Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ October
/ Friday, October 31, 2003
[Federal Register: October 31, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62197-62204]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31oc03-13]
[[Page 62197]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for
Clothes Washers; Direct Final Rule and Proposed Rule
[[Page 62198]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE-RM/TP-03-100]
RIN 1904-AB43
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure
for Clothes Washers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) today promulgates
an amendment to the test procedure for measuring the energy consumption
of clothes washers. The amendment changes one of the spin cycles
required for testing the cloth used in the extraction phase of the test
procedure by replacing the lowest spin cycle of 50 gravitation (g)
force with a spin cycle of 100g. The 50g spin cycle produced
inconsistent and unreliable test results. This amendment also adds as a
testing requirement the use of an additional statistical analysis to
qualify the interactive effect between different lots of the test cloth
and spin speeds to improve consistency with the baseline data.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on January 1, 2004, the same
day that new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers become
effective, unless significant adverse comments are received by December
1, 2003. If significant adverse comments are received, a timely
withdrawal of this rule will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: The Department will accept comments, data, and information
regarding this direct final rule no later than the date provided in the
DATES section. Please submit comments, data and information
electronically to the following Internet address: clotheswashertestclothtp@ee.doe.gov. Electronic comments must be
submitted in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) format
file and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.
Comments in electronic format should be identified by the docket number
EE-RM/TP-03-100, and wherever possible carry the electronic signature
of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted
electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting the
signed original paper document. No telefacsimiles (telefaxes) will be
accepted.
Written (paper) comments may be submitted to: Ms. Brenda Edwards-
Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Mailstop EE-2J, Test Procedures for Clothes Washers, Docket Number: EE-
RM/TP-03-100, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed copy--no
telefacsimiles.
You may read copies of the public comments received in the resource
room of the appliance office of the Building Technologies Program, room
1J-018 of the Forrestal Building at the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC between the hours of 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call
Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional
information regarding visiting the resource room. Please note: The
Department's Freedom of Information Reading Room (room 1E-190 in the
Forrestal Building) is no longer servicing rulemakings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Twigg or Bryan Berringer, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9611, e-mail: Barbara.Twigg@ee.doe.gov, or Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov, respectively; or Francine Pinto, Esq., or
Thomas DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507, e-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov, or Thomas.DePriest@hq.doe.gov, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Discussion
A. Correction of the Typographical Error in Table 2.6.5 of
Appendix J1
B. Determination of Correction Factors for New Lots of Energy
Test Cloth
C. Statistical Test to Validate New Lots of Energy Test Cloth
D. Effect of Changes on Measured Efficiencies
III. Discussion of Direct Final Rulemaking
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under Executive Order 12630
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
M. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.) The products
currently subject to this Program (``covered products'') include
residential clothes washers, the subject of today's direct final rule.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
Under the Act, the Program consists of three parts: Testing,
labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. The
Department, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), may amend or prescribe test procedures as
appropriate for each of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293) The
purpose of the test procedures is to measure energy efficiency, energy
use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. The test procedures
must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
If DOE amends a test procedure, EPCA requires DOE to determine
whether the new test procedure would change the measured energy
efficiency or measured energy use of any covered product as determined
under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE
determines that a change would result, DOE must amend the applicable
energy conservation standard during the rulemaking that establishes the
new test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In setting any new energy
conservation standard, DOE must measure, with the new test procedure,
the energy efficiency or energy use of a representative sample of
covered products that minimally comply with the existing standard. The
average energy efficiency or energy use of these representative samples
under
[[Page 62199]]
the new test procedure shall constitute the amended energy conservation
standard for the applicable covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
Effective 180 days after DOE prescribes or establishes an amended
or new test procedure for a covered product, no manufacturer,
distributor, retailer, or private labeler may make any representation
with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or cost of energy consumed
by the product, unless the product has been tested in accordance with
such amended or new DOE test procedure and the representation fairly
discloses the results of that testing. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) This
restriction on representations will take effect 180 days after the
January 1, 2004, effective date of this amended test procedure. A
manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler may begin using
the new test procedure to make representations with respect to the
energy use, efficiency, or cost of energy consumed by the product
beginning with the January 1, 2004, effective date of this rule.
