Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 229 [Tuesday, November 27, 1934 / Rules and Regulations 46533

ec^lrsmer^ssc^•r-° mY>u>na¢nr ...^^wsur^+e:rsuiaauza:ea^s^^+xm:_*^sx:^. Jnrmr.;a.zns®carc _ -

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. CE-Rho-82-1301

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Test Procedures

for Dishwashers

AGEUCY: Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) hereby amends its test

procedures for dishwashers by revising

the definition of water heating

dishwashers, and by making a few other

related changes. Test procedures are

one part of the energy conservation

program for consumer products

established pursuant to the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act, as

amended by the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act. Among other

program elements, the legislation

requires that standard methods of

testing be prescribed for covered

products.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1984.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. McCabe, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,

Mail Station CE-113.1, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252-

9127; or

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC12,1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252-

9513.

SUPPLEMCNTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background.

On October 1, 1977, Section 301 of the

Department of Energy Organization Act

(DOE Act) (Pub. L. 95-91) transferred the

functions of the Federal Energy

Administration (FEA) concerning the

energy conservation program for

consumer products to the Department of

Energy (DOE). The energy conservation

program for consumer products was

established by the FEA pursuant to Title

111, Part B of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94-

163). Subsequently, EPCA was amended

by the National Energy Conservation

Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619).

Among other program elements, section

323 of EPCA, as amended, requires that

standard methods of testing be

prescribed for covered products,

including dishwashers. Test procedures

for dishwashers appear at Appendix C

to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430.

Test procedures for dishwashers were

first published on August 8,1977. (42 FR

39984, August 8,1977). Subsequently,

three manufacturers of dishwashers that

use 120 °F inlet water requested DOE to

exclude their dishwashers from the

prescribed test procedures.

The Hobart Corporation (Hobart) filed

an application for exception with the

DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals

(OHA) on September 5, 1979, for its

Model KD-19 dishwasher. OHA granted

an exception to Hobart on February 26,

1980. Norris Industries (Norris) applied

to the Assistant Secretary for

Conservation and Renewable Energy for

a test waiver on November 5,1960. The

Secretary granted the waiver for Norris'

LER series dishwashers (48 FR 35719,

J'ily 10, 1981). The General Electric

Company (GE) applied for a test waiver

for its "T" series dishwasher on

November 6, 1981. The Secretary

granted a waiver to GE for its "T" series

dishwasher on May 28, 1982. (47 FR

33543: May 28, 1982). As required by

$ 430.27(h) on March 3, 1983, DOE

amended the dishwasher test

procedures so as to eliminate the need

for continuation of the test procedure

waivers. (48 FR 9202, March 3, 1983).

After the publication of the March

1983 rule, two dishwasher

manufacturers, GE and Hobart,

commented to DOE that their

dishwashers which are designed to

operate with 120 °F inlet water would

not comply with the definition of water

heating dishwashers because they do

not provide internal water heating in the

rinse phase of the normal cycle.

Subsequently, DOE proposed to amend

the water heating dishwasher definition.

(49 FR 23142, June 4, 1984). A public

hearing was held on June 21, 1984.

B. Discussion

1. Heated Rinse Cycle. The June 1984

notice proposed amendments to the

definition of a water heating dishwasher

to delete the requirement for internal

water heating in "at least one rinse

phase of the normal cycle." DOE

included this requirement in the March

1983 final rule based on comments

received on the May 1982 proposed rule.

In commenting on the May 1982

proposed rule, Design and

Manufacturing Corporation (D&Ivl),

Sears Roebuck and Co. ( Sears) and

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool)

stated that at least one rinse phase must

be thermostatically controlled. As

discussed above, the test procedures for

CE-RM-82-130 COMMENT 05

·Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 229 r Tuesday, November 27. 19B4 I Rules and Regulations 46533 ~!Yn~iD"r~C"'~~~~~.:r,~~IJ.UlZ2~~.~~~~~ 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGV 

Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. CE-RM~82-130]' 

Energy Consarvation Program for 

Consumer Products; Test Procedures 

for DI5hw3shers 

hGE'NCY: Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. DOE. 

ACTIOU: Final rule. 

SUMMARV: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) hereby amends its test 

procedures for dishwashers by revising 

tna definition of water heating 

dishwashers, and by making 8 few other 

related changes. Test procedul'B§ are 

one part of the energy conservation 

program for consumer products 

established pursuant to tIle Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act. as 

amended by the National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act. Among other 

program elements. the legislation 

requires that standard methods of 

testing be prescribed for covered 

products. 

EfFECTIVE DATE: December 27. 1984. 

FOR !'URTHER INFORMATION cOIn ACT: 

Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Forresta! Building. 

Mail Station CE-113.1. 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-

9127; or . 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .• U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Counsel. 

Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC12.1000 Independence Avenue. SW .• 

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-

9513. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background. 

On 'October 1. 1977. Section 301 of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act 

(DOE Act) (Pub. L. 95-91) tra;]sferred the 

functions of thi! Federal Energy 

Administration (FEA) concerning the 

energy conservation program for· 

consumer products to the Depl',rtment of 

Energy (DOE). The energy conservation 

program for consumer products \'Vas 

established by the FEA pursuant to Title 

III, Part B of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94-

163). SlIbsequently, EPCA was amended 

by the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L 91Hl19). 

Among other program elements, section 

323 of EPCA. as amended. requires that 

standard methods of testing be 

prescribed for covered products. 

including dishwashers. Test procedures 

for dishwashers .appear at Appendix C 

to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430. 

Test procedures for dishwashers were 

first published on August 8. 1977. (42 FR 

39984. August 8, 1977). Subsequently. 

three manufacturers of dishwashers that 

use 120 OF inlet water requested DOE to 

exclude their dishwashers from the . 

pres.;riued test procedures. 

The Hobart Corporation (Hobart) filed 

an application for exception with the 

DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals 

(OHA) on September 5. 1979. for its 

MoJe\ KD-19 dishwasher. OHA granted 

an exception to Hobart on February 26. 

1LJSQ. Norris Industries (Norris) applied 

tu the Assistant Secretary for 

Conservation and Renewable Energy for 

a test waiver on November 5. 19aO. The 

SIlf.relary g;-anted the waiver for Norris' 

I.ER series dishwashers (46 FR 35719. 

J,lIy 10. lH81). The General Electric 

Company (GE) applied for a test waiver 

fUI' its "'1''' series dishwasher on 

Novcn,bcr 6. 1981. The Secretary 

granted a waiver to GE for its "T" s'eries 

dishwasher on May 28. 1982. (47 FR 

33543, May 28, 1982). As required by 

§ 430.27(h) on March 3, 1983. DOE 

ameiided the dishwasher test , 

procedures so as to eliminate the need 

for continuation of the test procedure 

waivers. (48 FR 9202. March 3. 1983). 

After the publication of the March 

1983 rule, two dishwasher 

manufacturers. GE and Hobart. 

commented to DOE that their 

dishwashers which are designed to 

operate with 120 OF inlet water would 

. not comply with the definition of water 

heating dishwashers because they do 

no! provide internal water heating in the 

rinse phase of the normal cycle. 

Subsequently. DOE proposed to amend 

the water heating dishwasher definition. 

(';9 FR 23142. June 4. 1984). A public 

hearing was held on June 21. 1984. 

B. Discussion 

1. Healed Rinse Cycle. The June 19M 

notice proposed amendments to the 

definition of a water heating dishwasher 

to delete the requirement for internal 

water heating in "at least one rinse 

phase of the normal cycle." DOE 

included this requirement in the March 

1983 final rule based on comments 

received on the May 1982 proposed rule .. 

In commenting on the May 1982 

propcsed rule, Desjgn and 

Manufacturing Corporation (D&M). 

Sears Roebuck and Co. (Sears) and 

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) . 

stdled that at least one rinse phase must 

be the!mostatically controlled. As 

discussed above. the test procedures for 

·Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 229 r Tuesday, November 27. 19B4 I Rules and Regulations 46533 ~!Yn~iD"r~C"'~~~~~.:r,~~IJ.UlZ2~~.~~~~~ 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGV 

Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. CE-RM~82-130]' 

Energy Consarvation Program for 

Consumer Products; Test Procedures 

for DI5hw3shers 

hGE'NCY: Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. DOE. 

ACTIOU: Final rule. 

SUMMARV: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) hereby amends its test 

procedures for dishwashers by revising 

tna definition of water heating 

dishwashers, and by making 8 few other 

related changes. Test procedul'B§ are 

one part of the energy conservation 

program for consumer products 

established pursuant to tIle Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act. as 

amended by the National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act. Among other 

program elements. the legislation 

requires that standard methods of 

testing be prescribed for covered 

products. 

EfFECTIVE DATE: December 27. 1984. 

FOR !'URTHER INFORMATION cOIn ACT: 

Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Forresta! Building. 

Mail Station CE-113.1. 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-

9127; or . 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .• U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Counsel. 

Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC12.1000 Independence Avenue. SW .• 

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-

9513. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background. 

On 'October 1. 1977. Section 301 of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act 

(DOE Act) (Pub. L. 95-91) tra;]sferred the 

functions of thi! Federal Energy 

Administration (FEA) concerning the 

energy conservation program for· 

consumer products to the Depl',rtment of 

Energy (DOE). The energy conservation 

program for consumer products \'Vas 

established by the FEA pursuant to Title 

III, Part B of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94-

163). SlIbsequently, EPCA was amended 

by the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L 91Hl19). 

Among other program elements, section 

323 of EPCA. as amended. requires that 

standard methods of testing be 

prescribed for covered products. 

including dishwashers. Test procedures 

for dishwashers .appear at Appendix C 

to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430. 

Test procedures for dishwashers were 

first published on August 8. 1977. (42 FR 

39984. August 8, 1977). Subsequently. 

three manufacturers of dishwashers that 

use 120 OF inlet water requested DOE to 

exclude their dishwashers from the . 

pres.;riued test procedures. 

The Hobart Corporation (Hobart) filed 

an application for exception with the 

DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals 

(OHA) on September 5. 1979. for its 

MoJe\ KD-19 dishwasher. OHA granted 

an exception to Hobart on February 26. 

1LJSQ. Norris Industries (Norris) applied 

tu the Assistant Secretary for 

Conservation and Renewable Energy for 

a test waiver on November 5. 19aO. The 

SIlf.relary g;-anted the waiver for Norris' 

I.ER series dishwashers (46 FR 35719. 

J,lIy 10. lH81). The General Electric 

Company (GE) applied for a test waiver 

fUI' its "'1''' series dishwasher on 

Novcn,bcr 6. 1981. The Secretary 

granted a waiver to GE for its "T" s'eries 

dishwasher on May 28. 1982. (47 FR 

33543, May 28, 1982). As required by 

§ 430.27(h) on March 3, 1983. DOE 

ameiided the dishwasher test , 

procedures so as to eliminate the need 

for continuation of the test procedure 

waivers. (48 FR 9202. March 3. 1983). 

After the publication of the March 

1983 rule, two dishwasher 

manufacturers. GE and Hobart. 

commented to DOE that their 

dishwashers which are designed to 

operate with 120 OF inlet water would 

. not comply with the definition of water 

heating dishwashers because they do 

no! provide internal water heating in the 

rinse phase of the normal cycle. 

Subsequently. DOE proposed to amend 

the water heating dishwasher definition. 

(';9 FR 23142. June 4. 1984). A public 

hearing was held on June 21. 1984. 

B. Discussion 

1. Healed Rinse Cycle. The June 19M 

notice proposed amendments to the 

definition of a water heating dishwasher 

to delete the requirement for internal 

water heating in "at least one rinse 

phase of the normal cycle." DOE 

included this requirement in the March 

1983 final rule based on comments 

received on the May 1982 proposed rule .. 

In commenting on the May 1982 

propcsed rule, Desjgn and 

Manufacturing Corporation (D&M). 

Sears Roebuck and Co. (Sears) and 

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) . 

stdled that at least one rinse phase must 

be the!mostatically controlled. As 

discussed above. the test procedures for 
46534 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

dishwashers were amended to include

test procedures for water heating - -

dishwashers in order to eliminate the

need for continuation of the test

procedure waivers.' After publication of

the March 1983 final rule, both GE andHobart commented to DOE that their

water heating dishwashers do not

comply with the definition.

GE and Hobart agreed with the June

1984 proposal (GE, No. 12, at 9; and

Hobart, No. 15, at 1).2

Whirlpool and Thermador/WasteKing

(WasteKing) recommended that the

requirement for a heated rinse not be

cftanged in order to assure satisfactory

dishwashing performance. (Whirlpool,

No. 14, at 1; and WasteKing, No. 16, at

1). Whirlpool found in testing

dishwashers with 120'F water, which

was theromostatically heated to 140 °F

in only one wash phase, that the drying

performance had degraded in

comparison to dishwashers with 140 °F

water in all fill phases. (Whirlpool, 5-

1). WasteKing stated that its test

.;Its support Whirlpool's.

In responding to these comments by

Whirlpool and WasteKing, GE cited the

March 1963 final rule in which the

Department concluded that

manufacturers should be allowed to

determine, for themselves, whether the

dishwashing performance for water

heating dishwashers is acceptable.

(March 3, 1983, 48 FR 9204). See GE, No.

12, at 2.

Hobart also stated that the

manufacturer should be allowed to

design a dishwasher which it believes

will satisfy to performance requirements

of its customers. Hobart illustrated

manufacturer respdnsiveness by citing

how an earlier design of its KitchenAid

dishwasher had been redesigned in

order to meet consumer demands for a

quicker drying period. See Hobart, No.

15, at 1, 2. Based on all the relevant

information, including review of these

comments, DOE continues to believe

hat manufacturers should be free as

much as possible-to design products to

satisfy their customers' requirements.

Accordingly, today's final rule does not

include a requirement for a heated rinse.

This position is further supported by the

two waivers which have been granted in

this regard.

2. Inlet Water Temperature. GE and

Maytag proposed that the definition of

water heating dishwasher be changed to

include language stating that the

manufacturer recommends a nominal

inlet water temperature of 120 °F. (GE,

6-21/2; and Maytag, No. 13, at 2).

Maytag recommended the change so as

to assure that energy consumption

claims would accurately reflect the

energy use of the dishwasher as

recommended by the manufacturer and

used by the consumer. GE also

recommended that a water heating

dishwasher is one "that the

manufacturer recommends is able to

operate at a nominal inlet water

temperature of 120 °F' See GE, 6-

21/2,

Hobart also commented that while the

definition may be adequate for

dishwashers currently distributed in the

United States, it may need to be

modified for an inlet water supply of

less than 120 °F as future designs

change. (Hobart, No. 15, at 2).

Specifically, Hobart cited European

dishwashers "which are designed to be

plumbed to cold water and * ` * employ

thermostatic internal water heating but

with a 230 VAC power source."

Subsequent to the close of the comment

period of this rulemaking, DOE received

a petition for test procedure waiver for

this type of dishwasher.3

DOE has reviewed these comments

and agrees with each. Today's final rule

amends the definition of water heating

dishwasher to include the language that

the manufacturer directs that nominal

inlet water temperature of 120 °F should

be used. However, Hobart's comments

regarding dishwashers designed to be

plumbed to cold water will be addressed

in a separate rulemaking action since it

is an issue outside of this rulemaking.

3. 14'ash Water Temperature.

Whirlpool (Whirlpool 6-18/1, No. 14 at

1, and No. 14a, at 1, 2) proposed that the

test procedure require the temperature

of the circulating water to reach 140 IF

in the thermostatically controlled

phases. Whirlpool contends that this is

necessary to ensure adequate

performance, and as a safeguard against

inadequate water heating. Whirlpool

recommended "that the water

temperature be measured in the lower

rack at a height of six inches above the

bottom of this rack within a 12 inch

diameter, centered in the lower

dishrack". To support this proposal

Whirlpool cited its test results where a

competitor's water heating dishwasher

was only able to attain 135 IF in the

wash cycle, and several dishwasher

detergent manufacturers,

recommendations that the water -

temperature be at least 140 °F. Based

upon dishwasher detergent

manufacturers' recommendations for

140 °F water temperature, Whirlpool

believes the test procedure should

include a temperature requirement for

the circulating water. In addition,

Whirlpool believes this requirement is

necessary since its test results of a

competitor's dishwasher show that the

competitor's dishwasher is not able to

provide the recommended 140 °F water

temperature.

GE, WasteKing and Hobart each

rejected Whirlpool's proposal. (GE, No.

12, at 2; Hobart, No. 15, at 2; and

WasteKing, No. 16, at 2). GE states that

this is a performance issue which, in the

March 1983 final rule, DOE left to

manufacturers to determine. Hobart also'

took the position that the level to which,

a dishwasher heats the water should beov

left to the manufacturer. WasteKing

rejected Whirlpool's proposal, "

commenting that its dishwasher design

.does not heat the main body of water'

directly and does not control water'

temperature. Rather, the dishwasher

generates. steam to heat the dishes and

indirectly heats the water. WasteKing's

heating control mechanism does not

guarantee the exact temperature of the

water during circulation. Furthermore,

this proposal was raised in response to

DOE's May 1982 notice and rejected by

DOE in the March 1983 final rule. See 48

FR 9203, March 3, 1983. In addition, DOE

raised the WasteKing design as possibly

not meeting the Whirlpool proposal at

the June 1984 public hearing and

requested that Whirlpool comment on

the WasteKing design vis-a-vis its

proposal for measuring the temperature

of the heated circulating water.

Whirlpool agreed to this request. (See

Whirlpool 6-21/1). However, in its

written response Whirlpool did not

respond to this request.

