## Friday 

## April 2, 

## 1982



# Part V



# Department of Energy

Office of Conservation 

## and Renewable Energy



## Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products

### 14424 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47. No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ..-
Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy



### 10CFR Pm 430
Energy of Conaervation Program for Conaumer Products; ProPOaed RuJemaklng and Public Hearings Regarding Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators and Refrlgerator..freezers. Freezers, 

### C1oth

.. Dryers. Water Heaters. Room Air Condition

..... Kitchen Rang

.. and
aven., centra' Air Condltfoners, and Fumace

.. AGIHC;Y: Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. DOE.
ACT1ON: Notice ofproposed rulemaking and public hearings.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act. as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. as a general matterrequires that the Department ofEnergy prescnbe 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 ofenergy, 

### is not technologically feasible, or is not economicallyjustified.

The Department ofEnergy 

### is proposing to determine that an energy efficiency standard for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers. clothes dryers. water heaters. room air conditioners. kitchen ranges and ovens. central air conditioners, orfurnaces would not result in a significant conservation ofenergy orbe economicallyjustified. Therefore, the Department is today proposing 

### to amend Title 10. Part 430 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations to include a determination ofno standard for the above-mentioned covered products.

The proposed rule would also add amendments regarding petitions that
may be made by States or manufacturers with regard to Federal preemption ofState and local efficiency standards.

The purpose ofthis notice ofproposed rulemaking is to provide interested
persons an opportunity to comment on the proposedrule. and to invite interested persons to participate in the rulemaking process. DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by the DeparbnentbyJune 16.1982. Foran additional 45 days thereafter. DOE will accept comments regarding oral and written comments submitted to DOE prior to June 16, 1982. Oral views. 

### data. and arguments may 

### be presented at either one orboth ofthe following public hearings:



### PublicHearing. Washington. D.C. A public hearing 

### will be held in Washington. D.C

.. onMay 18-21. 1982: requests to speakmust be received by the Department no laterthan 4 p.m

.. April 27. 1982: speakers will 

### be notified by 4 p.m.. May 4. 1982: speakers lists will be available by 4p.m.• May 

### 50 1982: fifteen copies ofthe statement ofthe speakermust be received by the Department no later than 4p.m

.. May 11. 1982-



### PublicHearing. Chicago. Illinois. A public hearing 

### will be held in Chicago. lllinois. on May 11-12, 1982: requests to speak must be received by the Departmentno laterthan 4 p.m.. April 20. 1982: speakers 

### will be notified by 4 p.m.• April 27, 1982: speakers list

### will be available by 4 p.m.• April 28, 1982;
statements ofthe speakers must be received by the Departmentno later than 4 p.m.. May 4, 1982.

The length ofeach presentation is limited to 20 minutes.
ADDAUSE8: Written comments. statements. requests to speak at the hearing. requests for speakers lists. and requests forcopies ofthe technical support documents are to be submitted
to: U.S. Department ofEnergy. Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy. Office ofHearings and Dockets, Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer**Products.DocketNo.~RM-78-11~** 

### Mall Station 

### 68-025. ROQm 5F-078, Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. S.W•• Washington. D.C. 

### 20585. (202) 252-9319.

The two hearings are to be held at the Auditorium (GE-086). Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C.• on May 18-21. 1982.
at lJ.a.m•• and Room 204A, Everett McKinley Dirksen Federal Building. 219 South Dearborn Street. Chicago. lllinois.

on May 11-12, 1982. at 9 a.m.

Copies oftechnical support documents. transcripts ofpublic hearings. and public comments received
may be read in the DOEFreedomof Information Reading Room: U.S. Department ofEnergy. Freedom of

Information. Public Reading Room. Forrestal Building. Room lE-l90. 1000 Independence Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C. 20585. • FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON CONTACT: Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of

Energy. Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. Office ofBuilding Energy Research and Development. Test and Evaluation Branch. 

### Mall Station CE-113. Room GH-oos, Forrest8.l Building. 1000Independence Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-9127 Lana Feldman. Acting Assistant General

Counsel for Conservation and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department ofEnergy. Mall Station GC-33. Room 68-194. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C. 20585, (202) 252- 9507. or Eugene Margolis. Esq., U.S. Deparbnent

ofEnergy, Office ofGeneral Counsel. Mail Station GC-33. Room 6B-128. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252--9510

SUMMARY:



### L Introduction.

a. Authority. b. Background. 

# n. General Discussion.

a. Test Procedures. 

### b. Technological Feasibility.

c. Energy Savings. 1. Determination ofSavings. 2. Significance ofSavings. 

### A. Oil and Gas Savings. B. Electricity Savings. C. 20 Percent Savings. 

### d. Economic Justification. 

### 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers.

2. Lile Cycle Cost and Net Present Value.

3. Energy Savings. 4. Lessening ofUtility orPerformance ofProducts.

5. Impact ofLessening Competition. 6. Need ofthe Nation to Conserve Energy.

7. OtherFactors. A. Regulatory Flexibility. B. Request for Comments. 8. Weighing ofFactors. 

# m. Product-Specific Discussion.

a. Refrigerators and Refrigerator· Freezers.

b. Freezers.
Co Clothes Dryers. 

### d. Water Heaters.

e. Room Air Conditioners. f. Home Heating Equipment, Not Including Furnaces.

g. Kitchen Ranges and Ovens. h. Central Air Conditioners. i. Furnaces. IV. Preemption ofState Regulations. V. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews.

a. Environmental Review. b. Regulatory Impact Review.

Co Regulatory Flexibility Review. VI. Public CommentProcedures.

a. Participation in Rulemaking. b. Written Comment Procedures.

c. Public Hearings.

### Federal Register 

## I VoL 47. No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14425



## • I. 

### Introduction

a. 

### Authority. Part B ofTItle.

## m01 the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94-183), as amendedby the National Energy CODllervtltion Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619}, 1 C1'1!&tes the Energy 

### Programfor Consumer 

### Proclucts 

### OtherThan Automobiles. 

### '1'b8

consumerproducts 

### subjectto this program (often referred to hereafter as "coV'1m!d products'1 

### sre: refrigerators and ref:rigerator

### freezers::**freez~** dishwasherr. clothes dryers; water heaters: room air conditionen; 

### home heating'equipment. not fnduding furnaces: television 

### sets: kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washerr..lnmtidifiers and delmnidifiers; central all cO'Oditioners; and 

### furnaces. as**we~** 

### as any other consumer product classIfied by the Secretary ofEnergy, 

### ifthe product uses a specified minimum
amount ofenergy. 

### See section 322. 

### The Secretary bas notso 

### danified any additional products.

,

UDder the Act the program COIlRats essentially of

### three parts:**~s~** labeling. 

### and mandatat'1 m.uumtml energy efficiency standards. The Department ofE.aetgy. in CQIlSll.\tation with the National Bureau ofStandards. is required to estab¥sh test procedures for eacll ofthe covered

### products.. Section 323(a)(2). 

### The purpose 01 the mat procedures ia \0 provide for \.est reawts that reflect the energy**e~,** energy

use or estimated 8.IlIWal opuati.IIg costs ofe'ach ofthe covuedproducts. Section 323(b)(1). 

### AD test procedures were required to be adopted not latE!!' 

### than May 1. 1978. SectioD 323(a) (4) 

### and (61. A

.testprocedure was not required 

### ifDOE determined by rule that one could not be developed. Section 3%3(a}{6}(B). One

, hundred 

### and eighty days after a test procedure for a productis adopted. no manufacturer may represent the energy consumption of or the oost afenergy consumed by the 

### procluc:t except

# a.

reflec:ted in a test cond:acted 

### Kcording
to 

### the DOE procedure. Section 323(c). Test

### proced\1l'eS have

### heeDprescribed

.relating 

### to 

### all products.**bl1~** 

### on the basis ofcontinuq 

### review. eertaiJl cLasses of products 

### do not

### haw cammtJy applicable telIt pmcedm"U.

The 

### FederalTrade 

### CoI'AllJiacion (FTC) is required

## bJ the Ad to praaibe rales goverDiDcJ

### tb&labeling ofthe covered produda. Section 324(a). 

### These ntle. are to require that each particular model of

a coveredproduct heal a lAbel that indicat" 

### its annual operating COlt 

### and the range ofestimated amIual 

### operating
costs for odler 

### models ofthat pl:oclw:t.

I P8rt BofTIdlI

### m

.. EPCA.

.. -..ded '" tile NECPA. iii oft••Nloer7eoII to lit !ilia nollw•• lb "Act." Section 324(c}{l). A rule la Dotrequired 

### under section 3Z4 

### if the Secretary 

### of Ene1'8Y determines 

### that

### dilIclcaure of estimated costa oa a label is not tecbDolo@ically

### leesilile or 

### if the FTC determines tilat 

### .1IICh disclosure lanot 

### likely to anist C1DUume:r1 in making 

### puchaainc deciaiolla or

.. not economically 

### fea.»ble. Section 3Z4{

### c). No labeling

### ru1e canbe 

### made with resped to a product fur which 

### then i.

no DOE

### te.tintJ procedure. Section 324(b)(3). At the present time thet'e is 

### an FTCrule requirlni Iabelaunder the Act for the 

### fo1lowi.nc pl:oducts: Room air conditioDen.

### furnaces. clothes washers. dishwashers. watl!rheaters. freezers. and refrigerators 

### and. reCl'.igeratorfreezers.·

For each 

### oIthe covered proc1ud.s, DOE is required 

### to establish maadatory
energy efficiency sta.ndarcl.s that are

. designed to achieve the**m~um** , improvement 

### in energy effic.ency that 1$ tecl:uullogically 

### f.eaa.ible and economi.cal1yjustified. Section 325{a){l) and (c). 

### The Act provides. however. that

no standard for a productis to 

### be established if'there is not test procedme for the product. or 

### ifDOE 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. Section 3%5(b). 

### In determining whether 

### a Itlmdard is economically

. justified. the Department brdirected to detemliD.e whether

### the benefits 

## atthe standard

### exceed ttl 

### burdens by weighing six IpeCffic factgr.r, 

### as: weD a. any

### vther

### fa1:tors DOE considers rehmmt. Section 

### :s2S(d). 

### The factOl'll' 

### are;

(1) Th9 econamicimpact of the standard an the manufacturer's and on 

### the COtI:S'QJDefll

## atthe prod'ad subject 

### to sucil 

### standard:

(2).The savingS' 

### i:Q operating costs 

### throughoatthe amated

### average .I:ife of 

### the covered

### productin the type (or clasS']. compared to my increase in 

### the price 

### of: or in 

### tt1e inttial 

### ch8l"gM 

### lor. or maintenance expeDftll' ofthe CO"t'"et'ed product. which 

### are 

### Ukely to result from the impo.ition ofthe standard;

(3) 

### The total projected lIl1IOUftt 

### of
energy

### AViDsa likely to 

### renft directly from the impoaitioo of 

### the- IrilUldant:

(4)

## A:D:1 lneeniJIg

## otthe- utility or the performance 

### ofthe 

### cO'Y'el'ed products 

### likely to 

### resah fiolII 

### the-imposition ofthe standard;

fS) The impact ofmy

### fessenins' of competitiOl1, 

### determined in mtting by the Attorney GeueraL that is likely to result from the imposition 

### ofthe • standard; 

### aDd (8) The need ofthe Nation to conserve energy.

A rule estabOshiug an energy efficiency standard for II product may set different levels ofefficiencies for different elaue. J of that product ifthey

use a different 

### kind ofenergy or have different capacity orperformance related features that justify different levels ofefficii!DCies. Sec. 325{f). When a standard kas been established. DOE
may exempt a manufacturer,whose

, gross revenues in the precedIng year did
not exceed

## sa million from the effect of the standard for up to two years. ifDOE determines, after obtaining the views of the Attorney General. that failure to grant the exemption would likely result in a lessening to competioon. Section' 325(e).

The Act specifies the priorities and procedures to be followed in adopting efficiency standards. Nine ofthe 13 covered products are given priority under the Act. Section 325(g). These nine products are: refrigerators and refrigerator·freezers, freezers. clothes dryers, water healers. room air conditioners, home beating equipment (other than furnaces), kitchen ranges and ovens, central air cond1tioners. and furnaces. These products are the subject ofthis rulemaking.•

The procedures 

### include a requirement for an advance notice ofpruposed rulemakingupon 

### which interested persona may make written comments. 

### Section 32S{i)(1). Thereafter. there is 

### to be a notice 

### oIpropoled rulemaking,
upon which interested persons may make written 

### and oral comments. including an opportrunity 

### to question those who make such comments with respect

### to disputed issues ofmaterial fact. 

### Section 325(i)(3) 

### and section 336(a)(1).

Section 327 ofthe Act addresses the eff.ect ofFederal rules concerning testing. 

### labeli:ag. and standards on State laws or regulations concerning such
matters. Generally. all such State laws

orregulations 

### are superseded by the Federal rule. Section 327(a). A rule by DOE that 

### an efficiency standard is not technologically feasible. economically justified. orlikely 

### to Mve .ignulCant
amounts 

### oIenel'lY is 

### a rule that supersedes 

### any State standard. 

### See section 325(b}.1f. beeause 

### there is no federal

### rule.. • &aut efficiency standard

'Each c:ownd

### JII"Il!Itd ClItorpry

_, be made up of.everal cla_Sal itJ{."Q..

.

'No rule i. propoaed today for home heatlng equipment (otherthan furnace.). electric heat JIUIIIP' (a eta

.. ofllMrprodlllCt anrlI'aI .ir condltivnenJ. MId .Iectric heal pmnp weIerheale,.". ThJ. Ie explained in !be product-apecific diacus.ion. infra·

### 14426 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, 

### No., 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

• AI Uled In thla preamble. "product" refers to Ihe llenaricproduct ofucla type Mted In .eclion 322{a) ofEPCA (e

.." fumace 01' freezer).