B. Background
The U.S. government established the first federal test procedures
for clothes washers in 1977. In the 1990's, concurrent with the
development of new energy conservation standards for clothes washers,
the Department of Energy began revising the clothes washer test
procedure. The existing test procedure did not cover a number of
innovative clothes washer technologies such as high spin speed and
adaptive water fill control, and DOE published several proposals to
address those innovations including one on December 22, 1993, (58 FR
67710) and another on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15330). In its comments on
the March 23, 1995, proposed rule, the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM) requested that DOE adopt an additional new test
procedure that would capture current consumer habits that showed a
reduction in the use of hot water and energy. AHAM proposed that DOE
incorporate this test as part of the process of revising the clothes
washer energy conservation standards, and that the test go into effect
concurrently with the issuance of new standards.
On April 22, 1996, the Department issued a supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking proposing such a new test procedure, appendix J1,
as well as certain additional revisions to the currently applicable
test procedure in appendix J to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. (61 FR
17589). The supplemental notice requested comments on whether DOE
should adopt the AHAM-recommended test procedure with certain changes.
The test procedure final rule published on August 27, 1997, adopted the
AHAM recommendation. 62 FR 45484. Appendix J, the current test
procedure, will expire on December 31, 2003. 66 FR 3313, 3330 (January
12, 2001).Appendix J1 is now informational but will become mandatory
and replace appendix J when the energy conservation standards adopted
on January 12, 2001, take effect on January 1, 2004.
A key difference between the appendix J and the appendix J1 test
procedures is the basic energy efficiency descriptor. Appendix J
specifies an energy efficiency descriptor called the energy factor
(EF). The appendix J1 test procedure replaces the EF with an energy
efficiency descriptor called the modified energy factor (MEF). In
contrast with the previous EF descriptor which only calculated the
energy use of the clothes washer itself, the MEF descriptor accounts
for the remaining moisture content (RMC) of clothes leaving the clothes
washer. In order to calculate the RMC, appendix J1 requires
manufacturers to use a particular lot of standardized test cloth to
simulate a washer load of clothes. Other substantive differences
between the test procedures include using different water temperatures
for testing and using test cloth loads for all classes of clothes
washers in appendix J1, but not in appendix J.
As the Department proceeded with the standards rulemaking for
clothes washers, DOE conducted tests on a number of clothes washers
using the appendix J1 test procedure and shared the results with the
manufacturers of the tested units. The manufacturers then indicated
that some of the values for the RMC were higher than they would have
expected from earlier test data. The Department investigated possible
causes for the new test results being inconsistent with the values
produced using the original lot of test cloth and summarized its
findings in the DOE report, Development of a Standardized Energy Test
Cloth for Measuring Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes
Washer, May 2000. (Docket No. EE-RM-94-403, DOE, No. 200) To understand
the effects of operating variables and cloth specifications, DOE
decided to conduct additional laboratory tests to determine the RMC. To
insure that the use of a specific manufacturer's product (clothes
washer) would not influence or bias the test results in any way, the
Department developed a test using an extractor to remove moisture
content, instead of using a clothes washer. An extractor is a
centrifuge--basically a rotating basket that has a controllable speed
to produce a variety of centrifugal forces. The centrifuge test used a
variety of speeds to impose different centripetal accelerations on the
test load. These accelerations are reported in terms of gravitation
forces (g forces). DOE also soaked the cloth in a tub at a controlled
temperature to approximate the agitated soak cycle provided by a
typical washer. Thus, the additional laboratory tests DOE conducted
closely resembled those specified in the clothes washer test procedure.
