Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices 18125

Information Resources Group publishes

this notice containing proposed

information collection requests prior to

submission of these requests to OMB.

Each proposed information collection,

grouped by office, contains the

following: (1) Type of review requested,

e.g., new, revision, extension, existing

or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary

of the collection; (4) Description of the

need for, and proposed use of, the

information; (5) Respondents and

frequency of collection; and (6)

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping

burden. OMB invites public comment at

the address specified above. Copies of

the requests are available from Patrick J.

Sherrill at the address specified above.

Dated: April 18, 1996.

Gloria Parker,

Director, Information Resources Group.

Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education

Type of Review: New.

Title: Even Start Family Literacy

Program Women’s Prison Project.

Frequency: One Time.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions, State,

local or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs and LEAs.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping

Burden:

Responses: 100.

Burden Hours: 1,500.

Abstract: The Even Start Family

Literacy Program Women’s Prison

Project is designed such that the grantee

will operate a family literacy project in

a prison that houses women and their

preschool-aged children.

[FR Doc. 96–10042 Filed 4–23–96;8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

[CFDA No.: 84.314A]

Even Start Statewide Family Literacy

Initiative Grants; Notice Extending the

Application Deadline Date for New

Even Start Statewide Family Literacy

Initiative Grant Awards With Fiscal

Year (FY) 1995 Funds

SUMMARY: The Secretary extends the

deadline date for the submission of

applications for new Even Start

Statewide Family Literacy Initiative

grant awards with FY 1995 funds to

May 31, 1996. A notice was published

in the Federal Register on March 26,

1996 (61 FR 13358) specifying that the

application deadline for these awards

was May 10, 1996. In response to

requests from the public for a longer

period to prepare applications, the

Department has decided to extend the

application deadline.

FOR APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION

CONTACT: Patricia McKee, Compensatory

Education Programs, Office of

Elementary and Secondary Education,

U.S. Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue, S.W. (4400,

Portals), Washington, DC 20202–6132.

Telephone (202) 260–0991. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through

Friday.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6362(c).

Dated: April 18, 1996.

Gerald N. Tirozzi,

Assistant Secretary, Elementary and

Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 96–10010 Filed 4–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

[Case No. CW–004]

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Granting of the

Application for Interim Waiver and

Publishing of the Petition for Waiver of

General Electric Appliances From the

DOE Clothes Washer Test Procedure

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Today’s notice grants an

Interim Waiver to General Electric

Appliances (GEA) and publishes GEA’s

Petition for Waiver from the existing

Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) clothes washer test

procedure regarding wash temperature

selections and automatic water fill

capability for its clothes washer model

WZSE5310 (Monogram brand).

GEA seeks a waiver because its

clothes washer model WZSE5310 has

the following design features that differ

from those covered by the existing DOE

clothes washer test procedures: five

wash temperatures (a cold, three warms

and a hot) in a primary mode (factory

preset), 34 wash temperatures in a

secondary programming mode (i.e., a

customizing feature), and a consumer

selectable manual or automatic water

fill capability. GEA seeks to test wash

temperature selections by averaging the

three warm wash temperatures (warmhot/cold, warm/cold and warm-cold/

cold) in the primary mode and then

applying the existing test procedure

Temperature Use Factors (TUFs) for a

three temperature machine (hot/cold,

warm/cold and cold/cold). In regard to

consumer selectable water fill

capability, GEA proposes to use the

existing test procedure manual fill

provision. DOE is soliciting comments

and information regarding the Petition

for Waiver.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,

and information not later than May 24,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

statements shall be sent to: Department

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Case No. CW–

004, Mail Stop EE–431, Room 1J–018,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–

0121 (202) 586–7140.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

P. Marc LaFrance, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Mail Station

EE–431, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)

586–8423

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC–72, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0103,

(202) 586–9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products (other than

automobiles) was established pursuant

to the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 USC 6291

et seq., which requires DOE to prescribe

standardized test procedures to measure

the energy consumption of certain

consumer products, including clothes

washers. The intent of the test

procedures is to provide a comparable

measure of energy consumption that

will assist consumers in making

purchasing decisions. These test

procedures appear at Title 10 CFR Part

430, Subpart B.

DOE amended the test procedure

rules to provide for a waiver process by

adding § 430.27 to Title 10, CFR Part

430. (45 FR 64108, September 26, 1980).

Thereafter, DOE further amended the

appliance test procedure waiver process

to allow the Assistant Secretary for

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (Assistant Secretary) to grant an

Interim Waiver from test procedure

requirements to manufacturers that have

petitioned DOE for a waiver from such

prescribed test procedures. (51 FR

42823, November 26, 1986).

The waiver process allows the

Assistant Secretary to temporarily waive

the test procedures for a particular basic

Case No. CW-004 COMMENT 01
18126 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices

1 Comments are available upon request at the

address provided at the beginning of today’s notice.

