Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers and Reporting Requirements for Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers, and Dishwashers
Federal RegisterAug 27, 1997
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A]
RIN 1904-AA68
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure
for Clothes Washers and Reporting Requirements for Clothes Washers,
Clothes Dryers, and Dishwashers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Department of Energy clothes washer test
procedure to test for compliance with the existing energy conservation
standard. It also establishes a new clothes washer test procedure which
will be used to analyze, and will apply to, anticipated revisions to
the existing clothes washer energy conservation standards. This rule
also modifies reporting requirements for clothes washers, clothes
dryers, and dishwashers, requiring manufacturers and private labelers
to submit energy factor data on their certification reports to the
Department.
DATES: This rule is effective February 23, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the transcripts of the public hearings and the
public comments received on any of the proposed rules, may be read and
photocopied at the Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading
Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-6020 between
the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Berringer and P. Marc LaFrance, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43, Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121,
(202) 586-0371.
Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Discussion
A. Clothes Washer Test Procedures--Issues Related to Both
Appendices J and J1
1. Adaptive Water Fill Control System
2. Electrical Supply Requirements
3. Field Testing
4. Remaining Moisture Content
a. Energy Required to Remove Moisture from the Test Load
b. Spin Speed and Spin Time
c. Test Load Size for RMC
5. Thermostatically Controlled Water Valves
6. Water Consumption Factor
B. Clothes Washer Test Procedures--Issues Related to Appendix J
1. Agitator and Spin Speed Settings
2. Capacity Measurement
3. Modified Energy Factor Definition
4. Other Issues
5. Temperature Measuring (Sensing) Device
6. Temperature Selections
a. Multiple Warm Wash Temperatures
b. Temperature Selection(s) Locked Out of the Normal Cycle
7. Water-Heating Clothes Washers
8. Weighing Scales for Test Cloth and Clothes Container
C. Clothes Washer Test Procedures--Issues Related to Appendix J1
1. Capacity Measurement
2. Consumer Selectable Options for the Energy Test Cycle
3. Energy Test Cloth
4. Energy Test Cycle Definition
5. Other Issues
6. Supply Water Temperature
7. Test Load Tolerances
8. Warm Wash Temperature Selections
9. Warm Rinse
D. Related Issues, Revision to 10 CFR 430.23, ``Test procedures
for measures of energy consumption.''
E. Reporting Requirements, Revision to 10 CFR 430.62,
``Submission of data.''
F. Effective Date
IV. Determination Concerning the Impact of the Amended Test
Procedures on Standards
V. Procedural Requirements
A. Environmental Review
B. Regulatory Planning and Review
C. Federalism Review
D. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
E. Paperwork Reduction Act Review
F. Unfunded Mandates Act.
G. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
I. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996
I. Introduction
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act as
amended (EPCA), establishes the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles (Program).1 The
products currently subject to this Program (often referred to
hereinafter as ``covered products'') include clothes washers, clothes
dryers and dishwashers, the subjects of today's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Part B of Title III of EPCA, as amended, is referred to in
this final rule as the ``Act'' and provisions of the Act are
referred to either as ``Section__of the Act.'' Part B of Title III
is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Act, the Program consists essentially of three parts:
testing, labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. The
Department, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST, formerly the National Bureau of Standards), is
required to establish new test procedures or amend existing test
procedures, as appropriate, for each of the covered products. EPCA,
section 323. The purposes of the test procedures are to provide uniform
methods that generally must be used as the basis for any
representations concerning the energy consumption of a product, and for
determining whether the product complies with the applicable energy
conservation standard. See EPCA, sections 323(c), 324(c), and 325(s).
Test procedures appear at 10 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 430,
Subpart B.
A test procedure promulgated under section 323 of the Act must be
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of shower heads,
faucets, water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or
period of use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. EPCA,
section 323(b)(3). A test procedure is not required if DOE determines
by rule that one cannot be developed. EPCA, section 323(d)(1). One
hundred and eighty days after a test procedure for a product is
adopted, no manufacturer may make representations with respect to
energy use, efficiency or water use of such product, or the cost of
energy consumed by such product, except as reflected in tests conducted
according to the DOE procedure. EPCA, section 323(c)(2). This 180-day
period may be extended for up to an additional 180 days if the
Secretary determines that the requirements of section 323(c)(2) would
impose undue burden. EPCA, section 323(c)(3).
Section 323(e) of the Act requires DOE to determine to what extent,
if any, a proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy
efficiency, measured energy use or measured water use of any covered
product as
[[Page 45485]]
determined under the existing test procedure. If DOE determines that an
amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency or measured
use of a covered product, DOE is required to amend the applicable
energy conservation standard accordingly. EPCA, section 323(e)(2).
II. Background
Today's final rule reflects the Department's consideration of
several proposed rules issued since December 1993 concerning DOE
clothes washer test procedures, and of the public comment and testimony
received in response to those proposals. The Department's action
consolidates the issues pertaining to these proposals and reflects the
most recent data submitted by clothes washer manufacturers.
The initial proposal, published on December 22, 1993, proposed to
amend the clothes washer test procedure to address temperature
selections that are locked out of the normal cycle (formerly Docket
Number EE-RM-93-701). 58 FR 67710 (December 22, 1993) (hereinafter
referred to as the December 1993 proposed rule). A public hearing was
held on February 24, 1994.
The Department proposed the following approach for a clothes washer
equipped with this feature: for each temperature combination in the
normal cycle from which a temperature selection is locked out, hot
water consumption would be prorated between the temperature combination
in that cycle and the corresponding temperature combination in the
cycle with the greatest hot water consumption. The unknown factor in
the calculation was the frequency with which users would choose the
normal versus other cycles for a particular temperature combination
selection, i.e., the proration value. As stated in the December 1993
proposed rule, clothes washers equipped with a temperature selection
``lockout'' design feature had not been available previously in the
marketplace. Therefore, no data regarding the effect of this feature on
consumer cycle selection were available. The Department proposed a
proration value representative of normal cycle use for all clothes
washers (normal cycle would be selected 75 percent of the time). Many
of the commenters objected to the proposed value.
Following review of the comments, on May 24, 1995, the Department
revised the proposal, specifically requesting usage data for clothes
washers with ``lockouts,'' and, absent receipt of valid usage data,
proposing to reduce the proration value (normal cycle would be used 20
percent). 60 FR 27441 (May 24, 1995) (hereinafter referred to as the
May 1995 proposed rule). The Department received data from the
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and comments from White Consolidated
Industries Inc. (White Consolidated), Maytag Corporation (Maytag), and
Whirlpool.
On March 23, 1995, the Department published another proposed rule
to amend the clothes washer test procedure (former Docket Number EE-RM-
94-230). 60 FR 15330 (hereinafter referred to as the March 1995
proposed rule). This proposal addressed: innovative technologies (high
spin speed and adaptive (automatic) water fill control); water heating
clothes washers; annual number of clothes washer cycles; and other
general revisions.
The March 1995 proposed rule also proposed the reporting of energy
factor data on manufacturer certification reports for clothes washers,
clothes dryers and dishwashers. On July 12, 1995, a hearing on the
proposed rule was held in Washington, DC. The Department received
comments from 10 interested parties: the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM), General Electric Appliances (GEA), Eugene Water
and Electric Board (EWEB), Miele Appliance Inc. (Miele), Proctor and
Gamble (P&G), Maytag, Speed Queen Company (Speed Queen), Clorox Company
(Clorox), American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), and
Whirlpool.
The Department believes that the existing test procedure, Appendix
J, overstates the average annual energy consumption for clothes washers
because of changes in consumer habits since the current test procedure
was adopted.2 The Department had planned on initiating a
subsequent clothes washer test procedure rulemaking, at a later date,
which would take into account current consumer habits, and would be
used as the basis for considering revision of the clothes washer energy
conservation standards.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Proctor & Gamble data indicates a decrease in the use of hot
water.
\3\ The second round of clothes washer standards rulemaking was
initiated by the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANOPR). (59 FR 56423, November 14, 1994.) The Department
has initiated the process for issuing a Supplemental ANOPR, having
conducted an initial workshop in November 1996, with another
workshop scheduled for July 23, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments on the March 1995 proposed rule, however, AHAM
included and requested that DOE adopt an additional new test procedure,
based on current consumer habits, which would be used in considering
revision of the clothes washer energy conservation standards, and would
take effect when new standards take effect. On April 22, 1996, the
Department proposed such a new clothes washer test procedure, Appendix
J1, as well as certain additional revisions to the currently applicable
test procedure in Appendix J to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 61 FR
17589 (hereinafter referred to as the supplemental proposed rule).
Appendix J1 would be codified in the CFR for informational purposes,
would be used in the analysis and review of revised efficiency
standards, and would replace Appendix J upon the effective date of such
revised standards. The revised Appendix J would be a revision of the
current test procedure, consistent with the existing standards, and
would become effective 180 days after issuance of the final rule.
In response to the supplemental proposed rule, the Department
received comments from 11 interested parties: The Consortium for Energy
Efficiency (CEE), National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Miele,
Frigidaire Company (Frigidaire), Lever Brothers Company (Lever), AHAM,
Maytag, Raytheon Appliances (Raytheon), Whirlpool, Fisher and Paykel
Limited (Fisher and Paykel), and White Consolidated.
Since publication of the March 1995 proposed rule, several new
issues emerged that were neither covered by the existing clothes washer
test procedure contained in Appendix J nor addressed in the
supplemental proposed rule. These issues arose in the context of
interim waivers from the clothes washer test procedure, granted by DOE
with respect to clothes washer features not covered by the current test
procedure. Specifically, the Department granted GEA Interim Waivers for
its clothes washers with unique adaptive water fill control and
temperature selection features. 61 FR 18129 (April 6, 1996) and 61 FR
47115 (September 6, 1996).
Therefore, on November 8, 1996, the Department issued a notice to
reopen the comment period to invite comment on options the Department
was considering to address issues raised by these waiver applications.
61 FR 57794 (hereinafter referred to as the reopening notice rule). In
response to the reopening notice, DOE received two comments, from
Fisher and Paykel, and AHAM.
[[Page 45486]]
III. Discussion
A. Clothes Washer Test Procedures--Issues Related to Both Appendices J
and J1
1. Adaptive Water Fill Control System
An adaptive water fill control system (AWFCS) in a clothes washer
is a control scheme which determines automatically, without operator
intervention, the amount of water used to wash a particular load of
clothing, based on the size or weight of that clothing load. The
existing test procedure provides only for testing machines with manual
fill controls. In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed
to amend Appendix J to include test provisions for a clothes washer
that had an AWFCS 4 instead of manual controls. In the
reopening notice, the Department also proposed to include test
provisions for clothes washers that had both adaptive and manual water
fill control capability, as well as test provisions for clothes washers
with multiple AWFCS settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the March 1995 proposed rule, the terminology used for
this feature was ``machine-controlled water fill,'' although the
Department is adopting language used in the supplemental proposed
rule, ``adaptive water fill control system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department proposed
provisions for clothes washers with AWFCS features. Appendix J1
requires testing with maximum, average, and minimum size test loads,
whereas the proposed Appendix J requires testing with only maximum and
minimum size test loads. Appendices J and J1 specify different load
usage factors (used to prorate energy results from various tests) for
the different size loads. In addition, Appendix J1 has a new test load
table with variable size loads based on clothes washer capacity, which
are generally larger than the Appendix J fixed size test loads.
AWFCS Provisions for Appendix J
In response to the March 1995 proposed rule, Speed Queen commented
that it supports the Department's proposal and rejects the adoption of
AHAM's future AWFCS provisions (subsequently proposed for Appendix J1)
for Appendix J. (Speed Queen, No. 29 at 3, Docket 230).5 GEA
cautioned the Department not to adopt any AWFCS provisions for Appendix
J because ``adverse competitive impact is simply too great if notice
through the waiver procedure is not available.'' (GEA, No. 36 at 3,
Docket 230). Whirlpool supported incorporation into Appendix J of
AHAM's proposed test provisions concerning AWFCS. The company stated
that ``the AHAM proposed procedure will provide a usage that more
closely approximates the consumer use habits, and since there are not
currently any vertical-axis product[s] that utilize AFC [automatic fill
control] and horizontal-axis product is not required to meet a specific
energy standard, this would not require a new standard to be
established.'' (Whirlpool, No. 37 at 3, Docket 230).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Comments have been assigned to docket numbers and have been
numbered consecutively. A Comment in response to the May 1995
proposed rule, Docket number EE-RM-93-701, will have its appropriate
number followed by ``Docket 701'', a comment in response to the
March 1995 proposed rule, Docket number EE-RM-94-230, will have its
appropriate number followed by ``Docket 230'', and a comment in
response to the supplemental proposed rule or reopening notice,
Docket number EE-RM-94-230A, will have its appropriate number
followed by ``Docket 230A.'' Statements that were presented at the
July 12, 1995, public hearing are identified as Testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department rejects GEA's argument not to promulgate AWFCS test
provisions in Appendix J. The Department has the responsibility to
provide codified test provisions for issues that have been addressed
previously by waivers. At the time of the March 1995 proposed rule, the
Department had already granted a waiver to Asko Incorporated (Asko) for
its clothes washers with AWFCS capability. 59 FR 15710 (April 4, 1994).
Since the publication of the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department
has granted a Waiver to Miele and an Interim Waiver to GEA for their
clothes washers with AWFCS capability. 61 FR 11201 (March 19, 1996) and
61 FR 18125 (April 24, 1996).
The Department believes that the Appendix J1 AWFCS test provisions,
which specify a new test load table based on current consumer habits,
will provide more accurate results for clothes washers equipped with
AWFCS. In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department requested
additional information regarding the possible adoption of the proposed
Appendix J1 test load table for Appendix J. If adopted, the test load
table would have been applicable only to front-loader and top-loader
clothes washers with AWFCS capability. The Department received an
overwhelming negative response to this suggestion. Miele, AHAM, Maytag,
Raytheon and White Consolidated opposed the use of the Appendix J1 test
load table for any testing other than Remaining Moisture Content (RMC)
testing (which is voluntary for Appendix J) because of test burden
concerns and disparity of test results between front-loader and
traditional top-loader clothes washers. (Miele, No. 4 at 1; AHAM, No. 7
at 1, 4, 5; Maytag, No. 8 at 3; Raytheon, No. 9 at 4; and White
Consolidated, No. 11 at 1, 2 and No. 12 at 1, all Docket 230A). In
response to the supplemental proposed rule, the Department did not
receive any comments supporting the adoption, other than for RMC
testing, of the new test load table for Appendix J.
The Department believes that the promulgation of the March 1995
proposed rule AWFCS test provisions, which use test loads that do not
reflect current consumer usage habits, most likely will provide an
artificial credit for clothes washers with AWFCS capability. The
Department also believes, however, that the artificial credit, or
reduced energy consumption rating, will be offset by the Appendix J's
current overstating of energy consumption. Consequently, the rating
depicted to consumers for AWFCS clothes washers generally will be
representative of the actual energy consumption. Therefore, the
Department is maintaining the test load requirements for energy
consumption testing as proposed in the March 1995 proposed rule.
