Monday

April 1, 1985.

a

FA

Part VI

Department ofEnergy.

Office of Conservation and Renewable

Energy

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Energy Efficiency

Standards for Dishwashers, Television

Sets, Clothes Washers, and Humidifiers

and Dehumidifiers; Notice of Proposed • .

Rulemaking and Public Hearing

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

':' ---

-, .. - - - -- - := = 

___ =55 == --= 

--

=- = E 5. E .= 

=" -

= 

.= .... 

Monday"" 

April 1, 1985 

Part VI 

Department of. 

Energy, " 

Office of Conservation and Renewable 

Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; Energy Efficiency 

Standards for Dishwashers, Television 

Sets, Clothes Washers, and Humidifiers 

and Dehumidifiers; Notice of 'Proposed" , 

Rulemaklng and Public Hearing 
Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

(Docket No. CAS-RM-79-1131

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Proposed

Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Energy Efficiency

Standards for Dishwashers, Television

Sets, Clothes Washers, and

Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and publlic hearing.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, as amended by the

National Energy Conservation Policy

Act, as a general matter requires that

the Department of Energy prescribe an

energy efficiency standard for each of

certain major household appliances,

unless it determines, by rule, that a

standard will not result in significant

conservation of energy, is not

technologically feasible, or is not

conomicaliy justified.

The Department of Energy is

roposing to determine that an energy

efficiency standard for dishwashers,

television sets, clothes washers, and

humidifiers and dehumidifiers would not

result in a significant conservation of

energy or be economically justified.

Therefore, the Department is today

proposing to amend Title 30, Part 430 of

the Code of Federal Regulations to

include a determination of no standard

for the above-mentioned covered

products.

The purpose of this notice of proposed

rulemaking is to provide interested

persons an opportunity to comment on

the proposed rule and to invite

interested persons to participate In 'the

rulemaking process.

DATES: Written comments in response to

this notice must be received by July 1,

1985; requests to speak at the public

hearing must be received by May 8.

1985; speakers will be notified by Maya.

1985; statements must be submitted by

May 10,1955; the public hearing will be

held on May 15, 1985, at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments, requests

to speak at the public hearing, and

copies of statements of each speaker are

to be submitted to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy, Office of Hearings

and Dockets, Appliances (Docket No.

CAS-RM-79-113), Room 6B-025,

Forrestal Building, 3000 Independence

Avenue, SW.. Washington, D.C.20585.

(202) 252-9319.

The public hearing will be held at

Room 1E-245, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue SW..

Washington, D.C. 20585.

Copies of the transcript of thepublic'

hearing, the Technical Support

Document, and the public comments

received may be obtained from the DOE

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

Room IE-190,1000 Independence

Avenue SW„ Washington, D.C.20585.

(202) 252-6020.9:00 am-4:00 pm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT;

Michael J. McCabe, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,

Mail Station CE-112.1, 1000

Independence Avenue SW.,

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

9127 '

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

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

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

9513

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Conservation and Renewable Energy.

Office of Hearings and Dockets,.

Forrestal Building, Room 65-025,1000

independence Avenue SW..

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

9319.

SUPPLEMENTARY :NFORMATION2

I.Introduction.

a. Authority.

b. Background.

II. General Discussion.

a. Test Procedures.

b. Technological Feasibility. -

c. Energy Savings.

1. Significance of Savings.

2. Determination of Savings.

A. SUP Model.

'B. Model Validation.

C. Sensitivity Analyses.

d. Economic Justification. - ..

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers

and Consumers.

'2. Life Cycle Costs.

8. Energy Savings.

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of

Prodactis

5. Impact of Lessening Competition.

8. Need of the Nation to Conserve

7. Other Factors.

8. Weighing of Factors.

III. Product-Specific Discussion.

a. Dishwashers.

b. Television Sets. _

c. Clothes-Washers.

d. Humidifiers and Dehumidifier,.

N. Preemption of State Regulations.

V. Environmental. Regulatory Impact, and

Regulatory Flexibility Reviews.. - .

a. Environmental Review.

b. Regulatory Impact Review.

c. Regulatory Flexibility Review.'

"VI. Public Comment Procedures.

a. Participation in Rulemaking.

b. Written Comment Procedures.

a. Public Hearings.

I. Introduction

a. Authority '

Part B of Title Ill of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L

94-163). as amended by the National

Energy Conservation Policy Act

(NECPA) (Pub. L 95-619),' created the

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products Other Than

Automobiles. The consumer products

subject to this program (referred to

hereafter as "covered products") are:

refrigerators and refrigerator -freezers; '

freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers;

water heaters; room air conditioners;

home heating equipment, not including

furnaces; television sets; kitchen ranges

and ovens; clothes washers; humidifiers

and dehumidifiers; central air

-conditioners; and furnaces, as well as

any other consumer product classified

by the Secretary of Energy, if the

product uses a specified minimum

amount of energy. See section 322. The

Secretary has not so classified any

additional products.

Under the Act, the program consists

essentially of three parts: testing,

labeling, and energy efficiency

standards. The Department of Energy, in

consultation with the National Bureau of

Standards, is required to establish test

procedures for each of the covered `

products. See section 323(a)(2). The

purpose of the test procedures is to

provide for test results that reflect the

energy efficiency, energy use, or

estimated annual operating costs of

each of the covered products. See

section 323(b)(1). All test procedures

were required to be adopted not later

than May 1, 1978. See section 323(a) (4)

and (6). A test procedure was not

required if DOE determined by rule that

one could not be developed. See section

323(a )(6)(B). Beginning 180 days after a

test procedure for a product is adopted,

no manufacturer may represent the'

energy consumption of or the cost of

energy consumed by the product except

.as reflected in tests conducted according

to the DOE procedure. See section

323(c). Test procedures have been

prescribed relating to all products, but

on the basis of continuing review,

certain classes of products do not have

currently applicable test procedures.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

is required by the Act to prescribe rules

'Part B of Title m of EPCP,, as amended by the

1YECFA, is often referred to in this notice as the

-ace."

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

12966 Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday, April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

ENT OF ENERGY 

of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. CA5-RM-79-113) 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; Proposed 

Rulemaking and Public Hearlng 

Regarding Energy Efficiency . 

Standards for Dishwashers, Television 

Sets, Clothes Washers, and 

Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers 

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and p)Jbllic hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended by the 

National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act. as a general matter requires that 

the Department of Energy prescribe an 

energy efficiency standard for each of 

certain major household appliances. 

unless it determines. by rule. that a 

standard will not result in significanf 

conservation of energy. is not 

technologically feasible. or is not 

I

conomicallY justified. 

The Department of Energy is 

roposing to determine that an energy 

efficiency standard for dishwashers. 

television sets. clothes washers. and 

humidifiers and dehumidifiers would not 

result in a significant conservation.of 

energy or be economically justified. 

Therefore. the Department is today 

proposing to amend Title 10. Part 430 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations to 

include a determina tion of no standard 

for the above-mentioned covered 

products. 

The purpose of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking is to provide interested . , 

persons an opportunity to comment on ~ 

the proposed rule.and to invite 

interested persons to participate in ·the 

rulemaking proceiB. . 

DATES: WriUen comments in response 10 

this notice must be received by July 1. 

1985; requests to speak at the public 

hearing must be received by May 8. 

1985; speakers wm be notified by MayB. 

1985; statements must be submitted by 

May 10. 198'5; the public hearing will be 

held on May 15. 1985. at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments. requests 

to speak at the public hearing. and 

copies of statements of each speaker are 

to be submitted to: U.S. Department of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

'Renewable Energy. Office of Hearings 

and Dockets. Appliances (Docket No. 

CAS-RM-79-113). Room 6B-025. 

Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence 

. Av~nue. SW .• Washington. D.C. 20585. 

(202) 252-9319. ; . . 

The public hearing will be held at 

Room lE-245. ForrestaI Building. 1000 

Independence Avenue SW .. 

Washington, D.C .. 20585. .. . . 

Copies of the transcript of the .puhli~ . 

. hearing. the Technical Support 

Document. and the public comments 

received may be obtained from the DOE 

Freedom of Information Reading Room. 

Room lE-190. 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW .• Washington. D.C.20585. 

(202) 252-6020. 9:00 am-4:00 pm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC't; 

Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Forrestal Building. 

Mail Station CE-112.1. 1000 

Independerice Avenue SW •• 

Washington. D.C. 20565. (202) 252-

9127' " . 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .• U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Counsel, 

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

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

9513 . 

U.S. Department of Energy. Office of 

Conservation and Renewable Energy. 

Office of Hearings and Dockets •. 

Forrestal Building. Room 68-025. 1000 

lndependence Avenue SW •• 

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

9319. 

SUPPLEMENTARY :NFORMA TlO":' 

I . .Introduction. 

a. Aulhority. 

b. Background. 

n. General Diacullllion. 

... Test Procedures. 

b. Technological Feasibility. 

1:. Energy Savings. 

1. Significance of Savings. 

2. Determination of Savings. 

A. EUP Model. 

'8. Model Validation. 

C. Semitivity Analyses. 

d. Economic Justification. '.-

i Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers. 

'%. Life Cycle Costs. 

.8. Energy SBvings. . 

4. Lessening of Utility or Perfonnance of 

:Product.. 

5.lmpact Dr Lessening Competition. 

8. Need of the Nation to Conserve 

Energy. 

7. Other Factors. 

8. Weighing of Factors. 

m. Product-Specific Discussion. 

a. Dishwashers. 

b. Television Sets. e. Clothes' Washers. 

d. Humidifiers and Dehurnidifiel'l. 

IV. Preemption of State RegulatioDll. 

V. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. ana 

Regulatory Flexibility ReviewL ... 

a. Environmental Review. . 

.' b. Regulatory Impact Review. . 

e. Regulatory Flexibility Review .•.. 

VL Public Comment Procedures. 

a. Participation in Rulemaking. 

·b. Written Comment Procedures. 

c. Public Hearings.. 

I. Introduction . 

. o. Authority 

Part B of Title III of the Energy Polic}, 

and Conservation Act [EPCA) [Pub. L. 

94-163). as amended by the National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act 

(NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619).' created the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The consumer products 

subject to this program (referred to 

hereafter as "covered products") are: 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers; 

freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; 

water heaters; room air conditioners; 

home heating equipment. not including 

furnaces; television sets; kitchen ranges 

and ovens; clothes washers; humidifiers 

.and dehumidifiers; central air . 

·conditioners; and furnaces. as well as 

any other consumer product classified 

by the Secretary of Energy. if the 

product uses a specified minimum 

amount of energy. See section 322. The 

Secretary has not so classified any 

additional products. 

Under the Act. the program consists 

essentially of three parts: testing. 

1a beling. and energy efficiency 

standards. The Department of Energy. in 

consultation with the National Bureau of 

Standards. is required to establish test 

procedures for each of the covered J 

products. See section 323(a)(2). The 

purpose of the test procedures is to 

provide for test results that reflect the 

energy efficiency. energy use. or 

estimated annual operating costs of 

each of the covered products. See 

section 323(b)(1). All test procedures 

were required to be adopted not later 

than May 1. 1978. See section 323[a) (4) 

.and (6). A test procedure was not 

.required if DOE determined by rule that 

one could not be developed. See section 

S23(a)(6)(B). Beginning 180 days after a 

1est procequre for a product is adopted. 

no manufacturer may represent the' 

~nergy consumption of or the cost of 

energy consumed by the product except 

.as reflected in tests conducted according 

to the DOE procedure. See section 

323(c). Test procedures have been 

prescribed relating to all products. but 

on the basis of continuing review. 

certain classes of products do not have 

(;t1[Tently applicable test procedures. 

The Federal Trade Commission [FTC) 

is.required by the Act to prescribe rules 

• Part B of Title m of EPCA. as emended by the 

NECPA. i. often referred to in this notice as the 

-.Act,-
Federal Register /. Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

governing the labeling of the covered .

products. See section 324(q). These rules

are to require that each particular model

of a covered product bear a label that

indicates its estimated annual operating

cost and the range of estimated annual

operating costs for other. models of that

product. See section 324(c)(1). A rule is

not required under section 324 if the

Secretary of Energy determines that

disclosure of estimated annual operating

costs on a label is not technologically

feasible or if the FTC determines that

such disclosure is not likely to assist

consumers in making purchasing

decisions or is not economically or

technically feasible. See section 324(c).

No labeling rule can be made with

respect to a product for which there is

no DOE test procedure. See section

324(b)(3). At the present time, there is an

FTC rule requiring labels under the Act

for the following products: room air

conditioners, furnaces, clothes washers,

dishwashers, water heaters, freezers,

and refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers.2 The FTC has proposed a rule

that requires labels for central air .

conditioners.3

For each of the covered products,

DOE is required to establish mandatory

energy efficiency standards that are

designed to achieve the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and

economically justified. See tie.n`625

(a)(1) and [c). The Act provides.

however, that no standard for a product

is to be established if there is no test

procedure for the product, or if DOE

determines by rule either that a -

.standard would not result in significant

conservation of energy or that a

standard is not technologically feasible

or economically justified. See section

325(b). In determining whether a

standard is economically justified, the

Department is directed to determine

whether the benefits of the standard

exceed its burdens by weighing six

specific factors, as well as any other

factors DOE considers relevant. See

section 325(d). The factors are: .

(1) The economic impact of the

standard on the manufacturers and on

the consumers of the product subject to

such standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs

throughout the estimated average life of

the covered product in the type (or

class), compared to any increase in the

price of, or in the initial charges for, or

maintenance expenses, of the covered

products which are likely to result from

the imposition of the standard;

44 FR 88475 (November It I"). _

45 FR 53340 (August 11. 1980)..

(3) The total projected amount of

energy savings likely to result directly

from the imposition of the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the

,performance of the covered products

likely to result from the imposition of the.

standard;

. (5) The impact of any lessening of----

competition determined in writing by

the Attorney General that is likely to

result from the imposition of the -

standards; and .. - - - .....

(6) The need of the Nation to conserve

energy. -

A rule establishing an energy

efficiency standard for a product may

set different levels of efficiencies for

different classes ' of that product if they

use a different kind of energy or have

different capacity or performance

related features that justify different

levels of efficiencies. See section 325(f).

When a standard has been established,

DOE may exempt a manufacturer from

the effect of the standard for up to two

years, if a manufacturer's gross -

revenues in the preceding year did not

exceed $8 million and, after obtaining

the views of the Attorney General, DOE

determines that failure to grant the

exemption would likely result in a

lessening of competition. See section

325(e). a,.!,

The Act speaffies the priorities and

procedures to be followed in adopting

efficiency standards. Nine of the 13

covered products are given priority

under the Act. See section 325(g). These

nine products are: refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers; freezers; clothes

dryers; water heaters; room air

conditioners; home heating equipment.

not including furnaces; kitchen ranges

and ovens; central air conditioners; and

furnaces. The remaining four covered

products assigned a lesser priority are

dishwashers, television sets, clothes

washers, and humidifiers and

dehumidifiers. The latter four products

are the subject of this rulemaking.

The procedures to be followed in

adopting an efficiency standard -

included a requirement for an advance

notice of proposed rulemaking upon

which interested persons may make

written comments. See section 325(i)(1).

Thereafter, there is to be a notice of

proposed rulemaking, upon which

interested persons may make written

and oral comments, including an

opportunity to question those who make

such comments with respect to disputed

issues of material fact. See section

325(i)(3) and section 336(a)(1).

'Each covered .product type may be made up of

several classes

12967

Section 327 of the Act addresses the

effect of Federal rules concerning

testing, labeling, and standards on State

laws or regulations concerning such

matters. Generally, all such State laws

or regulations are superseded by the

Federal rule. See section 327(a). A rule

by DOE that an efficiency standard is

not technologically feasible,

economically justified, or likely to save

significant amounts of energy is a rule

that supersedes any State standard. See

section 325(b). If, because there is no

Federal rule, a State efficiency standard

is not superseded, persons subject to it

may petition DOE to have it superseded

on the basis that there is no significant

State or local interest sufficient to justify

the regulation and such regulation

unduly burdens interstate commerce.

See section 327(b)(1). A State whose

energy efficiency standard is

superseded may petition the Department

for a rule that it not be superseded, on

the basis that there is a significant State

or local interest to justify the standard

and the State standard is a stricter

standard. However. DOE cannot issue

the requested rule if the State standard

would unduly burden interstate

commerce. See section 327(b)(3).

b. Background.

On December 13,1979, the DOE

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking pursuant to section

325(i)(1) for dishwashers, television sets,

clothes washers, and humidifiers and

dehumidifiers (44 FR 72276). (Hereafter

referred to as the December 1979

advance notice.) The advance notice

was designed to present a full

discussion of the Department's views

concerning the standards program and

the process for its implementation. DOE

also set forth its views concerning the

criteria for selecting classes in each

product type and the maximum

technologically feasible energy

efficiency level for each class of

product. DOE specifically requested

comments on all matters presented in

the advance notice. Meetings were held

on January 15 and 17, 1980 to solicit the

views of all concerned parties.,

II. General Discussion

As indicated in the Authority section

above, the Act prohibits DOE from

promulgating a standard for a product if

(1) there is no test procedure for the

product, (2) a standard is not

technologically feasible, (3) DOE finds a

standard would not result in a .

significant conservation of energy, or (4)

DOE finds a standard would not be

economically justified. DOE analyzed

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I. Vol. SO. No. 62 , Monday. April 1, 1985 , Proposed Rules 12967 -. 

governing the labeling of the covered . products. See section 324(~J:.:r'hese rules are to require that each particular model 

of a covered produc;t bear a label that 

indicates its e::!ti!)1.ated annual operating 

cost and the rauge of estimated annual 

operating costs for olllei:. models of that 

product. See section 324(c)(1). A rule is 

not required under section 324 if the . 

Secretary of Energy determines that 

disclosure of estimated annual operating 

costs on a label is not technologically 

feasible or if the FTC determines that 

such disclosure is not likely to assist . 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions or is not economically or technically feasible. See section 324(c). 

No labeling rule can be made with 

respect to a product for which there is no DOE test procedure. See section . 324(b)(3). At the present time. there is an FTC rule requiring labels under the Act 

for the following products: room air 

conditioners. furnaces, clothes washers. 

dishwashers. water heaters. freezers, 

and refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. 2 The FTC has proposed a rule 

that requires labels for central air . 

conditioners. a . 

For each of the covered products, 

DOE is required to establish mandatory 

energy efficiency standards that are designed to a'chieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. See.~ti~i25 

(a)(l) and (c). The Actprovides.· . 

however. that no standard for a product 

is to be established if there is no test 

procedure for tlie product, or if DOE 

determines by rule either that a . 

. standard would not result in significant 

conservation of energy or that a standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. See section 

325(b}.ln determining whether a standard is economically justified. the 

Department is directed to determine 

whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens by weighing six 

specific factors. as well as any other 

factors DOE considers relevant. See 

section 3Z5(d). The factors are:. . 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the product subject to 

such standard; . - .. 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

tl!roughout the estimated average life of 

the covered product in the type (or 

class). compared to any increase in the 

price of. or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses. of the covered 

products which are likely to result from 

the imposition ~f the standa~; 

J 44 FR 66475 (November 19. 1m). ~ ~ ... -- ." . 

~45 FR .53340 (August 11. 1980)." . . -

(3) The lotal projected amount of 

energy savings. likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of fue ~tility or the 

'performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of the _ standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of----

competitil;ln determined in writing by 

the Attorti"ey General that is likely to . 

result from the imposition of the 

standards; and 

(6) The need of the Nation to conserve 

energy. 

A rule establishing an energy 

efficiency standard for a product may 

set different levels of efficiencies for 

different classes 4 of thai product if they 

use a different kind of energy or have 

different capacity or performance 

related features that justify'different 

levels of efficienciell. See section 325(f). 

When a standard has been established. 

DOE may exempt a manufacturer from 

the effect of the standard for up to two 

years. if a manufacturer's gross revenues in the preceding year did not 

exceed $8 million and. after obtaining 

the views of the Attorney General, DOE 

determines that failure to grant the 

exemption would likely result in a lessening of competition. See section 

325(e). ",' t 

'The Act speCifies the priorities and· 

procedures to be followed in adopting 

efficiency standards. Nine of the 13 

covered products are given priority . 

under the Act. See section 325(g). These 

nine products are: refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers; freezers; clothes 

dryers; water heaters; room air 

conditioners; horne heating equipment. 

not including furnaces; kitchen ranges 

and ovens; central air conditioners; and 

furnaces. The remaining four covered 

products assigned a lesser priority are . dishwashers, television sets. clothes 

washers, and humidifiers and 

dehumidifiers. The latter four products are the subject of this rulemaking. 

The procedures to be followed in 

adopting an efficiency standard 

included a requirement for an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking upon 

which interested persons may make 

written comments. See section 325(i)(1): 

Thereafter. there is to be a notice of 

proposed rulemaking, upon which 

interested persons may make written 

and oral ~omments. including an . 

opportunity to question those who make 

such comments with respect to disputed 

issues of material fact. See section _ _ 

325(i)(3} and section 336(a)(1). 

".Each coveredp~uct ~~y be mad~ up of 

.everaJ c1uses.., '.' , ... ,. .:,; '. .. . 

Section 327 of the Act addresses the 

effect of Federal rules concerning . 

testing. labeling, and standards on State 

laws or regulations concerning such 

matters. Generally, all such State laws or regulations are superseded by the . 

Federal rule. See section 327(a}. A rule 

by DOE that an efficiency standard is 

not technologically feasible. . 

economically justified. or likely to save significant amounts of energy is a rule 

that supersedes any State standard. See 

section 325(b). If. because there is no 

Federal rule. a Stale efficiency standard 

is not superseded. persons subject to it 

may petition DOE to have it superseded 

on the basis that there is no significant 

State or local interest sufficient to justify 

the regulation and such regulation 

unduly burdens interstate commerce. See section 327{b)(1). A State whose 

energy efficiency standard is 

superseded may petition the Depaitrnimt 

for a rule that it not be superseded, on 

the basis that there is a significant State or local interest 10 justify the standard 

and the State standard is a stricter 

standard. However, DOE cannot issue 

the requested rule if the State standard 

would unduly burden interstate 

commerce. See section 327(b)(3). 

b.1J.ackground 

On December 13. 1979. the DOE 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 

325(i)(1} for dishwashers. television sets, 

clothes washers. and humidifiers and 

dehumidifiers (44 FR 72276)_ (Hereafter 

referred to as the December 1979 • 

advance notice.) The advance notice was designed to present a full 

discus~ion of the Department's views 

concerning the standards program and 

the process for its implementation. DOE 

also set forth its views concerning the 

criteri"a for selecting classes in each 

product type and the maximum 

technologically' feasible energy 

efficiency level for each class of 

product. DOE specifically requested 

comments on all matters presented in 

the advance notice. Meetings were held 

on January 15 and 17. 1980 to solicit the 

views of ,all ~oncerned parties.: 

. n. General Discussion 

As indicated in the Authority section 

above. the Act prohibits DOE from 

promulgating a standard for a product if 

(1) there is no test procedure for the 

product. (2) a standard is not 

technologically feasible. (3) DOE finds a 

standard would not result in a .' 

significant conservation of energy, or (4) 

DOE finds a standard would not be 

economically justified. DOE analyzed .. 
12968 Federal Register / Vol, 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules'

feet of standards for each product

ss of product.'

a. Test Procedures

Test procedures have'been prescribed

for each of the four product types

subject to today's proposal. Test

procedures for clothes washers were

published on September 28,1977 (42 FR

49802); for television sets on September

14, 1977 (42 FR 46171); for humidifiers on

October 18, 1977 (42 FR 55599); for

dehumidifiers on October 18, 1977 (42 FR

55608); and for dishwashers on August 8,

1977 (42 FR 39964). On May 19. 1981, -

DOE amended the test procedures for

clothes washers to clarify sections

concerning automatic termination

controls, test cloths, and dryer

preconditioning, and to include technical

revisions 146 FR 27324). On June 17.1982,

DOE proposed amendments to the test

procedures for dishwashers to include

water heating dishwashers (47 FR

26143). On March 3,1983, a final rule

amending the dishwasher test procedure

was published (48 FR 9202). On June 4,

1984, DOE proposed amendments to the

test procedures for dishwashers to

revise the definition of water heating

dishwashers (49 FR 23142). On

November 27, 1984, the test procedures

r dishwashers were amended to revise

definition of water heating

hwashers (49 FR 46533).

The Act specifically prohibits

standards for a product (or class of

products) if there is no applicable test

procedure for it.'All classes of products

addressed in today's proposed rule have

applicable test procedures.

b. Technological Feasibility

The maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiencies for each product

class are shown in Table 1. Preliminary

maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiencies for the four products

were published in the December 1979

advance notice. These levels were

based on design options commercially

'As used in this preamble. "product" refers to

the generic product of each type tiled in section

322(5) of EPCA (e.g., dishwasher or television set).

"Class" means a product subset which has the same

primary energy source (e.g.. gas, oil or electricity)

and the same capacity or performance -related

features which effects the energy efficiency of the

unit (e.g.. color television set and monochrome

television set,

'For example, for dishwashers, DOE did not

consider basing the standard levels on a certain

European design in which the dishwasher is no

longer eonnected to the hot water suppty line. The

European dishwasher directly beats incoming cold

water, which is assumed to be 55 'F Currently

applicable test procedures for dishwashers cover

coming water which is et either 120'F of i t0 'P.

refore DOE didnot considerthese European

dishwashers for-the standard levels beceusethe feel

procedures do not cover dishwashers which use

cold water.

available in 1978. These design options

are reported in the product specific

discussions in today's proposed rule. -

TABLE 1.-PRODUCT CLASSES AND MAat

'TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE ENERGY fFIOIENCIES

Product class j asibtee erorpy .

efficiency

Dishwasher stsndwd. '0.41 eyelas/kWh•

convect. 0.50.

Water Heating ...___ 0.455.

Television Sets- cowr____._ _ 200 perceet

176 .

clothes Washers._. Top Leading. 1.302 n'lkWh.

Front Loa6vV- 12&

Hu,id tiers n. 98.6 percent

Room 93.

Oetxsnld'rfiws (No separate 290 pi-W&

"The maximum tsabnologically feasible

energy efficiencyltwels proposed today

by DOE for the four products are those

levels which are currently commercially

available.'For compact dishwashers.

monochrome television sets, front

loading clothes washers, room

humidifiers, and dehumidifiers, the

levels proposed today are indenticai to

the levels in the December,1979 notice.

DOE received no information for these

products at that time stating that the

proposed levels were rmt appropriate for

the maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency. The maximum

technologically feasible energy

efficiency levels for standard size

dishwashers, color television sets and

central system humidifiers are being

revised today to reflect product

developments which are currently

available in the marketplace. These

products were not available when the

December 1979 advance notice was

published. Since then, DOE established

the dishwasher class called water

heating dishwashers (48 FR 9202, March

3, 3983) and the maximum

technologically feasible energy

efficiency for this product class is also

based on design options currently

available in the marketplace . For top

loading clothes washers, the level

proposed today is based on comments

from the Association of Nome

Appliance Manufacturers (ARAM) in

response to the December 1979 advance

notice requesting each private labeler,

importer ar manufacturer of a consumer

product covered by the notice to

complete two survey forms.

'The one exception is the Level 2 standard for top

loading clothes washers in which the maximum

technologically feasible energy efficlency' level'is

based-on the highest level expected to be

commercially available January 1. 195 .

DOE is interested in receiving data,

commentsand -statements concerning

whether the'evels proposed today are

the maximum improvement in energy

efficiency which is technologically

feasible for each of covered products.

c. Energy Savings

1. Significance of Savings. Under

section 325(b) of EPCA, as amended.

DOE is prohibited from adopting a

standard for a product if that standard

would not result in "significant" energy

savings. The statute, however, does not

define the term "significant." Such a

term is not readily susceptible to precise

definitions, and DOE believes that

Congress used such a term with the

intent that DOE would, in the exercise

of its informed judgment, determine

what level of savings is significant and

under what circumstances.. -

In the December 1982 final rule, DOE

adopted three tests to determine

whether the savings attributable to a

standard would result in a significant

conservation of energy under section

325(b)(1). If the savings attribtstarbJe to

that standard would meet any one of the

three tests, then the savings attributable

to that standard would be deemed

significant. The three tests were

generally described as: whether savirtgrof oil or gas are large enough to

decrease meaningfully this Nation's

reliance on foreign sources of energy;

whether savings of electricity are large

enough either to reduce significantly

new generation requirements or to affect

significantly the environment; and,

whether a standard would result in a

product using 16.67 percent less energy

than it would absent a standard.

Specifically, the first test would deem

significant the savings attributable to a

standard if the standard would result in

the savings of 10,000 bpd of oil, or the

savings of natural gas equivalent to

10,000 bpd of oil (56,530 mcf/day) over

the period of the average life of the

product in question beginning with the

year 1987.' The second test would deem

significant the savings attributable to a

standard if the standard would result in

the savings of one percent of national

electricity use over the period of the

average life of the product in question

beginning with the year 1987. The third

test would deem savings significant if,

the annual energy savings attributable

to a standard for a product were equal

to 16.67,percent of a standard measured

over the one-year period following the

period of the average life of the product

156.530 mcf of natural gas contain the same 8TTls

as 10,000 barrels of oil.

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

12968 Federal Register I .Vol. '50. No. 62 I Monday. April 1. 1985 jProposed Rules 

erect of standards for each product 

ss of product." " 

D. Test Procedures . 

Test procedures have'been prescribed 

for each of the four product types . subject to today's proposal. Test 

procedures for clothes washers were published on September 28.1977 (42 FR 

49802): for television sets on September 

14. 1977 (42 FR 46171): for humidifiers OD 

October 18. 1977 (42 FR 55599); for 

dehumidifiers on October 18. 1977 (42 FR 

55808): and for dishwashers on August B. 

1977 (42 FR 39964). On May 19. 1981 •. DOE amended the test procedures for 

clothes washers to c1arify sections 

concerning automatic termination ' 

controls. test cloths. and dryer 

preconditioning. and 10 include .teduUcaJ 

revisions (46 FR 27324). On June 17. 19BZ. 

DOE proposed amendments to the test 

procedures for dishwashers to include 

water heating dishwashers [47 FR 

26143). On March 3. 1963. a final rule 

amending the dishwasher test procedure was published (48 FR 9202). On June 4. 

1984. DOE propos.ed amendments to the 

test procedures for dishwashers t~ 

revise the definition ofwaler heating 

dishwashers (49 FR 23142). On ' 

November 27., 1984. the test procedures 

I dishwashers were ,amen.ded to revise 

definition of water heating . hwashers (49 FR 46533). '. 

The Act specifically prohibits 

standards for a product (or class of 

products) if there is no applicable test 

procedure for it. 5 All classes of products 

addressed in today'. proposed rule have 

applicable test procedure •. 

b. Technological Feasibility 

The maximum technologically feasible 

energy efficiencies for each pro~u~t 

class are shown in Table 1. Prehmmary 

maximum technologically feasible ' 

energy efficiencies for the four products were published in the December 1979 

advance notice. These levels were based on design options commercially 

• As used In thiB preamble , ~~ .. rere~ to the generic product of each type lised m !e.clion 

322(a) of EPCA {e.g., dishwasher or teleVIsIon lII!tJ. 