..Cl

..... meaDi e product .ub.et wblch bo Ibe aame primary en8'1!Y

1OW'Cll (I.e.• lla

.. oU or electricity) and the same capacity orperformance-related feelure which affecII Ibe eDlI'llY efficiency ofthe unit (e.a.• che.l freezer. uprlahl freezw with manual dell·o.t and upriahl freezer wilb aUlomatic defrosl). 

### product.' With respect to eachproduct. various specific design options currently available on existing equipmentwere, analyzed. This 

### procell is fully deScribed In the Engineering Analysis Document. 

### See Chapters 

### B. C. 

### and D. Computer models were used to predict improvements in efficiency ofproducts and the costs associatedwith the improvements. From this data, cost/ efficiency curves were derived which presentthe relationship between increases In efficiency and the costs necessary to achieve these Increases. The possible standards to be analyzed

were chosen from points on these

curves. witlt-the highest standard to be analyzedgenerally corresponding to the
mostefficient combination ofthe design options analyzed. Lower standards

- levels were chosen from points on the

curve to provide a spectrum ofanalysis.

The performance standards chosen for review were generally lower than those proposed in the June 30proposal. This

was due to changes In the engineering analysis largely as a result ofpublic
comments on the June 30proposal. These changes are addressed in the Engineering Analysis Document.

a. 

### TestProcedures. WhUe there are existing testprocedures for most coveredproducts. for certain classes of product there ere no test procedures. These are Identifiedin the productspecific discussion.

b. 

### TechnologicalFeasibility. For all products and classes ofproducts. DOE believes the efficienq levels analyzed

are technologically feasible. 

### In three

cases. however, DOE hu det.rlDined that Increases In efficiency are not technologically feasible: electric cooking topS; electric furnaces. and microwave

ovens. They are Identified In the product-specific discussion.

c. 

### EnergySavings. 1. Determination of Savings. DOE quantified the energy savings that would be attributable to a standard imposed at each ofthe analyzed levels ofefficiency for each product. This was done through

use ofthe OakRidge National Laboratory Residential Energy End Use Model (ORNLModel). The ORNLModel ia 

### fully explained In the Economic Analysis Document. 

### see especially Appendix E. 

### This computermodel is used to projectresidential energy use by efficiency standarda. The June 30 propo.al was basedupon five technical supportdocumenta which were made available forpublic review.



### In orderto encourage public participationIn the rulemaklng process the DOEheld a series ofpublic meetings and hearinp. starting InJuly 1980. Public hearings were conducted In Chicago andWashington In August 1980. AI a result ofthese hea.rinp and the solicitation ofwritten comments,

over 1800commentawere receivedon the June 30proposal These comments addressed all aspects ofthe rulemaklng proposallncluding the establishment of classes in each coveredproducttype, the feasibility ofthe standards selected for each coveredproduct. the validityof the assumptions made In the technical support documents. 

### the procedure for seeking exemptions for State regula:tlons from preemptionby the Federal standard, the effective date ofa final regulation. the propriety ofstandards for smallbusinesses. whetheralternatives
to regulations were practical. and the proposal for certification and enforcement procedures.**~'"** On 

### December 11. 1980. 

### the Departmentnotified the Congress ofits inability to make a final determination

on the imposition ofenergy efficiency standards on the nine coveredproducts by the deadline ofJanuary

## z. 1981. On FebrulUJ %3, 

### 1981. DOE published a notice of

### ita Intentnotto iaaue any eD.eI."gf 

### efficiency standard until itfully studied the comments received on the June 30proposal andmade a thorough
reasseument ofthe data supporting the proposal 46FR 13517. AI statedIn the February 23, 

### 1981. notice, DOE

### has conducted a full reevaluation ofthe June 30proposal and both the ''Engineering Analysis Document" and ''Economic Analysis Document". As more fully set forth herein. DOEhas reviewed all ofits prior a8lumptions and conclusions In order to reflectthejustifiedconcerns of many ofthe comments.


## n. GeaeraJ Diac:ussioD

AI indicatedIn the

### Authority section abova. the Actprohibits DOEfrom promulgatin8 a standard for a product 

### if (1) there is no testprocedure for the product. (2) a .tandard ia 

### not technologically feasible. (3) DOEfinds a standard would notresultIn a significant conservation ofenergy, or (4) 

### DOE finds a standard would not be

,economicallyjustified. To measure possible savings and economic justification. DOE analyzed three (and In some cases. four) different possible standards for eachproduct orclass of Is not superseded, penons subjectto It 

### may petition DOE to have it 

### superseded

on the basis that there is no significant State orlocal interest sufficienttojustify the regulation and suchregulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. Section 327(b)(1). A State whose energy efficiency standard i. superseded may petition the Departmentfor a rule that it 

### not be 

### superseded. on the ba.is that there ia 

### a significant State orlocal interest tojustify the standard and the State standard ia 

### a stricter standard. However, DOE cannot issue the requestedrule 

### ifthe State standard wouldunduly burden interstate

commerce. Section 327(b)(3).

b. 

### Background.The DOEpublished its first advance notice ofproposed rulemaking pursuant to section 325(1)(1) for the nine first priority products on January 2. 

### 1979. 44 FR 29. On

### December 13. 1979. the DOE published an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking for dishwashers, television sets. clothes washers, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers. 44 FR 72276. An advance notice for central airconditioners (beat pumps) was published onJanuary 23, 

### 1980. 45 FR 5502. These advance notices

were designed to present a full discussion ofthe 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 efficiency standard for each class ofproduct. DOB specifically requested comments on all
matters presented In the advance notices. Meetings were held throughout 1979 and 1980to solicit the views ofall concernedplirties.

Afterreceiving comments on the advance notices, onJune 30. 1980, the DOE set forth its first proposed rulemaking for the nine products. 45 FR 43976. (Hereafterreferred to as the June 30proposal). The June 30proposal set forth the DOE's proposal concerning energy efficiency standards for these covered products. I 

### It also proposed procedures for processing petitions by
states that sought exemption for regulations subject to the general

. preemptionrequirements ofsection 327{a) ofthe Act. The June 30proposal considered comments received In response to the advance notice on these nine products and made changes In the DOE's initial determinations concerning classes for each coveredproduct and the methods for determining energy

•DOE II today proPO'i1IB to adopt levera! ofIbe definltlona let forth In Ibe June 30 propouJ. Theae deflDitioll.l. at 430.2, aenerally relterala Ibe dellnilioDi letforth In aec:lioDi 3 and 3%1 ofIbeAd.

### . Federal Register 

# I Vol. 47, No. 64 

# I Friday, April 2. 1982 

# I Proposed Rules 

### 14427



### " a product with and without .tandard. for the period 1987-2005.
' 

### By comparing the energy used without a standard during the period 1987-2005 

### to the energy used with a particular .tandard during the .ame period, DOE estimated the amount ofenergy saved during that period due to that standard. The energy saved is 

### expressed In Quads (quadrillion BTUs). With respect to electricity the savings are Quads of

source orprimary energy: that is, the energy that is necessary to generate and transmit electricity. "Energy use" is defined In the Actas the quantity of
energy directly consumed by a -

consumer product at point ofuse. This is sometimes referred to as "site" energy,

as opposed to source energy. The
amount ofelectrical energy at the site is approximately 29 percent I 

### ofthe
amount ofsource energy required to generate and transmit that site electrical
energy. Thus, it is always important to Identify whether the amount ofenergy Identified as electricity is source or site
energy.

DOE used the llame computermodel In its June 30proposal. However. based

on comments to that proposal, further analysis, and more recent data. some Inputs to the model were changed from thpse used for the June 30 proposaL These changes are all fully described In the Economic Analysis Document. 

### see especially 

### 12.4 andAppendix E.

The ORNLprojections are dependent

on many assumptions. Among the most important are responsiveness of household purchases to changes In -energy prices and consumerIncome; future energy prices; future levels of housing construction; and options for improving the energy efficiencY'>f products. As is the case with any complicated computermodel simulation. the validity ofthe outputs is critically dependent on the inputs. Several ofthe Inputs (e.g., energy prices and equipment costs) were tested in sensitivity

. analyses to determine the effects of varying certain assumptions on the results ofthe analysis. 

### By such sensitivity analyse. one can determine those Inputs where change. including

, 'This model we. prosralllll'Hld to analyze I lll:ls1e ltendard 1nwI. or no .tendard. over the entire period. That Ie. the fact that I ltendard might be reviled or.1lmlJuIled efterintervall offive yean.

_ aectloa 325(h)(1). wu not coDilderad by the ModeL DOE believel ItI. Dol po'llble to predict wbat reIU1tauch five yearrevlewa might h.ve. md therefore it would be too epecnI.live to model my perl1cu1ar "'lulL

''This figure La denved from the fraction ofthe Qu.ds ofenergy that go into generllion of electnclty ",pre.entadby the Quads ofenergy
CODlUlJled by end-UMri I' ",fleetedinThe Nltlonal Energy Policy Plan. 00£/8-0008. luly 1981 (hereafterreferred 10 81 "NEPP In.

### "1 possible error, Is mean.ingful to the model'. output and those inputs where it 

### Is not. 

### See Economic Analysis Document, Chapter5. Moreover. there

are certain product-specific questions or limitations In the ORNL model. These

are disCU4sed In theproduct-specific analysis.

The savings attributable to standards

are Identified for each productin the product-specific analysis. Generally, the level ofsavings attributable to standards Is lower 

### thanpredicted In the June 30 proposal. This Is the result ofthe changes to the engineering analysis and ORNLModel mentioned above and 1iescribed at length In the Engineering Analysis Document and Economic Analysis Document.

While no specific analyses have been conducted In this area, DOE believes that the changes that had the greatest impact were probably the lowering of possible standard levels In light of
comments received In the June 30 proposal and the use ofthe mostrecent

. energy price forecasts, i.e•• use ofthe NEPP 

### ill fuel price projections. The first ofthese two changes makes the possible standard levels more feasible. Numerous comments were received with respect to virtually every product Indicating problems with the means by which DOE derived the standard levels

orproblems that would be causedby the standard levels. Changes to design options or creation ofnew product classes were often the appropriate

answers. but they reduced potential .avings. 

### In the absence ofthese changes, while projected savings might be higher. the costs and burdens of possible standards would be much greater.

The use In the ORNLModel ofthe
mostrecent data (e.g

.. product efficiencies, usage and market penetration) and energy price projections results In the model better approxlDiating what would happen In the marketplace In the absence of standards. ThIs Is importantbecause It Is only In the last several years that the efficiency ofmany products Increased signJ..ficantly In terms ofshipment weighted efficiency.t 

### SeeEconomic Analy.is Document, Table 3-12. 

### Before 1973, the real price ofenergy generally declined. Consequently, 

### It Is not surprising that manufacturers and

consumers did not focus great attention

on the energy efficiency ofappliances. The Increase In the cost ofenergy In the

'The ahlpmenl weightld efficiency 

### Ill. product equall the IUID ofthe energy flctor for each basic model limes the volume of.hJpmenli for each mod.1, all divided by the total IhJpmenta ofthe product. 

### last ten years, however. has created

- substantial Incentives for manufacturers

to make. and consumers to buy. more energy efficient appliances. These incentives to a certain extent have been restrained by regulation ofthe price of oil and natural gas, which subsidized consumption and discouraged conservation. Nevertheless. many ofthe covered products have shown significantimprovements In shipment weighted energy efficiency in the last eightyears. 

### In the years ahead.

moreover, with the deregulation ofoil and the .cheduled deregulation ofmost natural gas in 1985. 

### market forces are expected to play an increasingly dominant role In the pricing ofall
energy. Therefore DOE expects that the appliance market will respond swiftly in the level ofenergy efficiency provided in

new appliances. 

### In short. 

### ifstandards

are not adopted. the appliance market

can be expected. over the period 1987- 2005, 

### to increase the level ofshipmenI· 

### weighted energy efficiency ofthe
average new appliance to levels generally comparable to those thai might be required by mandatory standards. 

### See Economic Analysis Document, Table 3-12. 

### Thus, we would expect the energy savings 

### attributable


### to standards to be correspondingly small.

By the year 2005, the ORNL Model predicts that In the absence ofstandards the average efficiency ofnew models of six ofthe most energy consumptive appliance. will improve 32 percent, on the average, compared to 1978. 

### With standards, the average efficiency ofthe

same new appliances In 2005 will have improved 37 percent. 

### See Economic Analysis Document, Table 3-12. 10

### Thus. DOE predicts that withrespect to these products most ofthe improvement in efficiency by the year 2005 possible with standards would be achieved without standards. During the period 1987-2005. 

### the ORNL'Model predicts that, 

### in the absence of standards, improvements in appliance efficiencies will result In savings of27.8 Quads. compared with what would have been used 

### ifappliance efficiencies had been frozen at 1978 

### levels. lOll 

### Ifstandards were adopted for 

### all the appliances suject to this rulemaking, the ORNLModel predicts savings during the same period of32.8

"Th

...**~nlase'** lI1'8 derived by a simple
average ofthe**~ntagelmprovement.** ofeach or the produeta reflected inTable 3-12. These products
an: aU md gal furnace

.. room air conditioners. central el.rconditlonel'l, electnc and gal water heatere. refrlgerator-freezerl. and freezers.

.. See Letter from 

### J. Dexter Peach 10 Congreaaman RIchard 1. OtliDger. December 23. 1981. at EnciOlure I. p. 11.

## 14428 Federal 

### Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 

### 2, 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

quads. Thus.**84~** 

### of the total possible savings from potential appliance efficiency improvementa 8l'8 projected
to occurin the bue ca.e. without standards. Thi. mean. that only 16 percent ofthe po88ible savings 

### would be attributable to 

### rtandards.

Since the projectiona 

### of the ORNL 

### Mode1-<lra.ny 

### model forecutins energy

use over 

### twmty years--ve to a signifiCllDt degree 

### un<:e:rtain. !!Ven 

### this relativelJ 

### small energy

..'ring attribul.edto sta.nd8.l1k moatbe viewed with lOme skepticiam.

