Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer Energy Conservation Standards

[Federal Register: January 12, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 9)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3313-3333]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja01-20]

[[Page 3313]]

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

Part IX

Department of Energy

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

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer
Energy Conservation Standards; Final Rule

Finding of No Significant Impact; Energy Conservation Program for Cons

[[Page 3314]]

umer Products; Notice

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM-94-403]
RIN 1904-AA67

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer
Energy Conservation Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has determined
that revised energy conservation standards for clothes washers will
result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically
feasible, and are economically justified. On this basis, the Department
today amends the existing energy conservation standards for standard-
size clothes washers as proposed and as recommended by stakeholders.
The Department also amends the standards for compact clothes washers as
well as making minor amendments to the test procedure for measuring the
energy efficiency of clothes washers.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 1, 2004, except that
the effective date of the amendments to appendix J to subpart B of part
430 is February 12, 2001.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference as of January 1, 2004, of certain publications listed in this
rule.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Technical Support Document (TSD) may be read
at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Copies
of the TSD can be obtained from the Codes and Standards Internet site
at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/
clwasher.html or from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-
41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
9127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal
Building, Mail Station EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-0371, E-mail:
Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov, or Eugene Margolis, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9526, E-mail:
Eugene.Margolis@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department)
is incorporating by reference, test procedures from the American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC). These test
procedures are set forth in the standards publications listed below:
1. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists Test
Method 118--1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test
(reaffirmed 1997).
2. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists Test
Method 79--2000, Absorbency of Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed 2000).
Copies of these standards publications may be viewed at the Freedom
of Information Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0101, telephone (202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Copies of the above standards incorporated by reference can be
obtained from the American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists, P.O. Box 1215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, telephone
(919) 549-8141, telefax (919) 549-8933, or electronic mail:
orders@aatcc.org.

I. Introduction
A. Consumer Overview
1. Background
2. Clothes Washer Features
3. Consumer Benefits
4. National Benefits
B. Authority
C. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Previous Rulemakings
3. Process Improvement
4. Test Procedures
II. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
D. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and on Consumers
2. Life-Cycle-Costs
3. Energy Savings
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
E. Standards Incorporated by Reference
III. Methodology
IV. Discussion of Comments
A. Test Procedure
B. Standard
C. Two Standards in One Rulemaking
D. Consumer Information Statement
E. Consumer Input
F. Energy and Economic Analyses
G. Product Classes
H. Incremental Retail Costs
I. Water Savings
J. Detergent Savings
K. Life-Cycle-Costs and Payback
L. Cost Effectiveness
V. Analytical Results and Conclusion
A. Analytical Results
B. Conclusion
1. Trial Standard Level 6--MEF 1.63
2. Trial Standard Level 5--MEF 1.36
3. Trial Standard Level 4--MEF 1.26
4. Trial Standard Level 3--MEF 1.04/1.26
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
F. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Takings'' Assessment
Review
G. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriation Act of 1999.
J. Review Under the Plain Language Directives
K. Congressional Notification
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act

I. Introduction

A. Consumer Overview

1. Background
The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is directed by the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, to consider
establishing minimum efficiency standards for various consumer
products, including clothes washers. Today's standards are consistent
with these requirements of the law. DOE is amending almost ten-year-old
minimum efficiency standards for new standard-sized residential clothes
washers. These amended standards take into account a decade of
technological advancements and will save consumers and the nation
money, significant amounts of energy and water,

[[Page 3315]]

and have substantial environmental and economic benefits.
Interested parties involved in this rulemaking, including
manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates, jointly proposed these
clothes washer efficiency standards to the Department. The parties
believe these to be the highest standards which are technologically
feasible and economically justified as required by law. The standards,
as proposed by the parties, consist of two stages. The first stage
begins on January 1, 2004, and requires that all new residential
clothes washers manufactured after that date be 22 percent more
efficient than today's minimally compliant clothes washer. The second
stage begins on January 1, 2007, and requires that all new residential
clothes washers manufactured after that date be 35 percent more
efficient than today's minimally compliant clothes washer. Delaying the
standard implementation date for the higher efficiency level gives
manufacturers more time to research and develop lower-cost solutions to
achieve higher standards.
The Department has reviewed the Joint Proposal and agrees the
recommended standard is the highest efficiency level that is
technologically feasible and economically justified as required by law.
The Department therefore is amending the energy conservation standard
for the standard-size residential clothes washers as recommended in the
Joint Proposal.
2. Clothes Washer Features
The amended efficiency levels can be met by either top- or front-
loading designs. In fact, there are vertical-axis top-loading and
horizontal-axis front-loading washers on the market today that already
meet the higher 2007 standard. Thus, consumers will have the same range
of clothes washers as they have today. Furthermore, the clothes washer
energy efficiency standard will not impact clothes washer features
valued by consumers such as door placement, capacity, water temperature
and adjustable load sizes. The Department does not expect the cleaning
ability or the reliability and repair costs of washing machines to be
changed by the design changes anticipated under the clothes washer
amended standards and repair parts will continue to be available for
today's washers.
The energy and water savings result primarily from a variety of
innovative designs such as more efficient use of hot and cold water by
using more accurate sensors that can detect the clothing load and use
only as much water for washing as is necessary. The new washers also
use higher spin speeds to remove more water from the clothes so less
time and energy is needed to dry the clothes.
3. Consumer Benefits
Table 1 summarizes the ``vital statistics'' of today's typical
clothes washer. Table 2 presents the implications for the average
consumer of the 2004 and 2007 clothes washer standards.

Table 1.--Vital Statistics of Today's Typical Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average price.......................... $421.
Number of washes per year.............. 392.
Annual utility bill.................... $115.
Life expectance........................ 14.1 years.
Energy consumption..................... 3.23 kWh per wash (1266 kWh per
year).
Water consumption...................... 39.2 gallons per wash (15,366
gallons per year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Implications of New Standards for the Average Consumer
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year standard comes into 2004 (Stage 1)...... 2007 (Stage 2).
effect.
New clothes washer price.... $474................ $670.
Estimated price increase.... $53................. $249.
Annual utility bill savings. $15................. $48.
Median payback period....... 3.5 years........... 5.0 years.
Average net savings over $103................ $260.
appliance life.
Energy savings per wash..... 0.612 kWh........... 1.361 kWh.
Energy savings per year..... 239 kWh............. 533 kWh.
Water savings per wash...... 4.0 gallons......... 18.1 gallons.
Water savings per year...... 1568 gallons........ 7,095 gallons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, the typical clothes washer has a price of $421 and costs
$115 a year in energy and water bills. In order to meet the 2004
standard, the Department estimates that the price of a washer will be
$474, an increase of $53. This price increase will be offset by an
annual savings of about $15 on the utility bills. In order to meet the
2007 standard, the Department estimates that the price of a washer will
be $670, an increase of $249. This price increase will be offset by an
annual savings of about $48. It should be noted that DOE based its
estimate of the incremental retail cost for the 2007 standards on
manufacturer cost estimates for horizontal-axis machines submitted to
the Department in 1997. New cost information derived from vertical-axis
washers now in the market that meet the 2007 standards indicate that
the incremental prices could be substantially less. Based on the
Department's analysis, the incremental price of these high-efficiency
vertical-axis washers would be approximately $150.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Assumes a $75 incremental manufacturer cost and a total
mark-up of 1.99 (TSD Chapter 5 section 5.4.1 and Chapter 6 section
6.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department recognizes that few consumers are actually typical
in the energy and water prices that they pay and the number of wash
loads that they do per year. Consequently, the Department has
investigated the effects of the different energy and water prices
across the nation and different clothes washer usage patterns. The
Department estimates that about 90 percent and 81 percent of all
consumers purchasing a new washer will save money as a result of the
2004 and 2007 standards, respectively.
The Department also investigated how these standards might affect
low income consumers and senior households. The Department estimates
that about 90 percent and 81 percent of all low income consumers
purchasing a new washer will save money as a result of the 2004 and
2007 standards,

[[Page 3316]]

respectively. For senior households, these values are 84 and 72
percent.
4. National Benefits
The standards will provide large benefits to the nation. DOE
estimates the standards will save 5.52 quads of energy over 27 years
(2004 to 2030). This is equivalent to the total energy consumption of
all U.S. homes over a period of approximately 3.3 months. By 2020, the
standards will avoid the construction of four 400 megawatt coal-fired
plants and eleven 400 megawatt gas-fired plants. These energy savings
will result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 95.1
million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent,
or an amount equal to that produced by three million cars in a year.
Additionally, air pollution will have cumulative reduction by the
elimination of 253.5 thousand metric tons of nitrous oxides (
NOX) and 28.1 thousand metric tons of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) from 2004 to 2030. The cumulative water savings are
estimated at 11 trillion gallons, enough water to supply the needs of
6.6 million households for 25 years, meaning less water will be pumped
from America's aquifers and rivers, and less strain will be placed on
many of the nation's water and sewer systems. In total, we estimate the
net economic benefit to the nation of this standard will be $15.3
billion from 2004 to 2030.
Please note that you can find additional information about clothes
washers on the DOE web-site at: www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/
codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html.

B. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub.
L. 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act,
Pub. L. 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act
(NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation
Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Pub. L. 102-486 \2\ (the Act or EPCA) created the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. The consumer
products subject to this program (often referred to hereafter as
``covered products'') include clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of
1992, is referred to in this rule as the ``Act.'' Part B of Title
III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. Part B of Title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act only, is referred to in this rule as
the National Energy Conservation Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Act, the program consists essentially of three parts:
Testing, labeling, and Federal energy conservation standards. The
Department, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, amends or establishes new test procedures for each of
the covered products. Section 323 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6293. Test
procedures appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prescribes rules governing the
labeling of covered products after DOE publishes test procedures.
Section 324(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6294(a). At the present time, there
are Federal Trade Commission rules requiring labels for clothes
washers.
Any new or amended standard must be designed so as to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A).
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i),
provides that before DOE determines whether a standard is economically
justified, it must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After
reviewing comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest
extent practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors:

``(I) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers
and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
(II) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to
result from the imposition of the standard;
(III) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the imposition of the standard;
(IV) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
(V) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(VI) The need for national energy conservation; and
(VII) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.''