2On March 23, 1995, DOE published a proposed

rule to amend the clothes washer test procedure.

(56 FR 15330). In response to the Department’s

Proposed Rule, AHAM proposed a new test

procedure to become effective concurrently with

the anticipated future clothes washer standards.

The Department supports AHAM’s effort in

developing a new test procedure and will address

issues regarding that test procedure under the

appropriate rulemaking (Docket No. EE-RM–94–

230). Although a number of comments reference the

proposed AHAM test procedures, the Department

does not believe that it can be used to establish

testing procedures for issues covered by the existing

test procedures. If the issues are not covered by the

existing test procedure, then the AHAM proposed

test procedure may have merit.

3 Manufacturers have voluntarily made this

interpretation for temperature selections other than

hot. The Department is aware of at least one

manufacturer who has tested the hottest of a

similarly labeled temperature selection (i.e. auto

cold/cold 70/80 °F was tested in lieu of cold/cold

60 °F).

model when a petitioner shows that the

basic model contains one or more

design characteristics which prevent

testing according to the prescribed test

procedures or when the prescribed test

procedures may evaluate the basic

model in a manner so unrepresentative

of its true energy consumption as to

provide materially inaccurate

comparative data. Waivers generally

remain in effect until final test

procedure amendments become

effective, resolving the problem that is

the subject of the waiver.

The Interim Waiver provisions, added

by the 1986 amendment, allow the

Assistant Secretary to grant an Interim

Waiver when it is determined that the

applicant will experience economic

hardship if the Application for Interim

Waiver is denied, if it appears likely

that the Petition for Waiver will be

granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary

determines that it would be desirable for

public policy reasons to grant

immediate relief pending a

determination on the Petition for

Waiver. An Interim Waiver remains in

effect for a period of 180 days or until

DOE issues its determination on the

Petition for Waiver, whichever is

sooner, and may be extended for an

additional 180 days, if necessary.

On October 9, 1995, GEA filed a

Petition for Waiver and an Application

for Interim Waiver regarding its clothes

washer model WZSE5310. The design

features that differ from those covered

by the existing clothes washer test

procedure are: Five wash temperatures

(a cold, three warms and a hot) in a

factory preset primary mode, 34 wash

temperature selections in a secondary

programming mode which may be

substituted for the factory preset

temperatures, and a consumer activated

choice of a manual or automatic water

fill capability.

GEA proposed testing either the

higher of the factory preset temperature

selection or the mean of the adjustable

range of the secondary programming

mode temperature selections. This

results in GEA seeking to test the wash

temperature selections by averaging the

warm wash temperatures in the primary

(factory preset) mode and then applying

the Temperature Use Factors (TUFs) for

a three temperature machine (hot/cold,

warm/cold and cold/cold) found in the

existing test procedure at Section 5.3 of

Appendix J to Subpart B. In regard to

consumer selectable water fill

capability, GEA proposes to use the

existing test procedure manual fill

provision.

Discussion of Comments

Wash Temperature Selections

The Department received comments

about the GEA Interim Waiver

Application and Petition for Waiver

request from Asko Inc. (ASKO), Maytag

and Admiral Products (Maytag), Speed

Queen Company (Speed Queen),

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) and

White Consolidated Industries, Inc.

(White Consolidated).1 All commenters

opposed GEA’s proposed method to test

the higher of the factory preset or the

mean of the secondary programming

mode temperature selection range. All

commenters believed that the hottest

setting available in the secondary

programming mode (126 °F) should be

tested in lieu of the hottest setting

available at the factory preset (120 °F)

for hot.

Some commenters proposed various

methods on how to test the GEA clothes

washer. Maytag believed the hottest

settings available in the secondary

programming mode should be tested

and the warm wash temperatures

averaged. Speed Queen believed that the

clothes washer should be tested in the

factory preset mode and in the

secondary programming mode (hottest

settings available), and then new TUFs

should be applied to the two modes.

Whirlpool believed that the Association

of Home Appliance Manufacturers

(AHAM) proposed test procedure 2

should be directly applied to the

secondary programming mode, thus the

hottest setting available and coldest

setting available would be tested, along

with the testing and averaging of all

warm wash (intermediate) temperatures.

White Consolidated believed that the

AHAM test procedure should not be

applied, that the hottest hot, hottest cold

and either hottest middle warm or

hottest higher warm of the secondary

programming mode should be tested (it

was unclear to the Department which

one was being recommended).

GEA provided a rebuttal comment

that the current test procedure requires

the testing of the ‘‘hottest setting

available’’ and states that ‘‘the only

‘setting’ on the new Monogram machine

is the main temperature selection pads

on the control panel. This use of the

term ‘setting’ is its normal and

conventional meaning.’’ GEA believed

that there is no basis to test in the

secondary programming mode and that

Australian survey data indicates that the

secondary programming mode is used

only six percent of the time. GEA

continued to say that its original

proposal is preferable, but if the AHAM

test procedure were to be applied to the

secondary programming mode, then it

believes new TUFs should be allowed.