"Clsss" means a product sublet v.:hich hal ~~ tame primary energy &olll"(;e (e., .• sa .. all or electri~lJ') 

and the •• me capacity or perionnance:-relateil 

features which affects the energy efficrene;)' of the 

unit (e.g~ color lelevision &eland monochrome 

television aet.!. 

4For examp~ for dishwasben, DOE did no! 

consider basing the .. tandard levels on 8 a:rtam 

European delign in which the dishwasher ~ no 

longer eonnected 10 the hot water IUpPIy B:'e. The 

European dishwasher directly heats mcooung cold 

water, which is assumed to be 55 T. Currently 

applicable lest procedures for dishwashers cover ~~ming wale: which is a\ either 120 OF or 140 -p. 

~rerore. 00£ did.JIol conaiderthese European 

dishwashen; for ,the standard levels because1be leal 

procedures do no! .:over dishwashers which ~ , 

cold water. 

available in 1978. These design options are reported in the product specific 

discussions in today's proposed ~e. 

TABLE 1.-PROD1JCT Ct.ASSES AND MAlQMIM 

'TECHNOLOGICA1J.V FEASIBLE ENERGt l:f'FI. 

ClENClES 

. I.Ia>i!ruII 

PmducI type PtoducI class == ; .' 

efficiency 

0;-.-__ 

~-'0.41 cycIe$I1<WII. 

~.- 0.50. Waler Heating_ 0.455. Television s.ta_ CoIor ___ 200~ 

178. ~WasNws_. Top Loading._ 1.302t1>f1<Wb. FronI Loading 1.25- Hurniditiera __ 

, 

c..ntraf~- Room '8.6~ 

13. 0ehumi<Iir_ (No aoparaIe 2JIO pin1SII<WII. ; '--: cIas5a 

apecified). 

"The maximum teamologicalJy feasible 

energy efficiency le.els proposed today 

by DOE for the four products are those. 

levels which are currently commercially 

available.' For compact dishwashers. 

monochrome television sets. front 

loadiflg clothes washers. room 

humidifiers. and dehumidifiers. the 

levels proposed today.re indentical to 

the levels in the December. 1979 notice. 

DOE received no information for the'&e 

products at that time stating that the 

proposed levels were mA appropriate for 

the maximum technologically feasible 

energy efficiency. The maximum 

technologically feasible energy 

efficiency levels for standard size 

dishwashers. color television sets and 

central system humidifiers are being 

revised today to reflecl product 

developments which are currently 

available in the marketplace. These 

products were not available when the , December 1979 advance notice was 

published. Since then. DOE established 

the dishwasher class called water 

heating dishwashers (48 FR 9202. March 

3. 1983) and the maximum ' 

technologically feasible energy , 

efficiency for 'this product class is also 

based on design options currently 

available in the marketplace. For top 

loading clothes washers. the level 

proposed today is based on commentB 

from the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) in 

response to the December 1979 advance 

notice requesting each private labeler, 

importer -or manufacturer of 8 consumer product covered by the notice to 

complete two survey forma. ' 

'The one exception is the Level % l1andillrd for top 

loadill8 clothe 5 washen in which the maximum 

technologically fe8lible energy effiCiency levella 

lutsed ,on the highesllevel expected to be 

commercially available January 1.1988. 

DOE is irit~rested in receiving data. 

comments.and.statements concerning 

whether the~vels proposed today are 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency which is technologically , 

feasible for each ,of covered products. 

·:··c. Energy Savingsl 

1. Significance of Savings. Under , section 325(b) of EPCA. as amended. 

DOE is prohibited from adopting a standard for a product if that standard 

would not result in "Significant" energy 

savings. The statute. however. does not 

define the term "significant." Such a 

term is not readily susceptible to precise 

definitions. and DOE believes that ' 

Congress used such a term with the 

intent that DOE would. in the exercise 

of its informed judgment. determine 

what level of savings is Significant and 

under what &ircumstances. 

In the December 1982 final rule. DOE 

adopted three tests to determine 

whether the savings attributable to a 

standard would result in a significant 

conservation of energy under section 

325(b}(1). If the savings attrib~ to 

that standard would meet anyone of the 

three tests. then the swings attributable 

to that standard would be deemed 

significant. The three tests were , generally described as: whether saviIlSil" 

of oil or gas are large enough to ' 

deC1'eDemMningfully this Nation'. 

reliance on foreign sources of energy; 

whether savings of electricity are large 

enough either to reduce significantly 

new generation requirements or to affect 

significantly the environment; and. 

whether a standard would result in a product using 16.67 percent less energy 

than it would absent a standard. 

Specifically. the firat test would deem 

significant the savings 'attributable to a standard if the standard would result in 

the savings of 10.000 bpd of oil. or the 

savings or natural gas equiva1entto 

10.000 bpd of oil (56.530 md/day) over the period of the average life oJ the 

product in question beginning with the 

year 1987.· The second test would deem 

significant the savings attributable to a standard if the standard would result in 

the savings of one percent of national 

electricity use over the period of the 

average life of the product in question 

beginning with the year 1987. The third 

test would deem sBvirigs signific~nt if , the annual energy savings attributable 

to a standard for a product were equal 

to l6.57 ,percent of a standard measured over the one-year period following the 

period of the average ljfe of the product 

°56.530 ma oFn.aturalg8s contain the same B1V. B8 10,000 barrels of oil ' 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

purchased in the last year before the

standard could be imposed.

During the eight products rulemakings,

commenters contended that the three

tests were not appropriate because one

or more products were technically

incapable of meeting one or more of the

significance tests. If the savings

attributable to a standard for a product

cannot meet a particular test for

significance because the technologically.

feasible improvements are insufficient

to produce a large amount of savings,

this is not by itself evidence of a fault of

the significance test. Congress, in.

specifying certain products concerning

which DOE would be required to

conduct standards rulemakings, did not

prejudge or determine that a standard

for any or all of these products could in

fact result in a significant conservation

of energy. Rather, the specific products

named were included because of the

amount of energy they used. Whether a

standard was appropriate, i.e., among

other things whether it would result in a

significant conservation of energy, was

to be determined by DOE. For example,

DOE proposed no standard for electric

furnaces because improvements would

not save energy. Similarly improvements

to efficiency in other products may save

only small amounts of energy. It is clear,

however, that the fact that the potential

savings are too small to meet one or

more of the significance tests does not

constitute a fault with the test.

Moreover, the fact that a particular

product does not use enough energy to

be able to meet the oil or gas and

electricity tests does not indicate the

inappropriateness of those tests. DOE

acknowledges that the oil or gas and

electricity savings tests had a naharal

bias toward products that use a large

amount of energy. That is, a relatively

small improvement in energy efficiency

attributable to a standard for a product

that uses a large amount of energy might

meet the oil or gas or electricity savings

tests, but for certain products that use

relatively little energy, those tests might

be impossible to meet. Accordingly,

DOE proposed the third test which

would be neutral as to the amount of

energy used by the product, by

measuring the savings as a percent of

the use by that product. Consequently,

DOE concludes that the three tests are

appropriate, even if a particular product .

might not be able to meet one or more

tests.

2. Deternrinadon of Savings. Energy

savings attributable to standards for the

four products were forecasted by the

Energy Use Projection Model (EUP

Model), which was developed by DOE

especially for the four products

standards analysis. The Oak Ridge

National Laboratory Residential Energy

End Use Model (ORNL Model), which

was used by DOE for the eight products

standards rulemakings, was not used for

today's proposed rule for the four

products, as discussed belowDOE decided against using the ORNL

Model because it does not treat the four

products separately. The ORNL Model

determines the energy use for ten

categories of appliances-the nine

priority products and lighting. A single

miscellaneous category is used for all

other residential appliances. The ORNL

Model does 'not specifically identify the

appliances that are included in the

miscellaneous category; however, it is

certain that it includes appliances in

addition to the four products; for .

example, household fans, automatic

coffeemakers, stereos and power tools.

DOE believes that it would be difficult

to determine the portion that each of the

four products contribute to the

miscellaneous category in the ORNL

Model. Therefore, DOE determined it

preferable that the four products

standards rulemaking proceed using the

EUP Model in lieu of the ORNL Model.

A. EUP Model. The EUP Model is the

analytical tool developed for forecasting

savings due to energy efficiency

standards for dishwashers, television

sets, clothes washers, and humidifiers

and dehumidifiers. It is an interactive

BASIC computer program. The EUP

Model forecasts the residential energy

use for each of the four products each

year from 2988 to 2006 for two separate

scenarios, a market-based scenario [one

without standards) and a standards

scenario. The market-based scenario

projects the year-by-year energy use of

a product by using a forecast of marketbased efficiency improvements similar

to the forecast of market-based

efficiency improvements for the eight

products. The standards scenario

estimates the year-by-year energy use of

a product by using the forecast of

market-based efficiency improvements

as the sales-weighted efficiency level for

all products purchased before 1988, the

year that standards would be

implemented. After 1988, the standards

level is used as the efficiency level for

the products. Savings due to standards

is the difference in energy use between

the two scenarios. The EUP Model uses

the dominant product class in a product

type for determining energy savings. See

the product specific discussions in

today's proposal for the product classes

chosen to represent the product type in

the EUP Model

Oil savings are expressed in barrels of

oil per day (bpd). The EUP Model ..

12969

expressed natural gas savings in barrels

of oil per day equivalent (bpde). Natural

gas savings have been converted to

thousand cubic feet of gas (mcf) per day

in today's proposed rule so that these

savings are consistent with the eight

products rulemakings. Electricity

savings are expressed in either trillion

Btu's or percent savings of national

electricity use over the average life of

the product.

The EUP Model uses the salesweighted energy efficiency (SWEF) in

1972 and 1978 of each product, the

standard level for each product, the

annual amount of product use, the

market saturation of each product in

households, the total population of

households, the average capacity

(television sets, clothes washers,

humidifiers and dehumidifiers only) and

the average product lifetime- Energy

efficiency and the total population of

households were assumed to change

over time.

Two prominent features in the EUP

Model were developed from the ORNL

Model. First, the total population of

households used in the EUP Model were

forecasted by the ORNL Model. Second,

the trend in energy efficiency in the

market-based scenario in the EUP

Model is based upon forecasts made by

ORNL Model for the eight products. The

ORNL Model predicts that the salesweighted energy efficiency for products

shipped in 2005 would range from 75.9

percent of the standards level for central

air conditioners to 100 percent of the

'standards level for oil furnaces. The

average for the eight products was 91.2

percent of the standards leveL See Table

2. .

Due to the lack of information

concerning the trend in energy efficiency

in the market-based scenario for the

four products. DOE decided to pattern

the future trend in energy efficiency for

the four products after the average of

the trends forecasted by the ORNL

Model for the eight products. That is, the

EUP Model assumes that the salesweighted energy efficiency in 2006 for

each of the four products will be 912

percent of the standards Ievel9 DOE. is

• An exception to this rule is when the 1978 SWEF

is greater than 91.2 percent of standards level. For

example, the 1878 SWEF for humidifiers is 90

percent. The standard level is 93 percent so that 91.2

percent of the standards level would be 65 percent.

The Eli? Model assumes that energy efficiency

cannot decrease aver time . Therefore, the energy

efficiency for humidifiers remains constant at the

1978 SWEF of 90peercent daring the no standards

scenario. .

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

, 

Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday. April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 12969 ___ 'liZ:; .. 

purchased in the'last year before the 

standard could be imposed. 

During the eight products rulemakings. 

commenters contended that the three 

tests were not appropriate becanse one ' 

or more products were technically , 

incapable of meeting one or more of the 

significance tests. If the saviJJ.gs , 

attributable to a standard for a product 

cannot meet a particular lest for 

significance because the technologically. 

feasible improvements are insufficient 

to produce a large 'amount of savilJ.gs, 

this is not by itself evidence of a fault of 

the significance test. Congress. in, ' 

specifying certain products concerning 

which DOE would be required to 

conduct standards ruJemakings, did not 

prejudge or determine that a standard 

for any or all of these products could in 

fact result in a significant conservation 

of energy. Rather. the specific products 

named were included because of the 

amount of energy they used. Whether 8 

standard was appropriate. i.e .• among 

other things whether it would result in a 

significant conservation of energy, was 

to be determined by DOE. For example. 

DOE proposed no standard for electric • 

furnaces because improvements would 

not save energy. Similarly impro,,-ements 

to efficiency in other products may save 

only small amounts of energy. It is clear. 

however. that the f~ct that the potential 

savings are too small to meet one or 

more of the significance tests does not 

constitute a fault wUh the test. 

Moreover. the fact thet a p1Irticular 

product does not use enough energy ttl 

be abfe to meet the oil or gas .nd 

electricity tests does not indicate the 

inappropriateness of those tests. DOE 

acknowledges that the oil or g89 lind 

electricity savings testsl!ad a na.h1ral 

bias toward products that use a large 

amount of energy. That ii. a relatively 

small improvement in energy efficiency 

attributable to a standard for a product 

that uses a large amount of energy might 

meet the oil O!' gas or electricity aavings 

tests. but for certain prodncbl that lISe 

relatively little energy. those tests might 

be impossible to meet. ACcordingly. 

DOE proposed the third test which 

wouk! be neutralu to the araount of 

energy used by the product, by , 

measuring the savings 8S a percenl of 

the use by that product. Collsequently. 

DOE concludes that the three tests are 

al>propriate, even if a particular p~t . 

might not be able to meet a.ne CIf.m.ore 

te5ta.. . " 

2. Determination of Savings. Energy 

savings attributable to standards for the 

four products were forecasted by the 

Energy Use Projection Model (EUP , 

Model). which was developed by DOE 

especially for the four ploducl& .. 

standards analysis. The Oak Ridge , 

National Laboratory Residential Energy 

End Use Model (ORNL Model). which 

was used by DOE for the eight pi'oducts 

standards rulemakings, was nol used for 

today's proposed rule for the four 

products. as discussed belDw_ 

DOE decided against using the ORNL 

Model because it does not treat the four 

products separately. The ORNL Model 

determines the energy use for ten 

categories of appliances-the nine 

priority products and lighting. A single 

miscellaneous category is used for all 

other residential appliances. The ORNL 

Model does·not specifically identify the 

appliances that are included in the 

miscellaneous category; however. it is 

certain that it includes appliances in 

addition to the four products; for, 

example. household fans, automatic 

coffeemakers. stereos and power tools. 

DOE believes that it would be difficult 

10 determine the portion that each of the 

four products contribute to the . 

miscellaneous cate~ry in the ORNL 

Model. Therefore. DOE delennined it 

preferable that the four prodU'Ctl ' 

standards rulemaking proceed using the 

EUP Model in liel:! of the ORNL Model. 

A. EUP ModeJ. The EUP Model is the 

analytical tool developed for forecasting 

savings due to energy effICiency 

standards for dishwashers. television 

Bets. clothes washers, and humidifiers 

and dehwnidifiers. It is an interactive 

BASIC computer program. The EUP 

Model forecasts the residential energy 

use for each of the four products each 

year from 1988 to 2006 for two separate 

scenarios. a market-based scenario [one 

withont standards) and a standards 

scenario. The marIcet-based scenario 

projects the yeal'-by-year energy lISe of 

, a product by using a forecast of marketbased efficiency improvements similar 

to the forecast of market-based 

efficiency improvements for the eight 

products. The standards scenario 

estimates the year-by-year energy use cif 8 product by using the furecast of 

market-based efficiency imprOvements 

as the sales-weighted efficiency level for 

all products purchased before 1988. the 

year that standarw would be 

implemented. After 1988. the standards 

level is used 81 the efficiency level for 

the products. Savings due to standards 

is the difference in energy use between 

the two scenarios. The ElJP Model uses 

the dominant product class in a product 

type for determining energy savings. See 

the product specific discunion, in 

today's proposal fOr the product classes 

chosen to represelJt the produ.ct type in 

the EUP Model 

Oil savings are expressed in barrels of 

oUper day (bpd). rbe EUP Model . 

expressed natural gas sa vings in barrels 

of oil per day equivalent (bpde). Natural 

gas savings have been converted \0 

¢ousand cubic feet of gas (mef) per day 

iii today's proposed rule so that these 

savings are consistent with the eight, 

products rulemakings. Electricity 

savings are expressed in either trillion 

Btu', or percent savings of national 

electricity use over the average life of 

the product. ' " ' 

The EUP Model uses the salesweighted energy efficiency (SWEF) in 

1972 and 1978 of each product. the 

standard level for each product. the 

annual amount of product use. the 

market saturation of each product in 

households. the total population of 

households. the average caplilcity 

(television sets. clothes washers, 

humidifiers and dehumidifiers Only) and 

the average product lifetime_ Energy 

efficiency and the total population of 

households were assumed to change 

over time. 

Two prominent features in the EUP 

Model were developed from the ORNL 

Model. First. the total population of 

households used in the EUP Model were 

forecasted by the ORNL Model. Second. 

the trend in energy effi ci ency in the 

market-based scenario in the EUP 

Model is based upon forecasts made by 

ORNL Model for the eight products. The 

ORNL Model predicts that the salesweighted energy efficiency for proaucts 

shipped in 2005 would range from 75.9 ' 

'percent of the standards level for central 

air conditioners to 100 percent of the 

'standards level for oil furnaces. The 

average [or the eight products was 91.2 

percent of the standards leveL See Table 

2. 

Due to the lack of information 

cOllCerning the trend in energy efficiency 

in the market·based scenario for the 

. fOw' products. DOE decided to pattern 

the future trend in energy efi1ciency for 

the four products sIter the average of 

the trends Forecasted by the ORNL 

Model for the eight products. That is. the 

EUP Model assumes tha t the salesweighted energy efficiency in 2006 for 

each of the four products wilt be 91..z 

percent of the standards leveLl' DOE ~ 

• An e&eptiolllo !h;' rule is when tJH, 1978 SWEF 

is grea \er than 91.2 percent of ataRdards ieweL For 

example. the 1978 SWEF for humidif\er1l is 90 

percent. Thaltandard revel is 93 percent so that 91.2 

percent"r the standards level would be 8S percent 

The EUP Model assumes thaI ern!T"gy effiGiency 

cannot deereaae over,IiRlt!. Therefore. the energy 

efficiency for Iwmidifiets remains coMtsn! at lire 

19711 SWEF Df SID. percent dJuing the DO standards 

lcenaria. 
12970 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 /' Proposed Rules

ted in receiving data, comments

atements concerning the -

appropriateness of basing the future

trend in energy efficiency for the four

products on the average of the trends

forecasted by the ORNL Model for the

eight products. -

TABLE 2.-APPLIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES IN

2005

Appliance, ^

S

Wds Ratio llevel level

Gas furnace.----. 88.0 882 0.998

Oil furnace 93.6 93.6 1.000

Room ac conddfoner 7.57 9.13 0.829

Central air conditioner....- 7.93 10-45 0.759

Eleclric'water heater._ 88.1 92.1 0.957

Gas water heater 60.6 61.1 0.992

Reingerator-freezer-...._ 7.64 8.5o 0.899

Freezer 14.0 162 0.864

Average 0.912

Source: Table 3-12- Supplement To., March t982 Consumer

Products Eftiency Standards Engineering Analysis and

Economic Documenrr DOE/CE-0045. July 1983.

The EUP Model calculates the energy

use in the base year (1978). The energy

use in each succeeding year to the year

2006 is calculated by a three-step

process. First, the energy use for the

units in the base year population still in

service is calculated by assuming that

ese units are replaced by new units at

tirement rate that depends on the

duct lifetime. Second, the energy use

new units added in each year since

1978 due to the retirement of base year

units and the growth in total households

is calculated. Lastly, the EUP Model

checks to see if any of the new units,

added after 1978, are retired in order to

calculate the energy use for new units

which replaced units added after 1978.

For example. the energy use in the year

1988 is the sum of the following: the

energy use of the base year units still in

service in the year 1988; the energy use

of the new units added since 1978 and

still in service in the year 1968; and the

energy use for new units which replaced

those units added since 1978. See ' .

Technical Support Document, pages 9

through 13 and 106 and 107.

B. Model Validation. Results from

both the EUP and ORNL Models should

be reasonably close. To demonstrate

that results between the two models are

close, the EUP Model was modified to

forecast the. savings realized by

standards for refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers. The modifications

included adding data for refrigerators

and refrigerator-freezers into the EUP"

Model. The data included the 1917 per

mit annual energy consumption, the

78 sales-weighted energy efficiency.

e number of refrigerators per

household, and the standards level. See

Technical support Document, Chapter

VIII. The estimated savings were then

compared to the ORNL Model savings.

The product type, refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers, was selected for

comparison because the EUP Model

does not consider fuel switching, such

as replacing an oil furnace with a gas

furnace. DOE is interested in "comments

and statements concerning whether the

EUP Model is a valid analytical tool for

forecasting energy savings due to

standards for the four products.

Results from the refrigerator-freezer

version of the EUP Model were

compared to the ORNL Model results.

The difference in energy efficiency

between the two models is within 2

percent. See Table 3. For the ORNL "

Model, refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are forecasted to use about 1.19

Quads in 1990 and about 1.07 Quads in

2000. For the EUP Model, refrigerators

and refrigerator-freezers are forecasted

to use about 1.17 Quads in 1990 (for a 1.9

percent difference) and about 1.07

Quads in 2000 (no difference). For

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers,

the ORNL Model estimated that they

will use about 21.20 Quads from 1987 to

2005 while the EUP Model forecasted

use of about 20.95 Quads from 1988 to

2006. The difference between the two

forecasts is 1.2 percent. In the August

1983 final rule, using the ORNL Model, it

was estimated that Level 4 standards for

refrigerator-freezers would save 1.7

Quads over the 1987-2005 time frame.

See Table 5-1 in Supplement to March

Consumer Products Efficiency

Standards Engineering Analysis and

Economic Analysis Document, DOE/

CE-0045, July 1983. The EUP Model

forecasts energy savings of 1.77 Quads

which is about a 4 percent difference.

See Technical Support Document, Table

39. Some of t he differences between the

two models occur because the EUP

Model uses a different retirement

function and a different equation for

projecting future shipments.

TABLE 3.-REFRIGERATORS AND

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS ENERGY EFFICIENCY

fFlatirwl/eycb7

Yew ORNL

Whom

EUP

model

^nt

,rice

1890 6.79 6.815 0.4

1995 7.07 7.196 1.8

2000 - 7.35 7-496 2.0

2005 7.64 7.752 1.5

-For Level 4 standards for refrigeratorfreezers, the ORNL Model predicts that

the electricity savings to the national

electricity use over the appliance

lifetime is 0.22 percent. based on the

energy savings of 1.65 Quads. For the

EUP Model, the electricity savings to the

national electricity use over the

appliance lifetime are about 0.23

percent, based on the energy savings of

1.70 Quads. Also, the savings in the year,

2006, which is the year following the

period of the average life of a

refrigerator-freezer purchased in the last

year before standards would be

imposed, is forecasted to be about 14.59

percent for the ORNL Model and about

14.64 percent for the EUP Model.

For the ORNL Model, the residential

sales for refrigerator-freezers were

forecasted to be about 6.308 million in

1990 and about 6.476 million in 2005. For

the EUP Model, residential sales for -

refrigerator-freezers were forecasted to

be about 5.685 million in 1990 (for a 9.9

difference) and about 6.994 million in

2005 (for a 0.3 percent difference).

Differences in residential sales between

the two models are due to differences-in

both the retirement function and in the

equation for projecting residential sales.

Comparisons in annual shipments were

shown only for two years, because data

for 1990 and 2005 were readily available

for refrigerator-freezers. Even though

differences in any particular year may

be large, the overall number of

refrigerator-freezers sold from 1987 to

2005 for the EUP Model is expected to

be close to the number for the ORNL

Model.

In summary, DOE believes the results

from the EUP Model were reasonably

.close to projections that could have

been expected from the ORNL Model. In .

most cases, the differences between the

two models were within 2 percent. Two

exceptions were the 4 percent difference

in total energy savings over the lifetime

of an appliance and the 9.9 percent

difference in residential sales in 1990.

C. Sensitivity Analyses. In the EUP

Model, the future trend in energy

efficiency during the market-based

scenario is represented as assigned

percentages of the particular standards

level in question. The assigned

percentages increase to 91 .2 percent of

the standards level in 2006, the last year

of the analysis. Assigned percentages

were used because the future trend in

energy efficiency for the four products is

not well known.

Accordingly, sensitivity analyses

were conducted that used different

assumptions about trends in energy

efficiency during the market-based

scenario. Four sensitivity analyses were

conducted about the Level I standards.

One sensitivity analysis was conducted

about the Level 2 standards. The five

sensitivity analyses are the constant

efficiency analysis, the conservative

-analysis, the historical-analysis (Case 1).

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

-12970 Federal Register " Vol. 50. No. 62 , Monday. April 1. 1985 r Proposed Rules 

in receiving data. comments • 

'd 't:UlIt:ll'~ concerning the' . of basing the future 

energy efficiency for the four 

products on the average of the trends 

forecasted by the ORNL Model for the 

eight products.· 

TABLE 2.-APf>lIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES IN 

2005 

Base Stand- Appliance .. cis Ratio ...... , level 

Gas Iumace. ____ 88-0 1182 0.998 

Oil furnace 93.6 93.6 1.000 

Room ail condilio"", _ 7.57 11.13 0-829 

Central air conditioner_ 7.93 10.45 0.759 

Electric'wate, heal8f. __ 118.1 82.1 0.957 

Gas wat"' heat .. _ 60.6 61.1 0.992 Retngerator-tree:zer __ 7.64 8.50 0.899 

H-eezOl 14.0 162 0.864 

""",.ge 0.912 

Source: Table 3-12. Supplf>menl To: U.fCh 1982 Ctxtsumer 

PrDt:luC/S EffICiency Sl8ndl1rrfs EngirrtJ6fir>g Ana/ysi$ .nd Economic {)(Jcumenrs. 00E/CE-0045. Juty 1983. 

The EUP Model calculates the energy' 

use in the base year (1978). The energy use in each succeeding year to the year 

2006 is calculated by a three-step 

process. First. the energy use for the . units in the base year population still in 

service is calcul~ted by assuming that 

I

se units are replaced by new units at 

Urement rate that depends on the. 

duct lifetime. Second. the energy use new units added in each year since 

1978 due to the retir.ement of base year . units and the growth in "total households 

is .calculated. Lastly. the EUP Model 

checks 10 see if any of the new units.' . 

added after 1978. are retired in order to 

calculate the energy use for new units ... 

which replaced units added after 1978. 

For example. the energy use in the year 

1988 is the su'm of the following: the .. 

energ~' use of the base year units still in . service in the year 1988; the energy use ' 

of the new units added since 1978 and 

still in service in the year 1988: and the 

energy use for new units which replaced 

those units added since 1978. See '. 

Technical Support Document. pages 9 ' .. 

through 13 and 106 and 107. 

B. Model Validation. Results from ' 

both the EUP and ORNL Models should 

be reasonably close. To demonstrate 

that results between the two models are close. the EUP Model was modified to 

forecast thQ.savings realized by 

standards ror refrigerators and ;,' 

refrigerator-freezers. The modifications 

included adding data for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers into the EUP' 

Model. The da ta included the 19'7 per nit annual energy consumption. the 

78 sales-weighted energy efficiency. e number of refrigerators per 

household. and the standards level. See 

Technical support Document. Chapter . 

VIII. The estimated savings were then 

compared to the ORNL Model savings. 

The product type. refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. was selected for 

comparison because the EUP Model 

does not i:onsider fuel switching. such as replacing an oil fuinace with a gas 

furnace. DOE is interested in 'cammen-Is 

and statements concerning whether the 

EUP Model is a valid analytical tool for 

forecasting energy savings due to 

standards for the four products. 

Results from the refrigerator-freezer v~rsion of the EUP Model were . compared to the ORNL Model results. 

The difference in energy efficiency 

between the two models is within 2 

percent. See Table 3. For the ORNL . Model. refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are forecasted 10 use about 1.19 

Quads in 1990 and about 1.07 Quads in 

2000. For the EUP Model. refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers are forecasted 

to use about 1.17 Quads in 1990 (for a 1.9 

percent difference) and about 1.07 

Quads in 2000 (no difference). For 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

the ORNL Model estimated that they 

will use about 21.20 Quads from 196710 

2005 while the EUP Model forecasted use of about 20.95 Quads from 1988 to 

2006. The difference between the two 

forecasts is 1.2 percent. In the August . 1983 final rule. using the ORNL Model. it was estimated that Level 4 standards for 

refrigerator-freezers would save 1.7 

Quads over the 1987-2005 time frame. . S.ee Table 5-1 in Supplement to March 

Consumer Products Efficiency 

Standards Engineering Analysis and 

. Economic Analysis Document. DOE! 

CE-0045. July 1983. The EUP Model' 

forecasts energy savings of 1.77 Quads 

which is about a 4 percent difference. . See Technical Support Document, Table 

39. Some of the differences between the 

two models occur because the EUP '. 

Model uses a different retirement 

function and a different equation for 

projecting future shipments. . 

TABLE 3.-REFRIGERATORS AND' 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS ENERGY EFFICIENCY , . 

ORNL EUP Percent 

Y- model model dilfGf· .. ence 

1990 &.79 6.815 0 .• 

1895 7.07 7.186 1.8 2000_ 7.35 7.496 2.0 '2\lOS 7.64 7.752 1.5 

·For Level 4 standards for refrigeratorfreezers. the ORNL Model predicts that ' 

the electricity savings to the national 

electricity use over the appliance 

li.fetime is 0.22 percent. based on the • energy savings of 1.65 Quads. For the 

EUP Model. the electricity savings to the 

national.electricity use over the 

appliance lifetime are about 0.28" 

percent. based on the energy savings of 

1.70 Quads. Also. the savings in the year' 

2006. which is the year following the . 

period of the average life of a 

refrigerator-freezer purchased in the last 

year before standards would be 

imposed, is forecasted to be about 14.59 

'percent for the ORNL Model and about 

14.64 percent for the EUP Model. 

For the ORNL Model. the residential 

sales for refrigerator-freezers were 

forecasted to be about 6.308 million in 

1990 and about 6.476 million in 2005. For 

the EUP Model. residential sales for . refrigerator-freezers were forecasted to 

be about 5.685 million in 1990 (for a 9.9 

difference) and about 6,494 million in 

2005 (for a 0.3 percent difference). 

Differences in residential sales between 

the two models are due to differences· in 

both the retirement function and in the 

equation for projecting residential sales. 

Comparisons in annual shipments were 

shown only for two years. because data 

for 1990 and 2005 were readily available 

(or refrigerator-freezers. Evein though 

differences in any particular year may 

be large. the overall number of 

refrigerator-freezers sold from 1987 to 

2005 for the EUP Model is expected to 

be close to the number for the ORNL 

Model. . . 

In summary, DOE believes the results . . from the EUP Model were reasonably . .close to projections that could have . 

been expected from the ORNL Model. In 

most cases. the differences between the 

two models were wi~in 2 percent. Two '. 

exceptions were 'the 4 percent difference 

in total energy sa\iJlgs over the lifetime 

of an appliance and the 9.9 percent 

difference in residential salea in 1990. 

C. Sensitivity Analyses. In the EUP 

Model. the future trend in energy 

efficiency during the market-based 

scenario is represented as assigned 

percentages of the particular standards 

level in question. The assigned 

percentages increase to 91.2 percent of 

the standards level in 2006, the last year 

of the analysis. Assigned percentages 

were used because the future trend in 

energy efficiency for the four products is 

not well known. " . 

