. To avoid 

providing bias for large-capacity clothes 

washers, DOE proposed to change the 

energy and water efficiency metrics in 

the new appendix J by replacing the 

capacity term with the weighted-average 

load size, in pounds. Id. Under this 

proposed change, energy and water use 

would scale proportionally with 

weighted-average load size in the IMEF, 

MEFJ2, and IWF formulas and thus 

eliminate the efficiency bias currently 

provided to large-capacity clothes 

washers. Id. 

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. In the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively 

determined that clothing load size (i.e., 

the weight of clothes cleaned), 

expressed as the weighted-average load 

size, may better represent the ‘‘useful 

output’’ of a clothes washer. 86 FR 

49140, 49172. 

DOE clarified that were DOE to 

finalize the proposed metric change, 

changes to the energy conservation 

standards would be addressed in an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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 new appendix J. 

Id. 

Samsung commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to base the efficiency 

metrics on load size instead of clothes 

washer capacity. (Samsung, No. 30 at p. 

3) Samsung added that this proposed 

change will be better understood by 

consumers and will result in only a 

numerical change since the clothes 

washer volume and weighted-average 

load size relationship is linear. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented in support 

of DOE’s proposal to define the 

efficiency metrics based on the 

weighted-average load size instead of 

clothes washer capacity, stating that it 

would help eliminate part of the 

inherent bias toward larger-capacity 

clothes washers. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 

2; CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 16) 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to replace the 

capacity term in the efficiency metrics 

with a weighted-average load size term 

in new appendix J. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 31 at p. 4) The Joint Commenters 

further commented that as the average 

basket volume has increased from 2.7 ft3

when the test procedure was first 

developed to 4.4 ft3 in 2019, aspects of 

the current test procedure and efficiency 

metrics created unintended advantages 

for larger capacity clothes washers. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters specifically 

noted that larger capacity clothes 

washers could use more energy and 

water per pound of textile washed than 

smaller capacity clothes washers with 

the same IMEF ratings, without 

necessarily being more efficient than 

smaller clothes washers. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters additionally commented in 

support of DOE’s proposed new 

efficiency metrics due to the EER and 

WER metrics being similar to the 

appendix D2 efficiency metrics for 

clothes dryers, which also express 

efficiency in pounds of textile per kWh. 

(Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that DOE’s proposal to base 

efficiency metrics on load size instead 

of capacity is an important step towards 

eliminating the current bias towards 

large-capacity washers and that it will 

alter the relative efficiency rankings of 

machines, will provide a more accurate 

representation of real-world efficiency 

across models, and will help consumers 

make more informed purchasing 

decisions. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, 

No. 28 at p. 1) 

AHAM commented that DOE does not 

need to change the efficiency metrics. 

(AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 7–8) AHAM also 

commented that in order to provide 

fully formed comments to DOE on its 

proposal to introduce new efficiency 

metrics, AHAM needs to understand the 

impact of the proposed changes on 

products as well as on consumer 

understanding of the metrics. (Id.) 

Additionally, AHAM commented that 

since DOE will not be able to easily 

‘‘crosswalk’’ current standards to 

account for the changes in measured 

efficiency use, DOE’s proposals will 

require significant testing and data 

gathering, which AHAM is just 

beginning. (Id.) AHAM emphasized that 

the main reason AHAM opposes DOE’s 

process of issuing the proposed test 

procedure and standards preliminary 

analysis concurrently is because it 

needs more time to understand the new 

metrics’ impact on products, consumers 

and manufacturers. (Id.) 

As discussed previously, the impacts 

to measured energy as a result of 

changing the metrics were accounted for 

in the crosswalk between the thencurrent appendix J2 and appendix J 

metrics developed for the September 

2021 RCW Standards Preliminary 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33350 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Analysis. As stated in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE plans to continue testing 

additional units to appendix J and will 

continue to refine its approach for 

determining appropriate crosswalk 

translations in future stages of the 

standards rulemaking. DOE also 

welcomes any additional data submitted 

by interested parties as part of the 

ongoing standards rulemaking process. 

Considering the discussion presented 

in the September 2021 NOPR and 

comments received from interested 

parties, DOE has determined that 

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

clothes cleaned), expressed as the 

weighted-average load size, better 

represent the ‘‘useful output’’ of a 

clothes washer. As stated, the current 

metrics provide 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. 

Also as stated, under the new metrics 

adopted in new appendix J, energy and 

water use scale proportionally with 

weighted-average load size in the EER, 

AEER, and WER formulas and thus 

eliminate the efficiency bias currently 

provided to large-capacity clothes 

washers. 

For the reasons discussed, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to change 

the energy and water efficiency metrics 

in the new appendix J by replacing the 

capacity term with the weighted-average 

load size, in pounds. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to rename the efficiency 

metrics in the new appendix J to avoid 

any confusion between the proposed 

new metrics and the existing metrics. Id. 

DOE proposed to designate EER as the 

energy efficiency metric for RCWs 

(replacing IMEF); AEER as the energy 

efficiency metric for CCWs (replacing 

MEFJ2) and 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. 

Id. Section III.E.2 of this document 

describes how WER would be 

calculated. 

DOE also proposed 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. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposed names for the proposed new 

efficiency metrics in new appendix J: 

Energy efficiency ratio (EER), activemode energy efficiency ratio (AEER), 

and water efficiency ratio (WER). 

The CA IOUs and the Joint 

Commenters supported DOE renaming 

the efficiency metrics to EER and WER. 

(CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 2; Joint 

Commenters, No. 31 at p. 4) No other 

comments were received with regard to 

the name changes for the metrics. 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

is finalizing its proposals, consistent 

with the September 2021 NOPR, to 

rename the efficiency metrics in new 

appendix J and 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. 

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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to invert the water metric, in 

conjunction with replacing the capacity 

term with weighted-average load size, as 

described in the previous section. 86 FR 

49140, 49173. 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. Id. 

DOE proposed to define WER in the 

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). Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to invert the water efficiency 

metric in new appendix J and calculate 

the newly defined WER metric as the 

quotient of the weighted-average load 

size divided by the total weighted percycle water consumption for all wash 

cycles. Id. 

AHAM commented that upon initial 

review, inversion makes sense from a 

theoretical standpoint given the other 

proposed changes to the test procedure. 

(AHAM, No. 27 at p. 8) 

The CA IOUs commented in support 

of DOE’s proposal to invert the water 

metric so that it is aligns with the 

energy metric, for which higher values 

will equate to more efficient products. 

(CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 1) The CA IOUs 

stated that they believe this will provide 

better clarity to consumer seeking 

efficient products. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to invert the 

water efficiency metric so that a higher 

number signifies increased efficiency, 

stating that it is more intuitive to pair 

higher numbers with higher efficiency. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 11) The 

Joint Commenters also added that there 

is value in aligning the appendix J2 

metrics so that higher is better for both 

metrics. (Id.) 

For the reasons stated above, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to invert the 

water metric in the new appendix J and 

thereby define WER 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 considered whether to invert to 

the IWF metric in appendix J2 to align 

with the MEFJ2 and IMEF metrics such 

that a higher value would indicate 

higher efficiency. While doing so would 

provide the same benefits described 

previously as justification for inverting 

the water metric in new appendix J, 

changing the metric would require 

manufacturers to recertify every model, 

would require DOE to amend its 

standards according to the new metric, 

and would not provide information to 

the consumer that is any more 

representative than the current metric. 

Accordingly, DOE has determined that 

the burdens imposed by inverting the 

water metric in appendix J2 would 

outweigh the benefits; i.e., such a 

change would be unduly burdensome. 

This final rule makes no change to the 

IWF water metric in appendix J2. 

3. Representation Requirements 

Representation requirements for 

RCWs and CCWs are codified at 10 CFR 

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

respectively. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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 

when using the new appendix J. 86 FR 

49140, 49174. DOE also proposed to 

clarify that the capacity specified in 10 

CFR 429.20(a)(3) is the clothes container 

capacity (emphasis added). Id. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33351 

47The unavailability provision is applicable to 

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

48The ENERGY STAR ‘‘Test Method for 

Determining Residential Clothes Washer Cleaning 

Performance’’ is available online at: 

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/ 

document/Test%20Method%20for%20Determining

%20Residential%20Clothes%20Washer%20

Cleaning%20Performance%20-%20July%202018_

0.pdf. 

49AHAM HLW–2–2020: ‘‘Performance Evaluation 

Procedures for Household Clothes Washers’’ is 

available for purchase online at: www.aham.org/ 

ItemDetail?iProductCode=20002&Category=

MADSTD. 

DOE further proposed 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 when using the new 

appendix J. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposed representation and sampling 

requirements for RCWs and CCWs when 

tested according to new appendix J and 

the proposed clarification. Id. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding is proposal regarding 

representation and sampling 

requirements for RCWs and CCWs. 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, to specify that the sampling 

requirements for RCWs specified at 10 

CFR 429.20(a)(2)(ii) also apply to the 

new EER and WER metrics when using 

the new appendix J; to clarify that the 

capacity specified in 10 CFR 

429.20(a)(3) is the clothes container 

capacity; and to specify that the 

sampling requirements specified for 

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

apply to the new AEER and WER 

metrics when using the new appendix J. 

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)) 47

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, and DOE’s clothes washer test 

procedures do not prescribe a method 

for testing clothes washer cleaning 

performance. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

noted that, as indicated by stakeholder 

comments, multiple test procedures 

from industry and international 

organizations are available for 

measuring clothes washer cleaning 

performance (among other attributes). 

86 FR 49140, 49175. DOE stated that it 

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. Id. 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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

did not propose to add a cleaning 

performance test procedure to new 

appendix J or to appendix J2. 86 FR 

49140, 49175. 

Samsung suggested that DOE’s test 

procedure should ensure a product 

performs its basic function. (Samsung, 

No. 30 at p. 2) Samsung commented that 

DOE has already established such a test 

procedure for ENERGY STAR called the 

‘‘Test Method for Determining 

Residential Clothes Washer Cleaning 

Performance’’ 48 (‘‘the ENERGY STAR 

cleaning performance test’’). (Id.) 

Samsung added that the ENERGY STAR 

test method uses similar conditions to 

appendix J2 and could serve as a 

uniform test procedure for DOE, 

manufacturers, and other stakeholders 

to ensure that products perform their 

basic functionality while reaching new 

minimum efficiency thresholds. (Id.) 

Samsung suggested that DOE add the 

ENERGY STAR test method as an 

informative appendix to the clothes 

washer test procedure. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented in support of 

DOE’s preliminary determination not to 

propose a cleaning performance test 

procedure to the proposed appendix J or 

updated appendix J2 test procedures. 

(Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 11) Whirlpool 

recommended that DOE consider the 

performance impacts of any new or 

amended standards and test procedures, 

but specified that a cleaning 

performance test method does not need 

to be developed. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that it agrees with 

DOE’s proposal not to add a cleaning 

performance test procedure to appendix 

J2 and new appendix J, asserting that it 

is not within DOE’s authority under 

EPCA to include a performance metric 

or test. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 15) AHAM 

commented, however, that cleaning 

performance is a critical consideration 

in the development of energy 

conservation standards because, under 

EPCA, DOE must consider the impact of 

potential new or amended efficiency 

standards on performance and 

consumer utility. (Id.) AHAM therefore 

commented that it supports a robust 

analysis of the potential impact of 

proposed new or amended standards on 

product performance and utility. (Id.) 

AHAM specifically recommended test 

procedures, such as AHAM HLW–2– 

2020: ‘‘Performance Evaluation 

Procedures for Household Clothes 

Washers’’ 49 to evaluate cleaning 

performance, and recommended that 

DOE consider testing that would 

evaluate other performance concerns, 

consumer feedback, and other input. 

(Id.) 

As discussed, EPCA requires DOE to 

establish test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (for certain 

products), or estimated annual operating 

cost of a covered product during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use, as determined by the 

Secretary, and shall not be unduly 

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

6293(b)(3)) DOE’s test procedure for 

clothes washers identifies the ‘‘normal 

cycle’’ as the cycle representative of 

consumer use, defines the term ‘‘normal 

cycle,’’ requires testing using the 

‘‘normal cycle,’’ and compliance with 

the applicable standards is determined 

based on the measured energy and water 

use of the ‘‘normal cycle.’’ 10 CFR 

430.23(j) and 10 CFR 430 subpart B 

appendix J2. The ‘‘normal cycle’’ is 

defined as the cycle recommended by 

the manufacturer (considering 

manufacturer instructions, control panel 

labeling, and other markings on the 

clothes washer) for normal, regular, or 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33352 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

50The definition of ‘‘normal cycle’’ also specifies 

that 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 MEFJ2 value. 

51Higher energy use may provide increased 

thermal and mechanical action for removing soils. 

Similarly, higher water use may provide better 

rinsing performance by reducing the amount of soil 

re-deposition on the clothing. 

typical use for washing up to a full load 

of normally soiled cotton clothing.50

Section 1.25 of appendix J2. As such, 

the existing test procedure does not 

define what constitutes ‘‘washing’’ up to 

a full load of normally soiled cotton 

clothing (i.e., the cleaning performance). 

For clothes washers, the cleaning 

performance at the completion of a 

cycle influences how a consumer uses 

the product. If the cleanliness of the 

clothing after completion of a wash 

cycle does not meet consumer 

expectations, consumers may alter their 

use of the clothes washer. For example, 

consumers may alter the use of the 

product by choosing cycle modifiers to 

enhance the performance of the selected 

cycle; selecting an alternate cycle that 

consumes more energy and water to 

provide a higher level of cleaning; 

operating the selected cycle multiple 

times; or pre-treating (e.g., pre-soaking 

in water) clothing items before loading 

into the clothes washer to achieve an 

acceptable level of cleaning. As 

summarized in the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE received comment from 

Samsung in response to the May 2020 

RFI expressing concern that unless 

clothes washers perform at a minimum 

level of acceptable functionality on the 

Normal cycle, consumers may use other 

energy- or water-intensive modes and 

unknowingly sacrifice energy efficiency. 

(Samsung, No. 6 at p. 2) 86 FR 49140, 

49174. 

In general, a consumer-acceptable 

level of cleaning performance (i.e., a 

representative average use cycle) can be 

easier to achieve through the use of 

higher amounts of energy and water use 

during the clothes washer cycle.51

Conversely, maintaining acceptable 

cleaning performance can be more 

difficult as energy and water levels are 

reduced. Improving one aspect of 

clothes performance, such as reducing 

energy and/or water use as a result of 

energy conservation standards, may 

require a trade-off with one or more 

other aspects of performance, such as 

cleaning performance. DOE expects, 

however, that consumers maintain the 

same expectations of cleaning 

performance regardless of the efficiency 

of the clothes washer. As the clothes 

washer market continuously evolves to 

higher levels of efficiency—either as a 

result of mandatory minimum standards 

or in response to voluntary programs 

such as ENERGY STAR—it becomes 

increasingly more important that DOE 

ensures that its test procedure continues 

to reflect representative use. As such, 

the normal cycle that is used to test the 

clothes washer for energy and water 

performance must be one that provides 

a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning 

performance, even as efficiency 

increases. 

DOE considered, in order to ensure 

that DOE’s clothes washer test 

procedure accurately and fully tests 

clothes washers during a representative 

average use cycle, whether to propose 

amendments to the test procedure to 

define what constitutes ‘‘washing up to 

a full load of normally soiled cotton 

clothing’’ (i.e., the cleaning 

performance) to better represent 

consumer use of the product. DOE notes 

that it proposed amendments in this 

regard to its dishwasher test procedure 

in a NOPR published December 21, 

2021 (‘‘December 2021 dishwasher 

NOPR’’). 86 FR 72738. Specifically, in 

the December 2021 dishwasher NOPR, 

DOE proposed to include a methodology 

for calculating a per-cycle cleaning 

index metric—using a methodology 

defined in the relevant industry 

standard—and to establish a minimum 

cleaning index threshold as a condition 

for a test cycle to be valid. Id. 