The extractor-based test examined RMC values at different g forces
so that new batches of test cloth could be compared to the RMC values
of a standard reference test cloth. This comparison provided the basis
for developing a correction methodology whereby the test results using
any new lot of cloth could be ``corrected'' back to the test values of
the base reference lot of cloth. The Department derived the correction
factor from measuring the deviation between a new production batch of
test cloth and a standard reference test cloth. This deviation is
measured as the root mean square (RMS) between the set of measured RMC
values and the set of standard RMC values. If this absolute deviation
is below 2 percent, then correction factors are unnecessary in MEF
tests using that batch of cloth. If the absolute RMS difference between
the cloth RMC values and standard RMC values is above 2 percent, then
correction factors are necessary when using the cloth to test the MEF
of a clothes washer. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1, section
2.6.5)
The correction factors currently are derived by fitting the data
points into a straight line (a linear least squares fit) based on the
set of RMC values for the new production lot compared to the baseline
RMC values for data taken at 50, 200, and 350 spin g's, with warm (100
[deg]F) and cold (60 [deg]F) rinse water, and with spin times of 4
minutes and 15 minutes. The fit criteria for an acceptable new lot of
test cloth is an RMS error term <2%. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix J1, section 2.6.6)
Using data from clothes washer manufacturers, the Department
selected the range of test conditions (50-350 g's, warm and cold, 4 and
15 minutes) to bracket the actual conditions under which manufactured
residential clothes washers operate and will be tested according to the
appendix J1 test procedure. The 50-350 g range bounds the lower and
upper levels of spin speeds in a typical clothes washer. The use of
both warm and cold water
[[Page 62200]]
temperatures serves to identify any changes in test results of the test
cloth due to water temperature variation. The use of 4 and 15 minute
spin times bounds the various spin cycle times in a typical clothes
washer. Thus, by requiring the averaging of this combination of test
cycles, the test procedure created a representative profile of the spin
and extraction behavior of the test cloth. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix J1, sections 2.6.5.3.6 and 2.6.6.1)
When the Department published the energy conservation standards
final rule for clothes washers on January 12, 2001, the rule included
revisions to the 1997 test procedure based on DOE's May 2000 report
dealing with the energy test cloth, RMC, extractor testing, and the
correction factors. The Department believed that the system of using
the correction factors would enable those conducting future tests to
use new lots of test cloth in a manner consistent with the base test
cloth, and produce reliable RMC values. In addition, the Department
incorporated in their entirety AHAM's comments and the Joint
Stakeholders Comment requesting minor editorial changes to help clarify
both appendices J and J1. (Docket No. EE-RM-94-403, AHAM, Nos. 197 and
199, and Joint Comment, No. 204)
Although the revised appendix J1 was published as part of the 2001
final rule for clothes washers, appendix J1 was available for
informational use only until the new clothes washer standards would
take effect on January 1, 2004. Initial experimental tests using the
new procedure to certify lots of test cloth using the correction
factors worked well until several new lots again appeared to have
unusually high RMC at the 50g test level. Correction factors
notwithstanding, several manufacturers noticed that the corrected RMC
values for these newer lots of test cloth were still significantly
different from the RMC values determined from earlier lots of test
cloth that had been tested in the same clothes washer. When the
Department learned that these later lots of test cloth were producing
10 percent higher RMC values than the test cloth reference base, DOE
conducted tests to explore the new inconsistency issue which the
correction factor system in appendix J1 did not seem to have fixed.
Test results confirmed that the RMC value at 50g shifted the correction
curve so that the corrected RMC values at 100g, the typical spin g
level of many vertical axis washers, were inconsistent with corrected
RMC results using earlier lots of test cloth. Retests of both early and
later lots of test cloth confirmed a basic lack of repeatability of 50g
spin tests.
Ongoing RMC tests in the extractor, however, indicated that spin g
levels of 100g's or more continued to produce repeatable results with
good lot-to-lot consistency of the RMC compared to the g-curve shape.
Only the 50g spin tests were producing the inconsistency and
repeatability problems.
The Department had originally selected the 50g spin level as the
lower end with which to bracket the spin speeds of clothes washers for
computing the average RMC value. The other spin levels were 200g, 350g,
and 500g, if a washer could achieve that high a spin speed. In
discussions with clothes washer manufacturers regarding the
repeatability problems with the 50g spin level, the Department learned
that clothes washers use 50g spins only in delicate cycles and as an
optional slow spin that is available in a limited number of models.
Because it was not a commonly used spin cycle, DOE, AHAM and the
clothes washer manufacturers agreed that it would be better to use the
more dependable 100g spin speed as the lower end of the range of spin
speeds. A linear least squares fit test cloth correction procedure
based on 100g and greater RMC test data will result in more reliable
correction factors for the vast majority of clothes washer models in
production.
