Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49437 

session on Wednesday, September 6, 

2006 from 9 a.m. until business for the 

day is completed. 

ADDRESSES: Public listening stations 

will be available in Portland OR and 

Long Beach, CA. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for the specific locations. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mike Burner, Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, (503) 820–2280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

listening stations will be available at the 

following locations: 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, 

Portland, OR 97220–1384, telephone: 

(503) 820–2280; and 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

501 W Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, 

Long Beach, CA 90802, telephone: (562) 

980–4000. 

The primary purpose of the meeting is 

to review items on the Council’s 

September 2006 agenda including 

research and data needs and marine 

protected areas within the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The 

CPSMT and CPSAS will develop 

recommendations for Council 

consideration at its September meeting 

in Foster City, CA. The status of 2006 

CPS fisheries will also be discussed. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. 

Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least 

5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: August 17, 2006. 

James P. Burgess, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–13930 Filed 8–22–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. CD–002] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Publication of the 

Petition for Waiver and Denial of the 

Application for Interim Waiver of LG 

Electronics From the Department of 

Energy Clothes Dryer Test Procedures 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Petition for Waiver, 

Denial of Application for Interim 

Waiver, and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: Today’s notice publishes a 

Petition for Waiver from LG Electronics 

Inc. (LG). This Petition (hereafter ‘‘LG 

Petition’’) requests a waiver from the 

Department of Energy (hereafter 

‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘DOE’’) test 

procedures for residential clothes 

dryers. In addition, today’s notice 

denies LG an Interim Waiver from the 

DOE test procedures applicable to 

residential clothes dryers. Today’s 

notice also includes an alternate test 

procedure the Department may include 

in the Decision and Order, should the 

Department grant LG a waiver. The 

Department is soliciting comments, 

data, and information with respect to 

the LG Petition, LG’s Application for 

Interim Waiver, and the proposed 

alternate test procedure. 

DATES: The Department will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this Petition for Waiver until, 

but no later than September 22, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, 

identified by case number CD–002, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. 

Please submit one signed original paper 

copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Room 1J–018, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

• E-mail: 

Michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov. Include 

either the case number CD–002, and/or 

‘‘LG Petition’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and case 

number for this proceeding. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Wherever possible, include the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Absent an electronic signature, 

comments submitted electronically 

must be followed and authenticated by 

submitting the signed original paper 

document. The Department does not 

accept telefacsimiles (faxes). Any person 

submitting written comments must also 

send a copy of such comments to the 

petitioner. (10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv)) The 

contact information for the petitioner of 

today’s notice is: Mr. John I. Taylor, 

Vice President, Government Relations, 

LG Electronics USA, Inc., 1750 K St., 

NW., Washington, DC 20006. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: one copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. The Department will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read the background documents 

relevant to this matter, go to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, Room 1J–018 (Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program), 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–

2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Available Documents include 

the following items: this notice, public 

comments received, the LG Petition and 

Application for Interim Waiver, and 

prior Department rulemakings regarding 

residential clothes dryers. Please call 

Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above 

telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. Please note: The 

Department’s Freedom of Information 

Reading Room (formerly Room 1E–190 

at the Forrestal Building) is no longer 

housing rulemaking materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

Case No. CD-002 COMMENT 01
49438 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

0121, (202) 586–9611; e-mail: 

Michael.Raymond.ee.doe.gov; or 

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

Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail 

Stop GC–72, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–

9507; e-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Authority 

II. Petition for Waiver 

III. Application for Interim Waiver 

IV. Alternate Test Procedure 

V. Summary and Request for Comments 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309) provides for the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products other than Automobiles.’’ Part 

B specifically provides for definitions, 

test procedures, labeling provisions, 

energy conservation standards, and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers. With 

respect to test procedures, it generally 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

prescribe test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce results 

which reflect energy efficiency, energy 

use and estimated operating costs, and 

that are not unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) EPCA 

provides that the Secretary of Energy 

may amend test procedures for 

consumer products if the Secretary 

determines that amended test 

procedures would more accurately 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use and 

estimated operating costs, and would 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) 

Today’s notice involves residential 

products covered under Part B. The LG 

Petition requests a waiver from the 

residential test procedures for LG’s 

DLEC733W model of condenser clothes 

dryer. The test procedures for clothes 

dryers appear at 10 CFR Part 430, 

Subpart B, Appendix D. 

