Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 45/Friday, March 7, 2003 /Rules and Regulations 10957

based companies in domestic and

export markets.

Executive Order 12988

This rule meets the applicable

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat.

163, all departments are required to

submit to 0MB, for review and

approval, any reporting requirements

inherent in a final rule. This rule does

not impose any new reporting and

recordkeeping requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 217

Air carriers, Aliens, Maritime carriers,

Passports and visas.

PART 217-VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

1. The heading for part 217 is revised

as set forth above.

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1187; 8 CFR part

2.

2. The authority citation for part 217

continues to read as follows:

§217.2 [Amended]

3. Section 217.2(a) is amended under

the definition "Designated country" by

removing "and Uruguay" from the list

of countries, by adding "and" before

"the United Kingdom" and adding a

period after, and by adding after

"citizens of British Commonwealth

countries.", "After May 15, 2003,

citizens of Belgium must present a

machine-readable passport in order to

be granted admission under the Visa

Waiver Program".

Dated: February 28, 2003.

John Ashcroft,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 03-5244 Filed 3-6-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RMITP-02-OO1]

RIN 1904-AB12

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedure

for Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers

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

a revision to the test procedure for

measuring the energy consumption of

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.

The revision changes the calculation of

the test time period for long-time

automatic defrost to give credit for a

control capable of timing defrost to

occur other than during a compressor

"on" cycle, thereby taking advantage of

the natural warming of the evaporator

during an "off" cycle, and saving

additional energy. The revision has no

effect on the testing of refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers that do not have a

long-time automatic defrost system.

This change in the test procedure will

encourage the use of energy enhancing

technology. This amendment to the test

procedure will not cause any

refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer that

currently complies with the minimum

energy conservation standards to

become noncompliant with the

standard.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

May 6, 2003, unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 7, 2003.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Ms. Brenda EdwardsJones, U.S. Department of Energy, Office

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, EE-2J, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0121. E-mail address: Brenda.Edwardsjones@ee.doe.gov. You should identify

all such documents both on the

envelope and on the documents as

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedures for

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers,

Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02--001.

Copies of public comments received

may be read in the Freedom of

Information Reading Room (Room No.

1E-190) at the U.S. Department of

Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC between the hours of 9

am. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Raymond, 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:

Michael.Raymond@lee.doe.gov; or

Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507,

E-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Discussion

III. Final Action

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. "Takings" Assessment Review

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 Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

A. Authority

Part B of title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act, as amended

(EPCA or Act), establishes the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products Other Than Automobiles

(Program). The products currently

subject to this Program ("covered

products") include residential

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers,

the subject of today's direct final rule.

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), must amend or

establish 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

procedure must not be unduly

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.

6293(b)(3)).

If a test procedure is amended, EPCA

section 323(e)(1) requires DOE to

determine, in the rulemaking, to what

extent, if any, 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 the amended test procedure would

 EE-RM/TP-02-001 COMMENT 01
10958 Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 45/Friday, March 7, 2003 /Rules and Regulations

change the measured energy efficiency

or measured energy use of a covered

product, DOE must amend the

applicable energy conservation standard

during the rulemaking that establishes

the new test procedure. In determining

the amended energy conservation

standard, DOE is required to measure

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, tested using the

amended test procedure, shall constitute

the amended energy conservation or

energy use standard for the applicable

covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)).

Beginning 180 days after an amended

or new test procedure for a covered

product is prescribed or established

under section 323(b) of EPCA, no

manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or

private labeler may make any

representation with respect to the

energy use, efficiency, or cost of energy

consumed by such product, unless such

product has been tested in accordance

with such amended or new DOE

procedure and such representation fully

discloses the results of such testing. (42

U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)).

B. Background

On November 21, 2000, Electrolux

filed an application for interim waiver

and a petition for waiver regarding the

calculation of the long-time automatic

defrost test time period in refrigerators

and refrigerator-freezers having a

variable defrost control function. The

Department granted the interim waiver

on July 30, 2001, and published its

decision in the Federal Register on

August 3, 2001. (66 FR 40689). In the

same Federal Register notice, the

Department published Electrolux's

petition for waiver, and solicited

comments, data, and information

respecting the petition. On March 29,

2002, DOE published a notice in the

Federal Register extending the interim

waiver for 180 days, or until July 25,

2002, because it determined that it

would seek to amend the refrigerator

and refrigerator-freezer test procedure

and the planned amendment would

eliminate any need for continuation of

the waiver. (67 FR 15192). Furthermore,

amendment of the test procedure would

allow all manufacturers to use the

amended test procedure if they have a

product with a long-time automatic

defrost function.