Some 

### of

### the energy savings.

### \he ORNL Model attributes to the sta.ndarda may partially be the result ofmarket imperfections. 11 Such imperfections could include the difficulty in obtaining a.nd the complexity in understanding information concerning the relative efficiencies between models of applianc.ea. the difficulty 

### of comparison shopping on a basi. otherthan initial
cost. 

### and third party purchase of.ome appliances. U How 

### much ofthe difference between the 1BvU1gs in the no-standards 

### and the 

### standards cases mightbe attributable to 

### auch market failure is 

### unknown.

There is a tendency to assume that 

### if

a sta.ndardwere set at the point that would produce the 

### minlmll:m life cycle
cost (in the Economic Analysis Document such a lta.ndard level is denominated the."nominal level"), then 

### any difference between savings achieved at such a standardlevel 

### and a no-sta.ndard level would have to be attributable to market failure. There 

### are at least two major naW!l with such an assumption. First. a unifonn. national standard set at the national average life cycle cost minimum may

### well constitute

a standard that for large numbers 

### of unon-average" persons is too efficient; that is, a le.ss efficientmodel would have a lower life cycli! cost to them. Such a standard would be punitive for such people. This concept is addressed in more detail infra. buthere it suffices
to note that the 18 percent additional savings that the ORNLModel attributes
to standard8 I. likelypartially at the
cost ofIUch "non-flverage" perlOns. Second, 

### nen the national, average life

IIThil 1

..

_ tblIt tIw IUJIdudlI i:IDpa.d would be the epliDloM llaJIdardfrola a We c:rdecae!

### new. See irJfra.

..Some applluCel are purchued and InIta1led by the builderbefo", a bome l.t fInllOld. nUll lc!nd ofthird Jl'If17pom:haa ill DOll 

### .--0,f'88&l'ded

.. market fllil_ linea c:ompclIlCta of b_ and other

__ durablel

.,. 

### -ny dniped to conlo

... to

_ ,...1_. HOwlmtr, lOUIe evidence IUllllnta thet tile.- lhlnl Jl'If17 )NI'Ch

.... !lave hiltoric:ally been aIower 10 Iftpond to conlumer aware

... and

# _I'D

krbJsb- prien for eneraY thaD wiMnI tIM pwdl.uc Ie

### actlIalIJ !be penon who will pay the fuel blI.la. cycle cost 

### ofa product as used in the economic analysis is 

### a projection. not a demonstrable fact. There are many assumptions, including usage rate•. fuel prices. equipmentprices. and the appropriate diacowrt rates. The 88sumptiOlH made byDOE are its best estimates andjudgments, but 

### ifpersons In the marketplace have different estimates and judgments, !!Ven in an Inttrltive fashion. this does not mean they are wrong 

### andDOE is right. thereby demonstrating market failure. To the

### contrarr, they may wen be right.
or, perhap8 more likely, have a much better appreciation oftheir particular circumstancea 

### md needs, such that the additionalsningltpnldicted by the ORNL Model to be attributable to standards might 

### in pert reflect forcing standards on penons whose free choices would

### havebeen 

### their most economic choiee••

Whatever the degree 

### ofmaritet failure that may have been experienced in the past withrespect to these appliances, however, DOE 

### expects to diminish greatly as a result ofincreased

_ consumerlIW'IU'eneu and 

### concern over higher energy prices in combination 

### with the Federal Trade Commission's (Fl'C's) appliance labeling

### program. Neither FI'C norDOE have evaluated this program to determine its impact. However, the FI'C expects to conduct a study ofthe impacts on consumer purchase decisions oflabeling for refrigerators andrefrigerator-freezers and clothes washers this year. Moreover, a final rule for labels for· central air-conditionen (including heat pumps) has notyetbeen issued, but is expected in 1982. DOE believes that this
program. together with higher energy prices. will.ubstantially reduce any imperfections in the appliance market. There are indications. for example, that home builders 

### are conscious ofthe sales advantages 

### ofa.n energy efficienthome, and such cooscioumess is likely to mitigate thirdpart)' eff:ects. Private
.ectorgroups (including trade a.sociations, consumergroups, and the media) could play an importantrole in publicizing the labeling program and actively dill8eminating facts 

### concerning the relative efficienci1!s ofcompeting appliances. especially those that 

### are sold more frequently through
contracton. where comparison shopping
may be more difficult.



### One example 

### ofthe available information concerning the relative efficiencies ofappliances is the. publication ofcertification dinctories by appliance manufacturer U80Cialiona. At the present. directories 

### are publiahed by the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) for

. refrigerators. fn!ezers. and room all'- conditioners, andby the AirConditioning and Refrigeration**institu~e** (ARl) for central air-eonditioners (usea extensively by contractors and installers). The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) will soon begin publishing a directory for gas and 

### aU furnaces and gas and electric water heaters. In addition. the California Energy Commission publishes directories for refrigerators and freezers.

room and central air-conditioners. and
waterheaters. Increasingly. manufacturers themselves 

### are advertising the efficiency oftheir products.

The ORNL Model characterizes all of the factors influencing the market
response to higher energy prices as an implicit discount rate. Moreover, the model i. programmed to decrease the implicit discount rate (or market imperfections) as energy prices rise. In this way the model roughly simulates

.how the market operates. There is a paucity ofstudies ofchanges in implicit discount rates generally, and none analyzing the effect ofa combination of higher energy prices and a public education program over a number of years. U How fast the implicit discount
rate decreases 

### i. a matter ofjudgment in the 

### context ofthis analysis. DOE believes that its method for decreasing the implicit discount rate is reasonable in Ught of

### all factora. Indeed. while the ORNL Model is a respected computer model and DOE has made a number of improvements to it since the June 30 proposal. DOE believes that it is likely that the market

### will respond more quickly arid more completely to higher
energy prices a.nd increased consumer

awareness than the model projects, because the model was not specifically programmed to take account ofthe FTC's labeling program orinnovative private sector activities, some ofwhich



### are already underway. Consequently. DOE believes that there is a significant probability that the energy savmgs attributable to standards would be less than those projected by the ORm Model.

An example ofincreased incentives for efficiency resulting from market forces is the offer by several utilities to provide cash rebates to consumers (and, in one case. to contractors) who install appliances meeting specified minimum

"'The IIIOSl clOft!y relmd atudy, one examinin8 Invellmenta In thermal Integrity for new homel. Involved circumltuce. sufficiently dillimilar to reDdet' Ita resultl Inconc:lulive In the eppliance
context. SHgerreraJlyEconomic AnalYlil Document et I 5.3.%.a.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules



# - 14429

levels ofenergy efficiency. Forinstance. the Dallas Power and Light Company (like other subsidiaries ofthe Texas Utilities Company) offers suchrebates
to consumers forreplacement and new construction installations ofefficient airconditioners; Northern States Power Company in Minneapolis offers similar rebates forrefrigerators. freezers, room and central air-conditioners, andwater heaters; andFlorida PowerCorporation offers rebates to consumers and bonuses to contractors and dealers for replacement ofair-conditioners with

more efficient units. These actions allow the utilities to gain more control over energy demand duri.ng periods ofpeak

use. thus reducing the need for construction ofnew generating capacity; they also allow consumers to reap the benefits oflowerenergy costs without paying the 

### full increase in the first cost ofmore efficient appliances.

2. 

### SignIficance of 

### Savings. Under section 325(b) of

### EPCA. as amended. DOE is prohibited from adopting Ii 

### standard for a product 

### ifthat standard would notresultin "significant" energy savings. 

### The statute. however, does not define the term "significant." Such a termis notreadily susceptible to precise definition, and DOEbelieves that Congress used such a term with the intent that DOEwould. in the exercise ofits informedjudgment, determine whatlevel ofsavings is significant and underwhat circumstance••

In exercising**i~** 

### judgment, DOE is proposing to consider the significance of energy savings in three different
·contexts. using three different measures. They are: whether savings ofoil and gas
are large enough to decrease meaningfully this Nation's reliance on foreign sources ofenergy; whether savings ofelectricity are large enough eitherto reduce significantly new generation requirements orto affect significantly the environment: and. whether a standard would result in a productusing 20percentless energy than it would absent a standard. 

### 1£the savings attributable to a standard are significantunder anyone ofthese tests. DOE is proposing to deem the savings significantunder section325(b).14

HID lbe

### faDe 30p.ropoN1 DOEprvpoaed thai lUIDw.i:. enerv NviJI&a for a productof0.ll02867 Quacla. or0.ll64 Quade overDlneteen yean. would be deemed IlgnlficanL TbJI epecifIc BTU Nvtngl

...al inlended to repreeeni a 20percenl laVinp of the miDlmum _011111 ofIlle merv a product mUll

use before It canbe col1llderedfor lteadarda under oection 325(a)(2). Commf!l1lefll\l8Psled that thls level ofHvtnge wal 100low 10 be deemed IlgnlficanL DOE qreee. Such a Ieve1 ofHvinp Is A. 

### Oi}andGas Savings. The first

measure for determining significance is the amount ofoU and natural gas that would be saved as a result ofa standard. DOEbelieves itis appropriate
to focus on savings ofthese fuels because Congress in enacting NECPA. which amended EPCA to create the existing appliance program, focused on these fuels. The findings enumerated in NECPA are instructive:

(a) FlNDINCS.-The Congress finds that-

(1) TheUnited State. faces an energy shortage arising from Increaaing demand for energy, particularly for oil andnatural gas, and Insufficient domestic supplies ofoil and natural gal to satilfy that demand;

(2) Unless effective measures are promptly taken by the Federel Government and other Ulers ofenergy to reduce the rate ofgrowth cl demand for energy, the United States 

### will become Increasingly dependent on the world oil market. Increasingly vulnereble to Interruptiona offoreign oil supplies, and unable to provide the energy 10meel future 

### needs: and

.

(3) All sectors ofourNation's economy mUit begin immediately to significantly reduce the demand for nonrenewable energy
resource. such

### u oil and oatura.l gas by

. Implementing and maintaining effective C011IervatioD measure. for the efficientUle of these and otherenergy .ources.



### B8sedupon this language. DOE believes a level ofconservation ofoU or g8S would

### be significant ifit 

### made a significant contribution to reducing this 

### Nation's energy dependence on foreign Dations. DOE is tentatively proposing to establish 10.000barrels-peMay as the oU (or gas) savings that would be deemed significant 

### ifa standard for a particularproductwould resultin such savings. butrequests comments from the public OD whether a differentfigure is appropriate. and 

### Ifso. whatit shouldbe. 

### This tentative figure is a rough approximation ofthe per-product oU savings estimatedby the Administration that proposed the NECPA amendments to EPCA that would result from adoption ofstandards. 11 

### Such a figure 

### for each standard would over 

### all thirteen standards also result in program-wide savings ofoU that would be in the same range as othermajor programs proposedby the Adminiatration thatproposed the

10 -U .a tobe nOl1-lue.urable in national rsporta. Moreover. tbia _ounl ill Ie

.. thlUl 20 peJ'CllD1 ofthe lite enerv eavinga th.1 wouldhave been achieved in a COIIHrvalion contingeDC)' plan rsfacted by both h_ ofCoI18J'UI because II Hved an 1naipifIClUII _00111 ofenergy. See infra.

"'The Ill. eaVinp projected wers ofthe l8Dte IDqIlilude. 

### mandatory appliance standards. is 

### A figure smaller than this would mean savings so small as to be difficult to discern in national reports. for 10.000 barrels-per-day is already less than 1('0 

### of1 percent ofnational oil use and less than 0/10 

### of 1 

### percent ofpetroleum imports.

Support for this general range of savings ofoil as being "significant" can be found in the history ofCongress' rejection ofan energy conservation contingency plan for advertising lighting restrictions. That plan was estimated to be able to save only approximately 4.400 barrels ofoU per day as a result of reduced electricity usage. 

### See S. Rep. No. 9&-98, 

### 96th 

### Cong.• 1st Sess. 10-11. (1979); H.R. Rep. No. 96-122. 96th Cong

.. 1st Sess. 4 (1979). This amount of savings was consideredby DOE to be small, with little impact on the Nation or

on electric utilities. The principal value ofthe plan was deemed to be its promotion ofpublic awareness. 

### [d. Both the Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce reported unfavorably on the plan because ofits fallure to provide for significant savings, and the plan was

never approved. Several commenters. objecting to the BTU level ofsavings DOE proposed to deem significant in the June 30proposal. suggesteduse ofthis 4.400barrel-per-day level. DOE believes that this history is instructive in 

### demonstrating thatDOE and the Congress deemed4,400barrels-per-day 

### insignificant. However. nothing in the record suggests that 8avings should be considered significant merely because they exceed4.400 barrels-per-day.

OU andga8 are used directly to power certain coveredproducts orclasses of products and are used indirectly. to a greater orlesser degree, through the generation ofelectricity, as an energy SGurce for most ofthe products under consideration in this rulemaking. The following table illustrates the current direct and indirect oU and gas usage for each ofthe products subject to this rulemaldng and each product's percentage ofthe Nation's total oil or gas usage.

..Prelidenl Carter'1 proposedMandatory WeekendClo'1n&1 ofgasoUne ltalionl wal IItlmated to be able to lave 120.000-270.000barrelsper-der. enlorcemllllt ofthe 55 mph speed limtt was eaJd to be able to Hve ZllO.ooo barrsle-per-dar. snd Praeldenl Carter', oU Import fee 10 reduce ga,olme consumptiOll, oyertumed.both by the courts and Congress. waa lupposed to .ave 100.llQO.-Z!iO.000 barrels.per-day.

