27442 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not considered by the

Department of Justice, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),

Regulatory Planning and Review, and

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process under

section 6(a)(3)(A).

Executive Order 12612

The regulations proposed herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

National Government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12606

The Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service certifies that

she has assessed this rule in light of the

criteria in Executive Order 12606 and

has determined that this regulation will

not have an impact on family wellbeing.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 264

Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, part 264 of chapter I of

title 8 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is proposed to be amended

as follows:

PART 264—REGISTRATION AND

FINGERPRINTING OF ALIENS IN THE

UNITED STATES

1. The authority citation for part 264

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1201a,

1301–1305.

§ 264.1 [Amended]

2. In § 264.1, paragraph (b) is

amended by removing the Form Number

and Class reference to Form ‘‘I–151’’

from the listing of forms.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12717 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No: EE–RM–93–701]

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: This document reproposes

amendments to the Department of

Energy’s clothes washer test procedure

to provide a means to test clothes

washers that are designed to lock out

wash/rinse temperature selections from

the normal cycle.

DATES: Consumer usage test data for

clothes washers that ‘‘lockout’’ certain

temperature selections shall be provided

to DOE by June 30, 1995, and will be

placed in Department’s Freedom of

Information Reading Room. Comments,

including comments on any consumer

usage data that are submitted, shall be

provided by July 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data

(ten copies) are to be submitted to: U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Proposed Test Procedures for Clothes

Washers, Docket No. EE–RM–93–701,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

P. Marc LaFrance, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Mail Station

EE–43, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

8423

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC–72, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202)

586–9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

An amended appliance energy

conservation standard for clothes

washers became effective May 14, 1994.

Manufacturers are required to test their

clothes washers for compliance with the

new standard using the test procedure

regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 430,

Subpart B, Appendix J.

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool)

designed a new line of clothes washers

to meet this standard which lock out a

warm rinse when the user selects a hot

water wash/warm water rinse

temperature combination setting in the

cycle Whirlpool has designated as the

‘‘normal cycle.’’ That is, although the

controls may be set for a warm rinse in

this circumstance, a cold water rinse

would be provided. However, a warm

rinse is available in all other cycles.

Thus, energy consumption in the

‘‘normal cycle’’ is lower than in the

other cycles which offer a warm rinse

option.

Whirlpool requested an informal

interpretation of the test procedure from

the Department’s Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy in

1992, and again in early 1993.

Whirlpool asserted that the test

procedure requires all testing be

conducted in the ‘‘normal cycle’’ as

defined in Section 1.10 of the test

procedure, with the temperature

selector set to the hottest setting that is

available in the normal cycle. The Office

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy responded by letters dated

December 18, 1992, and April 21, 1993,

which disagreed with Whirlpool’s

interpretation. Whirlpool engaged in

further discussions with the

Department’s Office of General Counsel,

and after review, the General Counsel

wrote a letter to Whirlpool on October

20, 1993 stating: ‘‘Whirlpool’s

interpretation of the test procedure is

one that the Department concurs is a

permissible reading of the test

procedure. The Department believes,

however, that Whirlpool’s interpretation

may yield results not consistent with

the objectives of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, as amended.’’ The

letter further stated that the Department

planned to amend the test procedure to

clarify the testing requirements for

clothes washers that do not have all of

the temperature combinations available

in the normal cycle.

II. Discussion

The Department published a proposed

rule to amend the clothes washer test

procedure to address the Whirlpool

clothes washer ‘‘lockout’’ issue. 58 FR

67710 (December 22, 1993) (hereafter

referred to as the December 1993

Proposed Rule). A public hearing was

held on February 24, 1994.

The Department received eight

written comments in response to the

proposed rule and received testimony

from four persons at the public hearing.

Written comment or testimony was

provided by the American Council for

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),

Frigidaire Company (Frigidaire),

General Electric Appliances (GEA),

Maytag Corporation (Maytag), Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27443

1Comments on the proposed rule have been

assigned docket numbers and have been numbered

consecutively. Statements that were presented at

the February 24, 1994, public hearing are identified

as Testimony.

2Proctor and Gamble survey data from numerous

years was referenced in Whirlpool’s submission.

However, the survey data was not based on usage

of clothes washers with a lockout feature.

3The P&G data concerning choices among cycles

were not obtained under conditions where the

lockout feature was present.

Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE),

Speed Queen Company (Speed Queen),

and Whirlpool.