The Department’s regulations contain 

provisions allowing a person to seek a 

waiver from the test procedure 

requirements for covered consumer 

products (10 CFR 430.27). The waiver 

provisions allow the Assistant Secretary 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (hereafter ‘‘Assistant Secretary’’) 

to temporarily waive test procedures for 

a particular basic model when a 

petitioner shows that the basic model 

contains one or more design 

characteristics that 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. (10 CFR 430.27(a)(1)) 

The Assistant Secretary may grant the 

waiver subject to conditions, including 

adherence to alternate test procedures. 

Petitioners are to include in their 

petition any alternate test procedures 

known to evaluate the basic model in a 

manner representative of its energy 

consumption. (10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii)) 

Waivers generally remain in effect until 

final test procedure amendments 

become effective, thereby resolving the 

problem that is the subject of the 

waiver. 

The waiver process also allows the 

Assistant Secretary to grant an Interim 

Waiver from test procedure 

requirements to manufacturers that have 

petitioned the Department for a waiver 

of such prescribed test procedures. (10 

CFR 430.27(a)(2)) An Interim Waiver 

remains in effect for a period of 180 

days or until the Department issues its 

determination on the Petition for 

Waiver, whichever is sooner, and may 

be extended for an additionally 180 

days, if necessary. (10 CFR 430.27(h)) 

II. Petition for Waiver 

On November 14, 2005, LG filed a 

Petition for Waiver and an Application 

for Interim Waiver from the test 

procedures applicable to its residential 

clothes dryers. LG seeks a waiver from 

the applicable test procedures for its 

DLEC733W basic product model 

because, LG asserts, design 

characteristics prevent testing according 

to the currently prescribed test 

procedures. In 1995, the Department 

granted Miele Appliance, Inc. (Miele), a 

waiver from test procedures for a 

different model of condenser clothes 

dryer. (60 FR 9330, February 17, 1995) 

LG claims that its condenser clothes 

dryers cannot be tested pursuant to the 

existing test procedures and requests 

that the same waiver granted to Miele 

for its T1565CA and T15701C models in 

1995 be granted for LG’s DLEC733W 

model. 

In particular, LG claims that the 

current clothes dryer test procedures 

apply only to vented clothes dryers 

because the test procedures require the 

use of an exhaust restrictor to simulate 

the backpressure effects of a vent tube 

in an installed condition. LG’s 

condenser dryers do not have exhaust 

vents as they do not exhaust air as 

conventional, vented dryers. 

Furthermore, LG states that DOE’s test 

procedures for clothes dryers provide no 

definition or mention of condenser 

clothes dryers. 

In addition, LG asserts that the 

condenser clothes dryer inherently 

consumes more energy to dry a load of 

clothes than a conventional, vented 

dryer. However, LG claims, condenser 

dryers offer additional utility to 

consumers over conventional dryers. LG 

also claims that the condensing dryer 

could save substantially more 

household energy than a conventional 

dryer if the effects on space heating and 

cooling requirements are considered. 

The LG Petition requests that DOE 

grant a waiver from existing test 

procedures until DOE prescribes final 

test procedures and minimum energy 

conservation standards that are, 

according to LG, ‘‘appropriate to LG’s 

condenser clothes dryers.’’ (LG Petition 

for Waiver, page 4) LG did not include 

an alternate test procedure in its 

petition, and noted that it is not aware 

of any alternative test procedure that 

could appropriately evaluate its 

products. 

III. Application for Interim Waiver 

The LG Petition also requests an 

Interim Waiver for immediate relief. An 

Interim Waiver may be granted if 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 of the Petition 

for Waiver. (10 CFR 430.27(g)) 

LG’s Application for Interim Waiver 

does not provide sufficient information 

to permit DOE to evaluate the economic 

hardship LG claims it will experience 

absent a favorable determination on its 

Application for Interim Waiver. LG’s 

discussion of anticipated economic 

hardship is entirely qualitative: 

‘‘significant investment,’’ ‘‘significant 

losses in goodwill and brand 

acceptance.’’