The Department believes that the

‘‘hottest setting available’’ refers to

available on the clothes washer and not

any particular mode of a clothes washer

because the rule language (Section

3.2.2.2) clearly states ‘‘For automatic

clothes washers set the wash/rinse

temperature selector to the hottest

setting available (hot/warm).’’ Based on

the information and comments

available, if the existing test procedure

is applied to the GEA clothes washer,

the Department believes that the hottest

setting available on the clothes washer

should be tested for the hot setting.

Furthermore, the Department believes

this philosophy should be extended to

the warm and cold wash temperature

settings because this is the industry’s

basic interpretation 3 of the test

procedure.

Concerning GEA’s two intermediate

warm temperatures [one warm

temperature which is equally hotter

than the median warm (warm-hot/cold)

and one which is equally colder than

the median warm (warm-cold/cold)], the

Department believes that these

temperature selections do not have to be

tested. The Department believes that

consumers are just as likely to choose

the hotter warm (warm-hot/cold) as they

are to choose the cooler warm (warmcold/cold). This position has been

supported by White Consolidated.

Furthermore, on November 24, 1992, the

Department rejected a Petition for

Waiver from Maytag which had a

clothes washer with intermediate warm

temperatures (half hot and half warm;

and half warm and half cold) and

indicated that it ‘‘could be tested using

the existing test procedure by neglecting

the intermediate temperature settings.’’

The Department also acknowledges that

Case No. CW-004 COMMENT 01
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices 18127

4 For example, the dishwasher test procedure

uses a 50 percent usage factor for unheated dry

option. (42 FR 15423, March 17, 1977).

this approach will be equivalent to

averaging all three warm wash

temperature selections, but it will

reduce the test burden. Therefore,

today’s Interim Waiver being granted to

GEA requires that the hottest setting

available of the hot/cold (126 °F), warm/

cold (101 °F) and cold/cold (66 °F)

temperature selections be tested in the

secondary programming mode. The

Department requests comments about

the test method provided to GEA in the

Interim Waiver and recommendations

for alternatives, if appropriate,

considering today’s publication.

Automatic Water Fill Capability

GEA did not request a waiver from the

existing test procedure to test its

automatic water fill capability feature.

However, Asko, Maytag, Speed Queen

and Whirlpool had concerns about this

feature. Maytag believed that testing in

the manual mode is acceptable, as long

as all rinse cycles are cold because due

to the clothes washer sensing capability,

additional rinse water may be added.

Asko, Speed Queen and Whirlpool

believed that the automatic water fill

capability should be tested primarily

because they believe that GEA will

market the energy saving potential of

the automatic water fill capability. In

addition, Asko indicated that the

automatic water fill feature may use

more energy than the manual fill mode.

Speed Queen and Whirlpool believed

that the AHAM proposed test procedure

should be used for the testing.

GEA rebutted that the existing test

procedure requires the minimum and

maximum fill settings be tested and that

its machine can be tested in the manual

mode with the minimum and maximum

settings and a waiver was not required.

The Department agrees with GEA that

its clothes washer can be tested with the

existing test procedure regarding water

fill. However, a second requirement for

a Waiver is whether a test procedure

evaluates a basic model in a manner so

unrepresentative of its true energy

consumption as to provide materially

inaccurate comparative data. Therefore,

the issues regarding GEA’s clothes

washer raised by the commenters have

merit. GEA has stated to the Department

that when applying the existing test

procedure test loads and minimum and

maximum usage fill factors its clothes

washer uses less energy when the

automatic water fill mode (as preset

from the factory) is used versus the

manual mode. However, the

‘‘sensitivity’’ or relative fill amounts of

the automatic water fill mode can be

reprogrammed in the secondary

programming mode, thus resulting in an

increase in energy consumption above

the manual mode result.

The Department believes that the GEA

clothes washer should be tested to

capture both the automatic water fill

mode and the manual water fill mode

since both options are available to the

consumer. This can be achieved by

testing and averaging the two. This is

consistent with the Department’s

historical position when actual

consumer usage habits have not been

known.4 However, the programmability

of the automatic water fill capability

presents some difficulties. First, the

Department believes that the most

energy intensive mode of the automatic

fill capability should be tested because

this option is available to the consumer

through secondary programming.

However, on the other hand, to only test

the most energy intensive mode of

automatic fill capability which is more

energy intensive than the factory preset,

does not appear to be entirely fair

because the consumer may also choose

to set the automatic water fill mode to

a lower, or less energy intensive mode

than the factory preset. Therefore, on an

interim basis until additional comments

and hopefully statistically significant

data can be provided, the Department

believes that averaging of the least

energy intensive and most energy

intensive modes for automatic water fill

capability is the best method to use to

determine the energy use in the

automatic water fill mode. This result

shall then be averaged with the test

result from the primary manual water

fill mode. The Department requests

comments on this test method and

submission of statistically significant

consumer usage data, if available.

