[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49607-49651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18931]



[[Page 49607]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 157

August 14, 2013

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes 
Dryers; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 49608]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054]
RIN 1904-AC63


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential 
Clothes Dryers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedures for 
residential clothes dryers. DOE also published a supplemental NOPR 
(SNOPR) on February 7, 2013, to propose additional amendments to the 
clothes dryer test procedure. Those proposed rulemakings serve as the 
basis for today's action. This final rule updates the reference to the 
latest edition of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 
Standard 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power,'' Edition 2.0 2011-01. For the test procedures at both 
appendix D and appendix D1 to the same subpart, DOE is adopting 
amendments to clarify the cycle settings used for the test cycle, the 
requirements for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, the 
installation conditions for console lights, the method for measuring 
the drum capacity, the maximum allowable weighing scale range, and the 
allowable use of a relative humidity meter. This final rule also amends 
the DOE clothes dryer test procedure to create a new appendix D2 that 
includes the amendments discussed above and testing methods for more 
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination.

DATES: Effective date: The effective date of this rule is September 13, 
2013.
    Compliance date: Compliance with the amended test procedure in 
appendix D for the purposes of compliance with current energy 
conservation standards, as well as representations, is required 
beginning February 10, 2014 until January 1, 2015. Compliance with the 
amended test procedure in appendix D1 for the purpose of compliance 
with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards, as well as 
representations, is required beginning January 1, 2015. Appendix D2 may 
be used for informational purposes and compliance with the provisions 
in appendix D2 may be required at a later date. Voluntary early 
compliance with appendix D1 or appendix D2 is permitted.
    Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register September 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=10;po=0;D=EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0054. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for 
this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page 
will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, 
including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Email: clothes_dryers@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
    1. January 2011 Final Rule
    2. August 2011 RFI
    3. January 2013 NOPR
    4. February 2013 SNOPR
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. Automatic Termination Control Procedures.
    B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition).
    C. Clarifications to Test Conditions.
III. Discussion
    A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Rulemaking
    B. Automatic Cycle Termination
    1. Joint Petition to Amend the Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
    2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis
    3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed Amendments and Today's Final Rule
    a. Definitions
    b. Test Load
    c. Automatic Termination Control Dryer Test Cycle
    d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer Field Use Factor
    e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the Determination of the 
Completion of the Test Cycle
    f. New Appendix D2
    C. Timed Dry Test Method
    D. Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition 
for Measuring Standby Mode and Off Mode Power
    E. Technical Correction to the Calculation of the Per-cycle 
Combined Total Energy Consumption
    F. Clarifications to Test Conditions
    1. Cycle Settings
    2. Gas Supply Requirements
    3. Console Lights
    4. Drum Capacity Measurements
    5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range
    6. Relative Humidity Meter
    G. Additional Test Procedure Issues
    1. Consumer Usage Patterns and Capabilities
    a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles
    b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content and Moisture Removed 
During Test Cycle
    c. Test Load Weight
    d. Exhaust Conditions
    2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight Measurement
    3. Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning
    4. Room Ambient Humidity Requirements
    5. Measurement of Drying Cycle Time
    6. Clothes Dryer Energy Conservation Standards
    H. Effects of Proposed Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance 
with Standards
    1. Active Mode
    2. Standby Mode and Off Mode
    I. Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements
    1. Test Burden
    2. Certification Requirements
    3. Compliance date of final amended test procedures
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to

[[Page 49609]]

improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute 
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical 
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B 
of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A 
upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles.'' These include residential clothes 
dryers, the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) that their products comply with the 
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 
making representations about the efficiency of those products. 
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the 
products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test 
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test 
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered 
product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would 
alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2))
    EPCA also requires DOE to amend the test procedures for all 
residential covered products to include measures of standby mode and 
off mode energy consumption. Specifically, EPCA provides definitions of 
``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) and 
permits DOE to amend these definitions in the context of a given 
product (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B)). The statute requires integration of 
such energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy 
consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product, 
unless DOE determines that--
    (i) the current test procedures for a covered product already fully 
account for and incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption of the covered product; or
    (ii) such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible 
for a particular covered product, in which case the Secretary shall 
prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test 
procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A))
    In any test procedure amendment, DOE must consider the most current 
versions of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 
62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby 
power,'' and IEC Standard 62087, ``Methods of measurement for the power 
consumption of audio, video, and related equipment.'' Id.

B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure

    DOE's test procedures for clothes dryers are codified in appendix D 
and appendix D1 to subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR). DOE established its test procedure for clothes 
dryers at appendix D in a final rule published in the Federal Register 
on September 14, 1977 (the September 1977 Final Rule). 42 FR 46145. On 
May 19, 1981, DOE published a final rule to amend the test procedure by 
establishing a field-use factor for clothes dryers with automatic 
termination controls, clarifying the test cloth specifications and 
clothes dryer preconditioning, and making editorial and minor technical 
changes. 46 FR 27324. The test procedure includes provisions for 
determining the energy factor (EF) for clothes dryers, which is a 
measure of the total energy required to dry a standard test load of 
laundry to a ``bone dry'' \1\ state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Bone dry'' is defined in the DOE clothes dryer test 
procedure as a condition of a load of test clothes which has been 
dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, 
removed and weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10-
minute periods until the final weight change of the load is 1 
percent or less. (10 CFR subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. January 2011 Final Rule
    On January 6, 2011, DOE published in the Federal Register a final 
rule for the residential clothes dryer and room air conditioner test 
procedure rulemaking (76 FR 972) (January 2011 Final Rule), in which it 
(1) adopted the provisions for the measurement of standby mode and off 
mode energy use for those products; and (2) adopted several amendments 
to the clothes dryer and room air conditioner test procedures 
concerning the active mode for these products. 76 FR 972 (Jan. 6, 
2011). DOE created a new appendix D1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B that 
contained the amended test procedure for clothes dryers. Manufacturers 
must use the test procedures in appendix D1 to demonstrate compliance 
with energy conservation standards for clothes dryers as of January 1, 
2015. (76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011), 76 FR 52854 (Aug. 24, 2011))
    For clothes dryer standby mode and off mode, the January 2011 Final 
Rule amended the DOE clothes dryer test procedure to incorporate by 
reference specific clauses from the IEC Standard 62301, ``Household 
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' (first edition 
June 2005) (IEC Standard 62301 First Edition) regarding test conditions 
and test procedures for measuring standby mode and off mode power 
consumption, as well as language to clarify application of these 
provisions for measuring standby mode and off mode power consumption in 
clothes dryers. In addition, DOE adopted definitions of modes based on 
the relevant provisions from IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition 
Committee Draft for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV). DOE established the 
Combined Energy Factor (CEF) for clothes dryers to integrate energy use 
in the standby mode and off mode with the energy use of the main 
functions of the product.\2\ 76 FR 972, 975-6 (Jan. 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The CEF is defined as the clothes dryer test load weight in 
pounds divided by the sum of the per-cycle standby and off mode 
energy consumption and either the total per-cycle electric dryer 
energy consumption or the total per-cycle gas dryer energy 
consumption expressed in kilowatt hours (kWh).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For clothes dryer active mode, in the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE 
adopted testing methods for ventless clothes dryers, test cloth 
preconditioning requirements for clothes dryer energy tests, test 
conditions for gas clothes dryers, test conditions for clothes dryer

[[Page 49610]]

drum capacity measurement, and amendments to reflect current clothes 
dryer usage patterns and capabilities and to update the references to 
the relevant industry test standard (Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HLD-1-2009). 76 FR 972, 976-8 (Jan. 6, 
2011).
    In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE did not adopt amendments to 
more accurately measure automatic cycle termination that were proposed 
earlier in the rulemaking \3\ because DOE concluded that they did not 
adequately measure the energy consumption of clothes dryers equipped 
with such systems using the test load specified in the DOE test 
procedure. DOE stated that clothes dryers with automatic termination 
sensing control systems, which infer the RMC \4\ of the load from the 
properties of the exhaust air such as temperature and humidity, may be 
designed to stop the cycle when a load of varying weights, composition, 
and size has a higher RMC than the RMC obtained using the proposed 
automatic cycle termination test procedure in conjunction with the 
existing DOE test load.\5\ In considering whether other test loads 
would be appropriate to incorporate into the DOE test procedure to 
produce both representative and repeatable test results, however, DOE 
noted that manufacturers indicated that test load types and test cloth 
materials different than those specified in the DOE test procedure do 
not produce results as repeatable as those obtained using the test load 
as currently specified. 76 FR 977 (Jan. 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The test method proposed in a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking involved testing clothes dryers with automatic 
termination controls using the ``normal'' setting (and where the 
temperature setting can be chosen independently of the program, DOE 
proposed to use the highest temperature level) and a test load with 
a starting moisture content of 57.5  0.33 percent, 
allowing the dryer to run until the heater switches off for the 
final time at the end of the drying cycle to achieve a final 
remaining moisture content of no more than 5 percent. 75 FR 37594, 
37612-20 (June 29, 2010).
    \4\ RMC is the ratio of the weight of water contained by the 
test load to the bone-dry weight of the test load, expressed as a 
percent.
    \5\ The DOE test load is composed of cotton momie test cloths 
that are each 24 inches by 36 inches in dimensions and are a blend 
of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. August 2011 RFI
    On August 12, 2011, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI) 
to further investigate the effects of automatic cycle termination on 
clothes dryer energy efficiency (August 2011 RFI). 76 FR 50145. DOE 
sought information, data, and comments regarding methods for more 
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination in the 
clothes dryer test procedure. In particular, DOE sought comment on the 
following: (1) The characteristics of loads of varying weights, 
composition, and size, (2) the accuracy of different automatic cycle 
termination sensors and controls, (3) the target final RMC used by 
manufacturers to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4) the effects of the 
characteristics of water (i.e., hardness and conductivity) used for 
wetting the test load prior to testing, and (5) the cycle settings 
selected by consumers for automatic termination cycles. In response to 
the August 2011 RFI, interested parties commented that DOE should amend 
the clothes dryer test procedure to include provisions to account for 
the effectiveness of automatic cycle termination and amend the relevant 
energy conservation standards based on the effects of the test 
procedure changes according to EPCA.
3. January 2013 NOPR
    On January 2, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) (January 2013 NOPR) (78 FR 152) to propose amendments to the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
D1, to include methods for more accurately measuring the effects of 
automatic cycle termination. DOE also proposed to update the reference 
to the latest edition of the IEC Standard 62301, ``Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Edition 2.0 2011-01 (IEC 
Standard 62301 (Second Edition) or ``Second Edition'') for measuring 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, along with additional 
clarifying language. For the test procedures at both appendix D and 
appendix D1, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to clarify the cycle 
settings used for the test cycle and the requirements for the gas 
supply for gas clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 154-155 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE 
also held a public meeting on February 6, 2013 (hereafter referred to 
as the February 2013 public meeting) to hear oral comments on and 
solicit information relevant to the January 2013 NOPR.
4. February 2013 SNOPR
    On February 7, 2013, DOE published a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) to consider inquiries regarding specific 
provisions in the current clothes dryer test procedures (February 2013 
SNOPR). DOE proposed amendments to clarify the installation conditions 
for console lights, the method for measuring the drum capacity, the 
maximum allowable scale range, and the allowable use of a relative 
humidity meter. 78 FR 8992 (Feb. 7, 2013).

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. Automatic Termination Control Procedures.

    In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedures for clothes 
dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B to create a new appendix D2 to 
include methods for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic 
cycle termination. As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE determined that 
the amended automatic cycle termination test procedure for clothes 
dryers represents a significantly different testing methodology that 
may impact the energy consumption of some clothes dryers more than 
others and would potentially require additional product re-design to 
meet the January 1, 2015 standards. As a result, to maintain the same 
basic test procedure that is required for use to determine compliance 
with the January 1, 2015 clothes dryer standards, DOE is not amending 
appendix D1 in today's final rule to include provisions for more 
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. The 
newly created appendix D2 with such amendments will not be required for 
use to determine compliance with either the current or the January 1, 
2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE will 
continue to evaluate products on the market and collect data on clothes 
dryer automatic cycle termination to evaluate when the compliance date 
for the amended test procedure in appendix D2 will be required.
    The amended test method in appendix D2 requires that clothes dryers 
with automatic cycle termination controls be tested using the 
``Normal'' automatic termination cycle setting. Where the drying 
temperature setting can be chosen independently, it shall be set to the 
maximum. Where the dryness level setting can be chosen independently, 
it shall be set to the ``normal'' or ``medium'' dryness level 
setting.\6\ The amendments also specify that the clothes dryer be 
allowed to run until the completion of the drying cycle, including the 
cool-down period, to achieve a final RMC of no more than 2 percent. If 
the final measured RMC is above 2 percent, the test shall be considered 
invalid and a new test cycle shall be run using the highest dryness

[[Page 49611]]

level setting. DOE notes that a final RMC of 2 percent using the DOE 
test load is more representative of clothes dryers currently on the 
market than the 5-percent final RMC specified in the existing test 
procedure and the new requirement is representative of the maximum 
consumer-accepted final RMC. DOE is including an additional 
clarification that the cycle shall be considered complete when the 
clothes dryer indicates to the user that the cycle has finished (by 
means of a display, indicator light, audible signal, or other signal) 
and the heater and drum/fan motor shuts off for the final time. If the 
clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle prevention feature (i.e., that 
continuously or intermittently tumbles the clothes dryer drum after the 
clothes dryer indicates to the user that the cycle has finished) that 
is activated by default in the condition as shipped by the 
manufacturer, the wrinkle prevention mode would be included in the test 
measurement cycle unless it precluded the necessary automatic 
termination cycle program, temperature setting, or dryness setting. In 
addition, if a manufacturer's user manual specifies that the wrinkle 
prevention mode is recommended to be activated for normal use even if 
it is not done so in the as-shipped condition, the product would be 
tested with the wrinkle prevention mode activated per manufacturer's 
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Most clothes dryers available on the market provide separate 
settings for the ``temperature level'' and ``dryness level.'' The 
temperature level refers to the temperature of the hot air used to 
dry the load in the drum. The dryness level refers to the desired 
remaining moisture content of the load at the completion of the 
drying cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to apply a field use factor 
of 0.80 for clothes dryers with automatic cycle termination to account 
for the measured energy consumption at the end of the automatic 
termination cycle drying the DOE test load below 2-percent RMC. 78 FR 
152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). Based on comments from interested parties and 
review of available field use data, DOE determined that eliminating the 
field use factor for automatic termination control dryers will produce 
test results that are more representative of consumer use. As a result, 
in today's final rule, DOE is eliminating the field use factor in 
appendix D2 for clothes dryers with automatic termination controls 
because the test method directly measures any over-drying energy 
consumption.
    For clothes dryers with only timed dry control settings, the 
amendments adopted in the new appendix D2 require that the existing 
timed dry test cycle be used, but change the allowable final RMC range 
from 2.5-5 percent to 1-2.5 percent. DOE is also amending the test 
procedure in appendix D2 to change the normalization in the calculation 
of the per-cycle energy consumption to represent the energy consumption 
required to dry the test load to 2-percent RMC. These changes provide 
consistency with the test method for automatic cycle termination and 
are representative of the final RMC of clothes dryers currently on the 
market using the DOE test load.
    Appendix D2 may be used for informational purposes, but will not be 
required for use to determine compliance with either the current or the 
January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE 
is not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include the 
amendments for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle 
termination discussed above.

B. Incorporation of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition).

    The IEC published IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) on January 
27, 2011. Consistent with EPCA requirements for amending test 
procedures to include standby and off mode procedures (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A)), DOE analyzed this latest version of the IEC standard 
and determined that it provides for improvement for some measurements 
of standby mode and off mode energy use. Accordingly, DOE adopts 
amendments in today's final rule to incorporate certain provisions of 
the IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition), along with clarifying 
language, into the DOE clothes dryer test procedures in both appendix 
D1 and appendix D2.

C. Clarifications to Test Conditions.

    DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices D, D1, and 
D2 to clarify: (1) The cycle settings used for the test cycle, (2) the 
requirements for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, (3) the 
installation conditions for console lights, (4) the method for 
measuring the drum capacity, (5) the maximum allowable weighing scale 
range for drum capacity and test cloth measurements, and (6) the 
allowable use of a relative humidity meter.

D. Summary of Test Provisions.

    Table II.1 presents the key test procedure provisions in appendix 
D, D1, and D2.

                                      Table II.1--Test Procedure Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test provisions                    Appendix D              Appendix D1              Appendix D2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standby/Off Mode Test Methods........  None...................  Incorporates by          Incorporates by
                                                                 reference IEC Standard   reference IEC Standard
                                                                 62301 (Second Edition)   62301 (Second Edition)
                                                                 with additional          with additional
                                                                 clarifications.          clarifications.
Ventless Dryer Test Methods..........  No.....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Number of Cycles Per Year............  416....................  283....................  283.
Referenced AHAM Standard.............  HLD-1-1974.............  HLD-1-2009.............  HLD-1-2009.
Test Load Weight.....................  Standard Size Dryers:    Standard Size Dryers:    Standard Size Dryers:
                                        7.00  .07    8.45  .085   8.45  .085
                                        pounds.                  pounds.                  pounds.
                                       Compact Size Dryers:     Compact Size Dryers:     Compact Size Dryers:
                                        3.00  .03    3.00  .03    3.00  .03
                                        pounds.                  pounds.                  pounds.
Detergent Specifications for Test      AHAM Standard Test       AHAM Standard Test       AHAM Standard Test
 Cloth Preconditioning.                 Detergent IIA.           Detergent Formula 3.     Detergent Formula 3.
Water Temperature for Test Load        100 [deg]F   60 [deg]F    60 [deg]F 
 Preparation.                           5 [deg]F.                5 [deg]F.                5 [deg]F.
Starting RMC of Test Load............  70  3.5      57.5  3.5    57.5  0.33
                                        percent.                 percent.                 percent.

[[Page 49612]]

 
Cycle and Settings Used for Test.....  Timed Dry Cycle,         Timed Dry Cycle,         Automatic Termination
                                        Maximum Temperature.     Maximum Temperature.     Control Dryers:
                                                                                          ``Normal'' Automatic
                                                                                          Dry Cycle; Maximum
                                                                                          Temperature (if
                                                                                          separately
                                                                                          selectable);
                                                                                          ``Normal'' or
                                                                                          ``Medium'' Dryness
                                                                                          (or, if no such
                                                                                          designations, at mid-
                                                                                          point between min. and
                                                                                          max. settings).
                                                                                         Timer Dryers: Timed Dry
                                                                                          Cycle, Maximum
                                                                                          Temperature.
RMC of Test Load at Which Test is      Stopped manually at 2.5- Stopped manually at 2.5- Automatic Termination
 Stopped.                               5 percent RMC.           5 percent RMC.           Control Dryers:
                                                                                          Allowed to run until
                                                                                          completion of
                                                                                          automatic cycle. Must
                                                                                          be below 2-percent RMC
                                                                                          or additional test
                                                                                          with highest dryness
                                                                                          level setting must be
                                                                                          run.
                                                                                         Timer Dryers: Stopped
                                                                                          manually at 1-2.5
                                                                                          percent RMC.
Cool Down............................  Clothes dryer not        Clothes dryer not        Cool down period
                                        permitted to advance     permitted to advance     included in automatic
                                        into cool down.          into cool down.          cycle test.
Field Use Factor (multiplied by per-   = 1.04 for automatic     = 1.04 for automatic     No field use factor for
 cycle energy consumption to account    termination control      termination control      automatic termination
 for over drying).                      dryers.                  dryers.                  control dryers.
                                       = 1.18 for timer dryers  = 1.18 for timer dryers  = 1.18 for timer
                                                                                          dryers.
Clarifications:......................
     Cycle settings used for   Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
     the test cycle
     Requirements for the gas
     supply for gas clothes dryers
     Installation conditions
     for console lights
     Method for measuring the
     drum capacity
     Maximum allowable scale
     range
     Allowable use of a
     relative humidity meter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Rulemaking

    Today's amendments to DOE's clothes dryer test procedure cover both 
electric and gas clothes dryers. DOE defines a clothes dryer to mean a 
cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum 
with forced air circulation, with blower(s) driven by an electric 
motor(s) and either gas or electricity as the heat source. 10 CFR 
430.2. DOE is not amending the definition for clothes dryers in DOE's 
regulations.
    Hydromatic Technologies Corporation (Hydromatic) commented that its 
``hybrid electric'' clothes dryer should be a covered product and 
should be considered before setting any standards or test procedures. 
(Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24-27, 116-118) 
\7\ DOE notes that the Hydromatic's clothes dryer would be considered a 
covered product under the definition of an electric clothes dryer in 10 
CFR 430.2 because the heat source is electricity. The definition does 
not limit electric clothes dryers to any specific method or technology 
by which the heat is generated from the electrical supply, such as an 
electric resistance heater or heat pump technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A notation in the form ``Hydromatic, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 24-27, 116-118'' identifies an oral 
comment that DOE received during the February 6, 2013, NOPR public 
meeting, was recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket 
for the residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking (Docket 
No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054), and is available for review at 
www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers to a comment 
(1) made by the Hydromatic Technologies Corporation during the 
public meeting; (2) recorded in document number 10, which is the 
public meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of the 
residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking; and (3) which 
appears on pages 24-27 and 116-118 of document number 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Automatic Cycle Termination

    In today's final rule, DOE is adopting amendments to the clothes 
dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B to create a new 
appendix D2 that includes methods to more accurately measure the 
effects of automatic cycle termination. DOE is not including these 
methods for automatic cycle termination in appendix D1 for the reasons 
discussed in section III.I.3.
    The DOE test procedures for clothes dryers in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendices D and D1 require manufacturers to apply a field 
use factor to the per-cycle drying energy consumption to determine the 
performance of clothes dryers equipped with both automatic cycle 
termination and timers. For clothes dryers with automatic termination 
control, the test procedures do not distinguish between the types of 
sensing control system (e.g., temperature-sensing or moisture-sensing 
controls) nor consider the sophistication and accuracy of the control 
system. Gas or electric clothes dryers with time termination control 
(i.e., those clothes dryers equipped with a timer to determine the end 
of a drying cycle) are assigned a field use factor of 1.18, while 
clothes dryers with automatic

[[Page 49613]]

termination are assigned a field use factor of 1.04. Because the test 
procedure requires the measurement of a timed drying cycle in which the 
tester manually stops the drying cycle when the test load reaches 2.5-5 
percent RMC, the field use factors are intended to account for 
consumers that may dry loads beyond the 2.5-5 percent RMC specified in 
the test procedure. The field use factor for timer dryers was derived 
from a field study conducted by the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company 
in 1971, consisting of 64 households and 33,000 loads of clothing, as 
well as data reported by AHAM representing the energy consumption in 
1972 of 2,983,200 production units of clothes dryers. 42 FR 46145, 
46146 (Sept. 14, 1977). For automatic termination control dryers, the 
field use factor was derived from a field study conducted by AHAM in 
1977 involving 72 households. 45 FR 46762-63 (July 10, 1980); 46 FR 
27324 (May 19, 1981).
    In an SNOPR published on June 29, 2010 (75 FR 37594) (June 2010 
SNOPR) in advance of the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE proposed to 
revise its clothes dryer test procedure to include definitions of, and 
provisions for, testing both timer dryers and automatic termination 
control dryers based on the methodology provided in Australia/New 
Zealand (AS/NZS) Standard 2442.1: 1996, ``Performance of household 
electrical appliances--Rotary clothes dryers, Part 1: Energy 
consumption and performance'' (AS/NZS Standard 2442.1) and AS/NZS 
Standard 2442.2: 2000, ``Performance of household electrical 
appliances--Rotary clothes dryers, Part 2: Energy labeling 
requirements'' (AS/NZS Standard 2442.2). 75 FR 37594, 37598 (June 29, 
2010). DOE proposed to incorporate the testing methods from these 
international test standards, along with a number of clarifications, to 
measure the energy consumption for both timer dryers and automatic 
termination control dryers. The measurement would account for the 
energy consumed by the clothes dryer after the load reaches an RMC of 5 
percent. 75 FR 37594, 37599 (June 29, 2010). The proposed test method 
in the June 2010 SNOPR specified that a clothes dryer with automatic 
cycle termination controls be tested using the ``normal'' cycle 
setting, and where the temperature setting can be chosen independently 
of the program, it would be set to the highest level. The clothes dryer 
would then be allowed to run until the heater switched off for the 
final time at the end of the drying cycle. If the final RMC was higher 
than 5 percent, the test would be re-run using the highest dryness 
level setting. Id.
    In addition to the provisions for automatic termination control 
dryers, DOE also proposed testing methods in the June 2010 SNOPR for 
timer dryers based on AS/NZS Standard 2442.1. The proposed test method 
specified that the clothes dryer be operated at the maximum temperature 
setting until the final RMC of the load was between 5 and 6 percent. 
The procedure would then be repeated to dry the load until the final 
RMC was between 4 and 5 percent, with the results from these two tests 
used to interpolate the value of the per-cycle energy consumption 
required to dry the test load to exactly 5-percent RMC. 75 FR 37594, 
37617 (June 29, 2010).
    As discussed in the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE conducted testing 
of representative residential clothes dryers using the automatic cycle 
termination test procedure proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR. The results 
of the testing revealed that all of the clothes dryers tested 
significantly over-dried the DOE test load to near bone dry and, as a 
result, the measured EF values were significantly lower than EF values 
obtained using the existing DOE test procedure in appendix D. 76 FR 
972, 977 (Jan. 6, 2011). In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE concluded 
that the test procedure amendments for automatic cycle termination 
proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR do not adequately measure the energy 
consumption of clothes dryers equipped with such systems using the test 
load specified in the DOE test procedure. Clothes dryers with automatic 
termination sensing control systems may infer the RMC of the load from 
the properties of the exhaust air such as temperature and humidity or 
by using conductivity sensor bars to determine the amount of moisture 
in the load when the load comes in contact with the sensors. DOE noted 
in the January 2011 Final Rule that these automatic termination sensing 
control systems may be designed for consumer use to dry loads of 
varying weights, composition, and size, which may have different 
moisture retention properties than the existing DOE test load, and 
therefore, may result in a higher measured RMC than the RMC obtained 
using the existing DOE test load with the proposed automatic cycle 
termination test procedure. In considering whether other test loads 
would be appropriate to incorporate into the DOE test procedure to 
produce both representative and repeatable test results, however, DOE 
noted that manufacturers indicated that test load types and test cloth 
materials different than those specified in the DOE test procedure do 
not produce results as repeatable as those obtained using the test load 
as currently specified. As a result, in the January 2011 Final Rule, 
DOE did not adopt the amendments to more accurately measure automatic 
cycle termination that were originally proposed in the June 2010 TP 
SNOPR. 76 FR 972, 977-78 (Jan. 6, 2011).
1. Joint Petition To Amend the Clothes Dryer Test Procedure
    As discussed in section I of this notice, DOE published the August 
2011 RFI to further investigate the effects of automatic cycle 
termination on clothes dryer energy efficiency. 76 FR 50145 (Aug. 12, 
2011). DOE sought information, data, and comments regarding methods for 
more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination in 
the residential clothes dryer test procedure. In particular, DOE sought 
comment on the following: (1) The characteristics of loads of varying 
weights, composition, and size, (2) the accuracy of different automatic 
cycle termination sensors and controls, (3) the target final RMC used 
by manufacturers to maintain consumer satisfaction, (4) the effects of 
the characteristics of water (i.e., hardness and conductivity) used for 
wetting the test load prior to testing, and (5) the cycle settings 
selected by consumers for automatic termination cycles.
    In response to the August 2011 RFI, DOE received the ``Joint 
Petition to Amend the Test Procedure for Residential Clothes Dryers to 
Include Provisions Related to Automatic Termination Controls'' (the 
``Joint Petition''), a comment submitted by groups representing 
manufacturers (AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General 
Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home 
Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-
Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, 
Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell 
Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, 
Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American 
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards 
Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy 
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer 
Federation of America (CFA) and the National

[[Page 49614]]

Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners''). 
The Joint Petitioners commented that DOE should amend the clothes dryer 
test procedure to include provisions to account for the effectiveness 
of automatic cycle termination. (Joint Petition, No. 3 at pp. 1, 4-5) 
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A notation in the form ``Joint Petition, No. 3 at pp. 1, 4-
5'' identifies a written comment: (1) Made by the Joint Petition; 
(2) recorded in document number 2 that is filed in the docket of the 
residential clothes dryer test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. 
EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054) and available for review at 
www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on pages 1 and 4-5 of 
document number 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Petitioners recognized DOE's concerns that the amendments 
for automatic cycle termination proposed in the June 2010 SNOPR may not 
properly measure the effectiveness of automatic termination controls, 
particularly in light of data that suggested that automatic termination 
control dryers may in fact be drying clothes to approximately 5-percent 
RMC rather than the less than 2-percent RMC resulting from testing 
using the DOE test cloth. The Joint Petitioners noted that the DOE test 
cloth is uniform, for purposes of repeatability and reproducibility, 
but likely dries faster and more uniformly than a load of varying 
weights, composition, and size. (Joint Petition, No. 3 at p. 5)
    As part of the Joint Petition, AHAM members provided test data on 
clothes dryers with automatic termination controls representing 60 
percent of shipments, measuring the final RMC at the completion of a 
``normal'' automatic cycle, including cool down, using the DOE test 
load. The data showed that all tested models had a final RMC below 2 
percent. The Joint Petitioners stated that because there are few 
consumer complaints that automatic termination control dryers do not 
dry clothes, this market-representative final RMC from testing using 
the DOE test cloth best approximates the maximum consumer-accepted 
final RMC. (Joint Petition, No. 3 at pp. 5-6)
    Based on this data, the Joint Petitioners stated that DOE should 
amend the clothes dryer test procedure to include the full automatic 
termination cycle, including cool down. The Joint Petitioners stated 
that testing the entire cycle is more representative of actual consumer 
use and is less of a test burden for manufacturers than DOE's proposal 
in the June 2010 SNOPR to stop the clothes dryer when the heater 
switches off for the final time at the end of the drying cycle. In 
addition, the Joint Petitioners commented that the test procedure 
should be amended to state that the final RMC when testing units with 
automatic termination controls shall be no more than 2 percent when 
testing with the DOE test load to be representative of clothes dryers 
currently on the market. Any test in which the final RMC is 2 percent 
or less should be considered valid. If the final RMC is greater than 2 
percent, the test would be invalid and a new test run would be 
conducted using the highest dryness level setting. (Joint Petition, No. 
3 at p. 6)
    AHAM withdrew its support for the petition in a letter to DOE dated 
May 29, 2012, stating that the petition was predicated on DOE's 
adoption of test procedure provisions to account for automatic 
termination controls by December 31, 2011. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 1-2) DOE 
acknowledged AHAM's withdrawal but continued to consider the 
substantive provisions to account for such controls.
2. January 2013 NOPR Analysis
    For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE selected a representative sample of 
20 clothes dryers encompassing all clothes dryer product classes to 
evaluate potential amendments for automatic cycle termination. DOE 
considered features such as rated energy factor, rated capacity, 
control type (i.e., electromechanical versus electronic), and automatic 
cycle termination sensor technology (if advertised) when selecting 
units to be most representative of products currently available on the 
U.S. market. DOE initially conducted testing for all test units 
according to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix D1. Appendix D1 requires that the DOE test load, 
initially soaked with an RMC of 57.5  3.5 percent, be dried 
using the timed dry and maximum temperature settings until the test 
load has reached a final RMC of 2.5 to 5 percent without allowing the 
clothes dryer to advance into a cool-down phase. A field use factor is 
then applied to the measured per-cycle energy consumption to account 
for the over-drying energy consumption associated with the use of 
either timer dryers or automatic termination control dryers. DOE then 
conducted testing of these units using automatic cycle termination test 
methodologies with different test loads to evaluate the effects of 
these potential test procedure amendments on the measured efficiency as 
compared to the existing DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
B, appendix D1. DOE also conducted additional testing to evaluate 
repeatability and reproducibility of the test results. 78 FR 152, 157-
158 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    In conducting the testing for the January 2013 NOPR, DOE used the 
DOE test load and the test load specified in both the AHAM clothes 
dryer test standard HLD-1-2009, ``Household Tumble Type Clothes 
Dryers,'' and the IEC test standard 61121, ``Tumble dryers for 
household use--Methods for measuring the performance,'' Edition 3 
(2005), which consists of cotton bed sheets, towels, and pillowcases. 
DOE concluded in the August 2011 RFI that clothes dryers with automatic 
termination sensing control systems may be designed to stop the cycle 
when a load of varying weights, composition, and size has a higher RMC 
than the RMC obtained using the automatic termination drying cycle in 
conjunction with the existing DOE test load. 76 FR 50145, 50146 (Aug. 
12, 2011).
    As part of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE conducted the testing for the 
proposed automatic cycle termination test methodology according to the 
DOE test procedure in appendix D1, with the following modifications. 
The test load was prepared with a starting RMC of 57.5 percent  0.33 percent. The controls were set as follows:
     Instead of using the timed dry cycle setting, the 
``normal'' automatic termination cycle setting was selected. If a 
``normal'' cycle setting was not provided, then the test cycle 
recommended by manufacturers for drying cotton or linen clothes was 
used.
     Where the temperature setting could be chosen 
independently of the program, the highest level was selected.
     Where the dryness level setting could be chosen 
independently of the program, it was set to the ``normal'' or 
``medium'' level. If such designation was not provided, then the 
dryness level was set at the mid-point between the minimum and maximum 
settings. 78 FR 152, 158 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    The clothes dryer was then allowed to run until the completion of 
the cycle, including the cool-down period. At the completion of the 
cycle, the clothes were weighed to determine the final RMC. If the 
final RMC was below 2 percent for the DOE test load, the test was 
considered valid. If the RMC was higher than 2 percent (i.e., the test 
load contained more moisture than would be acceptable to consumers), 
the test was considered invalid and was re-run using the highest 
dryness level setting. DOE selected the 2-percent RMC threshold based 
on data presented in the Joint Petitioners' comment regarding RMC 
levels acceptable to consumers, discussed above. For the IEC/AHAM test 
load, similar test conditions were applied except that the threshold 
value for the final RMC was changed from 2

[[Page 49615]]

percent to 5 percent because of the more varied composition of the IEC/
AHAM test load. Id.
    For each specific testing methodology, DOE conducted a series of 
three identical tests for each model to evaluate the repeatability of 
test results.\9\ DOE presented the test results in the January 2013 
NOPR, which are summarized in Table III.1. DOE noted in the January 
2013 NOPR that for the automatic cycle termination tests using the DOE 
test load, all of the tests resulted in a lower measured CEF (i.e., 
higher per-cycle energy use) compared to the DOE test procedure, 
ranging from a 3.5 percent to 41.9 percent decrease in CEF. Similarly, 
for the automatic cycle termination tests using the IEC/AHAM test load, 
DOE noted that all of the tests resulted in a lower measured CEF 
compared to the DOE test procedure, ranging from a 6.1 percent to 40.3 
percent decrease. In addition, the majority of tested units had a lower 
CEF for the automatic cycle termination test with the IEC/AHAM test 
load than with the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 159-160 (Jan. 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For this series of tests, DOE did not make any modifications 
to the water used to wet the test loads.

                             Table III.1--January 2013 NOPR DOE Test Procedure and Automatic Cycle Termination Test Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    DOE test       Automatic cycle termination--DOE    Automatic cycle termination--IEC/
                                                                    procedure                  test load                        AHAM test load
                         Product class                            (Appendix D1)  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               ------------------
                                                                  CEF (lb/kWh)    CEF \1\ (lb/kWh)      % Change      CEF \1\ (lb/kWh)      % Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard......................................              3.79              3.16             -16.6              3.03             -20.0
Vented Electric Compact (240V)................................              3.54              2.79             -21.1              2.68             -24.4
Vented Electric Compact (120V)................................              3.75              2.18             -41.9              2.42             -35.6
Vented Gas....................................................              3.39              2.92             -13.9              2.79             -17.7
Ventless Electric Compact (240V)..............................              2.98              2.73              -8.4              2.63             -11.9
Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer....................              2.54              2.45              -3.9              2.29              -9.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No field use factor for automatic cycle termination applied to results.

    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also presented the average final RMC 
from the automatic cycle termination tests with both the DOE and IEC/
AHAM test loads, as well as the cycle settings used for each test unit. 
The test data showed that the final RMC ranged from 0.4 percent to 2.0 
percent for the DOE test load and 1.3 to 4.7 percent for the IEC/AHAM 
test load. DOE also noted that for nearly all of the test units, the 
average final RMC was higher for the tests using the IEC/AHAM test 
load. The higher measured per-cycle energy use and final RMC for the 
IEC/AHAM test load compared to the DOE test load is likely due to the 
ability of the IEC/AHAM test load to retain more water during the 
drying process than the DOE test load, which gives off moisture more 
readily and terminates the drying cycle sooner. In addition, as 
discussed above, clothes dryers with automatic termination sensing 
control systems may be designed to stop the cycle when a load of 
varying weights, composition, and size has a higher RMC than the RMC 
obtained using the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 160 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that manufacturers have 
indicated that test load types and test cloth materials different than 
those specified in the DOE test procedure do not produce results as 
repeatable as those obtained using the DOE test load. Therefore, for 
each test unit, DOE examined the test-to-test variation in CEF among 
the three tests conducted using the DOE test procedure and among the 
three tests using the automatic cycle termination test methodology. DOE 
presented the test-to-test variation results in the January 2013 NOPR, 
which are summarized in Table III.2. The analysis showed that the test-
to-test variation for the automatic cycle termination tests with the 
DOE test load is slightly lower than the test-to-test variation with 
the IEC/AHAM test load, and that both are higher than the test-to-test 
variation for the DOE test procedure. DOE noted that the more 
consistent results for the current DOE test procedure are likely due to 
the use of the timed dry cycle rather than the automatic termination 
cycles, which may have additional variation in results due to the 
performance of temperature and moisture sensors and the automatic 
termination control strategies. 78 FR 152, 160-161 (Jan. 2, 2013).

                            Table III.2--January 2013 NOPR CEF Test-to-Test Variation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       CEF Test-to-test variation (%)
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                               DOE test       Automatic cycle   Automatic cycle
                                                               procedure     termination--DOE  termination--IEC/
                                                             (Appendix D1)       test load       AHAM test load
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum..................................................              0.18              0.16               0.16
Maximum..................................................              2.08               5.7               6.44
Average..................................................              0.87              1.87               2.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2013 NOPR, to evaluate the effect of test load 
composition on repeatability, DOE then ran appendix D1 again for a 
subset of 10 of the clothes dryers in its test sample, using the IEC/
AHAM test cloth instead of the DOE test cloth. For each of these units, 
DOE conducted three repeat tests. DOE stated that it believes that 
using the timed dry cycle and requiring that the clothes dryer be 
stopped manually allow for better evaluation of the effect of the test

[[Page 49616]]

load composition alone on repeatability by limiting other factors, such 
as automatic termination sensor performance, that may contribute to 
variability of results from test to test. The results from this testing 
were presented in the January 2013 NOPR and are summarized in Table 
III.3. The results showed a test-to-test variation in CEF (expressed in 
terms of standard error) of 1.02 percent for the IEC/AHAM test load as 
compared to the 0.87 percent test-to-test variation for the DOE timed 
dry test procedure with the DOE test load. 78 FR 152, 161 (Jan. 2, 
2013).

 Table III.3--January 2013 NOPR CEF Test-to-Test Variation for Appendix
                       D1 with IEC/AHAM Test Loads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Timed Dry-IEC/AHAM test
                                                 load-- CEF test-to-test
                                                   standard error (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum.......................................                     0.31
Maximum.......................................                     1.42
Average.......................................                     1.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that in addition to the use of 
the IEC/AHAM test load producing less repeatable results from test to 
test, the reproducibility of test results from lab to lab must also be 
considered because different test laboratories may be using different 
lots of test cloth. To evaluate the reproducibility of test results 
from lab to lab, DOE conducted testing of 9 units at an independent 
test laboratory with different lots of the DOE and IEC/AHAM test loads 
using the automatic cycle termination test method. The results showed 
that the lab-to-lab reproducibility of test results was, on average, 
3.0 percent for the existing DOE test load and 4.7 percent for the IEC/
AHAM test load. 78 FR 152, 161-162 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    As part of the automatic cycle termination testing for the January 
2013 NOPR, DOE tested a number of units in the test sample at an 
independent test laboratory that measured and recorded the energy 
consumption and an estimated instantaneous RMC of the test load 
throughout the test cycle. The estimated RMC was determined based on 
the weight of the test load, measured in place during the test cycle, 
and the rotation of the drum. Based on this testing, DOE decided to 
develop a field use factor to account for the over-drying energy 
consumption using the automatic cycle termination test method with the 
DOE test load at the end of the cycle when the load is dried below 2-
percent RMC. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    Using the independent test laboratory's data, DOE evaluated the 
measured energy consumption at different times during the cycle--when 
the test load initially reached 5-percent RMC, when it reached 2-
percent RMC, and at the end of the cycle (including after cool down). 
The test data showed that the energy consumption measured over a full 
automatic termination dry cycle is 11-72 percent greater than the 
energy consumption during the test cycle when the test load initially 
reaches 5-percent RMC, and 4-62 percent greater than the energy 
consumption when the test load initially reaches 2-percent RMC (before 
any moisture regain during cool down/tumbling). DOE also noted that 
while the final RMC of the DOE test load using the automatic cycle 
termination test method was between 0.4 percent and 2.0 percent at the 
completion of the test cycle for all of the clothes dryers in DOE's 
test sample, this RMC was achieved either after the end of a cool-down 
period, during which the clothes dryer tumbles with no added heat after 
the conclusion of the heated drying, or after an extended period of 
operation at nearly 0-percent RMC when the heater is cycled off and on. 
The independent test laboratory's data showed that during cool down or 
non-heated tumbling, the test load regains moisture from the room air. 
As a result, the final RMC of the test load at the completion of the 
cycle after the cool-down/tumbling period is higher than the RMC of the 
load when the heater turns off for the final time. 78 FR 152, 162 (Jan. 
2, 2013).

 Table III.4--January 2013 NOPR--Measured Automatic Cycle Termination Energy Consumption at Specific RMC Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Energy consumption (kWh)
                                                 Automatic cycle -----------------------------------------------
         Product class             Test unit       termination                                     End of cycle
                                                     sensor           5% RMC          2% RMC       (measured RMC
                                                   technology                                        (%)) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard......               1  Moisture + Temp.           1.945           2.070     2.624 (1.2)
                                             2  Temperature.....           2.068           2.233     3.119 (0.9)
                                             4  Moisture + Temp.           2.160           2.318     2.405 (0.7)
                                             6  Moisture + Temp.           2.091           2.280     3.141 (1.9)
Vented Electric Compact (240V)              10  Temperature.....           0.823           0.875     1.418 (2.0)
Vented Gas....................              13  Moisture + Temp.           2.375           2.569     2.905 (0.8)
                                            15  Moisture + Temp.           2.347           2.532     3.161 (1.2)
                                            17  Moisture + Temp.           2.300           2.482     2.843 (1.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As noted above, the test load regained moisture during the cool-down/tumbling period.

    Based on the test data, DOE noted that for all of the clothes 
dryers tested at the independent test laboratory, the DOE test load 
reached 2-percent RMC before the clothes dryer initially began cycling 
the heater on and off. The test data also showed that the cool-down/
tumbling period can contribute a significant amount of energy 
consumption associated with over-drying and moisture regain when using 
the DOE test load. DOE observed that two test units, both of which used 
the same moisture sensor technology and dried the test load to final 
RMCs of close to 1 percent at the end of the cycle, had significantly 
different total measured energy consumption. One of these test units 
achieved this final RMC with only a brief cool-down period, while the 
other test unit repeatedly heated, tumbled, and regained moisture 
before the final cool down. DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR that it 
believes that the difference in energy consumption between these two 
units is most likely a function of the control strategy rather

[[Page 49617]]

than the accuracy of the sensors. 78 FR 152, 163-166 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    As part of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE conducted further analysis to 
develop an appropriate field use factor to account for the measured 
energy consumption at the end of the automatic termination cycle below 
2-percent RMC using the DOE test load (including any cool-down/tumbling 
period). DOE calculated a field use factor of 0.80 for automatic 
termination control dryers by taking the average of the difference 
between the measured energy consumption to initially reach 2-percent 
RMC and the measured energy consumption at the end of the test cycle. 
78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 2013). The results of this analysis showing the 
application of the 0.8 field use factor are presented in Table III.5.

     Table III.5--January 2013 NOPR--Automatic Cycle Termination Test Results With Adjusted Field Use Factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Per-cycle energy consumption (kWh)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Product class                   Test unit                                           End of test--
                                                                 2% RMC         End of test--    field adjusted
                                                                                  measured
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented Electric Standard................                 1             2.070             2.624             2.099
                                                         2             2.233             3.119             2.495
                                                         4             2.318             2.405             1.924
                                                         6             2.280             3.141             2.513
Vented Electric Compact (240V)..........                10             0.875             1.418             1.134
Vented Gas..............................                13             2.569             2.905             2.324
                                                        15             2.532             3.161             2.528
                                                        17             2.482             2.843             2.274
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that the IEC recently revised 
its test standard for clothes dryers, IEC Standard 61121. 78 FR 152, 
166 (Jan. 2, 2013). IEC Standard 61121 Fourth Edition, which published 
in February 2012, notes that the characteristics of the water used for 
wetting the test load prior to the test, particularly the conductivity, 
can influence the test results when testing automatic termination 
control dryers with moisture sensors. Clothes dryers with moisture 
sensors use conductivity sensor bars to determine the amount of 
moisture in the load when the load comes in contact with the sensors. 
Table III.6 provides the characteristics of either soft or hard water 
to be used for appliance testing under IEC Standard 61121.

  Table III.6--IEC Standard 61121 Requirements for Composition of Soft and Hard Water for Clothes Dryer Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Water type
             Property                        Unit         ------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Standard soft water        Standard hard water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total hardness....................  Millimols per liter    0.50  0.20....  2.50  0.20
                                     (mmol/l) (Ca2+/Mg2+).
Conductivity (at 20[deg]C)........  Microsiemens per       150  50.......  750  150
                                     centimeter ([mu]S/
                                     cm).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the August 2011 RFI, DOE requested information and data on these 
effects of the characteristics of the water used to wet the test load 
on the measured efficiency, as well as any potential testing burden 
associated with the requirements for modifying the water supply used 
for wetting the test load. DOE did not receive any comments or 
information on this issue. DOE conducted testing for the January 2013 
NOPR to evaluate the effects of using supply water modified to meet the 
specifications in the IEC Standard 61121 on the measured efficiency 
compared to using supply water according to the requirements of 
appendix D1. For this series of tests, DOE conducted tests on 16 units 
using the same automatic cycle termination methodology discussed above, 
except that the water used to wet the test load prior to the test met 
the conditions presented in Table III.6 for standard soft water. 78 FR 
152, 167 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE selected the soft water requirements from 
IEC Standard 61121 rather than the hard water requirements to more 
closely match the existing DOE clothes dryer test procedure, which also 
requires the use of soft water.\10\ For each test method, DOE again 
conducted three identical tests for each test unit. The test results 
did not show a correlation between the average measured CEF and water 
supply specifications for the automatic cycle termination tests with 
either the DOE or IEC/AHAM test loads. Similar to the measured CEF 
discussed above, there was no definitive correlation between the 
average measured final RMC or the test-to-test variation and the water 
supply specifications. Based on the test results, DOE determined that 
the modifications to the water supply specified in IEC Standard 61121 
did not have a definitive effect on the measured CEF as compared to the 
water requirements specified in the existing DOE test procedure. In 
addition, the repeatability testing showed that the IEC water hardness 
specifications did not improve overall the test-to-test repeatability. 
78 FR 152, 167-169 (Jan. 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.6.3 
requires the use of soft water with 17 parts per million hardness or 
less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE conducted additional testing on two clothes dryers to evaluate 
the lab-to-lab reproducibility using both supply water specifications 
in automatic cycle termination tests with the IEC/AHAM test load. These 
tests showed that the IEC supply water may produce more reproducible 
results from lab to lab with the IEC/AHAM test load. DOE noted, 
however, that the percentage difference in test results from lab to lab 
was within the test-to-test variation for a given lab using the IEC/
AHAM test load. For

[[Page 49618]]

these reasons, DOE did not propose amendments in the January 2013 NOPR 
to include in the amendments to appendix D1 the supply water 
specifications from IEC Standard 61121. DOE noted that if additional 
test results are made available showing that IEC supply water 
characteristics produce more repeatable and reproducible test results 
than the requirements in appendix D1, DOE may consider such amendments 
in a future test procedure rulemaking. 78 FR 152, 166 (Jan. 2, 2013).
3. January 2013 NOPR Proposed Amendments and Today's Final Rule
    Based on the testing and analysis discussed above, DOE proposed 
amendments to the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix D1 in the January 2013 NOPR to more accurately 
measure the energy consumption of automatic termination control dryers. 
78 FR 152, 169 (Jan. 2, 2013).
a. Definitions
    DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to amend the clothes dryer 
test procedure in appendix D1 to add definitions for both automatic 
termination control dryers and timer dryers. DOE proposed to define 
``automatic termination control dryer'' as a clothes dryer that can be 
preset to carry out at least one sequence of operations to be 
terminated by means of a system assessing, directly or indirectly, the 
moisture content of the load. An automatic termination control dryer 
with a supplementary timer or that may also be manually controlled 
would be tested as an automatic termination control dryer. DOE proposed 
to define ``timer dryer'' as a clothes dryer that can be preset to 
carry out at least one operation to be terminated by a timer, but may 
also be manually controlled, and does not include any automatic 
termination function. 78 FR 152, 169-170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    AHAM and ALS commented that they did not oppose the proposed 
definitions for automatic termination control dryer and timer dryer. 
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 12; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) Based on these comments 
and the discussion above, DOE is adopting these definitions for 
automatic termination control dryer and timer dryer in today's final 
rule.
b. Test Load
    The existing DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D1, section 2.6 specifies that the test load be composed of 
50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester momie weave cloth. Section 
2.7 in appendix D1 requires that test loads be prepared with a starting 
RMC of 57.5 percent  3.5 percent. DOE proposed amendments 
in January 2013 NOPR to change the starting RMC from 57.5 percent 
 3.5 percent to 57.5 percent  0.33 percent. DOE 
stated in the January 2013 NOPR that it believes that the starting RMC 
of 57.5 percent  0.33 percent, which was used for the 
testing presented above, and originally proposed in the June 2010 
SNOPR, would produce the most repeatable results, particularly for 
automatic termination control dryers. DOE noted that allowing a wide 
range in the starting RMC, such as the  3.5 percent 
specified in the current DOE test procedure, would result in 
significantly different results using the proposed automatic cycle 
termination test procedure because a test load with a starting RMC of 
61 percent would contain approximately 0.6 pounds (lb) of water more 
than a test load with a starting RMC of 54 percent for standard-size 
loads. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013). As a result, DOE specifically 
proposed to amend 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 
2.7.1, ``Compact size dryer load,'' and section 2.7.2, ``Standard size 
dryer load,'' to require that water be extracted from the wet test 
loads by spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is 
52.5-57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. Final mass 
adjustments would be made, such that the moisture content is 57.5 
percent  0.33 percent by adding water uniformly to the load 
in a very fine spray. DOE noted that requiring water to be extracted to 
achieve an RMC between 52.5 percent and 57.5 percent would serve as an 
initial preparation step prior to the final mass adjustments to obtain 
a test load with an RMC of 57.5  0.33 percent proposed 
above. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
Test Load Composition
    In response to the January 2013 NOPR, The Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and NPCC jointly commented (hereafter ``NEEA 
& NPCC'') that the DOE test load is not representative of the laundry 
loads being dried in a representative average use cycle. NEEA & NPCC 
stated that the data from the NEEA residential laundry field use study, 
which included 50 households in the Pacific Northwest United States 
metered from January 2012 to March 2012, show that the fabrics in the 
loads being washed and dried are much heavier than those in the DOE 
test load. NEEA & NPCC added that the outcomes for the field data, in 
terms of RMC from the clothes washer, drying cycle time, and clothes 
dryer energy use, are all substantially different than those produced 
using the test procedure proposed in the January 2013 NOPR. (NEEA & 
NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3-4, 10; NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at 
p. 114; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 17) NEEA added 
that: (1) The current DOE test load is consistent and the ply is fairly 
thin, (2) the IEC Standard 61121 mixed load has thinner fabric but more 
cotton than the DOE load, (3) the IEC Standard 61121 cotton load is 
also fairly thin and not substantively different than the DOE ply, (4) 
the AS/NZS Standard 2442 load is mostly cotton and has a large range of 
ply thicknesses and resembles loads that are seen in the field, and (5) 
the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load is cotton and has a large range of ply 
thicknesses. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and 
Electric Company, and Southern California Edison (hereafter 
``California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs)'') and NEEA commented that 
the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation based on DOE's testing is 
slightly higher for the IEC cotton load as compared to the DOE test 
load, but, given that the amount of energy that it takes to dry the IEC 
cotton load is greater, the results as a percentage of per-cycle energy 
use are not significantly different. The California IOUs added that, 
given the far greater differences observed between the actual clothes 
dryer energy use per load in the field and what is measured using the 
DOE test procedure, this minimal increase in testing variability is 
justifiable to provide an accurate representation of energy use. (NEEA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 17, 19-21, 22; California 
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 64)
    NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs noted that when DOE tested the 
IEC/AHAM test load and allowed the clothes dryers to shut off at 5-
percent RMC or less (rather than 2-percent RMC with the DOE test load), 
all of the clothes dryers used more energy per load but left the 
clothes less dry than the tests with the DOE test load. The California 
IOUs added that the average efficiency drop from the existing appendix 
D1 results was 3.9 percent for automatic termination with the DOE test 
load and 9.7 percent with the IEC/AHAM test load and that the choice of 
a test load affects the final test outcome more than the choice of 
final RMC or most of the other factors being considered in the test 
procedure. NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that this 
difference would increase with an even more realistic test load, such 
as the AHAM HLD-1-1992

[[Page 49619]]

test load. The California IOUs added that removing the last few percent 
RMC from the load is an inefficient process, and that if the test 
procedure required the IEC/AHAM test load to be dried 2-percent RMC, 
the difference in efficiency compared to the existing appendix D1 test 
procedure would widen further. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 5; California 
IOUs, No. 22 at p. 14; California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
10 at pp. 60-61, 64)
    NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs presented test data for 5 
different clothes dryer models \11\ comparing the drying time, measured 
per-cycle energy consumption, and CEF using the automatic termination 
test cycle with the DOE test load versus with a test load they 
considered more representative of real-world laundry loads. NEEA & NPCC 
noted that the drying times for the automatic termination test cycle 
with the real-world loads are quite similar from model to model, except 
for the clothes dryer with the moisture sensor bars that rotate with 
the drum and the heat pump clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC and the 
California IOUs also noted that the CEF is lower for the tests with 
real world load as compared to the DOE test load in all cases, but the 
difference varies depending on the technology type. Based on this data, 
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs believe that it is inappropriate 
for DOE to adopt a single field use factor to adjust the per-cycle 
energy use from testing using the current DOE test load to represent 
how various technologies would perform with real-world laundry loads. 
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that DOE should specify 
testing with a more realistic test load, such as the IEC cotton load or 
AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load, so that manufacturers would have an 
incentive to optimize their sensors and drying technology for real-
world conditions. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 10-12; California IOUs, 
No. 22 at pp. 21-22) NEEA & NPCC commented that a test load that is 
more reflective of real-world clothing, such as the IEC cotton test 
load or the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load, would provide additional 
agreement between tested energy use and typical field energy use. NEEA 
& NPCC urged DOE to address this issue as soon as possible for both 
clothes washers and clothes dryers in a new rulemaking. (NEEA & NPCC, 
No. 21 at pp. 12-13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The 5 tested clothes dryers included: (1) A dryer with 
temperature sensing, (2) a dryer with stationary moisture sensing 
bars, (3) a dryer with moisture sensing bars that rotate with the 
drum, (4) a dryer with an exhaust air-to-air heat exchanger, and (5) 
a heat pump clothes dryer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NRDC, ASAP, ACEEE, and the California IOUs similarly commented that 
the current test load is not representative of real-world loads and 
results in significant underreporting of energy use. The California 
IOUs added that, as a result, the test procedure does not appropriately 
balance representativeness and repeatability. NRDC, ASAP, and the 
California IOUs requested DOE to address this issue as soon as possible 
in a new rulemaking. NRDC and ASAP commented that clothes dryers are 
likely the single largest opportunity for energy savings in home 
appliances, and modifying the test procedure so that it more accurately 
represents field energy use is critical to being able to capture these 
additional opportunities. (NRDC, No. 20 at p. 2; ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 119-120; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 10 at pp. 114-115; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 14, 17)
    Earthjustice commented that DOE's use of 5 percent as the target 
RMC using the AHAM test load recognizes that the AHAM load is more 
representative of the loads encountered in the field. Earthjustice 
stated that the NEEA field study data, which shows that heavier fabrics 
(such as the towels represented in the AHAM test load) make up a 
significant portion of household laundry loads, supports this 
conclusion. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 1-2)
    The California IOUs stated that designs that reduce over-drying 
can, based on DOE's test data in January 2011 Final Rule, save about 
0.3 to 0.6 kilowatt hours (kWh) of over-drying energy use per load 
relative to designs that inefficiently terminate the cycle. The 
California IOUs stated that, based on recent testing by Ecos, Consumer 
Reports, DOE, and Ecova, certain automatic termination test methods can 
actually result in a higher measured energy use relative to DOE's 
current timed dry test procedure because the DOE test cloths are 
already quite dry by the time many clothes dryers detect high exhaust 
temperatures and low humidity levels that indicate there is no water 
left in the load to evaporate. The California IOUs stated that it is 
difficult for these clothes dryers to prevent over-drying because the 
condition they are designed to detect occurs when the DOE test load has 
been over-dried. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 13)
    The California IOUs commented that DOE should use the AHAM HLD-1-
1992 bone-dry load weight (7.4 lb), which according to the NEEA field 
data more accurately represents field laundry loads than the DOE test 
load or the IEC/AHAM cotton load because it contains a much wider range 
of fabric thicknesses and weights. The California IOUs stated that 
common items such as shirts, pants, socks, and other articles of 
clothing are three-dimensional, and therefore contain interior sides 
that are more difficult to dry than the two-dimensional DOE test 
cloths. The California IOUs added that these items vary quite widely in 
their moisture retention capability because of differences in thickness 
and synthetic content but, on average, retain more moisture per pound 
than the uniform DOE test cloth and require more energy to dry. The 
California IOUs stated that these items present automatic termination 
controls with greater difficulty than DOE's test cloths in determining 
when the load is dry. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17-18; California 
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 112-113) The Super 
Efficient Dryer Initiative (SEDI) also cited the Ecova testing in 
stating that the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load is the most similar to 
typical laundry because it uses items of actual clothing with different 
fabrics and varying thicknesses. SEDI stated that the test results 
showed that drying test cloths that more closely resemble real-world 
clothing increased drying time and energy consumption, and that DOE 
should specify the use of the AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load in the clothes 
dryer test procedure. (SEDI, No. 14 at pp. 2-3)
    The California IOUs commented that manufacturers are likely already 
using AHAM HLD-1 to evaluate drying performance. The California IOUs 
commented that if there is already a representative load that industry 
is using to determine drying performance, measuring energy at the same 
time as that test would reduce test burden. (California IOUs, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 179-180) AHAM stated that the test 
burden associated with using the IEC/AHAM test load for energy and 
water testing would not be lower than the burden associated with using 
the DOE test load. AHAM stated that manufacturers use the IEC/AHAM test 
load for non-energy purposes, but use of the AHAM test procedure is 
voluntary and, thus, use of the IEC/AHAM test load for other purposes 
is outside of the regulatory context. AHAM also stated that it is not 
simple to measure the energy using the IEC/AHAM test load given the 
increased variability in test results, which will in turn increase the 
burden on manufacturers. AHAM added that it is critical that the DOE 
test procedure be as repeatable and reproducible as