Electrolux's petition requested that

the calculation of the test time period

for long-time automatic defrost models

be modified for its variable defrost

control models. This modification

would allow for the existence of a

control that is capable of timing defrost

to occur other than during a compressor

"on" cycle, thereby taking advantage of

the natural warming of the evaporator

during an "off" cycle, and saving energy

as a result. Technology has advanced

sufficiently that it is feasible to design

and build a system that no longer has to

initiate defrost during a compressor run

period, as did the old mechanical

defrost timers. Electrolux asked to have

the time before the heaters turn "on" be

included in the defrost period. The

evaporator is warming up during this

time, with no use of electrical energy.

The current test procedure does not

properly account for the energy savings

produced by Electrolux's timing of the

defrost heater activation.

The Department received three

written comments concerning the

petition for waiver. All the comments

supported granting the waiver, with one

modification.

Maytag supported Electrolux's

proposal provided that it is applicable

on an industry-wide basis to all

manufacturers. The Department's

waiver process allows for granting of

waivers for a "particular basic model,"

so the waiver requested and granted

applies only to the Electrolux basic

models that include variable defrost

control. Without a test procedure

change, any manufacturer desiring to

use this modification to the test

procedure could do so only by

petitioning the Department for its own

waiver.

Fisher & Paykel, a major manufacturer

of refrigerators in New Zealand,

generally approved of Electrolux's

petition, but argued for a somewhat

different modification. It proposed that

the third sentence of section 4.1.2.1 of

the test procedure (which is the only

sentence Electrolux sought to modify)

read as follows:

"The second part would start at the last

compressor off that is part of steady state

operation (or at a point still within stable

operation if there are no temperature swings)

before a defrost is initiated. It would

terminate at the [second] [third] turn "on" of

the compressor or after four hours, whichever

comes first. If there are compressor swings

without compressor cycling, the start point

shall be at the last temperature peak in stable

operation and the end point shall be at the

[second] [third] temperature peak after the

defrost."

Finally, the Association of Home

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM),

representing the manufacturers who

produce over 90% of the household

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in

the U.S., agreed in principle with

Electrolux's petition, but requested a

change in the wording. AHAM

suggested that the four hour limitation

of the test commence when the defrost

heater is initiated, rather than at the

beginning of the second part of the twopart test period. It stated that this

change would alleviate concerns about

"the possibility of being able to modify

the performance of a refrigerator to such

an extent that it would not recover from

defrost in the four hour time period

allotted within the proposed waiver."

AHAM recommended that

Electrolux's proposed language be

changed so that revised section 4.1.2.1

of the test procedure would read as

follows:

"Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the model

being tested has a long-time automatic

defrost system, the test period may consist of

two parts. A first part would be the same as

the test for a unit having no defrost

provisions (section 4.1.1). The second part

would start when a defrost is initiated when

the compressor 'on" cycle is terminated

prior to start of the defrost heater and

terminates at the second turn "on" of the

compressor or four hours from the initiotion

ofthe defrost heater, whichever comes first."

AHAM stated that it discussed this

change with its members, and was not

aware of any member who disagreed

with its position. It specifically listed

the following members as having

participated in and concurred in its

proposal: GE Appliances, Electrolux

Home Products, Fisher & Paykel,

Maytag, Sub-Zero, and Whirlpool. In

summary, AHAM asserted that all

commenters on Electrolux's Petition

were in agreement with AHAM's

proposal.

II. Discussion

The Department consulted with the

National Institute of Standards &

Technology (NIST), which agreed that

the current test procedure for

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is

not clear with regard to the initiation of

the defrost cycle test time period in

Electrolux's new product. (The current

test procedure states: "The second

period would start when a defrost

period is initiated during a compressor

"on" cycle * * " Electrolux's new

product initiates the defrost period

when the compressor is "off".) NIST

informed the Department that the

change proposed in the Electrolux

Petition would clarify the defrost cycle

initiation and more accurately measure

the energy consumption of Electrolux's

new product. NIST endorsed the revised

language proposed by AHAM. As stated

above, all commenters on the test

procedure change apparently support

AHAM's proposal. This proposed

change has widespread support and will

 EE-RM/TP-02-001 COMMENT 01
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 45/Friday, March 7, 2003/Rules and Regulations 10959

result in a test procedure that more

accurately measures energy

consumption. The application of the

existing test procedure to the new

product is unclear, and this amendment

will clarify its application to the new

product. For all these reasons, the

Department has determined that it

should promulgate this direct final rule

and make a change to the refrigerator

and refrigerator-freezer test procedure.