### 14430 Federal 

### RePter 

## I VoL 1fJ, 

### No. 64 / Friday, April 

### Z. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

11180 01\,. AHO GAS USIIOE**t~"lltul**
0i1lCt -.ct' "--<JI1IllIIl**~'** .-0-' 01 

# .. 01 eo. 01 Get

c.nnI...-

__ 1.82 

# .. .14 41 14.4



# --- .20 ..J4 .If 

# .- 

# .. .u Nt_ Room



# -

# -- .08 ,O!.I .3 .ac ZI 

# .. 1.1 w

__ .12 .85 .22 

### .1' ..a 5.3 .18 .17 ..5 .8 "-. .IR .08 .2 .3 Rarooe .31 .08 .08 2 2.0 c:a.er... ..,.. .07 .07 .08 2 .1 

# T_ 2.14 4.51 1211 1.05

..1 2

... an extraordinary level 

### in order to save the requiaite oil gas.or eLectricity.

Anotherway to measure the significance ofellergy savings attriblltabw! 

### to a standard for a given productover • period of time is in relatiOD 

### to the energy that would have peeD 

### used by thatproduct in the abnDce of 

### a ItanOard overthat period of

### time. Thus. 

### if a &tandard for a particularproduct resulted in a s:ignifk:a:nt amount ofenergy being saved in relation to what would have been 

### _ed by that product in the absence ofthe standard, the standard could be deemed to have resulted in a significant conservation ofenergy. Such



### a measurement ofsignificance would
not be 

### biased in favor 

### of the products that are the relatively la.rge energy

users. because the energy savings attributable to a standard for the productwould be roeaured only against the energy that otherwise would have been 

### ueed by that product.

Because the other measurements of sigDificance 

### are biased in favor oflarge energy users. this measurement would
moet likely result in a determination of significance with respect to a standard for a small energy user. Consequently. DOE beDeyes it is appropriate to establish 

### a level of significance at a percentage level that would be meaningful even 

### if the productused relatively smaQ amounts ofenergy. DOE is proposing, tbenfore. that the energy saved as a result

### ofa standard, 81 meuuredby the OR.""lL Model. be 20 percent ofthe energy that would be used by the product in the no-standard base caJe in order for the 

### savi.ngs to be deemed significant.

DOE finds support for 

### a 20 percent level 

### in the fonner section 325 ofthe Act. Prior ofthe NECPA amendments. section 325 required voluntary energy efficiency targets for ten products that would. 

### iffollowed. result in an aggregate increase in energy efficiency of20 perceot. Only 

### ifone ofthese targets

were not metwould DOE be required to establish an efficiency standard for the product. The 20 percentincrease in eneTBY efficiency is not the same as a 20 percentenergy savings as a result ofa standard. and the legislative history of the present section 325 does not discuss
any relationship between this prior prorision's use of20percent and the present section's use ofthe term "significant" conservation ofenergy. Nevertheless, DOE believes that

. Congres.'s use ofa ZO percentlevel as a minumim level 

### in relation to standards suggest that such a percentage level of savings is a reasonable basis for deeming a level ofconservation l!IecIrIc """-t


# ...,......,. 

# _in "'-


# -**~.** 

# .---

Cenni

### ol:>- '-'-

. 

### cue 3.8 R.-.

__ I.. U**Nt~** 

### ua 1.5 Nt CcIoodibw -'nl 1.041 53**w_~** 1.- 5.4 \.\1 4.7

### ~~ 0A4 1.1 Ct..54 2.1 Ooawa.r,. 

# .... ,

# .. new generatinS capacity. whidl 

### at the utility level fs dfstinguishabiefrom other factors.

The table 

### be.low shows electricity use for each 

### ofthe products subjectto thia rulemaking and its percentage of

natioaal electric:ity 

### 1LS8ge.

1980 Eu:c'n1lClTY lJMGE



# - In each prodact-speciflc anl!Jysia, the electridty sninp 

### are identified and

. discussed. C. 

### 20PercentSarings. The above meaS'lIreS ofthe significance of particularenetgy savings related the sa:rings to theirimpact at the national level. 

### This is probably the most na:tu1'al
meaauremeat

### ofthe significance 

### ofa proposed orp01S'ibIenationalprogram. becasue, 

### ifthe program is national in
scope and chUllcter. its impactwould nonnaDy bejudged 

### by its effect on the Nation. Nevertheless. such 

### a measurementis not the oaly possible
test ofsignificance. Moreover, such a measurementhas a built-in bias toward products thatuse a great deal ofenergy in 

### the 

### first 1rIataDce. 

### That is, a relatively small improvement in energy efficiency attributable 

### to a lJtandardin a product that uses a great deal ofenergy could
meet the above testa ofsignificance. while a product that uses relatively little energy (e.g., clothes dryers) would have
to show an improvement in efficiency of Each product-specific anl!lysls identifies the direct 

### and ind:i:rect oil and
gn savings and assesae1l their significance.



### B. EleclricftySavfrws. 

### The sigriificance 

### ofenergy savings, however. probsbly should not be meuured solely in terms

### of.avings of

### oil and gu. or

even :aon-reuewable fuel

.. notwitkatanding the t':iDdmgI of

### NECPA. There 

### are positive 

### soda! benefits from saviDg electricity, besides savi.ng oil 

### and
gas. Por example, saviDs electricity can redw:e both 

### enviromnental problema aDd the 

### need for additional generatin3 capacity. thereby freeing 

### scarce capital for otherproductive

### usee. Therefore, DOE believe1l that. "significanf' conservation ofeDeliY 

### would include electricity AvingI that would have a significantimpact 011 the avironment Ol" significantly 

### reduce 

### tDe aeed for additional generatiDg capacity.

DOE 

### cannotidentify a specific nwnber ofkilowatia or Quads 

### of savings thatwould have

# suaimpacts. Nevertheless. in itaEnvironmental Assessment ofthe June 30 proposal DOE concluded that the standards proposed there, taken together. would
not have a significant effect onthe environment. Because 

### the standards proposed 

### in theJune 30 proposal were predictedto create greater energy savings than the standards analyzed 

### in this proposal DOE believes that no single standard considered in tcx:lay's proposal could have a significanteffect

on the environment. That environmental .saessIll'8lrt didnot specifically address the tasUII ofthe effect of

### standa.rda on DeW generating capacity. BecaUM the rvlative 

### Deed for DeWcapacitydi.ffera substantiany among differentregions of the Nation. DOE beIleves a national
savmgs ofelectricity would at

### Jeaat

. have to exceed 1 percent ofnational
usage overthe period ofanalysis in order to have an effect on the need for

### Federal R.egister 

## I Vol. 

### 47, No. 

### 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14431

significant and thereby meeting the present Section 325" 

### criterion.



### D. 

### EconomicfUlltificatiotL Section 

### 325(b} 

### abo in 

### effect prohibita an appli8J1ce effidenc:y standard, 11 that standard is not economically ju.tified. Sectioo 32S{d} .tates that a standard can be economically jutified only 

### ifOOE determines that the benefit. ofthe 

### standard. exceed its burdens. In other worda, rnn 

### ifa standard Baved "significant" amounts of

### energy, if the benefits of 

### that standard didnot outweigh ill burden

.. the ltandard would not be "economicallyjUltified." In 

### determiJiing whether a particular standard's benefits exceed the burdens,
to the greatest extent practicable DOE is
to weigh six specific factors as well as any otherfactors DOE deems appropriate. 

### See section 325{d)(1H7). These factors are separately addresaed below.

Certain ofthese factors can be quantified, albeit through projections and computer models; others are not quantifiable. Congress recognized this 

### and indicated iliat greaterweight should
not be given to a factor merely because it 

### was.quantifiable. 

### See 

### H.R. Rep. No. 95-1751, 95th Cong

.. %d Sess. 116 (1978).

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers (Sec. 325{d)(l»). The engineering analysis identified improvements in efficiency and 

### the associated costs for each class of product to large and medium-sized manufacturers. These cOlts would constitute the increased perunit cost to manufacturers to achieve energy efficiencylevels equivalent to those achieved in the design options. Consumerprices 

### will increase further as

a result ofmark-ups in the distribution chain. The average price ofcurrent models in the class is derived from .industry data. as shown in the Engineering Analysis Document. These
costs are identified in the productspecific discussion. These increased
costs to manIacturers and consumers, however. cannotbe said necessanly to be the result ofstandards. That is. to the
extentthat manufacturers choose voluntarily to make appliance efficiency improvements, their costs and the purchase cOlts 

### toconsumers would increase by roughly the same amoant as they would 

### ifthe same improvements

were made 8S 

### a result ofstandards (except for that portion ofthe costthat is attributable to the certification and enforcementexpense. unique to standards. see Engiaeering Analysis Document at C-7).



### To assess certain otherimpaction manufacturers that would result from standards, DOE used a computermodel that simulatedhypothetical firma 

### in the appliance industry to 

### determine the effects of.tandard. on different-sized 

### firm.L This model. the F'mancial Impacts Model (FIM), it fully 

### explained in 

### the Economic Analysi. Document. 

### See espedallyAppendixA. 

### In general. the FIM compared the projected finandal records ofprototypical 

### £inns ofdifferent sizet over a twelve year period-l980- 1991-undera !)ase case and two standana easet (levels 2 and 3). The FlM then 

### provides four outputs: the increased risk to a prototYPical firm of
not 

### making a profit in the manufacture and sale ofa given product subject to a given .tandard compared to the "base case," and the·relative profitability, debt!equity and "quick" 11

### ratios of prototypical firma 

### in the "base case" and with standards. l' See § 

### 4.5, Economic Analysis Document. The product-spedfic analysis identifies these outputs for prototypical small. medium. and large firma 

### making that product.

With respect to increased business risk, the F1M projects an increased business risk to small ormedium firms for all products analyzed (except furnaces) at almost all standards levels analyzed. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 4-28. 11 

### Similarly, the

"The quick ratio Ia a mea.ure ofa firm', ability
to with.tand .hort·tenn downtuma in bu.inesa activity. AIao called the acid tett ratio. it ill defined

aa:

Qui .L Ra ' ClImmt Aaaet.-hmmlary

.... tiel

- Can'ant Liabilities

IIFor the period analyzed IlI1der the base cue. level. ofinve.tmentby the lInD lU'll derivecl from biatorical iJml.tmellt Ienli. Under the two ltandarda

# ca_. the ba

.. case level. ofinwatment

lU'll ill_ted by the amount of InvntmeDt neC8&Ml'Y topraduce the product to the required efficiency level (u lJldIcated in the engineerintl analy.la). ThIs methodology would accurately meUtlft the Impectl anociated with those inveltment and efficieDcy levela If the awmfactunlr had,not already made inveltmenlll in energy efficiency Improvemenlll by that time. If the manufac1Ul'erhad made .ome ofthe nece••ary inve.tmellta to Improve appliance efficiency a. part ofbia hi.toricallevel ofinvestment, however. to add tha full amount indicated in the ens:inall1'in8 lUlaly.1a would be InaCCW1lte. becau.e .ome ofthat
neces.ary investmentW'OllId already ha" been mad

.. Beca_ the ORNLModel predict.a that applianceeCfIcieDcy lmprovementa will be _de by the marbt without atandarda IUld that lOme Improvemenlll relative to WI will ba made by tha

ume .tandarda would be Imposed. It Ie realOl18ble
to axpect that ID&IIJ. IfDOt most, firma will beve made atleut

__ iDnatmenlII in appliance efficieacy lmpronmeal. prior 10 the time any .tandard would be Imposed. ThUll. tha financial Impact ofa standard would be Inl for the•• firma thea for the firm thathad made DO such iD""atment, III the product·apeciflc dlacualon. DOE

..limates.

00 the buIa althe increaM iD efficiency ofthe pfoduct between 1978and 1987. the order of ma\lDitude by which the Impaeta predicted by the FIMmay be ove

...tata<l for the a

..raga Jirm.

ttDOE llODdllcta<l a aenailivlty analysl. ofthe risk analy. ufthe FIM to determlnAi: how chansiD3 certain variabl.a would affect the outpuL It was determined that changing the level ofproducta ahlpped bad a lllbatantialimpact on the moder. 

### level ofprofitability for small and medium firma 

### diminishes for all products analyud at almost all standard levels analyzed. /d., 

### Table 4- %9. 

### Generally. the debt/equity ratio of firms deteriorates; in two instances the level ofdebt becomes greater than the value ofall anets. rendering the net worth negative.

### -/d

.. Table 4-030. 

### Generally, 

### aD firms 

### become less liquid with standards. 

### /d.. Table 4-31. The conclusion suggested by these data is that .tandards generally would have a negative impact on the financial health ofappliance 

### firm

.. with specific and significantharm suffered by small- or medium-sized 

### firma making certain appliances. These impacts are addressed in the product-specific discussion where applicable. DOE believes that the combination of increased business risk, reduced profitability. and the need for greater investment to comply with standards increases the likelihood that small and medium firms would leave the particular appliance market through withdrawal or failure. or would merge with another 

### firm in the appliance industry. DOE believes that the withdrawal or failure oflarge 

### firms" because oftheir greater finandal strength generally and their diversification. would be much less dependent on the existence of standards.

Forconsumers, another measure of economic impact is the life cycle cost of

a product. because it takes account of both the increased first cost, any increased maintenance costs. and the reduced fuel costs resulting from the product's greater efficiency, Under section 325, such an analysis is a separate factor. 