(A) Proposed Test Procedure

Amendment Issues

1. Temperature Selection Lockout.

The Department proposed to test a

clothes washer with a warm rinse

‘‘lockout’’ feature by prorating the hot

water consumption between the

temperature combination setting in the

normal cycle and the corresponding

temperature combination in the cycle

with the greatest hot water

consumption, for each temperature

combination selection locked out of the

normal cycle. The unknown factor in

the calculation is the frequency with

which users will choose the normal

versus other cycles when a warm rinse

is selected, that is, the proration value.

As stated in the December 1993

Proposed Rule, clothes washers which

offer the warm rinse lockout design

feature had not been distributed in

commerce and, therefore, no data

regarding the effect of this feature on

consumer selection were available.

Whirlpool asserted that consumer

usage of the normal cycle would not

change because of the lockout feature,

and that, based on Proctor and Gamble’s

(P&G) historical consumer usage data on

the use of the normal cycle versus other

cycles, it was appropriate to assume that

users would use the normal cycle 75

percent of the time in spite of the warm

rinse lock out. Because of

confidentiality concerns raised by

Whirlpool, the Department did not

consult with other manufacturers or

industry experts on this issue. Based on

Whirlpool’s argument, DOE proposed a

proration value at 75 percent, that is,

users would override the normal cycle

‘‘lockout’’ only 25 percent of the time.

The Department stated that the

proposed proration was subject to

revision as data becomes available to

reflect actual consumer usage of

machines with the lockout feature.

ACEEE 1 was ‘‘troubled’’ by use of the

75/25 apportionment, because it was not

based on empirical measurements on

how consumers would actually use

washers. ‘‘Therefore, we recommend

that for the present time, a 100 percent

weighing factor be assigned to the most

energy-intensive cycle, until such time

that empirical data is available on how

these washers will actually be used.’’

(ACEEE, No. 5 at 1).

Maytag stated, ‘‘While Maytag’s data

indicates the ‘normal cycle’ use to be

67%, this percentage could be

dramatically impacted by the manner in

which a manufacturer designs and

displays its ‘normal cycle’ for the

product.’’ (Maytag, No. 1 at 5). Maytag

further stated, ‘‘If you put a normal

cycle on a washer that is not too

appealing to the customer * * * it’s

[use is] going to drop down to some

lower number.’’ (Maytag, Testimony at

14).

Frigidaire stated, ‘‘The 75/25

apportionment is inappropriate’’

because it ‘‘is based on products where

all temperature options are available in

the normal cycle’’ and ‘‘is not valid for

a product with a ‘new’ feature.’’

(Frigidaire, No. 2 at 3). Frigidaire further

stated, ‘‘I don’t see how the proposed

lockout saves any energy at all. * * * It

will just require the consumer to use a

different named cycle to get the results,

or to get the water temperatures that

they want to use.’’ (Frigidaire,

Testimony at 38).

GEA stated, ‘‘We question what effect

the temperature lockout feature will

have on the 75%/25% cycle usage

assumptions which justify the usage

factors found in the calculation.’’ (GEA,

No. 3 at 6). Speed Queen stated,

‘‘Consumers will quickly modify their

usage pattern by switching to select the

cycle most nearly approximating a

‘normal’ cycle to obtain the hot wash/

warm rinse selection.’’ (Speed Queen,

No. 8 at 2).

Frigidaire also produced an estimate

of the impact of the proposed rule.

Frigidaire stated that the proposed test

procedure would underestimate energy

consumption by 24.9 percent and 31.4

percent for its five-temperature and

four-temperature machines,

respectively, as compared to clothes

washers without warm rinse lockout.

(Frigidaire, No. 2 at 7).

Whirlpool’s comment is the only one

that supported the proposed

apportionment. (Whirlpool, No. 4 at 5

and No. 9 at 6). Whirlpool believes that

the 75 percent value for use of the

normal cycle has been consistent over

many surveys.2 It also believes the type

of cycle to be used is chosen first, then

the temperature selection is made.

However, Whirlpool acknowledged that

it did not have machines in the field to

develop data concerning the validity of

the proposal. (Whirlpool, Testimony at

25). Whirlpool offered to conduct a

market study to evaluate consumer use

of the product with and without the

warm rinse lockout. (Whirlpool, No. 9 at

6).

Based upon review of the comments,

the Department is inclined to agree with

the majority of commenters that users

seeking a warm rinse will shift to a

cycle other than the normal cycle to get

the desired temperature combination

more often than 25 percent of the time.

