4202 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE–RM–94–230]

RIN 1904–AA88

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Notice of Public

Workshop on Residential Water Heater

Test Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

SUMMARY: In today’s notice, the

Department of Energy (the Department

or DOE) is convening a public workshop

for water heaters to discuss comments

received on its notice of proposed

rulemaking and from the public hearing.

All persons are hereby given notice of

the opportunity to attend and

participate in the public workshop.

DATES: The public workshop will be

held on Wednesday, February 12, 1997,

from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the comments

may be obtained from: U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Forrestal

Building, Mail Stop: EE–43, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–7574.

These documents may be read at the

DOE Freedom of Information Reading

Room, U.S. DOE, Forrestal Building,

Room 1E–190, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,

(202) 586–6020, between the hours of

9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The public workshop will be held at

the U.S. Department of Energy, Room

1E–245, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Forrestal

Building, Mail Stop EE–43, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)

586–0371; or

Ms. Sandy Beall, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

U.S. Department of Energy, Mail Stop

EE–43, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121,

(202) 586–7574.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

23, 1995, the Department of Energy

published a notice of Proposed Rule and

Public Hearing on proposed

amendments to clarify the water heater;

kitchen range, oven, and microwave;

and clothes washer test procedures. (60

FR 15330, March 23, 1995) The notice

requested data and comments until the

close of comment period on August 31,

1995 (Docket No: EE–RM–94–230). A

public hearing was held on July 12,

1995.

The Department is convening a public

workshop for water heaters to discuss

the large number of comments received

on the notice and from the public

hearing. The Department seeks to gather

additional information and/or data on

certain unresolved issues being

considered by the Department in its

development of the Final Rule for Water

Heater Test Procedure.

The tentative topics and issues to be

discussed at the February 12, 1997,

public workshop include the following:

1. First Hour Rating for Storage-Type

Water Heaters

• Should DOE consider the 1979 test

method (44 FR 52632, September 7,

1979) for measuring first hour rating?

• Should DOE retain the current test

method (55 FR 42162, October 17, 1990)

for measuring first hour rating?

• Should DOE adopt the 1995

proposed test method (60 FR 15330,

March 23, 1995) for measuring first hour

rating (with revision to include a

temperature correction factor of 120°F

for each draw if an internal mixing

device is used)?

• Should DOE adopt the alternate test

method proposed by Dr. Carl Hiller of

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

(EE–RM–94–230, No. 17)?

2. Instantaneous water heaters

• Do oil-fired instantaneous water

heaters exist in the marketplace, and, if

so, should test procedures be developed

for them?

• Should test procedures be

developed for single point-of-use type

electric instantaneous water heaters?

• Should DOE adopt an alternate

first-hour rating method for

instantaneous water heaters using a

maximum draw rate at a temperature

rise of 77 °F as proposed by Gas

Appliance Manufacturers Association

(GAMA) (EE–RM–94–230, No. 1 & 35),

or a temperature rise of 50 °F as

proposed by Edison Electric Institute

(EEI) (EE–RM–94–230, No. 2 & 27) and

EPRI (EE–RM–94–230, No. 17)?

3. Storage-type water heaters with rated

storage capacities of less than 20 gallons

• Should test procedures developed

for storage-type water heaters be applied

to storage-type water heaters with rated

storage capacities of less than 20

gallons?

• If so, should the draw rate and daily

draw volume in ASHRAE Standard

118.2—1993, as referenced in the 1995

DOE proposed rule, be used in the 24-

hour simulated use test for storage-type

water heaters with rated storage

capacities of less than 20 gallons? Or

should some other draw rate and total

daily drawn volume be used?

• Should test procedures be

developed for storage-type water heaters

with rated storage capacities of less than

10 gallons (single point-of-use type

heaters)?

4. Daily hot water usage

• Does the daily usage assumed in the

current test procedures, 64.3 gallons,

reflect realistic daily hot water usage,

and if not, what volume should it be?

• How will the Energy Factor be

affected if testing were conducted at a

daily hot water usage volume other than

64.3 gallons?

5. Thermostat settings

• Should the current setting of 135 °F

be lowered to 120 °F to reflect

manufacturers’ recommendation that

thermostat setting be set at a lower

setting to avoid potential scalding?

• How will the Energy Factor be

effected if testing were conducted at a

thermostat setting of 120 °F?

