Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 32627

in a waiver of all, part, or none of the

error rate liabilities for the applicable

period. As appropriate, the waiver

amount will be adjusted to reflect

States’ otherwise effective

administration of the program based

upon the degree to which the error rate

exceeded the national performance

measure.

(ii) Adjustments. When good cause is

found under the criteria in paragraphs

(e)(7)(i)(A) through (e)(7)(i)(E) of this

section, the waiver amount may be

adjusted to reflect States’ otherwise

effective administration of the program

based upon the degree to which the

error rate exceeds the national

performance measure.

(iii) Evidence. When submitting a

request to the ALJ for good cause relief,

the State agency shall include such data

and documentation as is necessary to

support and verify the information

submitted in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (e)(7) of this

section so as to fully explain how a

particular significant circumstance(s)

uncontrollably affected its payment

error rate.

(iv) Finality. The initial decision of

the ALJ concerning good cause shall

constitute the final determination for

purposes of judicial review without

further proceedings as established under

the provisions of § 283.17 and § 283.20

of this chapter.

* * * * *

(9) FCS Timeframes. FCS shall

determine, and announce the national

average payment error rate for a fiscal

year within 30 days following the

completion of the case review process

and all arbitrations of State agency-FCS

difference cases for that fiscal year, and

at the same time FCS shall notify all

State agencies of their individual

payment error rates and payment error

rate liabilities, if any. The case review

process and the arbitration of all

difference cases shall be completed not

later than 180 days after the end of fiscal

year. FCS shall initiate collection action

on each claim for such liabilities before

the end of the fiscal year following the

end of the fiscal year reporting period in

which the claim arose unless an

administrative appeal relating to the

claim is pending. * * *

* * * * *

Dated: June 16, 1995.

Ellen Haas,

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 95–15460 Filed 6–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Energy Efficiency

Standards for Television Sets

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(Department) today withdraws a

proposed rule to establish energy

efficiency standards for television sets.

Promulgation of such a rule is

discretionary under the terms of the

authorizing legislation for the program.

This action is based on: a decision to

focus the Department’s limited

resources on standards-related

rulemakings that are mandatory under

the authorizing legislation; and

acceptance of arguments reflected in the

comments that the uncertainty created

by the rulemaking and any resulting

standards could adversely affect the

development of innovative television

technologies critical to the Nation’s

future economy and international

competitive position.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ingrid Watson, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Forrestal

Building, Mail Station EE–431, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

8119

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC–

72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L.

94–163, created the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products other than automobiles. In

1978, the National Energy Conservation

Policy Act (NECPA), Pub. L. 95–619,

amended EPCA and required DOE to

establish mandatory energy efficiency

standards for each of the 13 listed

‘‘covered products,’’ including

television sets. In 1987, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act

(NAECA), Pub. L. 100–12, amended

EPCA, by refining the list of appliances

defined as ‘‘covered products’’ and

establishing federal energy conservation

standards for 11 of the 12 ‘‘covered

products’’ on the revised list. Television

sets have a unique status under EPCA—

televisions are listed as ‘‘covered

products,’’ but are the only covered

product for which the statute does not

require a standard. Moreover,

televisions have a unique status under

EPCA with regard to rulemakings. EPCA

requires the Department to undertake

rulemakings with regard to the other

covered products according to a

prescribed schedule. By contrast, with

regard to televisions, EPCA provides the

Secretary with discretion to establish an

energy conservation standard for

television sets by rule, but does not

require such a rulemaking. 42 U.S.C.

6295(l)(3).

2. Background

On March 4, 1994, the Department

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking regarding energy

conservation standards for eight

products. (59 FR 10464.) The

rulemaking is mandatory for seven of

these products. The eighth product was

television sets. The Department invited

interested members of the public to

submit written comments and to

participate at a public hearing. The

public comment period closed on July

18, 1994. During the comment period,

over 35 comments were received on the

proposed rule regarding energy

conservation standards on television

sets from manufacturers, consumers,

members of Congress, retailers, national

energy advocates and environmental

groups. The Department has reviewed

and evaluated the comments. On

January 31, 1995, the Department

published a Federal Register notice

describing the Department’s plans for

pursuing these rulemakings. (60 FR

5880.) That notice acknowledged the

need for further data collection prior to

deciding how to proceed with the

proposed standards for televisions. Such

data collection would involve original

development of test data that is

otherwise unavailable.

Since the January notice, there have

been a variety of developments. First,

the appropriations requested for this

program and preliminary Congressional

actions on this request suggest that

resources to carry out this program are

likely to be limited and are unlikely to

be sufficient to support all of the

possible analyses related to TVs and

other products covered by the

authorizing legislation. Second, the

Department has been urged to give

priority to rulemakings affecting other

products by manufacturers of those

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT 0826
32628 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

other products and other interested

persons. Some of these rulemakings may

result in very large additional energy

savings and economic benefits.