C. Background

1. Current Standards
The existing clothes washer efficiency standards have been in
effect since 1994. Energy efficiency for a clothes washer is measured
in terms of an energy factor (EF), which measures overall clothes
washer efficiency, in terms of cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle,
and is determined by the DOE test procedure. 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart
B, Appendix J. The current clothes washer efficiency standards are as
follows:
top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity),
EF = 0.90
top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater
capacity), EF = 1.18
top-loading, semi-automatic, must have an unheated rinse
option
front-loading, must have an unheated rinse option
suds-saving, must have an unheated rinse option
2. History of Previous Rulemakings
On November 14, 1994, DOE published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANOPR). 59 FR 56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE published a
Supplemental ANOPR. (Hereafter referred to as the 1998 Supplemental
ANOPR.) 63 FR 64344. In the 1998 Supplemental ANOPR, DOE provided
interested persons an opportunity to comment on:
(1) The product classes that we propose to analyze;
(2) The analytical framework, models (e.g., the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)), and tools (e.g., a Monte Carlo
sampling methodology, and life-cycle-cost (LCC) and national energy
savings (NES) spreadsheets) we used to perform analyses of the impacts
of standards; and
(3) The results of preliminary analyses for LCC, payback and
national energy savings contained in the Preliminary Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Clothes
Washers (TSD) dated October 1998 and summarized in the 1998
Supplemental ANOPR.
On October 5, 2000, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR or proposed rule) for energy efficiency standards. 65 FR 59550.
For the NOPR, we analyzed the energy savings, benefits and burdens of
amended energy conservation standards for clothes washers and shared
the results of these analyses with all stakeholders. Based on these
analyses, several of the major stakeholders, including clothes washer
manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates, submitted to the
Department a joint proposal for the highest standard level which they
believed to be technologically feasible and economically justified
(hereafter referred as the Joint Comment). (Joint Comment, No. 204).
Based on our review of the Joint Comment, we found the proposed
standards technologically

[[Page 3317]]

feasible and economically justified. Therefore, we proposed to amend
the energy conservation standard for clothes washers for residential
applications as recommended in the Joint Comment and announced a public
hearing, which was held on November 15, 2000.
Included in the NOPR for energy efficiency standards were revisions
to the clothes washer test procedure. The test procedure revisions we
made were necessary due to discrepancies uncovered in the measurement
of remaining moisture content (RMC). The discrepancies were found to be
caused by variations in the properties of the energy test cloth. The
situation has been addressed in the test procedure revisions by adding
provisions for cloth certification based on the results of extractor
testing and the derivation of a cloth-specific correction factor. In
addition, we incorporated minor editorial changes to help clarify both
Appendices J and J1 of the test procedure based on the joint proposal
by stakeholders. These changes, as proposed in the NOPR, are included
in this final rule.
3. Process Improvement
A moratorium was placed on publication of proposed or final rules
for appliance efficiency standards as part of the FY 1996
appropriations legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That moratorium expired on
September 30, 1996.
On July 15, 1996, the Department published a Process Improvement
Rule establishing procedures, interpretations and policies to guide the
Department in the consideration of new or revised appliance efficiency
standards (Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products, 61 FR 36974, July 15,
1996). DOE has followed the Process Improvement Rule, to the extent
possible, in developing the clothes washer standard.
We developed an analytical framework for the clothes washer
standards rulemaking for our stakeholders. The analytical framework
described the different analyses (e.g., LCC, payback and manufacturing
impact analyses (MIA)) to be conducted, the method for conducting them,
the use of new LCC and national energy savings (NES) spreadsheets, and
the relationship between the various analyses. We have conducted
several meetings, workshops and discussions regarding energy efficiency
standards for clothes washers. These workshops included discussions on
proposed design options and a preliminary engineering analysis on
November 15, 1996; development of an analytical framework for appliance
standards rulemaking on July 23, 1997; and development of two new
spreadsheet tools for LCC and NES on March 11, 1998. We conducted
public hearings on December 15, 1998, to receive additional comments on
the 1998 Supplemental ANOPR and on July 22, 1999, to discuss the
process, analytical tools and uncertainties with the test procedures.
We conducted a public hearing on November 15, 2000, to receive comment
on proposed efficiency standards addressed in the NOPR published on
October 5, 2000.
In the NOPR, we also incorporated the recommendations made by the
Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards on April
21, 1998. (Advisory Committee, No. 96). These recommendations relate to
using the full range of consumer marginal energy prices (CMEP) in the
LCC analysis (replacing the use of national average energy prices),
defining a range of energy price futures for each fuel used in the
economic analyses and defining a range of primary energy conversion
factors and associated emission reductions, based on the generation
displaced by energy efficiency standards for each rulemaking. Marginal
energy prices are used in the LCC, payback and the NPV portion of the
NES analyses. Because the NES results are inputs to the analyses for
utility, emissions and employment; these analyses are also impacted by
using marginal rates.
4. Test Procedures
Federal test procedures for clothes washers were first established
in 1977. Simultaneous with the NOPR for clothes washer standards, the
Department was also in the process of revising the clothes washer test
procedure. The Department needed to address a number of innovative
technologies for which there were no test procedures. A number of
proposals were published, including one on December 22, 1993, (58 FR
67710) and another on March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15330). In its comments to
the March 1995 proposed rule, the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM) requested that DOE adopt an additional new test
procedure, that captures current consumer habits that affect energy
use, which would be used in considering the revision of the clothes
washer energy conservation standards, and would go into effect upon
issuance of standards.
On April 22, 1996, the Department issued a supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking proposing such a new 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. The supplemental notice was published to seek comments on
whether DOE should adopt the AHAM recommended test procedure with
certain changes. The final rule, published on August 27, 1997, adopted
this recommendation. 62 FR 45484. Appendix J is the current applicable
test procedure, and it will expire on December 31, 2003. Appendix J1 is
informational and will not become mandatory until the energy
conservation standards of this rule become effective on January 1,
2004. The appendix J test procedure specifies an energy efficiency
descriptor called the energy factor (EF). The appendix J1 test
procedure specifies an energy efficiency descriptor called the modified
energy factor (MEF) which replaces the EF. Contrasting with the
previous EF descriptor, the MEF descriptor incorporates clothes dryer
energy by consideration of the remaining moisture content (RMC) of
clothes leaving the clothes washer. Other substantive differences
between the test procedures include using different water temperatures
for testing and using cloth loads in J1 but not in J. The issuance of
the test procedure final rule was a major step in accelerating the
development of clothes washer standards. The test procedure final rule
provided the basis upon which the energy and water consumption
calculations could be determined.
During this standards rulemaking, it was discovered that the test
cloth to be used for determining the RMC was giving inconsistent
results. The Department investigated possible causes for the
inconsistent test results, and results are summarized in the DOE
report, ``Development of a Standardized Energy Test Cloth for Measuring
Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes Washer,'' May 2000.
(DOE, No. 200). As part of our investigation into the cause of these
discrepancies, we found that various lots of test cloth will yield
inconsistent RMC results. To understand the effects of operating
variables and cloth specifications, it was necessary to conduct
laboratory tests to determine RMC. To insure that test results would
not be influenced or biased by any manufacturer's product (clothes
washer), we used an extractor to remove moisture content. An extractor
is a centrifuge--basically a rotating basket that has a controllable
speed to produce a variety of centrifugal forces. The speed was varied
to impose different centripetal accelerations on the test load. These
accelerations are reported in

[[Page 3318]]

terms of gravitational acceleration (g). We also soaked the cloth in a
tub at controlled temperature rather than use the agitated soak cycle
provided by a typical washer. The RMC tests closely resemble those
specified in the clothes washer test procedure.
An extractor-based test has been established to examine RMC values
at different gravitational forces (g-forces). A correction factor is
derived by which the deviation between a new production batch of test
cloth and a standard reference test cloth is measured. This deviation
is measured as the root mean square between the set of measured RMC
values and the set of standard RMC values. If this absolute deviation
is below 2 percent, then no correction factors are needed in MEF tests
using that batch of cloth. If the absolute root-mean-square (RMS)
difference between the cloth RMC values and standard RMC values is
above 2 percent, then correction factors must be applied when using the
cloth to test the MEF of a clothes washer.
As part of this rulemaking, we included revisions to the test
procedure based on our proposed language addressed in the May 2000
report dealing with the energy test cloth, RMC, extractor testing and
the correction factor and Joint Stakeholders Comment. (Joint Comment,
No. 204). In addition, we incorporated AHAM's comments and Joint
Stakeholders Comment requesting minor editorial changes to help clarify
both appendices J and J1. (AHAM, Nos. 197 and 199, and Joint Comment,
No. 204). These changes have been included in their entirety in this
rulemaking pertaining to the test procedure.

II. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

As addressed in the NOPR for energy efficiency standards, we
included revisions to the test procedure dealing with the energy test
cloth, RMC, extractor testing and the correction factor based on our
May 2000 report, which can be found in appendix C of the TSD. We also
incorporated changes suggested in AHAM's comments and in the Joint
Comment requesting minor editorial changes to help clarify both
appendices J and J1 of the test procedure. (AHAM, Nos. 197 and 199, and
Joint Comment, No. 204). In addition, during the public hearing held on
November 15, 2000, and in a written statement, AHAM requested that the
test procedure be further clarified and enhanced by incorporating
additional changes. These changes have been included in their entirety
in this final rule. A more complete discussion of these comments is
found in section IV of this rule.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
There are top- and front-loading clothes washers in the market at
all of the efficiency levels prescribed in today's final rule. The
Department, therefore, believes all of the efficiency levels contained
in today's final rule for both top- and front-loading clothes washers
are technologically feasible as required by 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, as
amended.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
The Act requires the Department, in considering any new or amended
standards, to consider those that ``shall be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.''
(Section 325(o)(2)(A)). Accordingly, for each class of product
considered in this rulemaking, a maximum technologically feasible (max
tech) design option was identified and considered as discussed in the
NOPR. 65 FR 59550, 59555-56 (October 5, 2000). See section V.
Analytical Results and Conclusions for details of the levels analyzed
for this rulemaking.
The Department considers design options technologically feasible if
they are already in use by the respective industry or research has
progressed to the development of a working prototype. The Process
Improvement Rule sets forth a definition of technological feasibility
as follows: ``Technologies incorporated in commercially available
products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically
feasible.'' 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A(4)(a)(4)(I).
In consultation with interested parties, the Department developed a
list of design options on all possible energy saving designs for
consideration. The Department gathered design option information from
previous clothes washer analyses, trade publications, industry research
organizations, product brochures from domestic and foreign
manufacturers, and appliance conferences, including the International
Appliance Technical Conference (IATC). The ``Draft Report on Design
Options for Clothes Washers'' and ``Draft Report on the Preliminary
Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers'' provide details on the
potential technologies. The following designs were considered: Improved
fill control, tighter tub tolerance, added insulation, increased motor
efficiency, thermostatically controlled mixing values, improved water
extraction, horizontal-axis, horizontal-axis with recirculation,
advanced control/sensor, suds-saving, direct drive motor, automatic
fill control, reduced thermal mass, electrolytic disassociation of
water, ultrasonic washing, bubble action, and ozonated laundering.
(Clothes Washer Public Workshop, No. 55B and 55C). Based on this
information the Department determined that a 50 percent reduction in
the energy use of the baseline model (corresponding to an MEF of 1.634)
is the maximum technologically feasible level for both the Top-Loading,
Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or greater capacity) and Front-Loading classes.
Additionally, under the guidelines in the Process Improvement Rule,
DOE conducted a screening analysis to eliminate from consideration,
early in the process, any design option which is not practicable to
manufacture, install, or service, will eliminate product utility
features, or for which there are safety concerns that can not be
resolved. In order to conduct the screening analysis, the Department
gathered information regarding all current technology options and
prototype designs. In consultation with interested parties, the
Department developed a list of design options for consideration in the
rulemaking. All technologically feasible design options were considered
in the screening analysis, and none were rejected.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
The Department forecasted energy savings through the use of a
national energy savings (NES) spreadsheet as discussed in the NOPR. 65
FR 59550, 59556, 59563-68 (October 5, 2000).
2. Significance of Savings
Under section 325(o)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department is prohibited
from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not
result in ``significant'' energy savings. While the term
``significant'' has never been defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d
1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), concluded that Congressional intent in
using the word ``significant'' was to mean ``non-trivial.'' The savings
to the nation are 5.52 quads of energy over 27 years (2004 to 2030)
which is equivalent to the total energy consumption of all U.S. homes
over a period of approximately 3.3 months. We

[[Page 3319]]

consider this to be non-trivial and therefore determine it to be
significant.

