Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products

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 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.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 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 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, Vmax, expressed in gallons per cycle and defined

as:

[[Page 27446]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP24MY95.002

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 suds-saver 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 suds-saver 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:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP24MY95.003

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