In the reopening notice, with regard to clothes washers with
multiple AWFCS settings, 6 the Department proposed test
provisions to average the results from the most and least energy
intensive settings. AHAM commented that it supported the Department's
proposal. (AHAM, No. 19 at 1, Docket 230A). Fisher and Paykel commented
that this proposal would add test burden but indicated that it had no
alternative. (Fisher and Paykel, No.22 at 3, Docket 230A). Based on the
comments received, DOE has determined that for clothes washers with
multiple AWFCS settings the test provisions proposed in the reopening
notice are appropriate. Therefore they are incorporated into today's
final rule for Appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Multiple AWFCS settings allow a consumer to adjust the
``sensitivity'' of the AWFCS feature so as to permit different
amounts of water for a given load of clothing and corresponding
different amounts of energy consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWFCS Provisions for Both Appendices J and J1
In the reopening notice, with regard to a clothes washer that had
both AWFCS and manual water fill control, 7 the Department
proposed requirements to test both features and to average the results.
AHAM comment supported the Department's proposal. (AHAM, No. 19 at 1,
Docket 230A). Fisher and Paykel stated that it believed the AWFCS
[[Page 45487]]
feature would be used more frequently than the manual mode. Fisher and
Paykel added, however, that it has no data concerning use of the AWFCS
feature in the U.S. (Fisher and Paykel, No. 22 at 3, Docket 230A). The
Department had proposed the same testing and averaging requirements for
Appendix J1 in the supplemental proposed rule and received no negative
comments. Based on all of these factors, the test provisions proposed
for clothes washers with both AWFCS and manual water fill control are
incorporated into today's final rule for Appendices J and J1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In Appendix J, two types of manual fill control are defined,
``sensor filled'' and ``timed filled.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher and Paykel commented that the proposed definition of
``adaptive control system'' is ambiguous and suggested that the
definition state explicitly that it does not include ``AWFCS.'' (Fisher
and Paykel, No. 16 at 1, Docket 230A). The Department agrees with
Fisher and Paykel. Therefore, the Department has adopted language for
the ``adaptive control system'' definition for Appendices J and J1 as
suggested by Fisher and Paykel. In addition, to prevent any ambiguity,
the Department has made minor revisions to the rule language where the
terms ``adaptive control system'' and ``adaptive water fill control
system'' are used.
AWFCS Provisions for Appendix J1
In the supplemental proposed rule, with regard to clothes washers
with multiple AWFCS settings, the Department proposed test provisions
to average the results from tests of the most and least energy
intensive settings. AHAM and Raytheon opposed this proposal and
suggested an alternative method to reduce test burden. (AHAM, No. 14 at
1; and Raytheon, No. 9 at 4 and No. 13 at 2; both Docket 230A).
The alternative method would require testing the most energy
intensive setting with a maximum size test load, the most and least
energy intensive settings with an average size test load, and the least
energy intensive setting with a minimum size test load. The
Department's proposal would have required testing of the most and least
energy intensive settings for the maximum, average, and minimum size
test loads. Since an average size test load would be used by consumers
most of the time (74 percent), the Department has determined that
AHAM's proposal would account for 87 percent of the energy consumption
test results (of the full compliment of tests results proposed by the
Department), while only requiring 66 percent of the number of tests. In
addition, the AHAM proposal would ensure that the combination of
settings with the lowest possible energy consumption, i.e., the lowest
energy intensive setting with a minimum size test load, and with the
highest possible energy consumption, i.e., the highest energy intensive
setting with a maximum size test load, would be tested. Therefore, the
Department is adopting the test methodology for Appendix J1 suggested
by AHAM and supported by Raytheon.
Based on AHAM's suggested test procedure, the supplemental proposed
rule also specified that additional test loads be tested if an AWFCS
clothes washer does not have linear results for average size test
loads, i.e., non-linear between the maximum and minimum size test load
results. For a clothes washer that generates non-linear test results,
additional tests would be required for ``above average'' and ``below
average'' test load sizes. AHAM, Fisher and Paykel, and Raytheon
believe that the additional testing requirements would create an
unnecessary test burden. (AHAM, No. 14 at 2, 3; Fisher and Paykel, No.
16 at 6, 10; and Raytheon, No. 13 at 2; all Docket 230A). In addition,
AHAM provided an analysis which indicates that, with a worst case non-
linear result, the change in resulting energy factor or modified energy
factor would be small, an average of some four to five percent. (AHAM,
No. 21, Docket 230A). The Department has reviewed the analysis provided
by AHAM and agrees that the additional test burden is not warranted for
the potential improvement in test accuracy. Furthermore, the worst case
scenario analyzed by AHAM does not appear to be likely, and thus actual
test result disparity would be less than four or five percent.
Therefore, Appendix J1 as promulgated today does not require testing of
``above average'' and ``below average'' test loads for AWFCS clothes
washers that generate non-linear test results.
2. Electrical Supply Requirements
The March 1995 proposed rule proposed deleting a provision in the
existing test procedures (Appendix J) that allowed turning off console
lights that did not consume more than 10 watts of power during the
clothes washer test cycle. Similarly, the supplemental proposed rule
did not propose to include such a provision in Appendix J1. Speed Queen
supported the Department's proposal to delete the provision from
Appendix J. (Speed Queen, No. 29 at 4, Docket 230). NRDC, Maytag, and
Raytheon supported the Department's proposal not to include this
provision in Appendix J1. (NRDC, No. 2 at 2; Maytag, No. 8 at 2; and
Raytheon, No. 9 at 1; all Docket 230A). Today's final rule is
consistent with the March 1995 proposed rule and supplemental proposed
rule, and excludes this provision.
3. Field Testing
In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department proposed that
both Appendices J and J1 would require manufacturers to field test a
non-conventional clothes washer (such as one with automatic control of
features other than water fill) as a basis for requesting a test
procedure waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27. The Department stated that
field test data would be used to support the petition for waiver. Both
the preamble and rule language indicate that a test procedure waiver
would be required in order to test a non-conventional clothes washer,
and the field testing proposal clearly assumes that a waiver would be
needed to test such a machine. The supplemental proposed rule would
also require field testing if a manufacturer believes that a clothes
washer with both manual and adaptive fill controls is being used by
consumers, in the adaptive mode, more than 50 percent of the time, and
seeks a waiver from the provision of the test procedure that assumes
such 50% usage. AHAM had recommended the proposed field testing
provisions for both Appendices J and J1, to provide data to support
waiver applications. (AHAM, No. 5 at 5, Docket 230).
In response to the supplemental proposed rule, AHAM commented that
the field testing requirements should be optional, not mandatory, and
recommended specific rule language revisions. (AHAM, No. 7 at 1 & 5 and
No. 14 at 4, Docket 230A). AHAM's position was supported by several
manufacturers. (Miele, No. 4 at 2; Maytag, No. 8 at 3; Fisher and
Paykel, No. 16 at 12, 13; and Raytheon, No. 9 at 3; all Docket 230A).
Neither AHAM nor the other commenters, however, questioned the need for
a waiver to establish test procedures for a non-conventional clothes
washer.
The Department agrees with AHAM and the commenting manufacturers
that the field testing provisions should not be mandatory. For a non-
conventional clothes washer such as one with an adaptive control
system, the test procedures in proposed Appendices J and J1 would
provide materially inaccurate data as to energy consumption. Therefore,
a test procedure waiver would be required. A waiver in effect creates a
new test procedure for a machine, specifying inapplicable provisions of
the required test procedure and additional
[[Page 45488]]
requirements necessary for testing or analysis of test results, thus
providing a basis for determining compliance with efficiency standards
and for making efficiency representations. The proposed field testing
was intended to support a test procedure waiver, by providing a
generally accepted method for collecting data and adjusting test
results. Although the Department continues to believe that field
testing can serve this purpose, it recognizes the possibility that a
waiver could be supported by means other than field testing, and by
field test methods other than those in the supplemental proposed rule.
Moreover, there may be instances where the proposed field testing
methods are inadequate.
Therefore, today's final rule provides that the proposed field
testing requirements are guidelines, rather than mandatory procedures
that a manufacturer must use to gather information to support each
waiver application. Although field testing should be used where
appropriate, the Department will still consider a petition for waiver
that is not based on field testing. In addition, the Department may
reject field testing results, if warranted. As in the proposed rule,
however, the final rule makes clear that a manufacturer must obtain a
test procedure waiver for non-conventional clothes washers, including
machines with adaptive control systems.
Fisher and Paykel provided additional comments regarding field
testing provisions. The company is concerned about (1) whether the
proposed rule is intended to permit field testing outside of the U.S.,
(2) the equation to correlate field testing results with laboratory
test ratings, and (3) a requirement to record the dry clothing weight
prior to washing. (Fisher and Paykel, No. 16 at 12, 13; Docket 230A).
Fisher and Paykel assumes that field testing could be performed in any
location, including outside of the U.S. The company did not comment
whether manufacturers should be required to perform field testing in
the U.S.
The Department contemplates that field testing would determine
consumer behavior relative to a particular clothes washer. Such
consumer behavior would be a basis for determining compliance with DOE
efficiency standards (and whether the clothes washer could be sold in
the U.S.) and for representations within the U.S. concerning the
machine's efficiency. Thus, consumer usage data derived in the U.S.
would be most applicable. Nevertheless, since today's rule makes field
testing provisions optional, the Department does not believe it needs
to address whether field tests should be restricted to the U.S. Field
test results, however, will be subject to competitor and Department
review as part of the Petition for Waiver process found at 10 CFR
430.27. A petitioner submitting consumer usage data derived outside of
the U.S. most likely would be expected to show that the data applies
to, and is valid for, U.S. consumer usage patterns. Therefore, today's
final rule does not add a requirement to restrict field testing to the
U.S. and is being promulgated as proposed.
Fisher and Paykel also questioned the field testing equation used
to develop an acceptable rating of a ``test'' clothes washer (section
6.1 of the supplemental proposed rule). (Fisher and Paykel, No. 16 at
13, Docket 230A). The following paragraph is an excerpt from section
6.1 of the supplemental proposed rule.
``The field test results will be used to determine the best method
to correlate the rating of the test clothes washer to the rating of the
base clothes washer. If the base clothes washer is rated at A kWh per
year, but field tests at B kWh per year, and the test clothes washer
field tests at D kWh per year, the test unit would be rated as follows:
A x (D/B)=GkWh per year''
Fisher and Paykel suggested an alternate mathematical expression which
provides the same result but ``better indicates that a ratio of the
base clothes washer \8\ laboratory and field energy measurements are
used to correct the test clothes washer field results.'' Fisher and
Paykel misunderstood the intent of the equation. The Department
maintains that the rating of the ``test'' clothes washer should be
derived by adjusting the established ``base'' clothes washer rating.
Thus, the ``base'' clothes washer rating would be multiplied by the
ratio of the field results for a ``test'' clothes washer divided by the
field results of a ``base'' clothes washer. Therefore, the Department
is promulgating the proposed mathematical expression without revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A ``base'' clothes washer refers to a machine already being
sold in commerce without the unique feature being field tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher and Paykel opposed a field testing requirement to have
consumers dry the clothing load prior to washing. According to Fisher
and Paykel, the result may affect consumer behavior, i.e., a consumer
may choose different clothes washer settings if the actual weight of
the clothing is known. The company also maintains that it is
unrealistic to have consumers dry dirty clothing, and that the
calculations do not use the dry weight of the clothing. (Fisher and
Paykel, No. 16 at 13, Docket 230A). The Department agrees with Fisher
and Paykel that it is impracticable to have consumers dry soiled
clothing in their clothes dryers prior to washing. This would waste
energy, soil the clothes dryer for future use, and may make it more
difficult to clean the clothing. Fisher and Paykel is incorrect,
however, in asserting that the dry clothing weight is not required.
Data regarding load size is useful to correlate tests in the field with
laboratory tests which use fixed test loads. In addition, the dry
clothing weight is required when a calculation is needed of the
remaining moisture content result. The Department believes that this
measurement can be obtained at the end of the clothes dryer drying
cycle. Therefore, to establish more practicable requirements, today's
final rule specifies the measurement of the dry clothing weight at the
end of the laundry process.
4. Remaining Moisture Content
The March 1995 proposed rule proposed to include an optional test
provision in Appendix J to address the moisture content of clothing at
the completion of the clothes washer cycle (referred to herein as
``remaining moisture content'' or ``RMC'' \9\). This provision included
a calculation to determine the energy required to fully dry the
clothing. AHAM recommended a revised test provision to test the RMC of
a test load for its suggested future use test procedure, and suggested
adoption of these same test provisions, on an optional basis, for
Appendix J. (AHAM, No. 5 at 3, 7 and No. 8 at 1, both Docket 230). This
was supported by Raytheon. (Raytheon, No. 29 at 2, Docket 230). The
Department accepted AHAM's recommended test provisions to address the
RMC of clothing at the completion of the clothes washer cycle, and
proposed to incorporate them into Appendix J1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ RMC represents a percentage derived by dividing the moisture
weight that is remaining in the clothing at the completion of the
clothes washer cycle by the weight of the dry clothes prior to the
clothes washing cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes these provisions are superior to the
provisions proposed in the March 1995 proposed rule, Appendix J, for
calculating the energy required to remove moisture from clothing. The
Appendix J1 approach is based on current consumer usage habits which
reflect larger loads, account for wash loads that are not dried in
clothes dryers, i.e., 16 percent of wash loads, and account for
residual moisture, i.e., 4 percent remaining in the clothing at the
completion of a typical clothes dryer cycle. Thus, DOE
[[Page 45489]]
believes the Appendix J1 test methodology is more representative of a
consumer's energy use. The provisions of Appendix J1 also provide a
means to assess the water extraction capability of a clothes washer
independent of any other descriptor, i.e., a RMC percentage value.
Accordingly, today's final rule incorporates consistent test provisions
for RMC and the energy required to remove the moisture from the
clothing for both Appendices J and J1. This includes the adoption of a
new test load table for testing RMC in Appendix J.
The Department also received comments concerning aspects of RMC
which were addressed in the supplemental proposed rule. The following
issues relate to RMC and are applicable to both Appendices J and J1.
a. Energy Required to Remove Moisture from the Test Load. The RMC
value is used to calculate the energy required to remove moisture from
the test load, ``DE''. The ``DE'' is calculated
using the maximum size test load, load adjustment factor (LAF) (P&G
ratio of maximum load size to average load size), nominal energy
required to remove moisture from clothes (assumed constant for all
clothes dryers, 0.5 kWh/lb), and the clothes dryer utilization factor
(DUF) (percentage of clothes washer loads that are dried by clothes
dryers). AHAM originally recommended a DUF of 83 percent, although P&G
calculates the DUF to be 84.4 percent.\10\ The Department stated in the
supplemental proposed rule that it planned on using 84 percent for the
DUF. Raytheon and Maytag support the Department's use of 84 percent for
the DUF. (Maytag, No. 8 at 2; and Raytheon, No. 9 at 1, both Docket
230A). Today's final rule incorporates a DUF of 84 percent for
Appendices J and J1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Comment 32 on Docket number EE-RM-94-403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Spin Speed and Spin Time. GEA expressed concern about the
possibility of manufacturers providing manually selectable options to
consumers, e.g., multiple spin speed and time selections, which would
affect the resulting RMC of consumer wash loads. GEA believes that the
Department should not use the lowest RMC level achieved in a clothes
washer for the future minimum energy conservation standard analysis or
for energy reporting, and that there should be some type of
``discounting of the RMC credit.'' According to GEA, consumers may not
always choose the setting which would result in the lowest RMC value.