D. Economic Justification

As noted earlier, Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act provides seven
factors to be evaluated in determining whether a conservation standard
is economically justified.
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and on Consumers
We considered the economic impact on manufacturers and on consumers
as discussed in the NOPR. 65 FR 59550, 59556 (October 5, 2000). The
clothes washer industry would experience a cumulative NPV loss of
between $421.1-528.4 million representing between 29.2 and 36.7 percent
of base case industry value. The Department estimates that about 89
percent and 81 percent of all consumers purchasing a new washer will
save money as a result of the 2004 and 2007 standards, respectively. In
total, we estimate the benefit to the nation of this standard will be
$15.3 billion from 2004 to 2030.
2. Life-Cycle-Costs
We considered life-cycle-costs as discussed in the NOPR. 65 FR
59550, 59556-57 (October 5, 2000). At the 1.04 MEF level, consumers
would experience a savings in LCC of $103, while they would experience
a LCC savings of $260 at the 1.26 MEF level that would go into effect
in 2007. The payback for the 1.04 MEF level is 3.5 years, and 5.0 years
for the 1.26 MEF.
3. Energy Savings
While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, the Act
requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard,
to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to
result directly from revised standards. The Department used the NES
spreadsheet results, discussed earlier, in its consideration of total
projected savings. The savings to the nation are 5.52 quads of energy
over 27 years (2004 to 2030).
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
This factor cannot be quantified. In establishing classes of
products, the Department tries to eliminate any degradation of utility
or performance in the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
An issue of utility that was considered in this rule concerns the
consumer utility of vertical-axis (V-axis) and horizontal-axis (H-axis)
machines. We conducted consumer focus groups and a conjoint analysis
study to address this issue. A conjoint analysis is a quantitative
method to estimate the value consumers place on the clothes washer
attributes. The focus group and conjoint results indicate that price is
the most important attribute when consumers are purchasing a new
clothes washer, although in each case another attribute is virtually
tied with price in terms of importance. In the focus groups, 83 percent
of the respondents included price in their top ten list of important
clothes washer attributes, while 81 percent included wash tub capacity
in that same list. In the conjoint analysis, price had the highest
relative importance score (26 percent), followed closely by the
availability of a wash load size option on the control panel (25
percent). Of the six attributes included in the conjoint analysis
survey, door placement was the fifth most important attribute with a
relative importance score of 11 percent (for further information, see
Chapter 8 and appendix G of the TSD).
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
This factor seeks the views of the Attorney General to determine
the potential impacts on competition resulting from the imposition of
the proposed energy efficiency standard.
In order to assist the Attorney General in making such a
determination, the Department provided the Attorney General with copies
of the NOPR and the Technical Support Document for review. In a letter
responding to the NOPR, the Attorney General concluded ``that the
proposed clothes washer standard would not adversely affect
competition.'' (Department of Justice, No. 233 at 2). The letter is
printed at the end of today's rule.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
We reported the environmental effects from today's final rule in
the NOPR. 65 FR 59550, 59557, 59578-79 (October 5, 2000). The energy
savings this final rule will result in cumulative greenhouse gas
emission reductions of 95.1 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide
(CO2) equivalent, or an amount equal to that produced by
three million cars every year. Additionally, air pollution will be
reduced by the elimination of 253.5 thousand metric tons of nitrous
oxides ( NOX) and 28.1 thousand metric tons of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) from 2004 to 2030.
7. Other Factors
This provision allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining
whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other
factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. Section
325(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI).
Under this provision, we considered the water savings from each
standard level. The Department received numerous comments asking for
the inclusion of a water factor standard in addition to the MEF
standard. (City of Austin, Nos. 105 at 1 and 187 at 2; City of
Bellingham, Washington, Department of Public Works, No. 106 at 1; Lower
Colorado River Authority (LRCA), No. 109 at 1; Amy Vicker and
Associates, Inc., No. 110 at 1; City of San Diego, No. 123 at 1; City
of Santa Barbara, Public Works Department, No. 125 at 1; City of
Seattle, No. 126 at 2; Santa Clara valley Water District, No. 127 at 1;
American Water Works Association, No. 149 at 1; City of Redmond, Office
of the Mayor, No. 153 at 1; Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
No. 152 at 4; State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, No.
158 at 1). As stated previously, the Department considered water
savings as a factor in determining the economic justification of the
clothes washer standard level. The water savings are estimated at 11
trillion gallons, enough water to supply the needs of 6.6 million
households for 25 years, meaning less water will be pumped from
America's aquifers and rivers, and less strain will be placed on many
of the nation's water and sewer systems. However, the Department does
not have the authority to prescribe a minimum water factor standard.
The Secretary has also strongly considered the Joint Comment. This
proposal adopts a two stage implementation process oriented toward
mitigating financial impacts on manufacturers and ensuring no loss of
product utility for consumers. Thus, we are adopting the Joint Comment
proposal.

E. Standards Incorporated by Reference

Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA specifies that any new or amended
energy conservation standard the Department prescribes shall be
designed to ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency * *
* which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified.'' Consistent with the EPCA directive that the
standard achieve maximum improvement in the energy efficiency, it
follows that the test procedure to measure efficiency be both valid and
repeatable, in other words, provide consistent results. During this
standards rulemaking process it was discovered that the test cloth used
for determining remaining moisture content (RMC) was

[[Page 3320]]

giving inconsistent results. The effect of RMC on modified energy
factor and hence energy efficiency can be substantial. This is
discussed in the proposed rule under section III.A. Test Procedure, 65
FR 59555 (October 5, 2000). After investigating possible causes for the
inconsistent test results, we found that various lots of test cloth had
been treated with a stain or water repellant finish that would affect
RMC. Consequently, the American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 118-1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon
Resistence Test (reaffirmed 1997), and Test Method 79-2000, Absorbency
of Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed 2000), were added to the proposed
rule, under appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430, to determine whether
such a finish was present in a test cloth. Also, a procedure was added
to ``wash out'' that finish, so that any test cloth would be equivalent
to any other test cloth and therefore produce consistent results. Both
of the above procedures were accepted by the stakeholders under the
Joint Comment recommendation submitted to the Department by clothes
washer manufacturers and energy conservation advocates (Joint Comment,
No. 204), and are incorporated by reference in today's final rule.

III. Methodology

As discussed in the NOPR, the Department developed new analytical
tools for this rulemaking. The first tool was a spreadsheet that
calculates LCC and payback period. The second calculates national
energy savings and national net present value (NPV). The Department
also completely revised the methodology used in assessing manufacturer
impacts including the adoption of the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (GRIM). Additionally, DOE developed a new approach using the
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of clothes
washers energy efficiency standards on electric utilities and the
environment. 65 FR 59550, 59557-71 (October 5, 2000).
In general, when information is based on periodic forecasts and
surveys such as the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) forecasts of energy
prices and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), both from
the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we try to use the latest
available information. The analysis in support of the NOPR was
performed using RECS1993 and AEO1999 data. Just prior to publication of
the NOPR both RECS1997 and AEO2000 data became available. Although we
did not expect a significant difference in results by updating to
RECS1997 and AEO2000, we stated our intent to use this updated
information for the final rule. We have updated the analysis for Trial
Standard Level 3 using RECS1997 and AEO2000 and have included it in
appendix R of the TSD.

IV. Discussion of Comments

A. Test Procedure

During the public hearing held on November 15, 2000 and in a
written statement, AHAM requested that the test procedure be further
clarified and enhanced by incorporating the following additional
changes:
(1) Specify that the test cloth can be used for up to 60 runs in
appendix J, as proposed for J1.
(2) Specify that appendix J1 (currently informational) is the test
procedure to be used to determine which models meet Energy Star
requirements prior to implementation of the January 1, 2004 standard
requirement.
(3) Require that a permanent marking be applied to future test
cloth lots.
(4) Implement a process to publish the correction factors on future
test cloth lots (i.e., publish in Federal Register, on web-site, or by
letter). (AHAM, No. 211)
These changes to the test procedure are proposed by AHAM for
clarification and consistency purposes only. No objections were raised
at the public hearing or in written comments to this proposal, and the
Department believes they would clarify the test procedure without
changing any test results. Therefore, Item #1 will be included in the
final rule for consistency in Appendices J and J1. Item #2 will be
addressed by letter from DOE to the stakeholders specifying that
Appendix J1 along with the revisions in this final rule will be used to
determine which models meet Energy Star requirements starting January
1, 2001. Item #3 will be included in the final rule by adding a
statement to require that the test cloth have a permanent marking
identifying the lot. Item #4 will be addressed by DOE notifying
stakeholders via the Internet site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/
buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html with the lot number and
correction factors along with the accepted laboratories and mills to be
used.

B. Standard

Since we started work on this rulemaking following the 1991
standard final rule, we have had eight public hearings/workshops and
three public solicitations for comment. As noted above, DOE published
an ANOPR on November 14, 1994. 59 FR 56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE
published a Supplemental ANOPR. 63 FR 64344. On October 5, 2000, DOE
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 65 FR 59550. In
preparation of the NOPR, we conducted several analyses regarding the
energy savings, benefits, and burdens of amended energy conservation
standards for clothes washers and have shared the results of these
analyses with all stakeholders. Based on these analyses, several of the
major stakeholders, including clothes washer manufacturers and energy
efficiency advocates, submitted to the Department a joint proposal for
the highest standard level which they believed to be technologically
feasible and economically justified. As a result, based on the
aforementioned, we proposed to amend the energy conservation standard
for clothes washers for residential applications as recommended in the
joint proposal. We announced a public hearing, which was held on
November 15, 2000.
Today's final rule standards are based on the joint proposal
submitted to the Department by clothes washer manufacturers and energy
conservation advocates. (Joint Comment, No. 204). The joint
stakeholders consist of the following: Alliance Laundry Systems LLC;
Amana Appliances; Asko Incorporated; Frigidaire Home Products; General
Electric Appliances (GEA); Maytag Corporation; Miele, Inc.; Fisher &
Paykel Ltd; Whirlpool Corporation; Alliance to Save Energy; American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE); Appliance Standards
Awareness Project; California Energy Commission (CEC); City of Austin,
Texas; Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Northwest Power
Planning Council; and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The proposal as
submitted in the Joint Comment consists of four parts as follows:
Clothes Washer Energy Standard. The clothes washer energy standards
for standard class clothes washers shall be 1.04 modified energy factor
(MEF) in 1/1/2004 and 1.26 MEF in 1/1/2007. The energy test procedure
will be revised to ensure that variability between test cloths will not
significantly affect remaining moisture content (RMC) results.
Additional clarifications will also be made to test procedure.
Energy Star Labeling Program. Energy Star levels shall be set as
follows: Standard Class Clothes Washers--1.26 MEF in 2001; 1.42 MEF in
2004; Refrigerator/Freezers--10% better than the 2001 standard in 2001;
change to 15% better than the 2001 in 2004.

[[Page 3321]]

Tax Credit for the Production of Energy Efficient Clothes Washers
and Refrigerator-Freezers. The credit shall provide for two energy
efficiency tiers, each with separately designated funds. There is $30
million in each designated fund per company per efficiency tier. Cap of
$60 million per company for the two funds or yearly cap with carry
forward. Annual total tax credit cannot exceed in any taxable year 2%
of corporate gross revenues as determined by average of 3 prior years.
Standard Class Clothes Washers: Two tiers coterminous 2001-2006;
$50 per unit for products manufactured with a 1.26 MEF and $100 per
unit for products manufactured with a 1.42 MEF, increasing to 1.5 MEF
in 2004. Includes residential-style ``coin-operated'' washers.
Refrigerators: First tier effective in 2001. $50 per unit for
products manufactured 10% above 2001 minimum efficiency standard.
Credit runs through 2004. Second tier also effective in 2001 and runs
through 2006. It is $100 for products manufactured 15% above the 2001
minimum efficiency standard. Credits apply to automatic defrost
refrigerator-freezers only, at 16.5 cubic feet internal volume and
above.
Voluntary Industry Water Program. Water factor reporting shall be
part of a voluntary industry sponsored program. AHAM members agree to
publicly disclose through AHAM, water factors for each model that meets
Energy Star/Tax Credit MEF levels, starting sometime in calendar year
2001. In calendar year 2002 and each year thereafter, industry-wide
shipment weighted average water factors for units shipped in the
previous year shall be reported by AHAM. Water factor calculations will
use appendix J water factor through 2003 and will use Appendix J1
thereafter. Starting in 2007, AHAM members agree to report water factor
for all models. AHAM will sponsor water conference.'' (Joint Comment,
No. 204).
This rulemaking only addresses the clothes washer energy standards
of this proposal. The above standard, based on this proposal would go
into effect in stages, with the first stage going into effect on
January 1, 2004, and the second stage going into effect on January 1,
2007 (hereafter referred to as the 2004 standard and 2007 standard,
respectively). The initial standard is a 22 percent reduction in energy
consumption over the current standard (or a MEF of 1.04). The later,
more stringent standard, is a 35 percent reduction in energy
consumption over the current standard (or a MEF of 1.26). Both top-
loading vertical-axis and front-loading horizontal-axis design clothes
washers are currently available in retail appliance stores at these
levels.
In response to the NOPR, we received additional comments supporting
the proposed energy conservation standard announced from AHAM
(representing Alliance Laundry Systems LLC; Asko Incorporated; Amana
Appliances; AB Electrolux (Frigidaire Home Products); GEA, Fisher &
Paykel Ltd; Maytag Corporation; Miele, Inc.; and Whirlpool
Corporation), manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, utilities and
consumers. (AHAM, No. 212 at 1; Amana, No. 223 at 1; Whirlpool, No. 236
at 2; Maytag, No. 230 at 2; ACEEE, Nos. 214 & 227; NRDC, No. 225 at 2;
AWWA, No. 234; Comment No. 218). However, Oregon Office of Energy (OOE)
request a standard level at a 40 percent improvement over the baseline
washer or a MEF of 1.36. (OOE, No. 219 at 2).
We also received three comments from Congress. Representative Ralph
Regula (R-OH) supports this rulemaking and believes it should be
approved without delay. (Comment No. 220) Representatives Joe
Knollenberg (R-MI) and Wally Herger (R-CA) are asking for 120- and 90-
day extensions of the comment period, respectively. (Docket No. EE-RM/
STD-98-440, Comment No. 73 at 68 and Comment No. 239). This rulemaking
process for clothes washers began on November 14, 1994, almost 6 years
ago with the publication of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
59 FR 56423. Subsequently, there were eight public hearings/workshops
and three public solicitations for comment. Thus, DOE is adopting the
proposed rule and does not plan to extend the comment period.