DOE continues to believe, as in-the

March 1983 final rule, that a requirement

to heat water to a specified minimum

temperature is unnecessarily restrictive

in the test procedure and could exclude

steam dishwashers from the water

' OHA granted an exception to Hobart on

February 28, 1980, for its KD-19 dishwasher, The

Secretary granted a waiver to GE for its "T' series

dishwasher on May 28. 1982. Neither the KD-.19

dishwasher or the "T" series dishwasher provide

internal water heating in the rinse phase of the

normal cycle.

s Comments on the rulemaking were given docket

numbers. Citations to the comments provide the

docket numbers, unless the comment was submitted

as part of an oral presentation. In which case the

citation is to the date and the numerical order of the

presentation.

s On August 20,1984 , DOE received a petition for heating dishwasher category. Therefore.

a test procedure waiver from ANDI Co. for its today's final rule does not include a

Favorit Model 28r. and 265 dishwashers. These requirement of a rise to a specified dishwashers are manufactured in Germany and

operate on an electrical supply of 240 volts and are temperature for water heated by a water

intended to use cold water input only. heating dishwasher. ,

CE-RM-82-130 COMMENT 05

,18534 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 229 J Tuesday. November 27, 1984 J Rules and Regulations ~1':I~"e&~'~~SllOi'u..~~~M4.~~U"'~~~'~i:;~~~'~~ 

dishwashers were amended to include 

test procedures for water heating _ -

dishwashers in order to eliminate the 

need for continuation of the test 

procedure waivers.! After publication of 

the March 1983 final rule. both CE andHobart commented to DOE that their 

water heating dishwashers do not 

comply with the definition. 

CE and Hobart agreed with the June 

1984 proposal (GE. No. 12. at I; and 

Hobart. No. 15. at 1).2 

\<\'hirlpool and Thermador/WasteKing 

(WasteKing) recommended that the 

requirement for a heated rinse not be 

changed in order to assure satisfactory 

dishwashing performance. (Whirlpool, 

No. 14. at 1; and WasteKing, No. 16. at 

1). Whirlpool found in testing . 

dishwashers with 120 OF water, which 

\ ... ·as theromostatically heated to 140 OF 

in only one wash phase, that the drying 

performance had degraded in _ 

comparison to dishwashers with 140 OF 

";<;ler in all fill phases. (Whirlpool. 5-

'1). WasteKing stated that its test. 

.' ,;lts support Whirlpool's. 

1n responding to these comments by 

'Whirlpool and WasteKing. CE cited the 

March 1903 final rule in which the 

Department concluded that 

manufacturers should be allowed to 

determine. for themselves, whether the 

dishwashing performanc:;e for water 

heating dishwashers is acceptable. 

(March 3, 1983, 48 FR 9204). See CE, No. 

12, at 2. 

Hobart also stated that the 

manufacturer should be allowed to 

design a dishwasher which it believes 

will satisfy to performance requirements 

of its customers. Hobart illustrated 

manufacturer resp6nsiveness by citing 

how an earlier design of its KitchenAid 

dishwasher had been redesigned in 

order to meet consumer demands for EI 

quicker drying period. See Hobart. No. 

15, at 1. 2. Based on all the relevant 

infotmation. including review of these 

comments. DOE continues to believe 

hat manufacturers should be free as 

much as possible-to design products to 

satisfy their customers' requirements. 

Accordingly, today's final rule does not 

include a requirement fo~ a heated rinse. 

. This position is further supported by the 

• OHA granted aD exception to Hoban on February 26. 1980. for its KD-19 dishwasher. The 

Secretary granted a wai\'er to GE for its 'T' aeries 

dishwasher on May 28. lQ8~. Neither the KD-IQ 

dishwasher or the "T" aeries dishwasher provide 

Internal water heating in the rinae phase of the 

nonnal cycle. 

J Comments on the rulemaking were given docket 

numbers. Citations to the comment. provide the 

docket numbers. unles8 the comment was aubmitted 

88 pan of an oral presentation. In which case the 

citation ill to the date and the numerical order of tbe 

preaentatiDn. 

two waivers which have been granted in 

this regard. ' 

, 2. Inlet Water Temperature. GE and 

May tag proposed that the definition of 

water heating dishwasher be chanoed to 

include language stating that the' 0 

manufacturer recommends a nominal 

inlet water temperature of 120 OF. (CEo 

6-21/2: and May tag, No. 13. at 2). 

May tag recommended the change so as 

to assure that energy consumption 

claims would accurately reflect the 

energy use of the dishwasher as 

recommended by the manufacturer and 

used by the consumer. GE also 

recommended that a water heating 

dishwasher is one "that the 

manufacturer recommends is able to 

operate at a nominal inlet water 

temperature of 120 OF • " " .. See CE, 6-

21/2. 

Hobarl also commented that while the 

definition may be adequate for -' 

dishwashers currently distributed in the 

United Slales, it may need to be 

modified for an inlel water. supply of 

less than 120 OF as future designs 

change. (Hobart, No. 15. at 2). 

Specifically. Hobart cited European 

dishwashers "which are designed to be 

plumbed to cold water and" •• employ 

thermostatic internal water heating but 

with a 230 V AC power source." 

Subsequent to the close of the comment 

period of this rulemaking, DOE received 

a petition for test procedure waiver for 

this type of dishwasher.:! -

DOE has reviewed these comments 

and agrees with each. Today's final rule 

amends the definition of water heating 

dishwasher to include the language that 

the manufacturer directs that nominal 

inlet water temperature of 120 OF should 

be used. However. Hobart's comments 

regarding dishwashers designed to be 

plumbed to cold water will be addressed 

in a separate rulemaking action since it 

is an issue outside of this rule making. 

3. l1'ash l'l'ater Temperature. 

Whirlpool (Whirlpool 6-18/1, No. 14 at 

1, and No. 14a, at 1, 2) proposed that the 

test procedure require the temperature 

of the circulating water to reach 140 OF 

in the thermostatically controlled 

phases. Vv'hirlpool contends that this is 

necessary to ensure adequate .-.-

performance. and as a safeguard against 

inadequate water heating. Whirlpool 

recommended "that the water 

temperature be measured in the lower 

rack at a height of six inches above the 

bottom of this rack within s 12 inch 

• On August 20.1984. DOE received a petition for 

a test procedure waiver from AND! Co. for illl 

Fevorit Model ztx: and 265 dishwashers. These 

dishwashers 8re manufactured in Gennany and 

operat" on an electrical supply of 240 \'olt. and 8N' 

intend ... d to use cold water input only. 

diameter, centered in the lower 

di&hrack". To support this proposal 

Whirlpool cited its test results where a 

competitor's water heating dishwasher 

was onlv able to attain 135 'F in the 

wash cj~cle, and several dishwasher 

detergent manufacturers. 

recommendations that the water 

temperature be at least 140 'F. Based 

upon dishwasher detergent 

manufacturer'S' recommendations for 

140 OF water temperature, \V'hirlpool 

believes the test procedure should 

include a temperature requirement for 

the circulating water. In addition, 

Whirlpool believes this requirement is 

necessary since its test results of a 

c;ompelitor's dishwasher show that the 

competitor's dishwasher is not able to 

pro\'ide the recommended 140 OF water 

temperature. 

CE, \\'asteKing find Hobart each 

rejected Whirlpool's proposal. (GF., No. 

12, at 2: Hobart, No. 15, at 2: and 

Was!(>King, No. 16, at 2). CE stales that 

this is a performance issue which. in the 

March 1983 final rule. DOE left to 

manufacturers to determine. Hobart also': . 

took the position that the level to whichl 

a dishwasher heats the water should bit· 

left to the manufacturer. WasteKing" 

rejected Whirlpool's proposal, . 

commenting that its dishwasher desifjn 

. does not heat the main bod\; of wate~ 

directly and does not control water·~ 

temperature. Rather, the dishwasher 

generates. steam to heat the dishe& and 

indirectly heats the water. WasteKing's 

heating control mechanism does not 

guarantee the exact temperature of the 

water during circulation. Furthermore, 

this proposal was raised in response to 

DOE's May 1982 notice and rejected by 

DOE in the March 1983 final rule. See 48 

FR 9203, March 3, 1983. In addition. DOE 

raised the WasteKing design as possibly 

not meeting the \'\'hirlpool proposalst 

the June 19M public hearing and 

requested that Whirlpool comment on 

the WasteKing design vis-a-vis its 

proposal for measuring the temperature 

of the heated circulating water. 

Whirlpool agreed to this request. (See 

Whirlpool 6-21/1). Howe\·er. in its 

written response Whirlpool did not 

respond to this request. . 

DOE continues to believe. as in·the 

March 1983 final rule, that B requirement 

to heat water to a specified minimum 

temper<,ture is unnecessarily restrictive .;. 

in the test procedure and could exclude 

steam dishwashers from the water 

heating dishwasher category. Therefore. 

today'S final rule does not include a 

requirement of a rise to a specified 

temperature for water heated by a water 

heating dishwasher .. 