### see infra.

While the above are the quantifiable impacts ofstandards. which are identified in each product-specific analysis, there are a number ofless quantifiable impacts (not addressed in
any ofthe computer models) on both manufacturers and consumers resulting from increased manufacturing costs and purchase prices. For manufacturers. for example. any money spent on energy efficiency improvements to appliances is
money not invested in**ot.~er** 

### areas. Thus.
to the extent that expenditures by manufacturers on energy efficiency improvements to appliances are dictated by standards rather than economics.

more appropriate investments may be

output ofincreased rI.k. Because ofthe Importance ofthia variable and lllllmpact on the reawts. where appropriate. It ia addre.sed in the product specific analy.1.t.

-The two instances occur atleyel 3 for lW!dium- ·.I:e manufacturel'll of**r~rrigeralDr·free%"1'll** and .mall manufacture" offreezeMl_

### 14432 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 1982 

## I Proposed 

## Rules

foregone. DOE believes that this could result in reduced productivity. reduced
energy efficiency in the manufacturing
sector. or the forgoing ofpossible new utility orperformance features in a product.Jhis is nothing more than a result ofthe inherent diseconomies of governmental regulatory interference in the marketplace, for a regulation of general applicabillty-even 

### ifcrafted to m.inim.i.Ze unnecessary costenecessarily cannot.take account ofall particularclrcumstances. DOE solicits
comments on this subject. especially from potentially affected manufacturen.

Increased first costs to consumen resulting from standards can affect different consumen in different ways. The various computermodels utilized by DOE do not distinguish between different consumerpurchasing patterns. Rather. they assume an average

consumer. DOE believes, and several
commenton on the June 30proposal stated. that for lowerincome consumen increases in first costs for a particular product can have the effect of precluding the purchase ofa new model ofthat product. 

### Aa a result, some

consumen may retain products past theiruseful life orpurchase olderused appliances. These olderproducts are generally less efficientthan newer models to begin with. and DOE believes that for some appliances initial efficiencies are 

### likely to deteriorate 

### if they are retained beyond theiruseful life. Thus, these consumen might, because ofstandards. be forced to live with less efficientproducts and thus use

.more energy. However, 

### ifno standards

were adopted. consumen ofall income levels would be able to choose from a range ofproducts with varying energy efficiencies and prices, and 

### itwould be possible for a lowerincome penon 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. DOEbelieves that this Impact of standards onlowerincome penons 

### is Important even 

### if the number ofsuch
penons disadvantaged

### is relatively small compared to the total number of
penons affected by standards. 

### This is so because lowerincome penons are the least able to endure economic disadvantage resulting from governmentalregulatory action.

2.

### Life Cycle CostandNetPresent Value (Sec. 

### 325{d)(2)). The lite cycle COlt (LCC) analysis, 

### see Economic Analysis Docum"ent, calculates the total cost of ownenhip for consumen for each class ofproduct.**Comparil~n** ofthe life-qcle cost 

### of 1978 baseline models with models at each ofthe standards levels analyzed allows DOE to determine the changes in total COlt ofownenhip.



### Ifthe life cycle cost at a particular standard level 

### is greater than the life cycle cost ofthe 1978 model, this demonstrates that itis not economically beneficial for the average consumer to purchase a product built to the analyzed standard level compared to current "average" models. That is, the increased first costs ofobtaining a particular efficiency are not offsetby fuel savings

overthe life ofthe product.

DOE has placed substantial weight on the failure ofa possible standard to achieve an Improved life cycle cost. Moreover. 

### ifa particular standard level, while**s~owing** a decreased life cycle
cost from the 1978 shipment weighted efficiency. would have the effect of 

### banning from the market an existing product with a lower life cycle cost. DOE also considen this a substantial burden. 

### In both cases, the effects of selecting thatparticular standardlevel would be to penalize consumers, by requiring them to pay greaterlife cycle
costs than necessary and to take actions that would be contrary to their own selfinterest.

The life cycle cost analysis, therefore, 

### is useful in identifying those energy efficiency levels that correspond to life cycle cost minima, 

### see especially Economic Analysis Document. Appendix G, for it

### is at these levels of
energy efficiency that the average consumer's economicbenefits are



### .maximized and

### his burdens minimized. Moreover, where these LeC minima do
not correspond to the moat energy efficientlevel, the more energy efficient level (withhigherlife cycle costs)· generally saves only very marginal incn!,ased amounts ofenergy.

While the life cycle cost analysis indicate. for moat products atmost standard levels a decrease in life cycle
costs compared to those of1978 ahipmenta. 

### this decrease should notbe totally attributed to the adoption of standards. 

### In the previous sectionit was noted that increased first costs to manufacturers and consumers resulting from appliance efficiency Improvements could not neceuarily be attributed to the effect ofstandards, because marketinduced efficiency Improvements would result in similarper-unitfirst cost increases. 

### So also here, market-induced efficiency Improvements between 1978 and 1987 willresult in similar decreases in life cycle costs. Data provided in Appendix G ofthe Economic Analysis

. Documentleads DOE to believe that the decreases inlife cycle costs identified for the appliances at issue here, determined by comparing cert.ain levels ofefficiency to actual 1978 average efficiencies. would largely be enjoyed

even in the absence ofstandards. as a result ofmarket improvements in appliance efficiency. In other words. the life cycle cost analysis conducted by DOE merely compared the relative life cycle costs ofproducts at different levels ofefficiencies; DOE did not compare, predict, orproject differences in life cycle costs ofproducts under standards as opposed to a base case without standards.

In orderto assess the differential economic impacts on consumers that would occurgenerally from the adoption ofstandards, compared to a base case with no standards but with marketinduced efficiency Improvements, DOE conducted a net present value (NPY) analysis. 

### see Economic Analysis Document. § 4.2. The ORNL Model calculates the total cost for each product (discounted total value ofenergy consumption from 1987 

### through the last
yearofuse for those products purchased 

### through the year 2005. plus the total discounted equipment costs for equipment purchased from 1987 

### through 20(5) 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, 

### ifthat standard

were adopted. consumen ofthat product as a whole would save that muchmore money in fuel costs, discounted to the present, than they wouldpayin increased first cost for

more efficient products, discounted to the present, compared to the situation where no standard ia adopted. 11 A positive NPV does notmean that the
economy as whole benefits (as opposed
to consumers ofthat product). The NPV analysis only compares consumer fuel
cost savings against increases in productprices to consumers. For example, the government costs in maintaining and enforcing a particular product standard are not subtracted from the net present value. The NPV analysis 

### is similarto the 

### LCC analysis, and the greatest NPV generally should

occur at the standard level set at the LeC minimum for the product.:: The NPV for each product at the different

aAllNPV'. In the 1ID41yt1. ovel'ltale the benefit of.tandardt to tome

### detlree beceule the bate cate anaJyti. did Dot tubtrac:tlIW1ufao:turercompliance COItJ, I.g., certlftc:atloa and

### te.q from the bue
cate produc:t pric:et. Thia oventatlmeat. however. Is minor.

a

### Becauetthe NPV anaIytl. Is done using the ORNLModel and the LCC anaIytls it done through IIlI ownmodel. thla dlreo:t com!latioa may nol exitt betweea the two modale' data.

### Federal Register 

# I Vol. 47. No. 64 

# I Friday. April 2. 1982 

# I Proposed Rules 

### 14433

standard levels is identified in the product-specific analysis.

Several commenters on the lune 30 proposal identified a potential problem in the use ofaverages. such as average usage rates and average fuel prices. to determine life cycle costs and net present values. The life cycle cost analysis was used to determine life**cy~e** cost minima. which for the "average" consumer should be the optimal efficiency leveL Where a

consumeris not average. however. that level is not necessarily optimal. 

### Ifthe

consumerhas higherthan average fuel prices orhigher than average usage rates, there may be a more optimal efficiency level for that consumer. but the consumeris not penalized because the market is able to provide such a model. 

### If. however. the consumerhas lower than average fuel prices or lower than average usage rates; the consumer may be penalized by having to purchase

a productwhose efficiency level was required 

### by a Federal standard that assumed higher prices orhigherusage than is truefor that consumer.

Because ofthese comments. and especially those ofthe Regulatory Analysis Review Group (RARG) ofthe former Administration. which questioned the premise ofsetting standards at the average consumer's LCC minimum. DOE undertook several sensitivity studies ofthe LeC analysis to determine whether the potential. theoreticalproblem. mentioned above. in fact. would occur 

### ifstandards at LeC minima were adopted. With the exception ofcertain classes ofcentral and room air conditioners. the sensitivity analysis indicated that generally the level ofefficiency that had the lowestLeC for the average

consumerwas the LCC minimum for a

consumer with less 

### than average usage

or fuel prices. 

### See Economi<: Analysis Document. 

### I 5.4. The sensitivity analysis. however. i. subject to several Umitationa. First. It only considered reductions 

### ofleu 

### than 5 percentfrom the average fuel price. This is a critical limitation, because some States' average electricity prices are as much as 80 percentless 

### than the national average electricityprice. Second, the reductions in usage measured were 

### only those that would 

### be normally expected, not extreme reductions that still might be representative ofsome people. Third, the sensitivity ana1yBis did not test any combination of

### below aver. usage andbelow average fuel prices.. Fourth, it did not COIlIiderthe 

### effect ofreduced usage for a number ofproducts (dryers, freezers, and ranges and ovena). some of which may 

### be more sensitive to reductions in llsage. Nevertheless. while the LeC sensitivity analysis cannotrule
out the problems orburdens identified by commenters and the RARG. with the exception of

### air conditioners It suggests that only in the more extreme cases might persons sufferthose burdens. DOE requests that interested persons comment on the 

### LCC analysis and sensitivity study.



### 3. EnergySavings (Sec. 32S(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 3Z5(d). The ORNL Model results. discussed above. were uti.l.ized for 

### this factor. 

### In each productspecific analysis the savings are specified.



### 4. Lessening

### 01 Utility orPerformance 

### 01Products (Sec. 32S(d)(4)). This factor
cannot be quantified. In establishing classes ofproducts and design options. DOE attempted 

### to eliminate any degradation ofutility orperformance in existing covered products. That 

### is. to the
extent that comments or our own research indicated that a product included a utility orperformance-related feature that affected energy efficiency. a class was created for the product with a lower standard. 

### In 

### this way DOE attempted to 

### minimi2:e the impact of

### this factor as a result ofthe standards analY'Z!!d DOE solicits comments on whether its attempts have been successful.

However. even were DOE able to eliminata any lessening ofutility or performance In existing products as a result of

### .tandards, DOE believes it is
not possible 

### to eliminate allimpacts of standards that might lessen the utility or performance offuture products. 

### This is
true for two reasons. First, as indicated above withrespect to impacts on manufacturers. DOEbelieves that the effect ofrequiring investments on the basis ofregulations rather than fundamental business considerations
may result inmanufacturers forgoing

some investments that would have been made in the absence ofthe regulatory requirements. These investments might be in improvementa inutility or performance ofa product.

Second, while separate classes of products have been established for this rulemakins in light oftheir different performance features. there is no 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 a new performance feature. 

### if that feature would have the effect ofreducing the product's energy efficiency below the standard level as measured by an applicable DOE test procedure, unless anduntil 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 could create a disincentive to manufacturers from developing the feature in the first instance.

While this possible disincentive to the development ofmore energy intensive performance features canriot be quantified. it could create a risk that

some performance features that might otherwise be developed would not be. Given the importance ofmany past performance features that reduce the
energy efficiency ofa product. such as self·cleaning ovens and automatic defrosting refrigerator-freezers. which. if standards had been imposed before their development. may have resulted 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 and benefits ofpossible standards. DOE requests comments on this issue.



### 5. Impact of Lessening Competition (Sec. 32S(d)(5)). Under Section 325, the determination ofthe impact oflessened competition likely to result from standards is to be made in writing by the Attorney General. In order to provide sufficient information to the Attorney General that he may make such a determination. DOE conducted a study ofthe affected appliance industry
to determine its existing concentration. level ofcompetitiveness. and financial performance. 

### See § 3.4. Economic Analysis Document.

Moreover. the FIM was discussed above as providing information concerning certain impacts ofstandards

on manufacturers. While the FIM does
not relate directly to competition. its suggested Impacts ofstandards can be used to aid in the assessment ofwhether standards 

### will lessen competition in the appliance Industry.

DOE has requsted that the Justice Department review the economic analysis and determine the impact of standards on competition.



### 6. Needof theNation to Conserve Energy (Sec. 325(d)(6)). Although the

### 14434 I 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, 

### No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

Nation's need to conserve energy must be balanced against otherfactors to determine the netburdens orbenefits 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. F'U'St. in defining'''energy use." aection 321(a)(4) measures the quantity ofenergy consumed at the point ofuse,

- thereby avoiding the calculation of

inefficiencies ofgenerating and transmitting electricity. The effect ofthis definition is to forgo any appliance standard that would be based on the

source energy efficiency ofthe appliance. Thus, under the appliance
program, an electric furnace is more efficient than an oil furnace. even though the electric furnace required

more BTUs to generate its electricity than are used by the oil furnace's oil, effectively limiting the possible energy savings that might be achievable. Second, section 325(f) authoriZes DOE to establish higher orlower standards for classes ofproduct in the same product type-that use different sources ofenergy. Thus, for example, DOE could set a lower standard for oil furnaces than electic furnaces, again effectively limiting possible energy savings. Third, section 325(f) also authorizes DOE to establish higher orlowerstandards for different classes ofproduct in the same product type ifthey have different utility

orperformance-related features. Thus.

an automatic-defrost refrigeratorfreezer, which inherently uses more -energy than a manually defrosting refrigerator-freezer, can have a lower standard; or a larger capacity refrigerator-freezer couldhave a different standard than a smaller capacity refrigerator-freezer. Because each ofthese effects ofthe law reduces the potential savings that could be obtained from standards. each recognizes that saving energy must be balanced with otherconsiderations. By including these provisions, Congress recognized that a standard that might

save the greatest amount ofenergy could effectively ban appliances using certain types offuel (because oftheir relative inefficiency compared to the

same productusing a different source of energy) orhaving useful performance features. The statute is clear, DOE believes, inproviding that such a result should not be the consequence of standards. These provisions indicate that the statute itselfrecognizes that the importance ofsaving energy is relative.
not absolute. As discussed in a previous section, NECPA's findings and purposes singled
out oil and gas as the two energy
sources ofparticular concern and for which the greatestneed to save could be inferred. Yet. since the passage of NECPA. this Nation'. Imports ofcrude oil have declined over

### zo percent.u



### To the extent that a source ofenergy other than oil and gas is involved, DOE believes the relative need to conserve energy is less. Electrical**~eneration** 

### capacity is generally adeql1at!l- After a number ofyears oflarge 

### growth in new demand, the industry is now seeing new demand increase at only 1 percent per year. Problems with the supply of electricity at the present time and for the foreseeable future are localized in
nature. depending on specific circumstances. Suchproblems are generally better dealt with in light ofthe specific circumstances, notby means of

a Federal. nationwide solution.