Acc~rdingly. sensiti~ty analyses were conducted that used different 

assumptions ,about trends In energy 

efficiency during the market-based 

scenario. Four sensitivity analyses were conducted about the Levell standards. 

One sensitivity analysis was conducted 

about the Level 2 standards. The five 

sensitivity analyses are the constant 

efficiency analysis. the conservative 

.analysis. the historical.?nalysis (Case 1) •. 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday. April 1, 19835 / Proposed Rules . . 12971

the historical analysis (Case 2), and the have due to a more pessimistic trend in

Level Z sensitivity analysis. - energy efficiency during the marketFor the constant efficiency analysis, based scenario than was used in the

the future trend in energy efficiency Level 2 standards analysis. DOE is

during the market-based scenario - interested in receiving comments aitd

remains constant at the 1978 SWEF.. statements concerning the sensitivity

There is no improvement in energy analyses conducted for the four

efficiency over the 1978-2006 period. products.

The standards scenario is based on the d Economic justif^catioa Level 1 standards. This scenario was

selected to show the maximum effect Section 325(b) prohibits an appliance

that Level 1 standards could have in efficiency standard for a product if that

saving energy. - standard is not economically justified.

For the conservative improvement in Section 325(d ) states that a standard can

efficiency analysis, the future trendin be economically justified only if DOE

energy efficiency is taken to be the determines that the benefits of the

lowest trend in energy efficiency standard exceed its burdens. In other

forecasted by the ORNL Model for the words, even if a standard saved

eight products. This was for central air "significant" amounts of energy, if the

conditioners for which the energy benefits of that standard did not

efficiency in 2005 was projected to be outweigh, its burdens, the standard

75.9 percent of the standards level. The would not be economically justified. In

standards scenario is based on Level 1 determining whether a particular

standards. This sensitivity analysis was standard's benefits exceed the burdens,

undertaken to show the effect that Level to the greatest extent practicable, DOE

I standards would have were there to be is to weigh six specific factors as well as

a less optimistic trend in increased any other factors DOE deems

energy efficiency (a trend culminating in appropriate. See section 325(d) (1) -(7)..

75.9 percent of the standards level) than These factors are separately addressed

used during the standards analysis, below.

where the SWEF for the year 2006 Certain of these factors can be

reached 91.2 percent of the standard quantified, albeit through projections

level. and computer models; others are not

Two historical analyses were quantifiable. Congress recognized this

conducted which provided estimates of and indicated that greater weight should

the upper and lower limits of energy not be given to a factor merely because

savings assuming that improvements in it was quantifiable. See H.A. Rep. No.

energy efficiency are expected to 95-1751, 95th Cong., 2d Sess.118 (1978).

continue. For each the future trend in 1. Economic Impact on manufacturers

energy efficiency without standards is and Consumers (Sec. 325(d)(1). For

expected to increase, initially, at the consumers, one measure of economic

historical rate. The historical rate was impact is the first cost of theproduct.

based on the improvement in energy Increased first costs to consumers

efficiency from 1972 to 1978. The rate is resulting from standards can affect

then assumed to decrease over time and different consumers in different ways.

approach an efficiency limit, which for For lower income consumers, increases

Case I is the Level I standards and for in first costs for a particular product can

Case 2 is the Level 2 standards. The have the effect of precluding the

standards scenario in each case is based purchase of a new model of that

on the Level 1 standards. A straight line product. As a result, some consumers

rate was not considered to be may retain products past their useful life

reasonable for the historical analyses or purchase older used appliances.

because improvements in energy These older products are generally less

efficiency tend to decrease over time as efficient than newer models to begin

was projected by the ORNL Model for with, and DOE believes that for some

the eight products. Therefore, the appliances initial efficiencies may .

historical analyses were based on the deteriorate if they are retained beyond

premises that the rate of energy their useful life. Thus, these consumers

efficiency improvements would - might, because of standards, be forced

decrease over time and that the energy to live with less efficient products and,

efficiency would reach an upper limit. : in turn, use more energy. However, if no

For the Level 2 sensitivity analysis, standards were adopted, consumers of

the future trend in energy efficiency . all income levels wquld be able to

during the market-based scenario is choose from a range of products with

identical to the market-based scenario varying energy efficiencies and prices. It

in the Level I standards analysis. The would then be possible for a lower

standards scenario is based on Level 2 income person to purchase a new.

standards. This scenario was selected to product with a higher efficiency than the

show the effect that standards would model it was replacing , albeit at an

efficiency less than would be required

under standards, but also at a purchase

price less than would be available under

standards. DOE believes that this

impact of standards on lower income

persons is important even if the number

of such persons disadvantaged is

relatively small compared to the total

number of persons affected by

standards. This is so because lower

income persons are the least able to

endure economic disadvantage resulting

from governmental regulatory action.

The development of first cost

relationships to efficiency for the four

products was patterned after•the method

,used for the eight products. When

possible, exponential cost curves were

developed based on retail price and

energy efficiency data. Otherwise, cost

curves were developed by use of

regression analyses. See Technical

Support Document, pages 81 thru 88.

Market survey data were used for the

four products because, unlike in the

eight products rulemaking, detailed

engineering cost data were not

available. -

The market survey data provided

information by model on price and

energy efficiency. However, the market

survey data provided no information of

this nature as to individual utility or

performance related features or

individual design options associated

with improvements in energy

effiiciency.'a

In the case of dishwashers, clothes

washers, and humidifiers, the market

survey data points correlated well with

a simplified form of the curves used for

the eight products. Accordingly.

simplified exponential costs curves were .

developed and used for dishwashers,

clothes washers, and humidifiers. The

exponential cost curves initially

developed for both television sets and

dehumidifiers, however, significantly

overestimated the costs of very efficient

products and did not rationalize well the

frequent occurrences of more efficient

products at lower prices. For these two

products, analytical regression curve

techniques were used to derive a

relationship between cost and

efficiency. .

DOE is interested in receiving further

cost and energy efficiency data specific

to particular design options. DOE is also

interested in receiving comments

OFor example, the market survey data for

television sets listed products at the same energy

efficiency, but with a wide variation in price. The

variation in price was. in part. due to utility

features, such as remote control and cable ready,

that were included in the higher price models. These

kinds of features had little effect on energy

efficiency. -

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday. April 1. 19M I Proposed Rules 12971 

the historical analysis (Case 2). and the 

Level Z sensitivity analysis. .. . : 

For the constant efficiency analysis. 

the future trend in energy efficiency . 

during the market-based scenario 

remains constant at the 1978 SWEF. 

There is no improvement in energy . 

efficiency over the 1978-2006 period. .' 

The standards scenario is based on the - Levell standards. This scenario wa:s 

selected to snow the maximum effect 

that Level 1 standa,rds could have in ' 

saving energy. 

For the conservative improvement in 

efficiency analysis. the future trendin 

energy efficiency is taken to be the' ' 

lowest trend in energy efficiency , forecasted by the ORNL Model for the 

eight products. This was for central ,air 

conditioners for which the energy , 

efficiency in 2005 was prpjected to be 

75.9 percent of the standards level. The 

standards scenario is based on Levell 

standards. This sensitivity analysis was 

undertaken to show the effect that Level 

1 standards would have were there to be 

a less optimistic trend in increased 

energy efficiency {a trend culminating in 

75.9 percent of the standards level} than 

used during the standards analysis. 

where the SWEF for the year 2006 

reached 91.2 percent of the standard 

level. , Two historical analyses were 

conducted which provided estimates of 

the Ilpper and lower limits of energy 

savings assuming that improvementa ill 

energy efftciency are expected to ' 

continue. For each. the future trend in 

ene.rgy efficiency without standards is ' 

expected to increase. initially. at the 

historical rate. The historical rate was 

based on the improvement in energy 

efficiency from 1972 to 1978. The rate is 

then assumed to decrease over time and 

approach an efficiency limit. which for 

Case 1 is the Levell standards and for 

Case 2 is the Level Z standards. The 

standards scenario in each case is based 

on the Levell standards. A straight line 

rate was not considered to be 

reasonable for the historical analyses 

because improvements in energy 

efficiency tend to decrease over time as 

was projected by the ORNL Model far ' 

the eight products. Therefore. the 

historical analyses were based on the 

premises thi'll the rate of energy , efficiency improvements would ' 

de1;rease over time and that the energy 

efficiency would reach an npper limit. 

For the Level 2 sensitivity analysis. 

the future trend in energy efficiency , 

during the market-based scenario ilS 

identical to the market-based scenario 

in the Levell standards analysis. The 

standards KeDario ~ based on Level 2 

standards. This scenario was selected to 

show the effect that sfandards would .. , . 

~ ... =-=.......,. c7TS 

have due to a more pessimistic trend in 

energy efficiency during the marketbased scenario than was used in the ' 

Level 2 standards analysis. DOE is ' 

interested in receiving comments and 

statements concerning the sensitivity 

analyses conducted for the fOtzr ' prod.u~. , "; . , ' : 

d. Economic Jusii/k:at4ni 

Section 3Z5[bJ prohibits an appliance 

efficiency standard for a product if that 

standard is not eronomically justified. 

Section 3Z5(d} states that a standard can 

be economically justified only if DOE 

determines that the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. In other 

words. even if a standard saved 

"significant" 'amounts of energy, if the 

benefits of that standard did not 

outweigh. its burdens. the standard 

would not be economically justified. In 

determining whether a particular 

standard'a,benefits exceed the burdens. 

to the greatest extent practicable. DOE 

is to weigh six specific racton as well as 

any other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. See section 325{d) {lH7}. 

These factors are separately addressed 

below. , 

Certain of these factors can be 

quanlified. albeit L'lrough projections 

and computer models: other. are Dot 

quantifiable. Congress recognized thia 

and indicated thaI greater weight should 

not be given to a factor merely because 

it was quantifiable. See H.R. Rep. No. 

95-1751. 95th Cong .• 2d Sess. 116 (1978). 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers (Sec. 325(d)(l)). For 

consumers, one measure of economic 

impact is the first cost of the ,product. 

Increased first costs to consumera 

resulting from standards can affect 

different consumers in different ways. 

For lower income consumers. increases 

in first costs for a particular product c'an 

have the effect of precluding the , purchase of a !lew model of that 

product. As a result, some COllSumcrs 

may retain products past their usefulliIe 

or purchase older used appliances. 

These older pr·oducts are generally less 

efficient than newer models to begin 

with. and DOE believes that far some 

appliances initial efficiencies may 

deteriorate if they are retained beyond 

their useful life. Thus. these consumers 

might. because of standards. be forced 

to live with less efficient products and. 

in tum. use more energy_ However. if no 

standards were adopted. consumers of 

all income levels wQuld be able to 

choose from a range of products with 

varying energy efficiencies and price~. It 

would tben be possible for a lower 

income person to purchase a new, , 

product with a higher efficiency than the 

model it was replacing, albeit at an ,,' . . . . ",: 

efficiency less than would be required 

under standards. but also at a purchase 

price less than would be available under 

standards. DOE believes that this 

impact of standards On lower income 

persons is important even if the number 

of such persons disadvantaged is 

rela tively small compared to the total 

number of persons affected by 

standards. This is so because lower 

incoIJ;le persons are the least able to 

endure economic disadvantage resu1til18 

from govern~ental regulatory action. 

The development of first cost 

relationships to efficiency for the four 

products was patterned after 'the method 

,used for the eight products. When 

possible, exponential cost curves were 

developed based on retail price' and 

energy efficiency data. Otherwise. cost 

curves were developed by use of 

regression analyses. See Technical 

Support Document. pages 81 thm 88.. 

Market survey data were used for the 

four products because. unlike in the 

eight products rulemaking. detailed 

engineering cost data were not 

available. 

The market survey data provided 

information by model on price and 

energy efficiency. However. the market 

survey data provided no information of 

this nalure as to individual utility or 

performance related features or 

individual design options associated 

with improvements in energy 

effliciency.'o 

In the case of dishwashers. clothes 

washers, and humidifiers. the market 

survey data points correlated well with 

a simplified form of the curves used for 

the eight products. Accordingly. 

simplified exponential costs curves 'werE, 

developed and used for dishwashers. 

clothes washers. and humidifiers. The 

exponential cost curves initially 

developed for both television sets and 

dehumidifiers. however. significantly 

overestimated the costs of very efficient 

products and did not rationalize weTI the 

frequent occurrences of more efficient 

products at lower prices. For these two 

products. analytical regression curve 

techniques were Used to derive a 

relationship between cast and emcien~. 

DOE is interested in receiving further 

cost and energy efficiency data specific. 

to particular design options. DOE is also 

interested in receiving comments 

"For example. the market survey data for 

television sets listed products at the s;ame energy 

effICiency, but with a wide variation in price, The 

varfation in price was. in part. due 10 utility 

features. .och as remote conn-ol ..... d cable ready. 

thaI -= ilIcl,,~d ill the higher pric£ model.. These 

kinds of features had liule efIcc1 on energy efficiency, ' , 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 1 Proposed Rules

cerning whether first cost curves can offset by fuel savings over the life of the

be developed for the four products by product. -

using market survey data in lieu of The life cycle cost analysis was used

detailed engineering costs and whether to determine the life cycle cost .

the first cost curves for television sets minimum, which for the "average"

and dehumidifiers, which use analytical consumer'should beat the optimal

regression curve techniques in lieu of an efficiency level. Where a consumer is

exponential cost curve , are reasonable. not average, however, that level is not

For consumers, another measure of necessarily optimal. If the consumer has

economic impact is the life cycle cost of higher than average fuel prices or higher '

a product, becase it takes account of the than average usage rates, there may be

increased first cost, any increased a more optimal efficiency level for that

maintenance costs, and the reduced fuel consumer, but the consumer is not

costs over the product's service life penalized because the market is able to

resulting from the product's greater provide such a model:If, however, the

efficiency. The life cycle cost analyses consumer has lower than average fuel

are discussed under a separate heading • prices or lower than average usage

below. rates, the consumer may be penalized

For manufacturers, no measure of by having to purchase a product whose

economic impact was made . Results efficiency level was required by a

from the EUP Model projected that Federal standard that assumed higher

standards would probably not result in fuel prices or higher usage than is true

significant conservation of energy for for that consumer

any of the four products. Moreover, the For the eight products, DOE

economic impact on consumers . conducted a net present value (NPV)

predicted that standards would likely analysis to show the total differential

increase both the first costs and the life economic impacts on consumers that

cycle costs for all four products . DOE would occur generally from the adoption

considers the failure of a standard to of standards, compared to a base case

achieve significant conservation of with no standards but with marketnergy and the associated increases in induced efficiency improvements. The

th first and life cycle costs to be NPV analysis is similar to the LCC

ubstantial impediments towards analysis, and the greatest NPV generally

standards. Consequently, DOE did not should occur at the standard level set at

determine the economic impact on the LCC minimum for the product. The

manufacturers. ORNL Model calculated the total cost

2. Life Cycle Cost (Sec. 325(d)(2)). The for each product (discounted total value

life cycle cost (LCC) analysis calculates of energy consumption from 1987

the total cost of ownership for through the last year of use for those

consumers for each class of product. products purchased through the year

The lifetime operating costs for each of . 2005 , plus the total discounted

the four products accounted for the equipment costs for equipment

future escalation in energy prices and purchased from 1987 through 2005) with

were discounted to the present. The and without standards. The difference

discount rate of 10 percent , which was between these two is the NPV

used for the eight products, was used. attributable to standards. A positive

The forecasts for energy prices were NPV for a product at a given standard

from NEPP IV. The amount of energy level indicates that, if that standard

used annually'by a typical consumer were adopted , consumers of that

product was based on the DOE test' product as a whole would save that

procedures. See Technical Support much more money in fuel costs,

Document,-Chapter IX. Comparison of discounted to the present, than they

the life-cycle cost of the-projected 1988 would pay in increased first cost for

sales weighted energy efficiency models more efficient products, discounted to

with models at the standard level allows the present , compared to the situation

DOE to determine the changes in total where no standard is adopted. DOE

cost of ownership. considers the failure of a standard to

If the life cycle at a particular achieve a positive NPV to result'in a

standard level is greater than the life substantial burden.

cycle cost of the projected 1988 sales It is anticipated that, if a NPV

weighted energy efficiency model , this analysis were to be conducted for the

demonstrates that it is not economically four products, it would result in a

beneficial for the average consumer to negative NPV. The primary reason for

purchase a product built to the standard the negative NPV is that the standards

level compared to the projected 1988 level identified for analysis in each

sales weighted energy efficiency model . instance deviated from the minimum

That is, the increased first costs of .' . LCC point . This results in a substantial

obtaining a particular efficiency are not burden for consumers and fails the test

of positive savings. Consequently, DOE

concluded that a NPV analysis for the

four products is not required.

3. Energy Savings (Sec. 325(d)(3)).

While the significant conservation of

energy is a separate statutory

requirement for imposing an energy

efficiency standard, the total projected

savings directly resulting from

standards is also one factor to be

considered in weighing the burdens and

benefits under section 325(d). The EUP

Model results were utilized for this

factor. In each product-specific analysis,

the savings are specified..

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance

of Products (Sec. 325(d)(4)). This factor

cannot be quantified. In the eight

product rulemaking by establishing

classes of products, DOE attempted to

eliminate any degradation of utility or

performance in existing covered

products. That is, to the extent that

comments or our own research indicated

that a product included a utility or

performance related feature that

affected energy efficiency, a class was

created for the product with a lower

standard. In this way. DOE attempted to

minimize the impact of this factor as a

result of the standards analyzed.

Product classes are also reflected in

today's rulemaking.i 3 The existence of

classes, however, does not affect the

product analyses, except for a portion of

the analysis of television sets. See infra.

This is so because the analyses

generally assume the most prevalent

class to be the only class.

However, even were DOE able to

eliminate any lessening of utility or

performance in existing products as a

result of standards, DOE believes it is

not possible to eliminate all impacts of

standards that might lessen the utility or

performance of future products. This is

true for two reasons. First. DOE believes

that the effect of requiring investments

on the basis of regulations rather than

fundamental business considerations

may' result in manufacturers foregoing

some investments that would have been

made in the absence of the regulatory

requirements. These investments might

be in improvements in utility or

performance of a product. ' -

Second, while separate classes of

products in light of their different

performance features can aid in

" For example, there are separate product

classes for front loading clothes washers and top

loading clothes washers. Top loading clothes

washers. which generally are less efficient than

other kinds of clothes we shera. provide added

utility for consumers by being able to spin clothes

dryer: Consequently, the Level i standard selected

for top loading clothes washers was lower than the

level selected for front loading clothes washers.

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday, April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

~I[)ct:mlllg whether first cost curves can be developed for the four products by 

using market survey data in lieu of 

detailed engineering costs and whether 

the first cost curves for television sets 

and dehumidifiers. which use analytical 

regression curVe techniques in lieu of an exponential cost curve. are reasonable. 

For consumers. another measure of 

economic impact is the life cycle cost of a product. becase it takes account of the 

increased first cost, any increased . maintenance costs. and the reduced fuel 

costs over the product's service life 

resulting from the product's greater 

efficiency. The life cycle cost analyses are discussed under a separate heading 

below. 

For manufacturers. no measure of 

economic impact was made. Results 

from the EUP Model projected that 

standards would probably not result in 

significant conservation of energy for 

any of the foul' products. Moreover. the 

economic impact on consumers , predicted that standards would likely 

increase both the first costs and the life 

cycle costs for all four products. DOE 

considers the failure of a standard to 

achieve significant conservation of 

E

ersy and the associatea increases in 

th first and life cy~ costs to be 

ubstantial impediments towards . 

standards. Consequently. DOE did not 

determine the economic impact on manufacturers. . . 

2. Life Cycle Cost (Sec. 325{dJ(2J). The 

life cycle cost (LCC) analysis calculates 

the total cost of ownership for consumers for each class of product. 

The lifetime operating costs for each of 

the four products accounted for the 

future escalation in energy prices and were discounted to the present, The 

discount rate of 10 percent, which was used for the eight products. was used. . The forecasts for energy prices were from NEPP IV. The amount of energy 

used annuallY'by a typical consumer product was based on the DOE test" 

procedures. See Technical Support . 

Document. ·Chapter IX. Comparison of 

the life-cycle cost of thct--projected 1988 

sales weighted energy efficiency models 

with models at the standard level allows 

DOE to determine the changes in total 

cost of o~rship. . 

If the life cycle at a particular ' . 

standard level is greater tltan'the life 

cycle cost of the projected 1988 sales 

weighted energy efficiency model. this 

demonstrates that it is not economically 

beneficial for the average consumer to I purchase a product buill to the standard 

le\'el compared 10 the projected 1988 

sales weighted energy efficiency model. 

That is. the increased first costs of .. 

obtaining a particular efficiency are not 

offset by fuel savings over the life of the 

product. 

The life cycle cost analysis was used 

to determine the life cYcle cost , . minimum. which for the "average" ... consumer·should be at the optimal 

efficiency level. Where a consumer is 

not average, however, that level is not 

necessarily optimal. If the consumer has 

higher than average fuel prices or higher' 

than average usage rates, there may be a more optimal efficiency level for that consumer. but the consumer is not 

penalized because the market is able to 

provide such a model:If, however, the 

consiuner has lower than average fuel 

prices or lower than average usage 

rates, the consumer may be penalized 

by having to purchase a product whose 

efficiency level was required by a Federal standard that assumed higher 

fuel prices or higher usage than is true 

for that consumer. 

For the eight products. DOE 

conducted a nel present value (NPV) 

analysis to show the total differential 

economic impacts on consumers that 

would occur generally from the adoption 

ofstandards. compared to a base case with no standards but with marketinduced efficiency improvements. The 

NPV analysis is similar to the LCC 

analysis, and the greatest NPV generally 

should occur at the standard level set at 

the LCC minimum for the product. The 

ORNL Model calculated the'total cost 

for each product (discounted total value 

of energy consumption from 1987 

through the last year of use for those 

products purchased through the year . 2005, plus the total discounted . equipment costs for equipment . 

purchased from 1987 through 2005) with 

and without standards. The difference 

between these two is the NPV 

attributable to standards. A positive 

NPV for a product at a given standard 

level indicates that, if thai standard were adopted, consumers of that 

product as a whole would save that 

much more money in fuel costs. 

discounted to the present. than they 

would pay in increased first cost for 

more efficient products. discounted to 

the present. compared to the situation 

where no standard is adopted. DOE 

considers the failure of a standard to . achieve a positive NPV to result 'in a 

substantial burden. . 

It is anticipated that. if a NPV . analysis were to be conducted for the 

four products. it would result in a negative NPV. The primary reason for 

the negative NPV is that the standards 

level identifi.ed for analysis in each 

instance de\'iated from the minimum 

LCC point. This results in a substantial 

burden for consumers and fails the test 

of positive savings. Consequently, DOE 

concluded thaI 8 NPV analysis for the 

four products is not required. 

3. Energy Savings (Sec. 325[d}(3)}. 

While the significant conservatiQn of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

efficiency standa!'d, the total projected 

savings directly resulting from 

standards is also one factor to be 

considered in weighing the burdens and 

benefits under section 325(d). The EUP 

Model results were utilized for this 

factor. In each product-specific analysis. 

the savings are specified.· 

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance 

of Products [Sec. 32S(d)[4)). This factor 

cannot be quantified. In the eight 

product rulemaking by establishing 

classes of products, DOE attempted to 

eliminate any degradation of utility or performance in existing covered 

products. That is. to the extent that 

comments or our own research indicated 

that a product included a utility or performance related feature that 

affected energy efficiency. a class was created for the product with a lower 

standard. In this way. DOE attempted to 

minimize the impact of this factor 8S a result of the standards analyzed. 

Product classes are also reflected in 

loday's rulemaking.11 The existence of 

classes. however. does not affect the 

product analyses, except for a portion of 

the analysis of television sets. See infra. 

This is so becBuse the analyses 

generally assume the most prevalimt 

class to be the only class. 

However. even were DOE able to 

eliminate any lessening of utility or perfonnance in existing products as a result of standards. DOE believes it is 

not possible to eliminate all impacts of 

standards iliat might lessen the utility or performance of future products. This is 

true for two reasons. First, DOE believes . that the effect of requiring investments 

on the basis of regulations rather than 

fundamental busines8 considerations 

may ·result in manufacturers foregoing 

some investments that would have been 

made in the absence of the regulatory 

requirements. These investments might 

be in improvements in utility or ~rformance of a product.· -

Second, while separate classes of 

products in light of their different 

performance features can aid in 

II For example, there are eeparate product 

classes (or front loading clothe, washer. and top 

loadi"8 clothe! walhel'S. Top loading clothes 

washers. which generally are Ie .. efficient than 

other kind. of clothes we ahera. provide add~d 

utility for consumers by being able to apin clothes 

dryer: Consequently. the Levell standard selected 

for lop loading clothes walhen wal lower than the 

level Delected for front loading clothe. w8lbera. 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 1 Monday, April 1, 1985 1 Proposed Rules

minimizing degradation of utility or

performance, there is not a specific.

mechanism in the statute for recognizing

new performance features after a final

rule is adopted. That is, were a final rule

adopted with specific standards for

different classes of products, it would

have the effect of freezing those classes

in the regulation. A manufacturer would

be prohibited from distributing in

commerce any covered product with

new performance-feature, if that feature

would have the effect of reducing the

products' energy efficiency below the .

standard level as measured by an ..

applicable DOE test procedure, unless

and until the rule were amended to

create a new class or a new standard in

light of such a new performance feature.

The delay and uncertainty associated

with this process would create a

disincentive for manufacturers to

develop the feature in the first instance.

While this possible disincentive to the

development of more energy intensive

performance features cannot be

quantified, it could create a risk that

some performance features that '

otherwise might be developed would not

be. Given the importance of many past

performance features that reduce the

energy efficiency of a product, such as

remote control television sets, which, if

standards had been imposed before

their development, might result in the

new product failing the standard, DOE

believes that any risk created by such a

disincentive constitutes a burden to be

considered in weighing the burdens of

and benefits of possible standards. DOE

requests comments on this issue.

5. Impact of Lessening Competition

(Sec. 325(d)(5)). The determination of

this factor must be made by the

Attorney General. -

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve

Energy (Sec. 725(d)(6)). Although the

Nation's need to conserve energy must

be balanced against other factors to

determine the net burdens or benefits of

an efficiency standard, Congress did not

define what the Nation's need to

conserve energy was.

The statute itself, however, provides

clear evidence that Congress did not

consider the need to save energy to be

absolute. First, section 325(f) authorizes

DOE to establish higher or lower

standards for classes of product in the

same product type that use different

sources of energy. Thus, for example,

DOE could set a lower standard for oil

furnaces than electric furnaces,

effectively limiting possible energy

savings. Second, section 325(f) also.

authorizes DOE to establish higher or

lower standards for different classes of

products in the same product type if

they have different utility or.

performance-related features. Thus, a

color television set, which inherently

uses more energy than a monochrome

television set, can have a less stringent

standard. Because these effects of the

law reduce the potential savings that

could be obtained from standards,

saving energy must be balanced with

other considerations. By including these

provisions. Congress recognized that a

standard which might save the greatest'

amount of energy, could effectively ban

appliances using certain types of fuel

.(because of their relative inefficiencies

compared to the same product using a

different source of energy) or having

useful performance features. The statute

is clear, DOE believes, in providing that

such a result should not be the

consequence of standards. These

provisions indicate that the statute itself

recognizes that the importance of saving

energy is relative, not absolute.

NECPA's findings and purposes

singled out oil and gas as the two energy

sources of particular concern. Yet since

the passage of NECPA, this Nation's

total imports of oil have declined about

43 percent.12 To the extent that a source

of energy other than oil and gas is

involved. DOE believes the relative

need to conserve energy is less. -

Electrical generation capacity is

.generally adequate. After a number of

years of large growth in demand, the

industry is now seeing a demand

Increase at an annual rate of 32

percent." Problems with the supply of

electricity at the present time and for the

foreseeable future are localized in

nature, depending on specific

circumstances. Such problems are

generally better dealt with in light of the

specific circumstances, not by means of

a Federal nationwide solution.

The above discussion is not intended

to indicate that DOE does not value

highly the benefits of conservation in the

use of all energy. Rather, it is intended

merely to recognize that the degree of

the Nation's need to save energy

depends on the fuel involved and can

change over time. To the extent that the

market and government initiatives to

32 According to the 1983 Annual Energy Review,

DOEJF1A-03&4183). Table 35, total imports of oil

peaked in 1977 and averaged 8.81 million barrels per

day. During 1983, total imports of oil averaged 4.99

million barrels per day, the lowest level since 19772

13 Total electricity sales are projected to rise at

an average annual rate of 3.9 percent with the

continuation of the economic recovery from 1983 to

1985. From 1985 to 1990. electricity sales are

expected to grow at an average rate of 3.4 percent

per year. slightly more rapidly than the real GNP.

From 1990 to 1995, electricity sales are expected to

increase at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent, so

that. over the entire 1983 to 1995 period, electricity

sales are expected to grow at an annual rate of 32

percent. See Annual Energy Outlook 1983 with -

projections to 1995. DOEJEIA-0383(83), page is

12973

remove regulatory disincentives to

conservation and energy production

result in a healthier national energy

situation, the need for additional,

Federally mandated conservation of

energy is decreased. Because of theacross-the-board improvements in the

national energy picture of the past few

years and its projected continuation into

the future 14-Without regard to -

appliance program-the need of the

Nation to conserve marginal increased

amounts of energy through a particular

appliance efficiency standard is

diminished;

7. Other Factors. Section 325(d)(7)

requires DOE to include in the process

of weighing the burdens and benefits of

a standard, and other factors the -

Secretary considers relevant. The

Department requests comments from

interested persons as to what other -

factors, not hitherto considered, should

be considered relevant in weighing the

burdens and benefits of standards.

8. Weighing of Factors. The above

discussion of the factors to be weighed

in determining the burdens and benefits

of possible standards is intended to

identify the factors and explain their

bases. Some of the burdens discussed

above are not dependent on a particular

product-specific standard, but on the

existence of any standard at all. The

existence of. these generic burdens does

not, in itself, disqualify a particular

standard or standards. Standards for

each product must be judged on their

own merits, weighing the burdens and

benefits arising from them.

Ill. Product-Specific Discussion

This section presents separate

discussions for each of the four

products. Each product-specific

discussion is divided into the following

five subjects: product classes, design

options, standard levels, energy savings

and economic justification. The

discussion on energy savings addresses

each of the three tests of significant

energy savings (oil and gas savings,

electricity savings and percent savings).

The discussion on economic justification

addresses the six economic factors cited

in section 325(d) of the Act

a. Dishwashers

A "dishwasher" means a cabinet-like

appliance which with the aid of water

and detergent, washes, rinses, and dries

(when a drying process is included)

dishware, glassware, eating utensils,

and most cooking utensils by chemical,

10 See generally the National Energy Policy Plan.

DOE/S-0014(1. October 1983. (hereafter referred to

as"NEPPIV").'