[[Page 49620]]

possible, especially given the more stringent standards. (AHAM, No. 17 
at p. 15)
    AHAM stated that the DOE test load, because it is comprised of 
uniform test cloth, produces more repeatable and reproducible results. 
AHAM, therefore, agreed with DOE's proposal to continue using the DOE 
test load at this time. AHAM stated that should such a change in the 
test load be considered in the future, extensive testing would be 
required to determine the appropriate test load and the impact of such 
a change on measured energy efficiency. AHAM indicated that it would be 
impossible to complete this work prior to the January 1, 2015 
compliance date of the amended standards, even were it appropriate to 
make such a change during the 3-year lead time before the amended 
standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) Samsung also supported using the DOE 
test load to minimize measurement system uncertainty, based on DOE's 
data and internal experience that the IEC/AHAM loads could result in 
higher variation. Samsung stated that even though the DOE load is 
different from real-world loads, it is expected that the DOE load will 
identify relative differences between the test units with higher 
precision. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 2)
    Hydromatic stated that there is no definition of a real-world test 
load. (Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 40-55)
    DOE recognizes interested parties concerns regarding the test load 
composition and the available field study data that show a variety of 
weights, composition, and size of consumer laundry loads. DOE did not 
receive any data or information from interested parties that would 
alter its determination that the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation 
using the current IEC/AHAM test load is sufficiently higher than with 
the DOE test load to warrant the continued use of the DOE test load. 
Further, DOE concludes that specifying any alternative load with more 
variation in weights, composition, and size than the DOE test load 
would increase the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation. Repeatable 
and reproducible test procedures are necessary to ensure that testing 
results are consistent from test to test and lab to lab especially for 
compliance and verification testing. In addition, although certain 
manufacturers may use AHAM HLD-1 for measuring clothes dryer 
performance and these manufacturers may experience reduced testing 
burden if DOE specified the IEC/AHAM load in its test procedure, the 
use of AHAM HLD-1 is voluntary and thus this benefit may not apply to 
all manufacturers. For these reasons, DOE is not adopting amendments to 
the DOE test load in today's final rule. In addition, due to a lack of 
sufficient information at this time, DOE is not adopting a definition 
of a real-world load in today's final rule. DOE may continue collecting 
data on clothes dryer test loads and may consider amendments to the 
test load in a future rulemaking if data is made available showing that 
the variation from test to test and lab to lab can be reduced, 
particularly for different batches and lots of test loads.
Test Load Preparation
    AHAM requested that DOE provide further definition of what is 
considered a ``very fine spray'' and what is meant by ``uniform'' when 
adding water to make the final mass adjustments. AHAM questioned 
whether testers should use a spray bottle, a detergent bottle with 
holes in it, or some other method, and that without clarity on these 
points, variation could be introduced into the test procedure. AHAM 
stated that the method for application of the water could impact the 
measured energy use. AHAM suggested that DOE further investigate the 
impact this method could have on measured energy use, including 
contacting manufacturers for input. AHAM stated that it cannot provide 
data on the impact on measured energy efficiency, if any, until DOE 
clarifies ``very fine spray.'' (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 12) ALS opposed 
tightening the allowable range for the initial RMC to  0.33 
percent because it claimed manufacturers and test labs will aim to be 
at the low end of this tolerance, and then try to utilize the proposed 
technique of ``uniformly'' misting with a ``very fine spray'' the 
outside of the test load to achieve the initial RMC. ALS believes that 
the sprayed moisture on the outside of the test load is the easiest to 
evaporate during the energy test and can skew the test result. (ALS, 
No. 16 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE does not believe that the method for wetting the test load, 
which requires water to be initially extracted to achieve an RMC 
between 52.5 percent and 57.5 percent then making final mass 
adjustments to obtain a test load with an RMC of 57.5  0.33 
percent by adding water uniformly to the load in a very fine spray, 
would significantly affect the measured efficiency at the extremes for 
the RMC conditions. Because the DOE test cloths are uniform and 
relatively thin, the water absorbed when making the final mass 
adjustments by adding water uniformly in a very fine spray would be 
absorbed relatively equivalently to the water absorbed when initially 
dampening the test load. In addition, DOE notes that the allowable 
range for the initial RMC of 57.5  0.33 percent would 
result in a difference in the amount of water contained in the test 
load of only approximately 0.06 lb at the minimum and maximum values. 
As a result, DOE does not believe this allowable range for the initial 
RMC would measurably affect the efficiency and that further tightening 
the tolerances would add testing burden to achieve the initial RMC. DOE 
also notes that for the testing conducted for the January 2013 NOPR, 
the test technicians did not attempt to control the tolerances for 
wetting the test load tighter than the ranges specified in the test 
method (i.e., the initial extraction achieve an RMC between 52.5 
percent and 57.5 and the final mass adjustments to obtain a test load 
with an RMC of 57.5  0.33 percent). As a result, any 
effects in the measured efficiency would have been captured in the 
test-to-test variation for the automatic termination tests with the DOE 
test load (which was on average 1.87 percent). For these reasons, DOE 
is adopting the test load requirements proposed in the January 2013 
NOPR and discussed above, with the following clarification. To provide 
a clear and consistent method, the amendments adopted in today's final 
rule specify in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 2.7, 
that water added to make the final mass adjustments shall be uniformly 
distributed among all of the test cloths in a very fine spray using a 
spray bottle.
Automatic Termination Control Dryer Test Cycle
    DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to change the clothes dryer 
test cycle specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 
section 3.3 to require separate test methods for automatic termination 
control dryers and timer dryers. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    For automatic termination control dryers, DOE proposed to amend the 
clothes dryer test procedure to require the use of the control settings 
discussed in section III.B.2 of this notice. Specifically, DOE proposed 
to require that the ``normal'' automatic termination cycle program be 
selected for the test cycle, and that for clothes dryers that do not 
have a ``normal'' program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer 
for drying cotton or linen clothes would be selected. 78 FR 152, 170 
(Jan. 2, 2013). Where the drying temperature can be chosen 
independently of the program, it would be set to the maximum

[[Page 49621]]

temperature setting. Id. In addition, the proposed amendments would 
require that where the dryness level setting can be chosen 
independently of the program, the dryness level would be set to the 
``normal'' or ``medium'' setting. Id. If such designation is not 
provided, then the dryness level would be set at the mid-point between 
the minimum and maximum settings. DOE also proposed to require that the 
cycle settings used for the test cycle be recorded. Id.
    For the reasons explained below, DOE proposed that the clothes 
dryer would then be allowed to run until the completion of the cycle, 
including any cool-down period. After the cycle is complete, the test 
load would be weighed to determine the final RMC. If the final RMC is 
below 2 percent, the test would be considered valid. If the RMC is 
higher than 2 percent, the test would be considered invalid and would 
be re-run using the highest dryness level setting. Id.
    DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to measure the full automatic 
termination cycle, including any cool-down period, to be more 
representative of actual consumer use. DOE determined in the January 
2013 NOPR that the proposed provision to include a cool-down period 
would result in less testing burden than the January 2011 Final Rule 
proposal to stop the test cycle when the heater switches off for the 
final time immediately before the cool-down period begins (76 FR 972, 
998 (Jan. 6, 2011)), which would require the tester to monitor the 
clothes dryer and possibly run multiple test cycles to determine when 
the heater has switched off for the final time. 78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 
2013).
    As discussed above, DOE also proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to 
base the calculations for automatic termination control dryers on a 
nominal final RMC of 2 percent. This is a change from the existing test 
procedure, which requires that the clothes dryer test cycle be stopped 
when the final RMC is between 2.5 percent and 5 percent. Based on the 
data submitted in the Joint Petition and DOE's analysis, DOE 
tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that a final RMC of 2 
percent using the DOE test load would be more representative of clothes 
dryers currently on the market and representative of the maximum 
consumer-accepted final RMC. Id.
    NEEA stated that, based on its field study data, consumers select 
the medium temperature setting 52 percent of the time. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 21) The California IOUs commented that 
DOE should update the required temperature settings in the test 
procedure to reflect consumer preferences, based on recent field 
measurements. The California IOUs stated that DOE should make these 
revisions in a new test procedure rulemaking. The California IOUs noted 
that the NEEA field data also show that consumers select the high and 
low temperature settings 35 percent and 13 percent of the time, 
respectively. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 17, 20)
    DOE does not have information to determine for the clothes dryer 
models included in the field study whether the temperature setting can 
be selected independently of the cycle program and whether the sample 
of clothes dryers in the field study is representative of the optional 
temperature settings for all clothes dryer shipments. As a result, DOE 
notes that there is uncertainty as to whether the temperature settings 
selected by participants in the NEEA field study, which included only 
50 households in the Pacific Northwest, are representative of the 
selections of the nation as a whole. For these reasons, DOE is not 
considering changing the temperature settings for the automatic 
termination test cycle proposed in the January 2013 NOPR at this time. 
However, DOE notes that according to the provisions for the cycle 
settings proposed in the January 2013 NOPR, which specify that the 
highest temperature setting be used if the temperature setting can be 
chosen independently of the cycle program setting, six of the 14 units 
in DOE's test sample that had a temperature setting indicator on the 
control panel were unable to select the temperature setting separately 
from the cycle program and automatically used the medium temperature 
setting for the test cycle. In addition, DOE may continue to collect 
and consider available data and information on the temperature settings 
to consider whether changes to the temperature settings would be 
warranted in a future test procedure rulemaking.
    NEEA stated that, based on its field study data, consumers select 
the normal dryness setting 57 percent of the time and the very dry 
setting 42 percent of the time. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
10 at p. 21) The California IOUs commented that many people use the 
very dry setting, and that it is not true that all consumers are 
satisfied with the dryness of their clothing when using the normal 
dryness setting, based on the study conducted by NRDC in 2011 that 
found that real clothing would have to be dried to approximately 2-
percent final RMC in order to feel uniformly dry to the touch. The 
California IOUs commented that, since the DOE test cloths are much 
easier to dry than real-world loads, the test cloths would need to be 
significantly lower than 2-percent final RMC to approximate a 2-percent 
final RMC in real clothing. The California IOUs stated that with a test 
load that more closely approximates real-world clothing, such as the 
AHAM HLD-1-1992 test load, a 2-percent final RMC would be appropriate. 
(California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 20-21)
    DOE notes that the NRDC report prepared by Ecova and referenced by 
the California IOUs states that the 2-percent RMC threshold for what 
consumers would consider ``dry'' for real-world clothing is an 
assertion made by NRDC and Ecova without any empirical basis.\12\ As a 
result, DOE is not considering changing the dryness level settings for 
the automatic termination test cycle proposed in the January 2013 NOPR. 
In addition, for the reasons discussed above, DOE is not considering 
changing the DOE test load at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Denkenberger, Serena Mau, Chris Calwell, and Eric Wanless. 
2011. Residential Clothes Dryers: A Closer Look at Energy Efficiency 
Test Procedures and Savings Opportunities. Ecova and NRDC. p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that the NEEA field 
study showed that participants used timed drying 29 percent of the 
time, and the auto-termination cycle 71 percent of the time. NEEA & 
NPCC and the California IOUs considered 29 percent to be a significant 
fraction of total clothes dryer cycles, and therefore stated that the 
test procedure should require clothes dryers with automatic cycle 
termination to be tested both in the timed drying and auto cycle 
termination modes. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 13-14; California IOUs, 
No. 22 at p. 11)
    Because the field study sample was limited, DOE does not have 
sufficient information at this time to determine how frequently all 
consumers in the nation use the timed dry function versus the automatic 
cycle termination function and, thus, properly weight or apportion the 
energy consumption between the two drying modes in the clothes dryer 
test procedure. DOE also notes that Whirlpool submitted a comment in 
the last test procedure rulemaking asserting that, although the 
majority of consumers want timed dry cycle capability, they use it only 
10 percent of the time. 76 FR 972, 995 (Jan. 6, 2011). In addition, 
requiring the measurement of both the automatic termination cycle and 
the timed dry cycle for automatic termination control

[[Page 49622]]

dryers would significantly increase testing burden. As a result, DOE is 
not considering amendments in today's final rule to require the 
measurement of both the automatic termination cycle and the timed dry 
cycle for automatic termination control dryers.
d. Automatic Termination Control Dryer Field Use Factor
    DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR that the measured test cycle 
energy consumption be multiplied by a field use factor of 0.80 to 
calculate the per-cycle energy consumption for automatic termination 
control dryers based on the data presented above in section III.B.2. 
DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that this field use factor would 
account for the measured energy consumption at the end of the automatic 
termination cycle drying the DOE test load below 2-percent RMC, which 
DOE determines to be representative of consumer-acceptable drying 
levels with loads of varying weights, composition, and size. 78 FR 152, 
170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    AHAM and ALS opposed the proposed 0.80 field use factor, asserting 
that it is without technical or empirical justification. AHAM added 
that the Joint Petition did not include such a factor because it is not 
necessary under the proposed test procedure. AHAM and ALS stated that 
based on testing, DOE must rely on the proposed field use factor to 
justify the determination of a de minimus impact on the measured 
efficiency according to DOE's criteria (e.g., less than a 5-percent 
impact on measured efficiency). AHAM commented that it is inappropriate 
for DOE to include the 0.80 field use factor to avoid adjusting the 
standard, and that DOE should either provide a ``crosswalk'' or not 
make such significant test procedure changes except as part of a future 
standards rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 4; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
    Samsung agreed with DOE's proposed field use factor. Samsung 
alternatively recommended that the 0.80 field use factor not be 
included in the test procedure and that the standard levels be adjusted 
to account for the energy increase due to the test procedure change 
according to 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3)
    NEEA & NPCC, ASAP, ACEEE, SEDI, and the California IOUs commented 
that the 0.80 field use factor for automatic termination cycles 
inappropriately adjusts per-cycle energy use, significantly 
underestimating the annual clothes dryer energy use measured in the 
field. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3-4; ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 28, 85-86; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 10 at pp. 200-201; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3; California IOUs, No. 22 at 
p. 3) NEEA & NPCC stated that, based on its analysis and testing, the 
proposed test procedure estimates annual energy use that is 
approximately 30 percent lower than what is observed in the field. NEEA 
& NPCC commented that their testing demonstrates reasonably close 
agreement in energy use between DOE's proposed test procedure, but 
without the field use factor, and testing with a more real-world 
procedure. NEEA & NPCC stated that average annual clothes dryer energy 
use estimated from NEEA's 2012 field study is 920 kWh, and suggests 
that the field use factor should be closer to 1.1 or 1.2, assuming all 
other test procedure factors are unchanged. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 
6) NEEA & NPCC strongly recommended that DOE not use a field use factor 
less than 1.0 to adjust the actual measured energy use from testing. 
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2-3, 12; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 10 at pp. 87-92) NPCC added that the proposed field use factor is 
not consistent with the original proposal in the Joint Petition. (NPCC, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 104) The California IOUs 
commented that the NEEA field study data supports a field use 
adjustment factor of 1.0, or it should be removed entirely, since the 
field data consistently point to clothes dryers using more energy than 
they do under the DOE test procedure. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 6, 
17; California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 170-171) 
SEDI added that CLASP-funded laboratory testing suggests that clothes 
dryers in the field consume more energy than would be measured by the 
proposed test procedure even without the field use factor. (SEDI, No. 
14 at p. 3)
    NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that DOE's data show 
that the average clothes dryer operating on an automatic termination 
cycle uses on the order of 25 percent more energy than it would if it 
terminated the cycle at optimum load dryness. NEEA & NPCC and the 
California IOUs commented that the difference between the end-of-cycle 
energy use and the energy use upon initially reaching 2-percent RMC 
represent an energy savings opportunity that manufacturers should be 
encouraged to pursue through modifications to automatic termination 
controls. NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs stated that the proposed 
field use factor would revise the measured energy use for automatic 
termination control dryers that don't terminate at an initial 2-percent 
RMC down to a value that might have been achieved if the clothes dryer 
terminated properly. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 6; California IOUs, No. 
22 at p. 5; California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 
76-77, 101-102)
    The California IOUs noted that in two cases (DOE test units 4 and 
17), the adjusted energy consumption is lower than the measured energy 
consumption at both 5-percent and 2-percent RMC, and likely represents 
the energy consumption at points in the cycle when the test load would 
have been damp to the touch. The California IOUs stated that the field-
adjusted values that DOE presented, therefore, are not representative 
of field clothes dryer performance. The California IOUs also stated 
that DOE's sample of 8 clothes dryer models is not sufficiently large 
to provide statistically meaningful information on the field use 
factor. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 5-6; California IOUs, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 94-97)
    NEEA & NPCC commented that DOE's testing showed, with one 
exception, that the final RMC values for the IEC/AHAM test load are 
higher than with the DOE test load but the increase in the final RMC 
was not consistent from model to model. NEEA & NPCC stated that, as a 
result, any single field use factor is problematic. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 
21 at p. 5) NEEA & NPCC also noted that the proposed automatic 
termination test procedure significantly increases the range of tested 
efficiencies, but that this increase is not predictable for a given 
clothes dryer. NEEA & NPCC stated that the most and least efficient 
models using the current DOE test procedure are not the most and least 
efficient models using the proposed automatic termination test 
procedure but with a more realistic test load. NEEA & NPCC stated that 
the proposed field use factor will simply reduce the calculated per 
cycle energy use, thereby reducing the differentiation among models. 
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 6)
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE should adjust the 
January 1, 2015 standards to account for the proposed test procedure 
amendments without the proposed field use factor. However, the Joint 
Efficiency Advocates stated that if DOE concludes that it cannot adjust 
the standard levels, DOE should proceed with the proposal in the 
January 2013 NOPR. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 2-3)
    SEDI objected to the proposed 0.80 field use factor, but commented 
that if DOE chooses to retain the field use

[[Page 49623]]

factor, manufacturers should be required to report clothes dryer energy 
consumption both with and without the field use factor applied. SEDI 
stated that accurate energy consumption information is critical for 
energy efficiency programs to be able to evaluate potential for 
incentives for more efficient products. (SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3)
    Earthjustice commented that DOE should revise the proposed field 
use factor for automatic termination control dryers. Earthjustice 
stated that DOE's test data show that the load composition has much 
less of an impact on the effectiveness of automatic termination 
controls than DOE's proposed field use factor assumes. Earthjustice 
commented that for nearly all of the 20 clothes dryers that DOE tested, 
the difference in CEF between the AHAM and DOE test loads was less than 
10 percent, with an average reduction in CEF of about 4 percent. 
Earthjustice stated that the adjustment needed for the CEF ratings to 
better reflect real world conditions is not only much smaller than DOE 
has proposed, it is in the opposite direction, and that DOE's proposal 
would lead to CEFs that significantly overstate the energy efficiency 
of many automatic termination control dryers. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at 
pp. 1-2)
    Earthjustice stated that DOE's analysis shows that drying the DOE 
test load to 2-percent RMC at the end of the cycle reasonably 
approximates drying a test load that is more representative of the 
varied composition and heavier fabrics encountered in real world 
laundry loads to 5-percent RMC. Earthjustice stated that based on the 
test data in the January 2013 NOPR, the only field use factor that 
should be applied is a small correction to reflect that drying the AHAM 
test load to the end of a cycle achieving 5-percent RMC results in CEF 
levels about 4 percent below those measured drying the DOE test cloth 
as proposed in the January 2013 NOPR. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 2)
    Based on these comments and DOE's review of available data, DOE 
agrees that eliminating the field use factor for automatic termination 
control dryers will produce test results that are more representative 
of consumer use. As a result, in today's final rule, DOE is not 
adopting the 0.80 field use factor proposed in the January 2013 NOPR, 
but is instead removing the field use factor for automatic termination 
control dryers in appendix D2 because the test method directly measures 
the over-drying energy consumption. Because DOE is not amending 
appendix D or appendix D1 to include the methods for more accurately 
measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination, as discussed in 
section III.B.3.f, DOE is not amending the current field use factors 
specified in section 4.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and 
appendix D1.
e. Wrinkle Prevention Mode and the Determination of the Completion of 
the Test Cycle
    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed for the automatic cycle 
termination test method that the clothes dryer shall be operated until 
the completion of the programmed cycle, including the cool-down period. 
78 FR 152, 170 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    NRDC commented that DOE should clarify the definition of 
``completion of test cycle'' for clothes dryers with automatic 
termination controls. NRDC noted that many clothes dryers have post-
cycle features, such as additional tumbling designed to prevent 
wrinkling, that may run after the clothes dryer has terminated the main 
drying cycle. NRDC stated that these features can sometimes be enabled 
by the user and sometimes are the default operational mode. NRDC 
recommended that DOE modify the proposed test procedure to clarify that 
the cycle is complete when the main cycle terminates and the clothes 
dryer indicates to the consumer that the load is finished. (NRDC, No. 
20 at pp. 1-2; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 129-131) 
NRDC also urged DOE to conduct a new rulemaking as soon as possible to 
further revise the clothes dryer test procedure to address post-cycle 
energy use to better represent real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at 
p. 2)
    NEEA & NPCC commented that it is unclear whether the current test 
procedure is designed to capture the energy use associated with the 
wrinkle prevention mode, which is part of the default cycle in some 
clothes dryer models. NEEA & NPCC stated that the wrinkle prevention 
mode meets DOE's definition of an active mode, and yet DOE's testing 
stopped the test at the completion of the cool-down phase. NEEA & NPCC 
stated clothes dryers typically use 150-250 watts of power when 
rotating the drum (and by default in most models, the fan) and that 
over a few hours, the wrinkle prevention mode could use as much as 0.5 
kWh depending on how often the feature is activated and for how long at 
the end of each cycle. NEEA & NPCC stated that this clothes dryer 
feature should be accounted for accurately in the test procedure, 
regardless of any increase in the test burden associated with the 
measurement. According to NEEA & NPCC, the potential energy use of this 
function may be large enough to make the difference as to whether or 
not a clothes dryer complies with the standard, and so is not 
insignificant. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 14) NEEA added that if a 
cyclical wrinkle prevention period goes on indefinitely, it may cause 
issues with determining when to measure standby and off mode if the end 
of the cycle is not clearly defined. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 10 at pp. 154-155)
    The California IOUs, Hydromatic, and the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) also questioned how the wrinkle prevention mode 
would be tested and how the end of the cycle would be determined. The 
California IOUs stated that it is a relatively new feature, but it is 
becoming more prevalent. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 10 at pp. 153, 154; Hydromatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 
at pp. 124-128, 132-133; EPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 
122-123)
    AHAM stated that the cycle ends when the clothes dryer signals to 
the consumer that the cycle is complete, and that wrinkle prevention or 
similar functions are selected by the user and should not be included 
in the DOE test unless they are activated by default in the condition 
as shipped. AHAM stated that this approach will minimize ambiguity for 
testers, thus resulting in less variation in the test procedure. (AHAM, 
No. 17 at p. 13) ALS similarly recommended testing with the default 
settings and not with other optional settings such as a wrinkle 
prevention extended cycle. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 4)
    DOE conducted a market survey and testing to evaluate the wrinkle 
prevention mode. DOE noted that products operate in wrinkle prevention 
mode either intermittently or by continuously tumbling for a fixed 
period of time or until the user opens the clothes dryer door. Based on 
DOE's review of products currently available on the market, 
approximately 95 percent of products that are equipped with a wrinkle 
prevention feature offer it as a mode that must be manually selected by 
the user (i.e., wrinkle prevention is turned off by default). 
Approximately 63 percent of products that are equipped with a wrinkle 
prevention feature operate in this mode by intermittently tumbling. For 
the products in DOE's test sample, the intermittent tumbling consisted 
of 3 to 5 seconds of tumbling every 5 to 10 minutes for a fixed period 
of time. Such intermittent tumbling was observed for all products on 
the market that operated in wrinkle prevention mode automatically by 
default after the end of the programmed cycle, with the

[[Page 49624]]

maximum duration among the sample units being 5 hours. DOE estimates 
that products that intermittently tumble for 5 hours would consume 
approximately 8.3 Wh in the wrinkle prevention mode. In the worst-case 
scenario for clothes dryers on the market for which the wrinkle 
prevention mode must be selected manually by the user, continuous 
tumbling was observed with a duration of up to 45 minutes and a 
corresponding energy consumption as much as approximately 188 Wh.
    DOE is unaware of consumer usage data on how often consumers select 
the wrinkle prevention mode when this feature must be manually selected 
or data on the typical elapsed time between the end of the programmed 
cycle and when the consumer opens the clothes dryer door to remove the 
laundry load. As a result, DOE is not amending the test procedure to 
include the measurement of the wrinkle prevention mode when this 
feature must be manually selected by the consumer. As discussed in 
section III.F.1, DOE is adopting amendments to clarify for automatic 
termination control dryers that the test procedures specify 
requirements only for the automatic termination cycle program, 
temperature setting, and dryness setting, and do not specify 
modifications to any other optional settings that do not affect the 
automatic termination cycle program, temperature setting, or dryness 
setting. As a result, if a product is equipped with a wrinkle 
prevention feature that is activated by default in the condition as 
shipped by the manufacturer, the wrinkle prevention mode would be 
included in the test measurement cycle unless it precluded the 
necessary automatic termination cycle program, temperature setting, or 
dryness setting. DOE also notes that, based on the requirements that 
products be installed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions, 
if a manufacturers' user manual specifies that the wrinkle prevention 
mode is recommended to be activated for normal use even if it not done 
so in the as-shipped condition, the products would be tested with the 
wrinkle prevention mode activated as per manufacturer's instructions.
    DOE is adopting amendments in today's final rule to clarify in 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.3.2, that the drying 
cycle is complete when the clothes dryer indicates to the user that the 
cycle has finished (by means of a display, indicator light, audible 
signal, or other signal) and the heater and drum/fan motor shuts off 
for the final time. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a wrinkle 
prevention mode (i.e., that continuously or intermittently tumbles the 
clothes dryer drum after the clothes dryer indicates to the user that 
the cycle has finished) that is activated by default in the as-shipped 
position or if manufacturers' instructions specify that the feature is 
recommended to be activated for normal use, the cycle shall be 
considered complete after the end of the wrinkle prevention mode.
f. New Appendix D2
    With the exception of the field use factor and the compliance date, 
AHAM and ALS supported the proposed test procedure for automatic 
termination control dryers. In light of its objection to the proposed 
field use factor and compliance date, however, AHAM stated that it 
cannot support these changes at this time and DOE should instead defer 
the changes until compliance with a future standard, subsequent to the 
January 1, 2015 standards change. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13; ALS, No. 16 
at p. 4)
    Samsung supported the proposed automatic termination test method, 
including the maximum allowable RMC of 2 percent. Samsung stated that 
the proposed test procedure is representative of consumer usage because 
it measures the energy use of the most commonly selected cycle (Normal/
Cottons and Linens) and includes the cool-down period. Samsung stated 
that the proposed test procedure would encourage manufacturers to 
refine their automatic termination feature to terminate drying very 
close to the target 2-percent RMC using the DOE test load, without the 
over-drying evidenced on some clothes dryer models during DOE testing, 
thus reducing real-world energy consumption. (Samsung, No. 13 at pp. 2-
3)
    ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC jointly commented (hereafter ``the 
Joint Efficiency Advocates'') and SEDI, NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and the 
California IOUs commented that they generally support the proposed 
automatic termination test procedure amendments. The Joint Efficiency 
Advocates, NRDC, NEEA & NPCC, and the California IOUs noted that DOE's 
test data presented in the January 2013 NOPR show that there is wide 
variability among clothes dryers in the effectiveness of automatic 
termination controls, and that many clothes dryers waste a significant 
amount of energy at the end of the automatic termination cycle (up to 
38 percent of energy use). NRDC and SEDI added that the proposed test 
procedure will capture this energy use at the end of the cycle and will 
result in differentiation of the measured efficiency of individual 
clothes dryers. The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that based on 
DOE's test data, the current test procedure in appendix D1 is not a 
good predictor of the efficiency of the complete automatic termination 
cycle. The Joint Efficiency Advocates, NEEA & NPCC, and the California 
IOUs stated that the proposed automatic cycle termination test 
procedure will encourage manufacturers to adopt improved automatic 
termination controls and will provide a significant national energy 
savings opportunity. The California IOUs added that DOE's sample is too 
small to conclusively estimate this savings opportunity, but a study 
conducted by NRDC on 15 clothes dryers concluded that a variety of 
energy-saving technologies, including automatic termination, could save 
20 percent to 30 percent of overall energy consumption by preventing 
over-drying. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at pp. 1-2; SEDI, No. 
14 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 20 at p. 1; NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 2, 4-5; 
California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 3-5)
    Based on the comments from interested parties and for the reasons 
discussed above, DOE is adopting the automatic termination test method 
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR with modification as further 
discussed above. With regards to AHAM's comments concerning the 
compliance date, as discussed in section III.B.3.f and section III.I.3, 
DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B to create a new appendix D2 that includes the testing methods 
for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle 
termination. As discussed in section III.I.3, the newly created 
appendix D2 will not be required for use to determine compliance with 
the January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. 
DOE is not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include the 
amendments associated with automatic termination controls. Appendix D2 
is for informational purposes only.