(Testimony at 157). In response, the Department stated in the
supplemental proposed rule that it was considering a requirement to
average the extreme values of the multiple selections, e.g., spin
speeds and times, that are available in the energy test cycle. The
Department requested comments regarding this issue.
Several comments were received. AHAM provided a revised method to
prorate multiple consumer options affecting RMC. AHAM believes that
settings for the lowest RMC value , i.e., greatest extraction of
moisture, will be used by consumers 75 percent of the time and that the
highest RMC value will be used 25 percent of the time. This is based on
P&G usage data for delicate and permanent press cycles. (AHAM, No. 7 at
2 and No. 14 at 4, both Docket 230A). The AHAM methodology was
supported by Miele, Maytag, and Raytheon. (Miele, No. 4 at 3; Maytag,
No. 8 at 2; and Raytheon, No. 9 at 1; all Docket 230A). NRDC supports
some type of ``averaging'' to address this issue and believes the
concern ``would be mitigated'' as proposed in the supplemental proposed
rule. (NRDC, No. 2 at 2, Docket 230A). Fisher and Paykel believes that
the factory default spin speed should be used for the RMC test,
although in the absence of a factory default it supported the AHAM
methodology. (Fisher and Paykel, No. 16 at 12, Docket 230A).
White Consolidated opposed conducting the RMC test at any speed
other than the maximum spin speed because testing momie cloth (the
specified test cloth) at low spin speeds does not reflect actual
consumer usage. White Consolidated also indicated that mismatching the
wash cycle, load size, and load type can produce RMC measurements that
miss ``real world'' results by as much as 35 percent. (White
Consolidated, No. 12 at 1, 2, Docket 230A).
The Department believes that some consumers will choose spin speed
and spin duration options which achieve RMC values above the lowest
attainable in the energy test cycle, although consumer usage habits are
not known. For this reason, the Department proposed to require
averaging the lowest and highest RMC values. Almost all the commenters
advocated a proration of 75 percent for the lowest RMC value and 25
percent for the highest RMC value. These values are based on the use of
the delicate and permanent press cycles. Use of these cycles may not
correlate exactly to the use of optional spin speed and spin duration
selections in the energy test cycle. This approach, however, seems
reasonable because consumers who wash less durable articles of clothing
in the energy test cycle to prevent possible fabric damage probably
will refrain from extracting the maximum amount of water in the clothes
washer. There may be some merit to White Consolidated's concern that
consumer use of cycles, load size, and load type must be more
accurately gauged in order to accurately represent RMC. Until such data
is available, however, the optimum choice appears to be the use of the
75/25 percent proration based on delicate and permanent press cycle
usage. Today's final rule incorporates the 75/25 percent proration into
Appendices J and J1.
Miele expressed concern about excluding an option for no spin speed
from the minimum spin speed test requirement. Miele indicated that for
front loader clothes washers which have a no spin speed option, the
clothing will remain submerged in water and the door will remain locked
until a spin speed selection is made. (Miele, No. 4 at 3 and No. 17 at
1, both Docket 230A).
The Department agrees with Miele that, if a clothes washer is
equipped with an optional no spin speed selection in the energy test
cycle, such selection should not constitute the lowest spin speed
selection for RMC calculations. The Department believes that a no spin
speed selection is a unique feature intended for rare use by consumers.
Moreover, it is unlikely that consumers would place wet clothing,
without any partial drying by the clothes washer, directly into a
clothes dryer. Therefore, today's final rule includes language to
exclude a no spin selection from RMC testing requirements for
Appendices J and J1.
c. Load Size for RMC. In response to the March 1995 proposed rule,
GEA provided a graph with RMC on the ``Y'' axis and Load Size on the
``X'' axis. (GEA, No. 6 at appendix E, Docket 230). Although not
quantified, the graph depicted a relatively large negative slope of
approximately 0.5. Thus, according to the graph, as load size gets
larger the RMC level decreases substantially.11 If GEA's
graph accurately depicts the slope, this would have a major impact on
the expected energy savings to consumers and on manufacturer
efficiency/energy consumption representations, because the data show
that consumers use their clothes washers with an average size load 74
percent of the time. Under the proposed test procedure, RMC is first
determined for a maximum size load. The RMC thus determined is then
adjusted in order to determine the moisture content that would remain
in an average size load. The adjustment
[[Page 45490]]
formula is based on the assumption, which GEA disputes, that RMC, as a
percentage amount, is the same for different load sizes. If GEA is
correct, the anticipated energy consumption to remove the moisture from
the clothing, as determined under the foregoing calculation, would be
artificially low. In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department
requested data and comments concerning this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ RMC is a percentage which decreases, although the actual
remaining moisture weight increases because the larger load retains
more moisture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received confidential data from Miele and Whirlpool,
and publicly available data from Raytheon and Maytag. (Miele, No. 4;
Whirlpool, No. 10; Raytheon, No. 9 at 1; and Maytag, No. 15 at 1, 2;
all Docket 230A). AHAM believes that the maximum test load should be
used for RMC testing because the difference (RMC percentage value) with
an average test load is small. (AHAM, No. 7 at 3, Docket 230A).
Raytheon and Maytag support AHAM's position. Maytag also indicated that
a maximum test load produces more consistent and repeatable test
results. (Maytag, No. 15 at 1, 2). Miele believes that an average test
load should be tested in addition to the maximum test load because RMC
as a percentage is not the same for different size loads and may vary
significantly for various machines. Furthermore, Miele believes the
improved test results outweigh the additional test burden. (Miele, No.
4 at 4).
The Department has analyzed the individual data submissions and has
determined that there is a general correlation between RMC (as a
percentage value) and load size. As load size increases, RMC
(percentage value) decreases. On average, the relationship appears to
have a negative slope of approximately 0.05, much smaller than on GEA's
graph. The data, however, show that in some cases, as load size
increases, RMC actually increases (with a small positive slope).
Considering the range of data received, the relatively small variation
of RMC for average and maximum load sizes, the additional test burden
of testing average loads, and the greater consistency of RMC test
results with larger loads, the Department is maintaining the
requirement to test RMC only with the maximum test load. Therefore,
today's final rule maintains the test load requirements for Appendix J1
as proposed, and incorporates into Appendix J a new test load table
identical to the maximum test load table requirements of Appendix J1.
5. Thermostatically Controlled Water Valves
The Department proposed a definition for thermostatically
controlled water valves in the March 1995 proposed rule. AHAM provided
a revised definition in its recommended test procedure, and requested
adoption of this definition for the Appendix J test procedure. (AHAM,
No. 8 at 1, Docket 230). Miele and Speed Queen supported the adoption
of the AHAM's suggested definition. (Speed Queen, No. 29 at 5; and
Miele, No. 10 at 1; both Docket 230). In the supplemental proposed
rule, the Department proposed to adopt a slightly revised version of
the AHAM definition language.
In response to the supplemental proposed rule, AHAM objected to the
Department's revised definition. The revised definition specified that
the ``valves'' sensed the water temperature and adjusted the supply
water to maintain a desired temperature. AHAM wants the definition to
apply to a ``clothes washer's'' ability versus the ``valve's'' ability
to sense and adjust the water temperature. The predominant design
concepts for thermostatically controlled water valves operate
internally within the valve, but new design strategies include an
interface between the valve and a clothes washer electronic controller.
(AHAM, No. 7 at 5, Docket 230A). Miele, Maytag, and Raytheon support
AHAM's definition. (Miele, No. 4 at 5; Maytag, No. 8 at 3; and
Raytheon, No. 9 at 3, 4; all Docket 230A). Fisher and Paykel shared
AHAM's concern and also believes that the definition should reflect
only the clothes washer's ability to ``achieve'' a desired water
temperature, rather than to ``maintain'' a desired water temperature.
(Fisher and Paykel, No. 16 at 3, Docket 230A).
The Department agrees with the intent of AHAM's definition for
thermostatically controlled water valves because it allows greater
flexibility in achieving the desired result. Whether a particular water
temperature results from the water valve's operation or the clothes
washer electronic control is immaterial, as long as the clothes washer
has the ability to sense and adjust the supply water temperature.
Finally the suggestion from Fisher and Paykel to change the
definition from ``maintain'' to ``achieve'' a desired mixed water
temperature has caused the Department to re-examine the definition. The
fundamental purpose of this feature is to adjust the supply temperature
in order to obtain a desired supply water temperature, or a desired
wash tub temperature. In light of this purpose, the Department believes
that the proposed definition and the suggested AHAM definition are too
specific. To simply change the definition to ``achieve'' as suggested
by Fisher and Paykel would be inappropriate because some clothes
washers with this feature attempt to maintain the supply water
temperature, and others seek to maintain the wash water temperature.
Furthermore, this definition is used in the test procedure only to
ensure that a clothes washer with these characteristics is tested with
appropriate supply water temperatures. Therefore, the Department
believes the definition can be simplified to be more generic, and still
serve its intended purpose in the test procedure. The Department is
adopting the following definition in today's final rule for Appendices
J and J1: ``Thermostatically controlled water valves means clothes
washer controls that have the ability to sense and adjust the hot and
cold supply water.''
6. Water Consumption Factor
In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed a Water
Consumption Factor (WCF), expressed in clothes washer capacity per
gallon per cycle. The Department believes that providing a means of
determining WCF may allow consumers, utilities or other organizations
to compare clothes washer water consumption independent of clothes
washer capacity.
In response to the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department
received several comments regarding inclusion of the WCF in Appendix J.
Miele and Speed Queen indicated that the WCF should be the inverse of
what was proposed because many utilities already use that factor
(gallons per cycle per cubic foot capacity). (Miele, No. 10 at 2; and
Speed Queen, No. 29 at 3; both Docket 230). AHAM indicated that WCF on
a per cycle basis can be expressed as cubic feet per gallon. (AHAM, No.
33 at 5, Docket 230) . The Department agrees with Miele and Speed Queen
that the WCF should be consistent with existing utility programs and
represented on a per cycle basis as gallons (weighted water
consumption) per cubic foot capacity.
Accordingly, the Department proposed a revised WCF for Appendix J1
in the supplemental proposed rule, which was the inverse of the WCF in
the March 1995 proposed rule. In response, the Department received
positive comments. (AHAM, No. 7 at 4; Maytag No. 8 at 3; and Raytheon,
No. 9 at 3; all Docket 230A). Therefore, today's final rule
incorporates a WCF expressed as gallons per cycle per cubic feet in
Appendices J and J1. In addition, the definition for WCF in Appendix J
has been revised to be consistent with the new expression.
[[Page 45491]]
B. Clothes Washer Test Procedures--Issues Related to Appendix J
1. Agitator and Spin Speed Settings
In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed
requirements for agitator and spin speed settings to conduct energy
consumption testing because they are not addressed in the current test
procedure. Speed Queen supported the Department's proposal. (Speed
Queen, No. 29 at 4, Docket 230). The Department received no negative
comments, and therefore DOE is adopting this proposal.
In addition, the Department is making minor language revisions with
respect to these terms. The term ``agitator'' is being changed to
``agitation'' to be more generic.\12\ Certain provisions relating to
spin speed are being modified to address concerns regarding optional
RMC testing, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See discussion below regarding ``capacity'' where the
definition for ``agitator'' is no longer required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Capacity Measurements
In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed minor
revisions to the requirements regarding measurement of capacity to hold
clothing (section 3.1). These changes were non-substantive in nature
and did not attempt to change any clothes washer's capacity rating.
AHAM recommended that the Department adopt simpler rule language which
was generic both to front-loader and top-loader clothes washers. (AHAM,
No. 5 at 3, 6 and No. 8 at 1, both Docket 230).
The Department agrees that AHAM's suggested rule language for
clothes washer capacity measurement is simpler and most likely will
achieve the same result. The Department, however, believes that the
suggested language is not specific enough concerning the orientation of
the clothes container opening during testing. The Department believes
that it is reasonable to assume that a clothes washer will be placed in
a position so that its opening is horizontal to the ground to conduct
the capacity measurement. However, DOE prefers to remove any vagueness
from the test procedure. Therefore, the Department is adding the
following procedural step to the AHAM suggested language: ``Place the
clothes washer in such a position that the uppermost edge of the
clothes container opening is leveled horizontally, so that the
container will hold the maximum amount of water.'' Therefore, the
Department is adopting the language recommended by AHAM, with the above
revision, in today's final rule for Appendix J. In addition, since the
term ``agitator'' is no longer mentioned in the capacity measurement
section, the Department is deleting the proposed ``agitator''
definition from Appendix J. The deletion of the ``agitator'' definition
was supported by Speed Queen. (Speed Queen, No. 29 at 4, Docket 230).
3. Modified Energy Factor Definition
In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed to add to
Appendix J an additional energy descriptor, called a modified energy
factor (MEF), which would include moisture removal energy. This new
descriptor would provide more comprehensive determinations, and
comparisons, of the energy efficiency of clothes washers in the
marketplace. It would be used for informational purposes only, such as
rebate programs. The MEF was also proposed in Appendix J1 for possible
future use.
The definition for the modified energy factor, as proposed in the
March 1995 proposed rule, referred to both water-heating and non-water-
heating clothes washers. Miele has suggested a more generic definition
that excludes mention of specific types of clothes washers. (Miele, No.
10 at 2, Docket 230). The Department proposed this generic version of
the definition in the supplemental proposed rule for Appendix J1 and
received no negative comments. The Department believes the definition
suggested by Miele is more versatile and applicable to all clothes
washers, including water-heating clothes washers that use externally
heated hot water. Therefore, today's final rule incorporates a
definition for ``modified energy factor'' in Appendix J, which is
identical to the definition which was proposed and is being adopted in
Appendix J1.
4. Other Issues
In both the March 1995 proposed rule and the reopening notice, the
Department proposed several minor modifications to Appendix J. The
Department did not receive any negative comment relative to these
proposals. Therefore, today's final rule maintains the rule language as
proposed in the March 1995 proposed rule, and adopts changes discussed
in the reopening notice. These modifications are provided in tabular
form as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections in appendix
Proposal Source J
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deletion of AHAM Test March 1995 proposed Not Applicable
Procedure References. rule. (Deletion of
sections 1.7 & 1.8
in current Appendix
J).
Clarification of Maximum March 1995 proposed Sections 3.2.1.2.1 &
Fill Testing (``available rule. 3.2.2.1.
on the clothes washer'').
Similarly Labeled March 1995 proposed Section 4.1.1.1.
Temperature Use Factors rule.
(TUFs).
One and Two Temperature Reopening notice.... Section 5.
Clothes Washer TUF Values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also received suggestions for several minor
clarifications to the rule language. The following table provides these
suggested modifications:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1995 proposed rule
section/issue Comment DOE action/ response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 2.8.2.1 and Miele, No. 10 at 2, Intent incorporated.
2.8.2.2: remove ambiguity Docket 230.
for use of test loads.
Section 3.2.2.4: variable Miele, No. 10 at 3, Intent incorporated.
callouts. Docket 230.
Section 4.1.1.2: concern Miele, No. 10 at 3, Not incorporated:
about temperature rise of Docket 230. adoption would
90 deg. F instead of 80 affect efficiency
deg. F. ratings of existing
models. (Appendix
J1 has a
temperature rise of
75 deg. F.)