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 62 I Monday, April 1, 1985 I Proposed Rules 12973 

minimizing degradation of utility or .. :. performance, there is not a specific .. mechanism in the statute for recognizing new performance features after a final 

rule is adopted. That is. were a final rule 

adopted with specific standards for 

different classes of products. it would 

have the effect of freezing those classes 

in.1he regulation. A manufacturer would' 

be prohibited from distributing in ' 

commerce any covered product with ' new performance· feature. if that feature 

would have the effect of reduCing the 

products' energy efficiency below tPe 

standard level as measured by an . applicable DOE test procedure. unless 

and until the rule were amended to 

create a new class or a new standard in 

light of such a new performance feature. 

The delay and uncertainty associated . with this process would create a disincentive for manufacturers to 

develop the feature in the first instance. 

While this possible disincentive to the 

development of more energy intensive 

performance features cannot be 

quantified. it could create a risk that some performance features that . otherwise might be developed would not 

be. Given the importance of many past 

performance features that reduce the 

energy efficiency of a product. such as remote control television sets. which. if 

standards had been imposed before 

their development, might result in the new product failing the standard, DOE 

believes that any risk created by such a disincentive constitutes a burden to be 

considered in weighing the burdens of 

and benefits of possible standards. DOE 

requests comments on this issue. 

5. impact of Lessening Competition 

{Sec. 325{d)(5J). The determination of 

this factor must be made by the . Attorney General. . 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve 

Energy (Sec. 325(d)(6)). Although the 

Nation's need to conserve energy must 

be balanced against other factors to . determine the net burdens or benefits of an efficiency standard. Congress did not 

define what the Nation's need to conserve energy was. The statute itself. however, provides 

clear evidence that Congress did not 

consider the need to save energy to be ' 

absolute. First, section 325(f) authorizes 

DOE to establish higher or lower .. standards for classes of product in the 

slHlle product type that use different , 

sources of energy. Thus. for example. 

DOE could set a lower standard for oil . 

furnaces than electric furnaces, 

effectively limiting possible energy 

savings. Second. section 325(f) also. 

authorizes DOE to establish bigher or . lower standards for different classes pf 

products in the same product type if 

they have different utility m:; '.' r . , 

performance-related features. Thus. a color television set. which inherently uses more energy than a monochrome 

television set. can have a less stringent 

standard. Because these effects of the 

law reduce the potential savings that . could be obtained from standards. 

saving energy must be balanced wi'th 

other considerations. By including these 

provisions. Congress recognized thai a standard which might save the greatest' 

amount of energy. could effectively ban 

appliances using certain tl-'Pes of fuel 

"because of their relative inefficiencies 

-compared ~o the same product using a different source of energy) or having 

useful performance features. The statute 

is clear, DOE believes. in providing that 

such a result should not be the 

consequence of standards. These 

provisions indicate that the statute itself 

recognizes that the importance of saving 

energy is relative. not absolute. 

NECPA's findings and purposes 

singled out oil and gas as the two energy sources of particular concern. Yet since 

the passage of NECPA. this Nation's 

total imports of oil have declined about 

43 percent.12 To the extent that a source of energy other than oil and gas is 

involved. DOE believes the relative 

need to conserve energy is less. ' 

Electrical genera lion capacity is 

,generally adequate. After a number of 

years of large growth in demand. the 

industry is now seeing a demand 

increase at an annual rate of 3.2 , percent.J:I Problpms with the supply of 

electricity at the present time and for the 

foreseeable future are localized in 

nature. depending on specific 

circumstances. Such problems are generally better dealt with in light of the 

specific circumstances. not by means of a Federal nationwide solution. 

The above discussion is not intended 

to indicate that DOE does not value 

highly the benefits of conservation in the use of an energy. Ra ther, it is intended 

merely to recognize thai the degree of 

the Nation's need to save energy 

depends on the fuel involved and can change over time. To the extent that the 

market and government initiatives to 

II According to the 1983 Annual Energy Review. 

DOE/EIA-mIl4I!l3I. Table 35. lolal impoN of oil _ peaked in 1917 and averased 8.81 million burrell per 

day. During 1983. tolal imports of oil averaged 4,l1li 

million barrels per day, the lowesllevel since 1912. 

•• Total electricity sales are projected to rise at 

an average BMual rale of 3.9 percent with the 

continuation of the economic recovery from 1911310 

1\l8S. From 1\l8S 10 1990. electricity sales lire 

expected to grow 81 an average rate or 3.4 percent 

Per year. slightly more rapidly than the real GNP. From 1990 10 1995. electriCity .ales are expected to 

increase at an B"erage annual rale of 2.8 percenl, 10 

that. over the entire 1983 10 1995 period. electricity 

I13les are expecled 10 grow a( an annual rate of 3.2 

percent. See Annual Energy Outlook 1983 with ' 

prpjeclioll8 to 1995. DOEjElA-0363(83), pIIse 122. 

• C&Fe - remove regulatory disincentives to 

conservation and energy production 

result in a healthier national energy 

situation, the need for additional. 

Federally mandated conservation or energy is decreased. Because of the, 

across-the-board improvements in the ~atlonal energy picture of the past few 

years and its projected continuation into 

the future 14-without regard to 

appliance program-the need of the 

Nation to conserve marginal increased 

amounts of energy through a particular 

appliance efficiency standard is 

diminished. 

7. Other Factors. Section 325(d)(7) 

requires DOE to include in the process 

of weighing the burdens and benefits of . a standard. and other factors the ' 

Secretary considers relevant. The 

Department requests comments from 

interested persons as to what other ' 

factors. not hitherto considered. should 

be considered relevant in weighing the 

burdens and benefits of standards_ 

8. Weighing of Factors. The above 

discussion of the factors to be weighed 

in determining the burdens and benefits 

of possible standards is intended to 

identify the factors and explain their 

bases. Some of the burdens discussed 

above are not dependent on a particular 

product-specific standard. but on the 

existence of any standard at all. The 

existence of. these generic burdens does 

not, in itself. disqualify a particular 

standard or standards. Standards for 

each product must be judged on their own merits. weighing the burdens· and 

benefits arising from them. . . 

111. Product-Specific Discussion 

This section presents separate 

discussions for each of the four 

products. Each product-specific 

discussion is divided into the following 

five subjects: product classes, design 

options. standard levels. energy savings 

and economic jUstification. The 

discussion on energy savings addresses 

eRch of the three tests of Significant 

energy savings (oil and gas savings. 

electricity savings and percent savings). 

The discussion on economic justification 

addresses the six economic factors cited 

in section 325( d} of the Act.· 

a. Dishwashers 

A "dishwasher" means a cabinet-like 

appliance which with the aid of water 

and detergent. washes, rinses, and dries 

(when a drying process is included) 

dishware. glassware. eating utensils. 

and most cooking utensils by chemical. 

,. See generally Ihe National Energy Policy Plan. 

DOE/&-OOH/l. OClober 1983. {hereafler referred 10 

aa "NEPP IV"). , . 
12974 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 1 Proposed Rules

anical and/or electrical means and

arges to the plumbing drainage

systems. See 10 CFR Part 4302.

1. Product Classes. Two classes of

dishwashers, standard and compact.

were specified by DOE in the December

1979 advance notice . These classes are

distinguished by their capacity.

Dishwasher energy consumption is

strongly related to the hot water usage

of the machine. Compact dishwashers

use less water and less energy than _

standard size dishwashers. Compact

dishwashers are dishwashers having an

exterior width of less than 22 inches.

Compact dishwashers generally have an

exterior width of 18 inches, and fit into

smaller spaces and handle smaller loads

than standard size dishwashers.

Standard size dishwashers are

defined as those with an exterior width

greater than or equal to 22 inches.

Standard size dishwashers generally

have an exterior width of 24 inches.

Standard size dishwashers typically

have lower energy factors than compact

dishwashers, but their larger capacity

provides increased utility to consumers.

Exterior width was chosen as the

measure of capacity because it

J

curately delineates the two classes of

hwashers in the current population

d is a readily available dimension.

As discussed above , DOE has

established a third product class, called

water heating dishwashers. Water

heating dishwashers have added utility

and performance for consumers because

the thermostat settings for water heaters

could be lowered resulting in overall

reductions of utility bills. A class of

water heating dishwashers is -

appropriate due to differences in utility,

as well as the seperate treatment of

water heating dishwashers in the test

procedures.

2. Design Options. The December 1979

advance notice identified five design

options or combinations of design

options that, if incorporated into the

design of a dishwasher, were projected.

to achieve the max tech level These

design options were optional power dry,

reduced inlet water temperature.,

modified sump geometry, improved fill

controls, aril improved insulation-15

is water heating dishwashers is the only product

class for which the design option of reduced inlet

water temperature is appropriate . Compact and

standard size dishwashers generally use incoming

water at 140 'F, while water heating dishwashers

k se incoming water at 120 'F. DOE did not consider

veering the incoming water temperature below 120

F as a viable design option because this is not

addressed in the test procedures. Consequently, the

inlet water temperature was not reduced below 120

.F

The dishwasher with the highest

energy factor was reported to

incorporate the optional power dry

design option. Most dishwashers are

insulated to reduce noise. Using

additional insulation was reported to be

of marginal use in saving energy. See

Topical Report-Subtask 3.1 Clothes

Washer and Dishwasher Use,

September 1979. Thus, improved

insulation was no longer considered a

design option. The Topical Report also

considered improved food filters as a

viable design option. Therefore, the

three design options considered for

dishwashers are:

(a) Modified sump geometry

(b) Improved fill controls

(c) Improved food filters

3. Standard Levels. See Table 4 for the

standard levels selected for

dishwashers. The Level l standards are

0.50 cycles/kWh for compact .

dishwashers, 0.38 cycles/kWh for

standard size dishwashers and 0.455

cycles/kWh for water beating

dishwashers. The Level1 standard for

compact dishwashers is identical to the

level published in the December 1979

advance notice.

DOE would like comments concerning

whether the Level I standards for the

compact and water beating dishwashers

are the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency. -

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings

realized by standards for dishwashers

were projected by the EUP Model.

Compact dishwashers and water

heating dishwashers are not widely in

use. Consequently, the EUP Model

based the energy savings for

dishwashers solely on standard size

dishwashers by specifying that all

dishwashers are standard size

dishwashers. Since standard size

dishwashers typically use more energy

than compact or water heating

dishwashers, specifying that all

dishwashers are standard size

dishwashers would tend to overstate the'

energy savings that could be achieved

by standards for all dishwashers.

According to results from the EUP

Model, Level 1 standards for

dishwashers are projected to save about

0.125 Quads over the 1988-1999 period,

the 12-year average life of a dishwasher.

See Technical Support Document. Table

4. Likewise. Level 2 standards for

dishwashers are projected to save about

0.135 Quads over the 1988-1999 period.

See Technical Support Document. Table

5. Energy savings are forecasted to be

less than the three tests of significant

energy savings. Therefore, DOE believes

that standards for dishwashers would

not likely result in significant

conservation of energy.

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level 1

standards. savings of 0.125 Quads 14

would result in the savings of 430 bpd of

oil and of 9,260 mcf per day of natural

gas. This is only 4 and 16 percent,

respectively, of the amount that DOE

deems significant. For Level 2 standards,

savings of 0.135 Quads would result to

the savings of 470 bpd of oil and of 9,960

mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 5

and 18 percent, respectively, of the

amount that DOE deems significant.

B. Electricity Savings. For Level I

standards, electricity savings of 0.079

Quads over the 12-year period are less

than 0.02 percent of the total national

TAat.E 4.--STANDARD LEvet.S SELECTED FOR

DtsHwASHERS

PMOXI class Lard i i.snt 2

t. Campaat^

2. standw nra

3. Wow Hera g

0sa r 0.50

0.3E 0.41 0.455. x455

Cycles per kilowatt how.

DOE is revising the level for standard

size dishwashers in today's notice. DOE

received several comments stating that

the level in the December 1979 advance

notice was determined incorrectly by

failing to account for the energy usage

during the normal cycle of a dishwasher.

The level only considered the energy

usage during the truncated normal cycle.

The level should be the average of the

energy usage during both the normal

and truncated normal cycles. The

commenters recommended that it should

be 0.38 cycles/kWh. Therefore, DOE is

using 0.38 cycles/kWh as the Level I

standard for standard size dishwashers

in today's notice.

The Level 2 standard is 0.41 cycles!

kWh for standard size dishwashers. The

Level 2 standard is based on a

dishwasher design which does not

incorporate a power-dry feature. Level 2

standards for compact dishwashers and

water heating dishwashers are the same

as the Level I standards because the

Level I standards are expected to be the

maximum improvement in energy

efficiency which is technologically

feasible for these two product classes.

"The 0.125 Quads of energy savings resulting

from Level I standards are due to savings achieved

by using less hot water. The fraction of households

which heat water by electricity is 33 percent and Is

54 percent for natural gas and 13 percent for oil See

Residential Energy Consumption Survey Housing

Characteristics 1980, DOE/EIA-0314, June 1982

Further. it is assumed that oil constitutes 2.65

percent and gas 8.15 percent of the energy used to

generate electricity over this time period. These

percentages are the average of the projected

proportions for the years 1990 and 1995. See 1991

Annual Report to Congress, Volume 3_ Forecasts.

130E/E5A 0173(81)13, February 1982.

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday, April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

and/or electrical means and 

to the plumbing drainage 

systems. See 10 CFR Part 430.z. 

1. Product Classes. Two classes of 

dishwashers. standard and compact, 

were specified by DOE in the D~cember 

1979 advance notice. These classes are distinguished by their capacity. 

Dishwasher energy consumption is J 

strongly related to the hot water usage 

of the machine. Compact dishwashers 

use less water and less energy than 

'standard size dishwashers: Compact 

dishwashers are dishwashers having an exterior width of less than 22 inches. 

Compact dishwashers generally have an 

exterior width of18 inches. and fit into 

smaller spaces and handle smaller loads 

than standard si%e dishwashera. 

Standard size dishwashers are 

defined as those with an exterior width 

greater than or equal to 22 inches. 

Standard size dishwashers generally 

have an exterior width of 24 inches. 

Standard size dishwashers typically' 

have lower energy factors than compact 

dishwashers. but their larger capacity 

provides increased utility to consumers. 

Exterior width was chosen as the 

measure of capacity because it 

l

uratelY delineates the two classes of 

hwashers in the current population 

d is a readily available dimension. 

As discussed above. DOE has 

established a third product class. called 

water heatinS( dishwashers. Water . heating dishwasbers have added utility 

and performance for consumers because 

the thermostat settings for water heaters 

could be lowered resulting in overall 

reductions of utility bills. A class of 

water heating dishwashers is . appropriate due to differences in utility. 

as welles the seperate treatment of 

water heating dishwashers in the test 

procedures. ' 

2. Design Options. The December 1979 

advance notice identified five design 

options or combinations of design 

options that, if incorporated into the , 

design of a dishwasher. were projected. 

to achieve the max tech leveL These 

design options were optional power dry, 

reduced inlet water temperature. 

modified sump geometry. improved fill 

controls. all,tl improved insulation.1Ii 

,. Water heating dishwashen i. Ihe only ~uct class for which the design option of reduced inlet 

waler lemperatu", i. appropriate. Compact and 

Slandard size dishwashers generally lise inCOmlllg 

water 81140 ·F. while waler heating dishwashera 

e incomins waler 81120 'F. DOE did 1101 consider 

wenng the incoming waler temperature below 120 

F as a viable desisn option because this i. nol 

addressed in the lest procedul'e$. Consequently. the 

Inlet waler temperature was nol reduced below l20 

'F. ' 

The dishwasher with the highest 

energy factor was reported to ' ,. 

incorporate the optional power dry 

design option. Most dishwashers are 

insulated to reduce noise. Using 

additional insulation was reported to be 

of marginal use in saving energy. See 

Topical Report-Subtask 3.1 Clothes 

Washer and Dishwasher Use. 

September 1979. Thus. improved ' 

insulation was no longer considered a 

design option. The Topical Report also 

considered improved food filters as a viable design option. Therefore. the 

three design options considered for 

dishwasllers are: , (a) Modified sump geometry 

(b) Improved fill controls , (cJ Improved food filters 

3. Standard Levels. See Table 4 for the 

standard levels selected for 

dishwashers. The Levell standards are 0.50 cycles/kWh for compact 

dishwashers. 0.38 cycles/kWh for 

standard size dishwashers and 0.455 

cycles/kWh for water beating 

dishwashers. The Levell standard for 

compact dishwashers is identical to the 

level published in the December 1979 

advance notice. 

TABLE 4.-5TANOARO lEvELS S£LECTEO FOR 

DIsHWASHERS 

I"ro<U:t .... ~1 LweI I 

1. Co<npae1 '0.50 '0.50 2. Slandal'd S1zit 0,38 0.41 3, Wahl< t--.g ____ --:.... 0,455 , U55 

, C\'<Ies pet _n hour. 

DOE is rel-ising the level for standard 

size dishwashers in today's notice. DOE 

received seyeral comments stating that 

the level in the December 1979 advance 

notipe was determined incorrectly by 

failing to account for the energy usage 

during the normal cycle of a dishwasher. 

The level only considered the energy 

usage during the trunca ted nonnal cycle. 

The level should be the average of the 

energy usage during both the normal 

and truncated normal cycles. The 

commenters recommended that it should 

be 0.38 cycles/kWh. Therefore. DOE is 

using 0.38 cycles/kWh as the Levell 

standard for standard size dishwashers , in today's notice. 

The Level 2 standard is 0.41 cycles! 

kWh for standard size dishwashers. The 

Level 2 standard is based on a dishwasher design which does not 

incorporate a power-dry feature. Level Z 

standards for compact dishwashers and 

water heating dishwashers are the same as the Levell standards because the 

Levell standards are expected fa be the 

maximum iInprovement in energy 

efficiency which is technologically, 

feasible for these'two product classes. , 

DOE would like comments concerning 

whether the Levell standards for the 

compact and :water beating dishwashers are the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency. 

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings 

realized by standards for dishwashers were projected by the EUP Model. . 

Compact dishwashers and water 

heating dishwashers are not Widely in 

use. Consequently. the EUP Model 

based the energy savings for 

dishwashers solely on standard size 

dishwashers by specifying that all 

dishwashers are standard size 

dishwashers. Since standard size 

dishwashers typically use more energy 

than compact or water heating 

dishwashers, specifying that all 

dishwashers are standard size 

dishwashers would tend 10 overstate the' 

energy savings that could be achieved 

by standards for all dishwashers. 

According to results from the EUP 

Model. Levell standards for 

dishwashers are projected to save about 

0.125 Quads over the 198&-1999 period. 

the 12·year average life of a dishwasher. 

See Technical Support Document, Table 

4. Likewise. Level 2 standards for 

dishwasbers are projected to save about 

0.135 Quads over the 1988-1999 period. 

See Technical Support Document, Table 

5. Energy savings are forecasted to be 

less than the three tests of significant 

energy savings. Therefore. DOE believes 

that ,tandards for dishwashers would 

not likely result in significant 

conservation of energy. 

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Levell 

standards. savings 0(0.125 Quads 1. 

would result in ,the savings of 430 bpd of 

oil and of 9.260 mc! per day of natural 

gas. This is only 4 and 16 percent. 

respectively. of the amount that DOE 

deems significant. For Level Z standards. 

savings of 0.135 Quads would result in 

the savings of 470 bpd of oil and of 9.960 

mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 5 

and 18 percent. respectively. of the 

amount that DOE deems significant. 

B. Electricity Savings. For Levell 

standards. electricity savings of 0.079 

Quads over the 12-year period are less 

than Il.02 percent of the total national 

'"The 0.125 Quads of energy .avings resulting 

from Level 1 standards are due to aavinas achieved 

by uaq len hot waler. The fraction of bousehollb 

"'hich heat water by electricity is 33 percent and Ia 

54 percenl for natural 88& and 13 percent ror oil &6 

Residential Energy ComwnptiOD Survey: Howrirts 

Chamclerilltic. 1980, OOEfEIA-OOU. J~ 198.\!. 

Further. it is aasumed that oil constitute. 2.65 

percenl and 8al 8.15 percenl or the energy used to 

generate electricity oyer \hi. time period. n.e.e 

percentage. are the average of the projected 

proportion. tor the yean 1990 and 1995. See 1981 

Annual Report to Cangres4. Volume 3: Forecaats. 

DOE/EIA D113{81}/3. February 198Z. 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

energy used for electricity. 17 For Level 2

standards, electricity savings of 0.085

Quads over the 12-year period are about

0.02 percent of the total national energy

used for electricity; DOE believes that

the electricity savings are so small as to

have no measurable effect on the -

environment or on the need for new. .

generating capacity. .

C. Percent Savings. The percent

savings in the year 2000, the year after

the average life of a dishwasher

purchased in the year 1987, the last year

before standards would be imposed, are

projected to be about 6.1 percent for

Level I standards and about 6.6 percent

for Level 2 standards.

D. Conclusion. On the basis of the

above, DOE believes that standards for

dishwashers would not result in a

significant conservation of energy.

5. Economic Justificotion

A. Economic impact on Consumers.

The economic impact on consumers was

found by estimating the additional first

cost, if any. that a consumer would pay

in order to purchase a dishwasher which

meets the standard. The development of

a first cost curve for dishwashers was

patterned after the exponential cost

curve developed for the eight products.

See Technical Support Document, page

84. Market survey data for 31

dishwashers were used. 18 Due to the

wide scatter in data used in developing

the first cost curve, the difference for the

31 dishwashers between the market

survey data and the first cost curve

averaged about 20 percent. DOE is

interested in comments regarding the

uncertainties associated in estimating

the first costs for dishwashers at various

efficiencies.

The average cost of a dishwasher in

1988 (one with an energy efficiency of

0.327 cycles/kWh) is expected to be

about $329. The average cost of a

dishwasher meeting the Level 1-

standard is expected to be about $439.

The economic impact of the Level I

standard is projected to increase the

first cost of a dishwasher by about 33

percent ($110).

B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost

for dishwashers is the sum of the first

cost and the operating costs discounted

fiver the lifetime of the appliance. More

efficient dishwashers are not expected

to result in increased maintenance costs.

"Electricity usage over the period 1988-1999 is

estimated to be about 413.1 Quads. This number is

derived from NEPP IV. .

ra A literature search'was made to collect market

survey data for dishwashers. Data for dishwashers.

were found in the report. "Appliance Efficiency

Information. Survey and Data Base Development."

Bonneville Power Administration. August 1983..:

Thus, maintenance costs were not

included in estimating life cycle costs.

The minimum life cycle cost is

estimated to be about $829 and occurs

for a dishwasher with an energy

efficiency of 0.320 cycles/kWh. See

Technical Support Document, Figure 8.

The life cycle cost for a dishwasher, -.

which meets the Level I standard, is

estimated to be about $870. Standards

for dishwashers could result in an '

increase of life cycle costs over the LCC

minimum of approximately $41.- - • -

C. Energy Savings. As indicated

above, the energy savings attributable to

standards for dishwashers over the'

period 1988-1999, the average life of a

dishwasher, are forecasted to range

from 0.125 to 0.135 Quads based on

savings for Level 1 and Level 2

standards, respectively.. -

Results from sensitivity analyses also

indicated that standards would not

result in significant conservation of

energy. Energy savings over the period

of the average life of a dishwasher

beginning with the year 1988 were

forecasted to range from 330 bpd to 800

bpd for oil savings and from 7,150 mcf/

day to 17,180 mcf/day for gas savings.

Each sensitivity analysis fails the

significant energy savings test regarding

oil and natural gas. See. Table 5.

TABLE 5.= SENstTwr Y ANALYSIS ON ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR DISHWASHERS .

Anayats OR (met t'N

(bpd) day) Low. oera

ceng

Constant eNriency _- 800 17. 180 0.036 11.64

Conservative ....... 800 17.180 0.036 11.60

Hstorical (case 1 ).v. 410 6.810 0.019 5.62

Historical (cam 2)-.. 330 7.150 0.015 3.96

Level2 sensitivily .__ 650 13,980 0.029 9.48

Electricity savings over the period of the

average life of a dishwasher beginning

with the year 1988 were projected to

range from 0.015 percent to 0.036 percent

of the national electricity use. Each

sensitivity analysis fails the significant

energy savings test concerning

electricity. The annual savings in the

year 2000, the year following the period

of the average life of a dishwasher

purchased in the last year before a

standard could be imposed, were

forecasted to range from 3.96 percent to

11.64 percent. Each sensitivity analysis

fails the significant energy savings test

for percent savings. Accordingly, DOE

proposes that standards for dishwashers

are not likely to result in significant

conservation of energy. .

D. Lessening of Utility or Performance

of Products. As indicated in the General;

Discussion section, there is no -

assurance that future utility or12975

performance of dishwashers would not

be lessened as a result of disincentives

caused by standards toinvestments in

new energy-using features.

E. Impact of Lessening Competition.

The determination of this factor must be

made by the Attorney General.

F. Need to Save Energy. Dishwashers

use electricity directly, and oil, natural

gas and electricity indirectly through

their use of hot water. Energy savings,

which are forecasted to be 0.123 Quads

for Level '1 standards and 0.135 Quads

for Level 2 standards are expected to be

achieved through reduced use of hot

water. DOE believes that the need of the

Nation to save the marginal amount of

energy realized by dishwasher

standards is an insufficient reason for

standards..

Conclusion

Benefits of a standard for

dishwashers, compared to no standards,

are that standards would save energy.

Burdens of a standard at level i are

estimated to be. the increased first cost

of a dishwasher by about 33 percent

($110) over the average cost of a

dishwasher purchased in 1988; and the

life cycle cost is increased by about $41

over the life cycle minimum. Burdens of

a standard at level 2 would result in

even greater economic burdens for

consumers.

In light of all the factors discussed

here and in the General Discussion, on

balance, DOE believes that the burdens

of standards for dishwashers outweigh

the benefits. Therefore, DOE proposes

that dishwasher standards are not .

economically justified as required by

section 325(b)(2) of the Act

b. Television Sets

A "television set" means a color

television set or a monchrome television

set. "Color television set" means an

electrical device designed to convert

incoming broadcast signals into color

television pictures and associated

sound. "Monochrome television set"

means an electrical device designed to

convert incoming broadcast signals into

monochrome television pictures and

associated sound. See 10 CFR Part 430.2.

1. Product Classes. Two classes of

television sets, color and monochrome,

were specified by DOE in the December

1979 advance notice. These classes are

distinguished by their ability to

reproduce images in color or in black

and white, a performance-related

feature which affects utility and

efficiency' I

Color television sets consume more

energy than monochrome television sets

because of the use of multiple electron

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 62 I Monday. April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 12975 

energy used for electricity. 17 For Level 2 

standards. electricity savings of 0.085 

Quads over the 12-year period are about 

·0.02 percent of the total national energy 

used for elec~ricity~ DOE believes that . the electricity savings are 80 small as to 

have no measurable effect on the 

environment or on the need for new. ' 

generating capacity. . 

C. Percent Savings. The percent 

savings in the yelilr 2000. the year after 

the average life of a dishwasher . . 

purchased in the year 1987, the last year 

before standards would be imposed. are projected to be about 6.1 percent for 

Levell standards and about 6.6 percent 

for Level 2 standards. 

D. Conclusion. On the basis of the 

above. DOE believes that standards for 

dishwashers would not result in a significant conservation of energy. 

5. Economic Justification 

A. Economic Impact on Consumers. 

The economic impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first 

cost. if any. that a consumer would pay 

in order to purchase a dishwasher which 

meets the standard. The development of a first cost curve for dishwashers was patterned after the exponential cost . curve developed for the eight products. 

See Technical Support Document. page 

84. Market survey data for 31 

dishwashers were used. I 8 Due to the ,. 

wide sea Iter in data used in developing 

the first cost curve. the difference for the 

31 dishwashers between the market ' 

survey data and the first cost curve averaged about 20 percent. DOE is . interested in comments regarding the 

uncertainties associated in estimating 

the first costs for dishwashers at various 

efficiencies. 

Th.e average cost of a dishwasher in 

1988 (one with an energy efficiency of 

0.327 cycles/kWh) is expected to be 

about $329. The average cost of a ... dishwasher meeting the Levell .. . 

standard is expected to be about $439 .. The economic impact of the Levell, " 

standard is projected to increase the . 

first cost of a dishwasher by about 33 

percent ($110). . : . 

B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost 

for dishwashers is the sum of the first 

cosl and the operating costs discounted 

2,Yer the lifetime of the appliance. More 

efficient dishwashers are not expected 

to result in increased maintenance costs. 

.. Electricity ul8ge over the period 1988-1999 i. 

estimated to be aboul413.1 Quads. Thi' number is . 

derived (rom NEPP IV. .• . 

II A literature search·was made to collect market 

survey data for dishwashers. Data for disl)w8shel'L 

were found in the report. "Appliance Efficiency 

Information. SurVey and Dala Base DeveJopUlent," 

BoMeville Power Administration. August 1983.. ~ ... 

Thus. maintenance costs were not 

included in estimating life cycle costs. . 

The minimum life cycl!! cost is . estimated to be about $829 and occurs for a dishwasher with an energy 

efficiency of 0.320 cycles/kWh. See. 

Technical Support Document. Figure 8. 

The life cycle cost for a dishwasher. _ .. 

which meets the Levell standard. is 

estimated to be about $870. -Standards 

for dishwashers could result in an . increase of life cycle cpsts over the LeC 

minimum ofapproximately $41., ;. , 

C. Energy Savings. As indicated 

above. the energy savings attributable to 

standards for dishwashers over the . 

period 1988-1999. the average life of a dishwasher. are forecasted to range 

from 0.125 to 0.135 Quads based on savings for Levell and Lev!!12 . standards. respectively.. . . . 

Results from sensitivity analyses also 

indicated that standards would not .. resuit in significant conserVation of 

energy. Energy savings over the period 

of the average life of a dishwasher 

beginning with the year 1988 were . forecasted to range from 330 bpd to 800 

bpd for oil savings and from 7.150 mcfl 

day to 17.180 mcf/day for gas savings. 

Each sensitivity analysis fails the 

significant energy savings test regarding 

oil and natural gas. Sf!.e: Table 5. 

TABLE 5 • ...:.sENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY 

SAVINGS FOR DISHWASHERS . 

Gas Elec· 

AnalysIs Oil (mcf! Incity Pet· (bpdI da~) (pet. oonI cent) 

Constanl 1Iffi<:ieney __ lOG 17.t80 0.036 11.&4 Conservatlve __ ~_ 800 ·17.180 0.036 11.&4 Historical (case 1)._ .,0 8.810 0.019 5.82 HistoricloJ (case 2)_ 33D 7.150 0.D15 3.96 l_ 2 sensitMIy __ B50 13,980 0.029 8.43 

Electricity savings over "the period of the 

average life of a dishwasher beginning 

with the year 1988 were prQjected to . 

range from 0.015 percent to 0.036 percent 

of the national electricity use. Each 

sensitivity analysis fails the significant . energy savings test concerning 

electricity. The annual savings in the 

year 2000. the year following the period 

of the average life of a dishwasher . purchased in the last ye!lr before a .-. standard could be imposed. were . forecasted to range from 3.96 percent to 

11.64 percent. Each sensitivity analysis. 

fails the significant energy savings test 

for percent savings. Accordingly. DOE 

proposes that standards for dishwashers are not likely to result in significant 

conservation of energy.: '. 

D. Lessening of Utility or Performance 

of Products. As indicated in the General 

Discussion section. there is no .. . 

assurance that future .utility or· . 

performance of dishwashers would not 

be lessened as a result of disincentives 

caused by standards to.investments in new energy-using features • 

. E. Impact of Lessening Competition. 