,18534 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 229 J Tuesday. November 27, 1984 J Rules and Regulations ~1':I~"e&~'~~SllOi'u..~~~M4.~~U"'~~~'~i:;~~~'~~ 

dishwashers were amended to include 

test procedures for water heating _ -

dishwashers in order to eliminate the 

need for continuation of the test 

procedure waivers.! After publication of 

the March 1983 final rule. both CE andHobart commented to DOE that their 

water heating dishwashers do not 

comply with the definition. 

CE and Hobart agreed with the June 

1984 proposal (GE. No. 12. at I; and 

Hobart. No. 15. at 1).2 

\<\'hirlpool and Thermador/WasteKing 

(WasteKing) recommended that the 

requirement for a heated rinse not be 

changed in order to assure satisfactory 

dishwashing performance. (Whirlpool, 

No. 14. at 1; and WasteKing, No. 16. at 

1). Whirlpool found in testing . 

dishwashers with 120 OF water, which 

\ ... ·as theromostatically heated to 140 OF 

in only one wash phase, that the drying 

performance had degraded in _ 

comparison to dishwashers with 140 OF 

";<;ler in all fill phases. (Whirlpool. 5-

'1). WasteKing stated that its test. 

.' ,;lts support Whirlpool's. 

1n responding to these comments by 

'Whirlpool and WasteKing. CE cited the 

March 1903 final rule in which the 

Department concluded that 

manufacturers should be allowed to 

determine. for themselves, whether the 

dishwashing performanc:;e for water 

heating dishwashers is acceptable. 

(March 3, 1983, 48 FR 9204). See CE, No. 

12, at 2. 

Hobart also stated that the 

manufacturer should be allowed to 

design a dishwasher which it believes 

will satisfy to performance requirements 

of its customers. Hobart illustrated 

manufacturer resp6nsiveness by citing 

how an earlier design of its KitchenAid 

dishwasher had been redesigned in 

order to meet consumer demands for EI 

quicker drying period. See Hobart. No. 

15, at 1. 2. Based on all the relevant 

infotmation. including review of these 

comments. DOE continues to believe 

hat manufacturers should be free as 

much as possible-to design products to 

satisfy their customers' requirements. 

Accordingly, today's final rule does not 

include a requirement fo~ a heated rinse. 

. This position is further supported by the 

• OHA granted aD exception to Hoban on February 26. 1980. for its KD-19 dishwasher. The 

Secretary granted a wai\'er to GE for its 'T' aeries 

dishwasher on May 28. lQ8~. Neither the KD-IQ 

dishwasher or the "T" aeries dishwasher provide 

Internal water heating in the rinae phase of the 

nonnal cycle. 

J Comments on the rulemaking were given docket 

numbers. Citations to the comment. provide the 

docket numbers. unles8 the comment was aubmitted 

88 pan of an oral presentation. In which case the 

citation ill to the date and the numerical order of tbe 

preaentatiDn. 

two waivers which have been granted in 

this regard. ' 

, 2. Inlet Water Temperature. GE and 

May tag proposed that the definition of 

water heating dishwasher be chanoed to 

include language stating that the' 0 

manufacturer recommends a nominal 

inlet water temperature of 120 OF. (CEo 

6-21/2: and May tag, No. 13. at 2). 

May tag recommended the change so as 

to assure that energy consumption 

claims would accurately reflect the 

energy use of the dishwasher as 

recommended by the manufacturer and 

used by the consumer. GE also 

recommended that a water heating 

dishwasher is one "that the 

manufacturer recommends is able to 

operate at a nominal inlet water 

temperature of 120 OF • " " .. See CE, 6-

21/2. 

Hobarl also commented that while the 

definition may be adequate for -' 

dishwashers currently distributed in the 

United Slales, it may need to be 

modified for an inlel water. supply of 

less than 120 OF as future designs 

change. (Hobart, No. 15. at 2). 

Specifically. Hobart cited European 

dishwashers "which are designed to be 

plumbed to cold water and" •• employ 

thermostatic internal water heating but 

with a 230 V AC power source." 

Subsequent to the close of the comment 

period of this rulemaking, DOE received 

a petition for test procedure waiver for 

this type of dishwasher.:! -

DOE has reviewed these comments 

and agrees with each. Today's final rule 

amends the definition of water heating 

dishwasher to include the language that 

the manufacturer directs that nominal 

inlet water temperature of 120 OF should 

be used. However. Hobart's comments 

regarding dishwashers designed to be 

plumbed to cold water will be addressed 

in a separate rulemaking action since it 

is an issue outside of this rule making. 

3. l1'ash l'l'ater Temperature. 

Whirlpool (Whirlpool 6-18/1, No. 14 at 

1, and No. 14a, at 1, 2) proposed that the 

test procedure require the temperature 

of the circulating water to reach 140 OF 

in the thermostatically controlled 

phases. Vv'hirlpool contends that this is 

necessary to ensure adequate .-.-

performance. and as a safeguard against 

inadequate water heating. Whirlpool 

recommended "that the water 

temperature be measured in the lower 

rack at a height of six inches above the 

bottom of this rack within s 12 inch 

• On August 20.1984. DOE received a petition for 

a test procedure waiver from AND! Co. for illl 

Fevorit Model ztx: and 265 dishwashers. These 

dishwashers 8re manufactured in Gennany and 

operat" on an electrical supply of 240 \'olt. and 8N' 

intend ... d to use cold water input only. 

diameter, centered in the lower 

di&hrack". To support this proposal 

Whirlpool cited its test results where a 

competitor's water heating dishwasher 

was onlv able to attain 135 'F in the 

wash cj~cle, and several dishwasher 

detergent manufacturers. 

recommendations that the water 

temperature be at least 140 'F. Based 

upon dishwasher detergent 

manufacturer'S' recommendations for 

140 OF water temperature, \V'hirlpool 

believes the test procedure should 

include a temperature requirement for 

the circulating water. In addition, 

Whirlpool believes this requirement is 

necessary since its test results of a 

c;ompelitor's dishwasher show that the 

competitor's dishwasher is not able to 

pro\'ide the recommended 140 OF water 

temperature. 

CE, \\'asteKing find Hobart each 

rejected Whirlpool's proposal. (GF., No. 

12, at 2: Hobart, No. 15, at 2: and 

Was!(>King, No. 16, at 2). CE stales that 

this is a performance issue which. in the 

March 1983 final rule. DOE left to 

manufacturers to determine. Hobart also': . 

took the position that the level to whichl 

a dishwasher heats the water should bit· 

left to the manufacturer. WasteKing" 

rejected Whirlpool's proposal, . 

commenting that its dishwasher desifjn 

. does not heat the main bod\; of wate~ 

directly and does not control water·~ 

temperature. Rather, the dishwasher 

generates. steam to heat the dishe& and 

indirectly heats the water. WasteKing's 

heating control mechanism does not 

guarantee the exact temperature of the 

water during circulation. Furthermore, 

this proposal was raised in response to 

DOE's May 1982 notice and rejected by 

DOE in the March 1983 final rule. See 48 

FR 9203, March 3, 1983. In addition. DOE 

raised the WasteKing design as possibly 

not meeting the \'\'hirlpool proposalst 

the June 19M public hearing and 

requested that Whirlpool comment on 

the WasteKing design vis-a-vis its 

proposal for measuring the temperature 

of the heated circulating water. 

Whirlpool agreed to this request. (See 

Whirlpool 6-21/1). Howe\·er. in its 

written response Whirlpool did not 

respond to this request. 

DOE continues to believe. as in·the 

March 1983 final rule, that B requirement 

to heat water to a specified minimum 

temper<,ture is unnecessarily restrictive .;. 

in the test procedure and could exclude 

steam dishwashers from the water 

heating dishwasher category. Therefore. 

today'S final rule does not include a 

requirement of a rise to a specified 

temperature for water heated by a water 

heating dishwasher .. 
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 46535

4. Test Load Whirlpool and Hobart

recommended that a minimum number

of eight place settings be specified for

testing water heating dishwashers.

(Whirlpool, No. 14, at 1; Hobart, No. 15,

at 3). Hobart states that Association of

Home Appliance Manufacturers

(AHAM) Standard DW-1, referenced in

Section 2.6.2 of the DOE dishwasher test

procedures, is discretionary as to test

load size and could affect test results.4

Hobart goes on to state that test loads

vary depending on which laboratory is

conducting the testing. The test load

ranges from eight place settings

(generally used by Procter and Gamble)

to 12 place settings (generally used for

the ARAM test for full sized units).

WasteKing agrees that the size of the

test load should be added to the

specification. (WasteKing, No. 16, at 2).

However, WasteKing does not propose

a test load size. .