Furthermore, public policy would not 

tend to favor granting LG an Interim 

Waiver, pending determination of the 

Petition for Waiver. DOE believes that 

where it grants a waiver from applicable 

test procedures, an alternate test 

procedure should be in place, where 

possible, because testing is necessary to 

verify compliance with the applicable 

energy standards. Maintaining proper 

compliance ensures the public that 

marketed products meet published 

energy standards. However, in this case, 

it appears to DOE that industry has 

made no effort to develop an alternate 

test procedure, even though it is 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

Case No. CD-002 COMMENT 01
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49439 

possible to develop one. LG did not 

propose an alternate test procedure in 

its Petition. To help provide a means to 

evaluate compliance of condenser 

dryers, DOE has developed an alternate 

test procedure on which it is seeking 

comment in this notice. However, 

because DOE is still seeking such 

comment, DOE is not yet prepared to 

require LG to follow this alternate test 

procedure and grant this interim waiver. 

Furthermore, pending public 

comment, it is not clear to DOE what, 

if any, type of waiver it would grant LG 

in the Decision and Order. In 1995, DOE 

granted Miele Appliances, Inc. a waiver 

from test procedures because it 

determined that the clothes dryer test 

procedure was not applicable to Miele 

condenser clothes dryers. (60 FR 9330, 

February 17, 1995) In addition, DOE 

provided that Miele’s condenser dryers 

would not have to meet the applicable 

energy efficiency standards because 

their added utility justified their higher 

energy consumption compared to 

traditional clothes dryers, and because 

the test procedures were not applicable. 

Though DOE determined in 1995 that 

Miele’s condenser dryers should not be 

subject to the energy standards, it is not 

evident that the same conditions exist 

today to warrant a similar waiver for 

LG’s products. 

In particular, it appears that the 

clothes dryer market has developed 

since 1995 and that it may be possible 

to manufacture condenser clothes dryers 

that are as, or more, efficient than 

traditional vented clothes dryers. 

Advanced Engineering from Germany 

(AEG), for example, currently makes a 

highly efficient heat pump condenser 

dryer which it offers in Europe. Waiving 

the applicable clothes dryer energy 

standard for LG might permit LG to 

manufacture and sell clothes dryers that 

are less efficient than existing standards, 

though the technology to meet or exceed 

these efficiencies may be available. 

However, because the potential of 

current condenser clothes dryer 

technology is not fully known and it is 

not clear whether condenser clothes 

dryers may meet current minimum 

energy standards, more information is 

needed to assess what, if any, sort of 

waiver is appropriate. Furthermore, 

more information about the LG 

condensing dryer is needed for DOE to 

assess the impact of the alternate test 

procedure that is proposed and 

published in this notice. 

In sum, because: (a) It is not clear that 

DOE would ultimately exempt LG’s 

products from the applicable energy 

standards as it did in the case of Miele; 

(b) it is desirable for public policy 

reasons to develop an alternate test 

procedure, where possible, when energy 

standards are in effect; and (c) the 

proposed alternate test procedure is still 

undergoing evaluation, DOE is denying 

LG’s Application for an Interim Waiver. 

This denial of Interim Waiver is based 

upon the presumed validity of 

statements submitted by stakeholders. 

This denial of Interim Waiver may be 

modified at any time upon a 

determination that the factual basis 

underlying the application is incorrect. 

IV. Alternate Test Procedure 

The Department will make a judgment 

on the LG Petition after the period for 

public comment. However, should DOE 

grant LG a waiver for its DLEC733W 

condenser clothes dryer model, DOE 

would likely prescribe an alternate test 

procedure. Manufacturers face 

restrictions with respect to making 

representations about the energy 

consumption and energy consumption 

costs of products covered by EPCA. (42 

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

representations are important for 

manufacturers who make claims about 

the energy efficiency of their products. 

For example, they are necessary to 

determine compliance with Federal, 

state or local energy codes and 

regulatory requirements, and can 

provide valuable consumer purchasing 

information. 