The Department has concluded

therefore that use of the 75 percent

weighting for use of the normal cycle is

inappropriate. Whirlpool’s assumption

regarding consumer behavior, i.e., that

the use of the normal cycle would not

be affected by the presence of a warm

rinse lockout, is not supported by any

empirical data 3 or by any other major

clothes washer manufacturer.

Consumers will most likely alter their

cycle usage patterns if they desire a

particular temperature selection.

The Department nonetheless believes

that a warm rinse lockout on the normal

cycle will result in some reduction in

hot water usage because a small

percentage of consumers will use the

normal cycle with the locked out warm

rinse feature, rather than adjusting the

controls to another cycle in order to get

a warm rinse. Thus, the Department is

proposing an amendment to the clothes

washer test procedure with a credit of

20 percent for the temperature selection

lockout design feature. That is, instead

of a 75/25 percent split between the

normal cycle and the most energy

intensive cycle for locked out

temperature selections as proposed in

the December 1993 Proposed Rule, DOE

is proposing a 20/80 percent split in

today’s Notice.

The Department remains interested in

receiving statistically significant

consumer usage data for clothes washers

with locked out temperature selections

in the normal cycle. The Department

expects to receive consumer usage data

from Whirlpool. The Department

welcomes any other interested party to

submit consumer usage data. Moreover,

DOE will make available for review any

data submitted to the Department in

response to today’s Notice.

Although the lockout feature’s energy

saving value is subject to question, the

Department encourages the introduction

of control features for appliances that

can be fully demonstrated to save

energy.

2. Lockout Features other than

Temperature Selection. The comments

expressed a concern that other features

or selections could be locked out.
27444 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Frigidaire, Speed Queen, and Maytag

indicated that a hot wash or a maximum

water level could also be locked out.

(Frigidaire, Testimony at 35; Speed

Queen, No. 8 at 1; Maytag, No. 1 at 5).

Today’s proposed rule addresses all

possible temperature selection lockouts.

Possible lockouts relating to wash time

and maximum fill level were not part of

the December 1993 Proposed Rule and

are not addressed in today’s Notice. The

commenters’ concerns appear to be

unfounded under the existing test

procedure. The requirement for wash

time is specified as a basic test

condition (Section 2.10), and any testing

conducted with less time than 9.75

minutes of agitation time would not

comply with the requirements of the

existing regulations. The requirement

for maximum fill is specified prior to

the selection of the wash cycle and

refers to the maximum fill of the clothes

washer. Moreover, DOE is not aware of

any products currently employing such

lockout designs. Such designs, should

they emerge, could be addressed in a

separate rulemaking.

3. Energy Test Cycle. Several

commenters raised questions about the

Department maintaining the

requirement for testing in the ‘‘normal’’

cycle. Maytag, Speed Queen, and GEA

proposed the use of an energy test cycle

which would include elements such as

minimum wash time, all wash/rinse

temperature combinations, maximum

water fill, and maximum spin speed.

Maytag suggested specific changes to

the test procedure for its proposed test

cycle. (Maytag, No. 6 at 1). Speed Queen

proposed that a test cycle be adopted

with requirements very similar to

Maytag’s proposal. (Speed Queen, No. 8

at 1). GEA supported the Maytag

proposal of a test cycle if the

Department continued with the

amendment. (GEA, No. 12 at 4). The

ODOE supported the Maytag suggestion

of a test cycle. (ODOE, No. 11 at 1). The

ACEEE generally supported the Maytag

proposal but believes it should be done

in a subsequent rulemaking. (ACEEE,

No. 5 at 2).

The Department does not believe it

would be appropriate in this rulemaking

to adopt an alternate test cycle.

Furthermore, the Department does not

have any assessment as to how an

alternate test cycle would affect existing

models and the potential development

of new models. The Department may

consider adopting an alternate test cycle

in the future.

4. Ambiguity in Test Procedure. The

Department received comments

indicating that the test procedure

proposed in the December 1993

Proposed Rule was ambiguous and

complicated. Frigidaire indicated that

the proposed test procedure was

unnecessarily complicated and adds test

burden and ambiguities with room for

creative interpretation. (Frigidaire, No. 2

at 8 and Testimony at 34).

The Department has clarified the

proposed amendment to the test

procedure so that there is no change to

any testing requirements for clothes

washers that do not incorporate

temperature selection lockouts. The

proposed amendment has been clarified

to reference specifically the sections

that are inapplicable to clothes washers

without temperature selection lockouts

(see Section 3.2). Additionally, the

definition of the ‘‘non-normal cycle’’

was modified to specifically exclude

any manually selected pre-wash, presoak, and extra-rinse cycles.