GE commented that such a provision

is redundant because under the Federal

Commission (FTC) labeling

;m, standard dishwashers have a

city of eight or more place settings

e compact dishwashers have a

pacity of less than eight place

e'^_tings. (GE, No. 12, at 3). GE further

sta;,es that since the current test

roc-edures require the use of a dish load

tccordance with AHAM Standard

-1, they believe that the

equ,rement of a minimum of eight

place settings is already established for

'standa' d' dishwashers." GE infers that

all water heating dishwashers are

standard dishwashers.'

DOE agrees that standard sized water

heating dishwashers should be tested

with eight place settings in order to

eliminate any test variability due to the

size of the test load. However, DOE

believes that a requirement to test water

heating dishwashers with a minimum of

eight place settings would be too

restrictive since compact water heating

dishwashers could be manufactured at a

later date. DOE believes this

amendment will standardize the testing

and provide flexibility in the test

procedure if compact water heating

' AHA.M standard DW-1 does not specify the

number of place settings required ; rather, it allows

the testing facility to determine the number of place

settings to be used.

'As Hobart stated (Hobart, No. 15, at 2) the

current definition of water heating dishwashers may

need to be modified as dishwashers are introduced

into the market place that are designed to be

plumbed to cold water. Likewise, there may be

water heating dishwashers manufactured at some

future date with a capacity of less than eight place

settings. DOE believes that for compact water

heating dishwashers, the number of place settings to

be tested should be the capacity specified by the

manufacturer.

dishwashers were manufactured at a

later date.

5. Thermostatically Controlled

Heating. The June 1984 notice proposed

retaining the requirement that water

heating dishwashers be thermostatically

controlled. Whirlpool, Hobart and

WasteKing all commented in support of

this proposal (Whirlpool,'6--21/1, No. 14

at 2, and No. 14a at 3; Hobart, No. 15, at

2; and WasteKing, No. 16, at 1).

Maytag's proposed definition supports

retaining the requirement for

thermostatically controlled heating. See

Maytag, No. 13, at 2.

In the June 1984 proposal, DOE

asserted that "a key distinction between

water heating dishwashers and other

dishwashers is a control that shuts off

the internal heater(s) after the water has

been heated to a certain level." See 49

FR 23143, June 4, 1984. GE rejected

DOE's assertion, claiming that this is a

"restrictive and unnecessary design

requirement", and that there is no

certain water temperature level to be

achieved. Rather, GE believes the

temperature achieved is determined by

the manufacturer in order to achieve

acceptability of washing performance.

(GE, 6-21/2).

Whirlpool contended that due to long

pipe runs from the water heater to the

dishwasher, the temperature of the

water entering the dishwasher is

reduced and that it is a hit or miss

proposition as to what the heated water

temperature in the dishwasher will be if

one depends on a fixed time delay for

water heating. Hobart, in its Final

Arguments concerning its application for

exception with the DOE Office of

Hearings and Appeals for its KD-19

dishwasher (see Hobart, Final

Argument, filed with DOE OHA, Case

DEE-4459), stated that water heated to

120 'F in the water heater may be as

low as 90 'F at the point of use. In

addition, data submitted by Whirlpool

in its Statement of Objections

demonstrated that during the winter in

certain areas of the country, the

temperature may be lower than 90 'F.

(See Whirlpool, Statement of Objection,

filed with DOE, OHA, Case DEE-4459).

Hobart commented on the June 1984

proposal that the thermostat provides

an assured environment to either raise

the water temperature or avoid heating

it more than necessary," and that this

cannot be duplicated by mechanical

timers.

GE states that for water heating

dishwashers the amount of additional

heating and the means to achieve it

should depend upon the manufacturer's

specification, and should not be a part

of any standardized test procedure. GE

further claims that its dishwashers usin

mechanical timer delay achieve

excellent results. By knowing the

characteristics of the dishwasher model

GE asserts that it is simply a matter of

design to provide sufficient delay to

assure excellent performance (GE, No.

12, at 3). Even if thermostatic controls

were to provide greater control over the

energy use performance of water

heating dishwashers, DOE agrees with

GE that water heating dishwashers

should not be defined to require a

restrictive design requirement such as

thermostatic controls. As discussed

above, DOE believes the market place

should determine whether the

dishwasher performance is acceptable,

not the DOE test procedure. DOE

accepts GE's arguments that a

manufacturer should not be

unnecessarily restricted by a

standardized test method as to which

design alternatives to consider. Thus, in

today's final rule, DOE is deleting the

requirement for thermostatic controls.6

3. Miscellaneous. The June 1984 notice

proposed a new section (§ 2.7) to make

clear which testing provisions applied to

water heating dishwashers. In addition,

DOE proposed certain minor technical

and editorial changes in the June 1984

proposed rule.

Specifically, the parameter for the

machine electrical energy consumption

was proposed to be changed from "Me"

to "M" in § 3.2.2. In § 4.2.1. the

parameter for the per cycle water energy

consumption using gas-heated water or

oil-heated water was proposed to be

changed from "We" to "Wg". Finally, in

§ 4.3.2, the parameter for the per cycle

machine electrical energy consumption

was proposed to be changed from "m"

to "M".

D&M, Hobart, and Whirlpool

commented in favor of each of the

proposed changes. (D&M, No., 11, at 1;

Hobart, No. 15, at 2; and Whirlpool, 6-

21/1). GE also approved the inclusion of

§ 2.7 in the test procedure. (GE, 6-21/2).

Accordingly, DOE is adopting these

proposed provisions in today's final rule.

C. Environmental , Regulatory Impact,

and Small Entity Impact Reviews

1. Environmental Review. The

Department has reviewed today's final

rule in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

'If a manufacturer were to recommend that the

inlet water temperature be increased above 120 'F

In order to achieve acceptable performance levels,

then DOE believes the product would not meet the

definition of water heating dishwater. This product

should be tested, for the purpose of energy

efficiency/use claims, with a nominal water

temperature of 140 't:.

CE-RM-82-130 COMMENT 05

· FiJdcmJ Register f Vol. 49, No. 229 I Tuesday, November 27, 1984 I Rules and Regulations 455a5 .=--·';'>~~~~~.JI!r.>t:~_:t:r~~~~~".N'~..6 .... c.'='"-'!.~~...;e-.:~~~~.~~:~~~c~ 

4. Tesl Load Whirlpool and Hobart 

recommended that a minimum number 

of eight place settings be specified for 

testing water heating dishwashers .. 

(Whirlpool, No. 14, at 1; Hobart, No. 15. 

at 3). Hobart states that Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) Standard DW-1, referenced in 

Section 2.6.2 of the DOE dishwasher test 

procedures. is discretionary as to lest 

load size and could affect lest results.· 

Hobart goes on to state that test loads 

vary depending on which laboratory is 

conducting the testing. The test load 

ranges from eight place settings 

(generally used by Procter and Gamble) 

10 12 place settings (generally used for 

the AllAM test for full sized units). 

WasteKing agrees that the size of the 

test load should be added to the . 

specification. (WasteKing, No. 16, at 2). 

However, WasteKing does not propose 

a test load size. 

GE commented that such a provision 

is ;"dundant because under the Federal ,. Commission (ITC) labeling 

:m. standard dishwashers have a 

city of eight or more place settings 

,ie compact dishwashers have a 

pacity of less than eight place 

ey:tings. (GE, No. 12, at 3). GE further 

sta':fes that since the current test 

o robedures require the use of a dish load 

:iC·cordance with AHAM Standard 

"'.::1, they believe that the 

,equJrement of a minimum of eight· 

place settings is already established for 

'standa. d' dishwashers." GE infers that 

all water heating dishwashers are 

standard dishwashers.5 

DOE agrees that standard sized water 

heating dishwadlcrs should be tested 

with eight place settings in order to 

eliminate any test variability due to the 

size of the lest load. However, DOE 

believes that a requirement to test water 

heating dishwashers with a minimum of 

eight place settings would be too 

restrictive since compact water heating 

dishwashers could be manufactured at a 

later date. DOE believes this 

amendment will standardize the testing 

and provide flexibility in the test 

procedure,if compact water heating 

• AHA.1\,.{ standard DW-l does not specify the 

number of place settings required; rather, it allows 

the testing fMcility to detennine the number of place 

settings to be uBed. 

'As Hobart staled (Hobart. No. 15. at 2) the 

currenl definition of waler healing dishwashers may 

need 10 be modified as dishwashers are introduced 

into Ihe markel place that are designed to be 

plumbed to cold w~ter. Likewise. there may be 

water heating dishwashers manuractured at Borne 

future date with a capacity of JeBB than eight place 

settings. DOE believes that for .:ompact water 

heating dishwashers. the number of place Bettings to 

be tesled should be the capacity speCified by the 

manufacturer. 

dishwashers were manufactured at a later date. 

5. Thermostatically Controlled 

Heating. The June 1984 notice proposed 

retaining the requirement that water 

heating dishwashers be thermostatically 

controlled. Whirlpool. Hobart and 

WasteKing all commented in support of 

this proposal (\\,hirlpool,' 6-21/1, No. 14 

at 2, and No. 14a at 3; Hobart, No. 15, at 

2; and WasteKing, No. 16, at 1). 