Therefore, DOE is considering issuing 

an alternate test procedure for LG in the 

upcoming Decision and Order. The 

Department is publishing the proposed 

alternate test procedure in this notice, 

though it has not yet made a 

determination on the petition, to 

account for the potential need for an 

alternate test procedure and to allow the 

public to comment on a proposed 

alternate test procedure. LG did not 

include an alternate test procedure in its 

petition. However, LG noted that it 

knows of no other test procedure that 

would rate its condenser dryer products. 

DOE is considering including in the 

Decision and Order an alternate test 

procedure that is based on existing test 

procedures for clothes dryers, but 

removes the requirement to use an 

exhaust restrictor. 

The Department proposes the 

following language: 10 CFR Parts 430 

Subpart B, Appendix D—‘‘Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy 

Consumption of Clothes Dryers,’’ as 

amended: 

(A) Section 1 is amended by adding 

the two following definitions at the end 

of the section: 

1.14 ‘‘Conventional clothes dryer’’

means a clothes dryer that exhausts the 

evaporated moisture from the cabinet. 

1.15 ‘‘Condensing clothes dryer’’

means a clothes dryer that uses a closed 

loop system with an internal condenser 

to remove the evaporated moisture from 

the heated air. The moist air is not 

discharged from the cabinet. 

(B) Section 2.1 is amended by striking 

the second and third sentences, ‘‘The 

dryer exhaust shall be restricted by 

adding the AHAM exhaust simulator 

described in 3.3.5 of HLD–1’’ and ‘‘All 

external joints should be taped to avoid 

air leakage,’’ and by adding the 

following sentences at the end of the 

paragraph: ‘‘For conventional clothes 

dryers, the dryer exhaust shall be 

restricted by adding the AHAM exhaust 

simulator described in 3.3.5 of HLD–1. 

All external joints should be taped to 

avoid air leakage.’’

V. Summary and Request for Comments 

Today’s notice announces LG’s 

Petition for Waiver and denies LG an 

Interim Waiver from the test procedures 

applicable to LG’s DLEC733W model 

condensing clothes dryers. The 

Department is publishing the LG 

Petition for Waiver in its entirety. The 

Petition contains no confidential 

information. Furthermore, today’s 

notice includes an alternate test 

procedure that the Department is 

considering for testing of condensing 

clothes dryers. In this alternate test 

procedure, the Department proposes 

eliminating the requirement to use an 

exhaust restrictor for condenser clothes 

dryers. 

The Department is interested in 

receiving comments on all aspects of 

this notice. The Department is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning whether to grant the 

LG Petition and regarding the proposed 

alternate test procedure. Specifically, 

the Department would like to receive 

comment on the following questions: 

• The LG Petition states that the 

condensing clothes dryer inherently 

uses more energy to dry a load of 

clothes than a conventional dryer. 

However, it appears that full-size 

condenser dryers may be able to meet 

existing minimum energy standards. 

The Department is interested in 

comment on what, if any, technologies 

could allow condenser clothes dryers to 

meet existing minimum energy 

standards. Furthermore, the Department 

is interested in comments on whether 

any condenser clothes dryers available 

in the U.S. or other consumer markets 

currently meet the U.S. minimum 

energy standard. 

• If other condenser clothes dryers 

are able to meet the existing minimum 

energy standards, is it appropriate for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

Case No. CD-002 COMMENT 01
49440 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

1However, while the condensing dryer inherently 

uses more energy to dry a load of clothes than a 

conventional dryer, the condensing dryer could 

save substantially more household energy than a 

conventional dryer if the effects on space heating 

and cooling requirements are considered. The air 

lost from dryer exhaust vent can impose a 

significant load on the space-conditioning unit as 

cool or hot outdoor air is drawn inside the room 

or home to replace the exhausted air. 

DOE to require LG to meet existing 

energy standards despite their potential 

added utility? What is appropriate for 

DOE to require of LG should no other 

condenser dryers meet current energy 

standards? 

• Is it appropriate for LG to use the 

proposed alternate test procedure for 

ratings, representations and compliance 

with energy codes and regulatory 

requirements? 

