Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers

Federal RegisterJun 1, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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 Weighted-Average 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

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”),

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

of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These products include RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) Title III, Part C

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.

All 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.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

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))

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

and IEC Standard 62087

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

EPCA does not contain an analogous provision for commercial equipment.

IEC 62301,

Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power

(Edition 2.0, 2011-01).

IEC 62087,

Audio, video and related equipment—Methods of measurement for power consumption

(Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015, Part 7: 2018).

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.

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.

Id.

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.

DOE most recently amended both appendix J1 and appendix J2 in a final rule published on August 5, 2015. 80 FR 46729 (“August 2015 Final Rule”). The August 2015 Final Rule also moved the test cloth qualification procedures from appendix J1 and appendix J2 to the newly created appendix J3. 80 FR 46729, 46735. The current version of the test procedure at appendix J2 includes provisions for determining modified energy factor (“MEF

”)

and integrated modified energy factor (“IMEF”) in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (“ft

/kWh/cycle”); and water factor (“WF”) and integrated water factor (“IWF”) in gallons per cycle per cubic feet (“gal/cycle/ft

”). 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 MEF

and IWF, determined using appendix J2. 10 CFR 431.154 and 10 CFR 431.156(b).

The 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 “MEF

” 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.

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 MEF

); 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 front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes. 85 FR 81359 (“December 2020 Final Rule”). DOE re-evaluated 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,

on October 28, 2021, DOE published a notice (“October 2021 Notice”) extending the comment period until November 29, 2021. 86 FR 59652.

Request from Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020) available at

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020.

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

Individual.

John Oeisratnas

Oeisratnas

Individual.

Kenneth Warren

Warren

Individual.

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.

The 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).

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 (“ft

”);

(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.

The new appendix J will include the following additional provisions beyond the amendments to appendix J2:

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.

(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.

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

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 ft

Specifies the test load sizes for clothes container capacities up to 8.0 ft

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-of-balance 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-of-balance 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 ft

Specifies the test load sizes for clothes container capacities up to 8.0 ft

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.

Defines load sizes for each 0.1 ft

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

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.

Response to test laboratory question.

Does not explicitly state how to test semi-automatic clothes washers

Provides explicit test provisions for testing semi-automatic clothes washers

Provide further direction for unaddressed feature.

Does not explicitly address the required configuration for network-connected functionality

Improve reproducibility of test results.

Defines metrics that are based on clothes container capacity (IMEF, MEF

, 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.

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 pre-NOPR 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

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

(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,

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.

)

AHAM'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.

Available at

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011-0020.

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”).

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

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.

See, 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-BT-STD-0014-0030.

DOE uses the term “baseline” to refer to performance that is minimally compliant with the applicable standard.

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

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 soft-mount top-loading clothes washer that—

(A) Has a clothes container compartment that—

(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and

(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic feet; and

(B) Is designed for use in—

(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common areas and coin laundries; or

(ii) Other commercial applications.

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

DOE is not changing the scope of 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

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) Semi-automatic 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).

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.

As noted, some models may provide or accommodate a Y-shaped hose to connect the separate cold and hot water faucets or supply lines.

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 semi-automatic 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

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.

Measured 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.

For single-inlet

automatic

clothes washers, in the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that all single-inlet automatic clothes washers be

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 single-inlet 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 semi-automatic 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,

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.

For example, water-heating clothes washers or clothes washers with thermostatically controlled water valves.

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”)

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.

Lutz, 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.

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,

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.

Using instead a nominal hot water supply temperature of 125 °F, the same test cycle would similarly use 20 gallons of externally-heated 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,

and the internal water heater would be expected to use around 0.48 kWh,

for a total of 3.6 kWh (matching the first scenario).

Calculated 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.

Calculated as 20 gal × 65 °F temperature rise × 0.0024 kWh/gal/°F.

Calculated as 20 gal × 10 °F temperature rise × 0.0024 kWh/gal/°F × 100% assumed efficiency.

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

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

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.

Section 1.25 of appendix J2 defines the Normal cycle as the cycle recommended by the manufacturer (considering manufacturer instructions, control panel labeling, and other markings on the clothes washer) for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing. For machines where multiple cycle settings are recommended by the manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing, then the Normal cycle is the cycle selection that results in the lowest IMEF or MEF

value.