Section 4.3.3: reference Miele, No. 10 at 3, Intent incorporated.
callouts. Docket 230.
[[Page 45492]]
Section 5: clarification for Miele, No. 10 at 3, Intent incorporated.
water-heating and non-water- Docket 230.
heating clothes washer
titles.
Need definitions for Miele, No. 10 at 1, Not incorporated:
``automatic'' and ``semi- Docket 230. these terms are
automatic'' clothes washers. already defined in
10 CFR 430.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Temperature Measuring (Sensing) Device
The March 1995 proposed rule proposed essentially to maintain the
existing temperature equipment requirements, while changing its
nomenclature from ``thermometer'' to ``temperature sensing device''
(section 2.5.3). AHAM suggested a revision of these requirements, both
for its recommended test procedure and Appendix J. AHAM's language
specified in part, that accuracy of equipment would be maintained over
the range of temperatures being measured, rather than over a broader
range as is currently required. AHAM also suggested revision of
nomenclature in the proposed test procedure from ``Temperature sensing
device'' to ``Temperature measuring device.'' (AHAM, No. 8 at 1, Docket
230). The Department believes that the revised AHAM language, on which
comments were solicited in the supplemental proposed rule, will
eliminate a requirement that is irrelevant to the test procedure, while
maintaining its accuracy and providing manufacturer equipment
flexibility. Therefore, today's rule incorporates into Appendix J the
supplemental proposed rule language for a temperature measuring device.
6. Temperature Selections
Currently, and as proposed, Appendix J allows for the testing of
three basic wash temperatures, cold, warm, and hot, in several
combinations with two rinse temperatures, cold and warm. The test
procedures set forth percentages, called temperature use factors
(TUFs), that represent the proportion of time that each temperature
combination selection (TCS) (wash/rinse combination offered to a
consumer) is used. However, some new clothes washers have new TCSs
which are not explicitly covered by the Appendix J test procedure.
a. Multiple Warm Wash Temperatures. Currently, there are clothes
washers on the market that have multiple warm wash TCSs. The
Department's understanding is that these TCSs are relatively
straightforward. The warm wash temperatures of the TCSs are spaced so
that the temperature of the middle warm wash TCS is at the mid-point
between the temperatures of the warmest warm wash TCS and the coolest
warm wash TCS. Also, for any other TCS above the middle warm wash TCS,
there is a corresponding TCS that is an equal number of degrees below
the middle warm wash TCS. In the reopening notice, the Department
proposed requirements to test only the middle warm wash TCS. In
addition, if a middle TCS does not exist, then the next hotter TCS
above the mid-point would be tested.
AHAM agreed generally with the above proposal. Fisher and Paykel
provided comments and agreed with the requirement to test only the
middle TCS. (Fisher and Paykel, No. 22 at 1, 2, Docket 230A).
Therefore, today's final rule includes the above described test
provisions for Appendix J.
The Department's proposal also addressed situations where TCSs are
not spaced equally by temperature. The Department is unaware of any
current clothes washers with these types of TCSs, but wants to provide
test provisions in the event they are included on future models. The
Department's proposal in the reopening notice would require testing at
the next hotter warm wash TCS above the mean of the temperature range
for multiple warm wash TCS.
Fisher and Paykel questioned whether the reference to the mean
referred to the mean temperature or to the TCS with the mean position
on the control panel. Fisher and Paykel suggested that it should be
applicable to the temperature and that DOE should require that the mean
temperature be determined. In addition, Fisher and Paykel stated that
the TCS with the mean temperature should be tested if available on the
clothes washer model, or if such a TCS is not available, the next
higher warm wash TCS above a theoretical mean should be tested. (Fisher
and Paykel, No. 22 at 2, 3, Docket 230A).
Fisher and Paykel maintains that the actual mean TCS of the
temperature range should be tested, if available, whereas the
Department believes the next higher TCS should be tested. The
Department believes the next higher TCS should be tested in lieu of the
actual mean TCS because it is concerned about the way TCSs may be
displayed to consumers. The rationale for testing the middle TCS for
clothes washers with multiple warm wash TCSs, spaced equally by
temperature, is that consumers are just as likely to select a TCS above
the middle TCS as they are to select one below the middle TCS. In the
case of clothes washers with TCSs that are not spaced equally by
temperature, consumers may be given, for example, multiple selections
above an actual mean TCS of the temperature range and only one
selection below it. In this case, consumers may select warm wash TCSs
above the mean TCS more frequently than the one warm wash TCS below the
mean TCS. To test the mean TCS could give a relatively low, and hence
unrepresentative, picture of the energy consumption of the clothes
washer. Therefore, the Departments proposed that the next higher TCS be
tested. Today's final rule includes requirements for Appendix J as
stated in the reopening notice and reiterated above.
In the reopening notice, the Department also proposed test
provisions for clothes washers with multiple temperature settings,
i.e., a range of temperatures from which a consumer can make a
selection within a specific TCS. Section 3.2.2.2 of the current test
procedure requires that the ``hottest setting available'' be used for
testing a hot wash TCS. In the reopening notice, the Department
proposed a test methodology which requires that the hottest temperature
setting within a hot, warm or cold TCS be tested.
This approach is similar to the Department's proposal in the March
1995 proposed rule for addressing similar TCSs that are labeled so as
to appear to the consumer to be virtually identical. In essence, the
similarly labeled TCSs are two temperature settings for one basic TCS.
For example, on a given clothes washer, one cold wash/cold rinse TCS
may be labeled ``cold/cold,'' with a wash temperature that is never
heated, and another can be labeled ``auto cold/cold'' with a wash
temperature that uses some hot water. The March 1995 proposed rule
proposed that the hottest of these two selections be used for testing.
The Department believes this proposal is consistent with the industry's
basic interpretation of the existing test
[[Page 45493]]
procedure. The Department did not receive any negative comment
regarding the March 1995 proposed rule's provision for similarly
labeled TCSs.
Shortly before the publication of the reopening notice, Fisher &
Paykel asserted that for DOE to require testing at the hottest
temperature setting available within a TCS would be inconsistent with
the test methodology regarding multiple warm wash TCSs (discussed
above).13 The two approaches may appear to be inconsistent,
but the Department believes they would establish the best solution
considering that the hottest setting available must be used in tests
involving a hot wash TCS or similarly labeled TCSs. To the greatest
extent possible, the Department wants to ensure that all models are
tested and rated on a comparable basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Fisher & Paykel provided this comment to the Department
regarding Interim Waiver CW-004 (61 FR 18129 on April 6, 1996) which
addresses this same issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the reopening notice, AHAM commented that, in
general, it supports the Department's proposal. AHAM believes that the
rule language should make specific reference to a secondary control,
which is how the temperature of the TCS (selected with the primary
control) would be adjusted. AHAM supports the rationale to test the
hottest temperature available for a TCS. (AHAM, No. 19 at 2, Docket
230A). Fisher and Paykel stated that its comments provided in response
to Waiver CW-004 (discussed above) remain essentially the same. (Fisher
and Paykel, No. 22 at 1, Docket 230A).
The Department agrees with AHAM that manufacturers most likely
would present multiple temperature selections within a TCS with a
secondary control. Therefore, today's final rule incorporates rule
language to clarify this point. The Department sees some merit in
Fisher and Paykel's concern about testing multiple temperature settings
within a TCS at the hottest setting available. For the reasons stated
above, however, the Department believes that today's rule is the best
solution considering the test procedures currently in effect. Moreover,
the future test procedure, Appendix J1, establishes even more
consistent test procedures to address this issue. Therefore, today's
final rule adopts the requirement proposed in the reopening notice to
test the hottest temperature setting available within a TCS in Appendix
J.
b. Temperature Selections Locked Out of the Normal Cycle. In the
May 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed that, for a clothes
washer with a normal cycle temperature selection ``lockout'' feature,
the hot water consumption be prorated between the TCS that has the
``lockout'' in the normal cycle and the same TCS in the cycle with the
greatest hot water consumption. The unknown factor in the calculation
is the frequency with which users would choose the normal versus other
cycles when a temperature selection is selected, i.e., the proration
values.
The Department proposed to set the proration values at 20 percent
for the normal cycle and 80 percent for the most energy intensive cycle
(the cycle other than normal that consumes the maximum amount of
energy), unless consumer usage data becomes available that support
other values. The proposed values were based on an assumption that 80
percent of the time a consumer wants the locked out temperature, it
will choose a cycle that offers that particular temperature selection,
and the remaining 20 percent of the time consumers will not alter the
cycle and will accept the locked out temperature selection.
The frequency with which consumers use the normal cycle is
important if a clothes washer is equipped with a temperature selection
``lockout.'' The clothes washer test procedure requires testing at the
normal cycle because this is believed to be representative of how
consumers use their clothes washers. Traditionally, consumers select
the normal cycle most of the time and the remaining cycles, either more
or less energy intensive, the remainder of the time. Hot water energy
constitutes the greatest component of the energy consumption,
approximately 90 percent or more, and the energy consumption for the
various cycles, e.g. ``normal,'' ``heavy duty,'' ``delicate,'' etc., on
a typical clothes washer without lockouts may not vary much from one
cycle to the next, for a given temperature and fill selection. This is
not true for a clothes washer with a temperature selection lockout
feature. For such a clothes washer, temperature selections that appear
to be the same in different cycles are in fact different, and result in
consumption of different amounts of energy.
Whirlpool utilized an independent consultant to conduct a consumer
survey regarding the use of clothes washers with and without the
``lockout'' feature. Whirlpool submitted a summary of the results of
the survey to the Department. (Whirlpool, No. 13, Docket 701). The
Department made this summary available to stakeholders for review and
comment.
White Consolidated commented that it disagreed with the concept of
prorating the energy consumption results from the normal and most
energy intensive cycles, including the proposed 20/80 percent values.
In essence, White Consolidated believes that a TCS with a lockout
should be tested in the most energy intensive cycle, and the result
used 100 percent for the calculations. White Consolidated believes that
normal cycle operation on a particular clothes washer may be
represented to consumers in such a manner that they use it
significantly less than they would on a traditional clothes
washer.14 White Consolidated also asserted that the data
submitted by Whirlpool did not indicate the frequency with which
consumers select the normal cycle. (White Consolidated, No. 14, Docket
701). Whirlpool provided comment that the proration value for the use
of the normal cycle should be 75 percent. Whirlpool believes that its
survey shows no significant difference between consumers' use of the
normal cycle with or without a lockout. (Whirlpool, No. 16, Docket
701). Maytag stated that it supports the Department's proposal to use
20 percent as the proration value for the normal cycle. Maytag also
indicated that it believes the survey conducted by Whirlpool had
minimal value because the survey did not include any Sears Kenmore
models, which have the highest market share in the clothes washer
industry. Maytag also stated that (1) the way the cycle selections are
depicted to the consumer will have a significant impact on how often a
consumer will select a normal cycle, and (2) as the normal cycle is
depicted on the Whirlpool clothes washers, consumers will use the
normal cycle less frequently. (Maytag, No. 17, Docket 701).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ P&G data indicates that the normal cycle on a typical
clothes washer is used approximately 75 percent of the time. The DOE
test procedure uses the normal cycle to approximate typical use by
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department reviewed the publicly available survey summary and
confidential raw survey data provided by Whirlpool. The survey data
indicate that consumers select a normal cycle, with a temperature
selection lockout, slightly less often than they select a normal cycle
without a temperature selection lockout. This supports Whirlpool's
claim that the lockout feature had minimal impact on the use of the
normal cycle. The results also showed, however, that consumers' overall
use of the normal cycle of Whirlpool clothes washers is significantly
less than their use of the normal cycle for typical clothes washers
(use of the normal cycle for the industry
[[Page 45494]]
is estimated to be 75 percent, based on P & G survey data). This result
supports the statements made by White Consolidated and Maytag regarding
use of the normal cycle.
Whirlpool, after consultation with the Department regarding its
confidential data, provided public information which indicated that
consumers selected the normal cycle on its clothes washers equipped
with temperature selection lockouts 32 percent of the time. (Whirlpool,
No. 18, Docket 701).
The Department believes that the proration value for the use of the
normal cycle should reflect the frequency of consumer choice of that
cycle. The Department believes that the confidential survey data,
provided by Whirlpool, indicating the actual use of the normal cycle by
consumers with a temperature selection lockout feature does exactly
that. Therefore, the Department is promulgating today's final rule with
proration values of 32 percent for the normal cycle and 68 percent for
the most energy intensive cycle for the Appendix J test procedure.
7. Water-Heating Clothes Washers
Traditionally, clothes washers in the U.S. have used water heated
outside of the machine, in a dwelling's water heating source. These are
defined as non-water-heating clothes washers. New, predominantly
imported, clothes washers have their own internal heaters which heat
cold water supplied for washing. These are referred to as water-heating
clothes washers. In addition, some water-heating clothes washers have
the capability of using water heated externally, and can use their
internal heater to increase the temperature of such water, or to
maintain the temperature of water in the wash tub.
The March 1995 proposed rule proposed test provisions for water-
heating clothes washers that do not use externally heated water. The
test provisions included definitions for water-heating and non-water-
heating clothes washers. In the supplemental proposed rule, the
Department proposed to include in Appendix J provisions to test water-
heating clothes washers that use externally heated water. Under the
proposed Appendix J1 definition, these clothes washers are treated as
water-heating clothes washers because they are equipped with an
internal heater, although they are tested with a combination of test
provisions for water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers.
Generally, commenters supported these proposals, although a few
modifications were suggested. AHAM requested the Department adopt in
Appendix J the definitions for water-heating and non-water-heating
clothes washers that AHAM suggested for Appendix J1. The AHAM
definitions are generic and applicable to water-heating clothes washers
that use externally heated water. (AHAM, No. 8 at 1, Docket 230). The
intent of the AHAM definitions was supported by Miele. (Miele, No. 10
at 1, Docket 230). Commenters agreed that the Department should
incorporate into Appendix J test provisions for water-heating clothes
washers that use externally heated water. (AHAM, No. 7 at 1, 4, 5;
Miele, No. 4 at 2; Maytag, No. 8 at 3; and Raytheon, No. 9 at 3: all
Docket 230A).
The Department agrees with AHAM and Miele that the definitions for
water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers should address
water-heating clothes washers that use externally heated water.
Furthermore, the Department proposed AHAM's definitions for the
Appendix J1 test procedure in the supplemental proposed rule and did
not receive any negative comments. Therefore, today's final rule
incorporates revised definitions in Appendix J, identical to those
proposed for Appendix J1. Today's final rule also incorporates
procedural steps into Appendix J for water-heating clothes washers that
use externally heated water.
8. Weighing Scales for Test Cloth and Clothes Container
In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department also proposed to
maintain existing requirements for the weighing scales which are used
to measure the weight of test cloth and clothes washers (for container
capacity determination). AHAM revised the requirements for weighing
scales in its recommended test procedure. AHAM also recommended that
its rule language be adopted for Appendix J. The AHAM language
eliminates requirements to have specific measuring ranges for the
weighing scales, and specifies instead a maximum allowable percentage
of error for a particular measured value. (AHAM, No. 8 at 1, Docket
230). The Department believes the AHAM language, on which the
Department sought comments in the supplemental proposed rule but
received none, will maintain the accuracy of the existing test
procedure while providing manufacturer equipment flexibility, thus
eliminating an unnecessary test burden. Therefore, today's rule
incorporates the supplemental proposed rule language for weighing
scales into Appendix J.