The ENERGY STAR cleaning 

performance test has been developed by 

DOE in partnership with U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) to determine cleaning 

performance for clothes washers that 

meet the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 

criteria. Cleaning performance is 

determined on the same test units 

immediately following the energy and 

water consumption tests for ENERGY 

STAR qualification. 

The ENERGY STAR cleaning 

performance test is based largely on the 

procedures specified in AHAM HLW–1– 

2013, but using DOE test cloth rather 

than the 100 percent cotton materials 

specified in AHAM HLW–1–2013. The 

test uses standardized soil/stain removal 

test strips specified in AHAM HLW–1– 

2013, which are attached to individual 

pieces of test cloth within the load. 

Testing is performed using the specific 

detergent formulation specified in 

AHAM HLW–1–2013. The test is 

performed three times on the hottest 

Warm/Cold temperature selection with 

the maximum load size. After each test, 

the test strips are separated from the 

cloth, allowed to dry, and the post-wash 

reflectance of each strip is measured to 

determine how much of each stain was 

removed. A total cleaning score is 

calculated based on the post-wash 

reflectance values. In order to qualify for 

ENERGY STAR Most Efficient, clothes 

washers must achieve a minimum total 

cleaning score of 85.0. 

Since the ENERGY STAR cleaning 

performance test requires a separate set 

of tests conducted after the DOE energy 

and water consumption tests, it 

introduces additional test burden 

beyond the testing required to 

determine compliance with minimum 

standards. The use of soil/stain strips 

and detergent, and the instrumentation 

required to measure post-wash 

reflectance, also introduce additional 

material and equipment requirements 

beyond the requirements of the DOE test 

procedure. 

As discussed, the AHAM HLW–2– 

2020 test procedure specifies use of a 

100-percent cotton load for testing, 

which is inconsistent with the test load 

prescribed by the DOE test procedure. 

Requiring different load materials 

would increase test burden, and given 

the prevalence of adaptive water fill 

clothes washers (particularly among 

ENERGY STAR-qualified clothes 

washers), the energy and water use 

associated with the AHAM cleaning 

performance measurement would not be 

consistent with the energy and water 

use associated with the DOE test 

procedure. Test load composition is 

further discussed in section III.I.1 of this 

document. 

As stated previously, EPCA requires 

DOE to establish test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use, and not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE is unable to 

make a determination at this time as to 

whether the ENERGY STAR test 

procedure for determining cleaning 

performance or the AHAM HLW–2– 

2020 test procedure would produce 

results for DOE’s purposes that are 

representative of an average use cycle, 

as required by EPCA. Furthermore, both 

test procedures would introduce 

additional test burden, and DOE is 

unable to assess whether the additional 

burden would be outweighed by the 

benefits of incorporating either test. 

For these reasons, DOE is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, to not include a 

measure of cleaning performance in the 

new appendix J or appendix J2 at this 

time. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33353 

52The petition was submitted by AHAM, 

Whirlpool Corporation, General Electric Company, 

Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH, Alliance 

Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, 

Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, 

Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, 

Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, 

Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, 

Kuppersbusch, Kelon, DeLonghi, American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance 

for Water Efficiency, Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of 

America and the National Consumer Law Center. 

See Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054, No. 3. 

53The ENERGY STAR Specification of Clothes 

Dryer Requirements Version 1.1 requires the use of 

appendix D2 for clothes dryers to obtain ENERGY 

STAR certification. 

G. Consumer Usage Assumptions 

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. This 

value was most recently updated in the 

March 2012 Final Rule, to 295 wash 

cycles per year based on an analysis of 

the 2005 RECS data. 77 FR 13888, 

13909. 

Based on the data from the 2015 RECS 

survey (the most recent data available), 

DOE proposed in the September 2021 

NOPR to update the number of annual 

wash cycles to 234 in the new appendix 

J. 86 FR 49140, 49154. In proposing this 

update, DOE considered comments 

received from AHAM and NEEA in 

response to the May 2020 RFI. Id. The 

proposed updated value would impact 

the per-cycle low-power mode energy 

consumption value included in the 

calculation of IMEF and EER. Id. 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 percent. Id. See further 

discussion of the proposed changes to 

the calculation of low-power mode 

energy in section III.G.3 of this 

document. 

In addition to other changes discussed 

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

proposed 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 new appendix J, if 

finalized. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to update the number of 

annual wash cycles to 234 in the new 

appendix J and 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) 

and (j)(3)(i). 

DOE did not receive any further 

comments in response to the September 

2021 NOPR regarding its proposal to 

update the number of annual wash 

cycles. 

For the reasons discussed, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to update 

the number of annual wash cycles to 

234 in the low-power mode formula in 

section 4.6.2 of the new appendix J, in 

10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), and in 10 CFR 

430.23(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. 

DOE did not propose to make any 

changes to the values of DEF or DUF 

and received no comments in response 

to the September 2021 NOPR on its 

preliminary determination to maintain 

those values. DOE is maintaining these 

values in this final rule. 

Regarding the 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 at 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 October 2021 clothes dryer Final 

Rile, DOE stated that the current 2- 

percent final moisture content 

requirement using the DOE test cloth 

was adopted as representative of 

approximately 5-percent final moisture 

content for ‘‘real-world’’ clothing, based 

on data submitted in a joint petition for 

rulemaking.52 DOE determined that the 

specified 2-percent final moisture 

content using the DOE test load was 

representative of consumer expectations 

for dryness of clothing in field use. 86 

FR 56608, 56626. 

In both appendix D1 and appendix 

D2, 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 a final 

moisture content of 4 percent in 

appendix D1 and 2-percent in appendix 

D2. 

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.53 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 

is the test procedure used as the basis 

for certification for the majority of 

models on the market. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

did not propose to change the assumed 

final moisture content of 4 percent in 

the drying energy calculation. 86 FR 

49140, 49176. 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

recommended that DOE amend the final 

RMC value in the drying energy 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

54The TSD for the April 2021 clothes dryer 

standards preliminary analysis is available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BTSTD-0058-0016. 

55C. 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. 

56These studies appeared in the July 1998, July 

1999, and August 2000 issues of Consumer Reports, 

as cited by EPA. 

57See, for example, Tables 7.2.1 through 7.2.4 in 

chapter 7 of the RCW preliminary analysis TSD, 

which present the breakdown in energy 

consumption among the four energy components at 

each analyzed efficiency level. Available at 

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

calculation to align with the clothes 

dryer test procedure in appendix D2, 

asserting that this would improve the 

representativeness of the test procedure. 

(Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at 

pp. 5–6) 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

recommend reducing the current final 

remaining moisture content from 4 

percent to 2 percent to align with the 

clothes dryer final remaining moisture 

content specified in the appendix D2 

test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at pp. 

8–9; CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 28–29) The 

CA IOUs also commented that, as stated 

in the October 2021 clothes dryer Final 

Rule, a final remaining moisture content 

of 2 percent is representative of the 

‘‘consumer-acceptable’’ dryness level for 

real-life clothing loads with varying 

weights, composition, and load size. 

(Id.) 

On April 19, 2021, DOE published an 

energy conservation standards 

preliminary analysis for consumer 

clothes dryers (‘‘April 2021 clothes 

dryer standards preliminary analysis’’) 

and an accompanying TSD.54 86 FR 

20327. In the April 2021 clothes dryer 

preliminary analysis, DOE relied on test 

data using appendix D2 to establish 

efficiency levels, indicating use of 

appendix D2 to define future amended 

standards for clothes dryers. Id. at 

20333; see also chapter 5 of the 

accompanying TSD. Updating the final 

moisture content assumption in the 

drying energy formula in appendix J to 

2 percent would ensure consistency 

between the clothes washer and clothes 

dryer test procedures to be used as the 

basis for future standards for clothes 

washers and clothes dryers, 

respectively. 

For these reasons, in this final rule 

DOE is defining the final moisture 

content in section 4.4 of the new 

appendix J as 2 percent. 

3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions 

Section 4.4 of appendix J2 allocates 

8,465 combined annual hours for 

inactive and off modes. 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 EPA 55 that 

summarized test data from three issues 

of the Consumer Reports magazine, 

which showed top-loading clothes 

washers with ‘‘normal’’ cycle times of 

37–55 minutes and frontloading clothes 

washers with ‘‘normal’’ cycle times of 

51–105 minutes.56

For the new appendix J, DOE 

proposed in the September 2021 NOPR 

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. 86 FR 49140, 

49177. This proposal would provide for 

a more representative allocation of 

hours between active mode and lowpower mode. Id. DOE did not propose 

to make these changes to appendix J2 

because doing so would likely change 

the measured efficiency, and DOE 

proposed to make such changes only in 

the new appendix J, which would be 

used for the evaluation and issuance of 

updated efficiency standards, and for 

determining compliance with those 

standards. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to update the number of hours 

spent in low-power mode in the new 

appendix J from a fixed 8,465 total 

hours to a formula based on measured 

cycle time and an assumed number of 

annual cycles. Id. 

AHAM commented that there is little 

or no benefit to consumers or energy 

savings associated with including the 

cycle time measurement in the test 

procedure since standby energy use is 

such a small component of overall 

measured efficiency. (AHAM, No. 27 at 

p. 12) AHAM also noted that the 

European Union does not calculate 

standby power for its energy label. (Id.) 

DOE acknowledges that for most 

clothes washer models, the low-power 

mode energy consumption is the 

smallest of the four energy components 

that comprise the EER equation.57

However, at higher efficiency levels, the 

low-power mode energy consumption 

represents a larger portion of the total 

energy consumption than at lower 

efficiency levels. Depending on the lowpower mode energy use and its relation 

to the other three energy components, a 

difference in average cycle time of, for 

example, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, or 90 

minutes can have a measurable impact 

on the calculated value of EER, which 

this final rule requires to be rounded to 

the nearest 0.01 pound per kilowatthour per cycle (as discussed in section 

III.E.3 of this document). Further, as 

discussed in section III.D.5.a of this 

document, DOE has determined that 

requiring test laboratories to measure 

cycle time will not increase test burden. 

As discussed previously in this section, 

basing the number of hours spent in 

low-power mode in part on cycle time 

would provide a more representative 

allocation of hours between active mode 

and low-power mode. 

For these reasons, DOE is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, to update the 

number of hours spent in low-power 

mode in the new appendix J 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 as part of the August 1997 

Final Rule. As described in the April 

1996 SNOPR, DOE established the TUFs 

in appendix J1 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. 

As noted in the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE is not aware of any 

nationally representative consumer 

usage data that demonstrate a change in 

temperature setting usage; therefore, 

DOE did not propose any changes to the 

TUF values. 86 FR 49140, 49178. 

DOE requested comment on 

maintaining the current TUF values. Id. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to maintain 

the current TUF values, stating that the 

current TUF values are similar to the 

TUF values found in the 2014 NEEA 

Field Study. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 

at p. 11) 

The CA IOUs commented that new 

appendix J does not adequately account 

for the impact of control panel designs 

and optional cycle modifiers that may 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33355 

58The Federal Trade Commission’s EnergyGuide 

label for RCWs includes the estimated annual 

operating cost using natural gas water heating. 

59The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted that their 

analysis excluded tankless and heat pump water 

heaters. 

result in more energy-intensive wash 

settings. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 6) The 

CA IOUs asserted that in cases where a 

clothes washer’s cycle settings are 

continually reset when turned to the on 

position (e.g., if a product always reverts 

to the default temperatures of Warm/ 

Cold), it is likely that the existing TUFs 

are less representative since users are 

more likely to use the default settings. 

(Id.) The CA IOUs expressed concern 

that the prevalence of clothes washers 

with default settings today may be 

considerably different from the initial 

studies used to develop the TUFs in the 

August 1997 Final Rule, which was 

created when clothes washers more 

commonly used electromechanical 

controls for water temperature settings 

instead of using electronic controls that 

revert to defaults. (Id.) The CA IOUs 

additionally commented that, despite 

the increasing proliferation of additional 

cycle modifiers, DOE proposed not to 

require testing of any settings that are 

left ‘‘off’’ under the default as-shipped 

settings in new appendix J. (Id.) 

DOE notes that the CA IOUs did not 

provide any data to support the 

assertion that consumers are more likely 

to use the default wash/rinse 

temperature setting in cases where a 

clothes washer’s cycle settings are 

continually reset when turned to the on 

position. DOE’s general understanding 

of consumer laundry habits, based on 

decades of conversations with 

manufacturers and evaluating consumer 

usage studies, is that cycle time (e.g., 

Normal, Heavy Duty, etc.) and wash/ 

rinse temperature are the two 

foundational decisions that consumers 

make for each wash cycle based on the 

composition of the load being washed. 

DOE notes, for example, that clothing 

items often include labels indicating the 

appropriate wash temperature to use. 

DOE further notes that as summarized 

by the Joint Commenters, the TUF 

values found in the 2014 NEEA Field 

Study are similar to the TUF values in 

appendix J2. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 

at p. 11) 

For these reasons, in this final rule 

DOE does not make any changes to the 

TUF values, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR. 

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. 

As previously discussed in section 

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

proposed in the September 2021 NOPR 

to replace the minimum, maximum, and 

average load sizes with the small and 

large load sizes in the 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 proposed to 

update the LUFs in the new appendix 

J to 0.5 for both the small and the large 

load size. 86 FR 49140, 49178. Because 

this proposal simplified the LUF 

definitions by using the same LUFs 

regardless of clothes washer WFCS, a 

separate LUF table would no longer be 

needed. Id. DOE therefore proposed to 

remove the LUF Table 4.1.3 and to 

define the LUFs as 0.5 in the equations 

where the LUFs are first used in section 

4.1.3 of the new appendix J. Id. 

DOE requested 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 new appendix J. 

Id. 

DOE received no comments on the 

updated LUFs for the new appendix J. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to update 

the LUFs for the small and large load 

sizes to be equal to 0.5 in the new 

appendix J and to remove the LUF table 

and instead define the LUFs as 0.5 in 

the equations where the LUFs are first 

used. 

6. Water Heater Assumptions 

Section 4.1.2 of appendix J2 provides 

equations for calculating total per-cycle 

water heating energy consumption for 

all water fill levels tested. The water 

heating 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 kilowatt-hours 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 water heating 

energy consumption using gas-heated or 

oil-heated water, for product labeling 

requirements.58 This equation includes 

a multiplication factor ‘‘e,’’ representing 

the nominal gas or oil water heater 

efficiency, defined as 0.75. These waterheating energy equations estimate the 

energy required by the household water 

heater to heat the hot water used by the 

clothes washer. Per-cycle water heating 

energy consumption is one of the four 

energy components in the IMEF metric. 

As stated in the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE is unaware of any 

nationally representative data regarding 

heat losses in residential water 

distribution systems. 86 FR 49140, 

49179. In the absence of such data, DOE 

did not propose any changes to the 

assumed water heater efficiency factors 

in the clothes washer test procedure. Id. 

DOE requested comment on 

maintaining the current water heater 

efficiency assumptions. Id. 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

recommended that DOE use what they 

described as more realistic assumptions 

about water heater efficiencies. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 3) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that while the current test 

procedure uses a 100 percent efficiency 

for electric heaters and a 75 percent 

efficiency for gas water heaters, the Joint 

Efficiency Advocates estimated that, 

based on shipment data from the last 

water heaters rulemaking and current 

models in the CCMS database,59 the 

shipment-weighted efficiencies for new 

water heaters are about 92 percent for 

electric water heaters and 64 percent for 

gas water heaters. (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates asserted that 

making this change would improve 

representativeness and would more 

accurately reflect the relative 

contribution of water heating energy use 

to total clothes washer energy use. (Id.) 