Timed Dry Test Method

    For timer dryers, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to use the 
test method currently specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
D1, section 3.3, but with a revised final RMC requirement. The proposed 
test method would require that the clothes dryer be operated using the 
highest temperature setting and maximum time setting. The clothes dryer 
would then be allowed to run until the final RMC of the load is between 
1.0 percent and 2.5

[[Page 49625]]

percent, at which point the test cycle would be stopped without 
permitting the clothes dryer to advance into the cool-down period and 
the test load would be weighed. DOE also proposed to add a 
clarification that the clothes dryer should not be stopped 
intermittently in the middle of the test cycle for any reason. DOE 
stated that this clarification would ensure that test technicians are 
not stopping the clothes dryer intermittently to weigh the test load to 
check whether the RMC is within the target range. Such a practice would 
alter the measured results because of the heat loss from the clothes 
dryer when the cycle is stopped. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to include separate 
calculations for the per-cycle energy consumption for timer dryers. The 
calculations would be similar to the calculations provided in the 
current DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 
sections 4.1-4.3, except that the normalization of the per-cycle energy 
consumption to represent the energy consumption required to dry the 
test load to 4-percent RMC would be changed to represent the new target 
RMC of 2 percent. The per-cycle energy consumption calculation in the 
current test procedure applies a scaling factor of 53.5, which 
represents the RMC percentage point change from the nominal initial RMC 
of 57.5 percent to the nominal final RMC of 4 percent. The proposed 
amendments would change this scaling factor to 55.5 to reflect the new 
final RMC of 2 percent. DOE proposed a range of 1.0 percent to 2.5 
percent for the allowable final RMC during the test cycle to reduce 
testing burden. DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that 
requiring the tester to dry the test load to an exact RMC during the 
test cycle would be unduly burdensome because it could require the test 
to be repeated a significant number of times until the exact RMC is 
achieved. For the test procedure to produce repeatable results, the 
measured test cycle energy consumption is normalized to calculate the 
energy consumption required to dry the test load from exactly 57.5-
percent RMC to 2-percent RMC, which is representative of clothes dryers 
currently on the market and of the maximum consumer-accepted final RMC. 
78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR that manufacturers continue 
to apply the field use factor needed to account for the energy 
consumption of timed drying beyond the 2-percent RMC specified in the 
test procedure. DOE did not propose any changes to the 1.18 field use 
factor for timer dryers because DOE stated that it is not aware of any 
data or studies more recent than the studies on which it was originally 
based that would indicate that this value is not currently 
representative of consumer use.
    DOE did not propose in the January 2013 NOPR to include the cool-
down period as part of the timed dry test cycle because the proposed 
test method requires drying the load to a specified RMC, at which point 
the test cycle is stopped by the test technician. DOE determined that 
specifying a timed dry cycle that includes the cool-down period to 
achieve a target final RMC would add significant testing burden on test 
technicians to determine and preset the appropriate time setting. DOE 
also noted that it would be difficult to ensure that testing results 
are repeatable and reproducible because different combinations of timed 
dry cycle length and cool-down period may be selected to dry a test 
load to the same final RMC.
    AHAM commented that it did not oppose the proposed timed dry test 
method on a technical basis. AHAM stated, however, because it considers 
these changes to be part of the proposed amendments regarding automatic 
cycle termination controls, it cannot support these changes at this 
time. AHAM commented that DOE should defer the changes until compliance 
with future energy conservation standards, subsequent to the January 1, 
2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 13) ALS also opposed the proposed 
timed drying test method because it opposed any test procedure change 
with an effective date concurrent with the January 1, 2015 standards. 
(ALS, No. 16 at p. 4) As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is adopting 
the amendments to more accurately measure the effects of automatic 
cycle termination in a new appendix D2 that will not be required for 
use to determine compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers. As a result, in today's 
final rule, DOE is also adopting the timer dryer test methods presented 
above in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.3.2. DOE is 
not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include these 
amendments.

Incorporating by Reference IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition for 
Measuring Standby Mode and Off Mode Power

    As discussed in section I of today's final rule, EPCA, as amended 
by EISA 2007, requires that test procedures be amended to include 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, taking into consideration 
the most current versions of IEC Standards 62301 and 62087. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A)) The January 2011 Final Rule incorporated in the test 
procedures for clothes dryers relevant provisions from IEC Standard 
62301 (First Edition) for measuring standby mode and off mode power. 76 
FR 972, 979-80 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE reviewed the IEC Standard 62301 
(First Edition) and concluded that it would be generally applicable to 
clothes dryers, although some clarification would be needed. 
Specifically, DOE adopted amendments for standby mode and off mode 
power measurements to provide a stabilization period of 30 to 40 
minutes followed by an energy use measurement period of 10 minutes. 76 
FR 986 (Jan.6, 2011). With these clarifications in place, the January 
2011 Final Rule referenced IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) for the 
standby mode and off mode wattage measurements. DOE also incorporated 
into the clothes dryer test procedure definitions of ``active mode,'' 
``standby mode,'' and ``off mode'' based on the definitions provided in 
IEC Standard 62301 CDV. 76 FR 76 FR 981-85 (Jan. 6, 2011).
    IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) published on January 27, 2011. 
Consistent with EPCA requirements for amending test procedures to 
include standby and off mode procedures, DOE considered IEC Standard 
62301 (Second Edition) for amendments to the standby mode and off mode 
test procedures for clothes dryers in the January 2013 NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE determined that IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) 
is an internationally-accepted test procedure for measuring standby 
power in residential appliances, and it provides clarification to 
certain sections as compared to the First Edition. In the January 2013 
NOPR, DOE proposed to update its reference to IEC Standard 62301 by 
incorporating certain provisions of IEC Standard 62301 (Second 
Edition), along with clarifying language, into the DOE test procedures 
for clothes dryers. 78 FR 152, 171 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    AHAM and ALS commented that they support the incorporation by 
reference of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). AHAM stated that the 
Second Edition contains a number of important clarifications not 
present in the First Edition and that adopting the Second Edition will 
allow for optimum international harmonization, which gives clarity and 
consistency to the regulated community. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 13-14; 
ALS, No. 16 at p. 4)
    The suitability of specific clauses from IEC Standard 62301 (Second 
Edition) regarding testing conditions

[[Page 49626]]

and methodology for use in DOE's clothes dryer test procedure are 
discussed in the following paragraphs.
    Section 4, paragraph 4.4 of the Second Edition revises the power 
measurement accuracy provisions of the First Edition. A more 
comprehensive specification of required accuracy is provided in the 
Second Edition, which depends upon the characteristics of the power 
being measured. Testers using the Second Edition are required to 
measure the crest factor and power factor of the input power, and to 
calculate a maximum current ratio (MCR) (paragraph 4.4.1 of the Second 
Edition). The Second Edition then specifies calculations to determine 
permitted uncertainty in MCR. DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR, 
however, that the allowable uncertainty is the same or less stringent 
than the allowable uncertainty specified in the First Edition, 
depending on the value of MCR and the power level being measured. DOE 
determined that this change in the allowable uncertainty, however, 
maintains sufficient accuracy of measurements under a full range of 
possible measured power levels without placing undue demands on the 
instrumentation. These power measurement accuracy requirements were 
based upon detailed technical submissions to the IEC in the development 
of IEC Standard 62301 Final Draft International Standard (FDIS), which 
showed that commonly-used power measurement instruments were unable to 
meet the original requirements for certain types of loads. DOE 
concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that the incremental testing burden 
associated with the additional measurements and calculations is offset 
by the more reasonable requirements for testing equipment, while 
maintaining measurement accuracy deemed acceptable and practical by 
voting members for IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). For these 
reasons, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to incorporate by 
reference in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.4.7 the 
power equipment specifications in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC 
Standard 62301 (Second Edition). 78 FR 152, 171-172 (Jan. 2, 2013). 
AHAM commented that it supports incorporating by reference these 
provisions. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) For the reasons discussed above, 
DOE adopts in today's final rule these amendments to its clothes dryer 
test procedure.
    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that Section 5, paragraph 5.2 
of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) maintains the installation and 
setup procedures incorporated by reference in the clothes dryer test 
procedure in the January 2011 Final Rule from the First Edition. These 
provisions require that the appliance be prepared and set up in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions, and that if no 
instructions are given, then the factory or default settings shall be 
used, or where there are no indications for such settings, the 
appliance is tested as supplied. Additionally, IEC Standard 62301 
(Second Edition) adds certain clarifications to the installation and 
setup procedures in section 5, paragraph 5.2 of the First Edition 
regarding products equipped with a battery recharging circuit for an 
internal battery, as well as instructions for testing each relevant 
configuration option identified in the product's instructions for use. 
DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR that it is not aware of any clothes 
dryer with an internal battery, or with a recharging circuit for such a 
battery. DOE also determined that a requirement to separately test each 
configuration option could substantially increase test burden and 
potentially conflicts with the requirement within the same section to 
set up the product in accordance with the instructions for use or, if 
no such instructions are available, to use the factory or default 
settings. Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR 
that the portions of the installation instructions in section 5, 
paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) pertaining to 
batteries and the requirement for the determination, classification, 
and testing of all modes associated with every combination of available 
product configuration options (which may be more numerous than the 
modes associated with operation at the default settings) are not 
appropriate for the clothes dryer test procedures. Accordingly, DOE 
proposed qualifying language in the test procedure amendments in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.1 to disregard those 
portions of the installation instructions. 78 FR 152, 172 (Jan. 2, 
2013). AHAM commented that it does not oppose this proposal because it 
is also not aware of any clothes dryer with an internal battery or 
recharging circuit for such a battery. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, DOE is amending the clothes dryer 
test procedure in today's final rule to incorporate by reference the 
installation instructions in section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC Standard 
62301 (Second Edition) and to include qualifying language to disregard 
the portions pertaining to batteries and the requirement for the 
determination, classification, and testing of all modes associated with 
every combination of available product configuration options.
    The Second Edition also contains provisions for the power supply 
(section 4.3) and power-measuring instruments (section 4.4). Paragraph 
4.3.2 requires that the value of the harmonic content of the voltage 
supply be recorded during the test and reported. As described 
previously, paragraph 4.4.1 requires the instrument to measure the 
crest factor and maximum current ratio. Paragraph 4.4.3 requires the 
instrument to be capable of measuring the average power or integrated 
total energy consumption over any operator-selected time interval. In 
the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of commercially 
available power measurement instruments that can perform each of these 
required measurements individually. However, DOE is also aware that 
certain industry-standard instruments, such as the Yokogawa WT210/WT230 
digital power meter and possibly others, are unable to measure harmonic 
content or crest factor while measuring average power or total 
integrated energy consumption. DOE is concerned that laboratories 
currently using power-measuring instruments without this capability 
would be required to purchase, at potentially significant expense, 
additional power-measuring instruments that are able to perform all 
these measurements simultaneously. Therefore, DOE proposed in the 
January 2013 NOPR for 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, sections 
2.3.1.1 and 2.4.7 that if the power-measuring instrument is unable to 
perform these measurements during the actual test measurement, it would 
be acceptable to measure the total harmonic content, crest factor, and 
maximum current ratio immediately before and immediately after the 
actual test measurement to determine whether the requirements for the 
power supply and power measurement have been met. 78 FR 152, 172 (Jan. 
2, 2013). AHAM commented that it supports this proposal. (AHAM, No. 17 
at p. 14) For the reasons discussed, DOE adopts these amendments to its 
clothes dryer test procedure in today's final rule.
    The other major changes in the Second Edition related to the 
measurement of standby mode and off mode power consumption in covered 
products involve measurement techniques and specification of the 
stability criteria required to measure that power. The Second Edition 
contains more detailed techniques to evaluate the stability of the 
power consumption and to measure the power consumption for loads with 
different

[[Page 49627]]

stability characteristics. According to the Second Edition, the user is 
given a choice of measurement procedures, including sampling methods, 
average reading methods, and a direct meter reading method. For the 
January 2013 NOPR, DOE evaluated these new methods in terms of test 
burden and improvement in results as compared to the methods adopted in 
the January 2011 Final Rule, which were based on IEC Standard 62301 
(First Edition).
    In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE adopted provisions requiring 
that clothes dryer standby mode and off mode power be measured using 
section 5, paragraph 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition), 
clarified by requiring the product to stabilize for 30 to 40 minutes 
and using an energy use measurement period of 10 minutes. Further, for 
any clothes dryer in which the power varies over a cycle, as described 
in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of the First Edition, the January 2011 
Final Rule adopted amendments to require the use of the average power 
approach in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2(a), with a 30- to 40-minute 
stabilization period and a 10-minute minimum measurement period, as 
long as the measurement period comprises one or more complete cycles. 
76 FR 972, 979-980, 985-986 (Jan. 6, 2011).
    For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE analyzed the potential impacts of 
referencing methodology from IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) rather 
than from the First Edition by comparing the provisions allowed by each 
under different scenarios of power consumption stability. Based on its 
analysis, DOE concluded that the use of the Second Edition would 
improve the accuracy and representativeness of power consumption 
measurements and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. As a 
result, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to incorporate by 
reference the relevant paragraphs of section 5.3 of IEC Standard 62301 
(Second Edition) in the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.6. 78 FR 152, 172-174 (Jan. 2, 
2013).
    AHAM commented that it does not oppose the proposed requirement to 
use the sampling method in section 5.3.2 of the Second Edition. (AHAM, 
No. 17 at p. 14) For the reasons discussed above, DOE amends the 
clothes dryer test procedure in today's final rule to require in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.6 the use of the sampling 
method in section 5.3.2 of the Second Edition for all standby mode and 
off mode power measurements.
    DOE also amends the reference in 10 CFR 430.3 to add IEC Standard 
62301 (Second Edition). DOE is not replacing the reference to the First 
Edition in 10 CFR 430.3, because several test procedures for other 
covered products not addressed in today's notice incorporate provisions 
from it. In addition, there are a number of editorial changes necessary 
in appendix D1 to allow for the correct referencing to the Second 
Edition. For example, the definition section in appendix D1 must define 
the IEC Standard 62301 as the Second Edition instead of the First 
Edition. Also, there are certain section numbering differences in the 
Second Edition that impact the text of the measurement provisions of 
the relevant test procedures in appendix D1. In addition, the 
definition and section references discussed above are incorporated in 
appendix D2.

E. Technical Correction to the Calculation of the Per-cycle Combined 
Total Energy Consumption

    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
B, appendix D1, section 4.6, regarding the calculation of the per-cycle 
combined total energy consumption contains a reference to an incorrect 
section number. The per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, ETSO, which is contained in section 4.5, is 
incorrectly referenced in the per-cycle combined total energy 
consumption as section 4.7. DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to 
correct this section number reference. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2, 2013). 
DOE did not receive any comments on this topic in response to the 
January 2013 NOPR. In today's final rule, DOE adopts this amendment to 
its clothes dryer test procedure in appendix D1, and includes the 
correct calculation in newly adopted appendix D2.

F. Clarifications to Test Conditions

    DOE noted in both the January 2013 NOPR and the February 2013 SNOPR 
that it had received a number of inquiries requesting clarification on 
testing according to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2, 2013); 78 FR 
8992 (Feb. 7, 2013). As discussed in the following sections, based on 
these inquiries, DOE is adopting amendments in today's final rule to 
clarify certain provisions in the DOE clothes dryer test procedure.
1. Cycle Settings
    Section 3.3 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D specifies 
that the maximum temperature setting and, if a tested unit is equipped 
with a timer, the maximum time setting must be used for the drying test 
cycle. DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that it received an inquiry 
regarding how to test a clothes dryer that has timed dry cycle length 
settings, but no temperature settings on the control panel. DOE 
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to clarify in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix D, section 3.3, that if the clothes dryer does not 
have a separate temperature setting selection on the control panel, the 
maximum time setting should be used for the drying test cycle. DOE also 
proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to include the clarification 
discussed above in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D1, for the timer dryer test method. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2, 
2013).
    AHAM commented that it does not oppose these clarifications for the 
cycle settings, nor does it oppose these changes becoming effective 
prior to the January 1, 2015 standards compliance date. (AHAM, No. 17 
at p. 17) Because DOE did not receive any comments objecting to this 
proposal in response to the January 2013 NOPR and for the reasons 
discussed above, DOE adopts this clarification to its clothes dryer 
test procedure in appendix D and appendix D1 in today's final rule. 
Because DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in today's 
final rule to create a new appendix D2 for informational purposes only 
that includes the methods for more accurately measuring the effects of 
automatic cycle termination, which includes a separate method for timer 
dryers, DOE is also including the same cycle settings clarification in 
section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, for the timer 
dryer test method.
    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that it also received an 
inquiry regarding how to test a clothes dryer that has an optional 
cycle setting, other than the temperature and time settings, that is 
activated by default in the condition as shipped by the manufacturer. 
DOE proposed to clarify in both 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D, 
section 3.3, and appendix D1, section 3.3.1, that the test procedures 
specify requirements only for the temperature setting and time setting, 
and do not specify modifications to any other optional settings that do 
not alter the temperature setting and time setting. Similarly, in 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 3.3.2, DOE proposed to 
clarify for automatic termination control dryers that any other 
optional cycle settings that do not affect the automatic termination 
cycle program, temperature setting, or dryness setting shall be tested 
in the as-shipped position. 78 FR 152, 174 (Jan. 2, 2013).

[[Page 49628]]

    AHAM commented that it does not oppose the clarifications for the 
optional cycle settings because they are consistent with its position 
that units should be tested in the as-shipped condition. AHAM stated 
that if other settings are activated by default when the appropriate 
temperature and time settings are selected, the unit should be tested 
with those settings activated. AHAM noted, however, that because it 
opposes the amendments related to automatic termination controls at 
this time, it supports incorporating these clarifications in the 
current appendix D and appendix D1. Should DOE finalize the automatic 
termination control methodology and related amendments, but make them 
mandatory for compliance with some future standard (beyond 2015), AHAM 
stated it would support these clarifications in that test procedure as 
well. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 17-18)
    For the reasons discussed above, DOE amends section 3.3 in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D and D1 and section 3.3.1 in 10 CFR part 
430 subpart B, appendix D2, to clarify that any other optional cycle 
settings that do not affect the temperature or time settings shall be 
tested in the as-shipped position. In addition, DOE amends section 
3.3.2 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, which will not be 
required to demonstrate compliance with the 2015 standards, to clarify 
for automatic termination control dryers that any other optional cycle 
settings that do not affect the automatic termination cycle program, 
temperature setting, or dryness setting shall be tested in the as-
shipped position.
2. Gas Supply Requirements
    Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and 
appendix D1, specifies that gas supply to the clothes dryer should be 
maintained at a normal inlet test pressure at 7 to 10 inches of water 
column, and that the hourly British thermal unit (Btu) rating of the 
burner shall be maintained within  5 percent of the rating 
specified by the manufacturer. DOE discussed in the January 2013 NOPR 
that it received an inquiry noting that during testing of a gas clothes 
dryer, the unit under test did not meet the requirement to maintain the 
Btu rating within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer 
under the allowable range in gas inlet test pressure. DOE proposed in 
the January 2013 NOPR to add a clarification in both 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 that if the requirement to 
maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within  5 
percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer cannot be achieved 
under the allowable range in gas inlet test pressure, the orifice of 
the gas burner should be modified as necessary to achieve the required 
Btu rating. 78 FR 152, 174-175 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    AHAM and ALS opposed the proposal to change the orifice of the gas 
burner or any other hardware to meet the  5 percent 
requirement. AHAM added that the burner Btu rating is based on a test 
gas value intended to ensure product safety and that the average 
heating value and typical heating value during consumer use may be 
lower than the heating value of the test gas. AHAM commented that 
because the intent of the test procedure is to be representative of 
actual consumer use, DOE should not go forward with this proposal 
because the consumer would never and should never modify the orifice. 
(AHAM, No. 17 at p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at pp. 4-5)
    DOE notes that the proposed requirement to modify the gas burner 
orifice if the hourly Btu rating specified by the manufacturer cannot 
be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet pressure ensures 
that the burner output is reproducible from lab to lab for testing 
purposes. DOE notes that removing the gas supply requirements specified 
in the test procedure and allowing a wider range in the burner output 
could affect the measured efficiency and reproducibility of results 
because of the resulting variation in the heat input into the air 
entering the clothes dryer drum. In addition, DOE notes that the test 
procedure for gas water heaters similarly specifies that the burner 
should be adjusted as necessary to achieve the hourly Btu rating 
specified by the manufacturer. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix E, 
section 5.1.3) To ensure that test results are repeatable and 
reproducible, in today's final rule, DOE amends the clothes dryer test 
procedure in section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D 
and appendix D1 to include this clarification for the gas supply 
requirements. In addition, because DOE is also amending the clothes 
dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also 
including this clarification for the gas supply requirements in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 2.3.2.
    Section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and 
appendix D1 specifies that if a clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 
appliance pressure regulator, the regulator outlet pressure at the 
normal test pressure shall be approximately that recommended by the 
manufacturer. DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that the test 
procedures for similar gas heating products, such as gas water heaters, 
specify that the regulator outlet pressure must be within  
10 percent of the value specified by the manufacturer. DOE proposed to 
clarify the term ``approximately'' by specifying that the regulator 
outlet pressure shall be within  10 percent of the value 
specified by the manufacturer. 78 FR 152, 175 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    ALS supported DOE's proposal to clarify the outlet pressure range 
for the gas regulator. (ALS, No. 16, at p. 5) AHAM commented that the 
regulator outlet pressure should be as close as possible to that 
specified by the manufacturer. AHAM stated that this manufacturer 
recommendation helps ensure the safety of the product and, thus, the 
outlet pressure should not be altered. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 18) Because 
DOE did not receive any comments objecting to this proposal in response 
to the January 2013 NOPR and for the reasons discussed above, DOE 
amends section 2.3.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and 
appendix D1 in today's final rule to include the clarification that the 
regulator outlet pressure shall be within  10 percent of 
the value recommended by the manufacturer in the installation manual, 
on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the manufacturer makes such a 
recommendation for the basic model. In addition, because DOE is also 
amending the clothes dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, 
DOE is also including this clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D2, section 2.3.2.
3. Console Lights
    In the February 2013 SNOPR, DOE noted that it received an inquiry 
requesting clarification on section 2.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D and appendix D1, which specifies for the installation 
conditions that all console lights or other lighting systems that do 
not consume more than 10 watts shall be disconnected during the clothes 
dryer active mode test cycle. 78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013). DOE 
noted that this provision was originally adopted in the September 1977 
Final Rule. 42 FR 46145, 46146, 46150. DOE intended this provision to 
apply to an older generation of clothes dryers existing at the time of 
the September 1977 Final Rule that used task lights to illuminate the 
area of the clothes dryer for consumers doing the laundry that did not 
provide any function related to the drying process during the drying 
cycle. Newer-generation clothes dryers equipped with electronic 
controls may have control setting indicators such as indicator lights 
showing the cycle

[[Page 49629]]

progression, temperature or dryness settings, or other cycle functions. 
In contrast to the task lighting of older-generation clothes dryers, 
these indicator lights associated with cycle settings or the drying 
operation are fully integrated into the clothes dryer control printed 
circuit boards (PCBs). Disconnecting such lights would require 
extracting the control PCB from the clothes dryer and either physically 
cutting off the indicator lights or destroying their electrical signal 
traces etched on the PCB.
    As a result of these differences, DOE proposed in the February 2013 
SNOPR to clarify in section 2.1 in both appendix D and appendix D1 that 
``console lights or other lighting systems'' refers to task lights that 
do not provide any function during the drying cycle related to the 
drying process, rather than the control setting indicators in newer-
generation clothes dryers with electronic controls. DOE also proposed 
to clarify that control setting indicators such as indicator lights 
showing the cycle progression, temperature or dryness settings, or 
other cycle functions should not be disconnected during the active mode 
test cycle. 78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013).
    AHAM and ALS commented that they do not oppose the proposed 
clarification for the installation conditions of console lights. AHAM 
added that because this is not different than current industry 
practice, this proposal would not impact measured efficiency. (AHAM, 
No. 17 at p. 18; ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) Because DOE did not receive any 
comments objecting to this proposal and for the reasons discussed 
above, DOE amends the section 2.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D and appendix D1 in today's final rule to include this 
clarification to the installation requirements for console lights or 
other lighting systems. In addition, because DOE is also amending the 
clothes dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also 
including this clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
D2, section 2.1.
4. Drum Capacity Measurements
    Section 3.1 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and appendix 
D1 specifies that when measuring drum capacity, the drum shall be 
filled with water to a level determined by the intersection of the door 
plane and the loading port. In addition, section 3.1 specifies that 
volume should be added or subtracted as appropriate depending on 
whether the plastic bag used for the measurement protrudes into the 
drum interior. DOE noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that it received an 
inquiry requesting clarification of this requirement. DOE proposed to 
amend section 3.1 to clarify that, for the measurement of the drum 
capacity, the intersection of the door plane and the loading port 
refers to the uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with the 
door seal and that volume should be added or subtracted from the 
measured water fill volume to account for any space in the drum 
interior not measured by water fill (e.g., space occupied by the door 
protruding into the drum interior). 78 FR 8992, 8993 (Feb. 7, 2013).
    ALS supported DOE's proposal to clarify the drum capacity 
measurement. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) AHAM commented that it opposes the 
change for the drum capacity measurements in appendix D due to a lack 
of information and data on the impact, if any, on measured energy 
efficiency. AHAM stated that it does not have such data. AHAM also 
commented that the proposed amendments could impact manufacturers' 
reported capacities and that it would be burdensome to require such a 
change during the transition to the January 1, 2015 standards. AHAM 
suggested that DOE make this change only to appendix D1, and only if 
DOE determines that there would be no impact on measured energy 
efficiency. Otherwise, AHAM requested that any changes DOE made not be 
mandatory for compliance with the January 1, 2015 standards. According 
to AHAM, this would allow any impact on measured energy efficiency to 
be evaluated in the future. AHAM commented that it is possible that 
manufacturers have information on whether there is an impact on 
measured energy efficiency, and, thus, AHAM suggested that DOE contact 
manufacturers to understand the potential impact. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 
18-19)
    DOE notes that the amendment for the drum capacity measurement 
proposed in the February 2013 SNOPR would clarify the measurement 
method (i.e., the level to which water is filled in the drum and the 
amount of volume added or subtracted from the measurement), but not 
change the measurement results. Therefore, the amendments to clarify 
the drum capacity measurement would not affect the measured drum volume 
or energy efficiency. In today's final rule, DOE amends section 3.1 in 
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 to include this 
clarification to the drum capacity measurement. In addition, because 
DOE is also amending the clothes dryer test procedure to include a new 
appendix D2, DOE is also including this clarification in 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix D2, section 3.1.
    The California IOUs commented that the current method for measuring 
drum capacity requires a technician to line the clothes dryer drum with 
a plastic bag and then fill the lined drum with water while the clothes 
dryer rests on its side on a scale. The California IOUs stated that 
this procedure is burdensome, presents a risk of very large water 
spills, and can introduce measurement errors because it is often 
difficult for technicians to ensure that the plastic bag has completely 
filled every extrusion inside the drum, particularly those just inside 
the drum opening. The California IOUs stated that DOE should consider 
the IEC method for drum volume measurement. (California IOUs, No. 22 at 
p. 24)
    DOE notes that the drum volume measurement method in annex E of IEC 
Standard 61121 requires that the clothes dryer be placed on its side 
with the door leveled horizontally. The drum is then filled with 
specifically-sized table tennis balls without preventing the door 
closing. In addition, the table tennis balls are stirred occasionally 
to achieve the closest packing of balls possible and to eliminate void 
spaces. The number of table tennis balls are then counted and used to 
calculate the drum volume. DOE notes that this method could result in 
variation due to test technicians stirring the table tennis balls 
differently, and thus ending up with a different number of total balls 
in the drum. DOE also notes that counting the table tennis balls may be 
burdensome depending on the size of the drum. DOE notes that, if 
conducted properly, the drum capacity measurement using water is not 
significantly more burdensome that the drum volume measurement method 
in IEC Standard 61121. As a result, DOE is not considering such 
amendments to the drum capacity measurement method in today's final 
rule.
5. Maximum Allowable Scale Range
    Section 2.4.1 in appendix D and appendix D1 specifies that the 
weighing scale for the test cloth shall have a range of 0 to a maximum 
of 30 lb with a resolution of at least 0.2 ounces and a maximum error 
no greater than 0.3 percent of any measured value within the range of 3 
to 15 lb. Similarly, section 2.4.1.2 in appendix D and appendix D1 
specifies that the weighing scale for drum capacity measurements should 
have a range of 0 to a maximum of 500 lb with resolution of 0.50 lb and 
a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the measured value. DOE 
noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that it received an inquiry requesting 
clarification of this requirement. DOE recognizes that scales for 
weighing the