C. Clothes Washer Test Procedures--Issues Related to Appendix J1
1. Capacity Measurement
Both the proposed Appendix J and proposed Appendix J1 required
testing to determine the capacity of the clothes container. This
capacity is defined as the maximum volume which a dry clothes load
could occupy. The capacity is then used as a significant component in
the calculation of the Energy Factor and Modified Energy Factor, which
are used to rate the efficiency of the clothes washer on a per cycle
basis. The actual load, in pounds of clothing, that a clothes washer
can wash is a function of many variables including the portion of the
container's volume which is actually available for clothes washing, the
agitation system and the motor torque. But the Department has used the
measured clothes container capacity as a proxy for the actual load a
clothes washer is capable of washing, and this has worked well for
purposes of comparing vertical-axis clothes washers to each other. The
Department believes that measured container capacity will serve the
same function for horizontal-axis clothes washers. However, it is
unclear whether the relationship of measured capacity to load
capability is the same for vertical-axis and horizontal-axis clothes
washers.
The proposed Appendix J and proposed Appendix J1 test procedures
require measuring the capacity to the upper most part of the clothes
washer container, which includes the volume encompassed by a ring that
may be attached to the top of the clothes container. The maximum water
level in any vertical-axis clothes washer may vary, but the water level
cannot go to the top of the ring attached to the top of the clothes
container. Maytag calculated that this current method of measuring
capacity results in the measured volume of vertical-axis clothes
washers exceeding the wetted volume 15 by a minimum of 15
percent to well over 20 percent. (Maytag, No. 13 at 1, Docket 230).
AHAM, commenting on behalf of clothes washer manufacturers, including
Maytag, asserts the current method for measuring vertical-axis clothes
washer capacity is sufficient and should not be changed. (AHAM, No. 33
at 5, Docket 230).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ DOE uses the term ``wetted volume'' to refer to the space
in a clothes washer within which washing and rinsing occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a horizontal-axis clothes washer, washing and rinsing occur in
the entire volume of the clothes container. Thus, the measured and
wetted volumes of a
[[Page 45495]]
horizontal-axis clothes washer are the same, and Maytag proposed
multiplying the measured volume of a horizontal-axis clothes washer by
a factor of 1.2. (Maytag, No. 13 at 2, Docket 230). This factor would
mathematically increase the ``measured capacity'' of horizontal-axis
clothes washers and would result in a 20 percent increase in the Energy
Factor and Modified Energy Factor for horizontal-axis clothes washers.
A similar factor is included in the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) 456 test procedure for clothes washers. ACEEE supports
a capacity credit for horizontal-axis clothes washers.16
ACEEE stated that the IEC test procedure has a 15 percent credit and
believes the credit may be too low. ACEEE believes the credit should be
21 percent. (ACEEE, No. 32 at 3, Docket 230).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Commenters have used both terms ``factor'' and ``credit''
which are intended to mean the same thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Queen opposes a horizontal-axis clothes washer capacity
adjustment factor, stating that adequate time for discussion and
comment is needed on this ``recently raised issue.'' (Speed Queen, No.
29 at 3, Docket 230). GEA opposes any horizontal-axis clothes washer
capacity credit stating, ``In view of the evidence, from P & G, that
American consumer washing habits are driven in large part by their
perception of capacity, proponents of a European adjustment factor must
provide hard data of its applicability to the U.S. market.'' (GEA, No.
36 at 2, Docket 230). Whirlpool also opposes any credit for horizontal-
axis clothes washer capacity because there are no data that would
demonstrate American loading habits for horizontal-axis clothes
washers. (Whirlpool, No. 37 at 4, Docket 230).
The Department notes that the measured volume of a vertical-axis
clothes washer is larger than the wetted volume, whereas, these two
volumes are the same for horizontal-axis clothes washers. This suggests
that, for these two types of machines, a difference may exist in the
relationship of measured capacity to the amount of clothes a clothes
washer is capable of washing. However, the Department has no data to
indicate that this possible difference translates into an actual
difference in load size capability when the other variables that affect
load size are considered, or as to how U.S. consumers will use
horizontal-axis clothes washers.
In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department did not propose a
capacity credit for horizontal-axis clothes washers. The Department
stated that, if data became available, it would consider making
adjustments to the test procedures for either vertical or horizontal-
axis clothes washers to ensure that the comparisons are relatively
accurate. In Appendix J1, the Department did not make any changes to
the measurement procedures, or adjust any calculations regarding
capacity. Maytag indicated that data to support a credit, or
adjustment, for horizontal-axis clothes washers currently were not
available, but that it may submit subsequent comments if such data
became available. (Maytag, No. 8 at 1 and No. 15 at 2, Docket 230A).
Raytheon supported the Department's proposal to retain the established
capacity measurement requirements. (Raytheon, No. 9 at 1, Docket 230A).
Based on the foregoing, today's final rule retains the same basic
approach to capacity as was proposed in the supplemental proposed rule.
However, minor language revisions were incorporated, as discussed above
in section III.B.2 of this notice. If data become available which would
indicate a significant impact on the comparisons between vertical and
horizontal-axis clothes washers, the Department will consider
initiating a rulemaking to make appropriate revisions to the test
procedure.
2. Consumer Selectable Options for the Energy Test Cycle
In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department proposed test
provisions for clothes washers equipped with consumer selectable
options available in the energy test cycle (supplemental proposed rule
Section 3.2.3.5). These provisions were proposed primarily because of
the possibility that manufacturers would provide multiple spin speed
and spin time selections for the energy test cycle. (See the discussion
above regarding spin speed and spin time in section III.A.4b of this
notice.) The proposal however, was applicable to all possible consumer
selectable options available in the energy test cycle, other than wash
time (which was addressed in section 2.10). The language included
examples of selectable options, such as various spin speeds or adaptive
water fill selections, and required testing of the extremities of the
available selections and averaging of the results.
AHAM, NRDC, and clothes washer manufacturers provided specific
comments regarding multiple consumer selectable options for spin speed
and spin time. These comments and the Department's response, including
revised requirements for these features, are discussed fully in section
III.A.4b of this notice. AHAM and clothes washer manufacturers also
provided specific comments regarding multiple consumer selectable
options for adaptive water fill control systems. These comments and the
Department's response, including revised requirements for adaptive
water fill control systems, are discussed fully in section III.A.1.
AHAM recommended that the Department revise section 3.2.3.5
regarding consumer options for the energy test cycle to exclude wash
time, temperature, fill levels, and extraction. AHAM also recommended
that the tests be conducted on the combined maximum and combined
minimum energy intensities for all such consumer options. (AHAM, No.
14, Docket 230A). Raytheon supported AHAM's recommendation. (Raytheon,
No. 13 at 2, Docket 230A). Fisher and Paykel recommended that the
Department convert section 3.2.3.5 into six procedural steps. Fisher
and Paykel's recommended changes were consistent with AHAM's
recommendation to exclude wash time, temperature, fill levels, and
extraction from this section. Fisher and Paykel also recommended that
other options be tested in the factory default setting or in the
manufacturers ``recommended positions for a cotton and/or linen clothes
cycle.'' Fisher and Paykel recommended language including exclusions
for non-energy related features, as well as comprehensive testing
provisions for special circumstances not covered by the generic
provisions. (Fisher and Paykel, No. 16 at 9, 10, Docket 230A).
Having reviewed the AHAM and manufacturer comments, the Department
sees no need to include in Appendix J1 general provisions for
``consumer options for the energy test cycle.'' In the supplemental
proposed rule, the Department expressed concern regarding consumer
options for multiple spin speed, spin time, and multiple adaptive water
fill control system selections. These options have now been addressed
in other sections of the rule language as discussed above. The
Department is concerned about adopting specific test provisions to
address unknown, potential options. The commenters did not provide a
rationale as to why the suggested provisions were needed in the test
procedure, other than that the Department had originally proposed them.
The Department believes that any other feature which affects the energy
consumption of clothes washers should be subject to the public comment
provisions of the waiver process found at 10 CFR 430.27.
The Department acknowledges that in the supplemental proposed rule
it proposed a procedure to address
[[Page 45496]]
generally consumer options in the energy test cycle. This proposal was
primarily designed, however, to address specific concerns stated in the
proposed rule and to elicit comment on procedures for other possible
consumer options. The specific concerns have been addressed elsewhere
and no other consumer options were identified in the comments.
Therefore, the Department sees no reason to include in the test
procedure a generic test provision for consumer options in the energy
test cycle, and today's rule contains no such provision.
3. Energy Test Cloth
The supplemental proposed rule proposed requirements to
precondition the energy test cloth prior to its use for energy
consumption testing. These requirements generally were based on the
AHAM recommended test provisions, except that the Department changed
the requirement for detergent from an AHAM specification to a generic
specification (commercially available detergent).
AHAM, Maytag, and Raytheon supported the Department's proposal to
use commercially available detergent, although they recommended that
the Department change the requirement from a specific dosage of
detergent (6 grams per gallon of water) to a dosage as recommended by
the manufacturer. (AHAM, No. 7 at 3; Maytag No. 8 at 2: and Raytheon
No. 9 at 2; all Docket 230A). The Department agrees with the commenters
that the dosage should be specified as recommended by the manufacturer
because of different types and sizes of clothes washers in the
marketplace. A specific dosage, such as 6 grams per gallon of water,
may be too small or too large for a particular clothes washer.
Therefore, today's final rule revises the requirement for clothes
washer detergent dosage, as indicated above, in Appendix J1.
4. Energy Test Cycle Definition
In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department proposed a
definition for ``energy test cycle,'' for Appendix J1. The energy test
cycle definition is used to define the cycle on which the energy
consumption tests are to be conducted, and corresponds to the cycle the
manufacturer recommends for washing cotton or linen clothes. The energy
test cycle is comparable to the ``normal cycle'' defined in Appendix J.
Fisher and Paykel objected to inclusion of the following language
in the energy test cycle definition: ``all temperature selections
available on the model, regardless of whether the wash/rinse
temperature selections or water levels are available in the cycle
recommended for cottons and/or linens.'' Fisher and Paykel believes it
is unfair to impose testing requirements of temperature selections that
are available only in other cycles, e.g., warm rinse for the delicate
cycle, because the other cycles are not used as frequently as the cycle
recommended for cotton and/or linen clothes. (Fisher and Paykel, No. 16
at 2, Docket 230A).
The Department believes Fisher and Paykel's comment regarding the
energy test cycle raises an issue that is essentially the same as the
normal cycle temperature selection lockout issue, discussed above, for
Appendix J. The temperature selection lockout issue caused significant
controversy among U.S. clothes washer manufacturers, and was the
subject of extensive debate. (See Docket Number EE-RM-93-701).
The energy test cycle is intended to be representative of typical
consumer use of a clothes washer. Absence of temperature selections
from the energy test cycle of a clothes washer may mean that cycle is
not representative and may lead to manufacturer representations that do
not reflect true energy consumption. This may not be the case for all
clothes washers with temperature selections available in cycles other
than the energy test cycle, but the issue remains a significant concern
to the Department. Therefore, today's final rule maintains the
substance of the definition for energy test cycle, as proposed in the
supplemental proposed rule. Certain changes however, solely for
purposes of clarification, have been made in the definition as
promulgated in today's final rule.
5. Other Issues
The supplemental proposed rule proposed several minor changes in
AHAM's suggested test procedure, about which DOE received no negative
comment. Therefore, in these respects, today's final rule maintains the
rule language in Appendix J1 as proposed in the supplemental proposed
rule. These minor changes are provided in tabular form as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Rule sections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum use of five energy stuffer cloths.................. Section 2.7.
Water-heating clothes washer test provisions, including Sections 2.11, 3, and 4.
test room temperature requirements and externally heated
water use.
Not to include a suds-saver test provision................. N/A.
Temperature Use Factors.................................... Section 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Supply Water Temperature
Under the Department's proposal in the supplemental proposed rule,
supply water temperature would affect the energy consumption of water-
heating clothes washers and clothes washers with thermostatically
controlled water valves, whereas other non-water-heating clothes
washers would not be affected by the supply water temperature. The
Department's proposal, based on AHAM's recommendation, specified
different tolerances for the supply water temperatures for these two
situations. Clothes washers whose energy consumption is affected by the
supply water temperature were required to be tested with a hot water
supply of 135 deg.F with a tolerance (+0 deg.F-10 deg.F), and cold
water supply of 60 deg.F with a tolerance (+0 deg.F-10 deg.F). Clothes
washers whose energy consumption is not affected by the supply water
temperature were required to be tested with a hot water supply of
135 deg.F with a tolerance ( 5 deg.F), and cold water
supply of 60 deg.F with a tolerance ( 5 deg.F).
Fisher and Paykel asserted that, since one type of machine is not
affected by supply temperature, there is no reason to specify different
tolerances for the two types of clothes washers while using the same
tolerance range (10 deg.F). Fisher and Paykel also believes that in a
laboratory it is easier to set a temperature to a 5 deg.F
tolerance than a +0 deg.F-10 deg.F tolerance. Fisher and Paykel
recommended that the requirements for supply water be combined for both
types of clothes washers. The hot water supply would be set at
130 deg.F with a tolerance (5 deg.F), and the cold water
supply would be set at 55 deg.F with a tolerance (5 deg.F).
(Fisher and Paykel, No. 16 at 5, Docket 230A).
The Department is concerned, however, about unnecessary test
burden. In many areas of the U.S., during much of the year, the
temperature of the ground water remains above 60 deg.F. Setting cold
water
[[Page 45497]]
requirements below 65 deg.F for clothes washers not affected by supply
temperatures, which represent a majority of the current clothes washer
market, would impose an unnecessary test burden. The Department also
believes that the ability to establish a temperature within a 10 deg.F
tolerance range is the same regardless of how it is specified.
In light of Fisher and Paykel's comments, however, the Department
agrees it is warranted to revise the proposed provisions for supply
water temperatures. In order to establish an appropriate and readily
apparent difference between those clothes washers affected by supply
water temperatures and those which are not, the Department is
eliminating the specified tolerances for clothes washers affected by
supply water temperatures. In today's final rule, the Department is
adopting revised requirements such that the hot water supply shall not
exceed 135 deg.F (57.2 deg.C), and the cold water supply shall not
exceed 60 deg.F (15.6 deg.C) for clothes washers affected by supply
temperatures in Appendix J1.
7. Test Load Tolerances
In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department proposed a test
load table which has loads that vary with clothes washer capacity. The
table was based on the AHAM recommended test procedure, except that the
Department changed the tolerance from AHAM's suggested value of
0.10 pounds to 0.05 pounds. The Department made
this change because it believed that a tolerance of 0.05
pounds enabled the required test load sizes to be achieved through the
use of energy stuffer cloths that weigh approximately 0.04 pounds each.
The Department requested comment on this proposal.
AHAM, Maytag, and Raytheon opposed the Department's proposal to
establish a tolerance of 0.05 pounds. Their concern is that
the tighter tolerance has minimal impact (0.66 percent) on the test
results. They also believe that the tighter tolerance imposes an
unnecessary test burden because ambient, humid air, causes a dry test
load to gain weight. (AHAM, No. 7 at 2; Maytag, No. 8 at 2; and
Raytheon, No. 9 at 2; all Docket 230A). NRDC supported the Department's
proposal to establish a tolerance of 0.05 pounds. (NRDC,
No. 2 at 2, Docket 230A).
