[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27442-27446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12622]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
[[Page 27443]] 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 <SUP>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).

    \1\ Comments 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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).

    \2\ Proctor 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <SUP>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.

    \3\ The P&G data concerning choices among cycles were not 
obtained under conditions where the lockout feature was present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. [[Page 27444]] 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, pre-soak, 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 one-year 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 Secs. 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 [[Page 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 <SUP>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 per-cycle 
temperature-weighted hot water consumption for the maximum water 
fill level, V<INF>max, expressed in gallons per cycle and defined 
as:

[[Page 27446]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP24MY95.002


where:

V<INF>i=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 ``V<INF>i's'' for wash/rinse 
temperature combination settings available in the normal cycle and 
``V<INF>i'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.)
TUF<INF>i=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.
TUF<INF>w=Temperature use factor for warm wash setting.

For clothes washers equipped with suds-saver feature:

X<INF>1=Frequency of use without suds-saver feature=.86.
X<INF>2=Frequency of use with suds-saver feature=.14.
For clothes washers not equipped with suds-saver feature:

X<INF>1=1.0
X<INF>2=0.0
S<INF>H=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, V<INF>min, expressed in gallons 
per cycle and defined as:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP24MY95.003


where:

V<INF>j=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 ``V<INF>j's'' for wash/rinse 
temperature combination settings available in the normal cycle and 
``V<INF>j's'' for wash/rinse temperature combination settings in the 
most energy intensive cycle.)
L=As defined above.
TUF<INF>j=Applicable temperature factor corresponding to wash/rinse 
temperature selection as shown in 5 or 6.
S<INF>L=Fresh make-up water measured during suds-return cycle at 
minimum water fill level.
n=As defined above.
TUF<INF>w=As defined above.
X<INF>1=As defined above.
X<INF>2=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