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 Extra-Hot 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

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,

there should be no issue identifying when such an Extra-Hot water temperature threshold (

e.g.,

142 °F or 143 °F) is reached. (

Id.

)

See discussion of wash temperature measurements in section III.C.4 of this document.

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 non-reversible temperature indicator labels in new section 2.5.4.1, and adding specifications for the use of submersible temperature loggers to new section 2.5.4.2 of both appendix J2 and the proposed new appendix J. 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 pre-conditioning. The current preconditioning procedure requires that any clothes washer that has not been

filled with water in the preceding 96 hours, or any water-heating clothes washer that has not been in the test room at the specified ambient conditions for 8 hours, must be preconditioned by running it through a Cold Rinse cycle and then draining it to ensure that the hose, pump, and sump are filled with water. The purpose of pre-conditioning is to promote repeatability and reproducibility of test results by ensuring a consistent starting state for each test, as well as to promote the representativeness of test results by ensuring that the clothes washer is operated consistent with the defined ambient conditions. In particular, the additional specification for water-heating 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 third-party test laboratories cannot necessarily identify whether a unit is a water-heating clothes washer or not, DOE proposed 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-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-water-heating, 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 ft

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 ft

); 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 ft

. On May 2, 2016 and April 10, 2017, DOE granted waivers to Whirlpool and Samsung, respectively, for testing RCWs

with capacities between 6.0 and 8.0 ft

, 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).

As 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))

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 ft

. 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

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 ft

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 ft

. (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 ft

. 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 ft

and 2.8 ft

clothes washers, which represented typical clothes washer capacities at the time (“1995 P&G data”).

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.

The full data set presented by AHAM is available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-TP-0065-0027

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”).

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 market-weighted average capacity of 3.5 ft

Id.

NEEA stated, however, that the market-weighted average capacity as of 2019 has increased to 4.4 ft

, for which appendix J2 defines an average load size of 10.4 lb.

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.

Hannas, 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

NEEA's estimate of 4.4 ft

average capacity in 2019 is based on NEEA's 2019 ENERGY STAR Retail Products Platform data.

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 ft

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 ft

in 2010 to 4.4 ft

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 weighted-average 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”)

of 0.5.

LUFs 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.

Specifically, DOE proposed to calculate the “small” and “large” load sizes using Equation III.1 and Equation III.2, respectively. 86 FR 49140, 49158.

ER01JN22.014

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 ft

) are much smaller than the current market average of 4.4 ft

, 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 ft

. (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 ft

and “large” 2.8 ft

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 ft

, the average clothes washer on the market today uses a weighted-average 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

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 ft

, clothes washers with capacities between 4.0 and 5.0 ft

, and clothes washers with capacities greater than 5.0 ft

. (

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 ft

, 8.34 lb for clothes washers between 4.0 and 5.0 ft

, and 7.17 for clothes washers larger than 5.0 ft

. (

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 ft

, 10.28 lb for clothes washers between 4.0 and 5.0 ft

, and 12.28 for clothes washers larger than 5.0 ft

. (

Id.

)

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.

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 ft

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 ft

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”

(“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

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.

)

Foster 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-clean-revealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers.

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 ft

), 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 ft

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

minimum and maximum load sizes specified in appendix J2.

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)

As 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.

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.

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.

DOE assumes that the maximum load size defined in appendix J2 represents 100 percent full capacity.

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 non-user-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 user-adjustable 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

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

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.

As 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 energy-intensive result) to reflect the original intent of this provision.

For clothes washers with non-user-adjustable 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 user-adjustable 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 the25-, 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

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.

As 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.

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

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 then-current 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

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.

The final RMC is the weighted average of the maximum and minimum spin settings, with the maximum spin setting weighted at 75 percent and the minimum spin setting weighted at 25 percent. The RMC measurement is used to calculate the drying energy component of IMEF. On most clothes washers, the drying energy component represents the largest portion of energy captured in the MEF

and IMEF metrics.

The term “spin settings” refers to spin times or spin speeds. The maximum spin setting results in a lower (better) RMC.

On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse option, appendix J2 requires that RMC be measured on both Cold Rinse and Warm Rinse, with the final RMC calculated as a weighted average using 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.

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

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”)

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.

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.

As 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.

37 percent is the TUF for the Cold/Cold temperature selection as specified in Table 4.1.1 of appendix J2.

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.

(

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.

)

The 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.

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,

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”) En

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.