The determination of this factor must be 

·made by the Attorney General. 

F. Need to Save Energy. Dishwashers use electricity directly. and oil. natural 

gas ·and electricity indirectly through 

their use of. hot water. Energy savings. 

which are forecasted to be 0.123 Quads 

for Levell standards and 0.135 Quads 

for Level 2 standards are expected to be 

achieved through reduced use of hot 

water. DOE believes that the need of the 

Nation to save the marginal amount of 

energy realized by dishwasher 

standards is an insufficient reason for standards.~ 

Conclusion 

Benefits of a standard for 

dishwashers. compared to no standards. are that standards would save energy. 

Burdens of a standard at level 1 are estimated to be: the increased first cost 

of a dishwasher by about 33 percent ($110) over the average cost of a 

dishwasher purchased in 1988; and the 

life "cycle cost is increased by about $41 over the life cycle minimum. Burdens of a standard at level 2 would result in ~ven greater economic burdens for consumers. 

In light of ail the factors discussed 

here and in the General Discussion. on balance. DOE believes that the burdens 

of stan~ards fo~ dishwashers outweigh 

the benefits. Therefore. DOE proposes 

that dishwasher standards are not 

economically justified as required by 

section 325(b)(2) of the Act. . 

b. Television Sets 

A ';television set" means a ·color 

television set or a monchrome television 

seL "Color television set" means an electrical device designed to convert 

incomiI)g broadcast signals into color 

television pictures and associated 

Bound. "Monochrome television set" means im electrical device designed to 

convert incoming broadcast signals into 

monochrome television pictures and 

associated sound. See 10 CFR Part 430.2. 

1. Product Classes. Two classes of 

television sets. color and monochrome. were specified by DOE in the December 

1979 advance notice. These classes are distinguished by their ability to 

reproduce images In color or in black 

and white. a performance-related 

feature w~ich affects utility and 

efficiency: 

Color television sets consume more 

energy than monochrome television sets 

because of the use of multiple electron 
12976

uns, whereas monochrome television received several comments stating that

sets use only one electron gun. For this the level was based on a color television

reason, energy efficiency levels set with a 12-inch screen and that the

achieved by monochrome television sets level is dependent on screen size. The

are not achievable for color television

sets. Since color television sets and

monochrome television sets offer

distinct differences in utility to the

consumer, DOE is specifying separate

classes for color and monochrome

television sets. DOE did not receive

comments on the classes proposed in

the December 1979 advance notice, so

these classes remain unchanged.

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

2. Design Options. The December 1979

advance notice identified the following

design options for television sets:

(a) Eliminate Instant-On.

(b) Replace Tubes (other than picture

tube) with Solid State Components.

(c) Improve Thermal Design.

The elimination of the instant-on

feature and the use of solid state

components have already become

common practices and the adoption of

standards is not necessary to encourage

these features. Several commenters

noted that improved thermal design is

not a valid means of improving energy

consumption. However, the substantial

differences that exist in the energy

consumption of color television sets of

the same picture tube size with the same

features suggest that improved thermal

design is a valid design option.

Another commenter suggested that

"beam indexing" design which uses a

single picture tube gun rather than the

standard three gun design be factored

into the standard levels. The levels

analyzed were based on commercially

available television sets. Since "beam

indexing" television sets are not

commercially available, DOE has

determined that it should not be

factored into the -standard levels.

3. Standard Levels. See Table a for the

standard levels selected for television

sets. The Level I standards are 178

percent for monochrome television sets

and 181 percent for color television sets.

The Level I. standard for monochrome

television sets is identical to the level

published in the December 1979 advance

notice.

TABLE 6.-STANDARD LEVELS SELECTED FOR

.. TELEVISION SETS

Product OM

Level I

owcert0

Level 2

I. Mooef2. Cow..

176

161

176

200

The Level 1 standard in today 's notice

for color television sets is different from

the level of 229 percent published in the

December 1979 advance notice. DOE

average screen size for a color television

set is reported to be 19 inches. See

Technical Support Document, page 34.

The level is being revised today to be for

an average color television set (one with

a 19-inch screen) and is 181 percent.

The Level 2 standard is 200 percent

for color television sets. Level 2

standard for monochrome television sets

Is the same as the Level 1 standard,

because the Level i standard is

expected to be the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency which

is technologically feasible for this

product class. DOE would like

comments concerning whether the Level

I standard for monochrome television

sets is the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency.

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings

realized by standards for television sets

were projected by the EUP Model. Color

television sets are reported to be the

dominant product class and typically

use over three times the energy of

monochrome television set.19

Consequently , the EUP Model bases the

savings for all television sets on data for

color television sets by specifying that

all television sets are color television

sets. Since color television sets typically

use more energy than monochrome

television sets, specifying that all

television sets are color television sets

would tend to overstate the energy

savings that could be achieved for all

television sets.

According to results from the EUP

Model, Level 1 standards for television

sets are projected to save about 0.240

Quads over the 1988-1999 period, the 12-

year average life of a television set. See

Technical Support Document, Table 11.

Likewise, Level 2 standards for

television sets are projected to save

about 0.246 Quads over the 1988-1999

period. See Technical Support

Document. Table 12

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level 1

standards, savings of 0.24 Quads

Of The typical annual energy use is reported to be

240 kWh for color television sets and 77 kWh for

monochrome television sets. See Technical Support

Document, page 34.

"This assumes that oil constitutes 2.55 percent

and gas 8.15 percent of the energy used to generate

electricity over this time period Thew percentages

are the average of the projected proportions for the

years 1990 and 1935. See 1061 Annual Report to

Congress, Volume 9: Forecasts, I1OE/EIA 0173 [Sill

3. February 11162

would result in the savings of 250 bpd of

oil and of 3,240 mcf per day of natural

gas. This is only 3 and 6 percent,.

respectively, of the amount that DOE

deems significant. For Level 2 standards,

savings of 0.246 Quads would result in

the savings of 250 bpd of oil and of 3,320

mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 3

and 6 percent, respectively, of the

amount that DOE deems significant.

B. Electricity Savings. For Level 1

standards, electricity savings of 0.24

Quads over the 12-year period is less

than 0.06 percent of the total national

electricity usage.21 For Level 2

standards, electricity savings of 0.246

Quads is less than 0.06 percent of the

total national energy used for electricity,

DOE believes that the electricity savings

are so small as to have no measurable

effect on the environment or on the need

for new generating capacity.

C. Percent Savings. Results from the

EUP Model show that the percent

savings in the year 2000, the year after

the average life of a television set

purchased in the year 1987, the last year

before standards would be imposed, are

projected to be about 15.3 percent for

Level 1 standards and about 16.7

percent for Level 2 standards. 'The EUP

Model tends to overstate the energy use

for television sets by assuming that all

television sets are color television sets.

In fact, the energy use for a monochrome

television set is about one-third the

energy use for a color television set.

Since the percent savings for Level 2

standards projected by the EUP Model

are at the threshold of significance, DOE

analyzed the percent savings by the

actual class composition of television

sets.

From 1975 to 1982. monochrome

television sets represented about 37.18

percent of all television sets sold. See

U.S. Statistical Abstract of the United

States, 1984, 104th Edition, Table 958. As

presented below, DOE estimated the

energy use for color television sets and

monochrome television sets separately

for the market-based and standards

scenarios in the Level 2 standards

analysis. The energy use for both

classes was then added to yield the

estimated energy use of all televisions.

For the market-based scenario, the

EUP Model forecasted that all television

sets are expected to use about 0.193

Quads in the year 2000. The forecast is

0.161 Quads in the Level 2 standards

scenario. See Technical Support

Document, Table 12. By adjusting the

results from the EUP Model in order to

"Electricity usage over the period 1988-1999 is

estimated to be about 413.1 Quads. This number is

derived from NEW R.V.

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

12976· Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday, April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

uns whereas monochrome television . 

sets ~se only one electron gun. For this 

reason. energy efficiency levels . 

achieved by monochrome television sets 

are not achievable for color television 

sets. Since color television sets and 

monochrome television sets offer 

distinct differences in utility to the 

consumer. DOE is specifying separate 

classes for color and monqchrome 

television sets. DOE did nbl receive 

comments on the classes proposed in 

the December 1979 advance notice. so these classes remain unchanged. 

2. Design Options. The December 1979 

advance notice identified the following 

design options for television sets: 

(a) Eliminate Instant-On.· . 

(b) Replace Tubes (other than pict~ 

tube) with Solid State Components. . 

(c) Improve Thermal Design. 

The elimination of the instant-on 

feature and the use ofsolid state 

components have already become 

common practices and the adoption of 

standards is not necessary to encourage 

these features. Several commenten 

noted that improved thermal design is 

not a valid means of improving energy 

consumption. However. the Bubstantial 

differences that exist in the energy 

consumption of color television lets of 

the same picture tube size with the same 

features lIuggest that improved thermal 

design is a valid design option. 

Another commenter suggested that 

"beam indexing" design which uses 8 

single picture tube gun rather than the 

standard three gun design be factored 

into the standard levels. The levels 

analyzed were based on commercially 

available television lets. Since "beam 

indexing" television sets are not . 

commercially available. DOE has 

determined that it should not be 

factored into the lItandard leve)lI. 

3. Standard Levels. See Table 6 for the 

standard levels selected for television 

sets. The Levell standards are 176 

percent for monochrome television lets 

and 181 percent for color television sets. 

The Levell standard for monochrome 

television sets is identical to the level 

published in the December 1979 advance 

DOtice. - . 

TABLE 6.-SrANDARD I.£VELS 5a.ECTa) FOfI 

TELEVISIOH SETS 

2. 1. CoIor._ Monodcn.~CMi~.=====l ,." 

1111 

178 

100 

The Levell sta~dard in today's notice 

for color television sets is different from 

the level of 229 percent publisbed in the 

December 1979 advance notice. DOE 

received severa! comments stating that 

the level was based on a color television 

set with a 12-inch screen and that the 

level is dependent on screen size. The 

average screen size for a color telev.ision 

set is reported to be 19 inches. See 

Technical Support Document. page 34. 

The level is being revised today to be for 

an average color television set (one with 

a 19-inch screen) and is 181 percenL 

The Level 2 standard is 200 percent 

for color television sets. Level 2 

: . standard for monochrome television sets 

Js the same as the Levell standard, 

because the Level 1 standard 111 . 

expected to be the maximum .' 

; improvement in energy efficiency which 

is technologically feasible for this 

product class. DOE would like 

comments concerning whether the Level 

1 standard for monochrome television 

sets is the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency. . 

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings 

realized by standards for television seta 

were projected by the EUP Model. Color 

television sets are reported to be the 

dominant product class and typically 

use over three times the energy of 

monochrome television seLl. 

Consequently. the EUP Model bases the 

savings for all ,televiSion sets on data for 

color television sets by specifying that 

all television sets are color. television 

sets. Since color television sets typically 

use more energy than monochrome 

television sets. specifying that all 

television sets are color television sets 

would tend to overstate the energy 

savings that could be achieved for all 

television sets. 

According to results from the £up. 

Model. Levell standards for television 

. sets are projected to save abollt o.Z40 

Quads over the 1988-1999 period. the 12-

year average life of 8 television set. See 

Technical Support Document, Table 11. 

Likewise. Level 2 standards for 

. television sets are projected to save 

about 0.246 Quads over the 1988-1999 

period. See Technical Support 

Document. Table 1Z. 

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Levell 

standards. aavings of 0.24 Quads • 

•• The twlcal aDDUBl energy use iii reported to be 

Z40 kWh fOl' color television seta and 77 kWh for 

lIlOllOChrome lelellisiau leta. See Teclmical Support 

Document; piI8e 34. . 

"This asSIUnM that oil constl.tuteli %.85 percent 

and gS8 8.15 percent or the energy used to generate 

.~IJ oYer thla time period. Theta percenl4get 

ant the averqe or the projected propor1iona fOl' \he 

yean; 11l9O and 1119S. See 1981 Annual Report to 

Cohgre ... Volume 3: Forecasll, OOE/EIA 0173(81)1 

3. Pebruary 1l1li%. • 

would result in the savings of 250 bpd of 

oil and of 3.240 mer per day of na tural 

gas. This is only 3 and 6 percent •. 

respectively. o( the amount that DOB 

deems significant. For Leyel 2 standards. 

saVings of 0.246 Quads would resultin 

the savings of 250 bpd of oil and of 3.320 

mer per day of natural gas. This is only 3 

. and 6 percent. respectively. of th~ 

amount that DOE deems significant. 

B. Electricity Savings. For Levell 

standards. electricity savings of 0.24 

Quads over the 12-year period is less 

than 0.06 percent of tl1e total na tion~l 

electricity usage.21 For Level 2 . 

standards. electricity savings of 0.246 

Quads is less than 0.06 percent of the 

total national energy used for electricity, 

DOE believes that the electricity savings 

are so small as to have no measurable 

effect on the environment or on the need 

for new generating capacity. 

C. Percent Savings. Results from the 

EUP Model show that the percent 

savings in the year 2000. the year after 

the average life of a television set 

purchased in the year 1987. the last year 

before sfandards would be imposed. are 

projected to be about 15.3 percent for 

Levell standards and about 16.7 

percent for Level 2 standards. The EUP 

Model tends to overstate the energy use 

for television sets by assuming that all 

television sets are color television sets. 

In fact, the energy use for a monochrome 

television set is about one-third the 

energy use for a color television set. 

Since the percent savings for Level 2 

standards projected by the EUP Model 

are at the threshold of significance. DOE 

analyzed the percent savings by the 

actual class composition of television 

seta. . 

From 1975 to 1982. monochrome 

television sets represented about 37.18 

percent of all television sets sold. See 

U.S. Statistical Abstract of the United 

States. 1984.104th Edition. Table 958. As 

presented below. DOE estimated the 

energy use for color teleVision sets and 

monochrome television sets separately 

for the market-based and standards 

scenarios in the Level 2 standardll 

analysis. The energy use for both 

classes was then added to yield the 

estimated energy use of all televisions.' 

For the market-based scenario. the 

EUP Model forecasted that all television 

sets are expected to use about 0.193 

Quads in the year 2000. The forecast is 

. 0.161 Quads in the Level 2 standards 

scenario. See Technical Support 

Document. Table 12. By adjusting the 

results from the EUP Model in order to 

,., B/eclricity lI.IBge over !he p.erfod 1988-1999 i. 

estimated to be about 413.1 Quacla. Thia number iI 

derived from NEPP IV. 
Federal Register Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules 12977

more closely consider the effects of

standards to monochrome television

sets, all television sets are forecasted to

use about 0.146 Quads in the marketbased scenario and 0.122 Quads for

Level 2 standards."

In conclusion, DOE believes that, by

considering more fully the effects that

standards would have on monochrome

television sets. the percent savings

would be about 16.2percent. This value

is lower than the level of 16.67 percent

required for significant energy savings.

Consequently, DOE believes that

standards for television sets would not

result in significant energy conservation.

DOE is interested in receiving comments

and statements concerning whether the

adjustments to the percent savings

forecasts by the EUP Model are

appropriate.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, DOE

believes that standards for television

sets would not result in a significant

conservation of energy.

5. Economic Justificadon

A. Economic Impact on Consumers.

The economic impact on consumers was

found by estimating the additional first

cost, if any, that a consumer would pay

in order to purchase a television set

which meets the standard. DOE is

interested in comments regarding the

uncertainties associated with estimating

ss In the year 2000, color television sets are

forecasted to use 0122 Quads in the market-based

scenario and 0.101 Quads in the Level 2 standards

scenario. These numbers ere 6200 percent of the

results from the EUP Model

For determining the energy see for monochrome

television sets in the market-based scenario. the

value of 0.193 Quads is adjusted by the following.

First, the value of 0.193 Quads is multiplied by 3714,

percent (the fraction of television sets that are

monochrome) for a proddci of 0.0719 Quads.

Second. the EUP Model bases the energy use for all

television sets on the energy use for color television

sets, Typically, a color television set user, about

three times more energy than a monochrome

television set. Consequently, the value of 0.0729

Quads, which is based on the energy use of tutor

television sets, must be adjusted to repeal the

energy use of monochrome television sets. The

annual per unit energy use in the year 2000 la

forecasted tube 163 kwH for color television sets

and 55 kWh for monochrome selertsioa sets. See

Technical Support Documeot. Appendix C.

'therefore, the value of 110719 Quads was adjusted

by the ratio of 55 kWh to 163 kWh to account for the

difference in energy use between a typical

monochrome television set and a color television

set, resulting in that monochrome television sets ate

expected to use about 0.024 Quads. In the market

based scenario. all television sets are forecasted to

use about 0.148 Quads in the year 2000 (0.122 Quads

for color television sets and 0.024 Quads for

monochrome television sets)-By a similar

procedure, all television sets are forecasted to use

0.122 Quads in the year 2000 for the standards

scenario. See Technical Suppest DocumeaL

Appendix C. .

the first costs for television sets at

various efficiencies.

The exponential first cost developed

for television sets showed a poor

correlation to the market survey data.

The difference between the market

survey data and the exponential first

cost curve averaged about 34 percent. A

linear regression analysis was then

conducted to improve the correlation to

the market survey data. A cubic first

cost curve showed the best correlation

to the market survey data. The

difference between the market survey

data and the cubic first cost curve

averaged about 17 percent. Therefore,

on the basis of an improved correlation,

the cubic first cost curve was used to

estimate the economic impact on

consumers. See Technical Support •

Document, page 85.

The average first cost of a television

set in 1988 (one with an energy -

efficiency of 143 percent) is expected to

cost about $439. The average first cost of

a television set meeting the Level I

standard (181 percent) is expected to

cost about $507. The economic impact of

the standard is projected to increase the

first cost of a television set by about 15

percent ($68). Similarly, the average cost

of a television set meeting the Level 2

standard (200 percent) is expected to

cost about $608, which is projected to

increase the first cost of a television set

by about 38 percent ($169).

B. Life Cycle Cost The life cycle cost

for television sets is the sum of the first

cost and the operating costs discounted

over the lifetime of the appliance. More

efficient television sets are not expected

to result in increased maintenance costs.

Consequently, maintenance costs were

not included in estimating life cycle

costs.

The minimum life cycle cost is

estimated to be about $541 and occurs

for a television set with an energy

efficiency of 145 percent. See Technical

Support Document, Figure 9. The life

cycle cost for a television set which

meets the Level I standard, is estimated

to be about $588. For Level 2 standards,

the life cycle cost is estimated to be

about $681. Standards for television sets

could result in an increase of life cycle

costs of approximately $47 for Level I

standards and $140 for Level 2

standards., .

C. Energy Savings. As Indicated

above, the energy savings attributable to

standards for television sets over the

period 1988-1999, the average life of a

television set, are forecasted by the EUP

Model to range from 0.240 to 0246

Quads based on savings for Level I and

Level 2 standards, respectively.

Results from sensitivity analyses

indicated that standards might result in

significant energy savings. For the

sensitivity analyses, energy savings over

the period of the average life of a

television set beginning with the year

1988 were forecasted to range from 230

bpd to 680 bpd for oil savings and from

3,040 and/day to 8,930 mcf jday for gas

savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails

the significant energy savings test •

regarding oil and natural gas. See Table

7. Electricity savings over the period of

the average life of a television set

beginning with the year 1988 were

projected to range from 0.056 percent to

0.16 percent of the national electricity

use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the

significant energy savings test

concerning electricity. The annual

savings in the year 2000, the year

following the period of the average life

of a television set purchased in the last

year before a standard could be

imposed, were forecasted to range from

12.48 percent to 37.04 percent

TABLE 7.-SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR TELEVISION SETS

Analysis t

E1eo•

sent

Constant Et bency 090 5.9300 0.15 37.04

Conservative CARS*- 510 0.640 0.12 29.08

Historical (Casa 11 290 3.650 0.070 15.71

Historical (Case 21 230 3.040 0.056 12.45

Level 2 390 4.600 0.086 2337

DOE believes that for television sets,

the sensitivity analyses tend to

overstate the energy savings

attributable to standards. Historically.

television sets have shown a dramatic

improvement in energy efficiency. The

energy efficiency improved from 69

percent in 1972 to 114 percent in 1978.

See Technical Support Document, page

34. The EUP Model forecasts that the

energy efficiency in 2006 under the two

historical extrapolation sensitivity

analyses would range from 163 to 174

percent. See Technical Support

Document, Tables 16 and 17. The trend

in energy efficiency for television sets

indicates that the energy efficiency will

not remain constant, as in the constant

efficiency analysis, or increase slightly,

as in the conservative analysis.

Therefore, DOE believes that for

television sets, the constant efficiency

and conservative analyses overestimate

energy savings.

DOE also believes that the historical

(Case 1), historical (Case 2). and the

Level 2 sensitivity analyses also result

in overestimates of energy savings.

Advancements in electronics, in general.

are an ongoing drive toward

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 62 I Monday. April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 12977 

more closely consider the effects of 

standards to monochrome television 

sets. all television sets are forecasted to 

use about 0.146 Quads in the market- . 

based sc!!nario and 0.122 Quads for 

Level 2 standards.22. 

In conclusion. DOE believes that, by 

considering more fully the effects that 

standards would have on monochrome 

television sets. the ~rcent IXlvings 

would be about 16.2'peTCent. This value 

is lower than the level of 16.67 percent 

required for significant energy savings. 

Consequently, DOE believes that . standards for television sets would nol 

result in significant energy conservation. 

DOE is interested in receiving comments 

and statements concerning whether the 

adjustments to the percent savings . 

forecasts by the EUP Model are 

appropriate. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of the above, DOE 

believes that standards for television 

sets would not result in a significant 

conservation of energy. 

S. Economic Justification 

A. Economic Impact on Consumers. 

'. 

The economic impact on consumers was 

found by estimating the additional first 

cost, if any. that a consumer would pay 

in order to purchase a television set 

which meels the standard. DOE is 

interested in comments regarding the . 

uncertainties associated with estimating 

WI In the year 2000. color lek!Yieion .eta moe 

forecasted 10 lI1I'e tU22 Quad. In the merket-based 

Bcenario and 0.101 Quad. In the Level Z ftandatda 

5cenario. These numbers ara !lUI percent 01 the 

results from the EUP Modet. 

television 

For delermining 

sets in the 

tbIt 

market-bued 

energy III1e b 

scenario. 

~ 

1M 

value of IU93 Quad. ic adjusted by the followin3. 

First. the value of 0-193 Quads is multiplied by 37.lB 

percent (the fraction of television leIs that ant ' 

monochrome) fur a prodlict of M7'19 Quada. 

Second. the EUP Model basea the anergy use for aU 

television lelll on the energy vse for colD\" televiaioa 

.. 15. Typically •• eclor television ael uses about 

three time. more energy than a monochrome 

television lei. Consequently. the value of 0.0719 

Quad .. which ia based on the energy use of cohx 

television .e!&. mual be adjusted 10 reflec1 the energy use of monochrome television tel8.. The 

aMusl per unit energy uae in the year 2000 it 

f .. re<:Btlted II> be 1&3 kWH for color television lIels 

and 55 II Wb for IDBDOCbrome aeleYiskJa leta. &Ie 

Technical Support DocumeaL Appeadix C. 

Therefore. the value of D.0719 QuadD wu IIdjusted. 

by t.Iu ratio 0155 kWh to 163 kWh to ac.cou.at for the 

difference in energy use between • typical 

moeochrome te!eYi,ioa let and a c:cior televiainn 

8et. resultill8 In the t mooochrome ~leviaiolll8b _ 

expected to Wit abotU 0.ll24 Quads. In the IIIlUketbased scenario. aD television aela lire forecasted to 

use about 0.148 Quads in Ifte :rear 2000 (0.12% Quad. 

Cor color ItIlevisiOl1 lela and Q.024 Quad_ for 

monochrome television eetsl-Br •• isnilal' 

procedure. all teJevisioll ..,15 are £arecasted t.e-uae 0.122 Quad. in the year 2000 Cor the standards 

scenario. ~ TecMical &!ppm't Decw:nef. 

Appendi>l.C, 

the first costs for television sets at 

various efficiencies. 

The exponential first cost developed 

for television sets showed a poor 

correlation to the market survey data. . 

The difference between the market 

survey data and the exponential first 

cost curve averaged about 34 percent. A. 

linear regression analysis was then 

conducted to improve the correlation to 

the market survey data. A cubic first 

cost curve showed the best correlation 

to the market survey data. The 

difference between the market survey 

data and the cubic first cost curve 

. averaged about 17 percent. Therefore. 

on the basis of an improved correlation, 

the cubic first cost curve was used to 

estimate the economic impact on consumers. See Technical Support . 

Document. page 85. . 

The average fIr.t cost of a television 

set in 1988 (one with an energy . 

efficiency of 1(3 percent) iii expected. to 

cost about $439. The average fIrSt cost of a television set meeting the Levell . 

standard (181 percent) is expected to 

cost about $507. The economic impact of 

the standard is projected to increase the 

first cost of a television set by about 15 

percent ($68). Similarly, the average cost 

of a television set meeting the Levelz 

standard (200 percent) is expected to . 

cost about $608. which is projected to 

. increase the first cost of a television set 

by about 38 percent ($169). . 

B. Life Cycle Cost The IiIe cycle coat 

for television sets is the sum of the first 

cost and the operating costs discounted 

over the lifetime of the appliance. More 

efficient television sets are not expected 

to result in increased maintenance cost._ 

Consequently. maintenance costs were 

not included in estimating life cycle 

costs. 

The minimum life cycle cost i. 

estimated to be about $541 and-occurs 

for a television set with an energy 

efficiency of 145 percent. See Technical 

Support Document. Figure 9. The liIe 

cycle cost for a television let. which 

meets the" Levell standard, is estimated 

to be about $568. For Level 2 standards. 

the life cycle cost is estimated to be 

about $681. Standards for television lets 

could result in an increase of life cycle 

costs of approximately $47 for Levell 

standards and $140 for Level 2 

standarda. 

C. Energy Savings. As indicated 

above. the energy savings attributable to 

standards for television sets over the 

period 1988--1999. the average life of a 

television set. are forecasted by the EUP 

Model to range from D.24O to G.Z46 

Quads based on savings for Levell and 

Level 2 standards. respectiTely. 

Results from sensitivity analyse~ indicated that standards might result in 

significant energy savings. For the 

sensitivity analyses. energy savings over the period of the average life of a . television set beginning with the year 

1988 were forecasted to range from 230 

bpd to 680 bpd for oll S8\.ings and from 

3,040 mdl day to 8.930 mcf/ day for gas 

savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails 

the significant energy savings test . 

regarding oil and natural gas. See Table 

7. Electricity savings over the period of 

the average life of a television set 

beginning with the year 1988 were 

projected to range from 0.056 percent to 

0.16 percent of the national electricity 

use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the 

significant energy savings test 

concerning electricity. The annual 

savings in the year 2000. the year 

following the period of the average life 

of a television set purcbased in the last 

year before a standard could be 

imposed. were forecasted to range from 

lZ,48 percent to 37.04 percenL 

TA9I.E 7.-SENStTIVITY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY 

SoWINGS FOR TELEVISION SETs 

6D EJeo. 