Test Loads/Usage Factors

With regard to activating the

automatic water fill capability,

Whirlpool stated that GEA should use

the test loads specified in the AHAM

proposed test procedure. The AHAM

proposed test procedure specifies larger

test loads which more accurately

reflects actual consumer usage habits

and requires additional testing for

‘‘average’’ size loads. The Department

does not agree with Whirlpool because

presently one manufacturer, Asko, has

been granted a Waiver (59 FR 15719,

April 4, 1994) for its clothes washers

with automatic water fill capability that

uses the existing test procedure test

loads to activate the maximum and

minimum fills and uses the existing test

procedure usage fill factors. Imposing

larger test loads on GEA and requiring

additional testing would put GEA at a

competitive disadvantage because its

competitors are allowed to use the

requirements of the existing test

procedure. Therefore, the Interim

Waiver granted to GEA today uses a 3

pound test load to activate the

minimum fill test with the current 0.28

usage fill factor, and a 7 pound test load

to activate the maximum fill test with

the current 0.72 usage fill factor. In

addition, the Department has used the

AHAM proposed rule language, where

warranted. For example, the term

‘‘adaptive water fill control system’’ was

used in lieu of ‘‘automatic water fill

capability.’’

Warm Rinses

Maytag and Speed Queen expressed

concerns about the GEA machine

possibly having warm rinses. Speed

Queen indicated that although GEA

stated that the normal cycle did not

have a warm rinse, it was concerned

about other cycles possibly having

warm rinses. Speed Queen referenced

the Department’s rulemaking regarding

normal cycle temperature selection

lockouts (Energy Conservation Program

for Consumer Products, Docket No. EERM–93–701) and indicated that if a

warm rinse was available, then it should

be handled similarly to that rulemaking.

Maytag was concerned about possible

additional hot water use for a warm

rinse during an automatic water fill

function. The Department has learned

that GEA’s clothes washer does have a

warm rinse in the wool cycle. Presently,

the test procedure does not allow for

testing of temperature selections in nonnormal cycles, so GEA is not required to

test it. However, when the rulemaking

for the normal cycle temperature

selection lockout (Docket No. EE-RM–

93–701) is finalized, it is likely that the

requirements of that rule will require

GEA and other manufacturers to test

warm rinses in cycles other than the

normal cycle.

Justification

(a) Economic Hardship

GEA stated that it currently did not

have a Monogram brand product in its

home laundry line. GEA indicated that

delay of the introduction of its clothes

washer would also impact the

introduction of its Monogram dryer.

Asko, Whirlpool and White

Consolidated all provided comments

about the justification GEA provided to

support its Application for Interim

Waiver. In regard to economic hardship,

they all basically provided comments

that GEA did not demonstrate economic

Case No. CW-004 COMMENT 01
18128 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices

5See the Department’s preliminary Engineering

Analysis, comment 40 on Docket No. EE–RM–94–

403. Also, 62 percent RMC represents the current

industry shipment weighted average for clothes

washers.

6The Department has proposed this, see Docket

No. EE–RM–94–230.

7See AHAM comment No. 38, Docket No. EE–

RM–94–403.

8The Department has imposed minimum energy

conservation standards for consumer products (see

10 CFR, Part 430, Section 430.32). The Department

is also presently reviewing the clothes washers

standards to determine if they need to be more

stringent (see Docket No. EE–RM–94–403).

hardship. GEA rebutted indicating that

the requirements of 10 CFR, Part 430,

§ 430.27(g) state that an Interim Waiver

be granted if the applicant will

experience economic hardship, or if it

appears likely that the waiver will be

granted, or if the waiver is desirable for

public policy reasons. GEA did not

provide specific rebuttal relative to

economic hardship.

The Department agrees with Asko,

Whirlpool and White Consolidated that

GEA did not demonstrate economic

hardship. The failure to sell a particular

clothes washer and/or clothes dryer for

a corporation the size of GEA would

most likely not result in economic

hardship. However, if this were to be

considered further, GEA would have to

provide specific data to justify that

failure to sell its clothes washer would

demonstrate economic hardship.

(b) Likely Approval of the Petition for

Waiver

GEA indicated that the Petition for

Waiver was likely to be granted because

the GEA proposed test procedure

conforms, as much as possible, with the

industry supported AHAM proposed

test procedure. Asko disagreed with

GEA’s assertion that its petition

conforms with the AHAM proposed test

procedure. Asko believed that GEA

should conduct field testing per the

provisions of the proposed AHAM test

procedure.