Based on the values presented, DOE 

interprets the Joint Efficiency 

Advocates’ comments as referring to a 

value of uniform energy factor (‘‘UEF’’). 

DOE notes that the UEF is a measure of 

efficiency based in part on a 24-hour 

simulated use test that measures both 

energy use associated with recovery 

periods (i.e., the energy embedded 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33356 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

within each water draw) and energy 

losses during the time in which water is 

not being withdrawn from the water 

heater (i.e., standby energy losses), and 

incorporates simulated household water 

draw patterns. In a residential 

household, numerous appliances draw 

hot water from the water heater, 

including showers, faucets, and 

dishwashers, in addition to clothes 

washers. Given the number of factors 

not directly related to clothes washer 

usage that factor into the current UEF 

metric, DOE has determined that it 

would not be appropriate to use UEF as 

the basis for determining an estimate of 

water heating energy in the clothes 

washer test procedure. 

Instead, the appropriate efficiency 

value to use in the clothes washer test 

procedure would be the recovery 

efficiency, which represents the ratio of 

energy delivered to the water to the 

energy content of the fuel consumed by 

the water heater. DOE is not aware of 

any data regarding the efficiency 

distribution of installed water heaters 

on the basis of recovery efficiency. 

Recover efficiency is, however, a 

reported value in DOE’s CCMS database. 

DOE assessed the representativeness of 

the currently defined efficiency values 

qualitatively as follows. For electric 

water heaters, the majority of the market 

has a recovery efficiency of 98 percent. 

Heat pump models have recovery 

efficiencies greater than 100 percent; 

however, these products represent a 

small market share and an even smaller 

share of the installed stock of water 

heaters. For gas water heaters, CCMS 

lists a range of recovery efficiencies 

from 72 to 92 percent, with the vast 

majority within the range of 72 to 80 

percent. Given these ranges, DOE 

determines that the current clothes 

washer test procedure assumptions of 

100 percent efficiency for electric water 

heaters and 75 percent efficiency for gas 

water heaters are representative of the 

current water heater market. This final 

rule maintains the currently specified 

values. 

For these reasons, in this final rule 

DOE does not make any changes to the 

water heater efficiency assumptions, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR. 

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)) 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, 

several stakeholders requested that DOE 

develop separate usage factors for 

CCWs, and 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. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 8–14; 

NEEA, No. 12 at p. 18; Joint 

Commenters, No. 10 at p. 2) 

As part of its market assessment and 

engineering analysis for the December 

2014 Final Rule, DOE performed an indepth 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. 

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. 

DOE did not propose any changes to 

CCW usage factors or to the CCW energy 

efficiency metric in the September 2021 

NOPR. 86 FR 49140, 49180. 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates, the 

CA IOUs, and the Joint Commenters 

recommended that DOE consider 

capturing low-power energy 

consumption in the energy efficiency 

metric for CCWs. (Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at p. 6; CA IOUs, No. 

29 at pp. 7–8; Joint Commenters, No. 31 

at p. 6) The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

commented that they understand that 

no further change to the test procedure 

would be necessary to include lowpower energy use in the efficiency 

standards for CCWs. (Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at p. 6) The Joint 

Commenters commented that they 

understand that DOE will determine 

whether low power mode should be 

measured on CCWs in the CCW energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 6) The 

Joint Commenters added that, according 

to EPCA, test procedures for CCWs must 

be the same as those established for 

RCWs and therefore encouraged DOE to 

also make the low power mode energy 

use approach identical for CCWs and 

RCWs. (Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates and 

the CA IOUs commented that they 

understand DOE’s stated concerns in the 

December 2014 Final Rule regarding the 

potential for backsliding that could 

result from incorporating standby mode 

power consumption into the overall 

efficiency metric for CCWs. (Joint 

Efficiency Advocates, No. 28 at p. 6; CA 

IOUs, No. 29 at p. 8) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates commented that 

strengthening the existing standards for 

CCWs would likely alleviate the 

backsliding concern. (Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at p. 6) The CA IOUs 

commented that the incorporation of a 

minimum standard level for discrete 

system functions, such as previously 

established for consumer refrigerated 

products with automatic icemakers or 

for varying payment mechanisms in 

refrigerated vending machines, would 

limit the risk of backsliding. (CA IOUs, 

No. 29 at p. 8) The CA IOUs commented 

that they would strongly prefer to have 

these functions measured as part of a 

standby power test, rather than with 

default adders, to encourage costeffective designs to reduce energy 

consumption. (Id.) 

DOE reiterates that any decision 

regarding the inclusion or exclusion of 

low-power mode energy consumption in 

the CCW energy metric—including 

reconsideration whether promulgating 

an amended standard that includes lowpower mode energy could enable 

backsliding, and whether an integrated 

metric would provide a useful means for 

differentiating the active mode 

characteristics of different CCW 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33357 

60Calculated as the internal volume of 24 inches 

of hose with an inner diameter of 0.375 inches, 

which based on DOE research is a typical inner 

diameter for a clothes washer hose. 24 × p × (0.375 

÷ 2)2 = 2.65 cubic inches = 0.01 gal. 

models—would be made as part of an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for CCWs. 86 FR 49140, 

49180. This final rule does not 

implement any changes specific to 

CCWs in either appendix J2 or the new 

appendix J in this regard. 

H. Clarifications 

1. Water Inlet Hose Length 

As noted in the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE has observed an increasing 

trend of water inlet hoses not being 

included with the purchase of a new 

clothes washer. 86 FR 49140, 49180. 

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. Id. 

Multiple styles of water inlet hoses 

(different materials, lengths, durability, 

etc.) are commercially available from 

appliance and hardware retailers. Id. 

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. Id. 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. Id. 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’’). 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to specify the use of hoses that 

do not exceed 72 inches in length (6 ft) 

in section 2.10.1 of the new appendix J. 

Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to specify the use of hoses not 

to exceed 72 inches in length in the new 

appendix J. Id. DOE also requested 

comment on the length of inlet hose 

typically used for testing. Id. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of DOE’s proposal to 

standardize water inlet hose length, 

stating that it would increase 

reproducibility of the test procedure. 

(Joint Commenters, No 31 at p. 11) 

AHAM recommended that DOE 

specify that its water hose length 

proposal is intended for third-party 

testing only. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 15) 

AHAM also recommended a more 

reasonable hose length of 48 inches, 

stating that a 72-inch long hose would 

still retain a significant amount of water. 

(Id.) 

In response to AHAM’s suggestion to 

shorten the proposed maximum hose 

length from 72 to 48 inches, DOE notes 

that the difference in retained water 

between a 72-inch hose and a 48-inch 

hose is around 0.01 gal, which would 

have a negligible, if any impact on 

measured results.60 As discussed above, 

representative consumer clothes washer 

hoses range from 36 to 72 inches in 

length. Any length longer than this 

would not be representative of a 

consumer clothes washer hose; and any 

length shorter than this would not be 

practical for installing a clothes washer 

to the inlet water supply. 

Regarding AHAM’s recommendation 

that DOE specify hose length only for 

third-party testing only, DOE reiterates 

that the hose specifications would only 

apply in instances in which a clothes 

washer is shipped without inlet hoses. 

In such instances, the justification for 

specifying a hose length is applicable 

regardless of whether a clothes washer 

is tested at a third-party laboratory or a 

manufacturer laboratory. 

For these reasons, DOE is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, to specify the 

use of hoses not to exceed 72 inches in 

length in the new appendix J. 

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. 

DOE did not propose, in the September 

2021 NOPR, any amendments 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. 86 FR 49140, 49181. 

DOE requested 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. Id. If so, DOE 

sought 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. Id. 

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. 27 at pp. 15–16) 

AHAM added that while consumers 

have options available for other needs, 

the Normal cycle remains the most 

representative of consumer use, and 

there have not been any data to prove 

otherwise. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters recommended 

that DOE specify in new appendix J that 

for possible future clothes washer 

models where the maximum load size 

conflicts with the cycle required for 

testing, DOE should not allow an 

alternate test load size. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31 at p. 10) The Joint 

Commenters commented that an 

alternate, smaller test load would lower 

the clothes washer’s measured water 

and drying energy use to the extent that 

test results would no longer be 

comparable to test results from other 

clothes washers of the same load size. 

(Id.) Instead, the Joint Commenters 

recommended that DOE specify that 

such a clothes washer should be tested 

with the next most similar program that 

enables the required load size. (Id.) 

As noted, the RCW model for which 

the maximum water fill level cannot be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33358 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

61Which has since been renumbered as 3.2.6.2.2. 

selected with all of the temperature 

selections required for testing 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. 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. DOE also notes that 

the amended load sizes defined 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. 

For these reasons, DOE makes no 

changes to the test procedure to 

accommodate this potential 

characteristic, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR. 

3. Water Fill Control Systems 

a. Definitions 

Section 1.5 of appendix J2 previously 

defined ‘‘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 

previously defined ‘‘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 

previously defined ‘‘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 previously provided testing 

instructions for a ‘‘user-adjustable’’ 

automatic WFCS, which were described 

in that section as an automatic water fill 

control that affects the relative wash 

water levels. 

To provide additional specificity to 

both appendix J2 and the new appendix 

J, in the September 2021 NOPR DOE 

proposed revisions to some of the WFCS 

definitions, as follows. 86 FR 49140, 

49181. 

DOE proposed 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.’’ Id. 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. Id. 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. Id. This amended definition was 

proposed for inclusion in the new 

appendix J as well. Id. 

To provide greater specificity 

regarding user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS, DOE proposed to add a 

definition of a ‘‘user-adjustable 

automatic water fill control system’’ to 

section 1 of both appendix J2 and the 

new appendix J. Id. DOE proposed 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.’’ Id. 

Given DOE’s proposal to create a 

definition of user-adjustable automatic 

WFCS, DOE proposed 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 useradjustable automatic water fill 

controls.’’ Id. For the 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. Id. For the small test load size, 

set the water fill selector to the setting 

that uses the least water.’’ Id. 

DOE requested 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.’’ Id. 

AHAM commented that it agrees that 

a better definition for a ‘‘user-adjustable 

automatic water fill control system’’ is 

needed since there is no specific 

definition for it in appendix J2. (AHAM, 

No. 27 at pp. 5–6) However, AHAM 

opposed DOE’s proposed definition for 

‘‘user-adjustable automatic water fill 

control system.’’ (Id.) AHAM 

commented that the wording used in 

DOE’s proposed definition uses the 

language in the current definition of an 

‘‘adaptive water fill control system.’’ 

(Id.) AHAM stated that a definition that 

implies that a ‘‘user-adjustable adaptive 

water fill control system’’ represents all 

‘‘user-adjustable automatic water fill 

control systems’’ would narrow the 

current scope so that they no longer 

include ‘‘user-adjustable fixed water fill 

control systems.’’ (Id.) AHAM added 

that DOE’s proposed definition would 

also leave a ‘‘user-adjustable fixed water 

fill control system’’ undefined. (Id.) 

AHAM therefore proposed the following 

definition for ‘‘user-adjustable 

automatic water fill control system’’: 

‘‘User-adjustable automatic water fill 

control system means an automatic 

clothes washer fill control system that 

allows the user to adjust the relative 

amount of water that the machine 

provides.’’ (Id.) AHAM stated that its 

proposed definition would reduce 

redundancy by removing the last clause 

of DOE’s proposed definition, which 

duplicates the definition of ‘‘adaptive 

water fill control system,’’ and would 

add the word ‘‘relative.’’ (Id.) AHAM 

commentated that it believes that its 

proposed definition is consistent with 

DOE’s intent and urged DOE to adopt it. 

(Id.) 

DOE notes that at the creation of the 

user-adjustable distinction in the 

August 1997 Final Rule, section 

3.2.3.2.2 of appendix J2 61 referred to 

clothes washers with ‘‘adaptive’’ WFCS 

that were user-adjustable. 62 FR 45484, 

45510. In the August 2015 Final Rule, 

DOE added a new definition for 

‘‘automatic water fill control system,’’ 

which included both fixed WFCS and 

adaptive WFCS, both of which do not 

require user action to determine the 

water fill level. In creating the new 

definition for automatic WFCS, DOE 

replaced all instances of ‘‘adaptive’’ 

WFCS with ‘‘automatic’’ WFCS to 

indicate that such testing provisions 

apply to both adaptive water fill control 

systems and fixed water fill control 

systems. 80 FR 46730, 46749. As part of 

these changes, reference to ‘‘user 

adjustable adaptive water fill controls 

that affect the relative wash water level’’ 

in section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 

(‘‘User adjustable’’) was amended to 

refer instead to ‘‘user adjustable 

automatic water fill controls that affect 

the relative wash water level’’ (emphasis 

added). AHAM’s comment has 

prompted DOE to re-evaluate this 

wording change. Id. Reference to useradjustable automatic WFCS implies that 

the term encompasses both useradjustable adaptive and user-adjustable 

fixed WFCS. However, DOE asserts that 

a WFCS that provides user-adjustable 

fixed fill water levels is essentially a 

manual WFCS, in the sense that a 

manual fill WFCS automatically 

terminates the fill when the water 

reaches the level in the clothes 

container corresponding to the level 

select by the user (i.e., a ‘‘fixed’’ water 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33359 

62At the time of the August 1997 Final Rule, the 

applicable energy efficiency metric did not include 

the drying energy component, and the energy 

conservation standards at the time did not regulate 

the water efficiency of clothes washers. 

level that is not automatically 

determined based on the size or weight 

of the clothes load and is selectable (i.e., 

adjustable) by the user). Furthermore, 

DOE notes that the phrase ‘‘controls that 

affect the relative wash water levels’’ 

(emphasis added) in section 3.2.6.2.2 of 

appendix J2 necessarily applies only to 

a clothes washer with relative wash 

water levels (i.e., wash water levels that 

are determined based on the size or 

weight of the clothes load). A fixed 

WFCS does not provide relative wash 

water levels. For these reasons, DOE 

asserts that the word ‘‘automatic’’ was 

incorrectly applied in section 3.2.6.2.2, 

and that section 3.2.6.2.2 pertaining to 

user-adjustable WFCSs applies only to 

clothes washer with user-adjustable 

adaptive WFCS. 

In this final rule, DOE corrects this 

error and amends section 3.2.6.2.2 of 

appendix J2 to revert each instance of 

‘‘automatic’’ to ‘‘adaptive.’’ Accordingly, 

in both appendix J2 and new appendix 

J, DOE finalizes the definition of the 

term ‘‘user-adjustable adaptive water fill 

control system’’ consistent with the 

definition DOE had proposed for ‘‘useradjustable automatic water fill control 

system’’ in the September 2021 NOPR, 

except to replace the word ‘‘automatic’’ 

with ‘‘adaptive.’’ 

In reviewing this matter, DOE has 

further determined that the grouping of 

fixed WFCS and adaptive WFCS into 

the single term ‘‘automatic’’ WFCS for 

the sake of simplicity has potentially 

created ambiguity with certain WFCS 

types, as evidence by the previous 

example in this discussion. In order to 

provide greater clarity regarding the 

identification of WFCS type and the 

corresponding test provisions that 

apply, DOE is removing the ‘‘automatic 

WFCS’’ distinction from appendix J and 

creating a new table that distinguishes 

WFCS based on how the user interacts 

with the controls (i.e., whether the 

settings are adjustable by the user) and 

whether the size or weight of the 

clothing load affects the water level, as 

shown in Table III.2 (implemented as 

Table 3.2.3 in new appendix J). 

TABLE III.2—WATER FILL CONTROL SYSTEMS

Settings are 

user-adjustable 

Settings are not 

user-adjustable 

Water fill level unaffected by the size or weight of the clothing load ..... Manual water fill ............................ Fixed water fill. 