C. Two Standards in One Rulemaking

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Consumer Alert (CA)
commented that the statute does not specifically allow for the creation
of two standards in one rulemaking. (CEI & CA, No. 207 at 2; CEI, No.
228 at 3). More specifically, these comments contended that the 2007
standard, coming only 3 years after the 2004 standard, violates the
requirement in section 325 of the Act that an amended standard for
these products ``shall apply to products manufactured after a date
which is 5 years after * * * the effective date of the previous
amendment * * * `` 42 U.S.C. 6395(m).
DOE disagrees with this comment. In this rulemaking, DOE is
complying with the mandate in section 325(g)(4)(B) of the Act to
determine whether to amend the standards in effect for clothes washers.
Consistent with section 325(m), section 325(g)(4)(C) of the Act
provides that a second and any subsequent amendments shall apply to
products manufactured five years after the effective date of the
previous amendment, except that in no case may the amended standard
apply to products manufactured within 3 years after publication of the
standard. Today's amended final rule will have been published 6\1/2\
years after the effective date of the previous final rule, in
conformity with the statute, and applies to products manufactured 3
years or more after its publication date.
Nothing in the Act precludes DOE, in carrying out its duty to
determine whether to amend the existing standards, from promulgating
amendments that take effect in two stages. In this rulemaking, DOE has
determined that an interim 2004 standard is technologically feasible
and economically justified. This less stringent interim standard gives
industry sufficient lead time to depreciate their current assets and
plan a more orderly transition of their production facilities. Delaying
the implementation date for the higher efficiency level gives
manufacturers more time to research and develop lower cost solutions to
achieve higher standards. Under the provisions in the Act, DOE may not
apply subsequent amendments of these standards to products manufactured
within 5 years after the effective date of the second or final stage of
this rule (i.e., until 2012).
AHAM and the NRDC both support DOE's position that there is nothing
in the statute which prohibits rule amendments that consist of initial
or interim standards and more stringent or final standards. (Mr.
Samuels of AHAM, No. 216CC at 23; Mr. Goldstein of NRDC, No. 216CC at
56).
Thus, DOE is adopting the rule, as proposed.

D. Consumer Information Statement

The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) commented that it believes
that the Consumer Overview section could be improved to include the
following information: Impact on the ``first cost'' or purchase price,
impact on LCC (i.e. energy costs and water savings), payback period,
impact of a rule on affordability of product for the average consumer
and especially the low and moderate income population, and
environmental implications/benefits of a rulemaking. (CFA, Nos. 210 &
232 at 2). In addition, as it was recommended by the Appliance
Standards Advisory Committee at its October 24, 2000, meeting, the
consumer information

[[Page 3322]]

statement (Consumer Overview) should be in simplified language so that
it is understandable to the consumer. (Advisory Committee Meeting
Transcripts dated October 24, 2000, at 43). These changes have been
made to the Consumer Overview section of this final rule.

E. Consumer Input

CEI and CA commented that they believe there was inadequate
consumer input into the rulemaking process. (CEI & CA, No. 209).
General Electric (GE) commented that DOE has given adequate time for
consumer input by holding numerous comment periods and hearings. (Mr.
Jones of GE, No. 216CC at 74). Since we started work on this rulemaking
in 1991 we have had eight public hearings/workshops and three public
solicitations for comment. DOE published an ANOPR on November 14, 1994
with a 75 day comment period. 59 FR 56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE
published a Supplemental ANOPR and held a public hearing on December
15, 1998 with a 75 day comment period. 63 FR 64344. All of the
technical information pertaining to the Supplemental ANOPR and a copy
of the Supplemental ANOPR were made available immediately thereafter on
our Internet site. On October 5, 2000 DOE published a NOPR and held a
public hearing on November 15, 2000 with a 60 day comment period. 65 FR
59550. All of the technical information pertaining to the NOPR and a
copy of the NOPR were made available immediately thereafter on our
Internet site.
Since February 1999, the Department received 10 letters from
consumers opposing the proposed energy efficiency standards and about
200 comments opposing a ban on top-loading vertical-axis clothes
washers. (Comment No. 217). In addition, we responded to about 200 e-
mails and phone calls by sending in return a fact-sheet and a copy of
the rule. On the other hand, the Department received over 600 letters
from consumers supporting the energy conservation standards at a 40
percent improvement in efficiency (today's requirement is for a 35
percent improvement by 2007). (Comment Nos. 191, 192, 193, 196, & 201).
We have also received comments from consumer advocate groups such as
the Arizona Consumers Council, Center for Environmental Citizenship,
Coalition for Consumer Rights, Residential Providers Association of
Oregon, and others supporting the energy conservation standards at a 40
percent improvement in efficiency. (Comment No. 191). In addition, in
selecting today's standards, we considered the results of the consumer
focus groups and a conjoint analysis study we performed to address the
consumer utility issue pertaining to top-loading vertical-axis and
front-loading horizontal-axis machines. Based on the above, DOE
concludes that many consumers are concerned that a new standard would
ban, or have the unintended effect of banning, top-loading vertical-
axis clothes washers. The Department notes that the standard adopted
today mandates a minimum level of energy efficiency and that at least
three clothes washer manufacturers currently have top-loading clothes
washers which meet the 2007 standards.
In conclusion, we believe there has been ample time and opportunity
for public comment and that consumer input has been received and
consumer interests represented and considered.

F. Energy and Economic Analyses

The Department received several comments with respect to various
elements of the energy and economic analyses. This section addresses
product classes, incremental retail costs, water savings, detergent
savings, LCC and payback, and cost effectiveness.

G. Product Classes

Currently, DOE divides clothes washers into classes based on size
and features, such as suds-saving. For the existing standards, DOE
defines residential clothes washers in the following classes:
Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity);
Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater
capacity);
Top-loading, semi-automatic;
Front-loading; and
Suds-saving.
In the NOPR, the Department indicated it would maintain the current
product classes.
The Department received several comments on its proposal to
maintain separate product classes for top-loading and front-loading
washers and to establish the same efficiency requirement for both. OOE
commented that DOE should follow the lead of the Federal Trade
Commission and establish only two classes of automatic clothes
washers--standard and compact--as there is no basis for doing otherwise
and to avoid consumer confusion. (OOE, No. 219 at 8). NRDC commented
that it made more sense to collapse the V-axis and H-axis classes into
a single class. (Mr. Goldstein of NRDC, No. 216CC at 57). Whirlpool
commented that it fully supports the consolidation of the top- and
front-loading standard capacity classes. (Whirlpool, No. 236). Maytag
commented that it fully agrees with the Department's conclusion that a
single efficiency standard for standard class top-and front-loading
washers is clearly justified. (Maytag, No. 230 at 2). Amana commented
that it supports the Department's proposal to have the same energy-
efficiency standard for V-axis and H-axis washers while maintaining
separate classes for these products on the basis of differences in
technology, cost and utility/performance. It believes, however, that
the Department should correct the designations from top- and front-
loading to V-axis and H-axis. (Amana, No. 223 at 5).
The Department agrees that currently both V-axis and H-axis washers
can achieve the same range of efficiency and that different efficiency
standards are not warranted based on axis of rotation or orientation of
loading. For this reason, the Department proposed a single minimum
efficiency for the existing ``standard'' size top-loading and front-
loading washers. However DOE is concerned that in the future these
classes may have a different potential for efficiency improvement.
Therefore, in today's final rule, the Department is maintaining both
the Standard Top-Loading and Front-Loading product classes but is
requiring a single efficiency standard level for both the Standard Top-
Loading and Front-Loading classes of washers.
Additionally, Amana requested that the Department segregate the
standard size washer class into subclasses on the basis of capacity in
cubic feet to eliminate the potential of confusion and prevent
consumers from being misled in comparing washers of different sizes and
mistakenly purchasing a smaller one that consumes more energy. (Amana,
No. 223 at 4). The Department understands that the FTC labeling could
lead to confusion for the consumer. We do not believe, however, that
this issue can be addressed by defining additional efficiency
subclasses. The Department will take up this matter with FTC to study
this issue.
The Department received several comments on the issue of increasing
the volume definition of the compact class from 1.6 cubic feet to 2.0
cubic feet. Maytag commented that it agreed with the Department's
proposal to maintain the existing 1.6 cubic feet definition of the
compact product class since it believes increasing the compact class to
2.0 cubic feet could place manufacturers who have complied with more
stringent efficiency standards at a competitive disadvantage. (Maytag,
No. 230 at 2). The OOE commented it was generally

[[Page 3323]]

indifferent to the Department's decision to keep the definition of the
compact class at less than 1.6 cubic foot capacity. However, OOE
deplores that the Department has not examined the potential to improve
the energy efficiency of these products. (OOE, No. 219 at 7). Whirlpool
commented that it disagrees with the Department's proposal to maintain
the current less than 1.6 cubic feet definition for compact washers and
recommends that the Department redefine the ``compact'' class to
instead be either ``top-loading units less than 2.0 cubic feet in
capacity with external width not to be in excess of 22.5 inches OR top-
loading units that are less than 1.6 cubic feet in capacity and not
more than 24 inches in width.'' (Whirlpool, No. 236 at 3).
The Department appreciates Whirlpool's suggested language to
redefine the compact class. However, given that this proposed change in
definition is new and was not subject to public notice and comment, the
implications are not fully understood. Thus, the Department is
maintaining the current classification for the compact class.
Whirlpool commented that it disagrees with the MEF value of 0.65
for the compact class and suggested that, based on its testing, an MEF
of 0.57 more accurately reflects the current EF standard of 0.9.
(Whirlpool, No. 236 at 3). Since the compact class was not analyzed, it
is the Department's intention that current clothes washers for this
class qualify under the new MEF minimum energy efficiency requirement.
The Department has conducted sample calculations and testing on both a
1.46 cubic feet washer and a 1.93 cubic feet washer. Based on the
findings, the Department is maintaining the 0.65 MEF value.