~ 01 (mct.l ~ Per· Cbpcfj day) (perc:en1) '*" 

Constant EIficiency_ eeo 11.930 0.111 S7.D4 ~Weea.._ 510 1I,s..o 0.12 19.08 ffistOricaI tCue 11_ 290 3.850 0.070 16.71 

~~~- Z30 3.0.c0 0.0511 . 12.411 31!0 4.680 0.086 23.37 

DOE believes that for television sets, 

the sensitivity analyses tend to 

overstate the energy savings 

attributable to standards. Historically. 

television sets have shown a dramatic 

improvement in energy efficiency. The 

energy efficiency improved from 69 

percent in 1972 to 114 percent in 1978-

See Technical Support Document. page 

34. The EUP Model forecasts that the 

energy efficiency in 2006 under the two 

historical extrapolation sensitivity 

anslyses would range from 163 to 174 

percent. See Technical Support 

Document. Tables 16 and 17. The trend 

in energy efficiency for television sets 

indicates that the energy efficiency will 

not remain constant. 88 in the constant 

efficiency analysis. or increase slightly. 

as in the conservative analysis. 

Therefore. DOE believes that for 

television sets. the constant effICiency 

and conservative analyses overestimate 

energy savings. 

DOE also believes that the historical 

(Case 1). historical (Case ·2). and the 

Level 2 sensitivity analyses also result 

in overestimates of energy savings. 

Advancements in electronics. in general. are an ongoing drive toward . 
12978 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

iaturization and lower power

equirements as vacuum tubes were

replaced by transistors and transistors

are replaced by integrated circuits.

Television sets are following this overall

trend. Newer designs in television sets

could become commercially available

after 1988 which could be substantially

more efficient than any standard level

based on available technology in 1988.

For example, newer technology is

emerging which could replace picture i

tubes with low-power flat screens.

Three types of flat screens being.

developed use color liquid crystal

displays (LCD), gas plasma, and

electroluminescence. Manufacturers

have already developed prototypes of

small screen color LCD television sets.

DOE expects television sets with low

power flat screens will be commercially

available in the future (by 2000). If these

technologies, or other similar

technologies, become competitive with

picture tubes, power requirements for

television sets could drop remarkably.

Therefore, DOE believes that the

sensitivity analyses for television sets

results in overestimates of energy

savings because emerging technologies

could become commercially available

F hich could result in all television sets

eing more efficient than the standards

evel.

A further concern with the constant

efficiency and and conservative

sensitivity analyses is that the

improvement in energy efficiency in the

market based scenario is projected to be

lower than the improvement in the Level

1 standards analysis. For these

sensitivity analyses, standards would

result in greater burdens to consumers.

For example, television sets are

projected to cost about $415 in the

constant sensitivity analysis and $426 in

the conservative sensitivity analysis,

while television sets which meet Level 1

standards were projected to cost $507.

The resulting increases in first costs to

consumers would be $92 (22 percent) for

the constant sensitivity analysis.

Similarily, the resulting increases in first

costs to consumers are expected to be

$72 (17 percent) for the historical --

analysis (Case 1) and $69 (16 percent)

for the historical analysis (Case 2).

These increases are greater than the

projected increase for the Level .1

standards analysis.

D. Lessening of Utility or Performance

of Products: As indicated in the General

Discussion section, there is no

assurance that future utility or

performance of television sets would not

be lessened as a result of disincentives

caused by standards to investments in

new energy-using features. -; - .. - ... ..

E. Impact of Lessening Competition. `

The determination of this factor must be

made by the Attorney General. . .

F. Need to Save Energy. Energy

savings as forecasted by the EUP Model

are 0.240 Quads for Level I standards

and 0.246 Quads for Level 2 standards.

DOE believes that the need of the

Nation to save the marginal amount of

energy realized by television set.

standards is an insufficient reason for

standards.

Conclusion -

Benefits of a standard for television

sets, compared to no standards, are that

standards would save energy.

Burdens of a standard at Level I are

estimated to be: the increased first cost

of a television set by about 15 percent

($68) over the average cost of a

television set purchased in 1988; the life

cycle cost is increased by about $47 over

the life cycle minimum. Burdens of a

standard at Level 2 would result in even

greater economic burdens for

consumers.

In light of all the factors discussed

here and in the general discussion, on

balance, DOE believes that the burdens

of standards for television sets outweigh

the benefits. Therefore, DOE proposes

that television set standards are not

economically justified as required by

section 325(b)(2) of the Act

c. Clothes Washers

A "clothes washer" means a

consumer product designed to clean

clothes, utilizing a water solution of

soap and/or detergent and mechanical

agitation or other movement See 10 CFR

430.2.

1. Product Classes. Two classes of

clothes washers, top loading and front

loading, were specified by DOE in the

December 1979 advance notice. These

classes are distinguished by

performance-related features which

affect utility and efficiency.

Front loading clothes washers

typically use significantly less water

than top loaders. Since clothes washer

energy consumption is a function of. the

hot water usage of the machine, front

loaders typically use significantly less

energy than "top loaders. Top loaders, on

the other hand, offer a distinct

performance-related feature in that they

spin the clothes drier. Front loaders are

difficult to balance during the spin cycle

and may vibrate significantly. Spin -

speeds are typically lower with the front

loaders than with top loaders in order to

reduce vibration. Therefore, top loaders

typically remove more water from the

clothes during the spin cycle than do

front loaders. Because of differences in

utility and efficiency. top loading clothes

washers and front loading clothes

•washers are specified as separate -

c l a s s e s. --- : -, -. ..

Based on comments received on the -

December 1979 advance notice • .

recommending expansion of the classes,

DOE has determined that there may be

merit in adding some or all of the •

following additional clothes washers

classes to the program: top loading .

automatic clothes washers, top loading -

semi-automatic clothes washers, and

clothes washers with suds-saver .. .

features. .. ,

2. Design Options. The design options

for clothes washers specified in the

December 1979 advance notice were:

(a) Eliminate Warm Rinses.

(b) Improve Fill Control.

(c) Reduce Thermal Mass.

(d) Increase Motor Efficiency.-

(e) Add Insulation.

(f) Reduce Tub Clearances.-

3. Standard Levels. See Table 8 for the

standard levels selected for clothes

washers. The Level I standards are 1.14

it 3/kWh for top loading clothes washers

and 1.25 ft'/kWh for front loading

clothes washers. The Level I standard

for front loading clothes washers is

identical to the level published in the

December 1979 advance notice.

TABLE 8.-STANDARD LEVELS SELECTED FOR

CLOTHES WASHERS .

Product elm Laval 1 Level 2

1. Top LoaAnp.-

2 Front Loading

11.14

12$

'1302

12$

A cubic feet per lutowatthow.

DOE is revising Level 1 for top loading

clothes washers in today's notice. DOE'

received several comments stating that

the level was determined incorrectly by

using 2.39 ft3 as the average tub

capacity of a top loading clothes

washer. The average tub capacity was

actually 1.94 W. Therefore, the

commenters recommended that 1.14 ft'/

kWh should be the level. Consequently,

DOE is also using 1.14 ft3/kWh as the

Level I standard for top loading clothes

washers.

The Level 2 standard is 1.302 fts/kWh

for top loading clothes washers and is

based on the industry data as to the

most efficient clothes washers available

in 1988. The Level 2 standard designated

for front loading clothes washers is the

same as the Level I standard, because

the Level 1 standard is expected to be .

the maximum improvement in energy

efficiency which is technologically

feasible for this product class.

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings

realized by standards for clothes

washers were projected by the EUP

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal I Vol. 50. No. ()2 I ,VJU,l1UQ.V. April 1, 1985 I Proposed Ru~e8 

turization and lower power "I'Pnlliil'~lm~ntFl as vacuum tubes were 

ret,la(:ed by transistors and transistors 

are replaced by integrated circuits. ' 

Television sets are following this overall 

trend. Newer designs in television sets 

could be;:ome commercially available 

after 1988 which could be substantially 

more efficient than any standard level 

based on available technology in 1988. 

For example. newer technology is 

emerging which could replace picture i 

tubes with low-power flat screens. " 

Three types of flat screens being . 

developed use color liquid crystal 

displays (LCD). gas plasma. and 

electroluminescence. Manufacturers 

have already developed prototypes of 

small screen color LCD television sets. 

DOE expects television sets with low 

power flat screens will be commercially 

available in the future (by 2000).1£ these 

technologies. or other similar 

technologies. become competitive with 

picture tubes, power requirements for 

television sets could drop remarkably. 

Therefore, DOE believes that the 

sensitivity analyses for television sets 

results in overestimates of energy 

savings because emerging technologies 

could become commercially available 

hiCh could result in all television sets 

eing more efficient than the standards 

evel. . .' .. 

A further concern with the constant 

efficiency and and conservative ' ' 

sensitivity analyses is that the , improvement in energy efficiency In the 

market based scenario is projected to be 

lower than the improvement in the Level 

1 standards analysis. For these . sensitivity analyses, standards would 

result in greater burdens to consumers. 

For example, television sets are 

projected to cost about $415 in the " 

constant sensitivity analysis and $426 in 

the conservative sensitivity analysis, 

while television sets which meet Levell 

standards were projected to cost $507. 

The resulting increases in first costs to 

consumers would be $92 (22 percent) for 

the constant sensitivity analysis. 

Similaril}" the resulting inCJ:eases in first 

costs to consumers are expected to be . 

$72 (17 percent) for the historical·, '-. 

analysis (Case 1) and $69 (16 pe~cent) 

for the h!§torical analysis (Case 2). 

These inct'l=l.ases are greater than the 

projected increase for the Level.1 

standards analysis. .' " ' 

D. Lessening of Utility or Performance 

of Products: As indicated in the General 

Discussion section. there is DO 

assurance that future utility or . 

performance of television sets would not 

be lessened as a result of disincentives 

caused by standards to' investments in 

new energy-using features. -,', .. 

E.lmpact of Lessening Competition . . : 

The determination of this factor must be 

made by the Attorney GeneraL, ".' 

F. Need to Save Energy. Energy 

savings as forecasted by the EUP Model 

are 0,240 Quads for Levell standards 

and 0.246 Quads for Level 2 standards. 

DOE believes that the need of the 

Nation to save the marginal amount of 

energy realized by television set, 

standards is an insufficient reason for 

standards. " ',- ,., ': ' : .... ":., .,' .. 

Conclusion . 

Benefits of a standard for t~1eVision sets. compared to no standards. are that 

standards would save energy. . 

Burdens of a standard at Levell are estimated to be: the increased first cost 

of a te1evision set by about 15 percent 

($66) over the average cost of a 

television set purchased in 1988; the life 

cycle cost is increased by about $47 over the life cycle minimum. Burdens of a 

standard at Level 2 would result in even greater economic burdens for consumers. 

In light of all the factors discussed 

here and in the general discussion, on 

balance. DOE believes that the burdens 

of standards for television sets outweigh 

the benefits. Therefore, DOE proposes, 

that television set standards are not ' 

economically justified 8S required by 

"ection 325(b)[2} of the Act. 

. c. Clothes Washers 

A "clothes washer" means a 

consumer product designed to clean 

clothes. utilizing a water solution of 

soap and/or detergent and mechanical 

agitation or other m.oveinent. See 10 CFR 

430.2. " , . I, Product Classes. Two classes of ' 

clothes washers. top loading and front 

loading. were speCified by DOE in the 

December 1979 advance notice. These 

classes are distinguished by 

performance-related features which 

affect utility and efficiency. ' : • 

Front loading clothes washers ' 

typically use significantly less water 

than top loaders. Since clothes,washer 

energy consumption is a function of, the 

hot water usage .of the machine. front 

loaders typically use significantly less " 

energy than top loaders. Top loaders, on the other hand. offer a distinct . 

performance-related feature in that they 

spin the clothes drier. Front loaders are 

difficult to balance during the spin cycle 

and may vibrate significantly. Spin .. 

speeds are typically lower with the front 

loaders than with top loaders in order to 

reduce vibration. Therefore. top loaders 

typically remove more water from the 

clothes during the spin cycle than do . , 

front loaders. Because of differences in . 

utility and efficiency. top loading clothes 

washers and fi:ont loading clothes 

·washers are specified as separate 

classes.-' . . 

Based on comments received on the' , December 1979 advance notice . : 

recommending expansion of the classes, 

DOE has determined that there may be 

merit in adding some or all of the . 

following additional clothes washers 

classes to the program: top loading, ' 

automatic clothes washers. top loading -

semi-automatic clothes washers. and .' 

clothes washers with suds-saver, 

features. 0: ' , 

2. Design Options. The design options 

for clothes washers specified in the 

December 1979 advance notice were: 

(a) Eliminate Warm Rinses. 

(b) Improve Fill Control. 

(c) Reduce Thermal Mass. 

(d) Increase Motor Efficiency.· 

(e) Add Insulation. ' 

(f) Reduce Tub Clearances'-

3. Standard Levels. See Table 8 for the 

standard levels selected for clothes 

washers. The Levell standards are 1.14 

ft '/kWh for top loading clothes washers 

and 1.25 ft'/kWh for front loading 

clothes washers. The Levell standard 

for front loading clothes washers is 

. identical.to the level published in the 

December 1979 advance notice. 

TABLE 8.-STANOARD lEVELS SELECTED FOR 

CLOTHES WASHERS 

1. Top l.oIcIng. 

2. Front IJlacing 

• CuI:>ic feel ""'. __ ' 

'1.14 

1.25 

, 1.302 

1.25 

DOE is revising Leve11 for top loading 

clothes washers in today's notice. DOE' 

received several comments stating that 

the level was determined incorrectly by 

using 2.39 fta as the average tub 

capacity of a top loading clothes 

washer. The average tub capacity was actually 1.94 Its. Therefore, the 

commenters recommended that 1.14 fts / 

kWh should be the level. Consequently. 

DOE is also using 1.14 fts /kWh as the 

Levell standard for top loading clothes 

washers. 

The Level 2 standard is 1:302 fts /kWh 

for top loading clothes washers and is 

based on the industry data as to the 

most efficient clothes washers available 

in 1988. The Leve12 standard designated 

for front loading clothes washers is the 

same as the Leve11 standard. because 

the Levell standard is expected to be . 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency which is technologically 

feasible for this product class. 

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings 

realized by standards for clothes 

washers were projected by the EUP 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 /.Proposed Rules

Model. Over 98 percent of all clothes

washers shipped in 1979 were reported

to be top loading units. See Technical

Support Document, page 45 . Therefore,

the EUP Model uses top loading clothes

washers to represent all types of clothes

washers.

According to results from the EUP

Model, Level I standards for clothes

washers are projected to save about'

0.347 Quads over the 1988-2000 period,

the 13-year average life of a clothes

washer. See Technical Support .

Document, Table 18. Likewise, Level 2

standards for clothes washers are

projected to save about 0.396 Quads

over the 1988-2000 period. See Technical

Support Document, Table It.

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level I

standards, savings of 0.347 Quads *3

would result in the savings of 1,100 bpd

of oil and of 23,690 mcf per day of

natural gas.114 This is only 11 and 42

percent, respectively, of the amount that

DOE deems significant For Level 2

standards, savings of 0.396 Quads would

result in the savings of 1,260 bpd of oil

'and of 27,140 and per day of natural gas.

This is only 13 and 48 percent

respectively, of the amount that DOE

deems significant.

B. Electricity Savings. Electricity

savings of 0.218 Quads of electricity

over the 13-year period is less than 0.05

percent of the total national energy used

for electricity." For Level 2 standards,

electricity savings of 0.250 Quads over

the 13-year period is less than 0.06

percent of the total national energy used

for electricity. DOE believes that

electricity savings are so small as to

have no measureable effect on the

environment or on the need for new

generating capacity.

C. Percent Savings. The percent

savings in the year 2001, the year after

the average life of a clothes washer

purchased in the year 1987, the last year

before standards would be insposed. is

projected to be about 9.0 percent for

Level 1 standards and about 1118

percent for level 2 standards

"The 0.347 Quads of energy savings meuktng

from Level I standards are due to sv ►iogs achieved

by using less hot water. The fraction of households

which heat water by electricity is 33 percent and is

54 percent for natural gee and 13 percent for oil. See

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Housing

Characteristics 1980, DOE/ELA-43314. June IBM

. 94 This assumes that oil cn adtutas 1,85 percent

and gas 615 percent of the energy used to generate

electricity over this time period. These percentages

are the average of the projected proportions for the

years I990 and 1985. See 1981 Annual Report to

Congress. Volume 3: Forecasts. DOE/mA 0173 (8i)/

3. February 1982. III Electricity usage over the period 1966-2000 is

estimated to be about 45ZS Quads_ This number is

derived from NEPPIY. -

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, DOE

believes that standards for clothes -

washers would not result in a significant

conservation of energy.

S Economic justification

A. Economic Impact an Consumers.

The economic impact on consumers was

found by estimating the additional first

cost, if any, that a consumer would pay

in order to purchase a clothes washer

which meets the standard. The -

development of a first cost curve for

clothes washers was patterned after the

exponential cost curve developed for the

eight products. See Technical Support

Document, page 85. Market survey data

for 27 clothes washers were used.2e Due

to the wide scatter in data used in

developing the first cost curve, the

difference for the 27 clothes washers

between the market survey data and the

first cost curve averaged about 14

percent. DOE is interested in comments

regarding the uncertainties associated in

estimating the first costs for clothes

washers at various efficiencies.

The average cost of a clothes washer

in 1988 (one with a energy factor of 0.993

ft3/kWh) is expected to cost about $460.

Similarly, the average cost of a clothes

washer meeting the standard level of

1.14 ft'/kWh is expected to cost about

$674. The economic impact of the Level

I standard is projected to increase the

first coat of a clothes washer by about

47 percent ($214). First costs at Level 2

are expected to be even greater.

B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost

for clothes washers is the sum of the

first cost and the operating costs

discounted over the lifetime of the

appliance. More efficient clothes

washers are not expected to result in

increased maintenance costs.

Consequently, maintenance costs were

not included in estimating life cycle

costs.

The minimum life cycle coat is

estimated to be about $1003 and occurs

for a clothes washer with an energy

efficiency of 0.87 ft'/kWh: See Technical

Support Document. Figure 10. The life

cycle costs for a clothes washer, which

meets the standard level of 1.14 ft't

kWh. is estimated to be about $1173.

Standards for clothes washers set at

Level I could result in an increase of life

cycle coats of approximately $170 over

the LCC minimum. Life cycle costs at

Level 2 are expected to be even greater.

16A literature search was made to collect market

survey data for clothes washers. Data for clothes

washers were found in the report. "Appliance -

Efficiency Information. Survey and Data Base

Development, Bonneville Power Administration.

August 1989.. -

12979

C. Energy Savings. As indicated

above, the energy savings attributable to

a standard for clothes washers over the

period 1988-2000, the average life of a

clothes washer, are forecasted to range

from 0.347 to 0.396 Quads based on

savings for Level 1 and Level 2

standards, respectively.. - ,

For 'the sensitivity analyses, energy

savings over the period of the average

life of a clothes washer beginning with

the year 1988 were forecasted to range

from 300 bpd to 2,130 bpd for oil savings

and from 6,380 mcf/day to 45,980 mcf/

day for gas savings. Each sensitivity

analysis fails the significant energy

savings test regarding oil and natural

gas. See Table 9. Electricity savings over

the period of the average life of a clothes

washer beginning with the year 1986

were projected to range from 0,013

percent to 0.096 percent of the national

electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis

fails the significant energy savings test

concerning electricity. The annual

savings in the year 2001 , the year

following the period of the average life

of a clothes washer purchased in the

last year before a standard could be

imposed, were forecasted to range from

1.30 percent to 18.16 percent. Each

sensitivity analysis, except for the Level

2 sensitivity analysis, fails the third

significant energy savings test for

percent savings. Energy savings for the

Level 2 sensitivity analysis are projected

to be 16.16 percent. The standards level

in the Level 2 sensitivity analysis is

based on the highest energy efficiency

level projected to be commercially

available by January 1, 1988. DOE

believes that this is an unlikely

occurrence because it is difficult to

believe that all clothes washers

manufactured after January 1. 1988,

would be at this efficiency level. DOE

further believes, that if the percent

savings were adjusted to account for

separate product classes as was done

for television sets, the adjusted savings

would be less than the forecasted value

of 18.16 percent. In fact. the adjusted

savings could be less than the level of

16.67 percent. resulting in no significant

energy savings for this sensitivity

analysis. .. .

TABLE 9.-SENSITMTY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY _

SAVINGS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

ON Gas

t r

Etw

rovdj o cash(

eano

constant Etficieacyr. 1,880 40.490 0.084 15.45

Conservative case __. 1,880 40.490 0.084 15.45

Histori at (Cass 1j 830 17.880 0.037 5.80

Hiistoneal (Case 2).._. 300 6.380 0.013 1.30

Level 2 SanalU+ay._. 2.130 45.980 OD96 18.18

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federai Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday. April 1, 1985 /. Proposed Rules 12979 

Model. Over 98 percent of an clothes 

washers shipped in 1979 were reported 

to be top loading units. See Technical 

Support Document, page 45. Therefore. 

the EUP Model uses top loading clothes 

washers to represent all types of clothes 

washers. ". . 

According to results from the EUP 

Model, Levell standards for clothes 

washers are projected to save about . 

0.347 Quads over the' 1988-2000 period, 

the 13-year average life of a clothei 

washer. See Technical Support !. 

Document. Table 18. Ukewise. LevEll 2 

standards for clothes washers are projected to save about 0.396 Quads over the 1988-2000 period. See Technical 

Support Document, Table 19. : 

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level :I 

standards. savings of 0.347 Quads U 

would result in the savings of 1.100 bpd 

of oil and of 23,690 mel per day of 

natural gas.Z4 This is only 11 and 42 

percent. respectively. of the amount that 

DOE deems significant. For Level 2 . 

standards. savings of 0.396 Quads would 

result in the savings of 1.260 bpd of oil 

'Bnd of 27.140 md per day of natural gas. 

This is only 13 and 48 percent. 

respectively. of the amount that DOE 

deems signifiC8.llL 

B. Electricity Savings. Electricity 

sBvings of 0.218 Quads of electricity 

over the 13-year period is less than o.os 

percent of the total national energy used 

for electricity.u For Level 2 mndards, 

electricity savings of 0.250 Quads over 

the 13-year period is less than 0-06 

percent of the total national energy used 

for electricity. DOE believes that 

electricity savings are so small as to 

have no measureable effect on the 

environment or on the need for new . 

generating capacity. " 

C. Percent Savings. The pem!~1 . savings in the year 2001. the year after 

the average life of a clothel washer . 

pnrcbased in the year 1987. the last year 

before standards would be imposed. is 

projected to be about 9.0 percent for 

Levell standards and about 10.8 

percent for Level 2 standards. 

from 

n The 

Level 

0.347 

1 lIandanit 

Quad, or 

are 

enel1l' 

due 10 

savfn;gs 

'Irlins& ~ achJewed 

by ... ing le8l1lD1 water. The rraction of hou~oIda 

wllich heat ... Ier by electricity is 33 percent and b 

54 percent for nalurals •• and 13 percent for oil See 

Residential Energy Con.wnption Surwy: Flouring 

Charac:leriatics 1900. DOE/EIA-«'I14. June 1l1li%. 

" •• Thfa .... umea that oil cmutltutn 1.115 percent 

lind 8sa 6.15 percent of the energy used \0 generate 

electricity over thit time period. l1\ese percentage. are the averase of the projected proportillDS for the 

years 1990 and 1995. See 1981 Annual Repori 10 

Coosrea .. VoIlIIIIII3: Forecula. OOE/ElA 0173161J1 

3. FebMJ8ry lEa. . " 

. .. Electricity usaae O\ICI' the pe.riod 1968-ZOOO ill 

etlimaled to be aboul4S2.S Quad ... Thil nWllber b 

derived from NEW lV. 

Conclusion . ' .. '" '" ".' 

On the b~sis of the above, DoE 

believes that standards for clothes 

washers would not result in a significant 

conservation of energy. '. 

S. Economic luslificatiall .' : 

A. Economic Impact C111 Consumers. 

The economic impact on consumers was 

found by estimating the additional first 

cost. if any. that a consumer would pay 

in order to purchase a clothes washer 

which meets the standard. The . 

development of a first cost curve for 

clothes washers was patterned after the 

exponential cost curve developed for the 

eight products. See Technical Support 

Document, page 85. Market survey data 

for 27 clothes washers were used. 26 Due 

to the wide scatter in data used in 

developing the fust cost curve, the 

difference for the 27 clothes washers 

between the market survey data and the 

first cost curve averaged about 14 

percent. DOE is interested in comments 

regarding the uncertainties associated in 

estimating the first costs for clothes 

washers at various efficiencies. 

The average cost of a clothes washer 

in 1988 (one with a energy factor of 0.993 

ft 3/kWh) is expected to cost about $460. 

Similarly. the average cost of a clothes 

washer meeting the standard level of 

1.14 ft'/kWh is expected to cost about 

$674. The economic impact of the Level 

. 1 standard is projected to increase the 

first coat of a clothes washer by about 

47 percent ($214). First costs at Leve12 

are expected to be even grea\er. 

B. Life Cycle CosL The life cycle cost 

for clothes washers is the sum of the 

first cost and the operating costa 

discounted over the lifetime or the 

appliance.. More emcient clothea 

washers are not expected to result in 

increased maintenance costa. 

Consequently. maintenance costa were 

not included in estimating life cycle 

costs. . 

The minimum Ufe cycle c:oat Ut 

estimated to be about $1003 a.ud occurs 

for 8 clothes washer with aD energy 

efficiency of 0.87 ft3/kWh.. See Technical 

Support Document. Figure 10- The life 

cv.cIe costs for a clothes washer. which 

meets the 5tandard level of 1.14 ft'l . kWh. is estimated to be about $1173. . 

Standards for clothes washers set at 

Levell could result in an increase of life 

cycle costs of approximately $170 over 

the LeC minimum. Life cycle cosm at 

Level 2 are expected to be even greater. 

• A literature IeIIrch "'811 mlde to ~ect marf<et 

.urvey data £or clothes wa.be~ n.. ta for clothe!! 

washers were found in the report. "AppIiBIIC8 

Efficiency hUonnation. Survey and Data Dele 

Developmenr. Bonneville Power Administration. 

Aaguat t1III3. . . • 

C. Enelgy Savings. As indicated 

above. the energy savings attributable to 

a standard for clothes washers over the 

period 1988-2000. the average life of a 

clothes washer. are forecasted to range 

from 0.347 to 0.396 Quads based on savings for Levell and Level 2 

standards. respectively. " 

For 'the sensitivity analyses. energy 

savings over the period of the average 

life of a clothes washer beginning with 

the year 1988 were forecasted to range 

from 300 bpd to 2.130 bpd for oil savings 

and from 6,380 md/day to 45.980 mcfl 

day for gas savings. Each sensitivity 

analysis fails the significant energy 

savings test regarding oil and natural 

gas. See Table 9. Electricity savings over 

the period of the average life of a clothes 

washer beginning with the year 1988 

were projected to range from 0.013 

percent to 0.096 percent of the national 

electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis 

fails the significant energy savings test 

concerning electricity. The annual 

savings in the year 2001. the year 

following the period of the average life 

ora clothes washer purchased in the 

last year before a standard could be 

imposed. were forecasted to range from 

1.30 percent to 18.16 percent. Each 

sensitivity analysis. except for the Level 

2 sensitivity analysiS, fails the third 

signifu:ant energy savings test for 

percent savings. Energy savings for the 

Level 2 sensitivity analysis are projected 

to be 16.16 percent. The standards level 

in the Level 2 sensitivity analysis is 

based on the highest energy efficiency 

level projected to be commercially 

available by January 1.1988. DOE 

believes that this is an unlikely 

occurrence because it is difficult to 

believe that all clothes washers 

manufactured after January 1. 1988. 

would be at this efficiency leveL DOE 

further believes. that if the percent 

savings were adjusted to account for 

separate product classes as was" done 

for television sets. the adjusted savings 

would be less than the forecasted valne 

of 18.16 percent. In fact. the adjusted 

savings could be less than the level of 

16.67 percent. resulting in no significant 

energy savings for this sensitivity 

atlalysis. .... " 

TABLE 9.-5ENSITMlY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY 

SAVINGS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 

<OM eJoc. 

,..,.. 01 (onctl IIV:lIy Per. \bpd) day) (per. cent ani) 

Constant EfficieII<:)t- 1.1180 40.490 O.()8.4 15.45 Conse<va_ CIIsa __ 1,880 40.490 0.()8.4 15.45 ttistorica! cc- 1)- 830 17.880 O.o:l7 S.BO 

IflStOriCal (e-. 2)-- 300 6.360 0.013 1.30 

Level 2 Sena/IMI)'-. l!.13O ~.9BO .O.D96 18.18 
12980 ' Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

0. Lessening of Utility or Performance central system humidifiers, room for dehumidifiers. The Level i standards

Products. As indicated in the General humidifiers, and dehumidifiers. for room humidifiers and dehumidifiers

Discussion section, there is no - - The two classes of humidifiers are are identical to the levels published in

assurance that future utility or distinguished by their performance- the December 1979 advance notice.'

performance of clothes washers would related features which affect utility and

not be lessened as a result of efficiency. Central system humidifiers TABLE 10. STANDARD LEVELS SELECTED FOR

disincentives caused by standards to are designed to add moisture into the air HUMIDIFIERS AND DEHUMIDIFIERS

investments in new energy-using stream of a central heating system. A

features. central system humidifier uses energy

E. Impact of Lessening Competition. . supplied by the warm air furnace to

The determination of this factor must be evaporate water used for humidification,

made by the Attorney General. and it adds moisture to the entire

F. Need to Save Energy. Clothes residence.

washers use electricity directly, and oil. Room humidifiers are designed to add

natural gas, and electricity indirectly moisture directly to the conditioned air

through their use of hot water. Energy without requiring connection to a

savings, which are forecasted to be 0.347 separate heating or distribution system.

Quads for Level I standards and 0.398 Room humidifiers have heaters or other

Quads for Level 2 standards,

are means to evaporate the water used for

expected to be achieved through humidification . A room humidifier can

reduced use of hot water . DOE believes be used to add moisture to a local area

that the need of the Nation to save the of the residence, and can be moved from

marginal amount of energy realized by one room to another. if necessary.

clothes washer standards is insufficient Because of the differences in the

reason for standards.

Conclusion .

source of neat for evaporating me water

used for humidification, the DOE test

method for determining the energy

Benefits of a standard for clothes efficiency is different for central system

washers, compared to no standards,

are and room humidifiers. This difference,

that standards would save energy. . as well as differences in utility, require

Burdens of a standard are estimated that separate classes be specified for

to be; the increased first cost of a central system and room humidifiers.

No classes of dehumidifiers are clothes washer by about 47 percent specified. All dehumidifiers have ($214) over the average cost of a clothes midr

washer purchased in 1988; and the cost

components

essentially

nent and

same

there d do o not appear

not ppto

is increased by about $170 over the life n

cycle minimum. be any different erent functional

In light of all the factors discussed characteristics which affect energy

here and in the general discussion,

on consumption warrant the

c aDOE is balance, DOE believes that the burdens speciested in n fica tion

i receiving

that

separate

sta tements

of standards for clothes washers d

outweigh the benefits. Therefore, DOE concerning whether theree should be

proposes that clothes washer standards dehufic product classes for

dehumidifiers. are not economically justified as 2. Design Options. The December 1979 required by section 325(b)(2) of the Act. advance notice identified the following

d. Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers - design options for humidifiers:

A "humidifier" is a consumer product (a) Add Humidistat.

designed to add moisture into the Basedd upon comments

omMotor Efficiency.

Bamments on the conditioned air, and which falls into one December 1979 advance notice, DOE of the following classes: a central believes that almost all humidifiers are

system humidifier or a room humidifier. fitted with humidistats. Therefore, the A "dehumidifier" means a self- projected savings are based on contained, electrically-powered, improved fan motor efficiency only.

mechanically-re rigerate f d device, .

designed primarily to decrease the.

moisture content of the air in an

enclosed space; it has a refrigerated

surface (evaporator) onto which:

moisture from the air condenses, a

refrigerating system that includes an

electric motor, a fan for circulating air,

and a drainage arrangement for _ 3. Standard Levels. See Table 10 for

collecting and/or disposing of the - the standard levels selected for

condensate. See 10 CFR 430.2. humidifiers and dehumidifiers. The