The above discussion is notintended
to indicate that DOE does not value highly the benefits ofconservation in the

use ofall 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

remove regulatory disincentives to conservation and energy production result in a healthiernational energy situation, the need for additional. Federally-mandated conservation of
energy is decreased. Because ofthe across-tha-board Improvements in the

national energy picture ofthe past few years and its projected continuation into the future "-without regard to the appliance program-the need ofthe Nation to conserve marginal increased
amounts ofenergy through a particular appliance efficiency standard is diminished. The ORNLModel's predictions ofenergy usage with and without standards Illustrate this situation. As 

### noted earlier, compared to 1978 appliance energy usage, DOE believes that efficiency Improvements as

a result ofmarket activity would
account for 84 percent ofthe total possible energy savings that would

occurin the time period if

### all standards

were adopted. Only the marginal 16 percentwould 

### be attributable to standards. and it is only the need for this marginal 16 percent that could be uaed in calculating the economic justification for standards.



### In addition to the electrical energy requirements ofcoveredproducts. the

II Monthly BnefllY Review. OeQember 19l11, DOEI EIA-003a (81/12), at

.. 14.

..See pneralJy NEPPIIL 

### timing ofthe demand

### ~lso may be Important. particularly with respect to

room and central air conditioners. Both products demand electricity during summerperlods. contnbutlng to the

summer peak demand for electricity. To meet this summerpeak demand lltilities install peaking powerplants, 55'percent ofwhich currently use aU or natural gas. 211

### As 

### a result. an increase in the efficiency ofair conditioners might produce greater savings ofoil and natural gas today than increases in the efficiencies ofotherproducts.

_DOE expects this relationship between the efficiency ofair conditioners and the use ofoil and natural gas to be less significant in the future for a number ofreasons. The nation's utilities forecast that the growth in peak demand. which occurred at an average annual rate of4.1 percent from 1976 to 1980, will 

### decline to a 3.5 percent annual increase during the 1981-1990 period. The percentage ofpeak demand
met by powerplants using oil and natural gas also is expected to decline. 

### In any case. where utilities orregions experience difficulty meeting peak demands, the remedies could be more effectively met through State and local actions than through a national program.



### 7. OtherFactors. Section 3Z5(d)(7) requires DOE to include in the process ofweighing the burdens and benefits of

a standard any otherfactors the .- Secretary considers relevant.



### A. 

### RegulatoryFlexibility. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies. when proposing a rule that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. Because the rule proposed today-that is, a determination that no standard should be adopted for the eight covered products-would not likely have a significant economic impact, if adopted. the Regulatory Flexibility Act's

_ requirement for a regulatory flexibility analysis technically does not apply. Nevertheless. DOE has considered the potential impacts ofstandards on small businesses in 

### the weighing ofthe burdens and benefits ofstandards, and. because these impacts are almost uniformly negative and potentially
severe, DOEhas given substantial weight to this factor in weighing these benefits and burdens.

As 

### previously mentioned in the
context ofeconomic Impacts on manufacturers. the Financiallmpacts Model (FIM) 

### presents four outputs.

-Collt and Quality 01 hel. for Eleclric Utility P1anta. 1980IJIIIWl1.**DOE/ElA~81(80).**

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14435

bearing on firms' business risk, profitability, debt/equity ratios, and "quick" ratios. DOE concluded that standards. by increasing business risk. reducing profitability, increasing the volume ofdebt. and decreasing liquidity, would increase the-likelihood that small and medium-sized firms 

### would leave the market place. DOEbelieves, however, that these negative impacts on small business may be understated in the FIM relative to the impacts projectedfor large and medium-size prototypical manufacturers.

First. the FIM uses as the input for the increased cost to a manufacturerthe result ofthe engineering analfsis. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. 

### I 2.3.4. However, the engineering analysis did


### not simulate or derive the increased cost to a small manufacturer, 

### see Engineering Analysis Document. Chapter C. 

### DOE believes that in most cases small manufacturers would incur

### greater increasedperunit costs in order to comply with standards than theirlarge

ormedium-sized competitors. This wouldbe the result ofnumerous factors. including smaller economies ofscale and higherper-unit increased fixed costs, such as certification and testing for compliance. Because the FIM utilized the likely lowercost figures ofmediumsized firms for small firms, 

### DOEbelieves thast the FIM may understate the negative impact on small firms relative
to other size firm,.

Second. the FIM relledupon publicly available financial reports offirms, 

### see Economic Analysis Document, 

### I %.3.4. These reports are required for 

### firma whose shares are publicly traded, firms that are likely to be larger than privately held firms. 

### Thus, to the extent that the FIM's "prototypical" small firm is limited to the prototypical. publicly-held small 

### firm. its outputs are not necessarily valid for the privately-held firms. 

### Uthese latterfirms 

### are smaller and less capitalized than the publiclyheldfirms. 

### they would probably suffer greaterimpacts.

Congress, in 

### enacting the Regulatory Flexibility Act, intended to reduce burdens on smallbusiness, so that small business would suffer relatively less negative impacts from regulations than 

### larger 

### f:1rmI. Agencies are to attempt to mitigate regulatory burdens on small busineues consistent with the underlying statutory regulatory requirements. Under section 325 there

are two possible ways that small businesses couldbe given special treatment.'First, certification. reportiDg. and record-keeping requirements could be lessened. This technique is 

### specifically mentioned in the Regulatory F1exibillty Act. Second, section 3Z5(e) provides that firms whose gross

revenues are less than $8 

### million may receive a Z-year deferral from the effect

.ofstandards. 

### ifthe Attorney General makes a written finding that the failure
to grant such deferral would likely result in 

### a lessening ofcompetition. There are several difficulties with this provision. The level ofgross revenues is very low;

a Z-yeardeferral is ofmarginal benefit; and it 

### may be nearly impossible for the Attorney General to make a finding that failure to grant deferral would "likely" result in 

### lessening competition. Even ifit 

### could be said with certainty that all these small firms would be forced out of the market. that by itselfwould not establish a lessening ofcompetition. Consequently, were standards established there is little under the
terms ofsection 325 that DOE could do
to reduce the negative impact on small businesses, and DOEbelieves the likely result ofstandards would be the opposite result ofwhat Congress desired in 

### the Regulatory F1exibility Act, because there mightbe a disproportionate impact on small business.

Because ofthe inability to give meaningful effect to the goals and
purposes ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act 

### if standards were adopted. DOE believes itis appropriate to consider the infiexibiUty ofsection 3Z5 with respect to small businessee and the negative impact ofstandards on small businesses

as substantial burdens in 

### the weighing
process required by section S25(d).

B. 

### Requestfor Comments. The DepartmeQtrequeets comments from interested persons as to what other factors. not hitherto considered. should be considered relevant in weighing the burdens and benefits ofstandards.

$.. 

### Weighing of Factors. The above discussioQ ofthe factors to be weighed in determining the burdens and benefits ofpos8ible standards Is intendedto identify the factors and explain their bases. Some ofthe burdens discussed

.above are not dependent on a particular product-specific standard, but on the existence ofany standard at all 

### The existence ofthese generic burdens does
not. in itself, disqualify a particular standard or standards. It 

### is notpossible
to make Ii 

### general determination whether standards in the aggregate are beneficial. much les8 whether, in the aggregate, they meet the statutory criteria. Eachproduct's potential standard must be judged on its own merits and demerits. weighing the burdens and benefits arising from it. 

# m. Product-Specific Discussion



### a. Refrigerators andRefrigerator. Freezers.-l. Selection ofClasses. As defmed in the DOE test procedures. refrigerators are refrigeration products with a compartment for refrigerated storage offood at temperatures above 32'F, which may have a compartment for the frozen storage offood at temperatures below 3Z'F and above SOF. Refrigerator-freezers are refrigeration products with compartments for refrigerated storage offood at temperatures above 3Z'F and a compartment for frozen food storage at temperatures below

## a·F. Since frozen food can be stored for longerperiods of time at temperatures below SOF than at temperatures above S'F, DOE concluded that lower freezer compartment temperature provides utility to the
consumer, but lowering the freezer temperature increases heat leakage to the freezer and increases the energy consumption ofthe refrigeration system. Consequently. DOE made classes for refrigerators separate from classes of refrigerator·freezers.

Refrigerator-freezers that do not require any consumer action to accomplish defrosting ofthe freezer provide utility to the consumer

..since automatic·defrost products consume additional energy to melt the frost when performing a defrost cycle. and to

remove the defrost heat from the cabinet in order to maintain compartment temperatures, DOE established separate classes for automatic-defrost products.

Automatic-defrost refrigerator-freezer configurations have been further segregated according to the location of the freezer compartment. DOE determined that products with bottom·
mount or side-mounted freezers provide utility to consumers because the more frequently used fresh-food section is

more accessible since it is located at eye level. Automatic-defrost refrigerator freezers with side-mounted freezers provide utility to consumers because of the opportunity for users to more conveniently locate items placed in both the fresh-food and freezer compartments. Units with bottom· mounted freezers characteristically have the highestenergy consumption. and units 

### with side-mounted freezers characteristically have higher energy consumption than top-mounts. Because each ofthese features provide utility to the consumer. DOE proposed separate classes for automatic-defrost refrigerator-freezers with boltommounted. side-mounted. and topmounted freezers.

### 14436 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47. No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

In addition. certain models oftopmounted and side-mounted refrigeratorfreezers incorporate dispensing services which provide chilled liquids, water and ice without opening the door. The models with through-tha-door service characteristically consume more energy than the other models. 

### OOE determined tha't the convenience associated with such dispenser designs constitutes a distinct utility to the consumer, and separate 

### cla.sse1l bave 

### been established for refrigerator-freezer design configurations that provide these services.

DOE received comments that the standard levels proposed June 30, 1980

were likely to result in the elimination of compact refrigerators. They stated that compact units (9 cubic feet or less) have

a different utility than standard size units and that the 1987 proposed final levels are not attainable without a resulting loss ofutility. DOE has reviewed these comments. Consequently. DOE has established a

new class for compact refrigerators. DOE does nothave sufficient data on these units to perform the engineering and economic analyses for the class.

The separate classes specified by DOE for refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are listed at Table 3-1. infro.

2. Design Options Evaluated. The specific design options analyzed were:

(1) Foam Insulation Substitution 

### in Doors. Fil::ierglass insulation is replaced with polyurethane foam insulation.

(2) IncreasedDoorInsulation Thickness. Foam door insulation is increased to a nominal thickness of2 inches.

(3) High Efficumcy Compressor Substitution. A 

### high efficiency
compressor replaced a conventional design.

(4) Double DoorGasket. An additional inner door seal gasket is added. '

(5) Anti-SweatHeaterSwitch. A switch is installed to pennit"in a 

### dry environment, shutting offthe cabinet heaters. which prevent condensation on the cabinet exterior in high hamidity.

(6) Increoud CAbinetInsulation Thickness. Foam cabinet inBulation is increased to a nominal of2 inches.

(7J ReducedHeatU:N1dofThroughthe-DoorFeature. Improved iDsulation

can 

### be used to decrease the heat leak and additional power consumption attributable to the through-the-door service featllre (ice. water, etc.).

(8) Increase EvaporatorSurface Area. Increased heat exchangerIW'face area in 

### the evaporatorprovide. for more efficient operation ofthe refrigeration system.

The design options 

### and public
comment thereon are more 

### fully discussed 

### in the Engineering Analysis Document. Chapters 0-1 and B-1.

3. EfficiencyLevela

### Analyzed. Table 3-1 presents thee£ficiency levels selected for analysis for 1987. Alternate levels were selected to generate a range ofimpacts for analysis. The initial level selected. level 3. corresponds to the highest efficiency level considered in the engineering analysis. 

### It was felt that manufacturers could produce products
at this efficiency. and these products would not have any safety or reliability problems. Levels 1 and 2 correspond to efficiencies lower than that oflevel 3. While these leVels were notdiscretely analyzed in the engin81!ring..analysis. DOE believes the 

### coats are proportional
to the efficiency levels considered.

The levels considered in today's analysis are generally lower than those considered for standards in the June 30 proposal. This reflects changes made in the engineering analysis.

TABLE 3-1.-AL.1V4NATlVE EFFlCl£NCY I.EvELS

FOR 1987 FOR REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGEAATOR-FREE2£RS (ENERGY FACTOR. EF.**FT'/KWH/2~** HRS)

\I0Io IIWIy:nId Product_ 

## u"'"' (ft·) 1 2 3

1. Elec1nc

...........