In a letter to DOE dated April 2, 2003, AHAM requested that the
Department implement this change in the test procedure. (AHAM No. 1 at
1) Because the 50g anomalies discussed above were unexpected, AHAM also
recommended in the letter that a statistical procedure be adopted to
recognize any other unexpected anomaly that might occur in future lots
of energy test cloths. This statistical test will identify deviations
in RMC as compared with g-curve shape beyond the magnitude where the
linear least squares fit correction factor is appropriate. In
statistical terms, these anomalies are referred to as a ``lot-to-lot
interactive effect''--a lot-to-lot difference in characteristics that
produces a different relationship of RMC to g, spin time, and/or final
rinse temperature.
A ``lot-to-lot interactive effect'' statistical test that could be
used to screen out lots whose RMC as compared with g-behavior is
inconsistent with the baseline lot is a standard statistical procedure
called ``analysis of variance'' or ``ANOVA.'' As applied to new lots of
energy test cloth, the ANOVA statistical test will detect the extent of
the deviation of the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve of a
given lot from the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve of the
baseline lot. It would have detected the peculiarity of the RMC values
at 50g in the later lots running very high relative to the RMC values
at 100, 200, or 350g, compared to the baseline lot. Tests of new lots
of cloth using the100g (instead of 50g), 200g, and 350g extractor test
points have thus far all satisfied the ANOVA test criteria for an
acceptable lot. The Department expects that the ANOVA test will detect
any unanticipated RMC compared to g-curve shape deviation in future
lots.
II. Discussion
In this direct final rule, the Department is correcting the
typographical error in Table 2.6.5 of appendix J1 (10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J1, section 2.6.5), modifying the procedure for
developing the correction factors for new production lots of energy
test cloth used in the test procedure for clothes washers, and
introducing a second statistical test to validate new lots of energy
test cloth.
A. Correction of the Typographical Error in Table 2.6.5 of Appendix J1
In this direct final rule, the Department is correcting the
typographical error in Table 2.6.5 of appendix J1, by changing 14
minutes to 4 minutes. (66 FR at 3331-33; 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix J1, section 2.6.5) Section 2.6.5.3.6 of appendix J1 specifies
spin times of 4 and 15 minutes (66 FR at 3332) and the May 2000 report
documents that these are the intended spin times selected to bracket
the range of spin times commonly used in production clothes washers.
All extractor testing to derive correction factors has been carried out
with 15 minute and 4 minute spin times at both cold and warm soak
temperatures.
B. Determination of Correction Factors for New Lots of Energy Test
Cloth
In this direct final rule, the Department is modifying the
procedure for developing the correction factors for new production lots
of energy test cloth by replacing the extractor test points at 50g with
100g test points. The linear least squares fit to the baseline set of
RMC's is otherwise unchanged. The Department has confirmed through
tests of new lots of test cloth in the extractor and analysis of
previous data that RMC, g forces, spin time, and temperature at spin g
levels at 100g's or more, continue to produce repeatable results with
good lot-to-lot consistency of the RMC compared to g-curve shape. The
50g test point, which DOE had selected to provide an all-inclusive
range of spin g levels, can be deleted with minimal
[[Page 62201]]
effect because spin g levels below 100g are used only in delicate
cycles (not tested in the appendix J1 test procedure) and as an
optional slow spin that is available in a limited number of models. The
Department agrees that a linear least squares fit test cloth correction
procedure based on 100g and greater RMC test data would result in a
more reliable correction curve for the vast majority of clothes washer
models in production. Using 100, 200, 350, and 500g as test points
would still bracket the range of spin speeds in most clothes washers
and provide a comprehensive and representative test for establishing
the correction curves for new batches of test cloth. In light of these
circumstances and the problems with use of the 50g test points,
discussed above, the Department believes it is appropriate to modify
the clothes washer test procedure in appendix J1 by replacing these
test points with 100g test points.