H. Incremental Retail Costs

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
commented that DOE based its estimate of incremental retail cost for
the proposed standards on manufacturer cost estimates for horizontal-
axis machines. ACEEE adds that manufacturers stated at the NOPR hearing
that incremental costs may well be less than estimated. ACEEE further
remarks that this observation is supported by the Department's own
reverse engineering analysis, which found mid-point incremental
manufacturer costs for V-axis machines that meet or exceed the 2007
standard to be approximately $75. Applying the mark-ups used in the DOE
analysis, ACEEE calculates a $140 incremental retail price which is
lower than the $249 incremental retail price used by the Department in
its analysis. Based on its analysis of past rulemakings, ACEEE believes
that the incremental price will be around $50. To capture the full
range of possible future prices, ACEEE recommends that DOE state that
the incremental price will be in the range of $50-$239. ACEEE does not
believe DOE should revise its analysis using this range since the
proposed standards clearly meet the NAECA criteria at $239 and would
certainly meet these criteria if the costs were lower. (ACEEE, No. 227
at 1).
The Oregon Office of Energy (OOE) also commented that the
engineering analysis for washers meeting the proposed standard
(MEF=1.26) overstates the manufacturing costs of this level. OOE states
that DOE based its analysis on the assumption that the standard would
only be met with H-axis clothes washer designs. OOE commented that in
recent months it has become clear to the Oregon Energy Office that
manufacturers will meet the proposed new standard with fairly
traditional top-loading, vertical-axis designs that incorporate
programmable electronic controls. (OOE, No. 219 at 3).
As commented by ACEEE and OOE, the engineering cost and performance
data used in the DOE analysis for the proposed standard level is based
on H-axis technology. The decision to base the engineering analysis on
H-axis technology was made in response to AHAM comments in 1996 (AHAM,
No. 67 at 1) and 1998 (AHAM, No. 84 and 86) that manufacturers could
not achieve levels of efficiency improvement beyond 25 percent with
traditional V-axis clothes washers. More recently, two manufacturers
introduced high-efficiency V-axis clothes washers into the U.S. market
that meet or exceed the performance requirements of the 2007 standard.
The Department had efficiency testing performed on three commercially
available high-efficiency washers and one prototype V-axis washer.
Additionally, the Department had these washers disassembled and
analyzed to estimate their manufacturing costs. As commented by ACEEE,
these washers had a lower estimated cost range then their H-axis
counterparts. Thus, the Department agrees with ACEEE that the price
estimates used by the Department in its analysis may be at the high end
of what may be expected and that lower prices for the proposed
efficiency would only improve the justification of the standards. The
Department notes that in this period of rapid technological advances
and new product introductions, assessing the future cost and
performance of clothes washers is an uncertain exercise. As with any
forecast, there is a range of uncertainty in the forecasted results.
Additionally, ACEEE reasoned that given the downward trend in the
Producer Price Index, it was likely that clothes washer manufacturers
would achieve future productivity gains and design improvements that
would allow them to have lower costs than submitted in 1997. (ACEEE,
No. 227 at 1). The Department agrees that the recent introduction of
high efficiency V-axis designs and the reverse-engineering results on
these designs indicates that the price impact of the standard on
consumers may be lower than expected. Consideration of a PPI deflator
however appears to the Department as very speculative. In order to
comply with NAECA and assure that the standards that are adopted are
economically justifiable, the Department adopts price and cost
estimates that can be made with a fairly high degree of certainty.
While historic price data as indicated in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI) may indicate trends or tendency
towards real price decreases, the reasons behind these trends are
unclear. While it is fairly certain that real prices for appliances
will not increase given the same quality and type of product, the
possibility of a continuing decrease is far from certain. The
Department therefore utilizes an analysis that assumes constant real
prices for the same quality and type of clothes washer.

I. Water Savings

OOE commented that the 35 percent level of energy reduction can be
achieved by a V-axis design which may have programmable electronic
controls and, therefore, the assumed water savings may be less than the
level stated in the analysis. (OOE, No. 219 at 2, 3 & 4).
The Department believes that while an H-axis washer typically is a
design approach that results in water savings, there is no guarantee of
water savings with any design approach, at any level of energy
efficiency. Water use may be increased by, for example, adding more
cold rinses without impacting a minimum MEF level. The Department has
relied on manufacturer data based on what manufacturers would build at
each standard level. The water use data presented by manufacturers
estimates the same water savings at both the 35 percent and 40 percent
levels using horizontal-axis technology and only a slightly higher
water usage level at the 25 percent level using vertical-axis
technology. As we can now observe in the marketplace, similar V-axis
washer

[[Page 3324]]

technology may be used to achieve a 35 percent level or even a 40
percent level.

J. Detergent Savings

OOE commented that DOE should include detergent savings that owners
of H-axis machines (and any others that reliably deliver equivalent
water savings) will experience at the 40 percent improvement and above
(MEF standard levels of 1.36 and above). (OOE, No. 219 at 6 & 7).
Unilever HPC commented that it is erroneous and arbitrary to state that
you can save detergent using high efficiency washers because the amount
of detergent used is a purely discretionary consumer decision. It
further commented that to include detergent savings is to imply a
cleaning performance standard which the proposed standard does not
actually address. (Mr. Linard of Unilever, No. 216CC at 84).
The Department believes that while some consumers may use less
detergent even at MEF levels of 1.26 as estimated by the OOE in the
Pacific Northwest, others may use currently more expensive detergents
specially manufactured for H-axis washers. OOE also states that there
is every reason to expect that detergent manufacturers will have a
difficult time significantly increasing the price of these detergents
to compensate for reductions in use. No evidence is provided to support
that statement. There is no conclusive proof of what price consumers
will pay for detergent in 2007 when the standard takes effect at levels
equivalent to that achieved by H-axis washers.

K. Life-Cycle-Costs and Payback

The Regulatory Studies Program at the Mercatus Center at George
Mason University (Center) commented that the Department used different
savings estimates at different places in the NOPR and the TSD. (Center,
No. 224 at 5). The NOPR presented values based both on point estimates
and also more detailed estimates based on distributions of input
values. The primary results used in the analysis of Payback Periods and
life-cycle-costs are based on a distribution of inputs used to create a
distribution of LCC and Payback Periods. This methodology allows
consideration of ranges of inputs (e.g. numbers of loads per year,
energy price) rather than just using typical or average values. Table 3
presents the results of a simplified point value analysis that uses
average input values for each variable and calculates a single output
value. Tables 4 and 5 present the results of a more detailed simulation
of 10,000 households which has input distributions for each variable
and output distributions for each result.
We calculated the distributed results using 10,000 individual
payback periods and found their average, rather than dividing the
average retail price increase by the average annual savings. These two
methods of determining the average payback period are not
mathematically equivalent. The average retail price increase and the
average operating cost savings shown are also determined from
distributions to account for the differences in fuel prices, how often
households do the wash, etc. (see Chapter 7 of the TSD for details). To
avoid confusion, for this final rule, the Department has modified the
Consumer Overview to reflect the more detailed distribution-derived
values for price and operating cost.

Table 3.--Single Point Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single point values (for U.S. mix of fuel types)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta retail price
MEF level/year Payback period on most likely Operating cost
(Years) based incremental savings, (Avg. Mean LCC savings
manufacturer costs Inputs used)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.04/2004....................... 3.2 $53 $16 $105
1.26/2007....................... 4.7 240 51 262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.--Distribution-Derived Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEF level/year Payback (years) Delta retail price Annual operating cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.04/2004................................... 4.6 3.5 $53 $47 $15 $13
1.26/2007................................... 6.8 5.0 249 177 48 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5.--Distribution-Based LCC Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributions
-------------------------------------
MEF level/year LCC savings
-------------------------------------
Mean Median
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.04/2004......................... $103 $81
1.26/2007......................... 260 208
------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Cost Effectiveness

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) states that at least 90 percent
of consumers should have lower life-cycle-costs under any new standard.
EEI then argues that the proposed clothes washer standards are not
economically justified since only 80-81 percent of consumers will have
lower life-cycle-costs, and only 72 percent of senior citizens will
have lower-life-cycle costs. Additionally, EEI believes that a

[[Page 3325]]

payback period of 7 years is too long. (EEI, No. 209 at 1). The
Department disagrees. First of all, EEI states no reason why 90 percent
should be an acceptable level. Secondly, EPCA requires the Department
to consider LCC as just one of the factors in determining economic
justification of a standard level. In determining economic
justification, EPCA directs the Secretary to determine whether the
benefits of a standard exceed the burdens. Consumer LCC and payback,
the resulting energy savings, the need for national energy conservation
and the economic impacts on manufacturers and consumers are just a few
of the factors that the Secretary must consider. There is no
mathematical formula given or used for weighing the benefits and
burdens of the various factors.
Furthermore, because of wide variations in usage rates and energy
prices across the country, no national standard can be designed to
minimize, or even reduce, life-cycle-costs for all consumers. The
Department analyzes the expected impacts of proposed standards on
consumers taking these differences into account. However, there will
always be some consumers who will have higher life-cycle-costs under
any national standard. In making its determination regarding the
overall benefits and burdens of any standard, the Department considers
both the magnitude of any adverse effects that are expected on
consumers, as well as the total number or any groupings of consumers
that might be adversely affected. However, the Department does not
recognize any arbitrary mathematical threshold for LCC benefits as
suggested by EEI, and the ratio of consumers with LCC savings versus
those with LCC increases will vary from rulemaking to rulemaking
depending on the various benefits and burdens of each unique
rulemaking.
The Mercatus Center stated that the proposed clothes washer
standards are not economically justified. (Center, No. 224 at 17). The
Center claimed that the standard will harm the majority of consumers
and will take away consumer choice by eliminating top-loading,
vertical-axis clothes washers. The Center recommended that the
Department not go forward with the proposed standard and stated that
since the Department believes that consumers pass up energy efficient
washers because they are misinformed about operating costs, that the
Department should construct a program to correct this deficiency. The
Center further stated that consumers do not need to be coerced into
saving money.
Much of the Center's comment is a philosophical argument against
the use of Federal energy efficiency standards as a means of modifying
consumer product choices or behavior. In its comment, the Center grades
the Department on issues such as whether the Department has identified
a significant market failure, has identified an appropriate Federal
role, has examined alternative approaches, has maximized net benefits
and has understood individual choice and property impacts. Most of
these issues had been resolved by the Congress when they enacted the
statutory requirements which guide and limit the Department's decision-
making process. Furthermore, when tested in the court in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F. 2d 1355, 1406-07 (D.C.
Cir. 1985), the court stated that ``the entire point of a mandatory
program was to change consumer behavior.'' As is stated under section
I.B. Authority at the beginning of this final rulemaking, the Act
requires the Department to ``establish standards designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified.'' This emphasis on maximizing
energy savings may or may not lead to standards that also maximize
economic benefits--although in this case the proposed clothes washer
standards would produce National and consumer benefits that are very
close the maximum of the standard levels analyzed.
Most of the analysis presented by the Center assumes that the
standards would eliminate top-loading, vertical-axis clothes washers.
As is discussed in the Energy and Economic Analyses comments, while the
original manufacturer data submitted assumed that all clothes washers
at and above a 35 percent improvement would be horizontal-axis
machines, manufacturers have already begun offering top-loading,
vertical-axis clothes washers that would meet the 2007 standard. Thus,
a key assumption made by the Center is incorrect.
In another part of its analysis, the Center speculated that if
consumers used their clothes washers less than average, they would
experience lower benefits. This is true, and as discussed in the
response to the EEI comment above, and the LCC and Payback discussion,
the Department analyzed the expected impacts of the proposed standards
on consumers taking usage and other differences into account. As
reported in the Conclusion section of today's rule, the Department
found that 20 percent of consumers would experience higher life-cycle-
costs under the 2007 standard, and that the impact was considered in
the decision for today's rule.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusion

A. Analytical Results

We examined six trial standard levels. Table 6 presents the
baseline and trial standard levels, the associated MEF values and the
percentage reduction in energy use from the baseline achieved at the
trial standard level. Trial Standard Level 3 contains two stages of
standards which were proposed in the Joint Comment. (Joint Comment, No.
204).