Water fill level is determined automatically by the clothes washer 

based on the size and weight of the clothing load.

User-adjustable adaptive water fill Non-user-adjustable adaptive 

water fill. 

With these clarifications, DOE is not 

changing how any WFCS is classified or 

tested in appendix J in comparison to 

the proposed version of appendix J 

presented in the September 2021 NOPR. 

Rather, DOE expects that these changes 

will help more easily distinguish the 

different types of WFCSs and thus better 

ensure reproducibility of test results. 

As part of this clarification, DOE is 

removing the definition for automatic 

water fill control system from appendix 

J, and is removing the term ‘‘automatic’’ 

from the definitions for adaptive water 

fill control system, fixed water fill 

control system, and user-adjustable 

adaptive water fill control system. DOE 

is also relabeling the definition of 

adaptive water fill control system as 

non-user-adjustable adaptive water fill 

control system to match how this WFCS 

is presented in new table 3.2.3 of 

appendix J. 

Further, DOE is establishing 

subsections within section 3.2.3 of 

appendix J to provide water fill level 

instructions that align more directly 

with the terminology presented in new 

table 3.2.3 of appendix J, as follows: 

• Section 3.2.3.1 ‘‘Clothes washers 

with a manual water fill control system’’ 

(consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR); 

• Section 3.2.3.2 ‘‘Clothes washers 

with a fixed water fill control system’’ 

(as compared to the proposed section 

3.2.3.2.1 from the September 2021 

NOPR titled ‘‘Not user-adjustable’’ 

within section 3.2.3.2 titled ‘‘Clothes 

washers with automatic water fill 

control system’’); 

• Section 3.2.3.3 ‘‘Clothes washers 

with a user-adjustable adaptive water 

fill control system’’ (as compared to the 

proposed section 3.2.3.2.2 from the 

September 2021 NOPR titled ‘‘Useradjustable’’ within section 3.2.3.2 titled 

‘‘Clothes washers with automatic water 

fill control system’’); 

• Section 3.2.3.4 ‘‘Clothes washers 

with a non-user-adjustable adaptive 

water fill control system’’ (as compared 

to the proposed section 3.2.3.2.1 from 

the September 2021 NOPR titled ‘‘Not 

user-adjustable’’ within section 3.2.3.2 

titled ‘‘Clothes washers with automatic 

water fill control system’’); and 

• Section 3.2.3.5 ‘‘Clothes washers 

with multiple water fill control 

systems’’ (as compared to the proposed 

section 3.2.3.3 from the September 2021 

NOPR titled ‘‘Clothes washers with 

automatic water fill controls system and 

alternate manual water fill control 

system’’). DOE is further establishing 

new section 3.2.3.5 to read ‘‘If a clothes 

washer allows user selection among 

multiple water fill control systems, test 

all water fill control systems and, for 

each one, 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 tested 

values (one from each water fill control 

system) for each variable (HET, MET, 

DET, and QT) and use the average value 

for each variable in the final 

calculations in section 4 of this 

appendix.’’ 

b. ‘‘Most Energy Intensive’’ Wording 

for User-Adjustable Automatic Water 

Fill Control Systems. 

As discussed, section 3.2.6.2.2 of 

appendix J2 previously specified how to 

test clothes washers with useradjustable automatic WFCS. Four tests 

were required: 

• A test using the maximum test load 

size and with the WFCS set in the 

setting that will give the most energy 

intensive result; 

• a test using the minimum test load 

size and with the WFCS set in the 

setting that will give the least energy 

intensive result; 

• 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 

• a test using the average test load 

size and with the WFCS set in the 

setting that will give the least energy 

intensive result. 

The provisions requiring testing the 

most and least energy intensive settings 

were initially adopted in the August 

1997 Final Rule. 62 FR 45484, 45487. As 

evident throughout the discussions in 

the August 1997 Final Rule, absent the 

consideration of drying energy and 

water efficiency,62 DOE used the terms 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33360 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

63For example, in an interim waiver granted to 

GEA on April 24, 1996, 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. 

64See section III.D.1.b of this document for a 

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

load size. 

‘‘most energy intensive’’ and ‘‘least 

energy intensive’’ synonymously with 

discussing the water fill amounts.63 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. 

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, in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 

to change the wording in section 

3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 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 and to use the same updated 

language in section 3.2.3.2.2 of the new 

appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49182. 

Similarly, DOE proposed to update the 

phrase ‘‘the setting that will give the 

least energy intensive result’’ to ‘‘the 

setting that uses the least water.’’ 

DOE requested 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 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.’’ Id. 

AHAM commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to update the wording 

in section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix J2 and 

section 3.2.3.2.2 of 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,’’ stating that using 

the most and least ‘‘energy-intensive 

result’’ conflates an energy metric with 

a water use metric, which may lead to 

confusion. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 5) 

Based on the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, to update the 

wording of section 3.2.6.2.2 of appendix 

J2 and section 3.2.3.2.2 of the 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 washers 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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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 new 

appendix J.64 86 FR 49140, 49182. 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. Id. 

Therefore, the maximum/large load size 

is likely to provide the most repeatable 

and reproducible end result for each 

flowchart. Id. 

DOE notes that Figure 2.12.1 of 

appendix J2, which is the flow chart 

used for the determination of the Cold/ 

Cold 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. Id. For appendix J2, 

DOE proposed that the new clarifying 

language would not apply to the Cold/ 

Cold 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. Id. For the 

new appendix J, DOE proposed to delete 

from the Cold/Cold flowchart (Figure 

2.12.1) the clause applying it to all 

tested load sizes, and to instead require 

the use of the large size, consistent with 

all the other wash/rinse temperature 

selection flowcharts. 86 FR 49140, 

49182–49183. 

DOE requested 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 new 

appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49183. DOE 

also requested 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. Id. 

DOE received no comments 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 new 

appendix J and using the maximum load 

size, except for the Cold/Cold flow 

chart, in appendix J2. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to require 

that the energy test cycle flow charts be 

evaluated using the large load size for 

all wash/rinse temperature settings in 

the new appendix J and using the 

maximum load size, except for the Cold/ 

Cold flow chart, in appendix J2. 

P.R. China noted an inconsistency 

between section 2.12.1 of the proposed 

new appendix J (which P.R. China 

characterized as prescribing that test 

evaluations be completed using only a 

large load) and Table 3.3 of the 

proposed new appendix J (which 

prescribes the use of both a large and 

small load), and recommended that DOE 

fix the inconsistency. (P.R. China, No. 

25 at p. 3) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33361 

65On 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. 

66See section III.H.7 of this document for a 

discussion of the structure of section 3 of the new 

appendix J. 

With regard to the comment from P.R. 

China that the proposed test procedure 

contains an inconsistency, DOE further 

explains here the intended difference 

between evaluating the flow charts and 

conducting testing of each wash-rinse 

temperature selection determined to be 

available on the unit under test. Section 

2.12.1 of new appendix J specifies that 

the large load is to be used to evaluate 

each flow chart (i.e., to answer the 

questions presented in each flow chart) 

to determine which wash/rinse 

temperatures are present on the unit 

under test. Although only the large load 

size is used to evaluate the flow charts, 

both the small and large load sizes must 

be used to test each wash/rinse 

temperature selection. For example, in 

Figure 2.12.1.5 (Determination of ExtraHot Wash/Cold Rinse), the question 

‘‘Does the Normal cycle contain any 

wash/rinse temperature selections that 

[have a] wash temperature greater than 

or equal to 140 °F?’’ must be evaluated. 

As discussed in the previous 

paragraphs, the answer to that question 

could differ for each load size (e.g., 

using the small load size could yield an 

answer of ‘‘No’’, whereas using the large 

load size could yield an answer if 

‘‘Yes.’’) By specifying that the flow 

charts are evaluated using the large load 

size, in this example, the answer to the 

question would be the answer ‘‘Yes’’ 

associated with the large load size (i.e., 

the unit under test has an Extra-Hot 

Wash/Cold Rinse). Having made this 

determination, both the small and large 

load sizes would be tested to the ExtraHot Wash/Cold Rinse temperature 

selection. 

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/Cold temperature selection, the 

instruction box in the flowchart in 

Figure 2.12.1 of appendix J2 referred 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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed the text in Figure 2.12.1 of 

both appendix J2 and the new appendix 

J to state ‘‘. . . use or internally generate 

any heated water . . .’’ (emphasis 

added) so that the wording of the Cold/ 

Cold flowchart in both appendices 

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/Cold flowchart and 

subsequent flowcharts for the Warm 

Wash and Hot Wash temperature 

selections for this type of clothes 

washer. Id. DOE further proposed to 

phrase the description of Warm/Warm 

in Figure 2.12.4 of both appendix J2 and 

the new appendix J to state ‘‘. . . rinse 

temperature selections that add or 

internally generate hot water . . .’’ 

(emphasis added), for the same reasons. 

86 FR 49140, 49183. 

DOE requested comments on its 

proposal to update the flowcharts for 

Cold/Cold and Warm/Warm in both 

appendix J2 and the new appendix J to 

explicitly address clothes washers that 

internally generate hot water. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

summarized comments from 

Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’) and 

AHAM supporting this change. DOE 

received no additional comments in 

response to the September 2021 NOPR 

on its proposal to update the flowcharts 

to explicitly address clothes washers 

that internally generate hot water. Id. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to update 

the flowcharts 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.’’ 

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.65 Id. Although 

the electronic dial simulates the visual 

appearance of an electromechanical 

dial, the electronic dial is programmed 

with a pre-established 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. Id. 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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to include in section 3.2.5.3 of 

both appendix J2 and the new appendix 

J the words ‘‘or timer’’ after the words 

‘‘electromechanical dial’’ in order to 

clarify the application of the 

instructions to electronic cycle selection 

dials. Id. 

DOE further proposed in section 3.2.5 

of appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the 

new appendix J 66 that the first sentence 

of the section would 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 or 70 

percent of the maximum wash time 

available for the wash cycle under test, 

regardless of the labeling of suggested 

dial locations’’ (emphasis added). 86 FR 

49140, 49183–49184. DOE also 

proposed to separate section 3.2.5 of 

appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the new 

appendix J into two subsections: section 

3.2.5.1 (in appendix J2) and section 

3.2.2.1 (in the 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 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. 86 FR 49140, 49184. 

DOE requested 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 new appendix J. Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposed changes concerning 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33362 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

67 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. 

electromechanical dials. (AHAM, No. 27 

at p. 16) 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to include in 

section 3.2.5.3 of both appendix J2 and 

the new appendix J 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 also finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, that in section 3.2.5 of appendix 

J2 and section 3.2.2 of the new appendix 

J the first sentence of the section reads, 

‘‘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.’’ 

DOE is also finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, to separate section 3.2.5 of 

appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the new 

appendix J into two subsections each. 

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. 86 FR 49140, 

49184. On such models, the dial can 

only be turned in the direction of 

decreasing wash time. Accordingly, 

DOE asserted 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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to add in section 3.2.5.2 of 

appendix J2 and include in section 

3.2.2.2 of the new appendix J a clause 

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. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to include a clause in section 

3.2.5.2 of appendix J2 and section 

3.2.2.2 of the new appendix J stating 

that the requirement to rotate the dial in 

the direction of increasing wash time 

would apply only to dials that can rotate 

in both directions. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

summarized comments from UL and 

AHAM supporting this change. DOE 

received no additional comments in 

response to the September 2021 NOPR 

on its proposal to state that the 

requirement to rotate the dial in the 

direction of increasing wash time would 

apply only to dials that can rotate in 

both directions. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to include a 

clause in section 3.2.5.2 of appendix J2 

and section 3.2.2.2 of the new appendix 

J that specifies that the requirement to 

rotate the dial in the direction of 

increasing wash time applies only 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 considered 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 the 

August 1997 Final Rule, DOE specified 

that section 2.10 of appendix J Clothes 

washer setting refers to ‘‘actual wash 

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

2001 Final Rule, DOE renamed section 

2.10 of appendix J Wash time (period of 

agitation or tumble) setting.67 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 the 

1977 version of appendix J 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. 86 FR 

49140, 49184. 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 the 2001 

version of appendix J, where wash time 

was referred to in the title of section 

2.10 as the period of agitation or tumble 

time. Id. DOE further noted in the 

September 2021 NOPR that in current 

RCW models on the market, agitation or 

tumble may be periodic or continuous 

during the wash portion of the cycle. Id. 

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 new 

appendix J, DOE proposed in the 

September 2021 NOPR to define the 

term ‘‘wash time’’ in section 1 of both 

appendix J2 and the 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.’’ 

86 FR 49140, 49184. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to add a definition of ‘‘wash 

time’’ to section 1 of both appendix J2 

and the new appendix J. Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposed definition of ‘‘wash 

time.’’ (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 16) 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal to add a 

definition of ‘‘wash time’’ to section 1 

of both appendix J2 and the new 

appendix J in order to add more clarity 

in evaluating the wash time setting 

requirements. To provide greater 

specificity by referencing other defined 

terms, this final rule changes the 

wording ‘‘wash portion of the cycle’’ as 

proposed in the September 2021 NOPR 

to ‘‘wash portion of active washing 

mode.’’ This change does not affect the 

substance of the September 2021 NOPR 

proposal. 

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 lowpower 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. In the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE proposed to update the 

symbol nomenclature in 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(ii) to match the symbol 

nomenclature in appendix J2. 86 FR 

49140, 49184. 

In addition, to differentiate between 

values determined using appendix J2 

from values determined using the new 

appendix J throughout 10 CFR 430.23(j), 

DOE proposed to add a number ‘‘2’’ to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33363 

68Test loads must consist of energy test cloths 

and no more than five energy stuffer clothes per 

load to achieve the proper weight. 

each of the symbols representing values 

derived from appendix J2 (e.g., ETLP2) 

that are not already designated 

accordingly. Id. 

DOE further noted that the formula for 

calculating the estimated annual 

operating cost for automatic and 

semiautomatic clothes washers when 

gas-heated or oil-heated water is used, 

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

was missing a pair of parentheses. 86 FR 

49140, 49185. 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 applied it to 

only the first term of the sum. DOE 

proposed to correct this error in the 

September 2021 NOPR. Id. 

Since DOE proposed to remove 

appendix J1 as part of the September 

2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed to 

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

specified 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 new appendix 

J. Id. These proposed formulas were 

analogous to the formulas in 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1)(ii). Id. As discussed further 

in section III.H.7 of this document, the 

new appendix J does not include a 

separate calculation for ‘‘ETE’’ (the sum 

of machine electrical energy (‘‘MET’’) 

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

defined in section 4.1.7 of appendix J2). 

Therefore, DOE’s proposed revisions to 

10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) would replace ETE

with the individual components MET + 

HET. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposed updates to the annual 

operating cost calculations in 10 CFR 

430.23(j)(1). Id. 

DOE received no comments on its 

proposal to update the annual operating 

cost. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to update 

the annual operating cost calculations in 

10 CFR 430.23(j)(1). 

7. Structure of the New Appendix J 

DOE proposed a number of changes to 

the structure of the test procedure as 

part of the creation of the new appendix 

J to improve readability. 86 FR 49140, 

49185. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to better organize section 2.8 

of the proposed new appendix J, as 

compared to the parallel section in 

appendix J2. Id. Section 2.8 of appendix 

J2 cross-references 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,68 and provides a table showing 

required test load sizes and water fill 

settings for each type of WFCS. Id. DOE 

proposed that, in 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. 

Id. This table would be no longer 

needed in new appendix J because the 

same two load sizes (small and large) 

would be used for all WFCS types. Id. 

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. In the 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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. Id. 

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). 

In the 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to 

title section 3.2 of the 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. Id. 