Third, Department officials met with

representatives of the Electronics

Industry Association (EIA) to discuss

options for the proposed standards on

televisions. EIA reiterated comments

made in its written submissions, and

urged DOE to terminate the rulemaking

with regard to televisions. EIA’s

arguments stressed that: the energy

usage of an individual television is

relatively small; standards could

adversely affect the utility of the

product; the large number of options

make it difficult to design an efficiency

standard; the proposed standard might

have anti-competitive effects; and

standards could interfere with the

development of the information

superhighway.

Fourth, DOE officials met with a

representative of the American Council

for an Energy Efficient Economy

(ACEEE) concerning the proposed

television standards. ACEEE

acknowledged that further data

collection may be needed before

pursuing the rulemaking, but advised

DOE to continue with efforts to collect

the necessary information. ACEEE also

indicated that televisions need not be a

top priority of the appliance program.

However, they urged DOE to hold the

rulemaking in abeyance pending

collection of further data rather than

affirmatively terminating the

rulemaking.

3. Discussion

DOE acknowledges that, as some of

the comments argued, its engineering

analysis in support of the proposed

television standards did not consider

the energy use of the large number of

special features now available on many

televisions. Remedying that defect

would require DOE to engage in

expensive and time consuming testing

of television sets, and it is impossible to

know whether the results of such testing

would support the establishment of

Federal energy efficiency standards.

Additionally some of those special

features would require modifications to

the DOE test procedure in order to

adequately measure the impact of the

features on energy consumption. If DOE

were to undertake such testing and

possible test procedure modifications, it

would expend limited resources on a

project with less potential benefits than

currently mandated EPCA rulemakings.

Moreover, devotion of additional

resources to setting television standards

would make it very difficult to respond

to the requests of companies in other

industries that are subject to mandatory

standards and that are pressing the

Department to assign higher priority to

completion of updated test procedure

and standards rulemakings that they

view as beneficial. In view of the

limited funds likely to be available for

implementing this program, the

Department has decided that priority

must be assigned to completion of

mandatory rulemakings and not to this

discretionary rulemaking.

Several comments claim that there is

a significant risk that the prospect of

standards could adversely affect

ongoing fundamental changes in

television technology and markets.

These technology changes could have

significant implications for the energy

use of televisions, as well as for the

range of communication, data

processing, and other services provided

by the televisions of the future and their

associated electronic equipment. Some

of the possible developments in

television technology that could

significantly affect their energy use

include: high definition television,

emergency broadcast features, virtual

reality entertainment, built-in video

cassette recorders, on screen program

guides, and interactive information and

communication features necessary for

access to the National Information

Infrastructure (the so-called

‘‘information superhighway’’). These

changes in technology distinguish

televisions from other covered products

that, for the most part, are based on

well-established, relatively stable

technologies. The Department

recognizes that technology and product

developments continuing throughout

the 1990’s and into the next decade will

be critical to the future success of the

U.S. television industry. The

Department further also recognizes that

the development of Federal energy

efficiency standards for televisions

could adversely affect the willingness of

private industry to invest in new

technologies or products that might

otherwise produce substantial economic

benefits. The Department believes this

risk, although not precisely quantifiable,

could be significant.

Accordingly, in order to focus its

resources on mandatory rulemakings

and to avoid the risk of undue

interference in the development of new

technology and products critical to the

Nation’s future economic health and

international competitive position, the

Department today gives notice of the

withdrawal of its proposed energy

efficiency standards for televisions.

Issued in Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 95–15474 Filed 6–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–CE–21–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft SA226 and SA227 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise AD 94–07–10, which currently

requires the following on Fairchild

Aircraft SA226 and SA227 series

airplanes: repetitively inspecting

(visually) the wing skin for cracks; dye

penetrant inspecting the spar straps if

the wing skin is found cracked; and, if

any crack is found in the spar straps,

repairing the spar straps and modifying

the wing skin. That AD references an

incorrect dye penetrant inspection when

the wing skin is found cracked. This

action would maintain the requirements

of AD 94–07–10, but would incorporate

the correct dye penetrant inspection for

when the wing skin is found cracked.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

wing skin at the top aft outboard corner

of the battery box, which could result in

structural damage to the wing.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 25, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 93–CE–21–

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

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

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

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Fairchild Aircraft, P.O. Box 790490, San

Antonio, Texas 78279–0490; telephone

(512) 824–9421. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Hung Viet Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Airplane Certification Office, 2601

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT 0826