The Department agrees that the concern raised by AHAM and
manufacturers has merit because the test procedure requires the test
load to be ``bone dry,'' meaning that the weight of the test load is
stable within one percent after 10 minutes in a clothes dryer. Since
the test procedure does not have a low humidity requirement, it is
likely that the test load will gain weight during the time period after
it is removed from the clothes dryer and before its weight is measured.
Therefore, given the practical considerations of the testing
environment, a theoretical weight for energy stuffer cloth cannot be
used. For these reasons, today's final rule changes the test load table
tolerance to 0.10 pounds in Appendix J1.
8. Warm Wash Temperature Selections
The supplemental proposed rule proposed test provisions for warm
wash temperature selections. These provisions included definitions for
``warm wash'' and ``uniformly distributed warm wash,'' as well as
testing requirements for clothes washers with various types of
intermediate warm wash temperatures. In proposed Appendix J1, if a
clothes washer has uniformly distributed warm wash temperature
selections (wash temperatures have a linear relationship with all
discrete warm wash selections and are equally spaced, or infinite in
number), the energy consumption value is determined by a calculation
rather than a test. If the warm wash temperature selections are not
uniformly distributed, the Department proposed testing all discrete
intermediate warm wash temperature selections (i.e., all temperature
selections that are below the hottest hot (135 deg.F
(57.2 deg.C)) and above the coldest cold). In the case of
infinite non-uniformly distributed temperature selections, testing
would be conducted at the 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent positions of the
temperature selection device.
The Department did not receive any comments regarding the proposed
``warm wash'' definition. AHAM, Maytag, and Raytheon stated that they
supported the Department's definition for ``uniformly distributed warm
wash,'' but they expressed concern about the application of the
definition and about the requirements for testing. (AHAM, No. 7 at 4;
Maytag, No. 8 at 3; and Raytheon, No. 9 at 2; all Docket 230A). Fisher
and Paykel stated that the portion of the definition for ``uniformly
distributed warm wash'' which describes the criteria for a ``linear
relationship'' is unclear. The definition, in Appendix J1, stated ``In
all cases, the mean of the water temperature of the warmest and the
coldest warm selections must coincide with the mean of the hot and cold
water temperature.'' Fisher and Paykel believes the term ``hot and cold
water temperature'' is ambiguous and could refer to hot and cold wash
temperatures, or could apply to hot and cold supply water temperatures.
In addition, due to various temperature settings and tolerances
throughout the test procedure, Fisher and Paykel suggested that a
tolerance (8 deg.F (4.4 deg.C)) be
established to qualify the term ``must coincide.'' (Fisher and Paykel,
No. 16 at 3, Docket 230A).
The Department agrees with Fisher and Paykel and has revised the
``uniformly distributed warm wash'' definition, regarding the criteria
for ``linear relationship,'' to remove any ambiguity. The linear
relationship criterion is applicable over the temperature range between
the ``hot wash'' and the ``cold wash.'' Therefore, today's final rule
revises this section in Appendix J1 from ``* * * mean of the hot and
cold water temperature'' to ``* * * mean of the hot wash and cold wash
water temperatures.''
With regard to Fisher and Paykel's suggestion of a tolerance, the
Department believes that some acceptable tolerance should be
established because having the terminology ``must coincide,'' without a
tolerance, would mean the linear relationship requirement would not be
satisfied if any deviation existed, however slight. The Department,
however, believes Fisher and Paykel's suggested tolerance value is too
large. In Appendix J1, within the definition of ``uniformly distributed
warm wash,'' a tolerance of `` 5 percent'' was proposed in
the sentence prior to the one that is the subject of Fisher and
Paykel's comment. This tolerance was not objected to by any commenters.
The Department believes this same value should be applied to the
sentence where Fisher and Paykel believes a tolerance should be added.
The nominal temperature range between a ``hot wash'' and ``cold wash''
is 75 deg.F. Five percent of this range results in a tolerance of
3.8 deg.F. Therefore, the Department is adopting
`` 3.8 deg.F( 2.1 deg.C)'' as a tolerance for
the criteria for a linear relationship in Appendix J1.
AHAM, Fisher and Paykel, and Raytheon support in part and oppose in
part the Department's proposed testing method for warm wash temperature
selections that are not uniformly distributed. They agree that where a
clothes washer has less than three such selections, all should be
tested. But they oppose testing all selections where a machine has more
than three such selections, based primarily on a claim of excessive
test burden. For clothes washers with more than three discrete
[[Page 45498]]
warm wash temperature selections, they suggest DOE give manufacturers
the option of either testing all of the selections or treating this
category as if it were a clothes washer with ``infinite'' temperature
selections. This would reduce significantly the number of required
tests if a clothes washer were equipped with numerous discrete warm
wash temperature selections. In addition, AHAM, Fisher and Paykel, and
Raytheon believe the number of test points for clothes washers with
infinite temperature selections should be reduced from four to three,
and a requirement should be added to test to the next higher
temperature selection if a particular test point is not available.
(AHAM, No. 14 at 2; Fisher and Paykel, No. 16 at 11, 12; and Raytheon,
No. 13 at 1; all Docket 230A).
The Department is concerned with the test burden imposed by the
test procedures. For example, the Department is aware of a current
clothes washer model that has 32 intermediate warm wash temperature
selections. To test all 32 temperature selections with all of the other
test procedure provisions would be expensive, and could be considered
excessive test burden. The Department agrees with the suggested option
to consider clothes washers with more than three warm wash temperatures
as clothes washers with infinite warm wash temperature selections. The
Department believes 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, will provide representative data of the warm wash
temperature selection offerings. In addition, DOE agrees that
manufacturers should have the option of testing all temperature
selections if they choose to. Therefore, the Department is adopting in
Appendix J1 the suggested treatment of clothes washers with more than
three warm wash temperature selections that are not uniformly
distributed.
The question of whether clothes washers with infinite warm wash
temperature selections should be tested at four points (20, 40, 60, and
80 percent of the temperature range) as proposed by the Department, or
at three points (25, 50, and 75 percent of the temperature range) as
suggested by commenters, raises a number of issues. First, the
Department believes that although the accuracy of the test results will
increase with more test points, the test burden also will increase. In
addition, manufacturers of clothes washers with numerous discrete warm
wash temperature selections would most likely provide a discrete warm
wash temperature selection at approximately the 50 percent location of
the temperature range, which would not be tested with the four test
point requirement proposed by the Department. Therefore, today's final
rule incorporates into Appendix J1 a requirement that clothes washers
with infinite temperature selections be tested at three points (25, 50,
and 75 percent) of the temperature range. However, if the Department
were to obtain data indicating that today's requirements result in
representations not reflective of a clothes washer's true energy
consumption, then the Department would consider a rulemaking to
reevaluate these requirements.
In addition to the above comments regarding warm wash temperature
selections, AHAM and Raytheon suggested the adoption of a new
procedural step with equations to determine the temperatures of warm
wash water in a non-water-heating clothes washer, based on proration of
hot water consumption. (AHAM, No. 14 at 1, and Raytheon, No. 13 at 3,
both Docket 230A). The Department has reviewed the suggestion and
believes it would be beneficial to include this in the procedure for
determining warm wash water temperatures for non-water-heating clothes
washers. The definition for uniformly distributed warm wash temperature
selections requires the plotting of warm wash temperatures with the
position of the temperature selection device. The suggestion by AHAM
and Raytheon is one method which is acceptable and will be transparent
to users of the test procedure. Therefore, today's final rule
incorporates AHAM and Raytheon's suggestion for a procedural step to
determine the temperature of a non-water-heating clothes washer warm
wash temperature selection in Appendix J1.
9. Warm Rinse
In the supplemental proposed rule, the Department proposed
requirements to test heated rinses (section 3.7) independent of wash
temperatures. This proposal, based generally on AHAM's recommendation,
required that the entire electrical energy be measured for a ``warm
wash and hottest rinse cycle,'' and that the energy used in the heated
rinse be derived from this measurement of the energy used in the entire
clothes washer cycle. AHAM suggested, and Raytheon supported, a
revision to the heated rinse testing requirements so as to measure only
the energy consumption including electrical energy consumption of the
warm rinse cycle. In addition, AHAM and Raytheon suggested some minor
modifications to the rule language implementing these testing
requirements, to make the language more consistent with the entire test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 14 at 3; and Raytheon, No. 13 at 1; both Docket
230A).
The Department believes that the revisions suggested by AHAM and
Raytheon will provide the same test result as DOE's proposal while
reducing test burden, and will simplify the rule language in the
process. Therefore, the Department is adopting these suggested
revisions for warm rinse testing in Appendix J1.
D. Related Issues, Revision to 10 CFR 430.23, ``Test procedures for
measures of energy consumption.''
In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed specific
changes to 10 CFR 430.23(j) (1) and (2). These changes included a
decrease in the number of annual cycles, changes in Appendix J section
number references, and the incorporation of the Modified Energy Factor
descriptor. In the supplemental proposed rule, DOE stated that if it
were to adopt Appendix J1, then it would make the necessary changes to
Sec. 430.23 for Appendix J1. The Department did not receive any
negative comments regarding these proposals.
In today's final rule, the Department is incorporating the proposed
changes into Sec. 430.23. In addition, the Department is making
nonsubstantive changes to Sec. 430.23 and Appendix J. The Department
proposed that the Modified Energy Factor descriptor be set forth in
Appendices J and J1, and referenced in Sec. 430.23. The Department
believes it would be beneficial to users of the test procedures, and
would be more consistent with the foregoing proposal, if the Energy
Factor descriptor now located in Sec. 430.23, was instead referenced in
Sec. 430.23 and set forth in Appendices J and J1. Today's final rule
promulgates these changes.
Section 430.23(j)(3) provides a general statement regarding other
useful measures of energy consumption which are likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions. Currently, this section does
not include any descriptors, or useful information to consumers. The
Department believes that including references to the Water Consumption
Factor, Remaining Moisture Content, and a calculation for annual water
consumption will provide greater exposure of additional information to
consumers, or users of the test procedure. These changes are
nonsubstantive and provide information available in the existing test
procedures.
[[Page 45499]]
These changes do not impose any additional requirements on
manufacturers. Therefore, today's final rule includes the above
references in Sec. 430.23(j)(3).
E. Reporting Requirements, Revision to 10 CFR 430.62, ``Submission of
Data''
In the March 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed to require
that, on the certification report for each basic model of a dishwasher,
clothes dryer, or clothes washer the manufacturer would report the
Energy Factor for the basic model. The Department did not receive any
negative comments regarding this proposal. Therefore, today's final
rule includes a requirement for Energy Factors to be included on
manufacturers' certification reports for dishwashers, clothes dryers,
and clothes washers, as proposed in the March 1995 proposed rule.
ACEEE commented, however, that the Department should require in
addition the reporting of clothes washer capacity, total clothes washer
water use, and RMC. ACEEE believes this data will support market
incentive programs for high efficiency clothes washers. (ACEEE, No. 32
at 2). The Department already requires the reporting of clothes washer
capacity in the certification report. 10 CFR 430.62(a)(2), ``Submission
of Data.'' The Department believes it would not be appropriate to
require manufacturers to report total water use and RMC. Today's
Appendix J does not require the calculation of total water use or RMC.
These criteria are provided in the test procedure for optional use by
manufacturers or other testers. Imposing reporting requirements for
such criteria would impose additional test burden on manufacturers. The
Department does, however, support the wide dissemination of this
information on a voluntary basis, as reflected in today's amendments to
Sec. 430.23(j)(3), discussed above. Therefore, today's final rule does
not include reporting requirements for clothes washer total water use
or RMC.
F. Effective Date
The effective date specified for today's amendments is (insert date
180 days after publication). Thus, as of that time, manufacturers must
use Appendix J as amended in this rule whenever they are required to
test clothes washers to determine if they comply with applicable energy
conservation standards. Similarly, unless the Department receives and
grants a petition for extension under section 323(c)(3) of EPCA, any
representations concerning clothes washers, made after (insert date 180
days from publication) should be based on this amended test procedure.
The Department notes, in addition, that, until the amendments
become effective in 180 days, they cannot be used to establish
compliance with standards by clothes washers that cannot be tested
under existing test procedures. Manufacturers of any products that
cannot be adequately tested under the current test procedure must seek
a waiver under 10 CFR 430.27 for the interim period.
As noted above and at the outset of the text of Appendix J1,
Appendix J1 will not become mandatory until new energy conservation
standards for clothes washers have been adopted. At that time, DOE will
remove the current Appendix J. In the meantime, Appendix J1 will be
used in the development of the new standards.
IV. Determination Concerning the Impact of the Amended Test Procedures
on Standards
Section 323 of EPCA requires that the Department determine the
extent to which an amended test procedure would alter the measured
energy efficiency or measured energy use of clothes washers as compared
with the existing test procedure. Such assessment is made for the
purpose of assuring that revisions in test procedures do not in effect
alter existing energy conservation standards by altering the compliance
of existing products with those standards. Today's amendments to
Appendix J would not affect measurement of the efficiency or energy use
of any clothes washer, with the exception of a clothes washer with a
lockout feature.
With respect to clothes washers with a lockout feature, the
amendments being adopted fill a gap in the prior test procedures. Prior
procedures lacked a suitable means for testing whether such clothes
washers comply with applicable standards, and today's amendments
provide such a means. It is the Department's understanding that very
few clothes washers with a lockout feature are currently being
manufactured. Moreover, the Department is not aware of any such machine
that complies with applicable energy conservation standards under prior
test procedures, and that would be rendered in non-compliance under
Appendix J as amended today.
Appendix J1 also would not affect the measurement of compliance
with existing standards. It is being promulgated for use in developing
future amendments to the standards for clothes washers, and would go
into effect only upon the effective date of any such future amendment.
V. Procedural Requirements
A. Environmental Review
The Department has concluded that this final rule falls into a
class of actions (categorical exclusion A5) that are categorically
excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
review because they would not individually or cumulatively have a
significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's
regulations (10 CFR part 1021, Subpart D) implementing NEPA [42 U.S.C.
4321, 4331-35, 4341-47 (1976)]. Therefore, this rule does not require
an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment
pursuant to NEPA.
B. Regulatory Planning and Review
DOE has determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action
was not subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.
C. Federalism Review
Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987) requires that
regulations or rules be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. If there are sufficient substantial
direct effects, the Executive Order requires the preparation of a
Federalism assessment to be used in decisions by senior policy makers
in promulgating or implementing the regulation.
The final rule published today would not alter the distribution of
authority and responsibility to regulate in this area. The final rule
would only revise a currently applicable DOE test procedure to improve
existing testing methods, and to add provisions that DOE would use in
future standard setting. Accordingly, DOE has determined that
preparation of a federation assessment is unnecessary.
D. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
It has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630 (52 FR
8859, March 18, 1988) that this regulation would not result in any
takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
[[Page 45500]]
E. Paperwork Reduction Act Review
No new information or recordkeeping requirements are imposed by
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB clearance is required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
F. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Department prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
The Department has determined that this action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to state, local or to tribal governments in the aggregate or to
the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of Sections 203 and 204
of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
G. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for every
rule which by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on
small entities and, if the impact is significant and widespread, the
analysis considers alternate ways of reducing negative impacts.