The revised calculation of the test

time period results in a small (generally

about one percent) decrease in the

tested energy consumption of models

that incorporate the advanced defrost

timing feature, a feature that delays the

initiation of the defrost heater, thereby

using natural warming to defrost.

Section 323(e) of EPCA requires the

Department, in a rulemaking, to

determine to what extent, if any, the

proposed test procedure would change

the existing measured energy efficiency

or measured energy use of any covered

product under the existing test

procedure. This statutory provision is

designed to prevent the alteration of an

existing Federal energy conservation

standard that otherwise could result

from a change in a test procedure. It also

seeks to ensure that products in

compliance with the applicable energy

conservation standards under the

existing test procedure will not be put

out of compliance because the test

procedure has been amended. When the

Department considers section 323(e) of

EPCA in the context of this direct final

rule, the Department concludes that no

change to the energy conservation

standard is required. The reasons are as

follows: (1) This test procedure

amendment affects only products with a

variable defrost control function, none

of which minimally comply with the

existing standard. There are, therefore,

no minimally-compliant products under

section 323(e) that would show any

change in energy use under the

amended test procedure. (2) This test

procedure amendment, which was

developed to give credit to an energy

saving technology, will result in

lowering the measured energy use.

Lowering measured energy use will, of

course, not raise energy use over the

standard, which prescribes a ceiling on

maximum energy use. Instead, lowering

energy use merely removes measured

energy use further from that ceiling.

Therefore, this amendment does not

make any compliant products noncompliant with the applicable energy

conservation standard.

III. Final Action

DOE is publishing this direct final

rule without prior proposal because

DOE views this amendment as

noncontroversial and anticipates no

significant adverse comments. However,

in the event that significant adverse or

critical comments are filed, DOE has

prepared a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing the same

amendment. This NOPR is contained in

a separate document in this Federal

Register publication. The direct final

action will be effective May 6, 2003,

unless significant adverse or critical

comments are received by April 7, 2003.

If DOE receives significant adverse or

critical comments, the revisions will be

withdrawn before the effective date. In

the case of withdrawal of this action, the

withdrawal will be announced by a

subsequent Federal Register document.

All public comments will then be

addressed in a separate final rule based

on the proposed rule that is also issued

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. If no

significant adverse comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective May 6, 2003.

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under the Notional

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

In this rule, the Department

promulgates a small change to the test

procedure for measuring the energy

consumption of household refrigerators

and refrigerator-freezers. 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.

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601-612, requires that an agency

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis for any rule, for which a

general notice of proposed rulemaking

is required, that would have a

significant economic effect on small

entities unless the agency certifies that

the proposed rule, if promulgated, will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. 5 U.S.C. 605.

Today's rule prescribes test

procedures that will be used to test

compliance with energy conservation

standards. The rule affects refrigerator

and refrigerator-freezer test procedures

and would not have a significant

economic impact, but rather would

provide common testing methods.

Therefore DOE certifies that today's rule

would not have a "significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities," and the preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis is not

warranted.

D. "Takings" Assessment Review

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 0MB

 EE-RM/TP-02-001 COMMENT 01
10960 Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 45/Friday, March 7, 2003/Rules and Regulations

clearance is required under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.s.c.

3501 et seq.

C. 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. 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.

I. 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 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).

L. 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 February 28,

2003.

David K. Garman,

Assistant Secretary, En ergy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

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

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.

2. Section 4.1.2.1 of Appendix Al to

subpart B of part 430 is revised to read

as follows:

Appendix Al to Subpart B of Part 430-

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the

Energy Consumption of Electric

Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers

4. * * *

4.1.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost.

If the model being tested has a long-time

automatic defrost system, the test time

period may consist of two parts. A first

part would be the same as the test for

a unit having no defrost provisions

(section 4.1.1). The second part would

start when a defrost is initiated when

the compressor "on" cycle is terminated

prior to start of the defrost heater and

 EE-RM/TP-02-001 COMMENT 01
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 45/Friday, March 7, 2003/Rules and Regulations 10961

terminates at the second turn "on" of whichever comes first. See diagram in

the compressor or four hours from the Figure 1 to this section.

initiation of the defrost heater, BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

Lc ig Thi: '1JLti) riial: c D&ost L)iii a FITI

4 r]c1ft tf) ,

END PEFUH

P 'FT C TEST

[FR Doc. 03-5404 Filed 3-6-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

 EE-RM/TP-02-001 COMMENT 01