5. Classes. Frigidaire recommends

having a separate class and minimum

energy standard for clothes washers

with lockout. (Frigidaire, Testimony at

31). NRDC opposed the addition of a

separate class and minimum energy

standard for clothes washers with

lockout. (NRDC, No. 10 at 2). The

Department believes that a separate

class and standard for products with

lockout features is not justified. The

primary reason is that clothes washers

with temperature selection lockouts do

not provide any added utility to the

consumer and, therefore, do not warrant

a separate class.

6. Effective Date of Amended Test

Procedure. Commenters criticized the

Department’s proposal to allow one year

of lead time from the date of publication

of the final rule to the date the test

procedure amendment becomes

effective. Comments opposing a oneyear lead time include Maytag (Maytag,

No. 1 at 4), ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 5 at 1),

Speed Queen (Speed Queen, No. 8 at 2),

NRDC (NRDC, No. 10 at 3), and ODOE

(ODOE, No. 11 at 2). All of these

commenters believe that a 180-day lead

time is sufficient. Whirlpool agreed with

the Department’s original proposal of

one year lead time. (Whirlpool, No. 9 at

6).

The Department agrees with the

majority of commenters that 180 days is

reasonable. Coupled with the advance

notice of a likely change in the test

procedure provided by this Notice, an

effective date 180 days following

publication of the final rule should

provide ample time for manufacturers to

make any necessary adjustments.

7. Impact on Existing Efficiency

Standard. To the Department’s

knowledge, Whirlpool is the only

manufacturer of clothes washers that is

actively considering use of a lockout

feature, and is thus the only

manufacturer directly affected by

today’s proposed rule. The Department

has determined that the proposed

amendment to the test procedure will

not significantly alter measured energy

use or energy efficiency, and thus no

change in the energy efficiency standard

would be required under 42 U.S.C.

6293(e)(2).

(B) Interpretation of Test Procedures

The Department received numerous

comments concerning the Department’s

procedures for providing informal

interpretations of test procedures to

manufacturers, such as the one provided

to Whirlpool concerning the ‘‘lockout’’

issue.

GEA called for the Department to

provide notice and an opportunity for

comment before issuing an

interpretation. (GEA, No. 3 at 3–4).

Maytag strongly urged the Department

to adopt internal procedures designed to

provide appropriate notice to all parties

potentially affected by a request for an

informal interpretative ruling. (Maytag,

No. 1 at 3). Speed Queen said a Petition

for Waiver was the proper vehicle

necessary to institute a test procedure

change in this matter. (Speed Queen,

No. 8 at 2). Whirlpool supported the

Department’s process of interpretation.

(Whirlpool, No. 9 at 2–3).

On April 8, 1994, DOE met with

representatives of trade associations and

manufacturers to discuss procedures to

be implemented with regard to future

requests concerning interpretations of

DOE regulations. Having considered the

views of various interested parties, DOE

has opened and will maintain a file in

its headquarters’ Freedom of

Information Reading Room in which

DOE will make available any written

request for an informal, non-binding

interpretative ruling and any written

informal rulings issued by DOE. These

materials will be placed in the DOE

Freedom of Information Reading Room

under the heading ‘‘Consumer Product

Informal Interpretations, Docket No. EE–

OBT–INTERPS.’’ Interested persons may

examine and copy the file periodically.

The Department does not propose to

amend the existing procedures for

obtaining formal Interpretations in

today’s notice. The procedures for

formal Interpretations are set out in 10

CFR §§ 205.80–205.86.

III. Regulatory Review

The December 1993 Proposed Rule set

forth determinations with regards to:

Environmental Review, Regulatory

Planning and Review, Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and Federalism Review.

The determinations made under each of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27445

these topics in the December 1993

Proposed Rule remain valid.

A. ‘‘Takings’’ Assessment Review

It has been determined pursuant to

Executive Order 12630 (52 FR 8859,

March 18, 1988) that this regulation

would not result in any takings which

might require compensation under the

Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Review

No new information or record keeping

requirements are imposed by this

rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB

clearance is required under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

IV. Public Comment

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting data, comments or

information with respect to the

proposed test procedure amendment.

Public comment has already been

received on many elements of this

proposal in response to the December

1993 Proposed Rule, so the Department

is particularly interested in comments

on the key changes from the December

1993 Proposed Rule—the 20/80

proration for use of the normal cycle

with a temperature lockout and the

effective date 180 days after publication

of the final rule.