[[Page 49630]]

test cloth may have maximum capacity higher than 30 lb, but still meet 
the requirements for resolution and maximum error within the range of 3 
to 15 lb, as specified in the test procedure. DOE also recognizes that 
a clothes dryer, when filled with water for the drum capacity 
measurement, could exceed 500 lb. As a result, DOE proposed in February 
2013 SNOPR to allow a higher maximum scale range, 60 lb for weighing 
the test cloth and 600 lb for drum capacity measurements. DOE also 
noted that the resolution and maximum error requirements would remain 
unchanged. 78 FR 8992, 8993-8994 (Feb. 7, 2013).
    AHAM stated that it did not oppose the proposal to increase the 
maximum allowable scale range while retaining the resolution and 
maximum error requirements. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 19) ALS opposed DOE's 
proposal for the weighing scales, especially for the 600 lb maximum 
range for the weighing scale used for drum capacity measurements. ALS 
commented that a larger maximum range would be acceptable provided that 
the scale's accuracy in the range where the measurement is being made 
is calibrated to ISO 17025. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 5-6) As discussed 
above, DOE is maintaining the resolution and accuracy requirements in 
the range where the measurement is being made that are specified in the 
current test procedure. DOE does not believe it is necessary to require 
a calibration to a specific standard as long as the resolution and 
accuracy requirements have been properly certified. For the reasons 
discussed above, in today's final rule, DOE adopts the amendments to 
sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D 
and appendix D1 to allow a higher maximum scale range, 60 lb for 
weighing the test cloth and 600 lb for drum capacity measurements, 
while maintaining the current resolution and maximum error 
requirements. In addition, because DOE is also amending the clothes 
dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also 
incorporating these provisions for the weighing scale in 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix D2, sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.1.2.
6. Relative Humidity Meter
    Section 2.4.4 in appendix D and appendix D1 specifies that the dry 
and wet bulb psychrometer used for measuring the ambient humidity shall 
have an error no greater than 1 degree Fahrenheit ([deg]F). 
DOE noted in the February 2013 SNOPR that it received an inquiry 
requesting clarification of this provision. DOE recognizes that 
relative humidity meters may be an acceptable means to measure the 
ambient humidity. DOE also recognizes that some humidity meters may 
express error tolerances in terms of the dry and wet bulb temperatures, 
while others express error tolerances in terms of percent relative 
humidity. As a result, DOE evaluated how the 1 [deg]F 
tolerance for the dry and wet bulb temperatures translates to relative 
humidity. DOE determined in the February 2013 SNOPR, based on the 
allowable range in ambient temperature (72 to 78 [deg]F) and ambient 
humidity (40 to 60 percent relative humidity) specified in the DOE test 
procedure, that a 1 [deg]F tolerance for the dry and wet 
bulb temperatures would translate to a tolerance between 2 
percent and 4 percent relative humidity. As a result, DOE 
proposed that a relative humidity meter with a maximum error tolerance 
expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements for the dry and wet 
bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error tolerance of 2 
percent relative humidity would be acceptable for testing. 78 FR 8992, 
8993-8994 (Feb. 7, 2013).
    ALS supported DOE's proposed requirements for the relative humidity 
meter. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 6) Because DOE did not receive any comments 
objecting to this proposal in response to the February 2013 SNOPR and 
for the reasons discussed above, DOE adopts in today's final rule the 
amendments to section 2.4.4 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D 
and appendix D1 specifying that a relative humidity meter with a 
maximum error tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the 
requirements for the dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum 
error tolerance of 2 percent relative humidity would be 
acceptable for testing. In addition, because DOE is also amending the 
clothes dryer test procedure to include a new appendix D2, DOE is also 
including this clarification in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
D2, section 2.4.4.

G. Additional Test Procedure Issues

    DOE received comments in response to the January 2013 NOPR and 
February 2013 SNOPR regarding a number of additional issues related to 
the clothes dryer test procedure. These issues are discussed in the 
following sections.
1. Consumer Usage Patterns and Capabilities
    DOE received a number of comments regarding changes to reflect 
current consumer usage patterns and capabilities. NEEA and the 
California IOUs commented that based on the NEEA field use data, the 
drying energy consumption per-cycle in the field is different than what 
is measured in the DOE test procedure. NEEA stated that real-world 
drying times are longer and the energy used per load is greater. 
According to NEEA, their field use data indicates that the average 
annual energy use is 1134 kWh/year, which is nearly double what the DOE 
test procedure produces. According to the California IOUs, the typical 
annual energy use using DOE's proposed amendments to appendix D1 is 30 
percent lower than values observed in the NEEA field study, which 
ranged from approximately 830 to 1,100 kWh/year. The California IOUs 
stated that the estimated clothes dryer energy use is 967 kWh/year when 
using the appendix D test procedure, which closely approximates the 
trends observed in the field data. The California IOUs stated that the 
proposed number of clothes dryer loads per year reduces the estimated 
annual energy use to 641 kWh/year, which is too low. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 15-16, 17, 18; California IOUs, No. 
22 at pp. 1-2)
    The California IOUs commented that in terms of load size, typical 
drying times, and the measurement of automatic termination, NEEA's 
field study and the proposed test procedure in the January 2013 NOPR 
are in fairly close agreement. However, the California IOUs stated that 
the initial RMC, number of annual use cycles, field use factor, 
temperature settings, load composition, and duct restriction are 
substantively different, and as a result, a number of values derived 
from these parameters (i.e., the adjusted per-cycle energy use, energy 
factor, and estimated annual energy use) are significantly different as 
well. The California IOUs commented that changes to the initial RMC, 
field use factor, and number of annual use cycles are feasible to 
include in the current test procedure rulemaking. (California IOUs, No. 
22 at p. 6)
    NRDC also commented that there are several aspects of the test 
procedure that remain inconsistent with real-world use, including the 
number of annual clothes dryer use cycles and the initial RMC, as 
demonstrated by the recent NEEA field study, testing by Ecos for NRDC, 
and more recent testing by Ecova. NRDC commented that, while these 
issues are beyond the scope of the current rulemaking, DOE should 
conduct a new rulemaking as soon as possible to address these issues to 
better represent real world energy use. (NRDC, No. 20 at p. 2) NEEA & 
NPCC similarly commented that if DOE is unable to make appropriate 
changes to the

[[Page 49631]]

proposed test procedures in the current rulemaking that would bring 
tested energy use in closer agreement with a more representative 
average use cycle as indicated by the NEEA field data, DOE should 
initiate another round of test procedure and standards rulemaking as 
soon as possible. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 4)
    The following sections discuss the specific issues related to 
consumer use.
a. Annual Clothes Dryer Use Cycles
    The DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, 
section 4.5, specifies that the representative number of clothes dryer 
average-use cycles is 283 cycles per year. NEEA presented data at the 
February 2013 public meeting from a field study that it conducted in 
the Pacific Northwest for a four- to five-week period during the winter 
of 2012 indicating that the number of clothes dryer annual use cycles 
is 428, and that the amendment in the January 2011 Final Rule to change 
the number of cycles per year to 283 is not representative. (NEEA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 17-18, 194-195) The California 
IOUs also commented that the number of loads being dried per year is 
greater than specified in appendix D1. The California IOUs commented 
that, as a result, real-world energy consumption is higher, with a 
greater potential for absolute energy savings. (California IOUs, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 196-198) NEEA & NPCC and the 
California IOUs commented that the clothes dryer annual use cycles 
should be adjusted upward to 337 based on the NEEA field study data. 
(NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 13; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 10) 
NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that the RECS data alone 
are not precise enough to use as the basis for the annual use cycles of 
clothes dryers. NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that RECS 
data are based on self-reporting of survey participants, who were asked 
to recall and report on their typical laundry habits, rather than 
relying on precisely metered laundry loads. NEEA & NPCC and the 
California IOUs also stated that the ranges allowed for the responses 
are too wide to produce accurate data on average use, and that the 
clothes dryer data are qualitative and categorical in nature, further 
introducing room for interpretation. NEEA & NPCC and the California 
IOUs commented that the estimate of the fraction of clothes washer 
loads that are dried is 124 percent based on NEEA data and not the 84 
percent or 91 percent that DOE estimated. NEEA & NPCC stated that the 
matching process between the monitored clothes dryer cycles and the 
hand-written log entries for each load can lead to ambiguity in the 
results of their analysis of the field data, but that the NEEA data 
also show that people are often splitting loads that come out of the 
clothes washer into two or more clothes dryer loads. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 
21 at p. 13; California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 7-8)
    The California IOUs stated that they conducted a sensitivity 
analysis on the RECS data to establish high, intermediate, and low 
estimates of annual clothes dryer usage, using the distribution of 
responses for each question to establish weighted averages of clothes 
washer and clothes dryer use. The California IOUs commented that their 
analysis showed that the RECS data could yield values as high as 363 
and as low as 199 clothes dryer loads per year. The California IOUs 
commented that DOE should consider existing field measurements of 
residential laundry behavior to determine an appropriate estimate for 
the number of annual clothes dryer use cycles, noting a number of 
surveys with estimates for the average annual use cycles ranging from 
224 loads per year to 545 loads per year. (California IOUs, No. 22 at 
p. 9) The California IOUs stated that the NEEA field study, which 
estimated 338 annual use cycles, is more reflective of the average U.S. 
homeowner usage than the RECS data are for several reasons: (1) The 50 
participants were metered for a longer period than other field studies 
(including a total of 903 valid clothes dryer runs); (2) the NEEA study 
was specifically designed to examine the energy use and behaviors 
associated with laundry care in the Northwest region, including written 
logs of clothes washer and clothes dryer use to corroborate metered 
clothes dryer data; (3) NEEA captured a diverse sample of homes in its 
study, whereas one earlier study was dominated by homes already 
participating in energy efficiency programs that show a tendency to use 
equipment less frequently; and (4) the estimates of annual clothes 
dryer loads per year from the NEEA study fall in the middle of the 
range of possible clothes dryer use estimates resulting from analysis 
of RECS data. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 10) The California IOUs 
commented that although a comprehensive study of typical U.S. 
residential laundry behavior does not yet exist, the existing studies 
provide a sounder basis for calculating clothes dryer cycles per year 
than RECS survey data. The California IOUs requested that DOE adjust 
its current assumption of 283 clothes dryer loads per year up to 336 
clothes dryer loads per year, which both reflects findings of the NEEA 
study and serves as a compromise point between current and pre-2011 DOE 
duty cycle values. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 10-11)
    AHAM opposed a change to the number of clothes dryer annual use 
cycles. AHAM stated that DOE just completed a rulemaking in which it 
determined that it was appropriate to decrease the number of annual use 
cycles. AHAM commented that DOE should not reverse that determination 
now, at least, not without further study and the opportunity for full 
notice and comment rulemaking on the issue. In addition, AHAM stated 
that it is not appropriate to make this change at this time given that 
it will impact test results, thus necessitating an adjustment to the 
standard, which should not be done during the 3-year lead time to the 
January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 16)
    DOE notes that the 283 clothes dryer annual use cycles specified in 
appendix D1 was based on data from the 2005 RECS, which is a national 
sample survey of housing units that collects statistical information on 
the consumption of, and expenditures for, energy in housing units along 
with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and 
occupants. In the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE estimated that the 
fraction of clothes washer loads that go into the clothes dryer is 91 
percent (not the 84 percent suggested by NEEA & NPCC). In addition, DOE 
noted in the January 2011 Final Rule that the 283 annual use cycles is 
fairly consistent with data provided by AHAM that referenced a study 
conducted by Procter & Gamble (which estimated 279 annual use cycles), 
as well as data from Whirlpool (which estimated 288 annual use cycles). 
76 FR 972, 1010 (Jan. 6, 2011). DOE also notes that the NEEA field 
study does not appear to take into account users that may line-dry 
certain laundry loads, which could potentially be due to the timing 
(winter) and location (Pacific Northwest) of the survey. DOE recognizes 
interested parties' concerns regarding the number of annual use cycles 
based on the available field use data. However, DOE does not have 
sufficient information at this time to make a definitive conclusion 
regarding the number of clothes dryer annual use cycles. As a result, 
DOE is not amending the number of clothes dryer annual use cycles at 
this time in the limited scope of this test procedure rulemaking. DOE 
may continue collecting and considering

[[Page 49632]]

available data on clothes dryer use and may consider amendments to the 
number of annual use cycles in a future rulemaking.
b. Initial Remaining Moisture Content and Moisture Removed During Test 
Cycle
    The DOE test procedure in appendix D1 specifies that the initial 
RMC of the test load shall be 57.5 percent. (10 CFR part 430, subpart 
B, appendix D1, section 2.7) NEEA presented data at the February 2013 
public meeting from a field study that it conducted showing that real-
world initial RMC is 80 percent. In addition, NEEA commented that based 
on its field use data, the drying cycle times in the field are 
different than what is measured in the DOE test procedure. (NEEA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 15, 16, 194-195) The 
California IOUs also commented that, based on the NEEA field data, 
clothes are wetter when they come out of the clothes washer than DOE 
estimates. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 
196-197)
    NEEA & NPCC and the California IOUs commented that, based on the 
NEEA field study data, initial RMC values below 60 percent are not 
being realized in the field, and that their average (from a sample of 
50 households that comprised 30-percent top-loaders and 70-percent 
front-loaders) is estimated to be 62 percent. NEEA & NPCC stated that 
this results in greater energy use and longer cycle times in the field 
than is produced using the DOE test procedure. NEEA & NPCC added that 
the initial RMC is largely independent of the dry weight of the test 
load because: (1) Clothes washer users are not always selecting the 
cycles that utilize the highest spin speeds available on their 
equipment; and (2) if consumers do select those cycles, the clothes 
washers are not always successfully balancing the loads sufficiently to 
actually spin at the highest speeds. NEEA & NPCC commented that in many 
cases, the machine is unable to balance the load after a long period 
and simply spins at the highest speed that the suspension allows, and 
they believe that this speed may decrease over time as the drum 
suspension components wear. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 3-4, 7-8, NPCC, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 114) NEEA & NPCC stated that 
the RMC values seen in the field result in more time and energy to dry 
a typical load than DOE's current test procedures would suggest. 
According to NEEA & NPCC, the estimated average drying cycle time from 
the field testing was 58 minutes. NEEA & NPCC also stated that there is 
a positive linear trend between average drying time versus average 
total moisture removed. Based on field data, NEEA & NPCC and the 
California IOUs recommended that DOE change the initial RMC value to 62 
percent  0.33 percent. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at pp. 8-10; 
California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6-7)
    AHAM opposed a change to the initial RMC currently specified in the 
DOE test procedure at appendix D1. AHAM stated that DOE just completed 
a rulemaking in which it determined that it was appropriate to decrease 
the initial RMC. AHAM commented that DOE should not now reverse that 
determination, at least not without further study and the opportunity 
for full notice and comment rulemaking on the issue. In addition, AHAM 
stated that it is not appropriate to make this change at this time 
given that it will impact test results, thus necessitating an 
adjustment to the standard, which should not be done during the 3-year 
lead time to the January 1, 2015 standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 12-13)
    DOE noted in the January 2011 Final Rule that the 57.5-percent 
initial RMC was based on AHAM shipment-weighted clothes washer RMC 
data, which was representative of all products on the market. In 
addition, DOE notes that there is uncertainty in the initial RMC 
estimates from the NEEA field study data because each laundry load was 
not dried to determine the bone-dry weight, which is then used to 
calculate the RMC of the test load. Instead, a fixed correction was 
used to estimate the RMC of laundry loads from the NEEA field study. 
DOE also notes that NEEA & NPCC's comment that initial RMCs below 60 
percent are not being realized in the field appears to be contrary to 
the data presented in their comments, which show that a large number of 
laundry loads metered in the NEEA field study had initial RMCs of 60 
percent or less (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 7). After considering this 
information, DOE determined it is not sufficient at this time to make a 
definitive conclusion regarding the value of the initial RMC of the 
test load. As a result, DOE is not amending the initial RMC in this 
test procedure rulemaking. DOE may continue collecting and considering 
available data on clothes dryer use and may consider amendments to the 
initial RMC in a future rulemaking.
    The California IOUs stated that the amount of moisture being 
removed better describes the work being done by a clothes dryer than 
the dry weight of clothing in the load, and that the proposed test 
procedure does not require the clothes dryer under test to remove as 
much moisture as the field data suggests is typical. The California 
IOUs stated that, as a result, the DOE test procedure underestimates 
field clothes dryer energy use by 30 percent. The California IOUs 
presented data showing that the amount of water removed during the 
proposed automatic cycle termination test procedure is 4.6 lb, whereas 
the NEEA field study data show an average of 4.5 lb of water removed 
during the drying cycle. The California IOUs stated that the test 
procedure will not be representative of field conditions unless the 
total moisture being removed per load is greater, as suggested by the 
field data. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 6, 18-19)
    DOE notes that the amount of moisture removed is controlled by the 
weight, initial RMC, and final RMC of the test load. For the reasons 
discussed in this section, DOE is not considering changes to the test 
load weight and initial RMC in today's final rule. In addition, as 
discussed in section III.B.3, the 2-percent final RMC threshold for the 
automatic cycle termination test method was based on the data presented 
in the Joint Petitioners' comment regarding RMC levels acceptable to 
consumers. DOE also notes that the amount of water removed during the 
proposed automatic termination test cycle for standard-size clothes 
dryers must be at a minimum 4.7 lb to dry the load to just 2-percent 
RMC (not 4.6 lb as suggested by the California IOUs), and thus most 
clothes dryers will dry more than 4.7 lb of water during the test 
cycle. DOE also notes that the data from the NEEA field study cited by 
the California IOUs showing that on average 4.5 lb of water was removed 
during the drying cycle appears to be contrary to the California IOUs' 
comment that the total moisture being removed per load should be 
greater. For these reasons, DOE is not considering changes to these 
values that would revise the amount of moisture removed during the test 
cycle.
c. Test Load Weight
    The DOE test procedure at appendix D1 specifies test load bone-dry 
weights of 8.45 lb and 3.00 lb for standard-size and compact-size 
clothes dryers, respectively. As part of the test procedure amendments 
in the January 2011 Final Rule, DOE changed the load bone-dry weights 
for standard-size dryers from 7.00 lb to 8.45 lb based on the 
historical trends of clothes washer tub volumes and the corresponding 
percentage increase in clothes washer test load sizes (as specified by 
the DOE

[[Page 49633]]

clothes washer test procedure). 76 FR 972, 977 (Jan. 6, 2011).
    NEEA commented that the dry weight of real-world test loads, as 
determined from its field study, is on average 7.4 lb. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 17) As discussed above, DOE notes that 
there is uncertainty in the test load bone-dry weight estimates from 
the NEEA field study data because each laundry load was not dried to 
determine the bone-dry weight. Instead, a fixed correction was used to 
estimate the dry weight of laundry loads based on the weight 
measurements after the drying cycle from the NEEA field study. In 
addition, it is unclear whether the NEEA field study included both 
standard-size and compact-size clothes dryers and whether the 
capacities of the clothes dryer models in the 50 households selected in 
the survey are representative of all U.S. clothes dryer shipments. DOE 
recognizes NEEA's concerns regarding the test load bone-dry weight 
based on the available field use data. However, DOE does not have 
sufficient information at this time to make a definitive conclusion 
regarding the test load bone-dry weight. As a result, DOE is not 
amending the test load bone-dry weight at this time in this test 
procedure rulemaking. DOE may continue collecting and considering 
available data on clothes dryer use and may consider amendments to the 
test load bone-dry weight in a future rulemaking.
d. Exhaust Conditions
    The DOE test procedure specifies in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D and appendix D1, section 2.1, that the clothes dryer exhaust 
shall be restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator described in 
section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1-2009.
    The California IOUs commented that DOE should update the test 
procedure in a new rulemaking to modify the exhaust cap diameter to 
better reflect the duct restriction and airflow from recent NEEA field 
measurements. According to the California IOUs, typical clothes dryers 
operate with less-than-ideal venting and have greater duct blockage, 
lower airflow, and correspondingly longer drying times than those 
measured under DOE test conditions. The California IOUs stated that 
this is due to lint accumulation in ducts, failure of users to clean 
lint filters routinely, unsecured ducting, and long venting distances 
in older homes. The California IOUs stated that NEEA's field study 
confirms a wide range of air flow rates from clothes dryers, 
representing various levels of duct restriction. The California IOUs 
noted that air flow rates at the output of the vent were found to be as 
low as 6 cubic feet per minute (CFM) and as high as 146 CFM, with an 
average of 79 CFM. The California IOUs stated that this is 
significantly lower than air flow rates of approximately 96 CFM that 
they measured in the laboratory when a set of clothes dryers similar to 
those metered in the field were tested under the current DOE test 
procedure. The California IOUs developed a correlation of air flow rate 
with the size of hole in an end cap, as allowed by the 2010 AHAM 
procedure, and found that the NEEA field study average air flow rate 
was reproduced for the average of four representative clothes dryers in 
the laboratory with a hole diameter of 2\11/16\ inches versus the 
current DOE value of 2\7/8\ inch diameter. The California IOUs stated 
that DOE should update its airflow restriction in a new rulemaking to 
better reflect conditions documented in the field. (California IOUs, 
No. 22 at pp. 17, 19-20, 21)
    DOE first notes that the exhaust simulator specified in section 
3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1-2009, which is required for use in the DOE test 
procedure, requires a hole diameter of 2\9/16\ inches, not the 2\7/8\-
inch diameter referenced by the California IOUs. As a result, DOE notes 
that it is unclear whether the correlation between air flow rates with 
the size of the hole was developed correctly to take into consideration 
the 2\9/16\-hole diameter required in the DOE test procedure. In 
addition, drum volume and shipments information were not made available 
for the four clothes dryers used in the limited testing conducted by 
the California IOUs, to determine whether airflow rates would be 
representative of all clothes dryer shipments and household venting 
configurations. Therefore, DOE does not have sufficient information at 
this time to make a definitive conclusion regarding the exhaust 
conditions. As a result, DOE is not amending the exhaust conditions at 
this time in this test procedure rulemaking. DOE may continue 
collecting and considering available data on clothes dryer use and may 
consider amendments to the exhaust conditions in a future rulemaking.
2. Test Load Bone-Dry Weight Measurement
    DOE notes that 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D, section 1.2 
and appendix D1, section 1.5 specify that the bone-dry weight means the 
condition of a load of test clothes which has been dried in a clothes 
dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, removed and 
weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10-minute periods 
until the final weight change of the load is 1 percent or less.
    The California IOUs commented that DOE should clarify its 
requirements for bone-dry weight measurements. The California IOUs 
stated that the process for obtaining bone-dry weight is considerably 
labor intensive, requiring technicians to iteratively dry test cloths 
until their run-to-run weight variation is less than a particular 
percentage. The California IOUs added that for a laboratory conducting 
large numbers of clothes dryer measurements, the repeated bone drying 
of test cloths can be burdensome. The California IOUs commented that 
the current wording of the test procedure appears to require that 
testers obtain new bone-dry cloth measurements for every clothes dryer 
test. According to the California IOUs, test cloths shed very little 
mass through the drying process (about 0.01 lb for every 10 drying 
cycles) and so they question whether it may be acceptable for bone 
drying to occur at a less frequent interval as long as the same test 
cloths are used for every drying cycle. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 
24)
    DOE notes that if a commercial clothes dryer is used, bone-drying 
test loads should only take two to three 10-minute drying cycles to 
achieve a bone-dry state. In addition, DOE notes that the current DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure does not require multiple test runs. As a 
result, DOE does not consider the bone-drying process to be unduly 
burdensome to conduct and, therefore, is not amending the bone-drying 
process in today's final rule.
Ventless Clothes Dryer Preconditioning
    DOE notes that the current clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, section 2.8.2, specifies that for 
ventless clothes dryers, before any test cycle, the steady-state 
machine temperature must be equal to the room ambient temperature. 
Section 2.8.2 also specifies that this may be done by leaving the 
machine at ambient room conditions for at least 12 hours between tests.
    The California IOUs commented that for testing laboratories 
conducting a high volume of testing with limited test stations, the 
requirement for ventless clothes dryers to leave the machine at ambient 
conditions for 12 hours between tests when conducting repeated tests 
can be burdensome and effectively means that only one test may be 
performed per day. The California IOUs requested that DOE consider 
alternate language that might enable shorter turnaround times when 
testing ventless

[[Page 49634]]

clothes dryers. The California IOUs stated that, for example, drum or 
cabinet air temperature measurements could be conducted after an 
initial 6-hour period to determine whether a clothes dryer's internal 
temperature is within  5 [deg]F of ambient conditions. If 
internal temperatures are within the given range of ambient conditions, 
testing would proceed. Otherwise, test technicians would need to wait 
the full 12 hours until conducting another test. The California IOUs 
stated that such provisions would greatly reduce the testing burden for 
ventless clothes dryers. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 24)
    As discussed above, the provisions specify that the steady-state 
temperature may be achieved by leaving the machine at ambient room 
conditions for at least 12 hours between tests. DOE notes, however, 
that a 12-hour period is not required and, as discussed in the January 
2011 Final Rule, other means used to achieve a steady-state machine 
temperature would be acceptable under the test procedure provisions. 76 
FR 972, 1007 (Jan. 6, 2011). As a result, DOE is not changing the pre-
conditioning requirements for ventless clothes dryers in today's final 
rule.
Room Ambient Humidity Requirements
    The DOE test procedures specify in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D, section 2.2 and appendix D1, section 2.2.1, that the room 
relative humidity must be maintained at 50  10 percent 
relative humidity.
    The California IOUs also commented that the lab-to-lab variation 
from DOE's testing with the DOE and IEC/AHAM test loads may be largely 
attributed to the variation in ambient humidity. The California IOUs 
commented that if the DOE were to change the test load composition such 
that reproducibility and repeatability were lessened, DOE could change 
other conditions in the test procedure to compensate, such as 
specifying a tighter tolerance for the allowable humidity. The 
California IOUs noted that it is relatively harder for the air coming 
in to the clothes dryer to evaporate the moisture in the load if the 
air has more water in it. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 10 at pp. 70-72)
    The California IOUs commented that they tested one clothes dryer 
with moisture sensors near the extremes of environmental conditions for 
temperature and humidity. The California IOUs stated that the high-
temperature, low-relative humidity scenario was only 1-percent more 
efficient than the low-temperature, high-relative humidity scenario. 
The California IOUs noted that other studies, such as data provided by 
Whirlpool in chapter 5 of the 2011 DOE Final Rule Technical Support 
Document, have shown the measured efficiency has a greater sensitivity 
to ambient temperature and relative humidity. The California IOUs 
stated their limited data to date on this topic do not suggest that the 
range of allowable environmental conditions needs to be narrowed, but 
they encouraged DOE to investigate this issue more thoroughly in a new 
rulemaking as it seeks ways of minimizing run-to-run variability while 
increasing the representativeness of the test procedure. (California 
IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 22-23)
    DOE notes that, in its tests, it did not require the ambient 
conditions to be controlled any more tightly than required by the 
current test procedure and that variations in the ambient humidity 
would also have been present from test to test within a given test lab. 
As a result, the effects of variations in the ambient humidity would be 
equally present in both the test-to-test and lab-to-lab variation. As a 
result, DOE considers the difference in lab-to-lab reproducibility for 
the DOE test load (3.0 percent) and the IEC/AHAM test load (4.7 
percent) to be primarily attributable to the variation in test loads 
from lot to lot. DOE notes that further tightening the room temperature 
and humidity conditions may require testing to be conducted in an 
environmental chamber to maintain the required conditions, which would 
significantly increase testing burden. Based on the information and 
test data available regarding the effects of the ambient humidity on 
the measured efficiency, DOE is not amending the room relative humidity 
requirements in today's final rule.
Measurement of Drying Cycle Time
    The California IOUs commented that DOE should include a measurement 
of drying time in its test procedure. The California IOUs indicated 
that test labs can already determine drying time for timed dry and 
automatic termination cycles from their data logs of power consumption 
over time, but the DOE test procedure does not require it to be 
reported. The California IOUs stated that various U.S. clothes dryer 
manufacturers currently make widely different claims about drying times 
for various models, each employing different assumptions about the size 
and composition of the load being dried and the initial RMC. According 
to the California IOUs, some manufacturers have made claims that 
particular clothes dryer models can achieve energy savings of 40 
percent or more, or can dry laundry in as little as 14 minutes, but 
these results may not have been achieved under representative 
conditions. The California IOUs stated that in the absence of 
standardized guidelines for how to report drying times and energy 
savings, manufacturers developed their own guidelines for marketing 
purposes. (California IOUs, No. 22 at pp. 11-12)
    The California IOUs further stated that the link between energy 
efficiency and drying times in clothes dryers has already been 
established in laboratory testing. The California IOUs stated that, all 
else being equal, a clothes dryer that reduces the heating element 
temperature and modestly extends average drying times can save energy, 
which is the basis for the optional ``eco-modes'' now being offered in 
many new clothes dryers. The California IOUs stated that this will not 
affect consumer satisfaction for loads that are not time-critical, but 
that it may be an unacceptable tradeoff to many consumers. The 
California IOUs stated that having an accurate measure of drying times 
will help users purchase those models that can achieve energy savings 
without sacrificing performance, and will help programs such as 
ENERGYSTAR establish a reasonable upper bound for allowable drying 
times for labeled products. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 12)
    The California IOUs stated that recording and reporting drying time 
will also encourage manufacturers to automatically terminate the drying 
cycle promptly and as close as possible to 2-percent RMC, since any 
additional over-drying would take more time and produce no consumer 
benefit. (California IOUs, No. 22 at p. 12)
    DOE notes that requiring the measurement of the drying time is 
inconsistent with the EPCA requirement that a test procedure measure 
the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost 
of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As a result, DOE is not 
adopting amendments to require the measurement and reporting of the 
clothes dryer cycle time in today's final rule.