# _1.

______..

__. 13 92 10.2 11.3 2- E_ 1ftigIonrlDr

.......

manual

____**,~** 1."**a.~ i.~**  3. EleeIIic**~-lreenr.**



### ..-..c

# -- .... !alP



# ---------- 17 1.1 7.1 1.1 4. EleeIIic**~---. ~---**  

# ....

# -

fr_ 22 U 7.2 7.9 5. EIooclrlc**~.-.**



# -""""'*--

frHZ" 1$ &A**7.~ a.~**  6- EI9ctric**~·IrMzw.**

a_be



# --- 1Iitn

# ...**frMz«_~** iCe or 1I<nlCe.

__...... 20 5.8 8.8 7.8 7. EleeIIic 

### "'.-.:3I.,C8i.

IIJlIlInlllIc

# - IIiltl

# -**--~** iCe or iquicI Z2 5.0 5.5 '.0 

### a. Corn!>llct NioigonItar_ (') (') (.) (')

Significance

# atEnergy Savings

By the year 2006 the weighted average efficiency ofnew refrigerators and refrigerator-freeurs developed in the absence 

### ofstaDdards ia projected to be

over gg percent 

### ofthe efficiency ofnew refrigerators and refrigerator-free2:ers developedwith standarda. See Economic Analysis Document, Table 3- 12. This would represent an 86 percent improvementin the efficiency 

### ofnew models without standards since 1978. Jd. Were an efficiencY standard imposed, the ORNL Model predicts that over the entire period 1987-2005 the foUowing additional savinss would 

### be attributable
to the standard:

Level1-o QUads Level 2-0 QtJads Level 3-0.16 Quads. Moreover. iI consumer awareness or and

concern with appliance efficiency increases more than predicted in the ORNLModel. the Model projects that the market would achieve all the savings predicted for standards and

more. See Economic Analysis Document. 

### i 5.3.3.
Oil and Gas Savings

A savings of0.16 Quads ofelectri.city would save approximately 0.004 Quads ofoil and 0.01 Quads ofnatural gas over the 19 year period." At most. this
averages to less than 8 percent of the 4400 barrels per day ofoil savings that the Congress found to be 

### an insignificant level ofsavings in rejecting

. 

### an emergency conservation plan.:r7 

### See
supra. Electricity Savings

The maximum savings attributable to standards would constitute a mere 

### .0:: percent ofthe electricity used in the Nation over the 19-yearperiod.:I&DOE believes this additional .02 percent is so small as to have no measurable effect

on the environment or the need for new generatingcapacity.

20PercentSarings

Over the period 1987-2005 the highest level ofsavings attributable to standards would constitute less than 1 percent ofthe energy that would have been consumed by refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers overthat period in the absence ofstandards. See Economic Analysis Document. Table 3-18.

Conclusion

On the basIs ofthe above, DOE believes that standards for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers would not result in a significant conservation of energy."

liThia a_ that oil COIIStitutetl Z,65 percent and gea 6.15 pet"CllU1t ofthe eJle1'lIY Wled to Il'!nerale electricity over thia time period. TheM percentage.
an the average ol the projected proportion. for the
years 1990 and 1995. In the abaence of specific data for each ofthe yean 1981-2005. DOE uaed these
yean. which It beUevetl ia a COllMrY1I\i'IIe choice. See 19l11ADnual Report to Coognrs

.. Volume 3: Foreeaata. OOE/EIA 0173(81J/3. Febnlary 198Z,

orFOUl thOU84Ild. four hundred bamlll ofoil per day equal .IS Q\ladJo over 19 yean.

"Electricity 11&&8'" over the period 11187-2005 ia etltimaled to be about 7llO Qwlda. Thie nwnber is derived from NEPP flL

• Although DOE created a aeparate claaa of products for**com~** ntfrigeraton that baa not been apectfically COGJIidered III the engiDee"ring analyai•• Ufe Cycle Caet llD4ly

... CItFlM malysi

... the class ofcompact "'quaton ia included in the product type nlfripMiton and ",qerator·l":reesen for pU1'pOBea ofth. ORNLModel. which determined
energy 9aving!l. 

### A.ccordintJy. DOE believes that the
IAatiDQed

### Federal Register / Vol. 47, 

### No. 64 / Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14437

EconomicJustification

a. 

### EconomicImpactonManufacturers and Consumers. The per unit increased
cost to manufacturers to meet the level 3 efficiency ranges from $8.21 for an automatic-defrostrefrigerator-freezer with a side freezer made by a large 

### manufacturer to $21.09 for a manualdefrost refrigerator made by a small manufacturer. The cost for the most prevalent class ofproduct (automaticdefrost refrigerator-freezer with top mounted freezer) increases less 

### than $10

or 5 percent. 

### See Engineering Analysis Document. Table 1.15 and Table 1.16.

The increased price to the consumer ranges from $19.10 for an automaticdefrost refrigerator-freezer with a side freezer to $31.20 for a manual-defrost refrigerator. The price to the consumer increases less than $Z5 or 5 percent for the most prevalent class ofproduct. 30 

### While the increased price to consumers is generally modest. it should be noted that the greatest 

### absolute price increases are in the lowest priced classes ofproducts. 

### see Engineering Analysis Document. Table 1.16, 

### reaching almost as 

### high as a 10 percent increase in price. Thus. DOE believes that this increase in first cost could make it substantially more difficult for some lower income consumers to purchase

new refrigerators.

The FIM predicts that a prototypical medium-sized manufactured would suffer a 10percent increase in business risk at the only efficiency level that would save energy as a result of standards. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table A-4-1. The sensitivity analysis. however, indicates that business risk is highly sensitive to unanticipated revenue reductions. For example. 

### if shipments decrease 15 percent from the anticipated level. the effects ofstandards would be to increase business risk to Z5 percent for a prototypical large 

### firm, to 50 percent for

a prototypical medium-sized firm, and to 30percentfor a prototypical small 

### firm. See Id .• Table 5-14. By 1991 (the last
year ofanalysis) the FIM predicts that the prototypical medium-sized manufacturer will have been losing

cooclWlion that a .tandard would not result in a .igDiIica.at coDlerVation ofenergy can be applied to the entlre product type.

-Th_ prices to coDiumeri are the prices reflected in the engineering analysis only for produell made by1at'lle manuIacturen. The engineering anaIy.i. indicatel higherprius for the producta made by medium-size manuIacturers. because ofthell higher cost

.. The economic anaIy.!

.. however. indicate. that the large manufacturert are the price leadert in the industry. Therefore. medium-sble manuIacturert wiU not be able to obtain the higherprice reflected for their product. but inttead wiU bave to fol'lJO the difference. 

### increasing amountJ ofmoney each year for three years: the small manufacturer 

### will have a 12 percent decrease in**profitab~ty,** 

### See 

### Id .• Table A-4-2. At the only standard le\'el thatwould save energy. the prototypical medium-sized firm's net worth becomes negative. and the small firm's debt/equity ratio deteriorates by almost 40 percent. 

### See Id, Table A-4-9. 31

In 

### addition to the above mentioned quantified impacts on manufacturers. an effect ofa standard, as indicated in the General Discussion section. would be to require certain investments to be made that might not otherwise have been made. These requlred investments would likely result in the forgoing of certain other investments which would be more beneficial to the manufacturer.



### b. Life Cycle CostandNet Present Value. The 

### LCC analysis indicates1hat the possible standard level with the lowest life cycle cost is the only standard level that the ORNL Model projects would save energy compared to the base case. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Tables 4-1-4-3. This indicates that the standard level would
not cause any economic burden on the "average" consumer.

The NPV analysis indicates that ifa standard were adopted at the level that would save 0.16 Quads. there would be

a net present value of$Z50 million dollars from energy savings over the period 1987-2OZ4. 

### If the net present value ofthis standard were spread

across the Nation. the resulting benefits would come to less than 10 cents a year perhousehold.

Co

### EnergySavings. As 

### indicated above. the maximum savings

IIAI. indicated in the General Discusaion section. theM Impaell 81'e fully accurate only to the extent that the prototypical firm did not make investments in impt0Y'in8 appliancaafficiency .s part ofita bi.ttorlcaUy indicated inveltmenta. Otharwise. nOI all ofthe investment indicated by the engineering analysi. would be requlred to be made in order to produce appliance. to meet the required standard level OOE bemet that a measurement ofthe lncreaaed thlpment weighted efficiency ofa product between 1978-1987 wiI1 bear an orlier ofmagnitude relation to the deereated iDvntmentrequired ofan averqe firm to meet a standard level Moreover. DOE believel that the decreased investment requlrement would likely bave a aimilar order of magnitude effect on the FIM'. projected imptcta attributable to standarda.ln the cate ofrefrigerators andrefrigerator-freaen. the

### aRm Model indicates thet the .hlpment weighted efficiency will increase about 7fI percent between197S and 1987 in the abtellce ofany standard. CoDlBquently. DOE believe. that the negative impacts actually attributable to atandardt for refrigerators and refrlserator-frenert may only be one quarter of those projected by the FIM. Thi. conclusion. bowever, appUn only to the "average" (in tenn. of the ahlpment weighted efficiency ofilll product!. prototypical firm. The negative impacta Buffered by

a firm that had made limited or no investment. in improved product efficiency would atill approach or be thoae reflected by the FlM. 

### attributable to standards would be 0.16 Quads ofelectricity. 

### Ifhowever.

consumer awareness ofand concern with appliance effiCiency increases greater than has been projected. the ORNL Model projects no savings attributable to standards. 

### See supra.

d. Lessening ofUtilityorPerformance of

Products. As indicated above. DOE established new classes ofproducts in order to assure that the standards analyzed would not lessen the existing utility or performance ofrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. As 

### indicated in the General Discussion section. however. there is no assurance that future utility or performance of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers would not be lessened as a result of disincentives causedby standards to investments in energy-using new features.

e. 

### Impact of Lessening Competition. The determination ofthis factor must be made by the Attorney General.



### f. Needto Save Energy. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers use electricity exclusively as their energy source. While almost five percent ofthe Nation's electricity powers refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. less than one percent ofthat five percent would be saved by standards for this product. In 

### balancing the benefits ofa standard against its burdens. no weight need be given to savings ofelectricity that are so small.

g. 

### OtherFactors. Above, under Impacts on manufacturers. the Impacts projected by the FIM on the prototypical small manufacturer ofrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers were presented. In the General Discussion section, however. it 

### was explained that DOE believes the FIM understates the negative Impact ofstandards on small businesses relative to other size businesses. Thus, DOE believes that the negative Impacts shown in the FIM for the prototypical small manufacturer of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers

are likewise understated. DOE solicits
comments on this. especially from small manufacturers ofrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.


### Conclusion

The benefits ofa level 3 standard are. compared to the base case ofno standards. that It would save energy and have a positive net present value. The benefits at best. however, are minimal in
amount.

The burdens ofa level 3 standard are that: (1) 

### It would adversely affect the financial well-being ofsmall and medium-sized firms making refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, in some cases

### 14438 Federal**R.~8ter** 

## I Vol. 47. No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

causing a significant threat to their continued existence; (2) it could adversely affect lower 

### inc:ome

consumers by incretl&ing pu.rchase prices of DeW model.s; (3) it could lessen the utility orperformance of

### this product in the future by 

### c:zoeaq a disincentive

. to the development ofenergy-using 

### new features; 

### aDd (4) it could caDSe investment.resources by manufacturera ofthese

### productl 

### to be allocated in a

manner that is DOt the moatbeneficial to the manufacturer.

The 

### need ofthe Nation to save 

### this marginal increment 

### ofelectricity is not sufficient toju&tlly any ofthe above burdens.

In light of

### all the factors discussed here and in the general discussion. on balance. DOE believes that the 

### burdens ofan efficiency 

### standard for the product refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers outweigh the benefits.sa



### f. Freezers. L 

### Selection ofClasses. As defined in the DOE test procedures. "freezer" means a cabinet designed as a unit for the storage offood at temperatures ofO· 

### Forbelow, having the ability to 

### free:l:e food and having a

source ofrefrigeration requiring an electrical energy input only.

Utility and performance considerations dictate five separate products classes. Three ofthese result from:

Type offreezer defrost system (manual or automatic)

Configuration (chest orupright)1ivo result from the inherent inefficiency of compact units.

The configuration ofthe unit (i.e.• chest orupright) provides utility which affects efficiency. Upright freezers offer greater accessibility to the freezer
contents and more efficientuse offloor
space than chest

### freezers. Consequently. DOE has grouped**~e** products into separate classes.

Anotherperformance-related feature that affects utility and efficiency is the type ofdefrost system. which determines the extent ofconsumer action needed to accomplish defrosting. Automatic-defrostunits do not requne any consumer action to accomplish defrosting. and thus proTid1! the

consumer with utility not provided by



### "A.IthoutlkDOE._led a tepaJ'lIhi claM of producll 

### r

... !bat bM

_ been

CUlIIidend Ia the &D&Iyai&, LIfe CJde Colt

... fD4 

### a.aal71ia. DOE believllll thall!le amount ofelMll'lD' thai could be HVee! by • It1l1ICWd forthis cia. II IlXtmDely amaD.

_ .upru. CoDMqumlly, DOE beUeY

.. that .udI aavtap, Cllll!Ij)U1Id to the likely bwdeDa that would _ult from • alADdud impcted Oil '*1 ODe cia

.. of a produc:t. and lb.t c1

...

_ of !be tmaller III Dumberw olllnlla. dolIart ofaa.Ie

.. 01' ......". -.:i. IDdicalll thaI the burdna of. tlaadoMd fcIr tb.i.I dau 

### ovtwe.ilJ.b ita baleti1I. manual-defro.t units. Since there are no chest freezen that offer the automaticdefrost feature. a 

### seperate class wu established only for automatic defrost 

### upript freezers.

In light ofmanufactm'erll' comments noting 

### the inherent inefficiency 

### of compact

### freezers as

# wen a. theirtrtility. DOE has designated separate cla.ses for compact chest and upright freezers.

.The aepalate cla.saes specifiedby DOE for 

### free2:ers are listed in Table 3-2. 

## mira·

2. 