Sections 3.3 through 3.7 of appendix 

J2 contain detailed instructions for 

testing each wash/rinse temperature 

available in the energy test cycle: ExtraHot/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 of 

appendix J2 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 proposed to 

combine the common language from 

sections 3.3 through 3.7 in appendix J2 

into a single section 3.3 in the new 

appendix J for automatic clothes 

washers and an analogous section 3.4 in 

the new appendix J for semi-automatic 

clothes washers. Id. 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. Id. 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 

washers. Id. 

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 

proposed in the 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 water 

heating energy, electrical energy, and 

water usage are calculated. Id. Under 

this proposed change, the RMC values 

would be calculated in section 4 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33364 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(‘‘Calculation of Derived Results From 

Test Measurements’’) of the proposed 

new appendix J. Id. Given these 

proposed changes, the current 

specifications in section 3.8 of appendix 

J2 would not apply to the proposed new 

appendix J. Id. In the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE therefore proposed not to 

include the RMC provisions from 

section 3 in appendix J2 in the new 

appendix J. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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. Id. 

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). In the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 

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 new 

appendix J to use the cycle settings as 

described in section 3.2 of the proposed 

new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49186. 

Section 3.10.5 of appendix J2 would be 

included in the proposed new appendix 

J as section 3.6.2. Id. 

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. 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 September 

2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use new 

subscripts to represent the large load 

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

in the new appendix J. Id. Because the 

maximum load size would no longer 

apply in the proposed new appendix J, 

DOE proposed to update the subscript 

for Extra-Hot/Cold temperature 

selection from ‘‘m’’ to ‘‘x’’ (since ‘‘x’’ is 

more intuitive in representing ‘‘Extra’’). 

Id. These changes would apply to 

sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.6 and 4 in the 

proposed new appendix J. Id. 

Additionally, throughout section 4 of 

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

refer to load usage factors. For greater 

clarity in the new appendix J, DOE 

proposed 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 water heating energy. Id. ETE

was originally defined in the 1977 Final 

Rule in section 4.6 of appendix J and at 

the time represented the total measured 

energy consumption, since the drying 

energy (‘‘DE

üü) 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 

proposed to not include the definition 

of ETE from section 4.1.7 of new 

appendix J, as well as to edit all 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). Id. In these instances, DOE 

proposed to replace ETE with its 

component parts: HET and MET. Id. 

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 sections 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. In the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE noted 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 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). Id. In 

the new appendix J, DOE proposed 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). Id. 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 section 4.2.2 

would similarly define the per-cycle 

total water consumption for each large 

and small size tested. Id. Section 4.2.3 

of the proposed new appendix J would 

provide for the calculation of the percycle total water consumption for all 

load sizes, using the TUFs to calculate 

the weighted average of all temperature 

settings for each load size. Id. 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. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposed 

structure of the new appendix J to 

simplify and improve readability as 

compared to appendix J2. Id. 

DOE received no comments on its 

proposed structure for the new 

appendix J. 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, to restructure the new appendix 

J to simplify and improve readability as 

compared to appendix J2. 

8. Proposed Deletions and 

Simplifications 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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. 86 FR 49140, 

49186. 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. Id. 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. Id. As 

discussed, DOE proposed 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33365 

69 In the RCW Standards Preliminary Analysis, 

DOE analyzed an updated capacity threshold of 3.0 

ft3 (85 liters) between the front-loading compact 

and front-loading standard product classes. Any 

new definitions of product classes would be 

finalized in the standards rulemaking. 

efficiency standards, and for 

determining compliance with those 

standards. Id. 

DOE requested 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. Id. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of deleting appendix J1 and all 

references to it in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, 

and 431. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at 

p. 11) 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, 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 new 

appendix J, as described in section III.E 

of this document, DOE proposed to 

include references to the proposed new 

metrics EER, AEER, and WER in place 

of references to the WF, IWF, MEFJ2, 

and IMEF metrics, as appropriate, in the 

new appendix J. 86 FR 49140, 49186. 

Given that the WF metric is no longer 

the basis for energy conservation 

standards for either RCWs or CCWs, 

DOE proposed to remove the calculation 

of WF from section 4.2.12 of appendix 

J2, as well as any references to WF in 

10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. Id. 

Similarly, given that MEFJ2 is no longer 

the basis for energy conservation 

standards for RCWs, DOE proposed to 

remove references to ‘‘MEF’’ from 10 

CFR 429.20 and 10 CFR 430.23. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to remove obsolete metric 

definitions. 86 FR 49140, 49187. 

DOE received no comments in 

response to its proposal to remove 

obsolete metric definitions. 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, to remove obsolete metric 

definitions. 

DOE proposed to delete the following 

definitions from section 1 of appendix 

J2 because they were either no longer 

used within the then-current appendix, 

or would no longer be used given DOE’s 

proposed amendments in the September 

2021 NOPR: ‘‘adaptive control system,’’ 

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

‘‘standard,’’ and ‘‘thermostatically 

controlled water valves.’’ 86 FR 49140, 

49187. 

Section 1.13 of appendix J2 defined 

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 applied: 

(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 

were redundant with the flowchart 

definitions provided in section 2.12 of 

appendix J2. Therefore, DOE proposed 

to simplify the definition of energy test 

cycle in both appendix J2 and the 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. Id. 

DOE also proposed to remove section 

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

rename section 1 of appendix J2 

(previously ‘‘Definitions and Symbols’’) 

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

new appendix J ‘‘Definitions’’ 

accordingly. Id. Throughout the 

appendices, each symbol is defined at 

each usage, making this section 

unnecessary for executing the test 

procedure. DOE noted that most other 

test procedures in subpart B to part 430 

do not include a symbol usage section. 

Id. 

DOE also proposed 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, to 

simplify cross-references to defined 

terms and allow for easier editing in the 

future by avoiding the need to renumber 

all the definitions (and associated crossreferences) any time a definition is 

added or deleted. Id. 

DOE requested 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.’’ Id. DOE also 

requested comment on its proposal to 

simplify the definition of ‘‘energy test 

cycle.’’ Id. DOE also requested comment 

on its proposal to remove section 1.30 

‘‘Symbol usage’’ from appendix J2. Id. 

Lastly, DOE requested 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. Id. 

P.R. China commented that DOE 

should not delete the definitions of 

‘‘compact’’ and ‘‘standard.’’ (P.R. China, 

No. 25 at p. 4) P.R. China specifically 

requested that DOE re-define the 

‘‘compact’’ product class to include 

units with capacity less than 45 liters, 

and re-define the ‘‘standard’’ product 

class to include clothes washers with a 

capacity above 45 liters. (Id.) P.R. China 

further stated that large-capacity 

machines have inherent advantages in 

energy efficiency performance over 

smaller-capacity machines. (Id.) P.R. 

China concluded that it is therefore 

unfair to compare compact and standard 

clothes washers using the same criteria. 

(Id.) 

In response to P.R. China, DOE notes 

that its deletion of the ‘‘compact’’ and 

‘‘standard’’ product class definitions 

from appendix J2 does not affect the 

definition of RCW product classes, 

which are defined in 10 CFR 430.32(g) 

and include: top-loading compact, toploading standard, front-loading 

compact, and front-loading standard. 

The product class definitions in 10 CFR 

430.32(g) include capacity thresholds at 

1.6 ft3, or 45 liters, and are not being 

amended in this final rule.69 In this final 

rule, DOE is removing the definitions of 

the terms ‘‘compact’’ and ‘‘standard’’ 

only from appendix J2 because they are 

no longer used within the appendix 

itself. 

For these reasons, DOE is finalizing 

its proposal, consistent with the 

September 2021 NOPR, 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 is also 

finalizing its proposals, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to simplify 

the definition of ‘‘energy test cycle,’’ 

and remove section 1.30 ‘‘Symbol 

usage’’ from appendix J2. DOE is further 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR 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 proposed to remove 

section 6, Waivers and Field Testing, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33366 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

from appendix J2 and not include a 

parallel section in the new appendix J. 

86 FR 49140, 49187. The language of 

section 6 of appendix J2 was first 

introduced as section 7 in the 1997 

version of appendix J and has been 

maintained through successive 

amendments of the test procedures. 

DOE noted in the September 2021 

NOPR, however, that none of the 

waivers sought by manufacturers to date 

have made use of these provisions. Id. 

Instead, the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27 

(Petitions for waiver and interim 

waiver) provide comprehensive 

instructions regarding DOE’s waiver 

process. Id. DOE tentatively concluded 

that the information presented in 

section 6 of appendix J2 was 

unnecessary given the regulatory 

language of 10 CFR 430.27. Id. 

DOE requested 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 new appendix J. Id. 

DOE received no comments on its 

proposal to remove section 6, Waivers 

and Field Testing, of appendix J2. 

DOE is finalizing its proposal, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, to remove section 6, Waivers and 

Field Testing, of appendix J2 and to not 

include a parallel section in the 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 proposed 

to make minor typographical corrections 

and formatting modifications as follows. 

86 FR 49140, 49187. These minor 

proposed modifications were not 

intended to change the substance of the 

test methods or descriptions provided in 

these sections. Id. The language of the 

proposed new appendix J reflects these 

corrections. Id. 

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). 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to remove the duplicate 

definition of CKWH from 10 CFR 

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

DOE proposed to correct two 

misspellings in section 2.8 of appendix 

J2 referring to energy stuffer cloths 

(previously ‘‘clothes’’) and test load 

sizes (previously ‘‘siszes’’). Id. DOE also 

proposed to correct the spelling of 

‘‘discrete’’ in section 3.2.5 of appendix 

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

cycle’’ in section 3.6 of appendix J2 

(previously ‘‘testy cycle’’). Id. DOE also 

proposed to spell out the word 

‘‘percent’’ in the paragraph in section 

3.2.5 of appendix J2. Id. 

Currently in appendix J2, the drying 

energy abbreviation is DE. This notation 

is inconsistent with the notation used 

for machine electrical energy and water 

heating energy (MET and HET, 

respectively). DOE proposed to 

standardize the notation used for drying 

energy throughout sections 3 and 4 of 

new appendix J, such that it is listed as 

DET. Id. DOE stated in the September 

2021 NOPR that it could consider also 

making this change in appendix J2, but 

that it understood that changing the 

symbol definition could require test 

laboratories to update test templates that 

use the DE symbol as currently defined 

in appendix J2. Id. 

DOE also proposed to rename section 

2 in appendix J2 from ‘‘Testing 

Conditions’’ to ‘‘Testing Conditions and 

Instrumentation’’ to more fully reflect 

the contents of this section. Id. 

In several instances throughout 

appendix J2, the qualifier ‘‘of this 

appendix’’ was missing in section crossreferences. DOE proposed to rectify 

these omissions. Id. DOE also proposed 

to clarify references to appendix J3 in 

appendix J2, and vice-versa, by using 

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

proposed to update all cross-references 

as needed, following the edits proposed 

in the September 2021 NOPR. Id. 

DOE received no comments in 

response to its proposed corrections. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, to make the 

minor typographical corrections and 

formatting modifications described 

previously to improve the readability of 

the text in certain sections of 10 CFR 

430.23 and appendix J2. 

10. Symbology 

As discussed in section I.B of this 

document, in the CCW test procedure 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.152, DOE 

defines the term ‘‘MEFJ2’’ to mean 

modified energy factor as determined in 

section 4.5 of appendix J2. Since the 

calculated value of modified energy 

factor in appendix J2 is not equivalent 

to the calculated value of modified 

energy factor in appendix J1, DOE 

added the ‘‘J2’’ subscript to the 

appendix J2 MEF descriptor to avoid 

any potential ambiguity that would 

result from using the same energy 

descriptor for both test procedures. 79 

FR 71624, 71626. To maintain 

consistency with this approach, this 

final rule adds the ‘‘J2’’ subscript to the 

MEF metric defined in section 4.5 of 

appendix J2. 

I. Test Cloth Provisions 

Appendix J2 requires using 

specialized test cloth as the material 

comprising each tested load. The final 

specifications for the energy test cloth 

were developed to be representative of 

the range of fabrics comprising 

consumer wash loads: 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 machine-washed by consumers. 

In developing the test cloth 

specifications, DOE also considered: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

did not propose any changes to the test 

cloth specification. 

The Joint Commenters recommended 

that DOE mathematically adjust clothes 

washer RMC in the proposed new 

appendix J to more realistically account 

for drying energy use associated with 

100-percent cotton loads. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31 at pp. 7–8) The 

Joint Commenters referenced the 2020 

NEEA Report, which developed a linear 

mathematical relationship between the 

RMCs of two different types of textiles: 

The 50-percent cotton/50-percent 

polyester DOE test cloth defined in 

appendix J2, and the 100-percent cotton 

textiles defined in AHAM HLW–1–2013 

and IEC 60456 (2010). The 2020 NEEA 

Report analyzed the RMC values of both 

types of textiles across a broad range of 

clothes washer efficiency levels and 

technology types. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters commented that NEEA’s 

study found what the Joint Commenters 

characterized as excellent R-squared 

values that could be used to adjust the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33367 

RMC of DOE test cloth to the RMC that 

would be expected by using AHAMspecified 100-percent cotton textiles. 

(Id.) The Joint Commenters commented 

that adjusting RMC to account for 

drying energy use associated with 100- 

percent cotton loads would more 

realistically account for RCW and CCW 

impacts on drying energy use because, 

according to the Joint Commenters, most 

typical laundry loads have a cotton 

content higher than 50 percent. (Id.) The 

Joint Commenters also commented that 

adjusting RMC would increase 

alignment between the proposed new 

appendix J clothes washer procedure 

and the appendix D2 clothes dryer test 

procedure, asserting that the drying 

energy currently calculated in appendix 

J2 is much lower than the energy 

consumed by a typical clothes dryer. 

(Id.) The Joint Commenters further 

explained that using NEEA’s 

mathematical adjustment to increase 

RMC before calculating drying energy 

would make the drying energy 

estimated in the clothes washer test 

procedure more similar to the measured 

drying energy in the clothes dryer test 

procedure, since the RMC calculated in 

new appendix J would be closer to the 

initial moisture content of 57.5 percent 

specified in appendix D2. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters also added that their 

proposed RMC adjustment calculation 

would not add any test burden since the 

calculation would only affect the postprocessing of the data, which could be 

automated. (Id.) 

The Joint Efficiency Advocates 

similarly recommended that DOE 

include RMC adjustment factors to 

account for the difference in RMCs 

between DOE test cloth load and ‘‘realworld’’ clothing. (Joint Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 28 at p. 5) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates cited findings 

from the 2020 NEEA Report that clothes 

washers removed substantially more 

water from the DOE test cloth loads (36 

percent RMC, on average) than the 

AHAM cotton test loads (65 percent 

RMC, on average). (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates therefore 

concluded that RMC and the resulting 

drying energy are likely being 

underestimated in the current test 

procedure. (Id.) The Joint Efficiency 

Advocates commented that it is 

important for each of the components of 

clothes washer energy use (drying 

energy, water heating energy, etc.) to be 

correctly weighted. (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates further explained 

that if two clothes washers have the 

same efficiency rating, but one 

optimizes hot water usage and the other 

optimizes spin speed or duration to 

lower the RMC, then the models that 

optimize spin speed/duration may have 

different real-world efficiencies if RMC 

is underestimated. (Id.) The Joint 

Efficiency Advocates recommended 

implementing an RMC adjustment factor 

similar to the one presented in the 2020 

NEEA Report. (Id.) 