Table 6.--Trial Standard Levels for Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reduction
Trial standard level MEF in energy use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................... 0.817............... 0.
1........................... 1.021............... 20.
2........................... 1.089............... 25.
3........................... 1.04 in 2004........ 22 in
1.26 in 2007........ 2004
35 in
2007.
4........................... 1.257............... 35.
5........................... 1.362............... 40.
6........................... 1.634............... 50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3326]]

The Department presented the results of its analytical analysis in
the NOPR which are unchanged for today's final rule. 65 FR 59550,
59571-81 (October 5, 2000).
We also added, for comparative evaluation purposes, the results of
Trial Standard Level 3 using the RECS97 and AEO2000 data. These results
have been included as an Appendix R of the TSD. The rulemaking process
is such that months to years can take place between the time an
analysis is completed and a final rule is issued. During that time
span, conditions or data are likely to change and the Department
attempts to insure that any such changes will not compromise the
robustness of the analysis or lead to a different conclusion. For
example, the NOPR used the AEO1999 forecast of electricity prices and
electricity generation mix to determine energy savings and net present
value. Since the analysis was completed, the AEO2000 forecast became
available. The Department examined the impact of the AEO2000 forecast
on energy savings and net present value. The energy savings reported in
the NOPR ranged from 2.12 to 7.53 Quads. Using the data from AEO2000
shows the energy saving which ranged from 2.09 to 7.44 Quads. The net
present values reported in the NOPR ranged from 3.66 to 16.88 billion
dollars. Using the data from AEO2000 shows the NPV which ranged from
3.76 to 16.89 billion dollars. The Department does not consider these
changes to be meaningful or a reason to revise the analysis.
Additionally, it would be incorrect to select only one portion of the
analysis for revision, such as the electric price, without also
examining other related inputs, such as equipment prices, which also
might have slightly changed. While the Department acknowledges that the
analysis performed for the NOPR does not fully reflect some of the
changes in the industry and energy markets that have occurred more
recently, the Department believes that the analysis is still a valid
basis for today's final rule.

B. Conclusion

The Act specifies that any new or amended energy conservation
standard for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. Section 325(o)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). In
determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens.
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The amended
standard must result in significant conservation of energy. Section
325(o)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
We considered the impacts of standards beginning with the most
efficient level. We have included a summary of the analysis results in
Table 7 to aid the reader in the discussion of the benefits and burdens
for the different trial standard levels.

Table 7.--Summary Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level 6 5 4 3 2 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEF............................................... 1.63 1.36 1.26 1.04 in 2004, 1.09 1.02
1.26 in 2007
Total Energy Saved (Quads)........................ 7.53 6.03 5.99 5.52 4.04 2.12
Water Savings (trillion gallons).................. 10.85 12.94 12.94 11.59 9.09 0.53
NPV (Billion $)................................... 10.79 16.73 16.88 15.3 14.29 3.66
Emissions:
Carbon Equivalent (Mt)............................ 134.6 107.3 106.2 95.1 70.9 38.1
Discounted Carbon Equivalent (Mt) \1\............. 35.6 28.6 28.3 24.1 19.0 10.2
NOX (kt).......................................... 364 283.1 280.6 253.5 193.6 115.6
Discounted NOX (kt) \1\........................... 108.3 85.2 84.0 70.8 58.3 33.8
SO2 (kt) \2\...................................... 31.41 30.31 30.31 28.11 30.31 31.41
Discounted SO2 (kt) \1\........................... 8.3 8.0 8.1 7.3 8.0 8.3
Manufacturer Impacts:
Cumulative Loss in Industry NPV ($ Million) \3\... 474.5-648.9 453.1-524.9 510.1-612.5 421.1-528.4 409.9-566.2 19.2-90.1
% Change in Industry NPV.......................... (33.0)-(45.2) (31.7)-(36.5) (35.4)-(42.5) (29.2)-(36.7) (28.5)-(39.3) (1.3)-(6.3)
Standard Deviation % NPV.......................... 27.7 27.7 17.7 15.8 11.4 11.5
Life-Cycle-Cost ($):
Mean Savings ($).................................. 176 243 242 103/260 211 61
Percent Households LCC Less than Baseline......... 69 80 79 81/90 87 84
Median Payback (years)............................ 7.0 5.1 5.1 3.5/5.0 4.0 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department makes no effort to monetize the benefits of the emission reductions, but there may be time related differences in the perceived value
of the emissions depending on when they occur, as with monetized benefits that accumulate over time. Emission reductions that occur sooner are often
more desirable than equivalent reductions that occur later. Like monetary benefits, the health, recreational and ecosystem benefits that result from
emission reductions are often perceived to have a greater value if they occur sooner, rather than later. To the extent that the different trial
standard levels have slightly different shipment distributions over time, some trial standard levels might have a slightly higher proportion of
earlier emission reductions than another trial standard level. To show the possible effect of the different timing patterns of the emissions, the
Department is also presenting discounted emissions. These calculations were done using the same seven percent discount rate as was used for
discounting monetized benefits.
\2\ Results only include household SO2 emissions reductions because SO2 emissions from power plants are capped by clean air legislation. Thus, SO2
emissions will only be negligibly affected by possible water heater standards.
\3\ Includes impacts on dryer and repair business.

1. Trial Standard Level 6--MEF 1.63
First, we considered the most efficient level (max tech), MEF 1.63,
which saves a total of 7.53 quads of energy through 2030. This is a
significant amount of energy. The cumulative water savings through 2030
would be 10.85 trillion gallons. The emissions reductions through 2030
would total 134.6 Mt of carbon equivalent, 364 kt of NOX,
and 31.41 kt of SO2. At this level, consumers experience a
mean savings in LCC of $176, with a median payback of 7.0 years.

[[Page 3327]]

At Trial Standard Level 6, the clothes washer industry would
experience a cumulative NPV loss of between $474.5--648.9 million which
represents between 33.0 and 45.2 percent of the clothes washer industry
value absent standards ($1,439.1 million--base case). This impact is
not evenly distributed among the six major manufacturers.\3\ The large
variability of impacts is attributed to the presence of existing
product for some manufacturers at this efficiency level which means
that some firms may gain a competitive advantage. This variability is
measured by the standard deviation of individual companies' changes in
NPV.\4\ At this level, the standard deviation in individual companies'
percentage change in NPV is 27.7 percent. Given the high industry
impacts and the uneven burden on individual firms, there exists a
significant risk of industry consolidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, Amana Appliances, Frigidaire
Home Products, General Electric Appliances (GEA), Maytag
Corporation, and Whirlpool Corporation.
\4\ The standard deviation is a measure of how widely individual
companies' percentage NPV changes are dispersed from the industry
percentage change in value. Refer to Chapter 11 of the TSD for a
description of the calculation method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this trial standard level a small company with an assumed market
share of 2.1 percent would lose 90.7 to 102.8 percent of its value. A
small company with an assumed market share of 4.2 percent would lose
166 to 178.1 percent of its value. Based on the major loss in company
value associated with meeting this standard level, it is likely that
one or both of the two smaller manufacturers \5\ would cease to produce
clothes washers covered by the standard and might also cease to market
commercial clothes washers. These values can be found in Chapter 11 in
Table 11.39 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana Appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department concludes that the burdens of Trial Standard Level 6
outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the Department concludes Trial
Standard Level 6 is not economically justified.
2. Trial Standard Level 5--MEF 1.36
Next, we considered a 1.36 MEF, which saves a total of 6.03 quads
of energy through 2030, also a significant amount. The cumulative water
savings through 2030 for this trial standard level would be 12.94
trillion gallons. The emissions reductions through 2030 would total
107.3 Mt of carbon equivalent, 283.1 kt of NOX, and 30.31 kt
of SO2. At this level, consumers experience a mean savings
in LCC of $243, with a median 5.1 year payback.
The clothes washer industry would experience a cumulative NPV loss
of between $453.1-524.9 million. This represents between 31.7 and 36.5
percent of industry value absent standards ($1,439.1 million--base
case). For the same reason in Trial Standard Level 6, this impact is
not evenly distributed among the six major manufacturers. At this level
the standard deviation in individual companies' percentage change in
NPV is 27.7 percent. (Refer to Chapter 11 of the TSD for a description
of the calculation method for standard deviation.) Given the high
industry impacts and the uneven burden on individual firms, there
exists a significant risk of industry consolidation.
At this trial standard level a small company with an assumed market
share of 2.1 percent would lose 87.7 to 92.7 percent of its value. A
small company with an assumed market share of 4.2 percent would lose
160.3 to 165.3 percent of its value. Based on the major loss in company
value associated with meeting this standard level, it is likely that
one or both of the two smaller manufacturers \6\ would cease to produce
clothes washers covered by the standard and might also cease to market
commercial clothes washers. These values can be found in Chapter 11 in
Table 11.39 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana Appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department concludes that the burdens of Trial Standard Level 5
outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the Department concludes Trial
Standard Level 5 is not economically justified.
3. Trial Standard Level 4--MEF 1.26
Next, we considered a 1.26 MEF, which saves a total of 5.99 quads
of energy through 2030, a significant amount. Just as in the case of
the 1.36 MEF, the cumulative water savings through 2030 would equal
12.94 trillion gallons. The cumulative emissions reductions through
2030, however, are slightly lower for the 1.26 MEF because the
cumulative energy savings is lower for this standard level than the
1.36 MEF. The 1.26 MEF level would save 106.2 Mt of carbon equivalent,
280.6 kt of NOX, and 30.31 kt of SO2. At this
level, consumers experience a mean savings in LCC of $242 with a median
payback of 5.1 years.
Under a 1.26 MEF standard, the clothes washer industry would
experience a cumulative NPV loss of between $510.1-612.5 million. This
represents between 35.4 and 42.5 percent of industry value absent
standards ($1,439.1 million--base case). Compared to Trial Standard
Levels 5 and 6, this impact is more evenly distributed amongst the six
major manufacturers as represented by a standard deviation in
individual companies' NPV of 17.7 percent, and thus there exists less
risk of industry consolidation. Refer to Chapter 11 of the TSD for a
description of the calculation method for standard deviation. This
lower standard deviation reflects the greater diversity of designs,
approaches and engineering flexibility to meet this efficiency level
compared to Trial Standard Levels 5 and 6. However, given the high
level of investment required to meet this efficiency level and an
inability to spread fixed costs over large volumes, small manufacturers
are particularly vulnerable. At this trial standard level a small
company with an assumed market share of 2.1 percent would lose 91.8 to
98.9 percent of its value. A small company with an assumed market share
of 4.2 percent would lose 164.4 to 171.6 percent of its value. Based on
the major loss in company value associated with meeting this standard
level, it is likely that one or both of the two smaller manufacturers
\7\ would cease to produce clothes washers covered by the standard and
might also cease to market commercial clothes washers. These values can
be found in Chapter 11 in Table 11.39 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and Amana Appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department concludes that the burdens of Trial Standard Level 4
outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the Department concludes Trial
Standard Level 4 is not economically justified.
4. Trial Standard Level 3--MEF 1.04/1.26
Next, we considered the two step 1.04/1.26 MEF efficiency level,
which was proposed in the Joint Comment. (Joint Comment, No. 204). This
trial standard level, Trial Standard Level 3, has energy savings of
5.52 quads through 2030, a significant amount. The cumulative water
savings through 2030 would equal 11.59 trillion gallons. The emissions
reductions through 2030 would total 95.1 Mt of carbon equivalent, 253.5
kt of NOX, and 28.11 kt of SO2.\8\ At the 1.04
MEF level, consumers would experience a savings in LCC of $103, while
they would