1. Product Classes. The three product Level I standards are 93 percent for

classes specified by DOE in the central system humidifiers, 93 percent

December 1979 advance notice are for room humidifiers and 2 .9 pints/kWh

The December 1979 advance notice

identified the following design options

for dehumidifiers:

(a) Improve Compressor Efficiency.

(b) Improve Condensor Heat Transfer.

(c) Improve Fan Motor Efficiency.

(d) Improve Controls.

(e) Improve Cycle Efficiency.

aro&,ct dose

1. Cenral Syolom Hw6aw

2. Room Huriiffw

3. De fier

Ls I

303

103

'26

L*VW 2

'36.6

r^

pints per ktowatniov.

The level I standard in today's notice

for central system humidifiers is -

different from the level of 92 percent

published in the December 1979 advance

notice. The Auto Flo Company, Division

of Masco Corporation (Auto Flo)

commented that the energy efficiency of

one of its central system humidifiers in

1978 was 93 percent. See Auto Flo, .

comment Number 9. Exhibit 1, page 5.

The level is being revised today to be 93

percent for central system humidifiers.

The level 2 standard for central

system humidifiers is 98.6 percent. Level

2 standards are the same as the Level I

standards for room humidifiers and

dehumidifiers because the Level 1

standards are expected to be the

maximum improvement in energy

efficiency which is technologically

feasible.

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings

realized by standards were projected

separately for humidifiers and

dehumidifiers. Central system

humidifiers use over 20 percent more

energy than room humidifiers. See

Technical Support Document. page 55.

The EUP Model uses central system

humidifiers to represent all types of

humidifiers.

According to results from the EUP

Model. Level 1 standards for humidifiers

are projected to save about 0 .015 Quads

over the 1988-1997 period, the 10-year

average life of a humidifier. See

Technical Support Document, Table 25.

likewise, Level 2 standards for

humidifiers are projected to save about

0.041 Quads over the 1988-1997 period.

See Technical Support Document, Table

26. For dehumidifiers, Level 1 standards

are projected to save about 0.007 Quads

over the 1988-1998 period, the 11-year

average life of a dehumidifier. See . .

Technical Support Document. Table 32.

As presented below, the projected -

savings are forecasted to be less than

the three tests of significant energy

savings. Therefore, DOE believes that

standards for humidifiers and

dehumidifiers would not likely result in

significant conservation of energy. .

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

12980 Federal Register I Vol. SO. No. 62 I Monday. April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

D. Lessening oi UtJ1ity or Performance 

Products. As indicated in the General 

Discussion section. there is no - - assurance that future utility or . . 

performance of clothes washers would 

not be lessened as a result of 

disincentives caused by standards to 

investments in new energy-usms 

features. . 

E.lmpact of Lessening Competition. . The determination ofthis factor must be 

made by the Attorney General. .. 

F. Need to Save Energy. Clothes . . washers use electricity directly. and oil. 

natural gas. Bnd electricity indirectly 

through their use of hot water. Energy 

savings, which are forecasted to be 0.347 

Quads for Levell standards Bnd 0.396 

Quads for Level 2 standards. are expected to be achieved through 

reduced use of hot water. DOE believes 

that the need of the Nation to save the 

marginal amount of energy realized by 

clothes washer standards is insufficient reason for standards. . 

Conclusion .. 

Benefits of a standard for clothes' 

washers. compared to no standards. are that standards would save energy. . 

Burdens of a standard are estimated 

to be: the increased first cost of a . clothes washer by about 47 percent· 

($214) over the average cost of a clothes 

washer purchased in 1988; and the cost 

is increased by about $170 over tlte life 

cycle minimum. . 

In light of all the factors discussed 

here and in the general discussion, on balance. DOE believes that the burdens 

of standards for clothes washers 

outweigh the benefits. Therefore. DOE 

proposes that clothes washer standards are not economically justified as required by section 325(b)(2) of the Act 

d. Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers 

A "humidifier" is a consumer product 

designed to add moisture into the 

conditioned air. and which falls into one of the following classes: a central 

system humidifier or a room humidifier. 

A "dehumidifier" means a selfcontained. electrically-powered. . 

mechanically-refrigerated device. 

designed primarily to decrease the. 

moisture content of the air in an encloseQ space; it has a refrigerated 

surface (evaporator) onto which, 

moisture from the air condenses. a _ 

r~frigerating system that includes an electric motor. a fan for circulating air. 

and a drainage arrangement for . collecting and/or disposing of the 

condensate. See 10 CFR 430.2-

1. Product Classes. The three product 

classes specified by DOE in the 

December 1979 advance notice are 

central system humidifiers. room humidifiers, and dehumidifiers. 

The two classes of humidifiers are· 

distinguished by their performancerelated features which affect utility and . efficiency. Central system humidifiers 

are designed to add moisture into .the air 

stream of a central heating system. A 

central system humidifier uses energy 

supplied by the warm air furnace to 

evaporate water used for humidification. 

and it adds moisture to the entire 

residence,··. 

Room humidifiers are designed to add 

moisture directly to the conditioned air 

without requiring connection to a . 

separate heating or distribution system. 

Room humidifiers have heaters or other means to evaporate the water used for 

humidification. A room humidifier can be used to add moisture to a local area of the residence, and can be moved from one room to anothe!:, if necessary. 

Because of the differences in the source of heat for evaporating the water 

used for humidification, the DOE test 

method for determining the energy . . efficiency is different for central system 

and room humidifiers. This difference. as well as differences in utility, require 

that separate classes be specified for 

central system and room humidifiers. 

No classes of dehumidifiers are specified. All dehumidifiers have 

essentially the same combination of 

components and there do not appear to 

be any different functional . characteristics which affect energy 

consumption that warrant the 

specification of separate classes. DOE is 

interested in receiving statements 

concerning whether there should be 

specific product classes for 

dehumidifiers. 

2. Design Options. The December 1979 

advance notice identified the following 

design options for humidifiers: 

(a) Add Humidistat. . (b) Improve Fan Motor Efficiency.· 

Based upon comments on the 

December 1979 advance notice, DOE 

believes that almost all humidifiers are 

fitted with humidistats. Therefore. the 

projected savings are based on improved fan motor efficiency only. 

The December 1979 advance notice 

identified the following design options 

for dehumidifiers:· . . .-

(a) Improve Compressor Efficiency •. (bJ Improve Condensor Heat Transfer. 

(c) Improve Fan Motor Efficiency. 

(d) Improve Controls. 

(e) Improve Cycle Efficiency. 

3. Standard Levels. See Table 10 for 

the standard levels selected for 

humidifiers and dehumidifiers. The . 

Levell standards are 93 percent for 

central system humidifiers. 93 percent . for room humidifiers and 2.9 pints/kWh 

for dehumidifiers. The Levell standards 

for room humidifiers and dehumidifiers are identical to the levels published in 

the December 1979 advance notice_ . 

TABLE 10. STANDARD lEvELS SELECTED FOR 

HUMIDIAERS AND DEHUMIDIFIERS 

i ~:::.. HIRnicIifiIr_ 

3.~ 

The levelt standard In today'll notice 

for central system humidifiers is 

different from the level of 92 percent 

published in the December 1979 advance 

notice. The AulD Flo Company. Division or Masco Corporation (Auto Flo) 

commented that the energy effiCiency of . one of its central system humidifiers in 

1978 was 93 percent. See Auto Flo •. comment Number 9. Exhibit 1. page 5. 

The level is being revised today to be 93 

percent for central system humidifiers. 

The level 2 standard for central 

system humidifiers is 98.6 percent. Level 

2 standards are the same as the Levell 

standards for room humidifiers and _ 

dehumidifiers because the Levell 

standards are expected to be the 

maximum improvement in energy . 

efficiency which is technologically feasible. . 

4. Energy Savings. The energy savings 

realized by standards were projected 

separately for humidifiers and 

dehumidifiers. Central system 

humidifiers use over 20 percent more energy than room humidifiers. See 

Technical Support Document. page 55 .. The EUP Model uses central system 

humidifiers to represent all types of 

humidifiers. . 

According to results from the EUP 

Model. Levell standards for humidifiers are projected to save about 0.015 Quads over the 1988-1997 period. the 10-year 

average life of a humidifier. See 

Technical Support Document. Table 25. 

Likewise. Level 2 standards for . 

humidifiers are projected to save about 

0.041 Quads over the 1988-1997 period .. See Technical Support Document, Table 

26. For dehumidifiers. Level 1 standards are projected to save about 0.007 Quads 

over the 1988-1998 period. the a-year 

average life of a dehumidifier. See .. Technical Support Document. Table 32-

As presented below. the projected 

savings are forecasted to be less than 

the three tests of significant energy 

savings. Therefore. DOE believes that 

standards for humidifiers and 

dehumidifiers would not likely result In . significant conservation of energy. 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level I

standards, savings for humidifiers of

0.015 Quads 21 would result in the

savings of 20 bpd of oil and of 250 mcf

per day of natural gas. This is only 0.2

and 0.4 percent, respectively, of the

amount that DOE deems significant. For

level 2 standards, savings of 0.041

Quads would result in the savings of 50

bpd of oil and 670 mcf per day of natural

gas. This is only 0.5 and 1 percent, -

respectively, of the amount that DOE.

deems significant.

For level I standards, savings for

dehumidifiers of 0.007 Quads would

result in the savings of 10 bpd of oil and

of 100 mcf per day of natural gas. This is

only 0.1 and 0.2 percent, respectively, of

the amount that DOE deems significant.

B. Electricity Savings. For Level 1

standards.•electricity savings for .

humidifiers of 0.015 Quads over the 10-

year period are less than 0.005 percent

of the total national energy used for

electricity.29 For Level 2 standards,

electricity savings of 0.041 Quads over

the 10-year period are about 0.013

percent of the total national energy used

for electricity. DOE believes that the

electricity savings are so small as to

have no measurable effect on the

environment or on the need for new.

generating capacity.

For level i standards, electricity

savings for dehumidifiers of 0.007 Quads

over the 11-year period are less than .

0.002 percent of the total national energy

used for electricity.49 DOE believes that

the electricity savings are so small as to

have no measurable effect on the _

environment or on the need for new

generating capacity.

C. Percent Savings. The percent

savings for humidifiers in the year 1998,

the. year after the average life of a

humidifier purchased in the year 1987,

the last year before standards would be

imposed. are projected to be about 1.1

percent for Level 1 standards and 3.0 .

percent for Level 2 standards.

The percent savings for dehumidifiers

in the year 1999. the year after the

average life of a dehumidifier purchased

in the year 1987, the last year before

standards be imposed, are projected to

be about 2.7 percent for Level I

standards.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, DOE—

believes that standards would not result

in a significant conservation of energy.

5. Economic justification

A. Economic Impact on Consumers. .

For humidifiers and dehumidifiers, the

economic. impact on consumers was

found by estimating the additional first

cost, if any, that a consumer would pay

in order to purchase a product which

meets the standard. The development of

a first cost curve for humidifiers was

patterned after the exponential cost

curve developed for the eight products.

See Technical Support Document, page

86. Market survey data for four

humidifiers were used 30 Due to the

limited data and the scatter in data used

in developing the first cost curve, the

difference for the four humidifiers

between the market survey data and the

first cost curve average about 6 percent.

DOE is interested in comments

regarding the uncertainties associated in

estimating the first costs for humidifiers

at various efficiencies.

The average cost of a humidifier in

1988 (one with an energy factor of 90

percent) is expected to cost about $120.

Similarly, the average cost of a

humidifier meeting the standard level of

93 percent is expected to cost about

$137. The economic impact of a standard

is projected to increase the first cost of a

humidifier by about 14 percent ($17).

The exponential first cost curve

developed for dehumidifiers showed a

poor correlation to the market survey

data. In order to achieve a better

correlation, a parabolic first cost curve

was developed. See Technical Support

Document, page 67. Market survey data

for 12 dehumidifiers were used.3 t Due to

the wide scatter in data used in

developing the parabolic first cost curve

the difference for the 12 dehumidifiers

between the market survey data and the

first cost curve averaged about 14 .

air This assumes that oil constitutes 2.65 percent percent . DOE is interested in comments

and gas 6.15 percent of the energy used to generate regarding the uncertainties associated in

electricity over this time period.These percentage. .

are the average of the projected proportions for the '

years 1990 and 1995. See 1981 Annual Report to iD A literature search was made to collect market

Congress. Volume 3: Forecasts, DOE/EIA 0173(81) / survey data for humidifiers. Data for humidifiers

3, February 1982. were found in the catalog. "Fall/Winter 1983

ss Electricity usage over the period 1988-1997 is Catalog". Eastern Edition. Sears. Roebuck and Co.

estimated to be about 336.8 Quads. This number is 01 A literature search was made to conduct

derived from data in the 1981 Annual Report to market survey data for dehumidifiers . Data for

Congress, Volume 3: Energy Projections. DOE/EIA- dehumidifiers were found in the article.'

0173(81)/3. February 1982 . "Dehumidifiers: Dryer Air Indoors". Consumers

29 Electricity usage over the period 1988 -1998 is Research Magazine, Consumers Research. Inc.. July

estimated to be about 404 .4 Quads. This number is 2983: in the article "Dehumidifiers". Consumers

derived from data lathe 1961 Annual Report to Reports. Consumers Union, May 1981 ; and the 19m

Congress, Volume 3: Energy Projections. DOE/EIA/ Directory of Certified Dehumidifiers, Edition No.1.

0173(81)/3, February 1982.. AHAtd

12981

estimating the first costs for

dehumidifiers at various efficiencies.

The average cost of a dehumidifier in

1988 (one with an energy efficiency of

2.454 pints/kWh) is expected to cost

about $218. Similarly, the average cost

of a dehumidifier meeting the standard

level of 2.90 pints/kWh is expected to

cost about $267. The economic impact of.

a standard is projected to increase the

first cost of a dehumidifier by about 22

percent [$49). . ,

B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost

for humidifiers and dehumidifiers is the

sum of first cost and the operating costs

discounted over the lifetime of the,

appliance. More efficient humidifiers

and dehumidifiers are not expected to

result in increased maintenance costs.

Consequently, maintenance costs were

not included in estimating life cycle

costs.

For humidifiers, the minimum life

cycle cost is estimated to be about $648

and occurs for a humidifier with an

energy efficiency of 92 percent. See

Technical Support Document, Figure 11.

The life cycle cost for a humidifier,

which meets the standard level of 93

percent, is estimated to be $653. Level I

standards for humidifiers could result in

an increase of life cycle costs of

approximately $5 over the LCC

minimum. '

For dehumidifiers, the minimum life

cycle cost is estimated to be about $503

and occurs for a dehumidifier with an

energy efficiency of 2.64 pints/kWh. See

Technical Support Document, Figure 2.

The life cycle cost for a dehumidifier,

which meets the standard level of 2.90

pints/kWh is estimated to be about

$513. Standards for dehumidifiers could

result in an increase of life cycle costs of

approximately $10 over the LCC

minimum.

C. Energy Savings. For humidifiers,

the energy savings attributable to a

standard over the period 1988-1997, the

average life of a humidifier, were

forecasted to range from 0.015 to 0.041

Quads based on savings for Level I and

Level 2 standards, respectively. .

Results from sensitivity -analyses

indicated that standards would not

result in significant conservation of

energy. Energy savings over the period

of the average life of a humidifier

beginning with the year 1988 are

forecasted to range from 20 bpd to 50

bpd for oil savings and from 20 mcf/day

to 670 mcf/day for gas savings. Each

sensitivity analysis fails the significant

energy savings test regarding oil and

natural gas. See Table 11. Electricity

savings over the period of the average

life of a humidifier, beginning with the

year 1988, are projected to range from

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. so, No. 62 I Monday, April 1, 1985 I Proposed Rules 12981 

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Levell, in the year 1987, the last year before., 

standards, savings for humidifiers of· , standards be imposed, are projected to 

0.015 Quads 2'1 would result in the .' be about 2.7 percent for Levell .. :, .. savings of 20 bpd of oil and of 250 mcf standards •. 

per day of natural gas. This is only 0.2 Concl~siOD' . ',:. . .. , " 

and 0.4 percent. respectively, of the . On the basl:s ·of tho e abov'e, DOE' 

amount that DOE deems significant. For 

level 2 standards, savings of 0.041 believes that standards would not result 

Quads would resu1t in the savings of 50 in a significani ,cons,ervation of energy. 

bpd of oil and 62'0 mcr per day of natural 5. Economic Justification __ ., .. " .. ~ ... ". 

gas. This is only 0.5 and 1 percent, A. Economic Impact on Consumers. . 

respectively, of the aPlount that DOE For humidifiers and dehumidifiers, the· deems significant. ., '., , For level 1 standards, savings for economic. impact on consumers was dehumidifiers of 0.007 Quads would found by estimating the additional first 

b d f I d cost, if any, that a consumer would pay result in the Bavings of 10 p 0 oi an in order to purchase a product which 

of 100 mcf per day of natural gas. This is meets the standard. The development of 

only O.l and 0.2 percent, respectively, of a first cost curve for humidifiers was the amount that DOE deems significa!lt. B. Electricity Savings. For Levell' patterned after the exponential cost· . standards. 'electricity savings for, curve developed for the eight products. 

humidifiers of O.ot5 Quads over the 10- See Technfcal Support Document. page 86. Market survey data for four 

year period are less than 0.005 percent humidifiers were used.3o Due to the ' 

of the total national energy used for' limited data a'nd the scatter in data used 

electricity.tII For'Level 2 standards, ' in developing the first cost curve, the 

electricity savings of 0.041 Quads over difference for the four humidifiers 

the lO-year period are about 0.013· between the market survey daia and the 

percent of the total national energy used first cost curve average about 6 percent. 

for electricity. DOE believes that the DOE is interested in comments . electricity savings are so small as to regarding the uncertainties associated in 

have no measurable effect on the estimating the flI'!!t costs for humidifiers 

environment or on the need for new. at various efficiencies. '" 

genera ting capacity. . : The average cost of a humidifier in 

For level 1 standards. electricity . 1988 [one with an energy factor of 90 

savings for dehumidifiers of 0.007 Quads percent) is expected to cost a~out $120. ' 

over the ll-year period are less than . Similarly, the average cost of a 

0.002 percent of the total national energy humidifier meeting the standard level of 

used for electricity.2I DOE believes that 93 percent is expected to cost about 

the electricity savings are so small as to $137. The economic impact of a standard 

have no measurable effect on the is projected to increase the first cost of a environment or on the need for new humidifier by about 14 percent ($17). 

generat,ing capacity. . . The exponential first cost curve C. Percent Savings. The percent developed for dehumidifiers showed a savings for humidifiers in the year 1{!98, poor correlation to the market survey 

the.year after the average life of a data. In order to achieve a better 

humidifier purchased in the year 1987, correlation, a parabolic first cost curve the last year before standards WC1lld be was developed. See Technical Support 

imposed. are projected to pe about 1.1 .. , Document. page 67. Market survey data 

percent for Levell standards and 3.0, for 12 dehumidifiers were used.1Il Due to 

percent for Levelz standards. ' . ,the wide scatter in data used in 

The percent savings for dehumidifiers developing the parabolic first cost curve in the year 1999. the year after the the difference for the 12 dehumidifiers 

average life of a dehumidifier purchased between t)le market survey data and the 

Of Thil assumes that oil constitutes %.65 percent 

and 886 IUS percenl of the energy used 10 senerate 

eleclricity ~e~ this time period. These percen~ 

are the average of the projected proportions (or the 

years 1990 and 1995. See 1981 Annual Report to 

'Co~s .. Volume 3: Forecasts, DOE/EIA 0173!81)' 

3, Feb"iuary 1982. , ., 

.. ElectriCity ulage over the period 1988-1997 ia . 

estimated 10 be aboul 336, 8 Quads, This number ia 

derived from data in !he 1981 Annilal REport to 

Congre6l. Volume 3: Energy Projections, DOE/EIA0173(81)/3, February ~98Z. . . 

.. Elec\ticity usage over the period 1988-1998 ia . 

estimated to be aboul401J.4 Quads. This number is 

derived &om data In·the 1981 Annual Report to 

Congress, Volume 3: Ene.'gY Projections. DOE/EIA/ 

ot73(81l/a. F~!JrualJ' 1~ , 

flI'st cost curve averaged about 14, ' 

percent. DOE is interested in comments reg~rding the uncertainties associated in 

. . ~ . .0 A literature search was made to collect market 

survey data for humidifiers, Data for humidifiers 

were found In the catalog, "Fall/Winler 1983 

Catalog", Easlern Edition. Sears. Roebuck and Co . 

, ., A literature search was made to conduct ' 

market survey data for dehumidifiers, Dalli for 

dehumidifiers were found In the article. • 

"Dehumidifiers: Dryer Air Indoors", Consumers 

Research Magazine, Consumers Research. Inc.. July 

1983; in the article "Dehumidifiers". Consumers 

Reports. Consumers Union. May 1981; and the 1983 

Direcll>ry 1>/ Certified Dehumidifiers. Edition No. 1. 

,!JiAM., ... 

estimating the first costs for. 

dehumidifiers at various efficiencies. 

The average cost of a dehumidifier in 

1988 [one with an energy efficiency of 

2.454 pints/kWh) is expected to cost . about $218. Similarly, the average cost 

of a dehumidifier meeting the standard 

level of 2.90 pints/kWh is expected to 

cost about $267. The economic impact of. a standard is projected to increase the 

first cost of a dehumidifier by about 22 

percent ($49). ' . ., , 

B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost 

for humidifiers and dehumidifiers is the sum of first cost and the operating costs 

discounted over the lifetime of the. . appliance. More efficient humidifiers 

and dehumidifiers are not expected to 

result in increased maintenance costs. 

Consequently, maintenance costs were nol included in estimating life cycle 

costs. 

For humidifiers, the minimum life 

'cycle cost is estimated to be about $648 

and occurs for B humidifier with an energy efficiency of92 percent. See . Technical Support Document, Figure 11. 

The life cycle cost for a humidifier, 

which meets the standard level of 93 

percent. is estimated to be $653. Levell 

standards for humidifiers could result in an increase of life cycle cos ts of 

approximately $5 over the LeC 

minimum .. 

" ,For dehumidifiers, the minimum life 

cycle cost is estimated to be about $503 

and occurs for a dehumidifier with an energy effiCiency of 2.64 pints/kWh. See 

Technical Support Document, Figure 2. 

The life cycle cost for a dehumidifier, 

which meets the standard level of 2.90 

pints/kWh is estimated to be about 

$513. Standards for dehumidifiers could 

result in an increase of life cycle costs of 

apprOXimately $10 over the LCC 

minimum. 

C. Energy Savings. For humidifiers. 

the energy savings attributable to a standard over the period 1.988-1997, the 

average life of a humidifier, were forecasted to range from 0.015 to 0.041 . Quads based on savings for Levell and 

,Level 2 standards, respectively. .. Results from sensitivity 'analyses 

indicated that standards -would not 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. Energy savings over the period 

of the average life of B humidifier 

beginning with the year 1968 are ' 

forecasted to range from 20 bpd to 50 

bpd for oil sal'ings and from 20 mcf/ day 

to 670 mcf/day for gas sa vings. Each 

sensitivity analysis fails the significant 

energy savings test regarding oil and 

natural gas. See Table 11. Electricity 

saviIlgs over the period of the average 

life of a huinidifier. beginning with the 

year 1988, are projected to range from 
VaT. 50,. No. 62 j Monday, April 1, 1985 j Proposed` Rules

national electricity use. Each sensitivit '

analysis fails the significant energy

savings test concerning. electricity. The

annual savings in the year 1998. the year

following the period of the. average life

of a. humidifier purchased in the last

year before.a standard could be -

imposed, are forecasted to range from,

1.12 percent, to 3.03 percent. Each -

sensitivity analysis fails the significant

energy savings test for percent savings.

Accordingly, DOE proposes, that

standards for humidifiers- are not likely

to result. in significant conservation of

energy.

For dehumidifiers, the energy savings

attributable to a standard over the

period 1988-1998, the average life of-sr.

dehumidifier, are forecasted to be about

0.007 Quads based on Level I standards.

Results from sensitivity analyses

indicated that standards would not

result in significant conservation of

energy. Energy savings over the period'

of the average life of a dehumidifier

beginning with the year 1988 were

forecasted to range from 10 bpd to 20

bpd for oil savings and from 110 mcfj

day to 220 mcf/day for gas savings.:

`Each sensitivity analysis fails- the.

significant energy savings test regarding

oil and natural gas. See Table 12..

Electricity savings over the period of the.

average life of a dehumidifier beginning

with the year 1988 were projected to

range from 0.902 percent. to. 0.004 percent

of the national electricity use. Each

sensitivity analysis fails the significant

energy savings test concerning

electricity. The savings in. the year 1998..

the year following the period of the

average life of a dehumidifier purchasedin the last year before a standard could,

be imposed, were forecasted to range,

from 2.69 percent to 5.78 percent Each

sensitivity analysis fails the significant

energy savings test for percent savings.

Accordingly, DOE proposes that .

standards for dehumidifiers are not

likely to result in significant

conservation of'energy.

TABLE 11: SENsmvrn ANAtYSESON'ENERGY'

-SAVINGS FOR HUMIDIFIERS

AtaJyek

ees

p"`' ' t/ PWI

t dr) tiler- dent ^anu:

Constant EtIiicisnsy,.. . 20 250 ' Moos 1.12

ConsemSIWe Caw_._ 20' 250 .0M' t12

Historical (case 1) 2e. i 257 ; x005 :71?

HisIoricai tease a ' 250 oaa5 ma

Level 2 Sonsnivity .. so , 670- , 0.013 3.03

TABLE 12.--SENsmvnY ANALYSIS OF ENEReT

SAVINGS FOR DEHUMt0IF1ERS -

Anatyss of Gas

(MCI/ b

Consant Efficiency 20 ' 220 a054 . 5.78,

Conservative Can . 20• 220 0501 5.75

tiislorical (Gies=1) to 120 : 0002 2.51I

Historical (Cue 2) 10 120 0.002 291

D. Lessening of Utility or Performance

'• of Prodbcts. As indicated in the General

Discussion section, there is pctassurance thatfuture. utility or

performance of humidifiers and

dehumidifiers would not be lessened-as

it result of disincentives caused by

standards to investments in energy'

using- new features:.

E. Impact of Lessening Campeti?taa.

The. determination of this factor must be

made by the Attorney-General

F. Need to Save Energy. Energysavings forbumidifiers are forecasted to

be 0.015 Quads for Level I standards

and 0.041 Quads for Level 2 standards.

Energy savings for dehumidifiers are

forecasted to be 0.007 Quads for Levels

standards. DOE believes that the need

of the Nation to save the marginal' '

amount of energy realized by standards

for both humidifiers and dehumidifiers

is insufficient reason for standards.

Conclnsioa .

Benefits of a standard for-humidifiers '

and dehumidifiers, compared to no

standards, are that standard's would

save energyBurdens- of a standard for Iminidifiers•

are estimated to be:• tbe increased first

cost by about 14 percent ($17): over the

average cost of a product purchased in

2988; the life cycle cost is increased'by

about $5 over the life cycle minimum.

Burdens of a standardfor

dehumidifiers are estimated tbr be :* the

increased first cost by about 22 percent

('$49) over the average cost of a product

purchased in 1988;, the life cycle cost is

increased by about $10- over the life

cycle minimum.

In light of all the factors discussed'

here and- in the general dfscussibri, on

balance., DOE'believes that the Burdens

'ofstandards for humidifiers and ' .'

dehumidifiers outweigh the benefits,

Therefore, DOE proposes that humidifier

and dehumidifier standards are not

economically justified as required by

section- 325(b)(2) of the Act. ..

IV. Preemption. ofState RegulationsThe Department has adopted '

procedural regulations. at 10• C FR.Par:t

430, Subpart a giving States: an.

opportunity to petition- the Department

to preserve State or local efficiency

standards for a covered product. 47- FR.

5719& (December 22; T982) and 48 F W

39376 (August 30;1983). If DOE adopts

the rule proposed today with regard to

each of the four products, any State or

local efficiency- standard for those -

products would be superseded pursuant

to section 327(aj(2) of the Act. DOE

believes that Florida, which has-it

dishwasher standard, and New Y'®rfe,

which has standards for boor

dishwashers and'television sets; are the

only States which currently have

standards for any of the four products

subject to today's notice. Nevertheless,

if, at a future time, any State or other.

persons wish the Department to review

State or local efficiency standards that

have been promulgated, the regulationsat 10 CFR Port 430,-Subpart D,'proviilethe procedural requirements which must'

be met

V. Environmental, Regulatory Impact,

and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews

The Department has reviewed today's

proposed action in accordance with the

Department's obligations under: -

• The National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42-U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.), the Council on Environmental

Quality regulations implementing the

procedural provisions- of NEPA (40 CFR

1500 etseq. r and the Departmenrs own

NEPA guidelines (10 CFR Part 1021.);

• Executive Order 12291 (46' FR 13193..

February 19, T981) which pertains to

agency review of the impact of Federal

regulations; and

• The Regulatory Flexibility Act' (5

U.S.C: 601 etseq.) which requires, in

part, that an agency prepare an initial'

regulatory flexibility analysis for any

proposed rule unless it determines that

the rule will not have a "significant

economic impact on a substantial.

number of'small entities.-In the event

that such an analysis is not required for

a particular rule, the agency must

publish a certification and explanation.

of that determination in the Federal

Register.

a. Environmental Review

The Department proposes to establish

no energy efficiency standards for four

types of consumer products..By

operation of the Act, all State energy

efficiency standards for these products

would be preempted, except those.for

which States petition and receive from

the Department a rule which. exempts

them in accordance with section

327(b)(3) of the Act.. Thus, the proposed

action. potentially has three elements: (1)

No establishment of energy efficiency

standards for the four products in those

States that do not now have standards

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I var. sO" No. 62 r Monday, April 1. 1985 , Proposed' Rules> 

. 5 percent to 0.013 percent of tfrenational electricity use. Eacn sensitiVity 

analysis fails the Significant energy " 

savings fest concerning, electriCity. Tlle, 

annual savings in the year W9B. the- year 

following the period' of the, average life 

of a.humidifier purcliased'fu. the lasr ' 

year before,S. standatd could be. 

imposed. are forecasted to range fi:om: 

1.12 percent. to 3.03 percent-'Each ; 

sensitivity analysis fails the significaat 

energy savings test for percent saving&. 

Accordingly. DOE proposes, that, 

standards for humidifiers, are not likely, 

to result.in sign.ificaD~ eORservation of 

energy. , 

For dehumidifiers. the' energy savings 

attributable to a standard over tfw. 

period 1988-1998. the average life ahl' ' 

dehumidifier. are forecasted to be about' 

0.007 Quads based on Levell standard"s. 

Results from sensitivity analyses 

indicated that standards would not , 

result in significant conservatiiln of 

energy. Energy savings over the period' 

of the average life of a dehumidifiet 

beginning with the year 1988 were 

forecasted to rimge from 1{) opd to ZO 

bpd for oil savings and from 110 mcCl 

day to 220 mcf/ day for gas savings~ 

lEach sensitivity analysis fails, the. 

significant energy savings fest regarding 

oil and natural gas. See Table 12., 

Electricity savings over the period, of the, 

average life of a dehumidifier beginning 

with the year 1988 were projected to 

range from 0.002 percent.to,O.OO4 perceJrt 

of the national electricity use. Each 

sensitivity analysis fails the significant 

ene.rgy savings test concerning 

electricity. The savings in, the year 19m, 

the year following the period of the 

average life of a dehumidifier- purchased. 

in the last y~ar before a standard could· 

be imposed. were forecasted tb range· 

from 2.69 percent to 5.7'8 percent. Each 

sensitivity analysis fails ilie significant 

energy savings test for percent savings. 

Accordingly, DOE proposes that' . 

standard's for dehumidifiers are not 

likely to result in significant 

conservation of'en~.. .' 

TABLE n.-SENSITIVITY ANAtYSES'ON'EH~' -5AVII'IGS FOR HUMIOIFIEI'IS 

,Oil ~GIIS '(bpd!' ~/' I day) 

Constant Effic:ien<IY.. 20 250' 

ConseNative CMa' _._ ' ZO' 250 

Historical (CUll 11_ I 211 I zso: : His!oIicaI (CaN a-' 20' l!5C : Level 2 SensitMIy •• _ so 670, ; 

0.005 

,0:005' 

o.'OIIl5 

D.005 

o.Ot3 

1.12 

t:12 ',12' 

"la. 

3,03 

TABlE' 12.-SercslTMTY ANALYSIS QFENEFlGT' 

SAVINGS FOR OEHUMlDIRER&-

G .. Eloc:Irici' ' 

AnaIysia Oil (mcfl If Per· CbPd) day) (per'-' ... Iito 

coni) , ,. 

. , , 

Ccmolanl EIfi<:ienC:l! ZQ 220 O-OQ,I 5.7& 

Conservative r:asi::.. 20' 220 OJ)()C 

, 5.7S' 

Historical (ca.,1)_ In; 120 0:002; 2,1111 

Hloloric;aI (Cue 21- 10 120 0,002 2.91 

, D. Lessening of Utility or Performance -, of ProdiJcts. As indicated in the General 

, Discussion section; there it! DO' 

assur!lDCt! tnaHuture'utility or'.' .:. 

performance ofhumidifiers amf ' 

dehumidifiers woultl not be lessened' as 

8' result of disincentiVB8' caused'by 

standards to investments in energyusing· new features,., 

E. lmpuct ofJ:essening Competition. 

TIre determination of this facl'or mnst hemade by the Attorney-General'. ' 

, F. Need to Save Energy. Energy:-

savfngs fOi humidifiers are forecasted to 

be 0.015 Quads for Levell standards 

and 0.041 Quads for Le'\reJ 2 standards. 

Energy savings for dehmirldifiers are 

forecasted to be 0.007 Quads for LeveF1 

standards. DOE believes that the need 

of the Nation to save the marginm" ' 

amount of energy realized by standards 

. for bath humidifiers and denumidifier.s. 

is insufficienf ~eason for st'andard\;. ' 

ConclasiOJr: 