Effects of Proposed Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With 
Standards

    In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to 
what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the 
measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under 
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines 
that the amended test procedure would alter the

[[Page 49635]]

measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable 
energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In 
determining the amended energy conservation standard, the Secretary 
shall measure, pursuant to the amended test procedure, the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or water use of a representative sample of 
covered products that minimally comply with the existing standard. The 
average of such energy efficiency, energy use, or water use levels 
determined under the amended test procedure shall constitute the 
amended energy conservation standard for the applicable covered 
products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) If DOE were to amend an energy 
conservation standard under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2), models of covered 
products in use before the date on which the amended energy 
conservation standard becomes effective (or revisions of such models 
that come into use after such date and have the same energy efficiency, 
energy use or water use characteristics) that comply with the energy 
conservation standard applicable to such covered products on the day 
before such date shall be deemed to comply with the amended energy 
conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)) DOE's authority to amend 
energy conservation standards does not affect DOE's obligation to issue 
any final standards as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(4))
Active Mode
    As discussed in section III.F, DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430 
subpart B, appendix D in today's final only to clarify the cycle 
settings used for testing, the requirements for the gas supply, the 
installation conditions for console lights, the method for measuring 
the drum capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the allowable 
use of a relative humidity meter. Because the amendments to appendix D 
would not change the actual testing method, DOE determined that these 
amendments would not affect the measured efficiency according to 
appendix D and would not affect a manufacturer's ability to demonstrate 
compliance with the current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 
430.32(h)(2).
    As part of the January 2013 NOPR, because the January 1, 2015 
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers are based on CEF as 
measured according to 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix D1, DOE 
investigated how the proposed amendments for automatic cycle 
termination would affect the measured CEF. For the January 2013 NOPR, 
DOE conducted testing on 20 clothes dryers according to the DOE clothes 
dryer test procedure in existing appendix D1 and then according to the 
proposed automatic cycle termination test procedure.\13\ The results of 
this testing showed that specific models resulted in either a lower or 
higher measured CEF as compared to the measured CEF using the existing 
test procedure, ranging from a 27.4-percent decrease to a 20.4-percent 
increase in CEF with an average of a 3.8-percent increase. DOE also 
evaluated the effects of the proposed amendments for the products in 
DOE's test sample that minimally comply with the existing energy 
conservation standards (based on rated EF). The results for the 10 
minimally compliant units in DOE's test sample showed a 27.4-percent 
decrease to a 16.9-percent increase in CEF as compared to the CEF using 
the existing test procedure, with an average of a 4.1-percent increase. 
78 FR 152, 175-176 (Jan. 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As discussed in section III.B.III.B.3, the proposed 
amendments in the January 2013 NOPR included the 0.80 field use 
factor for automatic termination control dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these results and consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) and 
(2), DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that the 
proposed amendments to the active mode test procedure will on average 
not impact the measured efficiency as compared to the current test 
procedure for models currently available on the market. As a result, 
DOE did not consider amendments to the energy conservation standards 
that will be required on January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176 (Jan. 2, 
2013).
    AHAM disagreed with DOE's determination that the proposed test 
procedure's impact on measured efficiency is de minimus and that an 
adjustment to the standards is unnecessary. AHAM stated that DOE's data 
shows that the impact of the proposed test procedure amendments is 
significant enough that it would be inappropriate for DOE to make the 
proposed test procedure amendments effective until a future standards 
change (i.e., subsequent to the January 1, 2015 standards). (AHAM, No. 
17 at pp. 2-3, 11; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 172-
173)
    AHAM commented that DOE's approach does not meet either the test 
procedure ``crosswalk'' and lead time requirements for amended 
standards or the procedural and substantive requirements and criteria 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295. AHAM stated that the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 
6293(e) do not contain the same rigorous economic and technical 
criteria as in the standards provisions because changes in standards 
stringency are intended to occur in a standards rulemaking only, not in 
a stand-alone test procedure rulemaking. AHAM stated that in a future 
joint standards and test procedure rulemaking, the basic criteria of 
technical feasibility and economic justification, and the many sub-
economic and technical considerations, can be reviewed fully. (AHAM, 
No. 17 at p. 3)
    AHAM commented that test procedures should not be used to tighten 
or loosen standards. AHAM stated that DOE must comply with 42 U.S.C. 
6293(e), and if that would result in unlawful attenuating of lead time 
and lock-in periods, then DOE should wait until a future standards 
rulemaking is complete and integrate the regulatory processes. AHAM 
stated that, should DOE proceed as proposed in the January 2013 NOPR 
despite AHAM's opposition, AHAM would prefer that DOE include the 0.80 
field use factor rather than exclude it because it would mitigate the 
burden to manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 5)
    AHAM commented that DOE's evaluation of the impacts of the proposed 
test procedure revisions on the measured efficiency was not conducted 
pursuant to any formal policy or guidance on how the evaluation under 
42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is to be conducted. AHAM commented that without some 
establishment of these policies and procedures, it is difficult to 
evaluate whether the analysis was conducted properly or to determine 
how to interpret its results. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 5)
    AHAM members conducted testing on vented electric standard, vented 
electric compact (240V), vented gas, and ventless electric compact 
(240V) clothes dryers under existing appendix D1 and the proposed 
appendix D1. AHAM stated that its test data, applying the 0.80 field 
use factor, showed similar results to DOE's testing. In particular, 
AHAM's testing under the proposed test procedure showed a 28.1-percent 
decrease to a 13.1-percent increase in CEF as compared to the CEF using 
appendix D1, with an average 0.63-percent increase in CEF. However, 
AHAM stated that without a protocol for choosing which models to test, 
a focus on individual product classes rather than clothes dryers as a 
whole, and criteria for what is significant versus de minimus, the DOE 
and the AHAM processes are both arbitrary. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 5-6)
    AHAM disagreed with DOE's determination that an average 3.8-

[[Page 49636]]

percent (based on all tested models) or an average 4.1-percent (based 
on minimally compliant models only) increase in CEF is de minimus, and, 
thus, does not constitute an ``impact'' on measured efficiency. AHAM 
stated that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)-(2) requires DOE to determine to what 
extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured 
energy efficiency and it does not say ``significantly alter.'' AHAM 
noted that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) specifies that if DOE determines that 
the amended test procedure will alter the measured efficiency, the 
Secretary shall (not ``may'' or ``shall under certain circumstances'') 
amend the applicable energy conservation standard during the rulemaking 
carried out with respect to such test procedure. AHAM noted that the 
statute provides for an averaging process--which DOE has failed to 
further define or clarify--that is required to determine the amended 
standard. AHAM stated that there is no process to determine when not to 
change the standard and that even if such de minimus determinations are 
statutorily permitted, these data--even if accepted as an appropriate 
sampling--do not support a de minimus determination. (AHAM, No. 17 at 
p. 7)
    AHAM commented that because the January 1, 2015 standards are 5 
percent more stringent than the existing standard, it is not reasonable 
to conclude that a 3.8-4.1 percent change in measured efficiency will 
on average not impact the measured efficiency. AHAM and ALS commented 
that the field use factor seems to have been selected to allow DOE to 
meet what it considers a de minimus threshold. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 7; 
ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
    AHAM stated that it is improper to consider just an average impact 
on measured efficiency, across all product classes combined, and that 
DOE should instead assess the range of impacts. AHAM commented that 
every clothes dryer, not just the average clothes dryer, must comply 
with the standards and, thus, ranges of impact must not be ignored as 
DOE assesses whether there is an impact on measured efficiency under 42 
U.S.C. 6293(e)(1). AHAM commented that DOE and AHAM data under the 
proposed test procedure show a wide range of effects on the measured 
CEF as compared to the appendix D1 test results. AHAM commented that 
even if DOE determined that the proposed test procedure changes impact 
measured efficiency, it is unclear whether DOE should adopt test 
procedure changes that would have this range of impacts during a 3-year 
lead time or any time other than coincident with a standards 
rulemaking. In this particular case, AHAM stated that it does not 
believe it is appropriate to make such a standards change. (AHAM, No. 
17 at pp. 7-8) According to ALS, it is unacceptable to have certain 
models that cannot be certified or sold after January 1, 2015 because 
Congress intended under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3) that every model that is 
compliant before a test procedure change would be compliant after the 
test procedure change. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 3) The California IOUs also 
commented that there is a wide range in measured efficiency under the 
proposed test procedure, and that although the effects on the measured 
efficiency on average may be small, clothes dryers must qualify 
individually. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at 
pp. 169-171)
    AHAM commented that DOE should assess the impact on measured 
efficiency by product class. AHAM stated that product classes exist for 
energy conservation standards because of important design, use, and 
utility differences between products that impact energy use, and those 
differences should not be ignored when assessing the impact a test 
procedure change will have on measured energy efficiency. AHAM 
commented that based on DOE's data, there are certain product classes 
for which the de minimus argument does not hold, even if such 
determinations are permitted and even if the field use factor is 
applied (e.g., vented electric compact (120V) clothes dryers). 
Furthermore, comparing the DOE and AHAM data by product class, AHAM 
noted that the product class average impacts differ. For example, DOE's 
test data show a 7.4-percent change for vented gas clothes dryers, 
whereas AHAM's data show a 2.5-percent change in average CEF under the 
proposed test procedure as compared to appendix D1 results. Thus, AHAM 
stated that the overall averages are not comparable. (AHAM, No. 17 at 
p. 8)
    AHAM and ALS opposed the 0.80 field use factor for automatic 
termination control dryers and noted that without that field use factor 
applied, the data show that an adjustment under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is 
necessary. AHAM noted that DOE and AHAM's data, when the field use 
factor is removed, show an average impact on measured energy efficiency 
of -16.9 percent and -19.5 percent, respectively, for the proposed test 
procedure as compared to the appendix D1 test results. In addition, 
AHAM again noted that for certain product classes, the average impact 
is even more significant. AHAM noted that, for example, the impact on 
measured efficiency for vented electric compact (120V) clothes dryers 
in DOE's sample (of which there is only one) without the field use 
factor applied is -42.0 percent as compared to the appendix D1 test 
results. In addition, according to AHAM's data, without the field use 
factor applied, the average impact on measured efficiency for vented 
electric standard clothes dryers is -20.0 percent and the average 
impact on measured efficiency for vented gas clothes dryers is -18.0 
percent as compared to the appendix D1 test results. Furthermore, AHAM 
stated that though the overall average impact on measured efficiency is 
similar between the DOE data (-16.9 percent) and AHAM data (-19.5 
percent), AHAM believes this is coincidental because the individual 
product class averages which factor in to the overall average are quite 
different. AHAM noted, for example, that the percent change for vented 
gas clothes dryers is -14.0 percent based on DOE's data, whereas AHAM's 
data show a -18.0-percent change as compared to appendix D1. (AHAM, No. 
17 at pp. 8-10; ALS, No. 16 at p. 3)
    Samsung stated that it conducted testing on units to evaluate the 
effects of the proposed test procedure change on the measured 
efficiency. Samsung stated that, in general, its test results are 
within the data range of the DOE tests. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 4)
    AHAM commented that DOE does not have sufficient data or a 
transparent model selection process upon which to base either: 1) A 
determination as to whether the proposed test procedure amendments 
impact measured efficiency, or 2) a standards adjustment under 42 
U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). AHAM stated that the basic models on the market 
today are not necessarily the basic models that will be on the market 
when compliance with the January 1, 2015 standards is required. 
According to AHAM, many of those models are still in the design phase 
and may have different platforms than those in current production. AHAM 
stated, however, that its own data are similarly limited and did not 
suggest how DOE could adjust the standard. As a result, AHAM 
recommended that DOE work together with stakeholders to develop a 
process for that adjustment. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 11)
    AHAM and NEEA & NPCC commented that the anti-backsliding provision 
in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) is not intended to apply to standards 
adjustments done per 42 U.S.C. 6293(e). AHAM stated that, otherwise, 
DOE could never address the

[[Page 49637]]

consequences of test procedure changes between standards changes. AHAM 
also stated that if DOE does not apply these test procedure amendments 
until the underlying standards changes in the future, this would no 
longer be an issue. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 11; NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 
15) NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice added that if DOE chooses not to 
adjust the January 1, 2015 standards based on the proposed changes to 
the test procedure, not only will it violate the provisions in section 
42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1), but also the 5-percent energy savings estimated 
for the January 1, 2015 standards could largely be lost. NEEA & NPCC 
and Earthjustice stated that the 4-percent difference in energy use 
when applying the proposed test procedure might be enough to allow most 
of the models now in production to meet the standards and would be a de 
facto weakening of the January 1, 2015 standards. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 
at p. 15; Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 3) ASAP also commented that a 4-
percent increase in CEF is not insignificant considering that the 
January 1, 2015 standards will reduce energy use by about 5 percent 
compared to the current standards. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 10 at p. 169) NEEA & NPCC commented that it is not clear whether or 
not the testing conducted by DOE required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is 
sufficient to properly calculate an appropriate adjustment to the 
standard. NEEA & NPCC disagreed with DOE's determination that no 
adjustment is needed. (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 at p. 15)
    Earthjustice commented that the January 2013 NOPR asserts that the 
proposed test procedure amendments will not alter the measured energy 
efficiency of clothes dryers, but this conclusion is contrary to DOE's 
own findings that the proposed amended test procedure resulted in an 
average increase in CEF of 3.8 percent and a 4.1-percent increase when 
only considering the minimally compliant clothes dryers in DOE's 
sample. Earthjustice stated that because DOE's testing confirms that 
the amendments to the test procedures will alter the measured energy 
efficiency of clothes dryers, EPCA requires that DOE adjust the 
standards for these products. Earthjustice stated that nothing in 42 
U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) suggests that DOE is authorized to determine that the 
extent of any such alteration is insufficient to trigger the obligation 
to adjust the standards and that the ``extent'' of any such alteration 
determines the amount of adjustment required under 42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2). Earthjustice noted that a final rule published on October 
17, 1990 (55 FR 42162) reduced the required energy factor levels for 
electric storage water heaters by 0.02 to account for the impact of 
revisions to the water heater test procedure. (Earthjustice, No. 15 at 
pp. 3-4)
    Earthjustice commented that the need to adjust the standards might 
be different if adjusting the standards under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would 
have no impact on covered products. Earthjustice noted examples of the 
dishwasher, boiler, and refrigerator test procedure amendments where 
the change in the measured energy efficiency is so small that any 
adjustment to the standard would not impact the compliance of any 
covered products. Earthjustice commented that DOE has not suggested 
that a 4-percent change in the level of the clothes dryer standards 
would have no impact on the compliance status of covered models. 
Earthjustice stated that DOE cannot conclude that a 4-percent reduction 
in the stringency of the clothes dryer standards would have a de 
minimus impact, given that DOE determined in the final rule adopting 
the January 1, 2015 standards that a significant share of the clothes 
dryers currently on the market perform just below the adopted 
standards. Earthjustice stated that adding 4-percent to the January 1, 
2015 standard for electric standard[hyphen]size clothes dryers would 
enable many of the clothes dryers meeting the efficiency level below 
the standards to then comply with the standards, reducing the energy 
savings that the January 1, 2015 standards would otherwise have 
delivered. To avoid this weakening of the standards, Earthjustice 
stated that DOE must adjust them as 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) requires. 
(Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 4-5)
    NEEA & NPCC and Earthjustice commented that anti-backsliding 
provisions would not preclude amending the energy conservation 
standards based on the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic 
cycle termination. Earthjustice added that such an adjustment is 
required to avoid backsliding. Earthjustice also noted that 42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(4) provides that DOE's authority to adjust energy conservation 
standards under this subsection shall not affect the Secretary's 
obligation to issue final rules as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. 
According to Earthjustice, this provision means that any adjustments to 
standards that DOE makes under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) do not count as 
amendments to the standards that satisfy DOE's rulemaking obligations 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295. Earthjustice stated that the adjustment process 
established under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) is designed to avoid de facto 
reductions (or increases) in the stringency of standards by ensuring 
that the impacts of test procedure amendments on measured energy 
efficiency are reflected in the level of the standard and that 
application of section 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) preserves the integrity of the 
standards, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (NEEA & NPCC, No. 21 
at pp. 14-15; Earthjustice, No. 15 at pp. 2-3)
    NPCC commented that if the automatic termination field use factor 
is not applied, more units in DOE's test sample would fail to meet the 
January 1, 2015 standard than would pass. (NPCC, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 166-167) ASAP questioned whether, if DOE did 
not adopt the field use factor, the standards would be adjusted so 
that, on average, a clothes dryer that just complies with the January 
1, 2015 standards under the current test procedure would still comply 
with those standards under the new test procedure. (ASAP, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 168)
    As discussed in section III.B.3 and section III.I.3, DOE is 
amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B 
to create a new appendix D2 that includes the testing methods for more 
accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. As 
discussed in section III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2 will not be 
required for use to determine compliance with the January 1, 2015 
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE is not amending 
appendix D1 in today's final rule to include these amendments for 
automatic cycle termination. As a result, DOE determined that the 
amendments for automatic cycle termination adopted in today's final 
rule would not affect a manufacturer's ability to comply with the 
January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers in 10 
CFR 430.32(h)(3).
    DOE is only amending the active mode test procedures in 10 CFR part 
430 subpart B, appendix D1 in today's final to correct the calculation 
of the per-cycle combined total energy consumption and to clarify the 
cycle settings used for testing, the requirements for the gas supply, 
the installation conditions for console lights, the method for 
measuring the drum capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the 
allowable use of a relative humidity meter. Because these amendments to 
appendix D1 do not change the actual testing method, DOE has determined 
that these amendments will not affect the measured efficiency according 
to appendix D1 and will not affect a manufacturer's ability to

[[Page 49638]]

demonstrate compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation 
standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3).
2. Standby Mode and Off Mode
    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also investigated how the proposed 
amendments for standby mode and off mode would affect the measured 
efficiency. DOE stated that because the proposed amendments to the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix D1 
for measuring standby mode and off mode energy consumption would not 
alter the existing measure of energy consumption for clothes dryers 
(EF), the proposed amendments would not affect a manufacturer's ability 
to comply with the current energy conservation standards. 78 FR 152, 
176 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    DOE's amendments in the January 2011 Final Rule specified that 
manufacturers will not be required to use the test procedure provisions 
for standby mode and off mode until the mandatory January 1, 2015 
compliance date of the amended clothes dryer energy conservation 
standards. (10 CFR 430.32(h)(3)) The January 1, 2015 amended energy 
conservation standards are based on CEF, which accounts for standby 
mode and off mode energy consumption. In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 
investigated how the proposed test procedure amendments for standby 
mode and off mode would affect the amended energy conservation 
standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3). DOE stated that the proposed changes 
to the testing methods for measuring standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption do not vary significantly from the methods in the amended 
DOE clothes dryer test procedure in appendix D1 for measuring standby 
power and would not alter the measured efficiency. To confirm this 
assertion, DOE conducted testing on four clothes dryers (three of which 
minimally comply with the existing energy conservation standards) 
according to both the existing appendix D1 and the proposed amendments 
to appendix D1 for standby mode and off mode that are based IEC 
Standard 62301 (Second Edition). The results showed that the measured 
standby power was the same using both methods. Based on these test 
results, DOE stated that the proposed amendments to the clothes dryer 
test procedure for standby mode and off mode would not alter the 
measured CEF. DOE, therefore, did not consider amendments to the energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3) that must be met on 
January 1, 2015. 78 FR 152, 176-177 (Jan. 2, 2013). DOE did not receive 
any comments on this issue. In the absence of comments, and for the 
reasons discussed above, DOE concludes that the amendments to the 
clothes dryer test procedure for standby mode and off mode adopted in 
today's final rule will not alter the measured CEF.
    DOE's amendments continue to clarify that manufacturers are not 
required to use the provisions relating to standby mode and off mode 
energy use in appendix D1 to determine compliance with the energy 
conservation standard until the compliance date of the amended energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers addressing standby mode and 
off mode energy use on January 1, 2015. As a result, the test procedure 
amendments for standby mode and off mode will not affect a 
manufacturer's ability to demonstrate compliance with the current 
energy conservation standards.
    In addition, as discussed in section III.D and section III.I.3, DOE 
is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B to create a new appendix D2 that includes the amendments for 
standby mode and off mode. For the reasons discussed in section 
III.I.3, the newly created appendix D2 will not be required for use to 
determine compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation 
standards for clothes dryers. As a result, DOE determined that the 
amendments to appendix D2 for standby mode and off mode adopted in 
today's final rule will not affect a manufacturer's ability to comply 
with the current energy conservation standards for clothes dryers.

I. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden
    EPCA requires that test procedures shall be reasonably designed to 
produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or 
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use. Test procedures must 
also not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that the proposed amendments for 
automatic cycle termination would change the test cycle for automatic 
termination control dryers to require that a programmed automatic 
termination cycle be used for the test instead of using the maximum 
timed dry setting. DOE stated that the proposed provision to include 
the cool-down period and to allow the clothes dryer to run until the 
completion of the programmed dry cycle would likely be less burdensome 
than the existing test procedure in which the tester is required to 
monitor or make estimates about the RMC of the test load and 
potentially run multiple test cycles to determine when to stop the test 
to achieve the desired final RMC. For timer dryers, DOE stated that the 
proposed amendments would use the same basic test method that is 
currently specified in the DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix D1, except that the test cycle would be stopped 
when the final RMC is between 1.0 percent and 2.5 percent instead of 
between 2.5 percent and 5.0 percent. DOE noted that this would result 
in a slightly longer cycle time, but the additional time would be 
minimal compared to the overall time to set up and conduct the test. 
For these reasons, DOE stated in the January 2013 NOPR that the 
proposed amendments to more accurately account for automatic cycle 
termination would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE also noted 
that the revised test cycle for automatic termination control dryers 
would produce a measured energy use that is more representative of 
consumer use because it directly measures the energy consumption of the 
programmed automatic termination cycle. 78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    AHAM commented that the proposed changes to the test procedure 
regarding automatic cycle termination controls would add significant 
burden to manufacturers if implemented prior to the January 1, 2015 
standards. AHAM indicated that manufacturers have already begun 
designing products to comply with the January 1, 2015 standards using 
the existing appendix D1 and that many manufacturers would have to 
redesign their models in order to meet the standards using the proposed 
test procedure, which would add an unreasonable burden on manufacturers 
during the 3-year lead time. Thus, AHAM urged DOE not to make the test 
procedure changes associated with automatic cycle termination controls 
effective until compliance with future standards (beyond 2015) is 
required so that the impacts on measured energy efficiency can be fully 
considered. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 16)
    The California IOUs commented that the burden for clothes washers 
is greater than for clothes dryers. The California IOUs stated that, in 
the past, clothes washers used significantly more energy than clothes 
dryers and, thus, more testing to determine the energy use was 
justified. The California IOUs commented that clothes washers have

[[Page 49639]]

improved significantly and that clothes dryers now use roughly three 
times as much energy as clothes washers use on average, based on the 
total average annual energy consumption in the field. The California 
IOUs commented that greater test burden would be justified to determine 
clothes dryer energy use because the clothes washer test burden has 
been justified in the past and accepted by industry for what is now a 
much smaller potential energy savings. (California IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 176-179) In response, AHAM commented that the 
test burden of two completely different products (clothes washers and 
clothes dryers) cannot be compared. AHAM stated that although clothes 
washers and clothes dryers are linked products from a consumer and 
product planning perspective, they are not similar products. Thus, AHAM 
did not agree that because the clothes washer test procedure takes 
longer to conduct, it would be acceptable for the clothes dryer test 
procedure to take just as long. AHAM stated that increasing the testing 
time for clothes dryers would increase testing burden on manufacturers, 
irrespective of what the burden is for testing a different product. 
(AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 16-17)
    As discussed in section III.I.3, DOE is amending the clothes dryer 
test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B to create a new appendix 
D2 that includes the testing methods for more accurately measuring the 
effects of automatic cycle termination. The newly created appendix D2 
will not be required for use to determine compliance with the January 
1, 2015 energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE is not 
amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include these amendments 
for automatic cycle termination. As a result, DOE concludes that the 
test procedure amendments and the compliance date for the January 1, 
2015 energy conservation standards and corresponding use of the 
appendix D1 test procedure will not be unduly burdensome. DOE is not 
considering additional test procedure amendments that would increase 
testing burden for the reasons discussed in sections III.B and III.G.
    As discussed in section III.F, DOE is amending 10 CFR part 430 
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 in today's final rule to clarify 
the cycle settings used for testing, the requirements for the gas 
supply, the installation conditions for console lights, the method for 
measuring the drum capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the 
allowable use of a relative humidity meter. Because the amendments to 
clarify the test procedures would not change the actual testing method 
and provide additional options for instrumentations while requiring the 
same resolution and accuracy, DOE has determined that these amendments 
will not result in any added test burden on manufacturers as compared 
to the existing DOE clothes dryer test procedures in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1. In addition, DOE is adopting 
these same provisions in newly created appendix D2. As discussed above, 
the newly created appendix D2 will not be required for use to determine 
compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy conservation standards for 
clothes dryers. For the same reasons discussed above, DOE has 
determined that amendments to clarify the cycle settings used for 
testing, the requirements for the gas supply, the installation 
conditions for console lights, the method for measuring the drum 
capacity, the maximum allowable scale range, and the allowable use of a 
relative humidity meter, will not result in any added test burden on 
manufacturers.
    With regards to the amendments for standby and off mode power 
consumption, DOE concluded in the January 2011 Final Rule that the 
amended test procedure would produce test results that measure the 
standby mode and off mode power consumption of covered products during 
a representative average use cycle as well as annual energy 
consumption, and that the test procedure would not be unduly burdensome 
to conduct.76 FR 972, 1020 (Jan. 6, 2011). The amendments to the DOE 
clothes dryer test procedure for standby mode and off mode are based on 
an updated version of IEC Standard 62301, IEC Standard 62301 (Second 
Edition), which has been the subject of significant review and input 
from interested parties and, thus, continues to be an internationally 
accepted test standard for measuring standby mode and off mode power 
consumption. In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that the provisions 
of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) that it proposed to incorporate 
by reference provide a means to measure power consumption with greater 
accuracy and repeatability than the provisions from IEC Standard 62301 
(First Edition) that were adopted in the January 2011 Final Rule. DOE 
tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR that the proposed 
amendments would also provide measurements representative of average 
consumer use of the product under test. 78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013). 
DOE also noted that interested parties have commented that the testing 
methods in IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) would not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. 77 FR 28805, 28812 (May 16, 2012); 76 FR 58346, 
58350 (Sept. 20, 2011); 77 FR 13888, 13893 (March 7, 2012). The 
potential for increased test burden for certain power consumption 
measurements is also offset by more reasonable requirements for testing 
equipment, while maintaining measurement accuracy deemed acceptable and 
practical by voting members for IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). 
For these reasons, DOE tentatively concluded in the January 2013 NOPR 
that the proposed amendments would produce test results that measure 
the standby mode and off mode power consumption during representative 
use, and that the test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct. 78 FR 152, 177 (Jan. 2, 2013).
    AHAM commented that incorporating by reference IEC Standard 62301 
(Second Edition) will allow for optimal international harmonization and 
will reduce testing burden. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 14) DOE concludes, 
based on this comment and the discussion above, that the amendments for 
standby mode and off mode adopted in today's final rule produce test 
results that measure the standby mode and off mode power consumption 
during representative use, and that the test procedures will not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct.
Certification Requirements
    DOE is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 6299 et seq. to enforce 
compliance with the energy and water conservation standards established 
for certain consumer products. On March 7, 2011, the Department 
revised, consolidated, and streamlined its existing certification, 
compliance, and enforcement regulations for certain consumer products 
and commercial and industrial equipment covered under EPCA, including 
clothes dryers. 76 FR 12422. The certification regulations are codified 
in 10 CFR 429.12 and 429.21 (residential clothes dryers).
    The certification and compliance requirements for residential 
clothes dryers consist of a sampling plan for the selection of units 
for testing, calculation procedures for determining a basic model's 
certified rating, and requirements for the submittal of certification 
reports. Because DOE introduced a new metric (CEF) in the January 2011 
Final Rule, DOE proposed in the January 2013 NOPR to amend the sampling 
provisions in 10 CFR