Interested persons are invited to

submit statistically significant usage

data or information on the usage

behavior of consumers with clothes

washers that have temperature

selections locked out of the normal

cycle. Such data or information shall be

sent to the address indicated at the

beginning of the notice. Comments with

regard to the proposed amendment or

comments on any submitted consumer

usage data, which will be available in

the Department’s Freedom of

Information Room, shall also be sent to

the address indicated at the beginning of

this notice.

Data and comments should be

identified both on the envelope and on

the documents as ‘‘Amendment of the

Test Procedure for Clothes Washers,

Docket No. EE–RM–93–701.’’ Ten (10)

copies are requested to be submitted. If

possible, the Department would

appreciate an electronic copy of the

comments on a 3.5’’ diskette. The

Department is currently using

WordPerfect TM 5.1. All submittals

received by the dates specified at the

beginning of this notice will be

considered by the Department of Energy

before final action is taken on the

Proposed Rule.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR

1004.11, any person submitting

information which he or she believes to

be confidential and exempt by law from

public disclosure should submit one

complete copy of the document and

nine copies, if possible, from which the

information believed to be confidential

has been deleted. The Department of

Energy will make a determination with

regard to the confidential status of the

information and treat it according to its

determination.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

Household appliances.

Issued in Washington, DC, May 5, 1995.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for part 430

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309.

Appendix J [Amended]

2. In appendix J to subpart B of part

430, paragraphs 1.10 through 1.18 are

redesignated as paragraphs 1.13 through

1.21, paragraph 1.9 is redesignated as

paragraph 1.10 and new paragraphs 1.9,

1.11 and 1.12 are added to read as

follows:

1. Definitions

* * * * *

1.9 ‘‘Lock out’’ means to make

unavailable at least one wash/rinse water

temperature combination in the normal cycle

that is available in another cycle on the

machine.

* * * * *

1.11 ‘‘Most energy intensive cycle’’

means a cycle other than the normal cycle

that uses the most energy when tested with

the required wash/rinse temperature

combinations.

1.12 ‘‘Non-normal cycle’’ means a cycle

other than the normal cycle, excluding any

manually selected pre-wash, pre-soak, or

extra rinse.

* * * * *

3. Paragraph 3.2 of appendix J to

subpart B of part 430 is revised to read

as follows:

3. Test Measurements

* * * * *

3.2 Test cycle. Establish the testing

conditions set forth in section 2 of this

appendix. For clothes washers that do not

lock out any wash/rinse water temperature

combination in the normal cycle, skip section

3.2.5. For automatic clothes washers that lock

out certain wash/rinse temperature

combinations in the normal cycle, perform

all tests in section 3.2 of this appendix.

* * * * *

4. In appendix J to subpart B of part

430, add new paragraphs 3.2.5 through

3.2.5.5 to read as follows:

3. Test Measurements

* * * * *

3.2.5 Hot water energy consumption

testing for clothes washers that lock out any

wash/rinse temperature combinations in the

normal cycle.

3.2.5.1 For clothes washers that lock out

certain wash/rinse temperature

combinations, perform additional tests on

non-normal cycles. Set the cycle selector to

a non-normal cycle. Set the water level

selector at maximum fill and insert the

appropriate test load, if applicable. Activate

the cycle of the clothes washer and also any

suds-saver switch. Set the wash/rinse

temperature selector to the hottest

temperature combination setting that is

locked out in the normal cycle and repeat

3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, and 3.2.2.5.

3.2.5.2 Repeat 3.2.5.1 under the same

temperature combination setting for all other

untested non-normal cycles on the machine.

3.2.5.3 Total the measured hot water

consumption of wash, deep rinse, and spray

rinse of each non-normal cycle tested in

3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.2 and compare. The cycle

that has the highest hot water consumption

shall be the most energy intensive cycle for

that particular wash/rinse temperature

combination setting.

3.2.5.4 Repeat 3.2.5.1 through 3.2.5.2 for

all other wash/rinse temperature

combination selections that are locked out in

the normal cycle.

3.2.5.5 Set the water level selector at

minimum fill and insert the appropriate test

load, if applicable. Activate the cycle of the

clothes washer and also any suds-saver

switch. Repeat tests as described in 3.2.5.1

through 3.2.5.4, except that minimum fill

tests are required only for the most energy

intensive cycles as determined during the

maximum fill tests.