The Department believes that it is

likely that the Petition for Waiver (with

possible modification) will be granted to

GEA because its clothes washer has

features that cannot be tested per the

existing test procedure. Furthermore, if

the features of the GEA clothes washer

were not tested, then the test results of

the GEA clothes washer may be

materially unrepresentative of its true

energy consumption. The availability of

34 wash temperature selections is

different than traditional clothes

washers, although the basic technology

is not novel; an acceptable test

procedure can be developed for it. The

Department has addressed the technical

issues, i.e., wash temperature selections,

automatic water fill capability, test

loads, and warm rinse, raised by

commenters in the Interim Waiver being

granted to GEA today.

Also, the Department has previously

granted a Waiver to another

manufacturer (Asko, as indicated above)

regarding automatic water fill

capability. Thus, it is likely that the

Petition for Waiver will be granted to

GEA. Although the Department has

concerns about the secondary

programming mode for automatic water

fill capability, the Department is

requiring testing of the most and least

energy intensive condition until data

and/or additional comment is received.

With regard to field testing, presently

no requirement exists. However, the

Department would support that effort, if

it resulted in the gathering of

statistically significant usage data for

automatic water fill capability and the

use of the secondary programming

mode. The Department does

acknowledge that if, in the future, a

Waiver is granted to GEA, it could be

changed significantly from today’s

Interim Waiver based on public

comment or statistically significant

consumer usage data, if submitted.

(c) Public Policy

GEA indicated that its clothes washer

was equipped with high spin speed, up

to 1000 revolutions per minute (RPM),

which results in significant energy

savings in the dryer. GEA also indicated

that its clothes washer has automatic

water fill capability which is anticipated

to save energy in a consumer’s home.

Asko stated that the GEA product is

not revolutionary. Asko also stated that

GEA’s claim in its Petition is

inconsistent with the GEA position

presented publicly to DOE. (DOE

hearing on July 12, 1995, for Docket No.

EE–RM–94–230). Asko’s concern is that

GEA argued to DOE that remaining

moisture content (RMC) should have no

bearing on energy use or energy credits.

Whirlpool believed GEA failed to

provide a basis that its clothes washer

will save energy. Furthermore,

Whirlpool believed that until such time

the test procedure and standards

address reduced RMC, it should not be

considered for granting the Petition.

GEA provided rebuttal, and stated

that although it ‘‘argued that a clothes

washer energy efficiency standard based

on a mandatory RMC requirement is

inappropriate, it has consistently

supported the energy savings benefits of

reduced RMC.’’ (GEA rebuttal comment

of November 9, 1995, page 4). GEA also

indicated that its clothes washer will

achieve RMC levels of less than 40

percent which would result in

approximately $20/year savings versus a

clothes washer with 62 percent RMC.

The Department believes that the GEA

clothes washer offers technology that

has the possibility of saving significant

amounts of energy. The Administration

is committed to promoting energy

efficient technologies, such as, clothes

washers with automatic water fill

capability and high spin speed. The

Department has estimated that a clothes

washer with 40 percent RMC will save

approximately $15/year for consumers

(weighted between gas and electric

dryers) or approximately 40 percent of

the cost to run their dryers versus a

clothes washer with 62 percent RMC.5

Although RMC provisions are not

reflected in the current test procedure,6

the Department promotes energy

efficiency improvements for consumer

products. In addition, the GEA clothes

washer is a vertical-axis clothes washer

which has a RMC level below 40

percent. The Department is not aware of

any vertical-axis clothes washer with

that low level of RMC. With regard to

automatic water fill capability, the

laundry industry has submitted

shipment weighted average data to the

Department indicating that the

automatic water fill feature would save

approximately 11 percent of the energy

consumed in a clothes washer.7

Whirlpool expressed a concern that

the GEA clothes washer may not meet

the minimum energy conservation

standard.8 GEA rebutted that if its

clothes washer were tested per its

submitted Application, then it would

exceed the minimum energy

conservation standard. GEA is required

to certify with the Department that its

clothes washer meets the standard

before it distributes the machine in

commerce.

Therefore, based on the likely

approval of the Petition for Waiver and

for public policy reasons, the

Department grants GEA an Interim

Waiver from the DOE test procedures for

its clothes washer model WZSE5310.

GEA shall be permitted to test its

clothes washer on the basis of the test

procedures specified in 10 CFR Part

430, Subpart B, Appendix J, with the

following modifications:

(i) Add new sections, 1.19 through

1.21 in Appendix J to read as follows:

1.19 ‘‘Adaptive water fill control

system’’ refers to a clothes washer water

fill control system which is capable of

automatically adjusting the water fill

level based on the size or weight of the

test load placed in the clothes container,

without allowing or requiring consumer

intervention and/or actions.

1.20 ‘‘Manual water fill control

system’’ refers to a clothes washer water

Case No. CW-004 COMMENT 01
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices 18129

fill control system which requires the

consumer to determine or select the

water fill level.

1.21 ‘‘Secondary programming

mode’’ means an auxiliary function

used to adjust temperature, water level,

rinse options or other characteristics of

the machine. The user must not be able

to access these adjustments from the

normal operating mode of the machine,

and access to the secondary mode must

not be necessary to operate the machine.