May tag's proposed definition supports 

retaining the requirement for 

thermostatically controlled heating. See 

May tag, No. 13, at 2. 

In the June 1984 proposal, DOE 

asserted that "a key distinction between 

water heating dishwashers and other 

dishwashers is a control that shuts off 

the internal heater(s) after the water has 

been heated to a certain leve!." See 49 

FR 23143, June 4.1984. GE rejected 

DOE's assertion. claiming that this is a "restrictive and unnecessary design 

requirement", and that there is no 

certain water temperature level to be 

achieved. Rather, GE believes the . 

temperature achieved is determined by 

the manufacturer in order to achieve 

acceptability of washing performance. 

(GE,6-21/2). 

Whirlpool contended that due to long 

pipe runs from the water heater to the 

dishwasher. the temperature of the 

water entering the dishwasher is 

reduced and that it is a hit or miss 

proposition as to what the heated water 

temperature in the dishwasher will he if 

one depends on a fixed time delay for 

water heating. Hobart, in its Final 

Arguments concerning its application for 

exception with the DOE Office of 

Hearings and Appeals for its I<D-19 

dishwasher (see Hobart, Final 

Argument, filed with DOE OHA, Case 

DEE-4459), stated that water heated to 

120 'F in the water heater may be as 

low as 90 'F at the point oruse. In 

addition, data submitted by Whirlpool 

in its Statement of Objections 

demonstrated that·during the winter in 

certain areas of the country. the . temperature may be lower than 90 'F. 

(See Whirlpool. Statement of Objection •. filed with DOE, OHA, Case DEE-4459). 

Hobart commented on the June 1984 

proposal that the thermostat provides 

"an assured environment to either raise 

the water temperature or avoid heating 

it more than necessary," and that this 

cannot be duplicated by mechanical 

timers. 

GE states that for water heating 

dishwashers the amount of additional 

heating and the means to achieve it 

should depend upon the manufacturer's 

specification, and should not be a part 

of any standardized test procedure. GE 

further claims that its dish\',Cashers usin 

mechanical timer delay achieve 

excellent results. By knowing the . 

characteristics of the dishwasher model 

GE asserts that it is simply a matter of 

design to provide sufficient delay to 

assure excellent performance (GE, No. 

12, at 3). Even if thermostatic controls 

were to provide greater control over the 

energy use performance of water 

heating dishwashers, DOE agrees with 

GE tbat water heating dishwashers 

should not be defined to require a 

restrictive design requirement such as 

thermostatic controls. As discussed 

above, DOE believes the market place 

should determine whether the . 

dishwasher performance is acceptable, 

not the DOE test procedure. DOE 

accepts GE's arguments that a 

manufacturer should not be 

unnecessarily restricted by a 

standardized lest method as to which 

design aIternativesto consider. Thus, in 

today's final rule, DOE is deleting the 

requir~ment for thermostatic controls.6 

3. Miscellaneous. The June 1984 notice 

proposed a new section (§ 2.7) to make 

clear which testing provisions applied to 

water heating dishwashers. In addition, 

DOE proposed certain minor t.echnical 

and editorial changes in the June 19~ 

proposed rule. 

Specifically, the parameter for the 

machine electrical energy consumption 

was proposed to be changed from "Me" 

to "M" in § 3.2.2. In § 4.2.1. the 

parameter for the per cycle water energy 

congumption using gas-heated water or 

oil-heated water was proposed to be 

changed from "We" to "Wg". Finally. in 

§ 4.3.2, the parameter for the per cycle 

machine electrical energy consumption 

was proposed to be changed from "m" 

to "M", 

D&M, Hobart, and Whirlpool 

commented in favor of each of the 

proposed changes. (D&M, No .. 11, at 1; 

Hobart, No. 15, at 2; and Whirlpool, 6-

21/1). GE also approved the inclusion of 

§ 2.7 in the test procedure. (GE, 6-21/2). 

Accordingly, DOE is adopting these 

proposed provisions in today's final rule. 

C. Environmental, Regulatory Impact. 

and Small Entity Impact Reviews 

1. Environmental Review. The 

Department has reviewed today's final 

rule in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

"If 8 manufacturer were to recommend that the 

inlet water temperature be increased above 120 'oF 

in order to achieve acceptable perionnance levels. 

then DOE believes the product would not meet tbe 

definition of water heating dishwater. This product 

should be tested. for the purpose of energy 

efficiency/use claims. with 8 nominal water 

temperature of 140 'J:. 

· FiJdcmJ Register f Vol. 49, No. 229 I Tuesday, November 27, 1984 I Rules and Regulations 455a5 .=--·';'>~~~~~.JI!r.>t:~_:t:r~~~~~".N'~..6 .... c.'='"-'!.~~...;e-.:~~~~.~~:~~~c~ 

4. Tesl Load Whirlpool and Hobart 

recommended that a minimum number 

of eight place settings be specified for 

testing water heating dishwashers .. 

(Whirlpool, No. 14, at 1; Hobart, No. 15. 

at 3). Hobart states that Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) Standard DW-1, referenced in 

Section 2.6.2 of the DOE dishwasher test 

procedures. is discretionary as to lest 

load size and could affect lest results.· 

Hobart goes on to state that test loads 

vary depending on which laboratory is 

conducting the testing. The test load 

ranges from eight place settings 

(generally used by Procter and Gamble) 

10 12 place settings (generally used for 

the AllAM test for full sized units). 

WasteKing agrees that the size of the 

test load should be added to the . 

specification. (WasteKing, No. 16, at 2). 

However, WasteKing does not propose 

a test load size. 

GE commented that such a provision 

is ;"dundant because under the Federal ,. Commission (ITC) labeling 

:m. standard dishwashers have a 

city of eight or more place settings 

,ie compact dishwashers have a 

pacity of less than eight place 

ey:tings. (GE, No. 12, at 3). GE further 

sta':fes that since the current test 

o robedures require the use of a dish load 

:iC·cordance with AHAM Standard 

"'.::1, they believe that the 

,equJrement of a minimum of eight· 

place settings is already established for 

'standa. d' dishwashers." GE infers that 

all water heating dishwashers are 

standard dishwashers.5 

DOE agrees that standard sized water 

heating dishwadlcrs should be tested 

with eight place settings in order to 

eliminate any test variability due to the 

size of the lest load. However, DOE 

believes that a requirement to test water 

heating dishwashers with a minimum of 

eight place settings would be too 

restrictive since compact water heating 

dishwashers could be manufactured at a 

later date. DOE believes this 

amendment will standardize the testing 

and provide flexibility in the test 

procedure,if compact water heating 

• AHA.1\,.{ standard DW-l does not specify the 

number of place settings required; rather, it allows 

the testing fMcility to detennine the number of place 

settings to be uBed. 

'As Hobart staled (Hobart. No. 15. at 2) the 

currenl definition of waler healing dishwashers may 

need 10 be modified as dishwashers are introduced 

into Ihe markel place that are designed to be 

plumbed to cold w~ter. Likewise. there may be 

water heating dishwashers manuractured at Borne 

future date with a capacity of JeBB than eight place 

settings. DOE believes that for .:ompact water 

heating dishwashers. the number of place Bettings to 

be tesled should be the capacity speCified by the 

manufacturer. 

dishwashers were manufactured at a later date. 

5. Thermostatically Controlled 

Heating. The June 1984 notice proposed 

retaining the requirement that water 

heating dishwashers be thermostatically 

controlled. Whirlpool. Hobart and 

WasteKing all commented in support of 

this proposal (\\,hirlpool,' 6-21/1, No. 14 

at 2, and No. 14a at 3; Hobart, No. 15, at 

2; and WasteKing, No. 16, at 1). 

May tag's proposed definition supports 

retaining the requirement for 

thermostatically controlled heating. See 

May tag, No. 13, at 2. 

In the June 1984 proposal, DOE 

asserted that "a key distinction between 

water heating dishwashers and other 

dishwashers is a control that shuts off 

the internal heater(s) after the water has 

been heated to a certain leve!." See 49 

FR 23143, June 4.1984. GE rejected 

DOE's assertion. claiming that this is a "restrictive and unnecessary design 

requirement", and that there is no 

certain water temperature level to be 

achieved. Rather, GE believes the . 

temperature achieved is determined by 

the manufacturer in order to achieve 

acceptability of washing performance. 

(GE,6-21/2). 