[[Page 49640]]

429.21(a)(2) to include CEF, along with the existing measure of EF, in 
the list of metrics for which consumers would favor higher values. DOE 
also proposed to amend the dryer-specific certification requirements in 
10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to require manufacturers, when using either 
appendix D or appendix D1, to provide an indication if the clothes 
dryer has automatic termination controls and also to report the hourly 
Btu rating of the burner for gas clothes dryers. DOE also proposed to 
amend 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to require manufacturers, when using appendix 
D1, to include the CEF and to list the cycle setting selections for the 
energy test cycle as recorded in the proposed section 3.4.7 of appendix 
D1 for each basic model.
    ALS supported DOE's proposal to update 10 CFR part 429 to include 
CEF. In addition ALS stated that it did not oppose reporting: (1) 
Whether the clothes dryer has automatic termination controls, (2) the 
hourly Btu rating of the burner, and (3) the cycle setting selections 
for the energy test cycle. (ALS, No. 16 at p. 5) For the reasons 
discussed above, and because DOE did not receive any comments objecting 
to this proposal, DOE is adopting in today's final rule the amendments 
to 10 CFR 429.21 for the additional certification and reporting 
requirements presented above. Even though appendix D2 is not required 
for compliance and representation purposes for the 2015 energy 
conservation standards, DOE is adopting the methodology and allowing 
for its voluntary use early at the discretion of the manufacturer. 
Consequently, DOE is also adopting amendments to 10 CFR 429.21(b)(2) to 
require manufacturers, when using appendix D2, to list the cycle 
setting selections for the energy test cycle.
    In addition, DOE is clarifying in 10 CFR 429.21(a)(3) that the 
certified capacity of any clothes dryer basic model should be the mean 
of the capacities of the units in the sample for the basic model. While 
DOE believes this is current practice since the existing test procedure 
and sampling plan require testing at least two units and measuring the 
drum capacity individually for each, DOE is adopting this provision in 
the final rule for clarity.
Compliance date of final amended test procedures
    DOE noted in the January 2013 NOPR that it proposed amendments to 
the test procedures for clothes dryers in appendix D and appendix D1 in 
10 CFR part 430 subpart B. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), effective 
180 days after DOE prescribes or establishes a new or amended test 
procedure, manufacturers must make representations of energy efficiency 
using that new or amended test procedure. DOE stated in the January 
2013 NOPR that, therefore, effective 180 days after the promulgation of 
any final amendments to the test procedure based on the proposal, 
manufacturers must make representations of energy efficiency, including 
certifications of compliance, using either appendix D or appendix D1. 
Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all representations, 
including certifications of compliance, and may not use appendix D for 
certain representations and appendix D1 for other representations. 78 
FR 152, 177-178 (Jan. 2, 2013). See DOE's existing guidance on this 
topic for additional information, available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/tp_faq_2012-06-29.pdf.
    DOE stated that compliance with DOE's amended standards for clothes 
dryers, and the corresponding use of the test procedures at appendix D1 
for all representations, including certifications of compliance, is 
required as of January 1, 2015. (76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011), 76 FR 
52854 (Aug. 24, 2011))
    AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS opposed the January 1, 2015 compliance 
date based on the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic 
cycle termination. AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS stated that a January 1, 
2015 compliance date significantly undercuts the statutory 3-year lead 
time provided to manufacturers for compliance with a revised standards 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)). AHAM, Whirlpool, and ALS commented that 
manufacturers would not have enough time to prepare for the upcoming 
January 1, 2015 standards compliance date using a proposed revised 
appendix D1 (except for the minor technical corrections), especially 
because the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic cycle 
termination effectively constitutes a new, revised standard due to its 
significant impact on measured efficiency. (AHAM, No. 17 at p. 3; 
Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1-2; ALS, No. 16 at p. 2; AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 172-173)
    AHAM commented that requiring the test procedure amendments for 
automatic cycle termination for the January 1, 2015 compliance date is 
problematic because EPCA ensures that compliant models in use prior to 
the test procedure change and accompanying standards adjustment remain 
in compliance after the change. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)) AHAM stated that 
during the 3-year lead time to an amended standard, manufacturers may 
have many basic models in the design phase that are not yet ``in use,'' 
and thus, may not be afforded the protections the statute was designed 
to provide. According to AHAM, this will result in stranded investments 
for manufacturers and could require manufacturers to redesign some, 
many, or even all of the basic models that were already being 
redesigned to comply with the January 1, 2015 standards using the 
existing appendix D1. AHAM stated that the design process takes time, 
and DOE cannot truncate that lead time provided by EPCA by effectively 
engaging in a standards revision through the test procedure rulemaking 
process. AHAM stated that DOE should not make standards changes that 
impact measured energy as significantly as the proposed automatic 
termination control amendments would during a lead time to amended or 
new standards. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 3-4)
    ALS commented that it has implemented significant design 
construction changes to its products towards compliance with the 
January 1, 2015 standards based on the current test procedure in 
appendix D1. ALS stated that the proposed test procedure for automatic 
cycle termination will require it to make significant new design 
changes to its clothes dryers, which cannot be completed in the 
remaining time before the January 1, 2015 compliance date. ALS 
identified numerous preparatory steps that it must take to meet the 
January 1, 2015 standards under the proposed test procedure.\14\ ALS 
further stated that the investment it has already made may become 
stranded because its designs

[[Page 49641]]

will not allow compliance under DOE's new proposed test procedure. ALS 
commented that it is the low-volume manufacturer of residential clothes 
dryers, and as such, any investment for DOE minimum standard compliance 
normally impacts ALS disproportionally compared to the larger market 
share manufacturers. (ALS, No. 16 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ These preparatory steps include, but are not limited to: 
(1) Generate ideas and concepts to meet the minimum standard with 
the new measurement method; (2) create prototypes for feasibility 
testing; (3) conduct an initial design review to select the best 
design path to pursue; (4) secure input from all cross-functional 
areas (e.g., consumer marketing, sales, manufacturing, etc.); (5) 
create the planned timeline with critical paths identified; (6) 
create the output specifications (e.g., drawings, bill of material, 
quality and manufacturing plan documents, etc.); (7) identify and 
qualify suppliers for new parts; (8) procure prototype parts for a 
assembling multiple prototypes of the full dryer for in-house lab 
tests to confirm performance and reliability requirements can be 
met; (9) conduct full reliability and performance tests in-house (9 
months); (10) conduct field tests with consumers, to learn of any 
unknown deficiencies; (11) conduct a validation and verification 
design review for commitment to procure production tooling & 
equipment; (12) procure production tooling and equipment (usually 
takes 1 year); (13) react to any unanticipated issues learned from 
continued testing; (14) secure all agency approvals; (15) qualify 
production tooling and equipment; (16) conduct factory pilot runs 
using new tooling and equipment; (17) conduct final design and 
safety review; and (18) commit to starting production. (ALS, No. 16 
at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool commented that, based on the data presented in the 
January 2013 NOPR, the proposed test procedure amendments for automatic 
cycle termination will likely require a major switch from 
electromechanical to electronic controls for some basic models. 
Whirlpool indicated that this is not a simple or low-cost change, and 
that even with this significant change in technology, it would not 
necessarily ensure that a product would be compliant. Whirlpool stated 
that such an upgrade is a complete redesign, in many cases requiring 
manufacturers to engage in every phase of the design process. 
(Whirlpool, No. 18 at pp. 1-2)
    AHAM commented that DOE should not proceed with the proposed test 
procedure amendments on the proposed timeline. AHAM commented that if 
DOE moves forward with the proposed automatic termination control 
amendments, the changes to appendix D1 must not be required for 
compliance with the January 1, 2015 standards. Instead, AHAM urged that 
the proposed amendments not be required until a future standards 
revision, during which the impact on measured efficiency can be more 
fully analyzed in an integrated analysis of the effects of both 
standards and test procedure changes under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B). 
AHAM commented that, given the significant impact on measured 
efficiency, compounded by the disparate impact on individual basic 
models and product classes as demonstrated by the range of impacts on 
measured efficiency, DOE should not require the use of the automatic 
termination control test procedure for compliance with the January 1, 
2015 standards. Even if DOE were to adjust the standards pursuant to 
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)), AHAM stated that the statutory 3-year lead-
time would be undercut. (AHAM, No. 17 at pp. 4, 10-11)
    Samsung suggested that if DOE determines that manufacturers of 
units that tested with a lower final RMC and consumed more energy would 
require more time to make the required refinements to the drying 
algorithm, such units should be covered under the EPCA grandfathering 
provision (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3)). Samsung stated that DOE should not 
delay the proposed automatic cycle termination test procedure until the 
next standard change, which could be 2020, thereby potentially delaying 
the possible energy savings by 5 years or more. Samsung supported the 
compliance date of January 1, 2015, noting that the proposed test 
procedure would reflect the real-world energy use of clothes dryers 
having automatic cycle termination. (Samsung, No. 13 at p. 3)
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates, NRDC, and SEDI urged DOE to publish 
a final rule for this rulemaking as soon as possible so that 
manufacturers have adequate lead time before the January 1, 2015 
standards. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 20 at 
p. 2; SEDI, No. 14 at p. 3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates added that 
the consensus standards for clothes dryers were based on the assumption 
that significant additional energy savings would be achieved through a 
change to the test procedure to capture the effectiveness of automatic 
termination controls. The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that it is 
important that the proposed test procedure amendments take effect with 
the January 1, 2015 standards to realize these additional energy 
savings. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 3)
    DOE is not amending appendix D1 in today's final rule to include 
the amendments for measuring the effects of automatic cycle 
termination. DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 
appendix D1 to include the amendments for standby mode and off mode, 
the technical correction to the per-cycle combined total energy 
consumption, the clarifications to the test conditions, and the 
amendments to address the additional test procedure issues, as 
discussed in section III.D through section III.G. As discussed in 
section III.H, these amendments to appendix D1 will not affect a 
manufacturer's ability to comply with the January 1, 2015 standards. As 
discussed above, compliance with DOE's amended standards for clothes 
dryers, and corresponding use of the test procedures at appendix D1 for 
all representations, including certifications of compliance, is 
required as of January 1, 2015.
    However, DOE is amending the clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B to create a new appendix D2 that includes the 
testing methods for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic 
cycle termination. The newly created appendix D2 will not be required 
for use to determine compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy 
conservation standards for clothes dryers. DOE will continue to 
evaluate products on the market and collect data on clothes dryer 
automatic cycle termination. However, manufacturers may elect to use 
appendix D2 early to show compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy 
conservation standards.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    In conducting this review, DOE first determined the potential 
number of affected small entities. The Small Business Administration 
(SBA) considers an entity to be a small business if, together with its 
affiliates, it employs fewer than the threshold number of workers 
specified in 13 CFR part 121 according to the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes. The SBA's Table of Size Standards 
is available at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. The threshold number for NAICS 
classification 335224, Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing, which 
includes clothes dryer manufacturers, is 1,000 employees.
    DOE determined that most of the manufacturers supplying clothes 
dryers

[[Page 49642]]

are large multinational corporations. As part of the most recent energy 
conservation standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers, DOE 
requested comment on whether there are any manufacturer subgroups, 
including potential small businesses, that it should consider for its 
analyses. DOE received a comment from one business stating that it 
should be considered a small business. 77 FR 22454, 22521 (April 21, 
2011).
    DOE then conducted a market survey in which it reviewed the AHAM 
membership directory, product databases (the Air-Conditioning, Heating, 
and Refrigeration Institute; AHAM; California Energy Commission; and 
ENERGY STAR databases), individual company Web sites, and the SBA 
dynamic small business search \15\ to find potential small business 
manufacturers. During manufacturer interviews and at DOE public 
meetings for the energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE asked 
interested parties and industry representatives if they were aware of 
any other small business manufacturers. DOE also contacted various 
companies, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA's 
definition of a small business manufacturer of covered residential 
clothes dryers. DOE screened out companies that did not offer products 
covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the definition of a ``small 
business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is 
available online at: http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE initially identified at least 14 manufacturers of residential 
clothes dryers that sold products in the United States. DOE determined 
that 13 of these companies exceeded the SBA's maximum number of 
employees. Thus, DOE identified only one small business manufacturer of 
residential clothes dryers. This small business has developed a drying 
technology that it installs on existing clothes dryers. DOE notes that 
this small business currently offers for sale two clothes dryer models 
with its drying technology installed. Accordingly, DOE considered the 
economic impacts of the proposed test procedure amendments on this one 
small business manufacturer.
    For active mode, as discussed in section III.F, DOE is amending 10 
CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix D and appendix D1 to clarify: (1) The 
cycle settings used for the test cycle, (2) the requirements for the 
gas supply for gas clothes dryers, (3) the installation conditions for 
console lights, (4) the method for measuring the drum capacity, (5) the 
maximum allowable scale range, and (6) the allowable use of a relative 
humidity meter. DOE determined that because these test procedure 
amendments do not change the actual testing method or time required for 
testing and provide additional options for instrumentation while 
requiring the same resolution and accuracy, these amendments will not 
result in any added test burden on manufacturers as compared to the 
existing DOE clothes dryer test procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
B, appendix D and appendix D1.
    For standby mode and off mode, DOE has determined that the test 
procedure amendments adopted in today's final rule, presented in 
section III.D, will not represent a significant economic impact. DOE 
notes that industry-standard instruments, such as the Yokogawa WT210/
WT230 digital power meter, that meet the standby mode and off mode 
requirements of the current DOE clothes dryer test procedure in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1, also meet the requirements of the 
amendments for standby mode and off mode adopted in today's final rule. 
DOE also notes that these tests can be conducted in the same facilities 
used for the current standby mode and off mode testing of these 
products, so it is anticipated that manufacturers would not incur any 
additional facilities costs as a result of the test procedure 
amendments. As a result, DOE does not expect any increase in testing 
equipment costs based on the standby mode and off mode test procedure 
amendments. DOE also notes that the duration of a standby mode or off 
mode test period using the current test procedure in appendix D1 is 40 
to 50 minutes. As discussed in section III.D, DOE recognizes that the 
test duration using the standby and off mode test procedure adopted in 
today's final rule may range from 15 minutes to 3 hours depending on 
the stability of the measured power consumption. However, based on 
DOE's testing of four clothes dryers from four different manufacturers 
comprising over 78 percent of the total clothes dryer market share, DOE 
expects the test duration using the standby and off mode test procedure 
adopted in today's final rule to be approximately 30 to 45 minutes for 
the majority of clothes dryers currently available on the market. DOE 
also notes that most third party testing laboratories already use these 
or similar industry-standard power meters for clothes dryer testing. As 
a result, if the small manufacturer decides to use a third party 
testing laboratory, DOE does not expect there to be an increase in cost 
for standby mode and off mode testing. In addition, as discussed in 
section III.I.1, interested parties have commented that incorporating 
by reference IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) will allow for optimal 
international harmonization and will reduce testing burden.
    For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that this final rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the 
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of clothes dryers must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the DOE test procedures for clothes dryers, including any amendments 
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for 
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered 
consumer products and commercial equipment, including clothes dryers. 
(76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement 
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and 
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to 
average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for residential 
clothes dryers. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of 
actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

[[Page 49643]]

seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 
Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without affecting the 
amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will 
not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is 
covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, 
which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing 
rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. 
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental 
impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
regulations for energy conservation for the products that are the 
subject of today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption 
from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(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 has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's 
final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined 
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a 
mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in 
any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2)

[[Page 49644]]

is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the 
regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it will not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    Today's final rule incorporates testing methods contained in the 
commercial standard, IEC Standard 62301, ``Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Edition 2.0, 2011-01. DOE 
has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully 
complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, i.e., 
whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public 
participation, comment, and review. DOE has consulted with both the 
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has 
received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 
below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
2. Section 429.21 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  429.21  Residential clothes dryers.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Any represented value of the energy factor, combined energy 
factor, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for 
which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal 
to the lower of:
* * * * *
    (3) The capacity of a basic model reported in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be the mean of the capacities 
measured for each tested unit of the basic model.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information: When using 
appendix D, the energy factor in pounds per kilowatt hours (lb/kWh), 
the capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for 
electric dryers only), an indication if the dryer has automatic 
termination controls, and the hourly British thermal unit (Btu) rating 
of the burner (for gas dryers only); when using appendix D1, the 
combined energy factor in pounds per kilowatt hours (lb/kWh), the 
capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the voltage in volts (V) (for electric 
dryers only), an indication if the dryer has automatic termination 
controls, and the hourly Btu rating of the burner (for gas dryers 
only); when using appendix D2, the combined energy factor in pounds per 
kilowatt hours (lb/kWh), the capacity in cubic feet (cu ft), the 
voltage in volts (V) (for electric dryers only), an indication if the 
dryer has automatic termination controls, the hourly Btu rating of the 
burner (for gas dryers only), and a list of the cycle setting 
selections for the energy test cycle as recorded in section 3.4.7 of 
appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


Sec.  430.3  [Amended]

0
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Adding ``and D2'' after ``appendix D1'' in paragraph (h)(4).
0
b. Removing ``appendix D1,'' from paragraph (m)(1); and
0
c. Adding ``D1,'' and ``D2,'' after ``appendices C1,'' in (m)(2).
0
5. Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the Note after the appendix heading;
0
b. Revising sections 2.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.4 
in section 2. Test Conditions; and
0
c. Revising sections 3.1 and 3.3 in section 3. Test Methods and 
Measurements.
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 49645]]

Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers

    Note: Effective February 10, 2014, manufacturers must make 
representations of energy efficiency, including certifications of 
compliance, using appendix D. Compliance with DOE's amended 
standards for clothes dryers, and corresponding use of the test 
procedures at appendix D1 for all representations, including 
certifications of compliance, is required as of January 1, 2015. 
Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all representations, 
including certifications of compliance, and may not use appendix D 
for certain representations and appendix D1 for other 
representations. The procedures in appendix D2 need not be performed 
to determine compliance with energy conservation standards for 
clothes dryers at this time. However, manufacturers may elect to use 
the amended appendix D, D1 or D2 early.

* * * * *

2. Testing Conditions

    2.1 Installation. Install the clothes dryer in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions as shipped with the unit. If the 
manufacturer's instructions do not specify the installation 
requirements for a certain component, it shall be tested in the as-
shipped condition. The dryer exhaust shall be restricted by adding 
the AHAM exhaust simulator described in 3.3.5 of HLD-1. All external 
joints should be taped to avoid air leakage. Disconnect all lights, 
such as task lights, that do not provide any information related to 
the drying process on the clothes dryer and that do not consume more 
than 10 watts during the clothes dryer test cycle. Control setting 
indicator lights showing the cycle progression, temperature or 
dryness settings, or other cycle functions that cannot be turned off 
during the test cycle shall not be disconnected during the active 
mode test cycle.
* * * * *
    2.3.2 Gas supply.
    2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes 
dryer at a normal inlet test pressure immediately ahead of all 
controls at 7 to 10 inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is 
equipped with a gas appliance pressure regulator, the regulator 
outlet pressure at the normal test pressure shall be within 10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the 
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the 
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The 
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the 
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within 
 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer 
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test 
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as 
necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The natural gas 
supplied should have a heating value of approximately 1,025 Btus per 
standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in 
Btus per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the 
test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the 
manufacturer conducting the test using a standard continuous flow 
calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of 
bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as 
accurate a rating as could be obtained from measurements with a 
standard continuous flow calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
    2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes 
dryer at a normal inlet test pressure immediately ahead of all 
controls at 11 to 13 inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is 
equipped with a gas appliance pressure regulator, the regulator 
outlet pressure at the normal test pressure shall be within 10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the 
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the 
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The 
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the 
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within 
 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer 
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test 
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as 
necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The propane gas 
supplied should have a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btus per 
standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, Hp, in 
Btus per standard cubic foot, for the propane gas to be used in the 
test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the 
manufacturer conducting the test using a standard continuous flow 
calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of 
bottled gas whose Btu rating is certified to be at least as accurate 
a rating as could be obtained from measurement with a standard 
continuous calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
* * * * *
    2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a 
range of 0 to a maximum of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 
0.2 ounces and a maximum error no greater than 0.3 percent of any 
measured value within the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
    2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity measurements. The scale 
should have a range of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with resolution 
of 0.50 pounds and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of 
the measured value.
* * * * *
    2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb 
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F. A relative humidity meter with a maximum 
error tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements 
for the dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error 
tolerance of 2 percent relative humidity would be 
acceptable for measuring the ambient humidity.
* * * * *

3. Test Procedures and Measurements

    3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum capacity by sealing all 
openings in the drum except the loading port with a plastic bag, and 
ensure that all corners and depressions are filled and that there 
are no extrusions of the plastic bag through any openings in the 
interior of the drum. Support the dryer's rear drum surface on a 
platform scale to prevent deflection of the dryer, and record the 
weight of the empty dryer. Fill the drum with water to a level 
determined by the intersection of the door plane and the loading 
port (i.e., the uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with 
the door seal). Record the temperature of the water and then the 
weight of the dryer with the added water and then determine the mass 
of the water in pounds. Add the appropriate volume to account for 
any space in the drum interior not measured by water fill (e.g., the 
space above the uppermost edge of the drum within a curved door) and 
subtract the appropriate volume to account for space that is 
measured by water fill but cannot be used when the door is closed 
(e.g., space occupied by the door when closed). The drum capacity is 
calculated as follows:
C = w/d +/- volume adjustment
C = capacity in cubic feet.
w = mass of water in pounds.
d = density of water at the measured temperature in pounds per cubic 
foot.
* * * * *
    3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes dryer at the maximum 
temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the maximum 
time setting. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect 
the temperature or time settings shall be tested in the as-shipped 
position. If the clothes dryer does not have a separate temperature 
setting selection on the control panel, the maximum time setting 
should be used for the drying test cycle. Dry the test load until 
the moisture content of the test load is between 2.5 percent and 5.0 
percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load, but do not permit 
the dryer to advance into cool down. If required, reset the timer or 
automatic dry control.
* * * * *


0
6. Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended:
0
a. By revising the Note after the appendix heading;
0
b. In section 1. Definitions, by revising section 1.11;
0
c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by:
0
1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.4.1, 
2.4.1.2, 2.4.4, and 2.4.7;
0
2. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3;
0
d. In section 3. Test Methods and Measurements, by revising sections 
3.1, 3.3, and 3.6; and
0
e. In section 4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements, 
by revising section 4.6.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers

    Note: Effective February 10, 2014, manufacturers must make 
representations of

[[Page 49646]]

energy efficiency, including certifications of compliance, using 
appendix D. Compliance with DOE's amended standards for clothes 
dryers, and corresponding use of the test procedures at appendix D1 
for all representations, including certifications of compliance, is 
required as of January 1, 2015. Manufacturers must use a single 
appendix for all representations, including certifications of 
compliance, and may not use appendix D for certain representations 
and appendix D1 for other representations. The procedures in 
appendix D2 need not be performed to determine compliance with 
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers at this time. 
However, manufacturers may elect to use the amended appendix D, D1, 
or D2 early.

1. Definitions

* * * * *
    1.11 ``IEC 62301'' (Second Edition) means the test standard 
published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 
titled ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby 
power,'' Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
* * * * *

2. Testing Conditions

    2.1 Installation.
    2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both conventional clothes dryers and 
ventless clothes dryers, as defined in sections 1.7 and 1.19 of this 
appendix, install the clothes dryer in accordance with manufacturer's 
instructions as shipped with the unit. If the manufacturer's 
instructions do not specify the installation requirements for a certain 
component, it shall be tested in the as-shipped condition. Where the 
manufacturer gives the option to use the dryer both with and without a 
duct, the dryer shall be tested without the exhaust simulator described 
in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3). All external joints should be taped to avoid air leakage. For 
drying testing, disconnect all lights, such as task lights, that do not 
provide any information related to the drying process on the clothes 
dryer and that do not consume more than 10 watts during the clothes 
dryer test cycle. Control setting indicator lights showing the cycle 
progression, temperature or dryness settings, or other cycle functions 
that cannot be turned off during the test cycle shall not be 
disconnected during the active mode test cycle. For standby and off 
mode testing, the clothes dryer shall also be installed in accordance 
with section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), disregarding the 
provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification, 
and testing of relevant modes. For standby and off mode testing, all 
lighting systems shall remain connected.
    2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers. For conventional clothes dryers, 
as defined in section 1.7 of this appendix, the dryer exhaust shall be 
restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator described in section 
3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless clothes dryers, as 
defined in section 1.19, the dryer shall be tested without the AHAM 
exhaust simulator. If the manufacturer gives the option to use a 
ventless clothes dryer, with or without a condensation box, the dryer 
shall be tested with the condensation box installed. For ventless 
clothes dryers, the condenser unit of the dryer must remain in place 
and not be taken out of the dryer for any reason between tests.
* * * * *
    2.2.2 For standby and off mode testing, maintain room ambient air 
temperature conditions as specified in section 4, paragraph 4.2 of IEC 
62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3)
* * * * *
    2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. For the clothes dryer standby mode 
and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage waveform 
indicated in section 4, paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). If the power measuring 
instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record the total 
harmonic content during the test measurement period, it is acceptable 
to measure and record the total harmonic content immediately before and 
after the test measurement period.
    2.3.2 Gas supply.
    2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes dryer 
immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 to 10 inches of 
water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas appliance 
pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an outlet 
pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within 10 
percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the 
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the 
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The 
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the 
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within 
 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer 
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test 
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as necessary 
to achieve the required Btu rating. The natural gas supplied should 
have a heating value of approximately 1,025 Btus per standard cubic 
foot. The actual heating value, Hn2, in Btus per standard 
cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the test shall be 
obtained either from measurements made by the manufacturer conducting 
the test using a standard continuous flow calorimeter as described in 
section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled natural gas whose Btu 
rating is certified to be at least as accurate a rating as could be 
obtained from measurements with a standard continuous flow calorimeter 
as described in section 2.4.6.
    2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes dryer 
immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 11 to 13 inches of 
water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas appliance 
pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an outlet 
pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within 10 
percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer in the 
installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever the 
manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. The 
hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. If the 
requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner within 
 5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer 
cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas inlet test 
pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be modified as necessary 
to achieve the required Btu rating. The propane gas supplied should 
have a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btus per standard cubic 
foot. The actual heating value, Hp, in Btus per standard 
cubic foot, for the propane gas to be used in the test shall be 
obtained either from measurements made by the manufacturer conducting 
the test using a standard continuous flow calorimeter as described in 
section 2.4.6 or by the purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating is 
certified to be at least as accurate a rating as could be obtained from 
measurement with a standard continuous calorimeter as described in 
section 2.4.6.
* * * * *
    2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a range 
of 0 to a maximum of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 0.2 ounces 
and a maximum error no greater than 0.3

[[Page 49647]]

percent of any measured value within the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
    2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity measurements. The scale 
should have a range of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with resolution of 
0.50 pounds and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the 
measured value.
* * * * *
    2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb 
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F. A relative humidity meter with a maximum error 
tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements for the 
dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error tolerance of 
 2 percent relative humidity would be acceptable for 
measuring the ambient humidity.
* * * * *
    2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used to 
measure standby mode and off mode power consumption shall meet the 
requirements specified in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second 
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). If the power 
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record 
the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio during the 
test measurement period, it is acceptable to measure the crest factor, 
power factor, and maximum current ratio immediately before and after 
the test measurement period.
* * * * *
    3. Test Procedures and Measurements
    3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum capacity by sealing all 
openings in the drum except the loading port with a plastic bag, and 
ensuring that all corners and depressions are filled and that there are 
no extrusions of the plastic bag through any openings in the interior 
of the drum. Support the dryer's rear drum surface on a platform scale 
to prevent deflection of the drum surface, and record the weight of the 
empty dryer. Fill the drum with water to a level determined by the 
intersection of the door plane and the loading port (i.e., the 
uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with the door seal). 
Record the temperature of the water and then the weight of the dryer 
with the added water and then determine the mass of the water in 
pounds. Add the appropriate volume to account for any space in the drum 
interior not measured by water fill (e.g., the space above the 
uppermost edge of the drum within a curved door) and subtract the 
appropriate volume to account for space that is measured by water fill 
but cannot be used when the door is closed (e.g., space occupied by the 
door when closed). The drum capacity is calculated as follows:

C = w/d +/- volume adjustment
C = capacity in cubic feet.
w = mass of water in pounds.
d = density of water at the measured temperature in pounds per cubic 
foot.
* * * * *
    3.3 Test cycle. Operate the clothes dryer at the maximum 
temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the maximum time 
setting. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect the 
temperature or time settings shall be tested in the as-shipped 
position. If the clothes dryer does not have a separate temperature 
setting selection on the control panel, the maximum time setting should 
be used for the drying test cycle. Dry the load until the moisture 
content of the test load is between 2.5 and 5.0 percent of the bone-dry 
weight of the test load, at which point the test cycle is stopped, but 
do not permit the dryer to advance into cool down. If required, reset 
the timer to increase the length of the drying cycle. After stopping 
the test cycle, remove and weigh the test load. The clothes dryer shall 
not be stopped intermittently in the middle of the test cycle for any 
reason. Record the data specified by section 3.4 of this appendix. If 
the dryer automatically stops during a cycle because the condensation 
box is full of water, the test is stopped, and the test run is invalid, 
in which case the condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run 
from the beginning. For ventless dryers, as defined in section 1.19 of 
this appendix, during the time between two cycles, the door of the 
dryer shall be closed except for loading (and unloading).
* * * * *
    3.6 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the testing 
conditions set forth in Section 2 ``Testing Conditions'' of this 
appendix. For clothes dryers that take some time to enter a stable 
state from a higher power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 
5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes dryer to reach 
the lower power state before proceeding with the test measurement. 
Follow the test procedure specified in section 5, paragraph 5.3.2 of 
IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each possible mode as 
described in sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of this appendix.
* * * * *

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

* * * * *
    4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy consumption expressed in 
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the per-cycle combined total energy 
consumption, ECC, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and 
defined for an electric clothes dryer as:

ECC = Ece + ETSO

Where:

Ece = the energy recorded in section 4.1 of this appendix, 
and
ETSO = the energy recorded in section 4.5 of this appendix, 
and defined for a gas clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ecg + ETSO

Where:

Ecg = the energy recorded in section 4.4 of this appendix, 
and
ETSO = the energy recorded in section 4.5 of this appendix.
* * * * *


0
7. Appendix D2 is added to Subpart B of Part 430 to read as follows:

Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers

    Note: The procedures in appendix D2 need not be performed to 
determine compliance with energy conservation standards for clothes 
dryers at this time. Manufacturers may elect to use the amended 
appendix D2 early to show compliance with the January 1, 2015 energy 
conservation standards. Manufacturers must use a single appendix for 
all representations, including certifications of compliance, and may 
not use appendix D1 for certain representations and appendix D2 for 
other representations.