• Are the alternate test procedure’s 

additional definitions for conventional 

and condenser clothes dryers robust, 

and do they fully apply to LG’s 

condensing clothes dryers? 

• Current test procedures for clothes 

dryers require that the ambient 

temperature for testing conditions be 

maintained within a range of 3F, and 

that the humidity be maintained within 

a range of 10 percent relative humidity. 

Is it reasonable to require similar ranges 

for the testing of condensing clothes 

dryers? 

In addition, the Department is 

interested in receiving general 

comments on possible modifications to 

any test procedures or alternative rating 

methods which the Department could 

use to fairly represent the energy 

efficiency LG’s condensing clothes dryer 

products. 

Any person submitting written 

comments must also send a copy of 

such comments to the petitioner, whose 

contact information is cited above. (10 

CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv)) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 

2006. 

Alexander A. Karsner, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

November 14, 2005. 

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and 

Renewable Energy, 

United States Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Re: Petition for Waiver and Application 

for Interim Waiver, LG Electronics 

Condensing Clothes Dryers 

Dear Assistant Secretary: 

LG Electronics, Inc (LG) hereby 

submits this Petition for Waiver and 

Application for Interim Waiver, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, for its 

condenser clothes dryers. A waiver was 

granted to Miele Appliance, Inc for the 

same type of product. 60 FR 9330 (Feb. 

17, 1995). 

LG is a manufacturer of digital 

appliances, as well as mobile 

communications, digital displays, and 

digital media products. Its appliances 

include washing machines, clothes 

dryers, refrigerator-freezers, airconditioners, air cleaners, ovens, 

microwave ovens, dishwashers, and 

vacuum cleaners and are sold 

worldwide, including in the United 

States. LG’s U.S. operations are LG 

Electronics USA, Inc, with headquarters 

at 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ 07632 (tel. 202–816–2000). Its 

worldwide headquarters are located at 

LG Twin Towers 20, Yoido-dong, 

Youngdungpo-gu Seoul, Korea 150–721 

(tel. 011–82–2–3777–1114) URL: 

http.www.LGE.com. LG’s principal 

brands include LG, and OEM brands 

including GE and Kenmore. LG’s 

appliances are produced in Korea and 

Mexico. 

LG plans to market highly efficient, 

advanced-design condenser (nonvented) clothes dryers. (The current LG 

model number of these products is 

DLEC733W.) This product does not vent 

exhaust air to the outside as a 

conventional dryer does, but rather uses 

ambient air to cool the hot, humid 

inside the appliance thereby condensing 

out the moisture. Thus, there is no 

exhaust air, only a wastewater stream 

that can be drained into a water 

container. This type of product is suited 

for installation conditions where 

exhaust venting is not practical or is 

cost prohibitive. It thus benefits those 

dwellers of high-rise apartments and 

others who in many cases have no way 

to vent to the outside or at least not 

without considerable remodeling/ 

construction expense. The advantageous 

no-exhaust design characteristic 

produces a more complex drying 

process than the regular vented dryer. 

Condenser clothes dryers offer 

additional utility to the consumer that 

affects energy consumption, and the 

characteristics of the product are not 

reflected by the test procedure. The 

condenser clothes dryer does not have 

an outside vent exhaust, and extracting 

the moisture from the warm moist air in 

the drum requires more energy to dry 

clothes than simply exhausting the 

warm moist air to the outdoors.1

DOE’s existing test procedure for 

clothes dryers requires the use of an 

exhaust restrictor to simulate the 

backpressure effects of a vent tube in an 

installed condition. And the test 

procedure does not provide any 

definition or mention of condenser 

clothes dryers. Since LG’s condenser 

clothes dryers do not have an exhaust 

vent and the DOE test procedure does 

not provide any definition or mention of 

condenser clothes dryers, the products 

cannot be tested in accordance with the 

test procedure. Thus, the test procedure 

does not apply to them. Consequently, 

the DOE energy conservation standard 

for clothes dryers does not apply to LG 

condenser dryers since the DOE 

standard must be ‘‘determined in 

accordance with test procedures 

prescribed under section 6293 of this 

title.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). 