Whirlpool contended that due to long 

pipe runs from the water heater to the 

dishwasher. the temperature of the 

water entering the dishwasher is 

reduced and that it is a hit or miss 

proposition as to what the heated water 

temperature in the dishwasher will he if 

one depends on a fixed time delay for 

water heating. Hobart, in its Final 

Arguments concerning its application for 

exception with the DOE Office of 

Hearings and Appeals for its I<D-19 

dishwasher (see Hobart, Final 

Argument, filed with DOE OHA, Case 

DEE-4459), stated that water heated to 

120 'F in the water heater may be as 

low as 90 'F at the point oruse. In 

addition, data submitted by Whirlpool 

in its Statement of Objections 

demonstrated that·during the winter in 

certain areas of the country. the . temperature may be lower than 90 'F. 

(See Whirlpool. Statement of Objection •. filed with DOE, OHA, Case DEE-4459). 

Hobart commented on the June 1984 

proposal that the thermostat provides 

"an assured environment to either raise 

the water temperature or avoid heating 

it more than necessary," and that this 

cannot be duplicated by mechanical 

timers. 

GE states that for water heating 

dishwashers the amount of additional 

heating and the means to achieve it 

should depend upon the manufacturer's 

specification, and should not be a part 

of any standardized test procedure. GE 

further claims that its dish\',Cashers usin 

mechanical timer delay achieve 

excellent results. By knowing the . 

characteristics of the dishwasher model 

GE asserts that it is simply a matter of 

design to provide sufficient delay to 

assure excellent performance (GE, No. 

12, at 3). Even if thermostatic controls 

were to provide greater control over the 

energy use performance of water 

heating dishwashers, DOE agrees with 

GE tbat water heating dishwashers 

should not be defined to require a 

restrictive design requirement such as 

thermostatic controls. As discussed 

above, DOE believes the market place 

should determine whether the . 

dishwasher performance is acceptable, 

not the DOE test procedure. DOE 

accepts GE's arguments that a 

manufacturer should not be 

unnecessarily restricted by a 

standardized lest method as to which 

design aIternativesto consider. Thus, in 

today's final rule, DOE is deleting the 

requir~ment for thermostatic controls.6 

3. Miscellaneous. The June 1984 notice 

proposed a new section (§ 2.7) to make 

clear which testing provisions applied to 

water heating dishwashers. In addition, 

DOE proposed certain minor t.echnical 

and editorial changes in the June 19~ 

proposed rule. 

Specifically, the parameter for the 

machine electrical energy consumption 

was proposed to be changed from "Me" 

to "M" in § 3.2.2. In § 4.2.1. the 

parameter for the per cycle water energy 

congumption using gas-heated water or 

oil-heated water was proposed to be 

changed from "We" to "Wg". Finally. in 

§ 4.3.2, the parameter for the per cycle 

machine electrical energy consumption 

was proposed to be changed from "m" 

to "M", 

D&M, Hobart, and Whirlpool 

commented in favor of each of the 

proposed changes. (D&M, No .. 11, at 1; 

Hobart, No. 15, at 2; and Whirlpool, 6-

21/1). GE also approved the inclusion of 

§ 2.7 in the test procedure. (GE, 6-21/2). 

Accordingly, DOE is adopting these 

proposed provisions in today's final rule. 

C. Environmental, Regulatory Impact. 

and Small Entity Impact Reviews 

1. Environmental Review. The 

Department has reviewed today's final 

rule in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

"If 8 manufacturer were to recommend that the 

inlet water temperature be increased above 120 'oF 

in order to achieve acceptable perionnance levels. 

then DOE believes the product would not meet tbe 

definition of water heating dishwater. This product 

should be tested. for the purpose of energy 

efficiency/use claims. with 8 nominal water 

temperature of 140 'J:. 
.16536 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 27,'1984 / Rules and Regulations

O@>bi...5^31^Ym`;JZ^'+^^^..Y.?^ X^?"4..'Y^.^.fa1R.tmG'^'^.343x.-.^L'.T^"r.Y1CT+.B2'-•a'3..SS.?JSG•^PS^ICY.`.9}t^T_y^W6L9PJL-^L/'-^G^'LZ2?•1lTSl^.C:.^...^.x.-SR:SC U+t49`FJ!.^3.^4it x.110

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the

Council of Environmental Quality

Regulations implementing the

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR

Part 1500 et seq.), and the Department's

own NEPA guidelines (45 FR 20694,

March 28,1980, as amended by 47 FR

7976, February 23, 1932) to determine if

an environmental assessment (EA) is

required.

Today's final rule serves only to

standardize the measurement of energy

usage for dishwashers. The action of

prescribing these revised test

procedures will not result in any

environmental impacts. Because it is

clear that today's final rule is not a

major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment within the meaning of

NEPA, DOE has determined that neither

an EA nor an EIS is required.

2. Regulatory Impact Review. The

:final rule has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 12291

which directs that all regulations

a chieve their intended goals without

:rposing unnecessary burdens on the

-conomy, on individuals, on public or

private organizations, or on State and

local governments. The Executive Order

also requires that regulatory impact

analyses be prepared for "major rules,"

The Executive Order defines a major

rule as any regulation that is likely to

result in: (1) An annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more; (2) A

major increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions; or (3)

Significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or on the

ability of United States-based

enterprises in domestic or export

markets.

This final rule would only make minor

changes in the test procedures for

dishwashers. Therefore, DOE has

determined that this final rule does not

come within the definition of a major

rule.

In accordance with section 3(c)(3) of

the Executive Order, which applies to

rules other than major rules, the final

rule was submitted to$OMB for review

without a regulatory impact analysis.

This rule has been reviewed by OMB in

accordance with the procedures -

applicable to rules other than major

rules.

3. Small Entity Impact Review. The

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L 96-

354) requires that an agency prepare a

final regulatory analysis to be available

at the time the final rule is jublished.

This requirement does not apply if the

agency "certifies that the final rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities." . -

This rule only affects manufacturers

of dishwashers. There are not a

substantial number of small entities that

manufacture dishwashers. Moreover,

the changes made would not have

significant economic impacts. The

changes clarify testing requirements and

would not change the current testing

burdens.

Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b),

DOE certifies that this final rule would

not have a "significant economic impact

-on a substantial number of small

entities."

In consideration of the foregoing, Part

430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as set

forth below. -

(Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L.

94-163, as amended by Pub. L 95-619;

Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub.

L 95-x91}.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

Household appliances. -

Issued in Washington, D.C. October 25.

1984.

Pat Collins,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Conservation and

Renewable Energy.

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION

PROGRAf44 FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

Appendix C-[Amended] -

1. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430

is amended by revising 1.6 to read as

follows:

1.6 -"Water heating dishwasher" means a

dishwasher for which the manufacturer

recommends operation at a nominal inlet

water temperature of 120 'F and which can

operate at that inlet temperature by providing

internal water beating in at least one wash

phase of the normal cycle.

2. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430

is amended by revising section-2.6.2 to

read as follows:

• • • •

2.6.2 Dishwashers to be tested at a

nominal 120 'F inlet water temperature. The

dishwasher shall be tested on normal cycle

and the truncated normal cycle with a test

toad of eight place settings plus six serving

pieces as specified in section 8.1.1 of AHAM

Standard DW-i. If the capacity of the

dishwasher, as stated by the manufacturer is

less than eight place settings than the test

load shall be that capacity.

3. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430

is amended by adding a new section 2.7

to read as follows:

2.7 Testing requirements. Provisions in

this Appendix pertaining to dishwashers

which operate with a nominal inlet

temperature of 120 'F shall apply only to

water heating dishwashers.

4. Section 3.2.2 to Appendix C to

Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by

removing the term "Me" for the machine

erectrical energy consumption and

inserting in its place the term "M".

5. Section 4.2.1 to Appendix C to

Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by

removing the term "We" for per cycle

water energy consumption and inserting

in its place the term "Wg".

6. Section 4.3.2 to Appendix C to

Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by

removing the term "m" for the per cycle

machine electrical consumption and

inserting in-its place the term "M".

[FR Doc. 81-30976 Filed 11-26 84: MS aml

BILLING CODE 6450-01-Y

CE-RM-82-130 COMMENT 05

·15536 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 229 I Tuesday. November 27.' 1984 I Rules and Regulations ~~~OO;;:;C:iIf4iL ~z.~~~~~~~""",".:J::'~~~":::.~·~~~;:c;.::;~.a~~~G~ .. "z:;::!,~~ 

(NEPAl (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the . 

Council of Erivironmental Quality . 

Regulations implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

Part 1500 et seq.), and the Department's 

own NEPA guidelines (45 FR 20694. 

March 28, 1980, as amended by 47 FR 

7976. February 23. 1932) to determine if 

an environmental assessment (EA) is 

required. . Today's final rule serves only to 

standardize the measurement of energy 

usage for dishwashers. The action of 

prescribing these revised test 

procedures will not result in any 

environmental impacts. Because it is 

clear that today's final rule is not 8 

major Fe,deral action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment within the meaning of 

NEPA, DOE has determined that neither 

an EA nor an EIS is required. 