In the March 1995 proposed rule and the May 1995 proposed rule, the
Department certified that the proposed amendments, if adopted as final
rules, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. None of the comments on these proposed rules
disagreed. In adopting final rules based on these proposals, the
Department continues to adhere to this conclusion.
Certain provisions of Appendix J in today's final rules, and all of
Appendix J1, arise out of the April 1996 supplemental proposed rule,
and certain other provisions of Appendix J are based on the November
1996 reopening notice. The Department believes these provisions of the
final rule also will not have a significant impact on either small or
large manufacturers of clothes washers under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. No comment indicated otherwise. These
amendments to Appendix J incorporate: (1) Test procedures already in
use by manufacturers pursuant to waivers that DOE previously granted to
those manufacturers, (2) test provisions that expand or elaborate on
amendments proposed in the March 1995 proposed rule, and (3) procedural
refinements that do not affect test burden. These amendments to
Appendix J will have virtually no impact on manufacturer costs. For
Appendix J1, which may be used in the future, the Department is
updating the test procedures to reflect current consumer usage habits.
Appendix J1 will not have a significant economic impact, since the
methods it incorporates are already in use by manufacturers, and will
not cause manufacturers to purchase equipment, significantly increase
testing time, or employ technical staff beyond what is required by
existing DOE test procedures.
In addition, in some respects the test procedures in the final rule
are less burdensome than the current procedures. For example:
In Appendix J, the Department is relaxing specific
equipment requirements which are irrelevant, and thus will provide
greater flexibility in manufacturer equipment selection.
In Appendix J1, manufacturers will not have to test warm
wash temperature selections for clothes washers with uniformly
distributed temperature selections.
In summary, DOE believes that the final rule does not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis was and is not warranted.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, the final regulations meet the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
I. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress
promulgation of the rule prior to its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 801. The
report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 20, 1997.
Brian T. Castelli,
Chief of Staff, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 430 of Chapter II
of Title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.
2. Section 430.23 of Subpart B is amended by revising paragraph (j)
to read as follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for measures of energy consumption.
* * * * *
(j) Clothes washers. (1) The estimated annual operating cost for
automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers shall be--
[[Page 45501]]
(i) When electrically heated water is used, the product of the
following three factors:
(A) The representative average-use of 392 cycles per year,
(B) The total per-cycle energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per
cycle determined according to 4.1.6 of appendix J before appendix J1
becomes mandatory and 4.1.7 of appendix J1 when appendix J1 becomes
mandatory, (see the note at the beginning of appendix J1), and
(C) The representative average unit cost in dollars per kilowatt-
hour as provided by the Secretary, the resulting product then being
rounded off to the nearest dollar per year, and
(ii) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used, the product of:
the representative average-use of 392 cycles per year and the sum of
both:
(A) The product of the per-cycle machine electrical energy
consumption in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to 4.1.5
of appendix J before the date that appendix J1 to the subpart becomes
mandatory or 4.1.6 of appendix J1 upon the date that appendix J1 to
this subpart becomes mandatory, and the representative average unit
cost in dollars per kilowatt-hours as provided by the Secretary, and
(B) The product of the per-cycle water energy consumption for gas-
heated or oil-heated water in BTU per cycle, determined according to
4.1.4 of appendix J before the date that appendix J1 becomes mandatory
or 4.1.4 of appendix J1 upon the date that appendix J1 to this subpart
becomes mandatory, and the representative average unit cost in dollars
per Btu for oil or gas, as appropriate, as provided by the Secretary,
the resulting product then being rounded off to the nearest dollar per
year.
(2)(i) The energy factor for automatic and semi-automatic clothes
washers is determined in accordance with 4.5 of appendix J before the
date that appendix J1 becomes mandatory or 4.5 of appendix J1 upon the
date that appendix J1 to this subpart becomes mandatory. The result
shall be rounded off to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot per kilowatt-hours.
(ii) The modified energy factor for automatic and semi-automatic
clothes washers is determined in accordance with 4.4 of appendix J
before the date that appendix J1 becomes mandatory or 4.4 of appendix
J1 upon the date that appendix J1 to this subpart becomes mandatory.
The result shall be rounded off to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot per
kilowatt-hours.
(3) Other useful measures of energy consumption for automatic or
semi-automatic clothes washers shall be those measures of energy
consumption which the Secretary determines are likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions and which are derived from the
application of appendix J before the date that appendix J1 becomes
mandatory or appendix J1 upon the date that appendix J1 to this subpart
becomes mandatory. In addition, the annual water consumption of a
clothes washer can be determined by the product of:
(A) The representative average-use of 392 cycles per year, and
(B) The total weighted per-cycle water consumption in gallons per
cycle determined according to 4.3.2 of appendix J before the date that
appendix J1 becomes mandatory or 4.2.2 of appendix J1 upon the date
that appendix J1 to this subpart becomes mandatory. The water
consumption factor can be determined in accordance with 4.3.3 of
appendix J before the date that appendix J1 becomes mandatory or 4.2.3
of appendix J1 upon the date that appendix J1 to this subpart becomes
mandatory. The remaining moisture content can be determined in
accordance with 3.3 of appendix J before the date that appendix J1
becomes mandatory or 3.8 of appendix J1 upon the date that appendix J1
to this subpart becomes mandatory.
3. Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430 is revised to read as
follows:
Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers
The procedures and calculations in sections 3.3, 4.3, and 4.4 of
this Appendix need not be performed to determine compliance with the
energy conservation standards for clothes washers.
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 Adaptive control system means a clothes washer control
system, other than an adaptive water fill control system, which is
capable of automatically adjusting washer operation or washing
conditions based on characteristics of the clothes load placed in
the clothes container, without allowing or requiring consumer
intervention or actions. The automatic adjustments may, for example,
include automatic selection, modification, or control of any of the
following: wash water temperature, agitation or tumble cycle time,
number of rinse cycles, and spin speed. The characteristics of the
clothes load, which could trigger such adjustments, could, for
example, consist of or be indicated by the presence of either soil,
soap, suds, or any other additive laundering substitute or
complementary product.
Note: Appendix J does not provide a means for determining the
energy consumption of a clothes washer with an adaptive control
system. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, a waiver must be
obtained to establish an acceptable test procedure for each such
clothes washer.
1.2 Adaptive water fill control system means a clothes washer
water fill control system which is capable of automatically
adjusting the water fill level based on the size or weight of the
clothes load placed in the clothes container, without allowing or
requiring consumer intervention and/or actions.
1.3 Bone-dry means a condition of a load of test cloth which
has been dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10
minutes, removed and weighed before cool down, and then dried again
for 10-minute periods until the final weight change of the load is 1
percent or less.
1.4 Clothes container means the compartment within the clothes
washer that holds the clothes during operation of the machine.
1.5 Compact means a clothes washer which has a clothes
container capacity of less than 1.6 ft3 (45 L).
1.6 Deep rinse cycle means a rinse cycle in which the clothes
container is filled with water to a selected level and the clothes
load is rinsed by agitating it or tumbling it through the water.
1.7 Front-loader clothes washer means a clothes washer which
sequentially rotates or tumbles portions of the clothes load above
the water level allowing the clothes load to fall freely back into
the water. The principal axis of the clothes container is in a
horizontal plane and the access to the clothes container is through
the front of the machine.
1.8 Lockout means that at least one wash/rinse water
temperature combination is not available in the normal cycle that is
available in another cycle on the machine.
1.9 Make-up water means the amount of fresh water needed to
supplement the amount of stored water pumped from the external
laundry tub back into the clothes washer when the suds-return
feature is activated in order to achieve the required water fill
level in the clothes washer.
1.10 Modified energy factor means the quotient of the cubic
foot (or liter) capacity of the clothes container divided by the
total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such energy
consumption expressed as the sum of the machine electrical energy
consumption, the hot water energy consumption, and the energy
required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load.
1.11 Most energy intensive cycle means the non-normal cycle
that uses the most energy for a given wash/rinse temperature
combination.
1.12 Non-normal cycle means a cycle other than the normal
cycle, but does not include any manually selected pre-wash, pre-
soak, and extra-rinse option.
1.13 Nonwater-heating clothes washer means a clothes washer
which does not have an internal water heating device to generate hot
water.
1.14 Normal cycle means the cycle recommended by the
manufacturer for washing cotton and/or linen clothes.
1.15 Sensor filled means a water fill control which
automatically terminates the fill when the water reaches an
appropriate level in the tub.
[[Page 45502]]
1.16 Spray rinse cycle means a rinse cycle in which water is
sprayed onto the clothes load for a definite period of time without
maintaining any specific water level in the clothes container.
1.17 Standard means a clothes washer which has a clothes
container capacity of 1.6 ft \3\ (45 L) or greater.
1.18 Suds-return means a feature or option on a clothes washer
which causes the stored wash water obtained by utilizing the suds-
saver feature to be pumped from the external laundry tub back into
the clothes washer.
1.19 Suds-saver means a feature or option on a clothes washer
which allows the user to store used wash water in an external
laundry tub for use with subsequent wash loads.
1.20 Temperature use factor means the percentage of the total
number of washes a user would wash with a particular wash/rinse
temperature setting.
1.21 Thermostatically controlled water valves means clothes
washer controls that have the ability to sense and adjust the hot
and cold supply water.
1.22 Time filled means a water fill control which uses a
combination of water flow controls in conjunction with time to
terminate the water fill cycle.
1.23 Top-loader-horizontal-axis clothes washer means a clothes
washer which: rotates or tumbles portions of the clothes load above
the water level allowing the clothes load to fall freely back into
the water with the principal axis in a horizontal plane and has
access to the clothes container through the top of the clothes
washer.
1.24 Top-loader-vertical-axis clothes washer means a clothes
washer that: flexes and oscillates the submerged clothes load
through the water by means of mechanical agitation or other
movement; has a clothes container with the principal axis in a
vertical plane; and has access to the clothes container through the
top of the clothes washer.
1.25 Water consumption factor means the quotient of the total
weighted per-cycle water consumption divided by the capacity of the
clothes washer.
1.26 Water-heating clothes washer means a clothes washer where
some or all of the hot water for clothes washing is generated by a
water heating device internal to the clothes washer.
2. TESTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Installation. Install the clothes washer in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions.
2.2 Electrical energy supply. Maintain the electrical supply at
the clothes washer terminal block within 2 percent of 120, 120/240
or 120/208Y volts as applicable to the particular terminal block
wiring system as specified by the manufacturer. If the clothes
washer has a dual voltage conversion capability, conduct the test at
the highest voltage specified by the manufacturer.
2.3 Supply water. For nonwater-heating clothes washers not
equipped with thermostatically controlled water valves, the
temperature of the hot and cold water supply shall be maintained at
100 deg.F10 deg.F (37.8 deg.C5.5 deg.C). For
nonwater-heating clothes washers equipped with thermostatically
controlled water valves, the temperature of the hot water supply
shall be maintained at 140 deg.F5 deg.F
(60.0 deg.C2.8 deg.C) and the cold water supply shall be
maintained at 60 deg.F5 deg.F
(15.6 deg.C2.8 deg.C). For water-heating clothes
washers, the temperature of the hot water supply shall be maintained
at 140 deg.F5 deg.F (60.0 deg.C2.8 deg.C)
and the cold water supply shall not exceed 60 deg.F (15.6 deg.C).
Water meters shall be installed in both the hot and cold water lines
to measure water consumption.
2.4 Water pressure. The static water pressure at the hot and
cold water inlet connections of the machine shall be maintained
during the test at 35 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig)2.5 psig (241.3 kPa17.2 kPa). The
static water pressure for a single water inlet connection shall be
maintained during the test at 35 psig2.5 psig (241.3
kPa17.2 kPa). Water pressure gauges shall be installed
in both the hot and cold water lines to measure water pressure.
2.5 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the
following instruments, as appropriate:
2.5.1 Weighing scales.
2.5.1.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a
resolution no larger than 0.2 oz (5.7 g) and a maximum error no
greater than 0.3 percent of the measured value.
2.5.1.2 Weighing scale for clothes container capacity
measurements. The scale should have a resolution no larger than 0.50
lbs (0.23 kg) and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the
measured value.
2.5.2 Watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter shall have a
resolution no larger than 1 Wh (3.6 kJ) and a maximum error no
greater than 2 percent of the measured value for any demand greater
than 50 Wh (180.0 kJ).
2.5.3 Temperature measuring device. The device shall have an
error no greater than 1 deg.F (0.6 deg.C)
over the range being measured.
2.5.4 Water meter. The water meter shall have a resolution no
larger than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters) and a maximum error no greater
than 2 percent for all water flow rates from 1 gal/min (3.8 L/min)
to 5 gal/min (18.9 L/min).
2.5.5 Water pressure gauge. The water pressure gauge shall have
a resolution no larger than 1 psig (6.9 kPa) and shall have an error
no greater than 5 percent of any measured value over the range of
32.5 psig (224.1 kPa) to 37.5 psig (258.6 kPa).
2.6 Test cloths.
2.6.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test cloth shall be clean
and consist of the following:
2.6.1.1 Pure finished bleached cloth, made with a momie or
granite weave, which is 50 percent cotton and 50 percent polyester
and weighs 5.75 oz/yd \2\ (195.0 g/m \2\) and has 65 ends on the
warp and 57 picks on the fill.
2.6.1.2 Cloth material that is 24 in by 36 in (61.0 cm by 91.4
cm) and has been hemmed to 22 in by 34 in (55.9 cm by 86.4 cm)
before washing. The maximum shrinkage after five washes shall not be
more than four percent on the length and width.
2.6.1.3 The number of test runs on the same energy test cloth
shall not exceed 25 runs.
2.6.2 Energy stuffer cloths. The energy stuffer cloths shall be
made from energy test cloth material and shall consist of pieces of
material that are 12 in by 12 in (30.5 cm by 30.5 cm) and have been
hemmed to 10 in by 10 in (25.4 cm by 25.4 cm) before washing. The
maximum shrinkage after five washes shall not be more than four
percent on the length and width. The number of test runs on the same
energy stuffer cloth shall not exceed 25 runs.
2.7 Composition of test loads.
2.7.1 Seven pound test load. The seven pound test load shall
consist of bone-dry energy test cloths which weigh 7 lbs
0.07 lbs (3.18 kg 0.03 kg). Adjustments to
the test load to achieve the proper weight can be made by the use of
energy stuffer cloths.
2.7.2 Three pound test load. The three pound test load shall
consist of bone-dry energy test cloths which weigh 3 lbs
0.03 lbs (1.36 kg 0.014 kg). Adjustments to
the test load to achieve the proper weight can be made by the use of
energy stuffer cloths.
2.8 Use of test loads.
2.8.1 For a standard size clothes washer, a seven pound load,
as described in section 2.7.1, shall be used to test the maximum
water fill and a three pound test load, as described in section
2.7.2, shall be used to test the minimum water fill.
2.8.2 For a compact size clothes washer, a three pound test
load as described in section 2.7.2 shall be used to test the maximum
and minimum water fill levels.
2.8.3 A vertical-axis clothes washer without adaptive water
fill control system also shall be tested without a test load for
purposes of calculating the energy factor.