C. Statistical Test To Validate New Lots of Energy Test Cloth
In this direct final rule, the Department is adopting a standard
statistical procedure called ``analysis of variance'' or ``ANOVA'' as
the lot-to-lot interactive-effect statistical test for screening out
lots of test cloth whose RMC compared to g behavior is inconsistent
with the baseline lot. The ANOVA statistical test detects the extent of
the deviation of the shape of the RMC compared to the g-curve of a
given lot of the test cloth from the shape of the RMC compared to the
g-curve of the baseline lot. It would have detected the peculiarity of
the 50g RMC values in the later lots running very high relative to the
100g, 200g, or 350g RMC values, compared to the baseline lot. With the
100g (instead of 50g), 200g, and 350g extractor test points, all of the
lots that DOE has tested so far satisfy the ANOVA test criteria for an
acceptable lot. The Department believes that the test will catch any
unanticipated RMC compared to g-curve shape deviation in future lots.
The ANOVA test adds a second method for determining the
``acceptability'' of a new lot of test cloth that a manufacturer will
use in conjunction with the criterion currently prescribed in appendix
J1 for making this determination. That criterion is that the RMS error
term (of the least squares fit used to determine the correction factors
for a new lot of test cloth) must be <2%. The RMS error term measures
the ``goodness of fit'' of the derived linear relationship between the
baseline set of RMC values and corresponding RMC values for the new lot
obtained at each test condition. That is, it is intended to
characterize the ``closeness'' or ``lack of scatter'' of the 12 data
points to the ``best-fit'' (least squares) line that is subsequently
used to calibrate (``correct'') the new-lot RMC value to the RMC value
of the baseline lot.
Although the later lots discussed above met the criterion of an RMS
of <2%, other difficulties subsequently emerged when using these lots
for actual machine testing. Most notably, RMC measurements behaved
erratically at the low (50g) spin speed conditions. Although linearly
related to corresponding baseline RMC measurements, the RMC
measurements of later lots (over an observed range of 30% to 70%) were
inconsistent with baseline values in a more subtle way. Additional
testing of the later lots (and other test lots as well) strongly
supports the assertion that RMC values--recently obtained when
conducting extractor tests at 50g spin speed conditions with any lot--
are inconsistent with RMC results that were obtained at 50g of the
original baseline lot.
Whatever the reason(s), recent extractor tests have yielded higher
RMC measurements at all test conditions than those previously obtained
for the baseline. If the measurements for a new lot of test cloth are
consistently higher over the entire range of test conditions, the
correction curve (as originally configured) and the test criterion (RMS
<2%) would be sufficient to establish the acceptance--or rejection--of
a new test lot. However, with the benefit of hindsight, the Department
now knows that the difference between recent extractor tests and the
baseline is not the same at all test conditions; in fact, the
difference is most pronounced in the four time/temperature tests
conducted at the 50g spin speed. In statistical terms, this inherent
inconsistency is referred to as an ``interactive effect'' between test
lots and spin speeds. The ANOVA is a commonly used statistical
procedure for detecting interactive effects, if and when they exist. As
applied to new lots of energy test cloths, this statistical test will
detect the extent of the deviation of the RMC compared to the g-curve
shape of a given lot from the RMC compared to the g-curve shape of the
baseline lot. This could be either a gross difference in the overall
slope or the peculiarity that has been observed in the later lots of
the RMC values at 50g running very high relative to the RMC values at
100g, 200g, or 350g, compared to the baseline lot. The ``P-value'' (a
theoretically-based probability) that ANOVA produces is interpreted as
evidence of a real, repeatable interactive effect between lots and spin
speeds. The lower the P-value, the stronger the evidence of an
interaction. A value less than 0.10 is sufficient to conclude that
there is a problematic interaction, and the lot of test cloth being
tested should not be used to measure RMC.
The Department evaluated an analysis of all cloth lot samples
tested thus far. Analytical results and conclusions support the use of
100g test data rather than 50g data. It is interesting to note that
there is no evidence of an interactive effect for earlier lots of test
cloth, justifying the use of the correction curves based on the 50g to
350g range for those lots. Starting with later lots, interactive
effects attributable to 50g test data are clearly evident. However,
over the 100g-to-350g range, there is no evidence of an interactive
effect with any of these lots. The Department believes that the P-value
from the ANOVA test is an appropriate test for acceptance of new lots
of test cloth.
D. Effect of Changes on Measured Efficiencies
In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, section 323(e) of EPCA
requires the Department to determine whether the amended test procedure
would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product. (42
U.S.C. 6293(e)) If the amendment does alter measured efficiency, the
Secretary must amend the applicable energy conservation standard so
that products that minimally comply with the standard prior to the test
procedure amendment will continue to comply. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
These provisions prevent changes in a test procedure that would cause a
product that complied with applicable Federal energy conservation
standards using the previous test procedure from being forced into non-
compliance as a result of using the new test procedure.