In response to the Joint Commenters’ 

and Joint Efficiency Advocates’ 

recommendations that DOE include 

RMC adjustment factors to account for 

the difference in RMC values between 

DOE test cloth load and what the 

commenters described as ‘‘real-world’’ 

clothing, DOE reiterates that the current 

test cloth was developed to be 

representative of the range of fabrics 

comprising consumer wash loads, 

including 100-percent cotton, cotton/ 

polyester blend, and 100-percent 

synthetic articles. As such, DOE intends 

for the specified test load to be 

nationally and seasonally representative 

of clothing used across all regions of the 

United States. DOE recognizes that 

consumer clothing (including fabric 

composition) likely differs between 

warmer and colder climates, between 

urban and rural households, between 

regions that do and do not experience 

seasonal changes, and among 

population demographics (e.g., 

household size, age of household 

members, etc.). While DOE 

acknowledges that 100-percent cotton 

clothing may be more common among 

certain regions or demographics, the 

commenters have not presented any 

data—nor is DOE aware of any data— 

indicating that 100-percent cotton 

clothing is nationally, seasonally, or 

demographically representative across 

the United States. DOE asserts that the 

50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester 

material currently specified represents 

the middle of the spectrum between 

100-percent cotton and 100-percent 

synthetic fabric types and therefore is 

representative of an average use cycle or 

period of use. 

For these reasons, DOE is not 

implementing an RMC adjustment factor 

to account for the difference in RMC 

between the DOE test cloth and a 100- 

percent cotton load. However, in light of 

the feedback received regarding test 

cloth specifications, DOE will continue 

to evaluate the representativeness of test 

results obtained through the use of the 

current test cloth requirements in the 

DOE test procedures. DOE will also 

continue to monitor the development of 

industry standards and other efforts 

related to test cloth and test load 

composition. 

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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed several structural changes to 

appendix J3 to consolidate all of the test 

cloth specifications and procedures 

(some of which were previously located 

in appendix J2) that must be evaluated 

on each new lot of test cloth. 86 FR 

49140, 49188. Consolidating into a 

single test procedure would 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. Id. As 

described further, the proposed changes 

would remove from appendix J2 those 

specifications and procedures that were 

not intended to be completed for every 

clothes washer test. Id. The proposed 

edits also would formally codify 

additional qualification procedures that 

are currently conducted for every new 

lot of test cloth. Id. 

a. Test Cloth Requirements in Appendix 

J2 

Section 2.7 of appendix J2 (‘‘Test 

cloths’’) previously contained 

specifications and procedures regarding 

the test cloth. Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 

specified the unfinished and finished 

dimensions, maximum lifetime, and 

marking requirements for energy test 

cloth and energy stuffer cloths, 

respectively. These sections also 

specified that mixed lots of material 

must not be used for testing. Section 

2.7.3 specified 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 provided 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 

water-repellent finishes and to measure 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33368 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

the cloth shrinkage after 

preconditioning. Section 2.7.5 

referenced 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 previously 

contained 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 previously in section 2.7 of 

appendix J2 are performed by a thirdparty 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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to move most of the 

specifications from section 2.7 of 

appendix J2 to appendix J3. 86 FR 

49140, 49188. Section 2.7 of appendix 

J2 would retain the following 

specifications, which are relevant to the 

conduct of individual clothes washer 

tests: The maximum lifetime 

specification, marking requirements, 

and the requirement that mixed lots of 

material must not be used for testing. 86 

FR 49140, 49188–49189. All other 

specifications from section 2.7 of 

appendix J2 would be moved to 

appendix J3. 86 FR 49140, 49189. DOE 

proposed to 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. Id. These proposed 

changes would also be reflected in the 

proposed new appendix J. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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. Id. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

support of consolidating test cloth 

instructions into appendix J3, stating 

that it would increase clarity of the test 

procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at 

p. 11) 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, 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 by 

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. 

As noted in the September 2021 

NOPR, DOE 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 September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to codify in appendix J3 this 

‘‘uniformity check’’ and to restructure 

appendix J3 to improve the overall 

logical flow of the procedure. 86 FR 

49140, 49189. 

The sections of appendix J3 were 

previously 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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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. Id. 

In section 2 of appendix J3, DOE 

proposed 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. Id. 

DOE proposed to create a new section 

3, ‘‘Energy Test Cloth Specifications,’’ 

that would specify the test cloth 

material, dimensions, and use 

requirements as previously specified in 

section 2.7 of appendix J2. Id. 

DOE proposed to change the title of 

previous section 3 of appendix J3, 

newly renumbered as section 4, from 

‘‘Testing Conditions’’ to ‘‘Equipment 

Specifications.’’ Id. This section would 

contain the specifications for the 

extractor (previously specified in 

section 3.2) and the bone-dryer 

(previously specified in section 3.3). Id. 

DOE proposed to merge the previous 

specification in section 3.1 of appendix 

J3 (which specified the extractor spin 

conditions to be used) with the 

proposed edits to newly renumbered 

section 8 (‘‘RMC Correction Curve 

Procedure’’), as described below. Id. 

DOE proposed to create a new section 

5, ‘‘Pre-Conditioning Instructions,’’ in 

appendix J3 that would specify the 

instructions for preconditioning test 

cloth, as previously specified in section 

4.1 of appendix J3, with a clarifying 

wording change. Id. The second 

paragraph of section 4.1 in appendix J3 

previously specified ‘‘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 specified: ‘‘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 washrinse-spin cycles).’’ In the September 

2021 NOPR, DOE expressed concern 

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. Id. To avoid this potential 

misinterpretation, DOE proposed to 

replace the last sentence with the 

following: ‘‘Dry the load to bone-dry 

between each of the five wash/rinsespin cycles.’’ Id. 

DOE proposed 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 previously listed in 

sections 5.1 through 5.10 of appendix 

J3, with some minor organizational 

changes. Id. 

DOE proposed to create a new section 

7, ‘‘Test Cloth Material Verification 

Procedure,’’ in appendix J3 that codifies 

the ‘‘uniformity check’’ procedure 

described above. Id. 

DOE proposed to add a new section 

8, ‘‘RMC Correction Curve Procedure,’’ 

in appendix J3, which would 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33369 

70 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-testclothcorrection-factor-information. 

71See 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 MEFJ2 or IMEF 

calculation to roughly 5 percent. 80 FR 46730, 

46756. 

72The RMC characteristics of historical Lot 3 

represent the ‘‘standard RMC values’’ defined in 

Table 6.1 of appendix J3. 

consolidate the provisions previously 

specified in sections 5 and 6 of 

appendix J3. 86 FR 49140, 49189– 

49190. 

DOE proposed to renumber section 7 

to section 9 in appendix J3 and to 

update any applicable cross references. 

86 FR 49140, 49190. 

Finally, given the broader scope of 

appendix J3 as proposed by these 

amendments, DOE proposed 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.’’ Id. 

DOE requested 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. 

Id. 

AHAM commented in support of 

DOE’s proposed structural changes to 

appendix J3, and added that DOE’s 

proposed changes are consistent with 

AHAM’s work on this topic. (AHAM, 

No. 27 at p. 16) 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal, consistent with 

the September 2021 NOPR, 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.70 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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

noted that 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. 86 FR 49140, 49190. A 

variation of three RMC percentage 

points can lead to over a 5-percent 

variation in IMEF rating.71 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.72 Id. 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. Id. 

Based on these investigations, 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 three RMC percentage 

points. Id. 

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

percentage points (corrected), DOE 

proposed 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. Id. The 

following paragraphs describe the 

approach proposed by DOE in the 

September 2021 NOPR. 

DOE proposed 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. Id. 

DOE proposed 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). Id. 

Under the provisions for appendix J2, 

DOE proposed new paragraph (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)). Id. 

DOE proposed new paragraph (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)). Id. 

DOE proposed new paragraph (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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33370 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

may 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. Id. 

DOE proposed new paragraph 

(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 

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)). 86 FR 49140, 49190– 

49191. Within this section, DOE 

proposed a new paragraph (ii)(D)(1) that 

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. 86 FR 49140, 49191. A new 

proposed paragraph (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. Id. 

The proposed new paragraph (ii)(E)— 

which would address differences in 

RMC values that may result from DOE 

using a different test cloth lot—would 

specify 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. Id. New 

paragraph (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. Id. New proposed paragraph 

(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. Id. 

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). Id. The provisions for the 

proposed new appendix J would not 

include the specifications for 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(1)(ii)(A) or 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(1)(ii)(D) as described 

previously. Id. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

requested 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. Id. DOE also requested 

comment on alternate enforcement 

approaches that could be implemented. 

Id. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

consider obtaining samples from each 

test cloth lot and use the applicable lot 

when conducting compliance testing to 

reduce the need to use the three percent 

tolerance for the RMC enforcement 

provisions, as was proposed in new 

appendix J. (CA IOUs, No. 29 at p. 7) 

The CA IOUs also recommended that 

DOE add the test cloth lot number to the 

certification data collection sheets for 

RCWs and CCWs to aid in DOE’s 

compliance efforts. (Id.) 

Whirlpool recommended that DOE 

use decision tree flow charts for the 

product-specific RMC enforcement 

provisions, similar to the charts used in 

Figures 2.12.1–2.12.5 in section 2.12 of 

appendix J2. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 

11–13) Whirlpool commented that a 

flowchart would help provide further 

clarity for stakeholders. (Id.) Whirlpool 

also attached drafts of the two suggested 

flow charts for initial consideration by 

DOE. (Id.) 

Whirlpool also suggested edits to the 

wording of the proposed productspecific enforcement provisions found 

in 10 CFR 429.134(c) in order to add 

clarity. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at pp. 13–14) 

In 10 CFR 429.134(c)(i)(C)(1), Whirlpool 

suggested that instead of, ‘‘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,’’ DOE 

should use the following wording, ‘‘If 

the tested unit’s measured RMC value is 

more than the certified RMC value of 

the basic model and is less than or equal 

to three RMC percentage points higher 

than the certified RMC value, then the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

may be considered the tested unit’s final 

RMC value.’’ (Id.) Whirlpool suggested 

similar wording changes to increase the 

parallelism of the language for 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(C) and 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(E)(1). (Id.) 

Whirlpool also suggested that instead 

of using the word ‘‘may’’ in 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(i)(B), 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(i)(C)(1), 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(i)(C)(2), 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(C), 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(E)(1) and 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(E)(2), DOE should use the 

word ‘‘will.’’ (Id.) Whirlpool stated that 

using ‘‘may’’ is troublesome because of 

its ambiguous nature in particular due 

to its use in an enforcement provision. 

(Id.) 

DOE notes it is not amending the 

certification or reporting requirements 

for clothes washers in this final rule to 

require reporting of test cloth lot. 

Instead, DOE may consider proposals to 

amend the certification requirements 

and reporting for RCWs and CCWs 

under a separate rulemaking regarding 

appliance and equipment certification. 

In response to the CA IOUs’ 

suggestion that DOE obtain samples 

from each test cloth lot and use the 

applicable lot when conducting 

compliance testing, DOE notes that this 

approach would not be feasible due to 

the nature of how test laboratories 

acquire and use test cloth. Test cloth is 

produced in large batches (i.e., lots) by 

a single textile manufacturer. A new test 

cloth lot is produced roughly every year. 

Test laboratories typically purchase in 

bulk whichever test cloth lot is available 

at the time of purchase. Depending on 

a laboratory’s testing throughput, each 

bulk purchase of a particular lot may 

provide enough material for several 

years of testing. As a result, in DOE’s 

experience, test laboratories typically do 

not have test cloth available from every 

test cloth lot, and will typically only 

have a few lots available at a time. DOE 

conducts enforcement testing using 

certified third-party test laboratories, 

and therefore during such testing only 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33371 

has access to that test laboratory’s 

supply of any given test cloth lot. 

DOE appreciates Whirlpool’s detailed 

suggested edits the wording of the 

product-specific RMC enforcement 

provisions, has reviewed Whirlpool’s 

proposals, and is making some 

clarifying changes to the wording to 10 

CFR 429.134(c)(1) consistent with the 

intent of the wording as presented in the 

September 2021 NOPR. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to use the phrase ‘‘may 

apply,’’ as opposed to ‘‘will apply’’ (or 

‘‘shall apply’’) to allow for appropriate 

discretion by DOE and allow DOE to not 

need to seek the test cloth lot 

information from the manufacturer in 

every such case, since lot number is not 

a reported value. 86 FR 49140, 49190. In 

this final rule, DOE has determined that 

the wording of 10 CFR 429.134 would 

require DOE to seek test cloth lot 

information from the manufacturer only 

for cases in which the difference 

between the measured and certified 

RMC values would affect the unit’s 

compliance with the applicable 

standards. DOE agrees that use of the 

word ‘‘will’’ instead of ‘‘may’’ would 

provide greater certainty to describe 

DOE’s course of action during 

enforcement testing. Therefore, DOE is 

revising the wording of the language in 

proposed 10 CFR 429.134(c)(i)(B), 10 

CFR 429.134(c)(i)(C)(1), 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(i)(C)(2), 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(C), 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(E)(1) and 10 CFR 

429.134(c)(ii)(E)(2) to use the phrase 

‘‘will’’ instead of ‘‘may.’’ 

In this final rule, DOE is also reordering the RMC enforcement 

provisions within 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1) 

to improve the logical flow of the 

revised enforcement provisions. 

Furthermore, to aid in understanding 

these product-specific RMC 

enforcement provisions via visual 

representation, DOE is providing 

informative flow charts in the docket for 

this rulemaking, available at 

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

logical flow through the finalized RMC 

enforcement provisions matches the 

logical flow through the flow chart. 

In reviewing the language in 10 CFR 

429.134, DOE determined an 

incompatibility in the language, which 

it is removing in this final rule. In the 

language as proposed in the September 

2021 NOPR, paragraph (ii)(C)—which 

applied if the difference between the 

measured and certified RMC values is 

less than or equal to two RMC 

percentage points—cross-referenced 

proposed paragraph (ii)(E) if DOE used 

a different test cloth lot than was used 

by the manufacturer for testing and 

certifying the basic model and the 

difference between the measured and 

certified RMC values would affect the 

unit’s compliance with the applicable 

standards. Within paragraph (ii)(E), 

paragraph (ii)(E)(2) as proposed applied 

to cases in which the measured RMC 

value is more than three RMC 

percentage points higher than the 

certified RMC value. DOE notes that it 

would be impossible for a situation to 

arise in which the difference between 

the measured and certified RMC values 

is less than or equal to two RMC 

percentage points and in which the 

measured RMC value is more than three 

RMC percentage points higher than the 

certified RMC value (i.e., it would be 

impossible for the provisions at 

proposed paragraph (ii)(C) to lead to 

proposed paragraph (ii)(E)(2)). DOE 

removes this incompatibility in this 

final rule. 

This final rule also implements nonsubstantive wording changes to use 

more consistent language among each 

paragraph within 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1). 

K. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization 

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 in this final rule. 

a. Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 

Amendments 

In this document, DOE amends the 

existing test procedure 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 adaptive 

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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that the 

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. 86 FR 49140, 

49191. 

DOE requested 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. Id. DOE received 

no comments on its characterization of 

the expected costs of the proposed 

amendments to appendix J2 and 

appendix J3. DOE has addressed in the 

preceding sections of this document 

comments regarding the related test 

procedure burdens associated with the 

amendments adopted in this final rule. 

DOE has determined that the 

amendment to change the target inlet 

water temperatures to the midpoint of 

each defined range may reduce test 

burden by reducing the potential for 

invalid cycles to occur due to a 

deviation in water temperatures outside 

the specified range. 

DOE has determined that the 

amendment 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, DOE 

determined the cost of a water meter 

that provides the proposed resolution, 

including associated hardware, to be 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33372 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 amendment 

based on stakeholders’ comments and 

DOE’s knowledge of third-party 

laboratory capabilities that suggest that 

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 amendment to explicitly allow 

for the use of submersible temperature 

loggers specifies an additional means for 

determining wash water temperatures to 

confirm whether a wash temperature 

greater than 135 °F (defined as an ExtraHot 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 final rule. 