1. Definitions

    1.1 ``Active mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is 
connected to a main power source, has been activated and is 
performing the main function of tumbling the clothing with or 
without heated or unheated forced air circulation to remove moisture 
from the clothing, remove wrinkles or prevent wrinkling of the 
clothing, or both.
    1.2 ``AHAM'' means the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers.
    1.3 ``AHAM HLD-1'' means the test standard published by the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, titled ``Household 
Tumble Type Clothes Dryers,'' (2009), AHAM HLD-1-2009 (incorporated 
by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    1.4 ``Automatic termination control'' means a dryer control 
system with a sensor which monitors either the dryer load 
temperature or its moisture content and with a controller which 
automatically terminates the drying process. A mark, detent, or 
other visual indicator or detent which indicates a preferred 
automatic termination control setting must be present if the dryer 
is to be classified as having an ``automatic

[[Page 49648]]

termination control.'' A mark is a visible single control setting on 
one or more dryer controls.
    1.5 ``Automatic termination control dryer'' means a clothes 
dryer which can be preset to carry out at least one sequence of 
operations to be terminated by means of a system assessing, directly 
or indirectly, the moisture content of the load. An automatic 
termination control dryer with supplementary timer or that may also 
be manually controlled shall be tested as an automatic termination 
control dryer.
    1.6 ``Bone dry'' means a condition of a load of test clothes 
which has been dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum 
of 10 minutes, removed, and weighed before cool down, and then dried 
again for 10-minute periods until the final weight change of the 
load is 1 percent or less.
    1.7 ``Compact'' or ``compact size'' means a clothes dryer with a 
drum capacity of less than 4.4 cubic feet.
    1.8 ``Conventional clothes dryer'' means a clothes dryer that 
exhausts the evaporated moisture from the cabinet.
    1.9 ``Cool down'' means that portion of the clothes drying cycle 
when the added gas or electric heat is terminated and the clothes 
continue to tumble and dry within the drum.
    1.10 ``Cycle'' means a sequence of operation of a clothes dryer 
which performs a clothes drying operation, and may include 
variations or combinations of the functions of heating, tumbling, 
and drying.
    1.11 ``Drum capacity'' means the volume of the drying drum in 
cubic feet.
    1.12 ``IEC 62301'' (Second Edition) means the test standard 
published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 
titled ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby 
power,'' Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    1.13 ``Inactive mode'' means a standby mode that facilitates the 
activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote 
control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous 
status display.
    1.14 ``Moisture content'' means the ratio of the weight of water 
contained by the test load to the bone-dry weight of the test load, 
expressed as a percent.
    1.15 ``Moisture sensing control'' means a system which utilizes 
a moisture sensing element within the dryer drum that monitors the 
amount of moisture in the clothes and automatically terminates the 
dryer cycle.
    1.16 ``Off mode'' means a mode in which the clothes dryer is 
connected to a main power source and is not providing any active or 
standby mode function, and where the mode may persist for an 
indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the 
product is in the off position is included within the clasification 
of an off mode.
    1.17 ``Standard size'' means a clothes dryer with a drum 
capacity of 4.4 cubic feet or greater.
    1.18 ``Standby mode'' means any product modes where the energy 
using product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or 
more of the following user-oriented or protective functions which 
may persist for an indefinite time:
    (a) To facilitate the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch 
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer.
    (b) Continuous functions, including information or status 
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a 
continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a 
display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (e.g., switching) and 
that operates on a continuous basis.
    1.19 ``Temperature sensing control'' means a system which 
monitors dryer exhaust air temperature and automatically terminates 
the dryer cycle.
    1.20 ``Timer dryer'' means a clothes dryer that can be preset to 
carry out at least one operation to be terminated by a timer, but 
may also be manually controlled, and does not include any automatic 
termination function.
    1.21 ``Ventless clothes dryer'' means a clothes dryer that uses 
a closed-loop system with an internal condenser to remove the 
evaporated moisture from the heated air. The moist air is not 
discharged from the cabinet.

2. Testing Conditions

    2.1 Installation.
    2.1.1 All clothes dryers. For both conventional clothes dryers 
and ventless clothes dryers, as defined in sections 1.8 and 1.21 of 
this appendix, install the clothes dryer in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions as shipped with the unit. If the 
manufacturer's instructions do not specify the installation 
requirements for a certain component, it shall be tested in the as-
shipped condition. Where the manufacturer gives the option to use 
the dryer both with and without a duct, the dryer shall be tested 
without the exhaust simulator described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM 
HLD-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). All external 
joints should be taped to avoid air leakage. For drying testing, 
disconnect all lights, such as task lights, that do not provide any 
information related to the drying process on the clothes dryer and 
that do not consume more than 10 watts during the clothes dryer test 
cycle. Control setting indicator lights showing the cycle 
progression, temperature or dryness settings, or other cycle 
functions that cannot be turned off during the test cycle shall not 
be disconnected during the active mode test cycle. For standby and 
off mode testing, the clothes dryer shall also be installed in 
accordance with section 5, paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second 
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), disregarding 
the provisions regarding batteries and the determination, 
classification, and testing of relevant modes. For standby and off 
mode testing, all lighting systems shall remain connected.
    2.1.2 Conventional clothes dryers. For conventional clothes 
dryers, as defined in section 1.8 of this appendix, the dryer 
exhaust shall be restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust simulator 
described in section 3.3.5.1 of AHAM HLD-1 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.1.3 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless clothes dryers, as 
defined in section 1.21, the dryer shall be tested without the AHAM 
exhaust simulator. If the manufacturer gives the option to use a 
ventless clothes dryer, with or without a condensation box, the 
dryer shall be tested with the condensation box installed. For 
ventless clothes dryers, the condenser unit of the dryer must remain 
in place and not be taken out of the dryer for any reason between 
tests.
    2.2 Ambient temperature and humidity.
    2.2.1 For drying testing, maintain the room ambient air 
temperature at 75  3 [ordm]F and the room relative 
humidity at 50 10 percent relative humidity.
    2.2.2 For standby and off mode testing, maintain room ambient 
air temperature conditions as specified in section 4, paragraph 4.2 
of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3).
    2.3 Energy supply.
    2.3.1 Electrical supply. Maintain the electrical supply at the 
clothes dryer terminal block within 1 percent of 120/240 or 120/208Y 
or 120 volts as applicable to the particular terminal block wiring 
system and within 1 percent of the nameplate frequency as specified 
by the manufacturer. If the dryer has a dual voltage conversion 
capability, conduct the test at the highest voltage specified by the 
manufacturer.
    2.3.1.1 Supply voltage waveform. For the clothes dryer standby 
mode and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage 
waveform indicated in section 4, paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). If 
the power measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure 
and record the total harmonic content during the test measurement 
period, it is acceptable to measure and record the total harmonic 
content immediately before and after the test measurement period.
    2.3.2 Gas supply.
    2.3.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes 
dryer immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 7 to 10 
inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 
appliance pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an 
outlet pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within 
10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer 
in the installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever 
the manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. 
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. 
If the requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner 
within  5 percent of the rating specified by the 
manufacturer cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas 
inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be 
modified as necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The 
natural gas supplied should have a heating value of approximately 
1,025 Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, 
Hn2, in Btus per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas 
to be used in the test shall be obtained either from measurements 
made by the manufacturer conducting the test using a standard 
continuous flow calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the 
purchase of bottled natural gas whose Btu rating is certified to be 
at least as accurate a rating as

[[Page 49649]]

could be obtained from measurements with a standard continuous flow 
calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
    2.3.2.2 Propane gas. Maintain the gas supply to the clothes 
dryer immediately ahead of all controls at a pressure of 11 to 13 
inches of water column. If the clothes dryer is equipped with a gas 
appliance pressure regulator for which the manufacturer specifies an 
outlet pressure, the regulator outlet pressure shall be within 
10 percent of the value recommended by the manufacturer 
in the installation manual, on the nameplate sticker, or wherever 
the manufacturer makes such a recommendation for the basic model. 
The hourly Btu rating of the burner shall be maintained within 
5 percent of the rating specified by the manufacturer. 
If the requirement to maintain the hourly Btu rating of the burner 
within  5 percent of the rating specified by the 
manufacturer cannot be achieved under the allowable range in gas 
inlet test pressure, the orifice of the gas burner should be 
modified as necessary to achieve the required Btu rating. The 
propane gas supplied should have a heating value of approximately 
2,500 Btus per standard cubic foot. The actual heating value, 
Hp, in Btus per standard cubic foot, for the propane gas 
to be used in the test shall be obtained either from measurements 
made by the manufacturer conducting the test using a standard 
continuous flow calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6 or by the 
purchase of bottled gas whose Btu rating is certified to be at least 
as accurate a rating as could be obtained from measurement with a 
standard continuous calorimeter as described in section 2.4.6.
    2.4 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the 
following instruments as appropriate.
    2.4.1 Weighing scale for test cloth. The scale shall have a 
range of 0 to a maximum of 60 pounds with a resolution of at least 
0.2 ounces and a maximum error no greater than 0.3 percent of any 
measured value within the range of 3 to 15 pounds.
    2.4.1.2 Weighing scale for drum capacity measurements. The scale 
should have a range of 0 to a maximum of 600 pounds with resolution 
of 0.50 pounds and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of 
the measured value.
    2.4.2 Kilowatt-hour meter. The kilowatt-hour meter shall have a 
resolution of 0.001 kilowatt-hours and a maximum error no greater 
than 0.5 percent of the measured value.
    2.4.3 Gas meter. The gas meter shall have a resolution of 0.001 
cubic feet and a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the 
measured value.
    2.4.4 Dry and wet bulb psychrometer. The dry and wet bulb 
psychrometer shall have an error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F. A relative humidity meter with a maximum 
error tolerance expressed in [deg]F equivalent to the requirements 
for the dry and wet bulb psychrometer or with a maximum error 
tolerance of  2 percent relative humidity would be 
acceptable for measuring the ambient humidity.
    2.4.5 Temperature. The temperature sensor shall have an error no 
greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F.
    2.4.6 Standard Continuous Flow Calorimeter. The calorimeter 
shall have an operating range of 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot. 
The maximum error of the basic calorimeter shall be no greater than 
0.2 percent of the actual heating value of the gas used in the test. 
The indicator readout shall have a maximum error no greater than 0.5 
percent of the measured value within the operating range and a 
resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading of the indicator 
instrument.
    2.4.7 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used 
to measure standby mode and off mode power consumption shall meet 
the requirements specified in section 4, paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). If 
the power measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure 
and record the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio 
during the test measurement period, it is acceptable to measure the 
crest factor, power factor, and maximum current ratio immediately 
before and after the test measurement period.
    2.5 Lint trap. Clean the lint trap thoroughly before each test 
run.
    2.6 Test Cloths.
    2.6.1 Energy test cloth. The energy test cloth shall be clean 
and consist of the following:
    (a) Pure finished bleached cloth, made with a momie or granite 
weave, which is a blended fabric of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent 
polyester and weighs within +10 percent of 5.75 ounces per square 
yard after test cloth preconditioning, and has 65 ends on the warp 
and 57 picks on the fill. The individual warp and fill yarns are a 
blend of 50-percent cotton and 50-percent polyester fibers.
    (b) Cloth material that is 24 inches by 36 inches and has been 
hemmed to 22 inches by 34 inches before washing. The maximum 
shrinkage after five washes shall not be more than 4 percent on the 
length and width.
    (c) The number of test runs on the same energy test cloth shall 
not exceed 25 runs.
    2.6.2 Energy stuffer cloths. The energy stuffer cloths shall be 
made from energy test cloth material, and shall consist of pieces of 
material that are 12 inches by 12 inches and have been hemmed to 10 
inches by 10 inches before washing. The maximum shrinkage after five 
washes shall not be more than 4 percent on the length and width. The 
number of test runs on the same energy stuffer cloth shall not 
exceed 25 runs after test cloth preconditioning.
    2.6.3 Test Cloth Preconditioning.
    A new test cloth load and energy stuffer cloths shall be treated 
as follows:
    (1) Bone dry the load to a weight change of  1 
percent, or less, as prescribed in section 1.6 of this appendix.
    (2) Place the test cloth load in a standard clothes washer set 
at the maximum water fill level. Wash the load for 10 minutes in 
soft water (17 parts per million hardness or less), using 60.8 grams 
of AHAM standard test detergent Formula 3. Wash water temperature 
should be maintained at 140 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (60 [deg]C 
2.7 [deg]C). Rinse water temperature is to be controlled 
at 100 [deg]F 5 [deg]F (37.7 [deg]C 2.7 
[deg]C).
    (3) Rinse the load again at the same water temperature.
    (4) Bone dry the load as prescribed in section 1.6 of this 
appendix and weigh the load.
    (5) This procedure is repeated until there is a weight change of 
1 percent or less.
    (6) A final cycle is to be a hot water wash with no detergent, 
followed by two warm water rinses.
    2.7 Test loads.
    2.7.1 Compact size dryer load. Prepare a bone-dry test load of 
energy cloths that weighs 3.00 pounds  .03 pounds. The 
test load can be adjusted to achieve proper weight by adding energy 
stuffer cloths, but no more than five stuffer cloths may be added 
per load. Dampen the load by agitating it in water whose temperature 
is 60[emsp14][deg]F  5[emsp14][deg]F and consists of 0 
to 17 parts per million hardness for approximately 2 minutes to 
saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test load by 
spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is between 
52.5 and 57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. Make 
a final mass adjustment, such that the moisture content is 57.5 
percent  0.33 percent by adding water uniformly 
distributed among all of the test clothes in a very fine spray using 
a spray bottle.
    2.7.2 Standard size dryer load. Prepare a bone-dry test load of 
energy cloths that weighs 8.45 pounds  .085 pounds. The 
test load can be adjusted to achieve proper weight by adding stuffer 
cloths, but no more than five stuffer cloths may be added per load. 
Dampen the load by agitating it in water whose temperature is 
60[emsp14][deg]F  5[emsp14][deg]F and consists of 0 to 
17 parts per million hardness for approximately 2 minutes to 
saturate the fabric. Then, extract water from the wet test load by 
spinning the load until the moisture content of the load is between 
52.5 and 57.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. Make 
a final mass adjustment, such that the moisture content is 57.5 
percent  0.33 percent by adding water uniformly 
distributed among all of the test clothes in a very fine spray using 
a spray bottle.
    2.7.3 Method of loading. Load the energy test cloths by grasping 
them in the center, shaking them to hang loosely, and then dropping 
them in the dryer at random.
    2.8 Clothes dryer preconditioning.
    2.8.1 Conventional clothes dryers. For conventional clothes 
dryers, before any test cycle, operate the dryer without a test load 
in the non-heat mode for 15 minutes or until the discharge air 
temperature is varying less than 1[emsp14][deg]F for 10 minutes--
whichever is longer--in the test installation location with the 
ambient conditions within the specified test condition tolerances of 
2.2.
    2.8.2 Ventless clothes dryers. For ventless clothes dryers, 
before any test cycle, the steady-state machine temperature must be 
equal to ambient room temperature described in 2.2.1. This may be 
done by leaving the machine at ambient room conditions for at least 
12 hours between tests.

3. Test Procedures and Measurements

    3.1 Drum Capacity. Measure the drum capacity by sealing all 
openings in the drum except the loading port with a plastic bag,

[[Page 49650]]

and ensuring that all corners and depressions are filled and that 
there are no extrusions of the plastic bag through any openings in 
the interior of the drum. Support the dryer's rear drum surface on a 
platform scale to prevent deflection of the drum surface, and record 
the weight of the empty dryer. Fill the drum with water to a level 
determined by the intersection of the door plane and the loading 
port (i.e., the uppermost edge of the drum that is in contact with 
the door seal). Record the temperature of the water and then the 
weight of the dryer with the added water and then determine the mass 
of the water in pounds. Add the appropriate volume to account for 
any space in the drum interior not measured by water fill (e.g., the 
space above the uppermost edge of the drum within a curved door) and 
subtract the appropriate volume to account for the space that is 
measured by water fill but cannot be used when the door is closed 
(e.g., space occupied by the door when closed). The drum capacity is 
calculated as follows:

C= w/d +/- volume adjustment
C= capacity in cubic feet.
w= mass of water in pounds.
d= density of water at the measured temperature in pounds per cubic 
foot.
    3.2 Dryer Loading. Load the dryer as specified in 2.7.
    3.3 Test cycle.
    3.3.1 Timer dryers. For timer dryers, as defined in section 1.20 
of this appendix, operate the clothes dryer at the maximum 
temperature setting and, if equipped with a timer, at the maximum 
time setting. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect 
the temperature or time settings shall be tested in the as-shipped 
position. If the clothes dryer does not have a separate temperature 
setting selection on the control panel, the maximum time setting 
should be used for the drying test cycle. Dry the load until the 
moisture content of the test load is between 1 and 2.5 percent of 
the bone-dry weight of the test load, at which point the test cycle 
is stopped, but do not permit the dryer to advance into cool down. 
If required, reset the timer to increase the length of the drying 
cycle. After stopping the test cycle, remove and weigh the test 
load. The clothes dryer shall not be stopped intermittently in the 
middle of the test cycle for any reason. Record the data specified 
by section 3.4 of this appendix. If the dryer automatically stops 
during a cycle because the condensation box is full of water, the 
test is stopped, and the test run is invalid, in which case the 
condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run from the 
beginning. For ventless dryers, as defined in section 1.21 of this 
appendix, during the time between two cycles, the door of the dryer 
shall be closed except for loading (and unloading).
    3.3.2 Automatic termination control dryers. For automatic 
termination control dryers, as defined in section 1.5 of this 
appendix, a ``normal'' program shall be selected for the test cycle. 
For dryers that do not have a ``normal'' program, the cycle 
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes 
shall be selected. Where the drying temperature setting can be 
chosen independently of the program, it shall be set to the maximum. 
Where the dryness level setting can be chosen independently of the 
program, it shall be set to the ``normal'' or ``medium'' dryness 
level setting. If such designation is not provided, then the dryness 
level shall be set at the mid-point between the minimum and maximum 
settings. Any other optional cycle settings that do not affect the 
program, temperature or dryness settings shall be tested in the as-
shipped position. Operate the clothes dryer until the completion of 
the programmed cycle, including the cool down period. The cycle 
shall be considered complete when the dryer indicates to the user 
that the cycle has finished (by means of a display, indicator light, 
audible signal, or other signal) and the heater and drum/fan motor 
shuts off for the final time. If the clothes dryer is equipped with 
a wrinkle prevention mode (i.e., that continuously or intermittently 
tumbles the clothes dryer drum after the clothes dryer indicates to 
the user that the cycle has finished) that is activated by default 
in the as-shipped position or if manufacturers' instructions specify 
that the feature is recommended to be activated for normal use, the 
cycle shall be considered complete after the end of the wrinkle 
prevention mode. After the completion of the test cycle, remove and 
weigh the test load. Record the data specified in section 3.4 of 
this appendix. If the final moisture content is greater than 2 
percent, the test shall be invalid and a new run shall be conducted 
using the highest dryness level setting. If the dryer automatically 
stops during a cycle because the condensation box is full of water, 
the test is stopped, and the test run is invalid, in which case the 
condensation box shall be emptied and the test re-run from the 
beginning. For ventless dryers, during the time between two cycles, 
the door of the dryer shall be closed except for loading (and 
unloading).
    3.4 Data recording. Record for each test cycle:
    3.4.1 Bone-dry weight of the test load described in 2.7.
    3.4.2 Moisture content of the wet test load before the test, as 
described in 2.7.
    3.4.3 Moisture content of the dry test load obtained after the 
test described in 3.3.
    3.4.4 Test room conditions, temperature, and percent relative 
humidity described in 2.2.1.
    3.4.5 For electric dryers--the total kilowatt-hours of electric 
energy, Et, consumed during the test described in 3.3.
    3.4.6 For gas dryers:
    3.4.6.1 Total kilowatt-hours of electrical energy, 
Ete, consumed during the test described in 3.3.
    3.4.6.2 Cubic feet of gas per cycle, Etg, consumed 
during the test described in 3.3.
    3.4.6.3 Correct the gas heating value, GEF, as measured in 
2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2, to standard pressure and temperature conditions 
in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938.
    3.4.7 The cycle settings selected, in accordance with section 
3.3.2 of this appendix, for the automatic termination control dryer 
test.
    3.5 Test for automatic termination field use factor. The field 
use factor for automatic termination can be claimed for those dryers 
which meet the requirements for automatic termination control, 
defined in 1.4.
    3.6 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the testing 
conditions set forth in Section 2 ``Testing Conditions'' of this 
appendix. For clothes dryers that take some time to enter a stable 
state from a higher power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 
5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes 
dryer to reach the lower power state before proceeding with the test 
measurement. Follow the test procedure specified in section 5, 
paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each 
possible mode as described in sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of this 
appendix.
    3.6.1 If a clothes dryer has an inactive mode, as defined in 
section 1.13 of this appendix, measure and record the average 
inactive mode power of the clothes dryer, PIA, in watts.
    3.6.2 If a clothes dryer has an off mode, as defined in section 
1.16 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power 
of the clothes dryer, POFF, in watts.

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

    4.1 Total per-cycle electric dryer energy consumption. Calculate 
the total electric dryer energy consumption per cycle, 
Ece, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined 
as:
Ece = Et,
for automatic termination control dryers, and,
Ece = [55.5/(Ww- Wd)] x 
Et x field use,
for timer dryers

Where:

55.5 = an experimentally established value for the percent reduction 
in the moisture content of the test load during a laboratory test 
cycle expressed as a percent.
Et = the energy recorded in section 3.4.5 of this 
appendix
field use = 1.18, the field use factor for clothes dryers with time 
termination control systems only without any automatic termination 
control functions.
Ww = the moisture content of the wet test load as 
recorded in section 3.4.2 of this appendix.
Wd = the moisture content of the dry test load as 
recorded in section 3.4.3 of this appendix.
    4.2 Per-cycle gas dryer electrical energy consumption. Calculate 
the gas dryer electrical energy consumption per cycle, 
Ege, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined 
as:
Ege = Ete,
for automatic termination control dryers, and,
Ege = [55.5/(Ww -Wd)] x 
Ete x field use,
for timer dryers

Where:

Ete = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.1 of this 
appendix.
field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section 
4.1 of this appendix.
4.3 Per-cycle gas dryer gas energy consumption. Calculate the gas 
dryer gas

[[Page 49651]]

energy consumption per cycle, Ege, expressed in Btus per 
cycle and defined as:
Egg = Etg x GEF
for automatic termination control dryers, and,
Egg = [55.5/(Ww -Wd)] x 
Etg x field use x GEF
for timer dryers

Where:

Etg = the energy recorded in section 3.4.6.2 of this 
appendix.
GEF = corrected gas heat value (Btu per cubic foot) as defined in 
section 3.4.6.3 of this appendix,
field use, 55.5, Ww, Wd as defined in section 
4.1 of this appendix.
    4.4 Total per-cycle gas dryer energy consumption expressed in 
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the total gas dryer energy consumption per 
cycle, Ecg, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and 
defined as:
Ecg = Ege + (Egg/3412 Btu/kWh)

Where:

Ege = the energy calculated in section 4.2 of this 
appendix
Egg = the energy calculated in section 4.3 of this 
appendix
    4.5 Per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy consumption. 
Calculate the dryer inactive mode and off mode energy consumption 
per cycle, ETSO, expressed in kWh per cycle and defined 
as:
ETSO = [(PIA x SIA) + 
(POFF x SOFF)] x K/283

Where:

PIA = dryer inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in 
section 3.6.1;
POFF = dryer off mode power, in watts, as measured in 
section 3.6.2.
If the clothes dryer has both inactive mode and off mode, 
SIA and SOFF both equal 8,620 / 2 = 4,310, 
where 8,620 is the total inactive and off mode annual hours;
If the clothes dryer has an inactive mode but no off mode, the 
inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 8,620 and 
the off mode annual hours, SOFF, is equal to 0;
If the clothes dryer has an off mode but no inactive mode, 
SIA is equal to 0 and SOFF is equal to 8,620

Where:

K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; 
and
283 = representative average number of clothes dryer cycles in a 
year.
    4.6 Per-cycle combined total energy consumption expressed in 
kilowatt-hours. Calculate the per-cycle combined total energy 
consumption, ECC, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle 
and defined for an electric clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ece + ETSO

Where:

Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of this 
appendix, and
ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of this 
appendix, and defined for a gas clothes dryer as:
ECC = Ecg + ETSO

Where:

Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of this 
appendix, and
ETSO = the energy calculated in section 4.5 of this 
appendix.
    4.7 Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatt-hour. Calculate the 
energy factor, EF, expressed in pounds per kilowatt-hour and defined 
for an electric clothes dryer as:
EF = Wbonedry/Ece

Where:

Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight recorded in 
section 3.4.1 of this appendix, and
Ece = the energy calculated in section 4.1 of this 
appendix, and and defined for a gas clothes dryer as:
EF = Wbonedry/Ecg

Where:

Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight recorded in 
section 3.4.1 of this appendix, and
Ecg = the energy calculated in section 4.4 of this 
appendix,
    4.8 Combined Energy Factor in pounds per kilowatt-hour. 
Calculate the combined energy factor, CEF, expressed in pounds per 
kilowatt-hour and defined as:
CEF = Wbonedry/ECC

Where:

Wbonedry = the bone dry test load weight recorded in 
section 3.4.1 of this appendix, and
ECC = the energy calculated in section 4.6 of this 
appendix.

[FR Doc. 2013-18931 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P