6. Test procedures for heat pump water

heaters

• Does the current test procedure

(draw schedule of six hourly draws of

10.7 gallons per draw) provide operating

conditions which would allow the

resistance element(s) to be activated?

• Should DOE consider an alternate

draw schedule to be used in the 24-hr

simulated use test for heat pump water

heaters and if so, what should this draw

schedule be?

• How will the Energy Factor be

effected if testing were conducted using

different alternate draw schedules?

7. Definitions for heat pump water

heaters, add-on heat pump water

heaters, integral heat pump water

heaters, solar water heaters, and heat

pump water heater storage tanks

• Should any of the proposed

definition be adopted by DOE?

• Should any proposed definition be

revised and if so, which one(s) and how

should it (they) be revised?

• Which, if any proposed definition

should be completely deleted?

After completion of the workshop, the

Department will review all of the

findings and other recommendations.

The Department will use this

information to develop the final rule for

the water heater test procedures. The

workshop will be professionally

facilitated.

Please notify Mr. Bryan Berringer at

the above listed address of your
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4203

intention to attend the workshop, or if

you wish to be added to the DOE

mailing list for receipt of future rules

and information concerning water

heater matters relating to energy

efficiency.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 22,

1997.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 97–2173 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–65–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft, Inc. SA226 and SA227 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede AD 96–21–05, which

currently requires the following on

certain Fairchild Aircraft, Inc.

(Fairchild) SA226 and SA227 series

airplanes that do not have a certain

elevator torque tube installed: drilling

inspection access holes in the elevator

torque tube arm, inspecting the elevator

torque tube for corrosion, replacing any

corroded elevator torque tube, and

applying a corrosion preventive

compound. AD 96–21–05 resulted from

several reports of corrosion found in the

elevator torque tube area on the affected

airplanes. The proposed AD would

retain the actions required by AD 96–

21–05, and would add certain Fairchild

Model SA227–BC airplanes to the

Applicability section of that AD. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent failure of the

flight control system caused by a

corroded elevator torque tube, which

could result in loss of control of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–CE–65–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted. Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Fairchild Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box

790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279–

0490; telephone (210) 824–9421. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Hung Viet Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Airplane Certification Office, 2601

Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas

76193–0150; telephone (817) 222–5155;

facsimile (817) 222–5960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 96–CE–65–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 96–CE–65–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Events Leading to the Proposed AD

AD 96–21–05, Amendment 39–9782

(61 FR 54538, October 21, 1996),

currently requires the following on

certain Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and

SA227 series airplanes that do not have

a part number (P/N) 27–44026–007

elevator torque tube installed:

• Drilling inspection access holes in

the elevator torque tube arm;

• Inspecting the elevator torque tube

for corrosion and replacing any

corroded elevator torque tube; and

• Applying a corrosion preventive

compound.

Accomplishment of the inspection

access hole drilling, the inspection, and

the corrosion preventive compound

application is in accordance with either

Fairchild Aircraft Service Bulletin (SB)

226–27–050 or Fairchild Aircraft SB

227–27–028, both issued: January 22,

1990.

AD 96–21–05 resulted from several

reports of corrosion found in the

elevator torque tube area on the affected

airplanes.

The FAA has since determined that

the requirements of AD 96–21–05

should also apply to certain Fairchild

Model SA227–BC airplanes. In addition,

Fairchild has issued an engineering

order that provides instructions for

reworking the elevator torque tube.

When reworked, the elevator torque

tube is identified as P/N 27–44026–

SEO–1–03.

The FAA has also determined that

airplane owners/operators should not

have to accomplish the actions of AD

96–21–05 if the affected airplane

incorporates an elevator torque tube

with either P/N 27–44026–005, P/N 27–

44026–007, or P/N 27–44026–SEO–1–

03.

The FAA’s Determination

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to prevent failure of the

flight control system caused by a

corroded elevator torque tube, which

could result in loss of control of the

airplane.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Fairchild SA226 and

SA227 series airplanes of the same type

design, the FAA is proposing an AD that

would supersede AD 96–21–05. The

proposed AD would (1) retain the

requirements of drilling inspection

access holes in the elevator torque tube

arm, inspecting the elevator torque tube

for corrosion and replacing any

corroded elevator torque tube, and

applying a corrosion preventive

compound; (2) add certain Fairchild