(ii) Section 2.8 through 2.8.2.2 in

Appendix J shall be deleted and

replaced with the following:

2.8 Use of test loads.

2.8.1 Top-loader-vertical-axis

clothes. The top-loader clothes washer

shall be tested without a test load,

except for clothes washers equipped

with an adaptive water fill control

system. Clothes washers equipped with

an adaptive water fill control system

shall use a test load per section 2.8.2.

2.8.2 Front-loader and top-loadervertical-axis with an adaptive water fill

control system, clothes washers.

2.8.2.1 Standard size clothes washer.

When the maximum water fill level is

being tested, the test load shall be seven

pounds as described in section 2.7.1.

When the minimum water fill level is

being tested, the test load shall be three

pounds as described in section 2.7.2.

2.8.2.2 Compact size clothes washer.

When either the maximum or minimum

water fill levels are being tested, the test

load shall be as described in section

2.7.2.

(iii) Section 3.2 in Appendix J shall be

deleted and replaced with the following:

3.2 Test cycle. Establish the test

conditions set forth in 2 of this

Appendix. For clothes washers with

both an adaptive water fill control

system and a manual water fill control

system, test both the manual and

adaptive modes. Additionally, for

clothes washers equipped with more

than one adaptive water fill control

selection, including clothes washers

with secondary programming modes,

test the selection that will result in the

maximum energy consumption and the

selection that will result in the

minimum energy consumption.

(iv) Section 3.2.2.2 in Appendix J

shall be deleted and replaced with the

following:

3.2.2.2 For automatic clothes

washers, set the wash/rinse temperature

selector to the hottest setting available

(hot/warm), including a secondary

programming mode.

(v) Section 3.2.2.6 in Appendix J shall

be deleted and replaced with the

following:

3.2.2.6 For automatic clothes

washers repeat sections 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4,

and 3.2.2.5 for each of the other wash/

rinse temperature selections available

that use hot water, including a

secondary programming mode. For

clothes washers with multiple warm

wash temperature selections, test only

the median warm wash setting at the

hottest temperature available. For

clothes washers that have a cold wash

which uses hot water, test using the

hottest temperature available.

(vi) Section 4.1 in Appendix J shall be

deleted and replaced with the following:

4.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted

hot water consumption for maximum

and minimum water fill levels. For the

manual water fill and the adaptive water

fill (the maximum energy consumption

adaptive water fill and the minimum

energy consumption adaptive water fill,

if needed), calculate for the cycle under

test the per-cycle temperature weighted

hot water consumption for the

maximum water fill level, Vmax, and for

the minimum water fill level, Vmin,

expressed in gallons per cycle and

defined as:

V X V TUF X TUF Sh for manual water fill

V X V TUF X TUF Sh for adaptive water fill

manual i i W H

i

n

adaptive i i W H

i

n

max

max

( ) = × [ ] + × [ ]

( ) = × [ ] + × [ ]

=

=

∑

∑

1 2

1

1 2

1

where:

Vi=reported hot water consumption in

gallons per cycle at maximum fill

for each wash/rinse TUF

combination setting, as provided in

section 3.2.2.

TUFi=applicable temperature use factor

in section 5 or 6.

n=number of wash/rinse TUF

combination setting available to the

user for the clothes washer under

test.

TUFw=temperature use factor for warm

wash setting.

For clothes washers equipped with

the suds-saver feature:

X1=frequency of use without the sudssaver feature=0.86.

X2=frequency of use with the suds-saver

feature=0.14.

ShH=fresh make-up water measured

during suds-return cycle at

maximum water fill level.

For clothes washers not equipped

with the suds-saver feature:

X1=1.0

X2=0.0

and

V X V TUF X TUF Sh for manual water fill manual j j W L

j

n

( ) min = × [ ] + × [ ] =

1∑ 2

1

V X V TUF X TUF Sh for adaptive water fill adaptive j j W L

j

n

( ) min = × [ ] + × [ ] =

1∑ 2

1

where:

Vj=reported hot water consumption in

gallons per cycle at minimum fill

for each wash/rinse TUF

combination setting, as provided in

section 3.3.3.

TUFj=applicable temperature use factor

in section 5 or 6.

Case No. CW-004 COMMENT 01
18130 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices

ShL=fresh hot make-up water measured

during suds-return cycle at

minimum water fill level.

n=as defined above.

TUFw=as defined above.

X1=as defined above.

X2=as defined above.

For clothes washers that have more

than one adaptive water fill control

selection, the (Vmax) adaptive (s) and (Vmin)

adaptive (s) calculated for the maximum

and the minimum energy consumption

tests shall be averaged respectively, to

report a single (Vmax) adaptive and (Vmin)

adaptive to be used in 4.2 for additional

calculations.