Today's rule amends the test procedure for clothes washers,
appendix J1, which is designed to measure performance under new energy
conservation standards that will take effect on January 1, 2004.
Appendix J1 is not mandatory until then. Today's rule will produce
insignificant changes in the measured efficiency of a limited number of
models of clothes washers. These changes are important, however,
because they will assure that measured efficiencies conform more
closely to the results that would occur if a reference test cloth were
used in every test. Use of the reference test cloth produces results
that most accurately measure a clothes washer's performance under the
energy conservation standards that will go into effect on January 1,
2004.
[[Page 62202]]
The Department has no information to indicate that there are
clothes washers that ``minimally comply'' with existing energy
conservation standards using the existing test procedure, and that
would fall out of compliance with the standard once the newly modified
test procedure is used. Therefore, DOE is not required by EPCA section
323(e)(2) to make any changes to energy conservation standards. The
Department has therefore determined that although today's amended test
procedure will alter the measured efficiency or measured energy use of
some clothes washer models, it is not necessary to test models with the
new test procedure to consider or make any modifications to energy
conservation standards.
The Department also notes that even if today's amendments do change
the energy efficiency rating of any model and would cause it not to
comply with the current energy conservation standards, the standard for
that model is becoming more stringent on January 1, 2004, in any event.
As a result, the new energy conservation standards, which already have
been finalized through notice and comment rulemaking, will supersede
the current standards and render irrelevant the model's ability or
inability to comply with the current standard. Thus, a change resulting
from today's amendments to the test procedure would simply mean that
the product in question does not meet the new efficiency standard that
will become effective on January 1. The Department has no information
to indicate that there are clothes washers that will fail to comply
with the new standards solely as a result of today's amendments to the
test procedure.
III. Discussion of Direct Final Rulemaking
The Department is publishing this direct final rule without having
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking because DOE views this
amendment as noncontroversial and anticipates no significant adverse
comments. However, in the event that the Department receives
significant adverse comments, DOE has prepared a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing the same amendment. The Department is
publishing this NOPR as a separate document in this issue of today's
Federal Register. The direct final rule will be effective January 1,
2004, unless DOE receives significant adverse comments by December 1,
2003. If DOE receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw
the revisions before their effective date. In case of the withdrawal of
this direct final rule, DOE will announce the withdrawal in the Federal
Register. DOE will then address all public comments in a separate final
rule based on the proposed rule that DOE is publishing today. DOE will
not implement a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time.
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this rule, the Department promulgates a minor change to the test
procedure for measuring the energy consumption of clothes washers. The
Department 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 (NEPA). (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) The
rule is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that
interpret or amend an existing rule without changing the environmental
effect, as set forth in the Department's NEPA regulations in appendix A
to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. This rule will not affect the quality
or distribution of energy usage and, therefore, will not result in any
environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental impact
statement nor an environmental assessment is required.
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
Today's rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) Accordingly, today's action is not subject to
review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 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. A regulatory
flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities
and considers alternative ways of reducing negative impacts. 5 U.S.C.
605. As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002),
DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure
that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's
Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
Today's rule prescribes minor amendments to the test procedures
that will be used to test compliance with energy conservation standards
and labeling. Because the rule affects only test procedures and not the
minimum energy efficiency standard levels for clothes washer models,
the Department believes that it will not have a significant economic
impact. Instead, it will provide common testing methods for all clothes
washer manufacturers or private labelers, and will improve the accuracy
of information provided to consumers. Because this rule makes only
minor revisions to the new test procedure scheduled to go into effect
with the new clothes washer standard on January 1, 2004, it is not
expected that this rule will have a significant (if any) economic
impact on manufacturers performing the test procedure.
