Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

Id. NEEA recommended that if DOE
retains the current DEF, DOE should revisit this issue once the clothes dryer test procedure has been adjusted to better reflect real-world energy use. Id.
As noted by the CA IOUs, the current estimate of 0.5 kWh/lb is consistent with the estimates that DOE developed to reflect the current installed base of clothes dryers as part of the most recent energy conservation standards final rule for clothes dryers.59 In lieu of any additional data representing national average clothes dryer usage, DOE has tentatively concluded that a DEF of 0.5
kWh/lb remains representative of the nominal energy required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture from clothes.
DOE is, therefore, not proposing to change the value of DEF at this time.
DOE requests comment on maintaining the current DEF value of 0.5 kWh/lb.
c. Dryer Usage Factor The DUF represents the percentage of clothes washer loads dried in a clothes dryer and is used in section 4.3 of Appendix J2 in the equation for calculating the per-cycle drying energy.
In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE
originally established a DUF value of 0.84, which was based in part on data provided by P&G, as described in the April 1996 SNOPR. 61 FR 17589, 17592;
62 FR 45484, 45489. In the March 2012
Final Rule, DOE revised the DUF in Appendix J2 to 0.91 based on updated consumer usage data from 2005 RECS.
77 FR 13887, 1391313914.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested information to determine whether to revise the DUF value. 85 FR 31065, 31078.
NEEA supported keeping the DUF at 0.91 or raising it to a slightly higher value. NEEA, No. 12 at p. 25 NEEA
calculated a DUF of 0.935, using data from its own study. Id.
DOE appreciates the submission of data by NEEA but notes that its survey results represent regional usage the Pacific Northwest during a 4 to 6-week period in 2012, as described in its report. As such, NEEAs suggested DUF
value of 0.935 does not represent national average usage. DOE is not aware of data or information that would indicate that a value other than 0.91
should be considered and so is not proposing to change the DUF in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on maintaining the current DUF value of 0.91.
59 April 2011 Clothes Dryers Energy Conservation Standards Final Rule Technical Support Document, Chapter 9. Available at www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:31 Aug 31, 2021

Jkt 253001

3. Low-Power Mode Assumptions Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 allocates 8,465 combined annual hours for inactive and off modes. If a clothes washer offers a switch, dial, or button that can be optionally selected by the user to achieve a lower-power inactive/
off mode than the default inactive/off mode, section 4.4 of Appendix J2
assigns half of those hours i.e., 4,232.5
hours to the default inactive/off mode and the other half to the optional lowest-power inactive/off mode. This allocation is based on an assumption that if a clothes washer offers such a feature, consumers will select the optional lower-power mode half of the time. 77 FR 13887, 13904. The allocation of 8,465 hours to combined inactive and off modes is based on assumptions of 1 hour per cycle and 295
cycles per year, resulting in 295 active mode hours for a total of 8,760 hours per year for all operating modes. As described in the September 2010 NOPR
and confirmed in the March 2012 Final Rule, the estimate of 1 hour per cycle was based on a 2005 report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 60 that summarized test data from three issues of the Consumer Reports magazine, which showed toploading clothes washers with normal cycle times of 3755 minutes and frontloading clothes washers with normal cycle times of 51105 minutes.61
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested input on whether the annual hours allocated to combined inactive and off modes, as well as the assumed 50percent split between default inactive/
off mode and any optional lower-power inactive/off mode, result in a test method that measures the energy efficiency of the clothes washer during a representative average use cycle or period of use and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 85 FR 31065, 31079.
No comments were received regarding the assumed 50-percent split between default inactive/off mode and any optional lower-power inactive/off mode.
Other issues regarding low-power mode, specifically regarding CCWs, are further discussed in section III.G.7 of this document.
For the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to update the number 60 C. Wilkes et al. 2005. Quantification of Exposure-Related Water Uses for Various U.S.
Subpopulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
Report No. EPA/600/R06/003. Washington, DC.
December 2005. Available at www.wilkestech.com/
205edrb06_Final_Water_Use_Report.pdf.
61 These studies appeared in the July 1998, July 1999, and August 2000 issues of Consumer Reports, as cited by EPA.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

49177

of hours spent in low-power mode from a fixed 8,465 total hours to a formula based on the clothes washers measured cycle time, as discussed in section III.D.5 of this document, and the updated number of annual cycles, as discussed in section III.G.1 of this document. This proposal would allow for a more representative allocation of hours between active mode and lowpower mode. DOE is not proposing to make these changes to Appendix J2
because doing so would likely change the measured efficiency, and DOE
proposes to make such changes only in the proposed new Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and for determining compliance with those standards.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the number of hours spent in low-power mode from a fixed 8,465 total hours to a formula based on measured cycle time and an assumed number of annual cycles.
4. Temperature Usage Factors TUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage of wash cycles for which consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature selection. The TUFs in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2 are based on the TUFs established in Appendix J11997. As described in the April 1996 SNOPR, DOE established the TUFs in Appendix J11997 based on an analysis of consumer usage data provided by P&G, AHAM, General Electric Company, and Whirlpool, as well as linear regression analyses performed by P&G and the National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST. 61 FR 17589, 17593.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on current consumer usage frequency of the wash/rinse temperature selections required for testing in Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31077. DOE
also requested input on whether requiring the testing of temperature selections with low TUFs for example, the current Table 4.1.1 lists TUFs including 5, 9, and 14 percent is consistent with the EPCA requirement that the test procedure be reasonably designed to measure the energy use or efficiency of the clothes washer during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Id.
NEEA and the CA IOUs commented that they support the existing TUF
values. NEEA, No. 12 at p. 22; CA
IOUs, No. 8 at p. 7 The CA IOUs provided temperature selection data from the 2016 PG&E survey, which found that wash temperature and rinse temperature usage data aligned
E:FRFM01SEP3.SGM

01SEP3