(vii) Section 4.2 in Appendix J shall

be deleted and replaced with the

following:

4.2 Total per-cycle hot water energy

consumption for maximum and

minimum water fill levels. Calculate the

total per-cycle hot water energy

consumption for the maximum water

fill level, Emax, and for the minimum

water level, Emin, for both the manual

and adaptive fills, expressed in

kilowatt-hours per cycle, as follows:

E V T K MF V T K MF max max manual max adaptive= × . ( ) × × × [ ] + ( ) × × × [ ] 



 



 0 5

where,

MF=Multiplying factor to account for

the absence of a test load=0.94 for

top-loader clothes washers that are

sensor filled, 1.0 for top loader

clothes washers that are time-filled,

1.0 for all front-loader clothes

washers, and 1.0 for adaptive fill

tests.

T=Temperature rise=90°F.

K=Water specific heat in kilowatt-hours

per gallon degree F=0.0024.

(Vmax) manual , (Vmax) adaptive=As defined in

section 4.1.

E V T K MF V T K MF min min min manual adaptive= × . [( ) × × × ] + ( ) × × × [ ] 



 



 0 5

and

where,

MF=As defined above.

T=As defined above.

K=As defined above.

(Vmin) manual , (Vmin) adaptive=As defined in

section 4.1.

(viii) Section 4.4 in Appendix J shall

be deleted and replaced with the

following:

4.4 Per-cycle machine electrical

energy consumption. The values

recorded in section 3.3.1 are the percycle machine electrical energy

consumptions; ME manual, for a manual

water fill control system; ME adaptive, for

an adaptive water fill control system;

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle.

The following equation shall be used to

calculate the per-cycle machine

electrical energy consumption, ME,

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle:

M M M E Emanual adaptive E = × + [ ] 0 5.

For clothes washers that have more

than one adaptive water fill control

selection, the ME adaptive (s) reported for

the maximum and the minimum energy

consumption tests shall be averaged to

report a single ME adaptive for the above

equation.

This Interim Waiver is based upon the

presumed validity of statements and all

allegations submitted by GEA

Appliances Inc. This Interim Waiver

may be revoked or modified at any time

upon a determination that the factual

basis underlying the Application is

incorrect.

The Interim Waiver shall remain in

effect for a period of 180 days, or until

the Department acts on the Petition for

Waiver, whichever is sooner, and may

be extended for an additional 180-day

period, if necessary.

Pursuant to paragraph (b) of Title 10

CFR 430.27, DOE is hereby publishing

the ‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ in its entirety.

The Petition contains no confidential

information. DOE would appreciate

comments, data and other information

regarding the Petition, discussed above.

Issued in Washington, DC April 4, 1996.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

October 9, 1995.

Assistant Secretary,

Conservation and Renewable Energy,

United States Department of Energy,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585

RE: Application for Interim Waiver and

Petition for Waiver, Appendix J, Subpart

B CFR part 430, Test Method for Clothes

Washers with no Applicable

Temperature Usage Factor

Dear Assistant Secretary: This Application

for Interim Waiver and Petition for Waiver is

submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, which

provides for a modification of the required

test method because of design characteristics

preventing testing or producing data

unrepresentative of a covered product’s true

energy consumption characteristics.

GE Appliances (GEA) is sourcing its top of

the line, Monogram Brand, washer from

Fisher & Paykel Industries Limited, New

Zealand. The model number is WZSE5310.

This product has innovative design

characteristics which prevent testing it in

strict accordance to the existing Appendix J

test method. These design characteristics are:

—Five temperature selections in the primary

wash mode including hot, warm-hot,

warm, warm-cold and cold wash—all with

a cold rinse. This product does not have

water heating capability and achieves the

five temperatures by adjustment of the hot/

cold mix ratio. A warm rinse option is not

available in the normal cycle.

—A secondary programming mode which the

consumer can access to adjust the factory

preset temperatures of the five settings in

the primary wash mode. In all, the

consumer has a choice of 34 wash

temperatures.

Case No. CW-004 COMMENT 01
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices 18131

<-----(COLDER) SECONDARY PROGRAMMING MODE (HOTTER)--> ADJUSTMENT TEMPERATURES (F)

Wash temp. setting

Factory Preset (except

cold setting)

Hot ..................................... 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126

Warm-hot ........................... 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111

Warm ................................. 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101

Warm-cold ......................... 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

Cold:

Cold water only* ......... 54 56 58 60 62 64 66

* Factory Preset for COLD setting.

This request for waiver is submitted

because (1) The combination of five pre-set

temperature selections—all with a cold water

rinse—are incompatible with any of the TUF

tables in Section 4 of the regulations; and (2)

the requirement of section 3.2.2.6 that we test

all temperature selections that use hot water

is unduly burdensome. Instead, we propose

modified regulations that will allow for a

conservative testing protocol appropriate to

this product that is also in accordance with

the negotiated AHAM proposed rule.