[[Page 3328]]

experience a mean LCC savings of $260 at the 1.26 MEF level that would
go into effect in 2007. The median payback for the 1.04 MEF level is
3.5 years, and 5.0 years for the 1.26 MEF. The clothes washer industry
would experience a cumulative NPV loss of between $421.1-528.4 million
representing between 29.2 and 36.7 percent of base case industry value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The Department recognizes that the Environmental Protection
Agency is considering regulations which could affect the amount of
sulfur in home heating oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compared to a single step standard level of a 1.26 MEF implemented
in 2004, the Joint Comment proposal reduces the impacts of the
standards on manufacturers by delaying the effective date three years
for the 1.26 MEF level. This allows clothes washer manufacturers more
time to depreciate their current assets and plan a more orderly
transition of their production facilities. Delaying the standard
implementation date for the higher efficiency level gives manufacturers
more time to research and develop lower-cost solutions to achieve
higher standards.
Since the MIA shows that small manufacturers suffer the greatest
impact, the Department takes into consideration that the consensus
proposal was developed in consultation with, and supported by small
manufacturers.
Furthermore, we consider that the Joint Comment specifically states
that the proposal is not expected to eliminate any competitors. (Joint
Comment, No. 204).
Based on the manufacturers' statement in the Joint Comment, we
believe that these impacts from the proposal are mitigated and conclude
that, given the benefits, the standards submitted in the Joint Comment
are economically justified. (Joint Comment, No. 204).
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, directs the
Department to consider the impact of any lessening of competition that
is likely to result from the standards, as determined by the Attorney
General. In a letter responding to the NOPR, the Attorney General
concluded ``that the proposed clothes washer standard would not
adversely affect competition.'' (Department of Justice, No. 233 at 2).
See Department of Justice letter, dated December 4, 2000, which is
printed as the appendix to this rule.
After carefully considering the analysis and comments, the
Department amends the energy conservation standards for clothes washers
as proposed by the Joint Comment. (Joint Comment, No. 204). The
Department concludes this standard saves a significant amount of energy
and is technologically feasible and economically justified. In
determining economic justification, the Department finds that the
benefits of energy and water savings, consumer LCC savings, national
net present value increase, job creation and emission reductions
resulting from the standard outweigh the burdens of the loss of
manufacturer net present value, and consumer LCC increases for some
users of clothes washers covered by today's notice. Therefore, the
Department today is amending the energy conservation standards for
clothes washers at Trial Standard Level 3. The clothes washer energy
efficiency standards for Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or greater
capacity) and Front-Loading class clothes washers shall be 1.04 MEF on
January 1, 2004 and 1.26 MEF on January 1, 2007.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

The Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-
1344) which is available from: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail
Station EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121,
(202) 586-0371. We found the environmental effects associated with
various standard efficiency levels for clothes washers to be not
significant, and therefore we are publishing, elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the Department's regulations for
compliance with NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021).

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''

Today's regulatory action has been determined to be an
``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Accordingly, today's action was subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget.
The draft submitted to OIRA and other documents submitted to OIRA
for review have been made a part of the rulemaking record and are
available for public review in the Department's Freedom of Information
Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
telephone (202) 586-3142.
The proposed rule contained a summary of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis which focused on the major alternatives considered in arriving
at the approach to improving the energy efficiency of consumer products
(65 FR 59582-83). The reader is referred to the complete ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis,'' which is contained in the TSD, available as
indicated at the beginning of this rulemaking. It consists of: (1) A
statement of the problem addressed by this regulation, and the mandate
for government action; (2) a description and analysis of the feasible
policy alternatives to this regulation; (3) a quantitative comparison
of the impacts of the alternatives; and (4) the national economic
impacts of the proposed standard.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an
assessment of the impact of regulations on small businesses. Small
businesses are defined as those firms within an industry that are
privately owned and less dominant in the market.
To be categorized as a ``small'' clothes washer manufacturer, a
firm must employ no more than 1,000 employees. The clothes washer
industry is characterized by six firms accounting for nearly 99 percent
of sales. By the above definition none of the six major U.S.
manufacturers of clothes washers are considered ``small.'' The
Department is aware of one small domestic manufacturer of clothes
washer, Staber Industries, that produces a top-loading horizontal-axis
clothes washer. The energy efficiency of this product already exceeds
the 2007 standard level.
The Department prepared a manufacturing impact analysis which was
made public and available to all the clothes washer manufacturers. This
analysis considered the effects on small manufacturers with a minimum
annual production of 165,000 units (representing a 2.1 percent market
share for Alliance Laundry Systems LLC). The Department did not receive
any information or comments indicating that even smaller manufacturers
of clothes washers would be impacted differentially from those included
in the small manufacturer analysis performed. Furthermore, the small
manufacturer is a signer of the Joint Comment.
In view of the foregoing, the Department has determined and hereby

[[Page 3329]]

certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
that, for this particular industry, the standard levels in today's
final rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and it is not necessary to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no Office of Management and Budget
clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.

E. 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 sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, it
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final
rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final regulations
meet the relevant standards.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Takings'' Assessment Review

DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) imposes certain
requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or
regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policy
making discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for
such actions. Agencies also must have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
DOE published its intergovernmental consultation policy on March 14,
2000. (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today's final rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. State regulations that may have existed
on the products that are the subject of today's final rule were
preempted by the Federal standards established in the NAECA Amendments
of 1987. States can petition the Department for exemption from such
preemption based on criteria set forth in EPCA, as amended.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

With respect to a proposed regulatory action that may result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting
costs, benefits and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C.
1532(a), (b). UMRA also requires each Federal agency to develop an
effective process to permit timely input by state, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed significant intergovernmental mandate. The
Department's consultation process is described in a notice published in
the Federal Register on March 18, 1997 (62 FR 12820). Today's final
rule may impose expenditures of $100 million or more on the private
sector. It does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an agency to respond to the content
requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that
accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
Supplementary Information section of the Notice of Final Rulemaking and
``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for this final rule
responds to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is
required. DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most
cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing
otherwise or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with
law. As required by section 325(o) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), today's final rule establishes
energy conservation standards for clothes washers that are designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has
determined to be both technologically feasible and economically
justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for
today's final rule.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. No. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may
affect family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact
on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.

J. Review Under the Plain Language Directives

Section 1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 requires that each agency
draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the
goal of minimizing

[[Page 3330]]

the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such
uncertainty. Similarly, the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998 (63
FR 31883) directs the heads of executive departments and agencies to
use plain language in all proposed and final rulemaking documents
published in the Federal Register.
Today's rule uses the following general techniques to abide by
Section 1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential
memorandum of June 1, 1998:
Organization of the material to serve the needs of the
readers (stakeholders).
Use of common, everyday words in short sentences.
Shorter sentences and sections.

K. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report
regarding the issuance of today's final rule prior to the effective
date set forth at the outset of this notice. DOE also will submit the
supporting analyses to the Comptroller General (GAO) and make them
available to each House of Congress. The report will state that it has
been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act

The test procedure amendments finalized today incorporate the
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test
Methods 118--1997, ``Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test''
(reaffirmed 1997), and 79--2000, ``Absorbency of Bleached Textiles''
(reaffirmed 2000), to determine whether a stain resistant or water
repellent finish is present in a test cloth used to measure remaining
moisture content and therefore the energy consumption of a clothes
washer.
The findings required of DOE by section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act serve to alert the public and DOE regarding the use
and background of commercial standards in the rulemaking process. DOE
has evaluated the promulgation of AATCC Test Methods 118-1997
(reaffirmed 1997), and 79-2000 (reaffirmed 2000), in light of the
public participation criteria of section 32(b). The Department is
unable to conclude whether development of these standards fully
complied with section 32(b) regarding the manner of public
participation.
As required by section 32(c), DOE has consulted with the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission concerning the
impact of these standards on competition, prior to prescribing final
test procedures.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Incorporation by Reference.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 3, 2001.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 430 of chapter II
of title 10, 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; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

Appendix J [Amended]

2. Appendix J to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
a. By adding a new sentence at the beginning of the introductory
paragraph of this appendix.
b. In section 2, by adding paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, and by
revising paragraphs 2.6.1.3, 2.6.2, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.11.1.
c. In section 3, by revising paragraph 3.3.1.
d. By adding a new section 8.
The additions and revisions 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 provisions of this appendix J shall apply to products
manufactured after February 12, 2001. * * *
* * * * *
2. * * *
2.3. * * *
2.3.1 Supply water requirements for water and energy
consumption testing. 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. 10 deg.F (37.8 deg.C 5.5 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.F 5 deg.F (60.0 deg.C
2.8 deg.C) and the cold water supply shall be
maintained at 60 deg.F 5F deg. (15.6 deg.C
2.8 deg.C). For water-heating clothes washers, the temperature of
the hot water supply shall be maintained at 140 deg.F
5 deg.F (60.0 deg.C 2.8 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.
2.3.2 Supply water requirements for remaining moisture content
testing. For nonwater-heating clothes washers not equipped with
thermostatically controlled water valves, the temperature of the hot
water supply shall be maintained at 140 deg.F 5 deg.F
and the cold water supply shall be maintained at 60 deg.F
5 deg.F. All other clothes washers shall be connected
to water supply temperatures as stated in 2.3.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
2.6.1.3 The number of test runs on the same energy test cloth
shall not exceed 60 test runs. All energy test cloth must be
permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed
lots of material shall not be used for testing the clothes washers.
2.6.2 Energy Stuffer Cloth. The energy stuffer cloths shall be
made from energy test cloth material and shall consist of pieces of
material that are 12 inches by 12 inches (30.5 cm by 30.5 cm) and
have been hemmed to 10 inches by 10 inches (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 suffer cloth shall not exceed 60 test runs.
All energy stuffer cloth must be permanently marked identifying the
lot number of the material. Mixed lots of material shall not be used
for testing the clothes washers.
* * * * *
2.10 Wash time (period of agitation or tumble) setting. If the
maximum available wash time in the normal cycle is greater than 9.75
minutes, the wash time shall be not less than 9.75 minutes. If the
maximum available wash time in the normal cycle is less than 9.75
minutes, the wash time shall be the maximum available wash time.
2.11 Agitation speed and spin speed settings. Where controls
are provided for agitation speed 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 speed permitted on
the clothes washer.
3. * * *
3.3. * * *
3.3.1 The wash temperature shall be the same as the rinse
temperature for all testing. Cold rinse is the coldest rinse
temperature available on the machine. Warm rinse is the hottest
rinse temperature available on the machine.
* * * * *

8. Sunset

The provisions of this appendix J expire on December 31, 2003.

Appendix J1 [Amended]

3. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
a. By removing the Note after the heading and adding a new
paragraph.