The amendment to extend the load 

size table applies 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 amendment to more explicitly 

define user-adjustable adaptive WFCS 

provides greater specification of DOE’s 

existing definitions and could 

potentially alleviate test burden 

resulting from an incorrect application 

of the existing language. The 

amendments specifying updated 

language regarding cycle selection for 

clothes washers with a range of wash 

time settings are expected to improve 

repeatability and reproducibility 

without imposing any additional test 

burden. The amendment 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/Cold 

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 amendment to specify 

that the energy test cycle flow charts be 

evaluated using the Maximum load size 

are expected to improve repeatability 

and reproducibility without imposing 

any additional test burden. 

The amendment to specify that 

network settings must be disabled for 

testing under appendix J2 will 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 amendment to add productspecific enforcement provisions to 

accommodate the potential for lot-to-lot 

variation in RMC will extend current 

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, and 

will not impact manufacturers’ testing 

costs. 

The amendments to delete obsolete 

definitions, metrics, and the waiver 

section will not impact manufacturers’ 

testing costs because these sections of 

the test procedure are no longer in use. 

The amendment to move all test 

cloth-related sections of the test 

procedures into appendix J3 will 

simplify appendix J2 without any 

changes to the test conduct or cost to 

manufacturers. The amendment to add 

additional test cloth qualification 

procedures to appendix J3 will not 

affect manufacturer cost because the 

proposal would codify existing 

industry-standard practices. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preceding paragraphs and in the 

September 2021 NOPR, DOE has 

determined that the amendments to 

appendix J2 and appendix J3 adopted in 

this final rule are not unduly 

burdensome. Moreover, DOE has 

determined that the amendments to 

appendix J2 and appendix J3 would not 

alter the measure energy and water 

efficiency of currently certified clothes 

washers and therefore would not require 

retesting or recertification. 

b. Appendix J Test Procedure 

In this document, DOE is creating a 

new appendix J that includes, in 

addition to the amendments discussed 

previously for appendix J2, significant 

additional changes that will affect the 

measured efficiency of a clothes washer. 

Because DOE will 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 new appendix 

J will 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 differences 

between appendix J2 and new 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 currently 

tested with three load sizes; 

(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 based on the weightedaverage load size rather than clothes 

container capacity; 

(12) Updating the final moisture 

content assumption in the drying energy 

formula; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33373 

73www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. 

Last accessed on January 12, 2022. 

74These savings assume the savings from 

reducing the number of load sizes have already 

been implemented. 75These 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. 

76 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 January 11, 2022. 

(13) Updating the number of annual 

clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; 

and 

(14) Updating the number of hours 

assigned to low-power mode to be based 

on the clothes washer’s average 

measured cycle time rather than an 

assumed fixed value. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

preliminarily concluded that the 

proposal to require measurement of 

cycle time is unlikely to result in an 

increase in test burden. 86 FR 49140, 

49193. 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. 

DOE further tentatively concluded in 

the September 2021 NOPR that none of 

the other proposed changes for 

appendix J would result in an increase 

in test burden. 86 FR 49140, 49193. In 

the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that several of 

the proposed changes would result in a 

substantial decrease in test burden, an 

average savings of $348 per basic model 

of RCW and $153 per basic model of 

CCW. 86 FR 49140, 49193–49194. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding the test burden, average costs 

or savings of the proposed appendix J. 

In this final rule, DOE determines, 

consistent with the September 2021 

NOPR, that the new appendix J will not 

result in any increase in test burden, as 

compared to appendix J2, and that it 

will result in a decrease in test burden. 

DOE based its determination on the 

following. 

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 CCMS 

database.73 DOE identified 

approximately 25 manufacturers selling 

an estimated 718 basic models of RCWs 

and 43 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. 

Reducing the number of load sizes 

from three to two for units with an 

automatic WFCS will 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 will experience no change in 

test burden as a result of this change. 

This being the case, 89 percent of RCWs 

on the market will experience a 

reduction in test burden as follows: 20 

percent of RCWs will experience a 

reduction in test burden of 2 to 4 cycles; 

54 percent of RCWs will experience a 

reduction in test burden of 5 to 8 cycles; 

and 15 percent of RCWs will experience 

a reduction in test burden of more than 

9 cycles. DOE’s representative market 

sample suggests that all CCWs have an 

automatic WFCS and therefore DOE 

estimates that 70 percent of CCWs will 

experience a reduction in test burden of 

3 or 4 cycles and that 30 percent of 

CCWs will experience a reduction in 

test burden of 5 cycles. Id. Based on 

these estimates, DOE estimates a 

weighted-average test burden reduction 

of 5.1 cycles per RCW, and 3.7 cycles 

per CCW. 

Reducing the number of required test 

cycles by requiring the use of no more 

than two Warm/Cold cycles, and no 

more than two Warm/Warm cycles, will 

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 will 

experience no change; 44 percent of 

RCWs will experience a reduction in 

test burden of 2 cycles; and 7 percent of 

RCWs will experience a reduction in 

test burden of 4 cycles. Id. DOE 

estimates that 70 percent of CCWs will 

experience no change and that 30 

percent of CCWs will experience a 

reduction in test burden of 4 cycles. Id. 

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.74

Reducing the number of required test 

cycles by measuring RMC on each tested 

cycle instead of measuring it on 

dedicated RMC cycles will 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 

will experience no change; 27 percent of 

RCWs will experience a reduction in 

test burden of 1 cycle; 27 percent of 

RCWs will experience a reduction in 

test burden of 2 cycles; and 1 percent of 

RCWs will experience a reduction in 

test burden of 4 cycles. DOE estimates 

that no CCWs will experience a 

reduction in test burden from this 

change. Based on these estimates, DOE 

estimates a weighted-average additional 

test burden reduction of 0.9 cycles per 

RCW.75

Simplifying the test procedure for 

semi-automatic clothes washers will 

reduce test burden for all semiautomatic clothes washers by 10 cycles. 

DOE has determined that approximately 

2 percent of RCW basic models in the 

CCMS database 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 changes 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 $29.27.76

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 70.8 

percent of the total compensation for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33374 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

77 DOE used the September 2021 ‘‘Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation’’ to estimate that for 

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

are 70.8 percent of the total employee 

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

ecec.pdf. Last accessed on January 11, 2022. 

78 $29.27 ÷ 0.708 = $41.34. 

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

and converted to U.S. dollars on January 11, 2022. 

80AHAM Trends in Energy Efficiency, 2018. 

81The 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 new 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. 

82Section 2.7.1 of appendix J2 specifies that each 

energy test cloth must not be used for more than 

60 test runs (after preconditioning). 

83 1 × $41.34 + $5.13 = $46.47. 

84 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-BTSTD0020-0036. 

85The 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 new 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. 

86 0.75 × $41.34 + $4.18 = $35.19. 

87 7.4 × $46.47 = $344. 

88 4.3 × $35.19 = $151. 

private industry employees.77

Therefore, DOE estimated that the total 

hourly compensation (including all 

fringe benefits) of a technician 

performing the testing is $41.34.78

Based on a January 2022 price list 

from the test cloth manufacturer, the 

cost of the test cloth required for 

performing testing is $7.16 per cloth.79

Based on an average RCW capacity of 

4.14 ft3,80 the load sizes associated with 

testing an average-capacity RCW,81 and 

the maximum allowable usage of 60 test 

cycles per cloth,82 DOE estimates a total 

material cost of $5.13 per wash cycle on 

average across all RCWs on the market. 

86 FR 49140, 49193–49194. Using these 

material costs, labor rates and time 

estimates, DOE estimates that the 

reduction in burden of a single test 

cycle on an RCW will provide $46.47 in 

costs savings 83 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 ft3,84 the load sizes associated with 

testing an average-capacity CCW,85 and 

the maximum allowable usage of 60 test 

cycles per cloth, DOE estimates a total 

material cost of $4.18 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 will provide $35.19 in 

costs savings 86 for tests conducted at an 

in-house test facility. 

Based on these estimates, DOE has 

determined that the use of new 

appendix J will result in a total burden 

reduction of 7.4 cycles per RCW on 

average, which results in an average 

saving of $344 per basic model of 

RCW.87 For CCWs, use of new appendix 

J will result in a total burden reduction 

of 4.3 cycles per CCW on average, which 

results in an average saving of $151 per 

basic model of CCW.88

Based on these estimates, DOE 

determines that the new test procedure 

at appendix J is not unduly burdensome 

for manufacturers to conduct. 

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 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. 

DOE is aware of two clothes washer 

test procedures established by industry: 

AHAM HLW–2–2020 and IEC 60456. 

AHAM’s existing clothes washer 

procedure, AHAM HLW–2–2020, 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 noted 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 defined in the March 

2012 Final Rule, 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. 

In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded 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. 86 FR 49140, 49194. 

The Joint Commenters commented in 

disagreement with DOE’s assessment 

that the industry-developed IEC 60456 

test procedure is significantly more 

burdensome to conduct and less 

representative than DOE’s own test 

procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at 

pp. 9–10) The Joint Commenters 

commented that IEC 60456 has the 

benefit of industry familiarity, asserting 

that U.S. and European manufacturers 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33375 

use this test procedure to verify that 

their European models meet European 

energy standards. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters also commented that IEC 

60456 can represent U.S.-specific test 

conditions, including use of the Normal 

cycle and specific load sizes. (Id.) The 

Joint Commenters added that IEC 60456 

uses a more representative 100 percent 

cotton test cloth, which the Joint 

Commenters asserted is more 

representative of real textiles. (Id.) The 

Joint Commenters also commented that 

using IEC 60456 could possibly increase 

the availability of European models in 

the U.S. market, since reducing the U.S.- 

specific testing burden may enable 

manufacturers to build models for U.S. 

markets. (Id.) Lastly, the Joint 

Commenters commented that because 

the IEC 60456 test procedure is updated 

by industry, DOE could expend less 

effort on maintaining repeatability and 

reproducibility, and instead focus 

updates on additional instructions 

needed to ensure representation of U.S. 

consumer use. (Id.) 

In response to the Joint Commenters’ 

comments, DOE continues to assert that 

a test load that is 100 percent cotton is 

not more representative of consumer 

usage (as discussed in section III.I.1 of 

this document). For the reasons 

discussed, DOE maintains its 

conclusion from the September 2021 

NOPR 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. 

L. Effective and Compliance Dates 

The effective date for the adopted test 

procedure amendments is 30 days after 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. EPCA prescribes that 

all representations of energy efficiency 

and energy use, including those made 

on marketing materials and product 

labels, must be made in accordance with 

an amended test procedure, beginning 

180 days after publication of the final 

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

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

provides an allowance for individual 

manufacturers to petition DOE for an 

extension of the 180-day period if the 

manufacturer may experience undue 

hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) 

To receive such an extension, petitions 

must be filed with DOE no later than 60 

days before the end of the 180-day 

period and must detail how the 

manufacturer will experience undue 

hardship. (Id.) To the extent the 

modified test procedure adopted in this 

final rule is required only for the 

evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, compliance with 

the amended test procedure does not 

require use of such modified test 

procedure provisions until the 

compliance date of updated standards. 

Upon the compliance date of test 

procedure provisions in this final rule, 

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)(3); 10 CFR 

431.401(h)(3). Recipients of any such 

waivers are required to test the products 

subject to the waiver according to the 

amended test procedure as of the 

compliance date of the amended test 

procedure. The amendments adopted in 

this document pertain to issues 

addressed by waivers granted to 

Whirlpool and Samsung on May 2, 

2016, and April 10, 2017, respectively. 

81 FR 26215 (Case No. CW–026); 82 FR 

17229 (Case No. CW–027). Specifically, 

both waivers specified load sizes for 

basic models with capacity larger than 

6.0 ft3. As discussed in section III.D.1.a 

of this document, this final rule expands 

Table 5.1 in both appendix J2 and the 

new appendix J to accommodate clothes 

washers with capacities up to 8.0 ft3. 

Per 10 CFR 430.27(l), the publication of 

this final rule eliminates the need for 

the continuation of granted waivers. The 

publication of this final rule terminates 

these waivers consistent with 10 CFR 

430.27(h)(3) and 10 CFR 430.27(l). 

Under 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3), the waivers 

automatically terminate on the date on 

which use of the amended appendix J2 

test procedure is required to 

demonstrate compliance (i.e., 180 days 

after publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register). 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this final 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this final 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

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

agency was first required by law to 

publish a proposed rule for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 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: energy.gov/gc/officegeneral-counsel. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33376 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

89Available online at: www.sba.gov/document/ 

support--table-size-standards. 

90The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription 

login is available at app.dnbhoovers.com/. 

91 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. 

92Additional detail can be found in section 

III.K.1.b ‘‘Test Procedure Costs and Impacts’’ of the 

test procedure Final Rule notice. 

DOE reviewed this final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. DOE has concluded that the rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification is 

as follows. 

DOE uses the Small Business 

Administration’s (‘‘SBA’’) small 

business size standards to determine 

whether manufacturers qualify as small 

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.89 This employee threshold 

includes all employees in a business’s 

parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. 

DOE reviewed its CCMS database and 

other publicly available data to identify 

original equipment manufacturers 

(‘‘OEMs’’) of the products and 

equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

DOE then consulted individual 

company websites and subscriptionbased market research tools (e.g., reports 

from Dun & Bradstreet 90), to determine 

whether they meet the SBA’s definition 

of a small business manufacturer. DOE 

screened out companies that do not 

offer products or equipment covered by 

this rulemaking, do not meet the 

definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are 

foreign-owned and operated. 

DOE identified 25 companies that 

import, private label, produce, or 

manufacture clothes washers. Of those 

25 companies, DOE determined 15 are 

OEMs of the covered products and 

equipment. Of those 15 companies, one 

is a small domestic OEM that offers a 

single model of RCWs. DOE determined 

no small domestic OEMs manufacture 

CCWs. 

In this final rule, DOE amends 

appendix J2 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 adaptive water fill 

control;’’ (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 are to 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 product-specific 

enforcement provisions to accommodate 

the potential for test cloth lot-to-lot 

variation in remaining moisture content 

(‘‘RMC’’); (11) Deleting obsolete 

definitions, metrics, and the clothes 

washer-specific waiver section; and (12) 

Moving additional test cloth related 

specifications to appendix J3. 

In this final rule, DOE also updates 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J3, 

‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Moisture Absorption and Retention 

Characteristics,’’ by: (1) Consolidating 

all test cloth-related provisions, 

including those proposed to be moved 

from appendix J2; (2) Reorganizing 

sections for improved readability; and 

(3) Codifying the test cloth material 

verification procedure as used by 

industry. 

DOE has determined that these 

amendments to appendix J2 and 

appendix J3 would not result in 

manufacturers needing to re-rate clothes 

washers. The amendment (1) to 

appendix J2 (i.e., further specifying 

water meter resolution requirements) 

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 will not 

apply and no capital expenditures 

would be necessary for the business. 

In this final rule, DOE also adds 

appendix J to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of Automatic 

and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers,’’ 

which will 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.91 The new 

appendix J will include the following 

additional provisions beyond the 

amendments to appendix J2 that: (1) 

Modify the hot water supply 

temperature range; (2) Modify the 

clothes washer pre-conditioning 

requirements; (3) Modify the Extra-Hot 

Wash threshold temperature; (4) Add 

measurement and calculation of average 

cycle time; (5) 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; (6) 

Reduce the number of required test 

cycles by removing the need for one or 

more cycles used for measuring RMC; 

(7) Reduce the number of load sizes 

from three to two for units currently 

tested with three load sizes; (8) Modify 

the load size definitions consistent with 

two, rather than three, load sizes; (9) 

Update the water fill levels to be used 

for testing to reflect the modified load 

size definitions; (10) Specify the 

installation of single-inlet clothes 

washers, and simplify the test procedure 

for semi-automatic clothes washers; (11) 

Define new performance metrics that are 

based on the weighted-average load size 

rather than clothes container capacity: 

‘‘energy efficiency ratio,’’ ‘‘active-mode 

energy efficiency ratio,’’ and ‘‘water 

efficiency ratio;’’ (12) Update the final 

moisture content assumption in the 

drying energy formula; (13) Update the 

number of annual clothes washer cycles 

from 295 to 234; and (14) 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. 