, Benefits of a sramfurd for'humidifiers ' 

and dehumidifiers. compared to no 

standards. are that s1andardir would' 

save energy':' 

Burdens' of a standard for humidifiersare estimated to be:'the increased finrt. 

cost by about' 14 percent (,$11) over the 

average cost of a product p.urchased in 

1988; the life cycle cost is incr.eased'by 

about $5 over the life cycle minimum. 

Burdens of a standard' for' 

dehumidifiers are estimated' to' be:: tlie 

increased' first' cost by about 22 percent 

($49) over the average cost of a product' 

purchased in 19sa;, the life cycfe cost is 

increased by ahout$10'over the life 

cycle miirlmum. . . .. , 

fu lighr of all the factors discoSBed' 

here an~' in the general: discussibn, on 

balance-. DOE'believelf !hilt the l'ltmremr . 'of standards for hmnilfifiers and: ' ." ' 

dehumidifiers outweigh the benefits. ' 

Therefore, DOE proposes that humiaifier 

and' dehumidifier standard's' are not 

economically jiJstified as reqUired' liy 

section,325(b)(2) of the AcL. , 

IV. PreemptiOn.ofState Regulations. 

The Department has adopted ' 

procedural regulations, at 10. CFR,P&rt' 

430. Subpart D. giving States: an, 

opportunity to petition' the Department 

to preserve ~tate or local efficiency' 

stamrards for a covered product. 47 FR' 

5719& (December 22; 1'982) and 48 FR 

39376 (August' 30; 1983). If ODE adopts 

the rule proposed today with regard toeach of the fuur prod'ucts. any Sta te- er local effiCiency' standard' for those' 

products would be supersed~d pursuanf 

to section 3Z7{ aJ(2) of the Act. DOE 

believes tliat Florida, which h88' 8' 

dishwasher standard. and New York ' 

which has standards for botIr • , 

dishwashers and'television sets; ai'e theonly States which currently have ' 

standards for any of the four products 

subject to loday's notice. Nevertheless 

if. at a future time. any Slare or other' • 

persons wish the Department to review 

Slate or local efficiency standards that 

have been promulgated. the regulations' 

at 10 CFR Part 430 •. Subpart D. 'provioethe procedural requirements wliich'must' 

be met; 

V. Environmental. Regulatory mipact, 

and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews 

The D"epaMment has reviewed today's 

proposed action in accordance willi the 

Department's obligations' under:- . 

• The Natronal Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA)(4Z'U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). the Council on Environmental 

Quality reguiations-impiementing theprocedural provisions' of NEPA (40 CPR 

1500 et'seq.r and the DepartmenYiI own 

NEPA guideiines (10 CFR Part 1{)21.); 

• Executive Order 12291 (~6'FR 13193 •. February 19. 1981) which pertains to 

agency review of the impact of Federal 

regulattons: atler ' 

• The Regulatory Flexibility Act" (5-

U.s.C. 601 et seq.) which requires, ih 

part. that an agency prepare an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for any 

proposed rule unless it determines that 

the. rule will not have a "significant -. 

economic impact' on a substantial. 

number ohmall entities."'In the evenr 

that such an analysis is nor required for 

a particular rule, the agency must 

pubUsh a certification and explanation, 

of that determination in the Federal 

Register. 

a. Envirpnmenta] Review 

The Department proposes to establish' 

no ene~gy efficiency'standards far. fom 

types of consumer products.,By , 

oper~tion of the Act, all State energy 

effiCiency standards for these products 

would be preempted, except those,for ' 

which States petition and race iva from 

the D:partment a rule..which, exempts 

them In IK:cordance Wlth section . 

327(bJ13) of the Act.. Thus. the proposed 

action. potentially has three elements: (1) 

No establishment of energy efficiency 

standards fur the four products in those 

States that do not now have standard's 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules .

in effect; (2) Federal approval of certain For television sets, New York is the

State standards (i.e., exemption from only State known to DOE which has

Federal preemption); and (3) Federal. standards. New York prohibits instant-

"supersession" of certain existing State on television sets. If New York either

standards. - does not seek exemption from or is

The first element clearly would not be denied an exemption from preemption,

environmentally significant since it is elimination of State standards for

simply a continuation of the status quo. television sets would result in maximum

As for the second element, in all'cases increased energy usage of about 0.002

where DOE is requested to approve Quads per years'

State standards, DOE will conduct an For clothes washers and humidifiers

appropriate NEPA review on a case-by- and dehumidifiers, DOE is not aware of aPProP any State that has energy efficiency

case basis. It is anticipated that the 'vast standards for these products. Since

majority of these cases will be State standards do not exist, none will

adequately covered by the be preempted and there will clearly be

Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/ no environmental impact..

EA-.0113) and the Addendum to the EA The 1980 Environmental Assessment

which the Department prepared and (EA) and Addendum analyzed the

issued on the impact of setting and environmental impacts of setting and

implementing energy efficiency implementing Federal energy efficiency

standards for all-13 types of consumer standards. One conclusion from this EA

products identified in section 322(a)(1)- was that a change in energy usage of 1.6

(13) of the Act. A Finding of No Quads would not have a significant

Significant Impact and Notice of impact on the quality of the human

Availability of that EA were published environment. As discussed above, the

with the June 30, 1980 proposed rule for preemption of State energy efficiency

minimum energy efficiency standards standards for the four products would

for eight of the products (45 FR 44086). result in a maximum increase of

Copies of that Environmental approximately 0.005 Quads per year

Assessment and addendum may be (0.003 Quads per year for dishwashers

obtained from the address indicated at and 0.002 Quads per year for television

the beginning of this notice. • sets). This annual change in energy

As for the third element, a State with consumption is considerably less than

existing standards could possibly not the change in energy consumption of 1.6 Quads determined not to have a

seek exemption or would be denied an , significant impact on the quality of the

exemption from preemption. For 'human environment in the 1980 EA. .

dishwashers. Florida and New York ate Moreover, there is no difference in kind

the only States to DOE's knowledge that between the impacts of setting

have applicable energy efficiency standards and eliminating standards.

standards. Both States require a switch • Therefore, the Department has

to manually control the power dry determined the proposed rulemaking

feature. If these two States Either do not clearly will not significantly affect the

seek exemption from or are denied an quality of the human environment so

exemption from preemption, elimination that neither an Environmental

of these standards for dishwashers Assessment or an Environmental Impact

would result in maximum increased Statement is required. -

energy usage of about 0.003 Quads per b. Regulatory Impact Review

year.32

In light of the foregoing analysis of the

32 The increased energy use

for dishwashers is effect of the proposed action, DOE has

the product of the projected energy use

for concluded that the rule is not a •`major

dishwashers in 1988 of 0.28 Quads times the fraction rule" for purposes of Executive order

of the nation's households within the States with

standards (12.5 percent) multiplied by the maximum "The increased energy use fortelevision sets is

savings that would be realized by the existing State the product of the projected energy use for

atagtiards (6.5 percent). See Technical Support television sets in 1988 of 0.22 Quads times the

Document. Table 4. for the energy use in 1988. fraction of the Nation's households within New

Florida (3.744.000 households) and New York York State (7.9 percent) multiplied by the savings

(6.340.000 households) represented about 12.5 realized by standards (11 percent). See Technical

percent of the Nation's total households (E0.39o.000) Support Document. Table 4 forthe energy use in

in 1980. See Statistical Abstract of the United 1986. New York (6.340.000 households) represented

States, 1984. 104th Edition. Table 66. The savings about 7.9 percent of the Nation's total households

realized by standards are 026 kWh/cycle. See

(80,390.000) in 1980. See Statistical Abstract of the

Household Appliance Usage Data. page C-3. The United States, iotth Edition, Table 66. The

savings were then divided by the sales-weig

hted instant-on feature for television sets uses about 11

Y percent of the annual energy use for television sets.

average energy use in 1988 of 3.06 kWh/cycle for a See Energy Efficiency Program for Appliances.

savings of s.5 percent See Technical Support - Television Sets, Report 50-RD-77. Federal Energy

Document. Table 4. - - Administration, October31,1977. ,

12983

12291 because it will not result in: (1) An

annual effect on the economy of $100 .

million or more; (2) a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers, individual

industries, Federal, State, or local

government agencies, or geographic

regions; or (3) significant adverse effects

on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export

markets. Therefore, in accordance with

Section 3(c)(3) of the Executive Order.

which applies to rules other than major

rules, the proposed rule was submitted

to the Director of OMB for review

without a regulatory impact analysis.

Finally, as mentioned above, the

Department intends to consider the

regulatory impacts, consistent with

Executive-Order 12291 , of all rules

proposed in response to petitions to

preserve or supersede State standards

under Section 327(b) of the Act,

a RegulataryFlexibilityAct

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires agencies, when proposing a rule

that is likely to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, to prepare an

initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The rule proposed today-that is,

determination that no standard should

be adopted for the four covered

products-would not likely have such an

impact, if adopted. In light of the

foregoing, the Department has

determined and hereby certifies

pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act that the

proposal, if promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

In addition, the Department will

consider, as appropriate, any significant

economic impact on small entities in

deciding petitions to preserve or

supersede State standards'under section

327(b) of the Act.

VI. Public Comment Procedures

a. Participation in Rulemaking

DOE encourages the maximum level

of public participation possible in this

rulemaking. Following publication of th e

December 13,1979 advance notice of

proposed rulemaking, DOE held two -

public meetings to acquaint the public

with the issues relating to this particular

rulemaking and invited public

participation in the rulemaking process.

There were also opportunities for the

public to submit written comments on

the advance notice-.

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 62 I Monday, April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 12983 

in effect: (2) Federal approval of certain 

State standards (i.e .• exemption from.· 

Federal preemption); and (3) Federal .. 

"supersession" of certain existing State 

standards. 

The first element clearly would not be 

environmentally significant since it is 

simpJya continuation of the status. quo. 

As for the second element. in all cases 

where DOE is requested to approve 

State standards. DOE will conduct aD 

appropriate NEPA review on a case~bycase basis. It is anticipated that the vast 

majority of these cases will be 

adequately covered by the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/ 

EA-0113) and the Addendum to the EA 

which the Department prepared and 

issued on the impact of setting and 

implementing energy efficiency 

standards for all'13 types of consum~r 

products identified in section 322(a)(1}:-

(13) of the Act. A Finding of.No . 

Significant Impact and Notice of . 

Availability of that EA were published 

with the June 30. 1980 proposed rule for 

minimum energy efficiency standards 

for eight of the products (45 FR 44086). 

Copies of that Environmental . 

Assessment and addendum may be . 

obtained from the address indicated at 

the beginning of this notice. . . 

As for the third element. a State with 

existing standards could possibly not 

seek exemption or would be denied an .. 

exemption from preemPtion. I:or . . dishwashers. Florida and New York are 

the only States to DOE's knowledge that 

have applicable" energy efficiency '. 

standards. Both States require a switch. 

to manually control the power dry . 

feature. If these two States 1!ither do not 

seek exemption from or are denied an 

exemption from preemption. elimination 

of these standards for dishwashers 

would result in maximum increased 

energy usage of about 0.003 Quads per 

year.:s2 ... 

For television sets. New York is the 

only Slate knoWn to DOE which has 

standards. New York prohibits instant- on television sets. If New York either 

does not seek exemption from or is 

denied an exemption from preemption. 

elimination of State standards for 

television sets would result in maximum 

increased energy usage of about 0.002 

Quads per year.1I3 

For clothes washers and humidifiers 

and dehumidifiers. DOE is not aware of 

any State that has energy efficiency 

standards for these products. Since 

State standards do not exist. none will 

be preempted and there will clearly be no environmental impact. . 

The 1980 Environmental Assessment 

(EA) and Addendum analyzed the 

environmental impacts of setting and 

implementing Federal energy efficiency 

standards. One conclusion from this EA 

was that a change in energy usage ofl.6 

Quads would not have a significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. As discussed above. the 

preemption of State energy efficiency 

standards for the four products would 

result in a maximum increase of 

approximately 0.005 Quads per year 

(0.003 Quads per year for dishwashers 

and 0.002 Quads per year for television . sets). This annual change in energy 

consumption is considerably less than 

the change in energy consumption of 1.6 

Quads determined not to have a . Significant impact on the quality of the . human environment in the 1980 EA. 

Moreover. there is no difference in kind . between the impacts of setting 

standards and eliminating standards. 

Therefore. the Department has 

determined the proposed ruIemaking 

clelU'ly will not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment so that neither an Environmental 

Assessment or an Environmentallmpact 

St!ltement is required. 

.b. Regulatory Impact Review 

In light of the foregoing analysis of the 

effect of the proposed action. DOE bas 

concluded that the rule is not a ~'maior 

rule" for purposes of Executive Order 

12291 because,it will nol result in: (1) An annu~J effect on the economy of $100 . . million or more; (2) a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, individual· 

industries. Federal, Stale. or local '. 

government agencies, or geographic .. regions: or (3) significant adv'erse effects 

on competition. employment. 

investment. productivity. innovation, or 

on the ability of United Sta tes-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. Therefore. in accordance with 

Section 3[c)(3) of the Executive Order •. 

which applies to rules other than major 

rules. the proposed rule was submitted 

to the Director of OMB for review 

without a regulatory impact analysis: 

Finally. as mentioned above. the 

Department intends to consider the 

regulatory impacts. consistent with 

Executive·Order lZ291, of all rules 

proposed in response to petitions 10 

preserve or supersede State standards 

under Section .327(b) of the Act. 

a. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Acl 

requires agencies. when propOSing a rule 

that is likely to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The rule proposed today-that is •. 

determination that no standard should 

be adopted for the four covered 

products-would not likely have such an impact. if adopted. In light of the 

foregoing. the Department has 

determined and hereby certifies 

pursuant to section 605 (b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act that the 

proposal. if promulgated. will not have a Significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In addition. the Department will 

consider. as appropriate, any significant 

economic impact on small entities in 

deciding petitions to preserve or 

supersede State standards'under section 

327(b) of the Act. . 

~.PublicConunentFTocedures 

•• The increased en~rgy ·~.e for dishwashe ... is 

the product of the projected energy Wle for 

dishwashers in 1983 of 0.211 Quad. til1}es the fraction 

of the nation'. houaehold. within the Stalel. with 

standard. (U.s percent) multiplied by the maXimum 

savings that would be realized by the existing State 

staJUlards (6.5 percent). See Technical Support 

DOCUMent. Table 4. for the energy use in 1988. 

~~ The increated energy ute (or television leta it - a. Participation in Rulemakinz. . 

'riOE ericourages the maximum ievel 

of public participation possible in this 

rulemaking. Following publication of the 

December 13. 1979 advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. DOE held two 

public meetings to acquaint the public 

. Florida (3.744.000 households) and New York 

(6.340.000 households) represenled about u.s 

pe=nl of the Nation', lolal households (80.390.000) 

in 1980. See Statistic:,p! Abstracl of the United 

Siaies. 1964. 101th Edition. Table 66. The I18vings 

realized by slandards are 026 kWh/cycle. See 

Household Appliance Usage Dala. page C-3. The 

savings were then divided by the sales-weishted 

average energy Ide in 1988 of 9.06 kWh/cycle for B 

savings of s.s percenL See Technical Support . 

Document. Table .. 

the product or the projected energy ute for . 

television aets in 1988 or 0.22 Quads times the 

fraction or the Nation's households within New 

York State (7.9 percent) multiplied by the aavings 

realized by atandarda (11 percent). See Technical 

Support Docoment. Table 4 for-the enetgy use in 

1988. New York (6.340.000 hOWleholds) represented 

about 7.9 percent of the Nation'. total households 

(80.390.000) in 19&i. See Statistical Abstract of the 

United Sillies. 1984. 101th Edition. Table 66. The 

instant-on feature for television sets uses aOOul11 

percent of the annual energy use for television sets. 

See Energy Efficiency Program for Appliances. 

Televi.oion Sets. Reporl 5O-RD-". Federal Energy 

.' Administration. October 31.1977. 

- with the issues relating to this particular 

rulemaking and invited public . 

participation in the rulemaking process. 

There were also opportunities for the 

public to submit written comments on the advance notice: 

-
12984 Federal Register I Vot 50, No. 6Z / Monday., April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

The Department again encourages

terested persons to participate in:this:

rulemaking. Individual consumers,.

representatives of consumer groups,

manufacturers' associations, States or

other governmental entities,. utilities,.

retailers, distributors,. manufacturers,.

and others are urged to submit written

statements on the proposal. The. .

Department also. encourages interested,

persons to participate in the-public

hearing to be held in Washington. D.C.

at the time and place indicated at thebeginning of this notice..

One Technical Support Document has

been prepared in connection with this.

proposed rule. which is referenced in the

text of this preamble. Copies of'this

document may be found in the DOE'

Freedom of Information Reading Room.

Interested persons may obtain copies.of

this document by writing to the. address

specified' at the beginning of this notice.

The DOE has established a comment

period of 90 days following publication.

of this notice, for persons to comment. on

this proposal. Upon completion of the.

comment period, all comments including

the determinations made by the

Attorney General- pursuant. to section

325(d)(5) of the Act and transcripts. of all

hearings will be available for review in

the DOE. Freedom of Information

Reading,Room.. • .

b. Written Comment Pivicedunes -

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this proceeding.by

submitting written data , views or

arguments with respect to the subjects

set forth in this notice . Instructions for

submitting written- comments are set

forth at the beginning of thbrnotibe and`

below. It is requested that, wherever

reasonably possible, comments for each..

product type of addressed separately.

Comments should be, labeled- both, on.

the envelope and on, the documents;

"Appliances (Docket No. CAS-RU-7#--

113)" and must be received by- the date

specified at the, beginning of this notice,.

in. order to insure full consideration:

Seven copies are requested. to-be

submitted. All comments received by

the date specified at the beginning of

this notice and other relevant

information will be considered by DOE

before final action ie taken an the

proposed-regulation. As mentioned

above, 90-day comment period is being

provided. •

All, written comments received on. the

proposed rule will be available for

public inspection at the Freedom of -

Information Reading Room as provided

at the beginning of this noticePursuant to the provisions: of TO CFfi.

1004,1'1, any person suhmitting:

information or data which is believed to.

be canfdential: and exempt by law from Each person selected to be heard is.

public disclosure, should submit. one requested to submit seven copies of the

complete copy of the document, and six statement by the date given-at-the

copies, if possible; from:which the beginning of this notice. In the event any

information believed to be confidential person wishing to testify cannot meet.

has. been deleted: DOE will make its .. . this requirement, alternative

own determination- with regard to. the arrangements can.be made with the

confidential status of the, information-or Office of Hearings and Dockets in '

data and treat it.accordingto its . advance by so indicating in the letter

determination. -- - - requesting to make an oral- presentation.

Factors, of'interest to DOE, whom Lists of the persons selected to be

evaluating requests to. treat an heard at the hearings will be. available -

confidential' informaiion. thathas been upon request from the Office of --

submitted include:- (1)-A description of Hearings and Dockets at the address

the item; (2) an indication as to whether and after dates specifiedat the

and why such items of'information have beginning of this notice. The lists will.

been treated by the. submitting party as also be available for inspection in the,

confidential, and whether and why such DOE Freedom. of Information Reading

items are customarily treated as - Room as specified at the . beginning of

confidential within the industry;-(3), this notice.

whether the information is generally 2. Conduct of Hearing. DOE reserves

known. or available. from other sources: the right to select the persons to be

(4) whether the-information bas . . - heard at this hearing, to schedule the

previously been made available. tor- . respective presentations,, and to

others without obligation concerning its establish the procedures governing-the

confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the conduct of the hearing. The length of

competitive injury. to-the submitting each presentation is limitedto 20

person which would result from public minutes,

disclosure; (a) an indication as to when A DOE official will be designated. to.

such information might. lose its preside al the hearing. The hearing will

confidential character due to- the. not be a judicial or an evidentiary-type

passage. of time;. and (7) whether bearing, but will be conducted in,

disclosum of the information would be accordance with 5 USC 553 and Section

in dce. public interest.. . 336 of the Act. At the-conclusion of'aU

C. Pubtic Nearirw initial oral statements at each day of the

hearing, each person who- has made an

L Procedure for Submitting Requests oral statement will be given the

to Speak. In. order to have the benefit of opportunity to make a rebuttal

abroad range of public viewpoints in: statement, subject to time limitations.

this rulemaking. DOE will hold a - The rebuttal statements will be given in'

hearing. Listed at the beginning of this. the order in which the initial statements

notice are the date, address, and DOE were made ; The official conducting the

contact for this bearing Any person who hearing will accept additional comments

has an interest in these prooeedings,.or. or questions from those attending,. as

who is a representative ef'agroup.ac time permits . Any interested person may

class of persons having an interest, may: submit to the: presiding official; written

make a written:requestforan questions to be asked of any person,

opportunity to make an oral making a statement at the hearing. The

presentation at the public. hearing. Such presiding, official will. determine whether

requests should be labeled both on the the question is relevant and whether

letter and the evelope, "Appliances, time limitations permit it to be presented

(Docket No. CAS-RM-79-113)" and for response.

should be sent to the address. and must Any further procedural rules regarding

be received by the time specified at the. proper conduct of the hearing will be

beginning of this notice. _ _ announced by the presiding official..

The person making.the requestshauhl A transcript of the hearing will be;

briefly describe the interest concerned' made, and the entire record of thin

and, if appropriate , state why he or-she rulemaking, including the transcript, will

is a proper representative of the group be retained by DOE and made available

or class of persons. that has such. an. for inspection at the DOE Freedom of

interest, and give a- telephone number Information Reading Room as provided

where he or she may be contacted. Each - at the beginning of this notice. Any

person requesting an opportunity. to. person may purchase a copy of the

speak should give a. concise summary of transcript from the transcribing reporter.

theproposed oral presentation. Each - In consideration of the foregoing, it is

person selected to be heard will be so proposed to. amend Fart 430 of Chapter

notified by DOE-by the date specified at . II of Title 1.0. Code of Federal

the beginning of this notice; Regulations, as set forth below.

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

129M Federal Register I Vot 50. No. 62.. I Monday.. April 1. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

The Department again encourages: 

terested persons ID participam in:thi!r. 

rulemaking. Individuaf consumers. 

representatives of consumer groups. 

manufacturers' associations. States on 

other governmental eatWes. utiU~ies.­

retailers. distributors •. mauufacturel' .... 

and others are urged to-submit written. 

stalemenls on the pmposa1. The. . 

Department also. encourages interested. 

persons to pal'ticipate in ilie public:. 

hearing to be held in Washington."n.c.. 

at the time and place indicated at the. 

beginning of this neUce. . One Technical Support Document has 

been prepared' in connection with· tllis. 

proposed rule.whrcll is referenceciih the 

text of tbis preamble. Copies of'this .. 

document may be found in the DOE' 

Freedom of Information Reading Room. 

Interested persons may obtain copies. of 

this document by writing to the. address 

specified' at the begiiming af this notice, 

The DOE has established a comment 

period of 90 days following publication. 

of this notice. for persons \0 comment· O.D 

this proposal. Upon completion of the. 

comment period. all comments including 

the determinatiol1I! made by the. 

Attorney General parsuant to section 

325(d)(&) of the Act and transcripts.oCall 

hearings will be available. fer review in 

the DOE. Freedom of lDIarmatiOD 

Readlpg,Raom. .. 

b. Written Comment Procedures 

rnterested persons are iDvitedfo 

participate iLl this proceedinsoy 

submitting wriften data. views or .: arguments wilh respect fa the sobjech! 

set forth in furs notice. Instructions for 

submitting w.rrtten·comments are set 

forth at the begiiurlng of thiS notice and' 

below. It is requested that. wherever 

reasonably possible. 'comments for each 

product type of addressed separately. 

Comments should be labeled both· em' 

the envelope and Oll~ the lincaments; 

··Appliances. fDocka No. CAS-RM-7it113)" and musl be received by' the daW 

specified at the beginning of this DOUce,. 

in. order tt) insure full consideration, 

Seven copies are requested. to· he 

submitted. All comments received b)!' 

the dale specified at the beginning of 

this notice and othel: relevant . 

information will be considered by DOE' 

before final action h .. taken an the 

propo9~egulation. As mentioned 

above. 9O-day comment period is being 

provided. . . , 

AU written comments r.eceilTed on·the 

proposed rule will be availabTe for 

public inspectiOn at the Freedom of' 

lnformation Reading Room as provided 

at the beginning of this:notiCe~ . 

Purstlant to the pravisi(JlJ$: of16 CFR. 

l004..n. any: Penlon submitJirlg . 

information or data whicll is. aelieved !D. 

b,e canfjdeDiial:an.d exempt: by law from 

publicdisdosure. should submit. one 

complete copy of the document, and six 

copieS'. if. possible. from:which the 

information believed to be confidential 

has. been dele1ed; DOE will make fts .. 

own determina!ion' with regard to the 

confidential status-·af the' imorrna.tiOll!Oll 

data and b:eat itaccoro~to ita , determination. !. 

Factors.of'interest til DOE. whe.rD 

evalna1ing requests' to. treat as; 

confidential infortnaiion. that has been; 

submitted include:' (11 A description of 

the item;. (..2l an indication as to whether' 

and why. such items ofinformation hav.e. 

been treated by the.submittingp~as 

confidentiaL and whether and why such 

items are customarily treated as 

confidential within the indusb!y;' (3) 

whether the information is generally 

knowuor: available. from other aom:ces; 

f41whether the-information baa ' . . 

previDusly been made available.ta· . . 

others without obligation concerning its 

confidentiality: (5) an explanation of the 

competilive injurylD·the submitting 

person which would result from public 

disclosure; (6) ari. indication 8S la when 

such information rnight.lolle ita 

confidential chamcter due to·theo. 

pllSsage. of time:. and (7) whether 

disclOl!ll:m or the information woufd be 

in lim. public' interesU. 

c. Public Hearing:; . 

1. Procedure for: Submitting Requests: 

to Speali:. In. order to have the benefit or a br-oad range of public viewpoints;in: 

this rulemaking. DOE will bold a . 

hearing. Listed at the beginning of this. 

notice are the date. address. and DOE 

contact for this bearing. Any person who 

has an interest in these proCEedings .. or: 

who is areprelientativ.e era.gratlp.QI: " 

class of persons haviilg-an inrerast. may:' 

make a wriften:requestmraD: 

opportunity to make an,a 

presentation at the public. hearing. SlU:h 

requests should be labeTed Doth OIl the 

letter and the eveIope ... Appnanc::es. 

(Docket No. CAS-RM-790-113)" and 

should be sent to the address. and. must 

be received by the time specified at the 

beginning of this notice. . ...... . 

The person making. the reqllestshmdd 

briefly describe the interest concerned' 

and. if appropriate. state why he arme 

is a pt:oper representatf,\le of ilie. group 

or class of persons that has suell. aainterest. and give a' telepnone number 

where lie or she may be contacted. Each 

person requesting an opportunity. to. 

speak should give a.concise summary of 

the· proposed oral presentation. Each 

penlon selected to Be heanf w.iU' be so 

noti.fiedby DOE'by the date specifieciitl. 

the beginning of-this; notim!:. 

Each person selected to be heard is· 

requested to submit seven copies of the 

statement by the date given· altha. 

beginning of this notice. In the event any 

person wishing to testify cannot meet. 

this requirement. alternative . 

arrang!?ments can.oe mad'e willi Ilie 

Office of Hearings and Dodets in . 

advance by so indicating in the letter 

requestihg to make an oral presentation. . 

Lists of the persons serectea to be 

heard at the nearihgs wilfbe'avaiIaDle' 

upon request from ffie Office of' --

HearIngs and Dockets at' the address 

and after aates specified' at the 

beginning of Ihis notice-. The lists will· 

also be available for inspeclionin the' 

DOE Freedom. of Information Reading. 

Room as specified at the. beginnin:g of 

this not:il2. 

2. Conduct of Hearing. DOE tl!servesthe right to select the petsons to hi 

heard at this bearing. to schedule the 

respective presentations •. and to 

establish the procedurei goveming·the 

condlU:t of the hearing. The length of 

eru::h presenta tion ia limited to 20 

miDlltes.. 

A DOE omclal will be designated. to. 

preside at the hearing. The hearing will 

not be 8 judicial or an. evidentiary-type 

bearing. but will be conducted·iD. 

accordance with 5 USC 553 and Section 

336 of the Act. At !lie. conclUSIon of all 

initial oral stateuumts at each day of the 

hearing. each person who' has made an 

oral- statement will be given the 

opportunity to make a rebuttar 

statement. subjecf to' time limitations. 

The reouttalstatements-win be given m' 

·the order iit which the initial statemmfIJ 

were made; The official conducting the 

hearing will accept additional comments 

or qllestions from those attending.. as 

time permits. Ally interested person may' 

submit to the presiding official: writreB 

questions to be asked of any person: 

making a statement at !hi! heB£ing. 1\'he. 

prlHliding, official Mll·lilelermine ""hether 

the question is relevant and whether 

time limitations permit it to be presented' 

for response. 

Any further procedural rules regarding. 

proper conduct of the hearing will be 

announced by. the presiding official.. 

A transcript of the hearing will be, 

made. and the entire record of'this' 

rulemaking. including the tranScript. win 

be retained by DOE and made available 

for inspection at the DOE FreedOm. Qf . Information Reading Room as prov.ided 

a 1 the beginnfug of this notice.. An,! 

person may purchase- Ii copy of the 

transcript from the transcribing reporter. 

In consideration of the furegoing. it is 

proposed to. amend 17art 430 of Chapter 

II of Title 10, Code o[ Federal 

Regulations. as set forth belo.w~ 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1. 1985 / Proposed Rules

Energy Policy and Conservation Act,

Pub. L 94-163, as amended by Pub. L

95-619; Department of Energy .

Organization Act, Pub. L 95-M.'

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure. Energy conservation.

Household appliances.

Issued in Washington, D.C.. March 15,1985.

Donna R. Fitzpatrick. ',

Acting Assistant Secretary, Conservation and

Renewable Energy.

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

§ 430.32 [Amended]

Section 430.32 is amended by addimg

paragraphs (c). (hj, (j), and (k), as

follows:

(c) Dishwashers: No standard for all

classes.

(h) Televisions sets; No standard for

all classes.

(j) Clothes washers: No standard for

all classes.

(k) Humidifiers and dehumidifiers: No

standard for all classes.

[FR Doc. 85-7646 Filed 3-29-85: 6:45 am]

BIWNG Cooa 646o-01-11

12985

CAS-RM-79-113 COMMENT 02

Federal Register , Vol. 50, No. 62 , Monday, April 1. 19B5 I Proposed Rule~ 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 

Pub. L. 94-163, as amended by Pub. L. 

95-619; DeparbnentofEner.gy 

Organization Act, ~b. L. 95-91. ~ 

Ust of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and :. 

procedure. Energy conservation. . 

H~usehold appliances. . . 

Issued in Wa&hingtan. D.C .• March 15. 1965. 

Donna R. Fitzpatrick. •. 

Acting Assistant Secretary. Conservation ancf 

Renewable Energy. . 

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

§ 430.32 [Amended] 

Section 430.32 is amended by addimg 

paragraphs (cl. (h'. GJ. and (k). a8 

follows: 

• • · . 

(cl Dishwashers: No standard for all 

classes . 

• • . (h) Televisions sets; No standard for 

all classes . 

• • • • • 

(j) Clothes washers: No standard for 

all classes. 

(kl Humidifiers and d~humidjfilirs: No 

standard for all classes. 

[FR Doc. 65-7646 Filed 3-29-85; 6:45 am) 

.'WNG CODE 14Il0-0' .... 

12985