[[Page 3331]]

b. In section 1, by adding paragraphs 1.22 and 1.23.
c. In section 2, by revising paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, and adding
paragraphs 2.6.3 through 2.6.7.2.
d. In section 4, by revising the definition of ``ERx,
ERa, and ERn'' in paragraph 4.1.5.
The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix J1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

The provisions of this appendix J1 shall apply to products
manufactured beginning January 1, 2004.
1. * * *
1.22 Cold rinse means the coldest rinse temperature available
on the machine (and should be the same rinse temperature selection
tested in 3.7 of this appendix).
1.23 Warm rinse means the hottest rinse temperature available
on the machine (and should be the same rinse temperature selection
tested in 3.7 of this appendix).
2. * * *
2.6. * * *
2.6.1 Energy Test Cloth. The energy test cloth shall be made
from energy test cloth material, as specified in 2.6.4, that is 24
inches by 36 inches (61.0 cm by 91.4 cm) and has been hemmed to 22
inches by 34 inches (55.9 cm by 86.4 cm) before washing. The energy
test cloth shall be clean and shall not be used for more than 60
test runs (after preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this
appendix). All energy test cloth must be permanently marked
identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed lots of material
shall not be used for testing the clothes washers.
* * * * *
2.6.2 Energy Stuffer Cloth. The energy stuffer cloth shall be
made from energy test cloth material, as specified in 2.6.4, and
shall consist of pieces of material that are 12 inches by 12 inches
(30.5 cm by 30.5 cm) and have been hemmed to 10 inches by 10 inches
(25.4 cm by 25.4 cm) before washing. The energy stuffer cloth shall
be clean and shall not be used for more than 60 test runs (after
preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this appendix). All energy
stuffer cloth must be permanently marked identifying the lot number
of the material. Mixed lots of material shall not be used for
testing the clothes washers.
2.6.3 Preconditioning of Test Cloths. The new test cloths,
including energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths, shall be
pre-conditioned in a clothes washer in the following manner:
2.6.3.1 Perform 5 complete normal wash-rinse-spin cycles, the
first two with AHAM Standard detergent 2A and the last three without
detergent. Place the test cloth in a clothes washer set at the
maximum water level. Wash the load for ten minutes in soft water (17
ppm hardness or less) using 6.0 grams per gallon of water of AHAM
Standard detergent 2A. The wash temperature is to be controlled to
135 deg.F 5 deg.F (57.2 deg.C 2.8 deg.C)
and the rinse temperature is to be controlled to 60 deg.F
5 deg.F (15.6 deg.C 2.8 deg.C). Repeat the
cycle with detergent and then repeat the cycle three additional
times without detergent, bone drying the load between cycles (total
of five wash and rinse cycles).
2.6.4 Energy test cloth material. The energy test cloths and
energy stuffer cloths shall be made from fabric meeting the
following specifications. The material should come from a roll of
material with a width of approximately 63 inches and approximately
500 yards per roll, however, other sizes maybe used if they fall
within the specifications.
2.6.4.1 Nominal fabric type. Pure finished bleached cloth, made
with a momie or granite weave, which is nominally 50 percent cotton
and 50 percent polyester.
2.6.4.2 The fabric weight shall be 5.60 ounces per square yard
(190.0 g/m\2\), 5 percent.
2.6.4.3 The thread count shall be 61 x 54 per inch (warp x
fill), 2 percent.
2.6.4.4 The warp yarn and filling yarn shall each have fiber
content of 50 percent 4 percent cotton, with the balance
being polyester, and be open end spun, 15/1 5 percent
cotton count blended yarn.
2.6.4.5 Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain
resistant finishes shall not be applied to the test cloth. The
absence of such finishes shall be verified by:
2.6.4.5.1 American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 118--1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon
Resistance Test (reaffirmed 1997), of each new lot of test cloth
(when purchased from the mill) to confirm the absence of
Scotchguard\TM\ or other water repellent finish (required scores of
``D'' across the board).
2.6.4.5.2 American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 79-2000, Absorbency of Bleached
Textiles (reaffirmed 2000), of each new lot of test cloth (when
purchased from the mill) to confirm the absence of Scotchguard\TM\
or other water repellent finish (time to absorb one drop should be
on the order of 1 second).
2.6.4.5.3 The standards listed in 2.6.4.5.1 and 2.6.4.5.2 of
this appendix which are not otherwise set forth in this part 430 are
incorporated by reference. The material listed in this paragraph has
been approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part
51. Any subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-setting
organization will not affect the DOE test procedures unless and
until amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on the
date of the approval and notice of any change in the material will
be published in the Federal Register. The standards incorporated by
reference are the American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists Test Method 118-1997, Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon
Resistance Test (reaffirmed 1997) and Test Method 79-2000,
Absorbency of Bleached Textiles (reaffirmed 2000).
(a) The above standards incorporated by reference are available
for inspection at:
(i) Office of the Federal Register, Information Center, 800
North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC;
(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Hearings and Dockets, ``Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer Energy Conservation
Standards,'' Docket No. EE--RM-94-403, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.
(b) Copies of the above standards incorporated by reference can
be obtained from the American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists, P.O. Box 1215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
telephone (919) 549-8141, telefax (919) 549-8933, or electronic
mail: orders@aatcc.org
2.6.4.6 The moisture absorption and retention shall be
evaluated for each new lot of test cloth by the Standard Extractor
Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) Test specified in 2.6.5 of this
appendix.
2.6.4.6.1 Repeat the Standard Extractor RMC Test in 2.6.5 of
this appendix three times.
2.6.4.6.2 An RMC correction curve shall be calculated as
specified in 2.6.6 of this appendix.
2.6.5 Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure. The following
procedure is used to evaluate the moisture absorption and retention
characteristics of a lot of test cloth by measuring the RMC in a
standard extractor at a specified set of conditions. Table 2.6.5 of
this appendix is the matrix of test conditions. The 500g requirement
will only be used if a clothes washer design can achieve spin speeds
in the 500g range. When this matrix is repeated 3 times, a total of
48 extractor RMC test runs are required. For the purpose of the
extractor RMC test, the test cloths may be used for up to 60 test
runs (after preconditioning as specified in 2.6.3 of this appendix).

Table 2.6.5.--Matrix of Extractor RMC Test Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warm soak Cold soak
``g'' Force -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 min. spin 4 min. spin 15 min. spin 14 min. spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.............................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
............
200............................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
............
350............................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
............

[[Page 3332]]

500............................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.6.5.1 The standard extractor RMC tests shall be run in a Bock
Model 215 extractor (having a basket diameter of 19.5 inches, length
of 12 inches, and volume of 2.1 ft3), with a variable
speed drive (Bock Engineered Products, P.O. Box 5127, Toledo, OH
43611) or an equivalent extractor with same basket design (i.e.
diameter, length, volume, and hole configuration) and variable speed
drive.
2.6.5.2 Test Load. Test cloths shall be preconditioned in
accordance with 2.6.3 of this appendix. The load size shall be 8.4
lbs., consistent with 3.8.1 of this appendix.
2.6.5.3 Procedure.
2.6.5.3.1 Record the ``bone-dry'' weight of the test load (WI).
2.6.5.3.2 Soak the test load for 20 minutes in 10 gallons of
soft (17 ppm) water. The entire test load shall be submerged. The
water temperature shall be 100 deg.F 5 deg.F.
2.6.5.3.3 Remove the test load and allow water to gravity drain
off of the test cloths. Then manually place the test cloths in the
basket of the extractor, distributing them evenly by eye. Spin the
load at a fixed speed corresponding to the intended centripetal
acceleration level (measured in units of the acceleration of
gravity, g) 1 g for the intended time period
5 seconds.
2.6.5.3.4 Record the weight of the test load immediately after
the completion of the extractor spin cycle (WC).
2.6.5.3.5 Calculate the RMC as (WC-WI)/WI.
2.6.5.3.6 The RMC of the test load shall be measured at three
(3) g levels: 50g; 200g; and 350g, using two different spin times at
each g level: 4 minutes; and 15 minutes. If a clothes washer design
can achieve spin speeds in the 500g range than the RMC of the test
load shall be measured at four (4) g levels: 50g; 200g; 350g; and
500g, using two different spin times at each g level: 4 minutes; and
15 minutes.
2.6.5.4 Repeat 2.6.5.3 of this appendix using soft (17 ppm)
water at 60 deg.F 5 deg.F.
2.6.6 Calculation of RMC correction curve.
2.6.6.1 Average the values of 3 test runs and fill in table
2.6.5 of this appendix. Perform a linear least-squares fit to relate
the standard RMC (RMCstandard) values (shown in table
2.6.6.1 of this appendix) to the values measured in 2.6.5 of this
appendix:
(RMCcloth): RMCstandard ~ A *
RMCcloth + B
Where A and B are coefficients of the linear least-squares fit.

Table 2.6.6.1.--Standard RMC Values (RMCstandard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warm soak Cold soak
---------------------------------------------------------------
G RMC percent
15 min. spin 4 min. spin 15 min. spin min.
spin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------
50............................. 50.4.............. 55.7............. 52.8............. 59.0
200............................ 35.6.............. 40.4............. 37.9............. 43.1
350............................ 29.6.............. 33.1............. 30.6............. 35.8
500............................ 24.2.............. 28.7............. 25.5............. 30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.6.6.2 Check accuracy of linear least-squares fit using the
following method:

The root mean square value of
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.028

shall be less than 2 percent, where a sum is taken over all of the
different tests, where RMCstandard--i is the RMC standard
value measured for the I-th test, and RMCcorr--i is the
corrected RMC value for the I-th cloth test. This equation is valid
only for the use with three (3) g force values therefore when using
the 500g requirement; replace the 500g value instead of the 350g
value.
2.6.7 Application of RMC correction curve.
2.6.7.1 Using the coefficients A and B calculated in 2.6.6.1 of
this appendix:

RMCcorr = A * RMC + B
2.6.7.2 Substitute RMCcorr values in calculations in
3.8 of this appendix.
* * * * *
4. * * *
4. 1 * * *
4.1.5 * * *
ERx, ERa, ERn, are reported
electrical energy consumption values, in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
at maximum, average, and minimum test loads, respectively, for the
warm rinse cycle per definitions in 3.7.2 of this appendix.
* * * * *

Sec. 430.32 [Amended]

4. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and effective
dates.

* * * * *
(g) Clothes washers.
(1) Clothes washers manufactured before January 1, 2004, shall have
an energy factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy factor (cu.ft./kWh/
Product Class cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 0.9.
ft.\3\ capacity).
ii. Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or 1.18.
greater capacity).
iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic.......... \1\ Not Applicable.
iv. Front-Loading......................... \1\ Not Applicable.
v. Suds-saving............................ \1\ Not Applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must have an unheated rinse water option.

(2) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2004, and
before January 1, 2007, shall have a modified energy factor no less
than:

[[Page 3333]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified energy factor
Product Class (cu.ft./kWh/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 0.65.
ft.\3\ capacity).
ii. Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or 1.04.
greater capacity).
iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic.......... \1\ Not Applicable.
iv. Front-Loading......................... 1.04.
v. Suds-saving............................ \1\ Not Applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must have an unheated rinse water option.

(3) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, shall
have a modified energy factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified energy factor
Product Class (cu.ft./kWh/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 0.65.
ft.\3\ capacity).
ii. Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.\3\ or 1.26.
greater capacity).
iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic.......... \1\ Not Applicable.
iv. Front-Loading......................... 1.26.
v. Suds-saving............................ \1\ Not Applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must have an unheated rinse water option.

* * * * *

Appendix

[The following letter from the Department of Justice will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20530-0001, (202)514-2401/(202) 696-2645 (i),
Antitrust@justic.usdoj.gov internet, Http://www.usdoj.gov (World
Wide Web).
December 4, 2000.
Mary Anne Sullivan, General Counsel, Department of Energy,
Washington, DC 20585.
Dear General Counsel Sullivan: I am responding to your October 16,
2000 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the
potential impact on competition of two proposed energy efficiency
standards: one for clothes washers and the other for residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps. Your request was submitted
pursuant to Section 325 (o)(2)(B)(i) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291 (``EPCA''), which requires the
Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any
lessening of competition that is likely to result from the
imposition of proposed energy efficiency standards. The Attorney
General's responsibility for responding to requests from other
departments about the effect of a program on competition has been
delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division in 28 CFR 0.40 (g).
We have reviewed the proposed standards and the supplementary
information published in the Federal Register notices and submitted
to the Attorney General, which include information provided to the
Department of Energy by manufacturers. We have additionally
conducted interviews with members of the industries.
We have concluded that the proposed clothes washer standard
would not adversely affect competition. In reaching this conclusion,
we note that the proposed standard is based on a joint
recommendation submitted to the Department of Energy by
manufacturers and energy conservation advocates. That recommendation
states that virtually all manufacturers of clothes washers who sell
in the United States participated in arriving at the recommendation
through their trade association, that the recommendation was
developed in consultation with small manufacturers, and that the
manufacturers believe the new standard would not likely reduce
competition. We note further that, as the industry recommended, the
proposed standard will be phased in over six years, which will allow
companies that do not already have products that meet the proposed
standard sufficient time to redesign their product lines.
* * * * *
Sincerely,
A. Douglas Melamed,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 01-611 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer Energy Conservation Standards

Local Navigation