The overall size of the clothes washer manufacturing industry also
negates the necessity for a regulatory flexibility analysis. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a small
business if, together with its affiliates, it employs fewer than a
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121 according to
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. The
threshold number for NAICS classification 335224 for household laundry
equipment manufacturers, which includes clothes washers, is 1000
employees. Of the five firms in the clothes washer industry that
account for nearly 99 percent of clothes washer sales, the Department
has determined that none would be considered ``small'' by the above
definition. Using this SBA size standard, the Department is aware of
only one small entity among clothes washer manufacturers or private
labelers. Because the clothes washer models of that manufacturer
already exceed the new standard which takes effect on January 1, 2004,
it is not expected that the test procedure revision in this rule will
have any adverse impact. Therefore, DOE certifies that today's rule
will not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not warranted.
[[Page 62203]]
D. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) that this regulation
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, August 4,
1999) requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other
policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on
States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of Government. If there are substantial direct effects,
then this Executive Order requires preparation of a Federalism
assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and
implementing a policy action.
The rule published today would not regulate or otherwise affect the
States. Accordingly, DOE has determined that preparation of a
Federalism assessment is unnecessary.
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB clearance is required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, it
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's rule
under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed regulations meet the
relevant standards.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') requires that the Department prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in
any one year. The budgetary impact statement must include: (i)
Identification of the Federal law under which the rule is promulgated;
(ii) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits of the Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which
such costs to state, local, and tribal governments may be paid with
Federal financial assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the
future compliance costs and of any disproportionate budgetary effects
the mandate has on particular regions, communities, non-Federal units
of government, or sectors of the economy; (iv) if feasible, estimates
of the effect on the national economy; and (v) a description of the
Department's prior consultation with elected representatives of state,
local, and tribal governments and a summary and evaluation of the
comments and concerns presented.
The Department has determined that the action today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to State, local or to tribal governments in the
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of
Sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this
action.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. No. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may
affect family well-being. Today's rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Review Under 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
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined
as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to
the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order;
and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's rule will not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or the use of energy, and, therefore, is not a
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
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 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines
were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
[[Page 62204]]
reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
L. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule prior to 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. 801(2).
M. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's direct
final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 2003.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends Part
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as
follows:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430, as amended at 66 FR 3330 to
become effective January 1, 2004, is further amended in section 2 by
revising:
0
a. Table 2.6.5.
0
b. Section 2.6.5.3.6.
0
c. Table 2.6.6.1.
0
d. Section 2.6.6.2.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix J1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic
Clothes Washers.
* * * * *
2. * * *
2.6. * * *
2.6.5. * * *
Table 2.6.5.--Matrix of Extractor RMC Test Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warm soak Cold soak
-------------------------------
``g Force'' 15 15
min. 4 min. min. 4 min.
spin spin spin spin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100..................................... ...... ...... ...... ......
200..................................... ...... ...... ...... ......
350..................................... ...... ...... ...... ......
500..................................... ...... ...... ...... ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
2.6.5.3.6 The RMC of the test load shall be measured at three (3) g
levels: 100g; 200g; and 350g, using two different spin times at each g
level: 4 minutes; and 15 minutes. If a clothes washer design can
achieve spin speeds in the 500g range then the RMC of the test load
shall be measured at four (4) g levels: 100g; 200g; 350g; and 500g,
using two different spin times at each g level: 4 minutes; and 15
minutes.
* * * * *
2.6.6. * * *
2.6.6.1. * * *
Table 2.6.6.1.--Standard RMC Values (RMC Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMC %
---------------------------------------------------
Warm soak Cold soak
``g Force'' ---------------------------------------------------
15 min. 15 min.
spin 4 min. spin spin 4 min. spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100......................................................... 45.9 49.9 49.7 52.8
200......................................................... 35.7 40.4 37.9 43.1
350......................................................... 29.6 33.1 30.7 35.8
500......................................................... 24.2 28.7 25.5 30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6.6.2. Perform an analysis of variance test using two factors,
spin speed and lot, to check the interaction of speed and lot. Use the
values from Table 2.6.5 and Table 2.6.6.1 in the calculation. The ``P''
value in the variance analysis shall be greater than or equal to 0.1.
If the ``P'' value is less than 0.1 the test cloth is unacceptable.
``P'' is a theoretically based probability of interaction based on an
analysis of variance.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-27468 Filed 10-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ October
/ Friday, October 31, 2003
Internet Marketing - United Specialties - Renegade Motorhomes - Credit Cards
|
|