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. Taking into account the fullyburdened wage of a technician ($41.34/ 

hour), the estimated time per wash cycle 

(1 hour for a RCW), the average cost of 

test cloth per RCW wash cycle ($5.13 of 

cloth), the estimated number of test 

cycles for the small entity’s basic model 

(6 cycles), and the number of test units 

(2 units tested), DOE estimates the cost 

of re-rating one model would be less 

than $1,000.92 Using subscription-based 

market research tools, DOE found the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33377 

small business annual revenue to be 

approximately $6 million. DOE 

calculates the cost of re-rating one 

model to Appendix J to be less than 0.1 

percent of revenue for the small 

manufacturer. 

DOE identified 15 OEMs affected by 

this final rule. One OEM is a small 

entity that certifies a single basic model 

of RCW, in an industry with 718 basic 

models of RCWs. As discussed 

previously, the amendments to 

appendix J2 will result in zero costs to 

the small manufacturer and the 

proposed new appendix J would be less 

burdensome to conduct than appendix 

J2 for all manufacturers. Additionally, 

the new appendix J will have no impact 

before an amended energy conservation 

standard is adopted. 

If and when amended energy 

conservation standards are adopted, 

DOE expects the new appendix J to have 

de minimis cost impacts on the small 

manufacturer. DOE estimated the cost to 

re-test the small entity’s basic model to 

appendix J would be less than $1,000. 

DOE calculates this potential cost to be 

less than 0.1 percent of revenue for the 

one small manufacturer. Based on this 

analysis, DOE certifies that this final 

rule does not have a ‘‘significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities,’’ and 

determined that the preparation of a 

FRFA is not warranted. DOE will 

transmit a certification and supporting 

statement of factual basis to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for review 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of RCWs 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 

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. 

DOE is not amending the certification 

or reporting requirements for RCWs or 

CCWs in this final rule. Instead, DOE 

may consider proposals to amend the 

certification requirements and reporting 

for RCWs and CCWs under a separate 

rulemaking regarding appliance and 

equipment certification. DOE will 

address changes to OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400 at that time, as 

necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE establishes test 

procedure amendments that it expects 

will be used to develop and implement 

future energy conservation standards for 

RCWs and CCWs. 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 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on agencies formulating 

and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

E.O. 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 E.O. also 

requires agencies to have an accountable 

process to ensure meaningful and timely 

input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE examined this final rule 

and determined that it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

final rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

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

action is required by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

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 E.O. 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 E.O. 12988 

requires executive agencies to review 

regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

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

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33378 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. DOE examined 

this final rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

final rule will 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 E.O. 

12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

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

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this final rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

E.O. 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 significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

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 FTC concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The modifications to the test 

procedure for clothes washers adopted 

in this final rule incorporates 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 has 

consulted with both the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

about the impact on competition of 

using the methods contained in these 

standards and has received no 

comments objecting to their use. 

M. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule before its effective date. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

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

N. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

In this final rule, DOE incorporates by 

reference the test standard published by 

AATCC, titled ‘‘Absorbency of 

Textiles,’’ AATCC Test Method 79– 

2010. DOE also incorporates 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 final rule, DOE incorporates 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 (i.e., ‘‘shrinkage’’) due 

to laundering. 

All three of these AATCC test 

methods are currently incorporated by 

reference for use in appendix J2. This 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33379 

final rule transfers the references to 

these test methods to appendix J3. 

Copies of AATCC test methods can be 

obtained from AATCC, P.O. Box 12215, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 

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

In this final rule, DOE incorporates 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 industryaccepted 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 

final rule includes the same references 

in the 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. 

In this final rule, DOE adds a new 

section 0 (Incorporation by Reference) to 

appendix J2 listing the applicable 

sections of the incorporated test 

standard and specifying that in cases in 

which there is a conflict, the language 

of the DOE test procedure takes 

precedence over the referenced test 

standards. DOE also includes a similar 

section 0 in appendix J. This approach 

is consistent with the approach taken by 

DOE in other recent consumer product 

test procedure amendments (see, for 

example, test procedure final rules for 

consumer clothes dryers (October 8, 

2021; 86 FR 56608) and water closets 

and urinals (March 23, 2022; 87 FR 

16375)). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

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, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 13, 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 May 13, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends 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 paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 

introductory text, (a)(2)(ii) introductory 

text, 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 paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory 

text 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), then 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 of a 

tested unit is higher than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model but the 

difference between the measured and 

certified RMC values would not affect 

the unit’s compliance with the 

applicable standards, then the measured 

RMC value will be considered the tested 

unit’s final RMC value. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33380 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(C) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is higher than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model and the 

difference between the measured and 

certified RMC values would affect the 

unit’s compliance with the applicable 

standards, then: 

(1) If DOE used the same test cloth lot 

that was used by the manufacturer for 

testing and certifying the basic model, 

then the measured RMC value will be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value. 

(2) If DOE used a different test cloth 

lot than was used by the manufacturer 

for testing and certifying the basic 

model, then: 

(i) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is higher than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model by more 

than three RMC percentage points, then 

a value three RMC percentage points 

less than the measured RMC value will 

be considered the tested unit’s final 

RMC value. 

(ii) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is higher than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model, but by 

no more than three RMC percentage 

points, then the certified RMC value of 

the basic model will 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), then 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 measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is higher than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model but by no 

more than two RMC percentage points 

and the difference between the 

measured and certified RMC values 

would not affect the unit’s compliance 

with the applicable standards, then the 

measured RMC value will be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value. 

(D) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is higher than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model but by no 

more than two RMC percentage points 

and the difference between the 

measured and certified RMC values 

would affect the unit’s compliance with 

the applicable standards, then: 

(1) If DOE used the same test cloth lot 

that was used by the manufacturer for 

testing and certifying the basic model, 

then the measured RMC value will be 

considered the tested unit’s final RMC 

value. 

(2) If DOE used a different test cloth 

lot than was used by the manufacturer 

for testing and certifying the basic 

model, then the certified RMC value of 

the basic model would be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value. 

(E) If the measured RMC value of a 

tested unit is higher than the certified 

RMC value of the basic model by more 

than two RMC percentage points, then 

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, then 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 

but the difference between the measured 

and certified RMC values would not 

affect the unit’s compliance with the 

applicable standards, then the average 

RMC value will be considered the tested 

unit’s final RMC value. 

(3) If the average of the three RMC 

measurements is higher than the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

and the difference between the 

measured and certified RMC values 

would affect the unit’s compliance with 

the applicable standards, then DOE will 

apply paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(F) of this 

section. 

(F) If the average of the three RMC 

measurements is higher than the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

and the difference between the 

measured and certified RMC values 

would affect the unit’s compliance with 

the applicable standards, then: 

(1) If DOE used the same test cloth lot 

that was used by the manufacturer for 

testing and certifying the basic model, 

then the average RMC pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(E) of this section 

will be considered the tested unit’s final 

RMC value. 

(2) If DOE used a different test cloth 

lot than was used by the manufacturer 

for testing and certifying the basic 

model, then: 

(i) If the average RMC value pursuant 

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

is higher than the certified valued of the 

basic model by more than three RMC 

percentage points, then a value three 

RMC percentage points less than the 

average RMC value will be considered 

the tested unit’s final RMC value. 

(ii) If the average RMC value pursuant 

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

is higher than the certified RMC value 

of the basic model, but by no more than 

three RMC percentage points, then the 

certified RMC value of the basic model 

will 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. 

§ 430.3 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 430.3 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), 

remove the text ‘‘J2’’ and add, in its 

place, the text ‘‘J3’’ wherever it appears; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (o)(6), remove the text 

‘‘J2’’ and add, in its place, the text ‘‘J, 

J2’’. 

■ 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 a new 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 a new 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33381 

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 paragraph 

(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 

to the nearest 0.01 pound per kilowatthour 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 

to the nearest 0.01 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 

application of appendix J or appendix 

J2, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Add Appendix J to subpart B of part 

430 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, 

2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. 

Specifically, before November 28, 2022 

representations must be based upon results 

generated either under Appendix J2 as 

codified on July 1, 2022 or under Appendix 

J2 as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200– 

499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. 

Any representations made on or after 

November 28, 2022 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 July 1, 2022. 

Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under this appendix 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, 2022. 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., this appendix or Appendix 

J2) when determining compliance with the 

relevant standard. Manufacturers may also 

use this appendix to certify compliance with 

any amended standards prior to the 

applicable compliance date for those 

standards. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 430.3, 

the entire test standard for IEC 62301. 

However, only enumerated provisions of this 

standard are applicable to this appendix, as 

follows. In cases in which there is a conflict, 

the language of the test procedure in this 

appendix takes precedence over the 

referenced test standard. 

0.1 IEC 62301: 

(a) Section 4.2 as referenced in section 2.4 

of this appendix; 

(b) Section 4.3.2 as referenced in section 

2.1.2 of this appendix; 

(c) Section 4.4 as referenced in section 

2.5.3 of this appendix; 

(d) Section 5.1 as referenced in section 

3.5.2 of this appendix; 

(e) Section 5.2 as referenced in section 

2.10.2 of this appendix; and 

(f) Section 5.3.2 as referenced in section 

3.5.3 of this appendix. 

0.2 [Reserved] 

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. 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33382 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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. 

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. 

Non-user-adjustable adaptive water fill 

control system means a clothes washer 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. 

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 adaptive water fill control 

system means a 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 

active washing mode, 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 active 

washing mode. 

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 

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. 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), targeting the midpoint of the 

range. Maintain the temperature of the cold 

water supply at the water inlets between 

55 °F (12.8 °C) and 60 °F (15.6 °C), targeting 

the midpoint of the range. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33383 

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. Record the bone-dry weight for 

each test load. 

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 the first cycle of the test, and 

dried to a maximum of 104 percent of bonedry weight for subsequent testing. 

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. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.000</GPH>
33384 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.001</GPH> ER01JN22.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33385 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.003</GPH>
33386 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33387 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.005</GPH>
33388 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33389 

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. The water 

fill level settings depend on the clothes 

washer’s water fill control system, as 

determined in Table 3.2.3. 

TABLE 3.2.3—CLOTHES WASHER WATER FILL CONTROL SETTINGS

Settings are 

user-adjustable 

Settings are not 

user-adjustable 

Water fill level unaffected by the size or weight of the clothing load ..... Manual water fill ............................ Fixed water fill. 

Water fill level is determined automatically by the clothes washer 

based on the size and weight of the clothing load.

User-adjustable adaptive water fill Non-user-adjustable adaptive 

water fill. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.007</GPH> ER01JN22.008</GPH>
33390 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

3.2.3.1 Clothes washers with a 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 a fixed water 

fill control system. The water level is 

automatically determined by the water fill 

control system. 

3.2.3.3 Clothes washers with a useradjustable adaptive water fill control system. 

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. 

3.2.3.4 Clothes washers with a non-useradjustable adaptive water fill control system. 

The water level is automatically determined 

by the water fill control system. 

3.2.3.5 Clothes washers with multiple 

water fill control systems. If a clothes washer 

allows user selection among multiple water 

fill control systems, test all water fill control 

systems and, for each one, 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 tested values (one 

from each water fill control system) for each 

variable (HET, MET, DET, and QT) 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. Assign the bone-dry 

weight according to the value measured in 

section 2.8 of this appendix. 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. 

Assign the bone-dry weight according to the 

value measured in section 2.8 of this 

appendix. 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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33391 

TABLE 3.4.1—SYMBOL DEFINITIONS OF MEASURED VALUES FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC CLOTHES WASHER TEST CYCLES— 

Continued 

Temperature selection Load size Bone-dry 

weight Hot water Cold water Electrical energy Cycle time 

Cycle 

complete 

weight 

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. 

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, 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33392 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

H/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: 

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: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33393 

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: 

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¥2%) × (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) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33394 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33395 

TABLE 5.1—TEST LOAD SIZES—Continued 

Container volume Small load Large load 

cu. ft. liter 

lb kg lb kg 

≥ < ≥ < 

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). 

Appendix J1 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 9. Remove and reserve 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; 

■ b. Adding section 0; 

■ c. Revising section 1; 

■ d. Revising the heading for section 2; 

■ e. Revising section 2.2; 

■ f. Adding sections 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2; 

■ g. Revising sections 2.5.5, 2.7 and 

2.12; 

■ h. 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; 

■ i. Removing ‘‘energy stuffer clothes’’ 

and adding in its place, ‘‘energy stuffer 

cloths’’ in section 2.8; 

■ j. Revising section 3.2.5; 

■ k. Adding sections 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2; 

■ l. Revising sections 3.2.6.2.2, 3.2.7 

and 3.2.9; 

■ m. Revising sections 3.3 and 3.6; 

■ n. In sections 3.8.2.6, 3.8.3.2, and 

3.8.3.4 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’’; 

■ o. Removing section 4.2.12; 

■ p. Redesignating section 4.2.13 as 

4.2.12; 

■ q. Removing ‘‘MEF’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘MEFJ2’’ in all instances in section 

4.5; 

■ r. Revising Table 5.1; and 

■ s. 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 this appendix 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, 

2022 edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. 

Specifically, before November 28, 2022 

representations must be based upon results 

generated either under this appendix as 

codified on July 1, 2022 or under this 

appendix as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 

200–499 edition revised as of January 1, 

2022. Any representations made on or after 

November 28, 2022 but before the 

compliance date of any amended standards 

for clothes washers must be made based 

upon results generated using this appendix 

as codified on July 1, 2022. 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, 

2022. 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 this 

appendix) 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. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 430.3, 

the entire test standard for IEC 62301. 

However, only enumerated provisions of this 

standard are applicable to this appendix, as 

follows. In cases in which there is a conflict, 

the language of the test procedure in this 

appendix takes precedence over the 

referenced test standard. 

0.1 IEC 62301: 

(a) Section 4.2 as referenced in section 2.4 

of this appendix; 

(b) Section 4.3.2 as referenced in section 

2.1.2 of this appendix; 

(c) Section 4.4 as referenced in section 

2.5.3 of this appendix; 

(d) Section 5.1 as referenced in section 

3.9.2 of this appendix; 

(e) Section 5.2 as referenced in section 2.10 

of this appendix; and 

(f) Section 5.3.2 as referenced in section 

3.9.3 of this appendix. 

0.2 [Reserved] 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33396 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 

MEFJ2 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. 

(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 adaptive water fill control 

system means a 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 

active washing mode, 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 active 

washing mode. 

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), targeting the midpoint of the 

range. Maintain the temperature of the cold 

water supply at the water inlets between 

55 °F (12.8 °C) and 60 °F (15.6 °C), targeting 

the midpoint of the range. 

* * * * * 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33397 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.009</GPH>
33398 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33399 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.011</GPH>
33400 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33401 

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 adaptive. 

Conduct four tests on clothes washers with 

user-adjustable adaptive water fill controls. 

Conduct the first test using the maximum test 

load and with the adaptive 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 adaptive 

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 

adaptive 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 adaptive 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER01JN22.013</GPH>
33402 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33403 

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 x 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
33404 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

10 ± 1⁄4 inches (25.4 ± 0.6 cm by 25.4 ± 0.6 

cm) before washing. 

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 washrinse-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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33405 

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 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

4 min. spin 

(percent) 

15 min. spin 

(percent) 

15 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 (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 

(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 

(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 must be used to determine 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standards at § 431.156(b). 

[FR Doc. 2022–10715 Filed 5–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2