2.8.4 The test load sizes to be used to measure remaining
moisture content (RMC) are specified in section 3.3.2.
2.8.5 Load the energy test cloths by grasping them in the
center, shaking them to hang loosely and then dropping them into the
clothes container prior to activating the clothes washer.
2.9 Preconditioning. If the clothes washer has not been filled
with water in the preceding 96 hours, pre-condition it by running it
through a cold rinse cycle and then draining it to ensure that the
hose, pump, and sump are filled with water.
2.10 Wash time setting. The actual wash time (period of
agitation) shall be not less than 9.75 minutes.
2.11 Agitation and spin speed settings. Where controls are
provided for agitation and spin speed selections, set them as
follows:
2.11.1 For energy and water consumption tests, set at the
normal cycle settings. If settings at the normal cycle are not
offered, set the control settings to the maximum levels permitted on
the clothes washer.
2.11.2 For remaining moisture content tests, see section 3.3.
3. TEST MEASUREMENTS
3.1 Clothes container capacity. Measure the entire volume which
a dry clothes load could occupy within the clothes container during
washer operation according to sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.5.
3.1.1 Place the clothes washer in such a position that the
uppermost edge of the clothes container opening is leveled
horizontally, so that the container will hold the maximum amount of
water.
3.1.2 Line the inside of the clothes container with 2 mil
(0.051 mm) plastic sheet. All clothes washer components which
[[Page 45503]]
occupy space within the clothes container and which are recommended
for use with the energy test cycle shall be in place and shall be
lined with 2 mil (0.051 mm) plastic sheet to prevent water from
entering any void space.
3.1.3 Record the total weight of the machine before adding
water.
3.1.4 Fill the clothes container manually with either 60 deg.F
5 deg.F (15.6 deg.C 2.8 deg.C) or 100 deg.F
10 deg.F (37.8 deg.C 5.5 deg.C) water to its
uppermost edge. Measure and record the weight of water, W, in
pounds.
3.1.5 The clothes container capacity is calculated as follows:
C=W/d.
where:
C=Capacity in cubic feet (or liters).
W=Mass of water in pounds (or kilograms).
d=Density of water (62.0 lbs/ft 3 for 100 deg.F (993 kg/m
3 for 37.8 deg.C) or 62.3 lbs/ft 3 for
60 deg.F (998 kg/m 3 for 15.6 deg.C)).
3.2 Test cycle. Establish the test conditions set forth in
section 2 of this Appendix.
3.2.1 A clothes washer that has infinite temperature selections
shall be tested at the following temperature settings: hottest
setting available on the machine, hot (a minimum of 140 deg.F
(60.0 deg.C) and a maximum of 145 deg.F (62.8 deg.C)), warm (a
minimum of 100 deg.F (37.8 deg.C) and a maximum of 105 deg.F
(40.6 deg.C)), and coldest setting available on the machine. These
temperatures must be confirmed by measurement using a temperature
measuring device. If the measured final water temperature is not
within the specified range, stop testing, adjust the temperature
selector accordingly, and repeat the procedure.
3.2.2 Clothes washers with adaptive water fill control system
and/or unique temperature selections.
3.2.2.1 Clothes washers with adaptive water fill control
system. When testing a clothes washer that has adaptive water fill
control, the maximum and the minimum test loads as specified in
2.8.1 and 2.8.2 shall be used. The amount of water fill shall be
determined by the control system. If the clothes washer provides
consumer selection of variable water fill amounts for the adaptive
water fill control system, two complete sets of tests shall be
conducted. The first set of tests shall be conducted with the
adaptive water fill control system set in the setting that will use
the greatest amount of energy. The second set of tests shall be
conducted with the adaptive water fill control system set in the
setting that will use the smallest amount of energy. Then, the
results from these two tests shall be averaged to determine the
adaptive water fill energy consumption value. If a clothes washer
with an adaptive water fill control system allows consumer selection
of manual controls as an alternative, both the manual and adaptive
modes shall be tested and the energy consumption values,
ET, ME, and DE (if desired),
calculated in section 4 for each mode, shall be averaged between the
manual and adaptive modes.
3.2.2.2 Clothes washers with multiple warm wash temperature
combination selections.
3.2.2.2.1 If a clothes washer's temperature combination
selections are such that the temperature of each warm wash setting
that is above the mean warm wash temperature (the mean temperature
of the coldest and warmest warm settings) is matched by a warm wash
setting that is an equal distance below the mean, then the energy
test shall be conducted at the mean warm wash temperature if such a
selection is provided, or if there is no position on the control
that permits selection of the mean temperature, the energy test
shall be conducted with the temperature selection set at the next
hotter temperature setting that is available above the mean.
3.2.2.2.2 If the multiple warm wash temperature combination
selections do not meet criteria in section 3.2.2.2.1, the energy
test shall be conducted with the temperature selection set at the
warm wash temperature setting that gives the next higher water
temperature than the mean temperature of the coldest and warmest
warm settings.
3.2.2.3 Clothes washers with multiple temperature settings
within a temperature combination selection. When a clothes washer is
provided with a secondary control that can modify the wash or rinse
temperature within a temperature combination selection, the
secondary control shall be set to provide the hottest wash
temperature available and the hottest rinse temperature available.
For instance, when the temperature combination selection is set for
the middle warm wash temperature and a secondary control exists
which allows this temperature to be increased or decreased, the
secondary control shall be set to provide the hottest warm wash
temperature available for the middle warm wash setting.
3.2.3 Clothes washers that do not lockout any wash/rinse
temperature combinations in the normal cycle. Test in the normal
cycle all temperature combination selections that are required to be
tested.
3.2.3.1 Hot water consumption, cold water consumption, and
electrical energy consumption at maximum fill. Set the water level
selector at maximum fill available on the clothes washer, if
manually controlled, and insert the appropriate test load, if
applicable. Activate the normal cycle of the clothes washer and also
any suds-saver switch.
3.2.3.1.1 For automatic clothes washers, set the wash/rinse
temperature selector to the hottest temperature combination setting.
For semi-automatic clothes washers, open the hot water faucet valve
completely and close the cold water faucet valve completely to
achieve the hottest temperature combination setting.
3.2.3.1.2 Measure the electrical energy consumption of the
clothes washer for the complete cycle.
3.2.3.1.3 Measure the respective number of gallons (or liters)
of hot and cold water used to fill the tub for the wash cycle.
3.2.3.1.4 Measure the respective number of gallons (or liters)
of hot and cold water used for all deep rinse cycles.
3.2.3.1.5 Measure the respective gallons (or liters) of hot and
cold water used for all spray rinse cycles.
3.2.3.1.6 For non-water-heating automatic clothes washers
repeat sections 3.2.3.1.3 through 3.2.3.1.5 for each of the other
wash/rinse temperature selections available that uses heated water
and is required to be tested. For water-heating clothes washers,
repeat sections 3.2.3.1.2 through 3.2.3.1.5 for each of the other
wash/rinse temperature selections available that uses heated water
and is required to be tested. (When calculating water consumption
under section 4.3 for any machine covered by the previous two
sentences, also test the cold wash/cold rinse selection.) For semi-
automatic clothes washers, repeat sections 3.2.3.1.3 through
3.2.3.1.5 for the other wash/rinse temperature settings in section 6
with the following water faucet valve adjustments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faucet position
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot valve Cold valve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot.............................. Completely open....................... Closed.
Warm............................. Completely open....................... Completely open.
Cold............................. Closed................................ Completely open.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2.3.1.7 If the clothes washer is equipped with a suds-saver
cycle, repeat sections 3.2.3.1.2 to 3.2.3.1.5 with suds-saver switch
set to suds return for the Warm/Cold temperature setting.
3.2.3.2 Hot water consumption, cold water consumption, and
electrical energy consumption with the water level selector at
minimum fill. Set the water level selector at minimum fill, if
manually controlled, and insert the appropriate test load, if
applicable. Activate the normal cycle of the clothes washer and also
any suds-saver switch. Repeat sections 3.2.3.1.1 through 3.2.3.1.7.
3.2.3.3 Hot and cold water consumption for clothes washers that
incorporate a partial fill during the rinse cycle. For clothes
washers that incorporate a partial fill during the rinse cycle,
activate any suds-saver switch and operate the clothes washer for
the complete normal cycle at both the maximum water fill level and
the minimum water fill level for each of the wash/rinse temperature
selections available. Measure the respective hot and cold water
consumed during the complete normal cycle.
3.2.4 Clothes washers that lockout any wash/rinse temperature
combinations in the normal cycle. In addition to the normal cycle
tests in section 3.2.3, perform the following
[[Page 45504]]
tests on non-normal cycles for each wash/rinse temperature
combination selection that is locked out in the normal cycle.
3.2.4.1 Set the cycle selector to a non-normal cycle which has
the wash/rinse temperature combination selection that is locked out.
Set the water level selector at maximum fill and insert the
appropriate test load, if applicable. Activate the cycle of the
clothes washer and also any suds-saver switch. Set the wash/rinse
temperature selector to the temperature combination setting that is
locked out in the normal cycle and repeat sections 3.2.3.1.2 through
3.2.3.1.5.
3.2.4.2 Repeat section 3.2.4.1 under the same temperature
combination setting for all other untested non-normal cycles on the
machine that have the wash/rinse temperature combination selection
that is locked out.
3.2.4.3 Total the measured hot water consumption of the wash,
deep rinse, and spray rinse of each non-normal cycle tested in
sections 3.2.4.1 through 3.2.4.2 and compare the total for each
cycle. The cycle that has the highest hot water consumption shall be
the most energy intensive cycle for that particular wash/rinse
temperature combination setting.
3.2.4.4 Set the water level selector at minimum fill and insert
the appropriate test load, if applicable. Activate the most energy
intensive cycle, as determined in section 3.2.4.3, of the clothes
washer and also any suds-saver switch. Repeat tests as described in
section 3.2.4.1.
3.3 Remaining Moisture Content (RMC).
3.3.1 The wash temperature shall be the same as the rinse
temperature for all testing.
3.3.2 Determine the test load as shown in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Container volume Test load
------------------------------------------------------------------------
liter COLD, expressed as a percentage and
defined as:
RMCCOLD=[(WC-WI)/WI] x 100%
3.3.4.2 Complete steps 3.3.3.1 through 3.3.3.4 for the warm
rinse. Calculate the remaining moisture content of the test load for
warm rinse, RMCWARM, expressed as a percentage and
defined as:
RMCWARM=[(WC-WI)/WI] x 100%
3.3.4.3 Calculate the remaining moisture content of the test
load, RMC, expressed as a percentage and defined as:
RMC=0.73 x RMCCOLD+0.27 x RMCWARM
3.3.5 Clothes washers which have options that result in
different RMC values, such as multiple selection of spin speeds or
spin times that are available in the normal cycle, shall be tested
at the maximum and minimum settings of the available options,
excluding any ``no spin'' (zero spin speed) settings, in accordance
with requirements in 3.3.3 or 3.3.4. The calculated
RMCmax extraction and RMCmin extraction at the
maximum and minimum settings, respectively, shall be combined as
follows and the final RMC to be used in section 4.2 shall be:
RMC=0.75 x RMCmax extraction+0.25 x
RMCmin extraction
3.4 Data recording. Record for each test cycle in sections
3.2.1 through 3.3.5.
3.4.1 For non-water-heating clothes washers, record the
kilowatt-hours of electrical energy, ME, consumed during
the test to operate the clothes washer in section
[[Page 45505]]
3.2.3.1.2. For water-heating clothes washers record the kilowatt-
hours of electrical energy, Ehi consumed at maximum fill
in sections 3.2.3.1.2 and 3.2.3.1.6, and Ehj consumed at
minimum fill in section 3.2.3.2.
3.4.2 Record the individual gallons (or liters) of hot and cold
water consumption, Vhi and Vci, measured at
maximum fill level for each wash/rinse temperature combination
setting tested in section 3.2.3, or in both 3.2.3 and 3.2.4,
excluding any fresh make-up water required to complete the fill
during a suds-return cycle.
3.4.3 Record the individual gallons (or liters) of hot and cold
water consumption, Vhj and Vcj, measured at
minimum fill level for each wash/rinse temperature combination
setting tested in section 3.2.3, or in both 3.2.3 and 3.2.4,
excluding any fresh make-up water required to complete the fill
during a suds-return cycle.
3.4.4 Record the individual gallons (or liters) of hot and cold
water, ShH and ScH, measured at maximum fill
for the suds-return cycle.
3.4.5 Record the individual gallons (or liters) of hot and cold
water, ShL and ScL, measured at minimum fill
for the suds-return cycle.
3.4.6 Data recording requirements for RMC tests are listed in
sections 3.3.3 through 3.3.5.
4. CALCULATION OF DERIVED RESULTS FROM TEST MEASUREMENTS
4.1 Energy consumption.
4.1.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted hot water consumption for
maximum and minimum water fill levels. Calculate for the cycle under
test the per-cycle temperature weighted hot water consumption for
the maximum water fill level, Vhmax, and for the minimum
water fill level, Vhmin, expressed in gallons per cycle
(or liters per cycle) and defined as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27AU97.000
where:
Vhi=reported hot water consumption in gallons per cycle
(or liters per cycle) at maximum fill for each wash/rinse
temperature combination setting, as provided in section 3.4.2. If a
clothes washer is equipped with two or more different wash/rinse
temperature selections that have the same basic temperature
combination selection label (for example, one of them has its water
temperature controlled by thermostatically controlled valves and the
other one does not), then the largest Vhi shall be used
for this calculation. If a clothes washer has lockout(s), there will
be ``Vhi's'' for wash/rinse temperature combination
settings available in the normal cycle and ``Vhi's'' for
wash/rinse temperature combination settings in the most energy
intensive cycle.
Vhj=reported hot water consumption in gallons per cycle
(or liters per cycle) at minimum fill for each wash/rinse
temperature combination setting, as provided in section 3.4.3. If a
clothes washer is equipped with two or more different wash/rinse
temperature selections that have the same basic temperature
combination selection label (for example, one of them has its water
temperature controlled by thermostatically controlled valves and the
other one does not), then the largest Vhj shall be used
for the calculation. If a clothes washer has lockouts, there will be
``Vhj's'' for wash/rinse temperature combination settings
available in the normal cycle and ``Vhj's'' for wash/
rinse temperature combination settings in the most energy intensive
cycle.
L=lockout factor to be applied to the reported hot water
consumption. For wash/rinse temperature combination settings that
are not locked out in the normal cycle, L=1. For each wash/rinse
temperature combination setting that is locked out in the normal
cycle, L=0.32 in the normal cycle and L=0.68, in the most energy
intensive cycle.
TUFi=applicable temperature use factor in section 5 or 6.
TUFj=applicable temperature use factor in section 5 or 6.
n=number of wash/rinse temperature combination settings available to
the user for the clothes washer under test. For clothes washers that
lockout temperature selections in the normal cycle, n=the number of
wash/rinse temperature combination settings on the washers plus the
number of wash/rinse temperature combination settings that lockout
the temperature selections in the normal cycle.
TUFw=temperature use factor for warm wash setting.
For clothes washers equipped with the suds-saver feature:
X1=frequency of use without the suds-saver feature=0.86.
X2=frequency of use with the suds-saver feature=0.14.
ShH=fresh make-up water measured during suds-return cycle
at maxim
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.