These circumstances clearly warrant a 

waiver. 10 CFR 430.27 provides for 

waiver of DOE test procedures on the 

grounds that a basic model contains 

design characteristics that either prevent 

testing according to the prescribed test 

procedure or produce data so 

unrepresentative of a covered product’s 

true energy consumption characteristics 

as to provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data. As discussed above, 

the LG condenser clothes dryer contains 

a design characteristic—lack of an 

exhaust—that prevents testing according 

to the DOE test procedure. Further, the 

test procedure does not provide any 

definition or mention of condenser 

clothes dryers. A waiver should 

therefore be granted that provides that 

LG is not required to test its condenser 

clothes dryers. The existing minimum 

energy conservation standard for clothes 

dryers also should not apply to these LG 

condenser clothes dryers. The waiver 

should remain in effect until DOE 

prescribes final test procedures and 

minimum energy conservation 

standards appropriate to LG’s condenser 

clothes dryers. 

That a waiver is warranted is borne 

out by the fact that DOE has granted a 

waiver to Miele for the same type of 

product. 60 FR 9330 (Feb. 17, 1995). 

DOE stated: 

‘‘The Department agrees with Miele and 

AHAM that the condenser clothes dryer 

offers the consumer additional utility, and is 

justified to consum[e] more energy (lower 

energy factor) versus non-condenser clothes 

dryers. Furthermore, the Department believes 

that the existing clothes dryer test procedure 

is not applicable to the Miele condenser 

clothes dryers. This assertion is based on the 

fact that the existing test procedure requires 

the use of an exhaust restrictor and does not 

provide any definition or mention of 

condenser clothes dryers. The Department 

agrees with Miele that the current clothes 

dryer minimum energy conservation 

standard does not apply to Miele’s condenser 

clothes dryers. Today’s Decision and Order 

exempts Miele from testing its condenser 

clothes dryer and determining an Energy 

Factor. 

The Department is not publishing an 

amended test procedure for Miele at this time 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

Case No. CD-002 COMMENT 01
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49441 

2See FTC Advisory Opinion No. 457, TRRP 

1718.20 (1971 Transfer Binder); 49 FR 32213 (Aug. 

13, 1984); 52 FR 49141, 49147–48 (Dec. 30, 1987). 

because there is not any reason to. The 

existing minimum energy conservation 

standard for clothes dryers is not applicable 

to the Miele condenser clothes dryer. 

Furthermore, the FTC does not have a 

labeling program for clothes dryers, therefore, 

Miele is not required to test its condenser 

clothes dryers.’’

LG urges that the same waiver be 

granted to LG as was granted to Miele 

for its comparable product. 

Manufacturers of all other basic 

models marketed in the United States 

and known to LG to incorporate similar 

design characteristics as the LG 

condenser clothes dryer include Miele 

and Bosch (model number WTL5410). 

LG is not aware of any alternative test 

procedure to evaluate in a manner 

representative of the energy 

consumption characteristics of the LG 

condenser clothes dryers. LG notes that 

DOE’s February 17, 1995 decision on 

Miele’s application indicated that Miele 

proposed that DOE consider adding a 

class for condenser clothes dryers in the 

then current clothes dryer rulemaking 

for minimum efficiency standards, along 

with an appropriate test procedure. 

DOE’s decision indicated that DOE 

would consider adding a new product 

class for condenser clothes dryers in 

that rulemaking and would initiate a 

clothes dryers test procedure 

rulemaking to add the capability of 

testing condenser clothes dryers to the 

existing test procedure for any potential 

future use. To the best of LG’s 

knowledge, DOE has not done so. 

LG also requests immediate relief by 

grant of an interim waiver. Grant of an 

interim waiver is fully justified: 

The petition for waiver is likely to be 

granted, as evidenced not only by its 

merits but also because DOE has already 

granted a similar waiver to Miele. 

Lack of relief will impose economic 

hardship on LG. LG would be placed in 

an untenable situation: The product 

would be subject to a set of regulations 

that DOE already acknowledges is not 

applicable to such a product and cannot 

be complied with, while at the same 

time another manufacturer is allowed to 

operate under a waiver from such 

regulations. 