GEA proposes an Interim Waiver and

Waiver to allow testing of the machine per

Appendix J with the following modifications:

Add the following definition to the test

procedure:

1.19 ‘‘Secondary programming

mode’’ means an auxiliary function

used to adjust temperature, water level,

rinse options or other characteristics of

the machine. The user must not be able

to access these adjustments from the

normal operating mode of the machine,

and access to the secondary mode must

not be necessary to operate the machine.

Change section 3.2.2.6 of the test procedure

as follows:

3.2.2.6 For automatic clothes washers

repeat 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, and 3.2.2.5 for each of

the other wash/rinse temperature selections

available that use hot water except: 1) if wash

temperature selections are uniformly

distributed, by temperature, between ‘‘hot

wash’’ and ‘‘cold wash’’, the reportable

values to be used for the warm water wash

setting shall be the arithmetic average of hot

and cold selections measurements of 2) if

wash temperature selections are nonuniformly distributed, by temperature,

between ‘‘hot wash’’ and ‘‘cold wash’’, test

all intermediate wash temperature selections

and average the results to obtain the

reportable warm wash values. For semiautomatic clothes washers. . .

For model WZSE5310 this would mean

using Alternate II from the three temperature

selection TUF table, section 5.3 of Appendix

J Hot/Cold, Warm/Cold, Cold/Cold, and

using the average of the three warm settings

on the machine for Warm/Cold. This also

conforms with the new test procedure

proposed by AHAM section 3.5.1. (The warm

setting is the default wash temperature for all

cycles.)

Change section 3.5 of the test procedure as

follows:

3.5.2.1 If the wash temperature offered in

the normal operating mode of the machine

can be further adjusted in a secondary

programming mode, the higher of the factory

preset temperature or the mean of the

adjustable range shall be used for testing.

For model WZSE5310 this means using the

factory preset temperatures for the Hot and

Warm settings and 60F for the Cold setting

for testing.

The table above shows the possible

temperature settings for the machine

(approximate bath water temperatures). To

achieve the temperatures to the right and left

of the factory preset temperatures on the

table, the user must read the owners’ guide

to learn how to enter a secondary

programming mode and make a special effort

to enter this mode and change the

temperatures. We feel strongly that this

secondary programming mode will be used

very infrequently because an Australia

consumer survey of 202 users showed that

only about 6% of those consumers ever

entered this mode to adjust temperatures.

There is no U.S. consumer data showing how

many consumers will enter the secondary

programming mode and the frequency that

the consumers will adjust the temperatures.

Lacking this data, it is logical to assume that

if consumers make the effort to enter the

secondary mode, it is equally or more likely

that the consumer will adjust the temperature

down, saving energy, as it is that the

consumer will raise the temperature. This is

especially true since there are 4 downward

adjustments and only 3 upward adjustments

possible. The owners’ guide will also inform

the consumer that adjusting the temperature

downward will save energy. Thus, we believe

that the most representative wash

temperatures are the factory preset

temperatures.

GEA requests immediate relief by grant of

the proposed Interim Waiver, justified by the

following reasons:

Economic Hardship—GEA currently has no

Monogram brand product in its home

laundry product line. Delay of introduction

of the this product will not allow GE to

complete its product line. Since a Monogram

dryer will be introduced with this product,

its introduction would also be delayed.

Likely Approval of Waiver—The Petition

for Waiver is likely to be granted because the

test procedure proposed conforms as much as

possible with the new test procedure

supported by AHAM. This new AHAM test

procedure is likely to be adopted.

Public Policy Merits-GE’s Monogram

washers are designed to efficiently extract

more water from wet clothes by a high speed

spin cycle, up to 1000 RPM. Such water

extraction is many times more energy

efficient than drying the same amount of

water. This innovation in clothes washer

design does not affect the test method for

clothes washers, but does result in increased

total energy savings. GE’s new washer is also

factory preset to an auto water fill level. The

machine senses the clothes load and uses

only the amount of water necessary to clean

the clothes. Because a manual High/Medium/

Low water fill level is also available, we will

test the machine using the manual water

levels per the test procedure. However, the

auto water fill feature is expected to show

actual energy savings for the consumer.

Thank you for considering this petition.

Lee Bishop,

Senior Counsel Product Safety/Regulatory.

Jane Ransdell,

Energy Standards Engineer.

[FR Doc. 96–9950 Filed 4–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP96–320–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

April 18, 1996.

Take notice that on April 15, 1996,

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

(Columbia), P.O. Box 1273, Charleston,

West Virginia, 25325–1273, filed in

Docket No. CP96–320–000 a request

pursuant to Sections 157.205, and

157.216(b) of the Commission’s

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(18 CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for

approval to abandon in place

approximately 0.7 mile of its 20-inch

transmission line, Line KA, and five

points of delivery to Mountaineer Gas

Company (Mountaineer) for service to

mainline customers, under the blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP83–

76–000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the

Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully

set forth in the request which is on file

with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

Columbia States that the facilities for

which it seeks abandonment were

Case No. CW-004 COMMENT 01