2. Regulatory Impact Review. The 

:inal rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12291 

which directs that all regulations 

Cl chi eve their intended goals without 

. :nposing unnecessary burdens on the 

economy. on individuals, on public or 

private organizations. or on State and 

local go\'ernments. The Executive Order 

also requires that regulatory impact 

analyses be prepared for "major rules," 

The Executive Order defines a major 

rule as any regulation that is likely to 

result in: (1) An annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; (2) A 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries. ~ 

Federal. State, or local government 

agencies. or geographic regions; or (3) 

Significant adverse 'effects on 

competition, employment. investment. 

productivity. innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. . 

This final rule would only make minor 

changes in the test procedures for 

dishwashers. Therefore. DOE has 

determined that this final rule does not 

come within the definition of a major 

rule. 

In accordance with section 3(c)(3} of. 

the Executive Order. which applies to 

rules other than major rules. the final 

rule was submitted tc"OMB for review 

without a regulatory impact analysis. 

This rule has been reviewed by o~m in 

accordance with the procedures . 

applicable to rules other than major 

rules. 

3. Small Entity Impact Review. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. 1.. 96-

354) requires that an agency prepare a 

final regulatory analysis to be available 

at the time the final rule is published. 

This requirement does not apply if the 

agency "certifies that the fmal rule will 

no't have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities." 

This rule only affects manufacturers 

of dishwashers. There are not a substantial number of small entities that 

manufacture dishwashers. Moreover. 

the changes made would not have 

significant economic impacts. The 

changes clarify testing requirements and 

would not change the current testing 

burdens. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b). 

DOE certifies that this final rule would 

not have a "significant economi~ impact 

'on a substantial number of small 

entities." 

In consideration of the foregoing, Par! 

430 of Chapter II of Title 10. Code of 

Federal Regulations. is amended as set 

forth below. . . 

(Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Pub. L. 

94-163. as amended by Pub. L 9!Hl19; • 

Department of Energy Organiza lion Act. Pub. 

L95-91). 

List of Subjects in 10 eFR Par! 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. Energy conservation. 

Household appliances. 

Issued in Washington. D.C. Octoher 25. 

1984. . . 

Pat Collins.. 

Acting Assistant Secretary. ConseI1;otion and 

Renewable Energy. 

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

Appendix C-[Amended) 

1. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430 

is amended by revising § 1.6 to read as 

follows: 

• • • 

1.6 '''Water heating dishwasher" means a 

dishwasher for which the manufacturer 

recommends operation at a nominal inlet 

water temperature of 120 'F and which can 

operate at that inlet temperature by providing 

internal water heating in al least one wash 

phase of the normal cycle. 

• • * • • 

2. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430 

is amended by revising section,·?6.2 to 

read as follows: 

• 

2.6.2 Dishwashers to be tested at a 

nominal 120 OF inlet water temperature. The 

dishwasher shall be tested on normal cycle 

and the truncated normal cycle with a test 

load of eight place settings plus six serving 

pieces as specified in section 6.1.1 of AHAM 

Standard DW-t. If the capacity of the 

dishwasher, as stated by the manufacturer is 

less than eight place settings than the test 

load shall be that capacity. 

• • 

3. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430 

is amended by adding a new section 2.7 

to read as follows: 

* • • .. 2.7 Testing requirements. Prm;sions in 

this Appendix pertaining to dishwashers 

which operate with a nominal inlet 

temperature of 120 OF shall apply only to 

water heating dishwashers. 

* • • * 

4. Section 3.2.2 to Appendix C to 

Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by . 

removing the term "Me" for the machine 

erectrical energy consumption and 

inserting in its place the term "M". 

5. Section 4.2.1 to Appendix C to 

Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by 

removing the term "We" for per cycle 

water energy consumption and inserting 

in its place the term "Wg". 

6. Section 4.3.2 to Appendix C to 

Subpart B of Par! 430 is amended by 

removing the term "m" for the per cycle 

machine electrical consumption and 

inserting in·its place the term "M". 

{FR Doc. 8-l-3OS78 Filed 11-26-84; MS ami 

BILLIIIG CODE &450~1"" 

·15536 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 229 I Tuesday. November 27.' 1984 I Rules and Regulations ~~~OO;;:;C:iIf4iL ~z.~~~~~~~""",".:J::'~~~":::.~·~~~;:c;.::;~.a~~~G~ .. "z:;::!,~~ 

(NEPAl (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the . 

Council of Erivironmental Quality . 

Regulations implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

Part 1500 et seq.), and the Department's 

own NEPA guidelines (45 FR 20694. 

March 28, 1980, as amended by 47 FR 

7976. February 23. 1932) to determine if 

an environmental assessment (EA) is 

required. . Today's final rule serves only to 

standardize the measurement of energy 

usage for dishwashers. The action of 

prescribing these revised test 

procedures will not result in any 

environmental impacts. Because it is 

clear that today's final rule is not 8 

major Fe,deral action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment within the meaning of 

NEPA, DOE has determined that neither 

an EA nor an EIS is required. 

2. Regulatory Impact Review. The 

:inal rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12291 

which directs that all regulations 

Cl chi eve their intended goals without 

. :nposing unnecessary burdens on the 

economy. on individuals, on public or 

private organizations. or on State and 

local go\'ernments. The Executive Order 

also requires that regulatory impact 

analyses be prepared for "major rules," 

The Executive Order defines a major 

rule as any regulation that is likely to 

result in: (1) An annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; (2) A 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries. ~ 

Federal. State, or local government 

agencies. or geographic regions; or (3) 

Significant adverse 'effects on 

competition, employment. investment. 

productivity. innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. . 

This final rule would only make minor 

changes in the test procedures for 

dishwashers. Therefore. DOE has 

determined that this final rule does not 

come within the definition of a major 

rule. 

In accordance with section 3(c)(3} of. 

the Executive Order. which applies to 

rules other than major rules. the final 

rule was submitted tc"OMB for review 

without a regulatory impact analysis. 

This rule has been reviewed by o~m in 

accordance with the procedures . 

applicable to rules other than major 

rules. 

3. Small Entity Impact Review. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. 1.. 96-

354) requires that an agency prepare a 

final regulatory analysis to be available 

at the time the final rule is published. 

This requirement does not apply if the 

agency "certifies that the fmal rule will 

no't have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities." 

This rule only affects manufacturers 

of dishwashers. There are not a substantial number of small entities that 

manufacture dishwashers. Moreover. 

the changes made would not have 

significant economic impacts. The 

changes clarify testing requirements and 

would not change the current testing 

burdens. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b). 

DOE certifies that this final rule would 

not have a "significant economi~ impact 

'on a substantial number of small 

entities." 

In consideration of the foregoing, Par! 

430 of Chapter II of Title 10. Code of 

Federal Regulations. is amended as set 

forth below. . . 

(Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Pub. L. 

94-163. as amended by Pub. L 9!Hl19; • 

Department of Energy Organiza lion Act. Pub. 

L95-91). 

List of Subjects in 10 eFR Par! 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. Energy conservation. 

Household appliances. 

Issued in Washington. D.C. Octoher 25. 

1984. . . 

Pat Collins.. 

Acting Assistant Secretary. ConseI1;otion and 

Renewable Energy. 

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

Appendix C-[Amended) 

1. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430 

is amended by revising § 1.6 to read as 

follows: 

• • • 

1.6 '''Water heating dishwasher" means a 

dishwasher for which the manufacturer 

recommends operation at a nominal inlet 

water temperature of 120 'F and which can 

operate at that inlet temperature by providing 

internal water heating in al least one wash 

phase of the normal cycle. 

• • * • • 

2. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430 

is amended by revising section,·?6.2 to 

read as follows: 

• 

2.6.2 Dishwashers to be tested at a 

nominal 120 OF inlet water temperature. The 

dishwasher shall be tested on normal cycle 

and the truncated normal cycle with a test 

load of eight place settings plus six serving 

pieces as specified in section 6.1.1 of AHAM 

Standard DW-t. If the capacity of the 

dishwasher, as stated by the manufacturer is 

less than eight place settings than the test 

load shall be that capacity. 

• • 

3. Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430 

is amended by adding a new section 2.7 

to read as follows: 

* • • .. 2.7 Testing requirements. Prm;sions in 

this Appendix pertaining to dishwashers 

which operate with a nominal inlet 

temperature of 120 OF shall apply only to 

water heating dishwashers. 

* • • * 

4. Section 3.2.2 to Appendix C to 

Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by . 

removing the term "Me" for the machine 

erectrical energy consumption and 

inserting in its place the term "M". 

5. Section 4.2.1 to Appendix C to 

Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by 

removing the term "We" for per cycle 

water energy consumption and inserting 

in its place the term "Wg". 

6. Section 4.3.2 to Appendix C to 

Subpart B of Par! 430 is amended by 

removing the term "m" for the per cycle 

machine electrical consumption and 

inserting in·its place the term "M". 

{FR Doc. 8-l-3OS78 Filed 11-26-84; MS ami 

BILLIIIG CODE &450~1""