* * * * *

5. In appendix J to subpart B of part

430, paragraph 4.1 is revised to read as

follows:

4. Calculation of Derived Results from Test

Measurements

4.1 Per-cycle temperature-weighted hot

water consumption for maximum and

minimum water fill levels. Calculate the percycle temperature-weighted hot water

consumption for the maximum water fill

level, Vmax, expressed in gallons per cycle

and defined as:
27446 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

V X V L TUF X S i max n i i H = × × + × [( ) ] ] ∑ = 1 1 2 [TUFw

where:

Vi=Reported hot water consumption in

gallons per-cycle at maximum fill for

each wash/rinse temperature selection,

as recorded in 3.3.2. (For clothes washers

that lock out certain wash/rinse

temperature combinations, there will be

‘‘Vi’s’’ for wash/rinse temperature

combination settings available in the

normal cycle and ‘‘Vi’s’’ for wash/rinse

temperature combination settings in the

most energy intensive cycles.)

L=Lock out factor to be applied to the

reported hot water consumption.

L=1, used for the wash/rinse temperature

combination settings that do not lock out

temperature selections in the normal

cycle.

L=0.20, used for the locked out wash/rinse

temperature combination settings of the

normal cycle. (This is used only for

clothes washers that lock out one or

more wash/rinse temperature selections

in the normal cycle.)

L=0.80, used for the locked out wash/rinse

temperature combination settings of the

most energy intensive cycles. (This is

used only for clothes washers that lock

out one or more wash/rinse temperatures

selections in the normal cycle.)

TUFi=Applicable temperature use factor

corresponding to wash/rinse temperature

selection as shown in 5 or 6.

n=For clothes washers that do not lock out

any wash/rinse temperature

combinations in the normal cycle, n=the

number of wash/rinse temperature

combination settings available to the

user. For clothes washers that lock out

one or more temperature selections in

the normal cycle, n=the number of wash/

rinse temperature combination settings

on the washers plus the number of wash/

rinse temperature combination settings

that are locked out in the normal cycle.

TUFw=Temperature use factor for warm wash

setting.

For clothes washers equipped with sudssaver feature:

X1=Frequency of use without suds-saver

feature=.86.

X2=Frequency of use with suds-saver

feature=.14.

For clothes washers not equipped with sudssaver feature:

X1=1.0

X2=0.0

SH=Fresh make-up water measured during

suds-return cycle at maximum water fill

level.

Calculate the per-cycle temperature-weighted

hot water consumption for the minimum

water fill level, Vmin, expressed in gallons per

cycle and defined as:

V X V L TUF X S min j j L = × × + × ∑ [( ) ] ] 1 2 [TUF j=1n w

where:

Vj=Reported hot water consumption in

gallons per cycle at minimum fill for

each wash/rinse temperature selection,

as recorded in 3.3.3. (For clothes washers

that lock out certain wash/rinse

temperature combinations, there will be

‘‘Vj’s’’ for wash/rinse temperature

combination settings available in the

normal cycle and ‘‘Vj’s’’ for wash/rinse

temperature combination settings in the

most energy intensive cycle.)

L=As defined above.

TUFj=Applicable temperature factor

corresponding to wash/rinse temperature

selection as shown in 5 or 6.

SL=Fresh make-up water measured during

suds-return cycle at minimum water fill

level.

n=As defined above.

TUFw=As defined above.

X1=As defined above.

X2=As defined above.

* * * * *

6. The headings in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, and

5.3 of appendix J to subpart B of part 430 are

amended by removing the expressions (n=5),

(n=4), and (n=3), respectively.

[FR Doc. 95–12622 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–140–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747–400, 757, and 767 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

Boeing Model 747–400, 757, and 767

series airplanes. This proposal would

require a revision to the Airplane Flight

Manual that would advise flight crews

to monitor the engine indication and

crew alerting system (EICAS) for

‘‘status’’ level messages pertaining to

impending engine fuel filter bypass.

This proposal also would require the

installation of upgraded EICAS

computers that provide ‘‘advisory’’ level

messages to indicate such bypass

conditions. This proposal is prompted

by a finding that EICAS computers

currently installed on these airplanes do

not provide an appropriate indication to

the flight crew of an impending engine

fuel filter bypass condition. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to ensure that the flight crew

is appropriately aware of conditions

involving a severely contaminated

airplane fuel system and the associated

increased potential for engine power

loss.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

140–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Duven, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion

Branch, ANM–140S, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2688;

fax (206) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as