Significant investment has already 

been made in LG condensing clothes 

dryers. Lack of relief would not allow 

LG to recoup this investment and would 

deny LG anticipated sales revenue. This 

does not take into account significant 

losses in goodwill and brand 

acceptance. 

Beyond that, since the LG condensing 

clothes dryer is intended to be sold as 

a pair with LG washing machines an 

inability to sell the clothes dryer will 

harm sales of the washing machine as 

well. 

The basic purpose of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended by the National Appliance 

Energy Conservation Act, is to foster 

purchase of energy-efficient appliances, 

not hinder such purchases. The LG 

condenser clothes dryer makes a dryer 

available to households where for 

physical, structural reasons a vented 

dryer could otherwise not be installed. 

LG condenser clothes dryers thus offer 

benefits in the public interest. To 

encourage and foster the availability of 

these products is in the public interest. 

Standards programs should not be used 

as a means to block innovative, 

improved designs.2 DOE’s rules thus 

should accommodate and encourage—

not act to block—such a product. 

Granting the interim waiver and 

waiver would also eliminate a non-tariff 

trade barrier. 

In addition, grant of relief would help 

enhance economic development and 

employment, including not only LG 

Electronics USA’s operations in New 

Jersey, Illinois and Alabama, but also at 

major national retailers and regional 

dealers that carry LG products. 

Furthermore, continued employment 

creation and ongoing investments in its 

marketing, sales and servicing activities 

will be fostered by approval of the 

interim waiver. Conversely, denial of 

the requested relief would harm the 

company and would be anticompetitive. 

* * * * * 

We would be pleased to discuss this 

request with DOE and provide further 

information as needed. 

We hereby certify that all clothes 

dryer manufacturers of domestically 

marketed units known to LG have been 

notified by letter of this petition and 

application, copies of which letters are 

attached. 

Sincerely, 

Richard Donner, Product Planning 

Manager, North America Product 

Planning Group, LG Electronics USA, 

Inc, 2000 Millbrook Drive, 

Lincolnshire, IL 60069, Phone: 201–

906–9878, Fax: 847–941–8340, Email: rdonner@lge.com. 

John I. Taylor, Vice President, 

Government Relations, LG Electronics 

USA, Inc, 1750 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202–

719–3490, Fax: 847–941–8177, Email: jtaylor@lge.com. 

Of counsel: 

John A. Hodges, James T. Bruce, Wiley 

Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, DC 

20006, Phone: 202–719–7000, Fax: 

202–719–7049, E-mail: 

jhodges@wrf.com, jbruce@wrf.com. 

[FR Doc. E6–13945 Filed 8–22–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8212–7] 

National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology 

Environmental Technology 

Subcommittee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, P.L. 92463, EPA gives 

notice of a meeting of the 

Environmental Technology 

Subcommittee of the National Advisory 

Council for Environmental Policy and 

Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT 

provides advice and recommendations 

to the Administrator of EPA on a broad 

range of environmental policy, 

technology, and management issues. 

The Environmental Technology 

Subcommittee was formed to assist EPA 

in evaluating its current and potential 

role in the development and 

commercialization of environmental 

technologies by suggesting how to 

optimize existing EPA programs to 

facilitate the development of sustainable 

private sector technologies, and by 

suggesting alternative approaches to 

achieving these goals. The purpose of 

the meeting is to continue the 

Subcommittee’s consideration of these 

issues. A copy of the agenda for the 

meeting will be posted at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/calnacept.htm. 

DATES: The NACEPT Environmental 

Technology Subcommittee will hold a 

two day open meeting on Thursday, 

September 14, 2006 from 9 a.m. to 5:30 

p.m. and Friday, September 15, 2006 

from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Marriott Crystal City Hotel, 1999 

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, 

Virginia 22202. The meeting is open to 

the public, with limited seating on a 

first-come, first-served basis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Joyce, Designated Federal Officer, 

joyce.mark@epa.gov, 202–233–0068, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative 

Environmental Management (1601E), 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

Case No. CD-002 COMMENT 01