### Design Opt:.i0ll8

### Evaluated. The specific design optiona analyzed were:

(1) Foam 

### Insulation &bstitution in Cabinet. Fiberglass cabinet insulation is

. replaced with polyurethane foam. (2) 

### FoamInsulation Substitution in Door. Fiberglass insulation in the freezer door is replaced with polyurethane foam insulation.

(3) 

### Increase CabinetIn8ulation 

### Thickness. Foam cabinet insulation is increased to a 

### oominal2.tna inches (chest freezers only).



### (.) Inc.reas.e Doorlntmlation 

### Thickness. 

### Foam door insulation is increased to a nominal thickness of 2 inches (chest 

### freezen 

### only).

(5) High Efficiency Compressor

- Substitution. A high efficiency

compressorreplaces a conventional design.

.

The design options and pubHc
comment thereon are more fully discussed in 

### the Engineering Analysis Document.

3. 

### Efficiency

### LevelsAnalyzed. Table 3-2 presents 

### thi! efficiency levels selected for analysis for 1987. Alternate levels were selected to generate a range ofimpactfor analysis. The initial-level selected. level 3, COlTetpondt to the highest efficiency level considered in the .engineering analysis. 

### It was felt that manufacturen could produce products
at this efficiency. and these products wouldnot have any safety orreliability problema. Levels 1 and 2 correspond to efficiencies lower than that oflevel 3. While these levell were not discreetly analyud in 

### the eoginee.ring analysis. DOE believes the coats are proportional to the efficiency levela considered.

The levell coaaidered in today's analysis are seuerally lower than those considered for standards in the June 30 proposal These reflect changes made in the engineering ana1yris.

DOE does not have sufficient data on compact chest 

### and upright freezers 

### to perform the engineering and economic analyses for these classes. TABLE 3-2.-ALTERNAnvE EFFIClENC'Y lEVELS
FOR 1987 FClfI FREEZERS (ENERGY FACTOR. EF, FT'/tfN./H/24)

v

.... InI/y4ed PIorlud_ 

# - C'Il"l I 2 3

I.

# cr-l_.

____ 1$ 13.1 15.7 17.7 2.lJl>!i\1lI-. --.

flosl_

..

_______ 141 '2.4 '3.9 15.4 3. UpngN

_.

__ •

fr"s\.. I' 7.3 U 10.3 4. 

### a- _. "","-=,

__ PI (I) 1') (') I.

# UpngnI_.

..

_ PI I'l (I) (.)

I _ lIIlIIyzecL



### Significance of EnergySavinss By the year 2005 the shipment weighted efficiency ofnew freezers developed in the absence ofefficiency standards is projected to be over 92 percent ofthe efficiency ofnew freezers developed with a mandatory standard. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 3-12. This would represent a 46 percent improvement in the efficiency 

### of

new models without standards since 1978.Id. Were an efficiency standard imposed. the ORNL Model predicts that

over the entire period 1987-2005 the fonowing additional savings would be attributable to the standard: Level 1-0.05 Quads Level 2-<l.16 Quads Level**~.33** Quads

Moreover. 

### if consumer awareness of and concern with appliance efficiency brings more efficientproducts into 

### the market 

### than predicted in 

### the ORNL Model. the model projects that the marketresponse would achieve 

### all the savings predicted for standards. 

### See Economic Analysis Document, 

### I 5.3.3.


### OilandCa6

### Savings

A savings of0.33 

### Quads ofelectricity would save approximately 0.009 Quads ofoil and 0.02 Quads ofnatural gas over the 19-year period. 31 At most. this
averages to less than 17 percent ofthe 4400 barrels per day ofoil savings that CongreSI considered insignificantin rejecting an emergency conservation plan.

...

### See supra. ElectricitySavings

The maximum savings attrIbutable to standards would constitute less than .05 percent ofthe electricity used in the Nation over the 19-yearperiod. 16This percentage is 80 small as to have no

-Thia U8U1J1oa lbal

### oa coaatilul

.. 2.llll pm:enl and sa, ILU perce.ot 01 !be anergy u.aed lD seDerale electricity over lb.l. lime paiod. TheM perceDlasea

ant lbe average ofthe projecUld proportiODl the yeal'l 1990 aod 1M. Saaupra.

..Four thouaa.ad, loar hundred !lalTe» oroil per day equal .1S Quada OYer 111 ye

....

• E1eclri<:ity

....se over the period 1887-2006 is estimaled 10 be 700 Quad•. See NEPP Ul.

### Federal 

### Register 

## I VoL 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 

### 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14439

measurable effect on the 

### environment or the need for 

### new generating Clq)acity.

20

### PercentScrrings



### Over the period 1lil81-2005 

### the highest level ofsavings attnbutable to standards would constitute less than 4 

### percent 

### ofthe energy that would have been consumed by 

### freezen in 

### the absence 

### ofstandards. See 

### Economie Analysis Document. 

### Table 3-18.


### Conclusion

On the basis ofthe above. DOE believes that atandards for freezers would not result in 

### a sign.ficant conservation ofenergy. 30


### EconomicfustifiCDtion



### a. EfXJnomic impact

### onManufacturers andConsumers. The perunit increased
cost to manufactuers to meet the 

### level 3 

### efficiency ranges from $9.05 

### for a chest free:w-, manual defrost. made by 

### a large manufacturer to $23.85 

### for an upright
auto defrost freezer made by a mediumsized manufacturer. Atlevel 2, 

### the increased perunit cost ranges from $5.79 

### for the chut freezer made by a large firm to $20.84 

### for a manual defrost

. upright made by a medium-size manufacturer. The cost increases for 

### manual defrost chestfreezers. the most prevalent class ofproduct. range between $9 

### and $12 

### (about 7 

### percent) at level 3, from $5.79 

### to $7.f17 

### (about4 percent) at level 2, 

### and from $2.10 

### to $3.03 (about 2percent) atlevel 1. See 

### Engineering Analysis Document. TabI.e 2.11 

### and Table 2.12.



### The increased price to the consumer 

### if

a standard were set at level 3 

### ranges from $21 

### (7 percent) for the 

### most prevalent class ofproduct (chestfreezer)
to $36 (8 percent) for an upright automatic-rlefrost freezer. The iAcrea.aed price at this level for an upright manualdefrost freezer, which constitutes ove 31 percentofthe market. is $35 (over 10 percent). Atlevel 2the price increasu for the two mostprevalent classes would be approximately $13.50 

### (4 percent) and $29.70 

### (9 percent), respectively. IT See

### Engineering Analysis Document. Table 2.12. Whila 

### these price increases are relatively modest. DOE believes they would resultin some low income persons foregoing purchase. of 

### freezers. especially because consumer response to price increases in freeurs is 

### more price elastic than for most appliance

.. See Economic 

### Analysis Document. Table 3-.Z4.



### The 

### FIM predicts that a prototypical medium-sized manufacturer would .uffer a 10

### percentincrease inbusiness risk and a 

### .mall manufacturer a 65 

### percent increase in busine81 risk at the 

### efficiency levels that would save the
two highest amounts ofenergy as a result ofstandards (levels 2 

### and 3). See 

### Economic Analysis Document. Table A4-1. 

### II shipmentl decrease 15 

### percent from anticipated levels, the effects ofa level 3 

### standard on a small firm would be to impose an increased business risk of75 

### percent. 

### See 

### Id., Table 5-14. 

### By 1991 

### (the last year ofanalysis) the FIM 

### predicts that the prototypical smallsized manufacturerwill

### have been losing increasing amounts ofmoney five
out ofthe laat six 

### years at level 3 

### and for the 

### last three years 

### atlevel 2. 

### Atlevel 3 

### the prototypical medium-size finn's profitability decreases over 25 

### percent in the 

### year. following imposition ofa standard. 

### See Id., Table A-4-3. At the standardlevel that would .ave the most energy, the prototypical small sized firm's net worth become. negative. The medium firm's debt/equity ratio deteriorates by almost 200 percent at level 3 and 100percent at level 2. 

### See Id

.• Table A-4-9. At both levels 2 and 3 the "quick" 

### ratio ofthe prototypical small manufacturer offreezers deteriorates almost SO percent. 

### See Id., Table 4-31."

_ bec::au.we oftheirhighercom. The econamlc

analysis. 1laMrrv. iAdlcatel that the large m.eu.f.acturera lU'lt the price leaden ia the iDdumy. Therefol"ll. medium-lise manufactul"lln will not be abla to obtain the higher pric:a rallectad for their product. but iDatnd will have to forgo tha differeac::e.

II N indicated ill the Gm-.l DlKu8im teetioa. theae iDrpae:ta UlI fully a-.Ie oa.ly to 1M Blellt thatthe pNtotyplca1 firm did Dotmake Inveatmenta In Improvtnc appliance .meleney al part ofIta hlatorically Indicated 1n

....lmetllL 0therwIaa. DO( all ofthe Invfttraant iIIlIctic:ated b1 the analy. would be I'8CIWled to be IIIo1Ide In ortW to produce appUaDcea to mael the required atandard lavel DOE betleY" that a IDeuuremeDt of the \lu;reued ahipmat W1IlPIIId efBcieacy 01 aprod1aCt between l.,.,...llll11 will bear lUI ordolr ofm&8Dltuda ntlalion to the d-.ed III1vutmeDtrequired of an average firm to meet a atandard leval Moreover. DOl! belltrrea that the decrened bm!ttment**ntq~** would 1lIutly lu

.... aalmlIarardtrrof mqnitude effect 011 tha FlM'I projec:IIId lmp8cU attributable to at&nda.rda.1n the cue of&eesan. the ORNL Modallndlcataa that the Ihlpment weighted efflelency wiIllnCl'l!aae about Z1 percent between


### ws and lll181ln the abeence at

### uy atmdard. ConaeqllillltJy. DOE belleYea that the IU!8ltive Impaeta aetually attributable to ,tandazda would 

### In addition to the above mentioned quantified impacts on manufacturers. an effect ofa standard. as indicated in the General Dt8CU8sion section. would be to require certain investments to be made that**~t** 

### not otherwise have been made. 'These required investments woud likely result in the 

### foregoing ofcertain other investments which would be more beneficial to the manufacturer.

b. 

### Life Cycle CostandNetPresent Value. The 

### LCC analysis indicates that the possible standard level with the lowest life cyle cost is the 

### standard level that the ORNLModel projects would

save the most energy compared to the base case. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Tables 4-1-4-3. 

### This indicates that the standard level would
not cause any economic burden on the "average" consumer.

The NPV 

### analysis indicates that ifa standard were adopted at the level that would save 0.33 Quads. there would be

a net present value of$720 

### million from
energy savings 

### over the period 1987- 2026. 

### Ifthe netpresent value ofthis standard were spread across the Nation. the resulting benefits would come to less than 23 

### cents a year perhousehold.

c. 

### EnergySavings. As 

### indicated above. the maximum 

### savings attributable to standards would be 0.33 

### Quads ofelectricity.

d. 

### Lessening ofUtility orPerformance of

Products. As 

### indicated above. DOE established new classes ofproducts in order to 

### assure that the standards analyzed would not lessen the existing utility or performance offreezers. As indicated in the General Discussion section. however, there is no assurance that future utility or performance of freezers would not be lessened as a result ofdisincentives caused by standards to investments in energyusing new features.



### e. Impact of Lessening Competition. The determination ofthis factor mustbe made by the Attorney General.

f. 

### Need to Save Energy. Freezers use electricity exclusively as their energy

source. While almost two percent ofthe Nation's electricity powers freezers. less than four percent ofthat two percent would be saved by standards for this product. In balancing the benefits ofa standard against its burdens. no weight 'need be given to savings ofelectricity that are so small.

g. 

### OtherFactors. The negative Impacts on small businesses ofa

likely be about four-flftm ofthoae projected by the FlM. ThJa CXlDC!lWOQ, boweveT. appUea ouly to the "average:' prototypical firm. The negative Impacta lUffered by a firm that bad made limited or no !nveltmenta In Improved product efficiency would ,till approach orbe those reflected by the FIM.

### 14440 Federal Rsgister 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

standard for this producthave been described above. The analysis shows that imPOSitiOD ofstandards would significantly increase the probability· that small firms would not make a profit in the manufacture ofnew equipment. They would lose increasing amounts of money. and theirDet worth would become negative. In the General Discussion section. DOE's beUefthat the FIM understates the negative Impact of standards aD 

### small business relative to other size firms was explained. Thus, DOEbeUeves that the negative Impacts shown in the FIM for the prototypical small manufacturer offreezers is likewise understated. DOE soUcits
comments on this subject.


### Conclusion

The benefits ofa standard are. compard to the base case ofno

. standards. that it 

### would save energy and have a positive netpresent value. These benefits, however. are mlnimalin
amount.

The burdens ofa standard are that: (1) Itwould adversely affect the financial well-being ofsmall and medium-size firms 

### making freezers, in the case of

.small manufacturers causing a significant threat to theircontinued existence; (2) it could lessen the utility

orperformance ofthis productin the future by creating a disincentive 'to the development ofenergy-using new features: (3) it 

### could cause less than optimal allocation ofinvestment

resources by manufacturers ofthese products; and (4) it 

### could preclude some lower income persons from purchasing

new freezers.

The need ofthe Nation to save this

. marginal increment ofelecticity is not

sufficient to justify any ofthe above burdens.

In Ught ofall the factors discussed here and in the general discussion. on balance. DOE believes that the burdens ofan efficiency standardfor freezers outweigh the benefits.sa

Co 

### ClothesDryers. 1. 

### Selection of Classes. A clothes dryer is defined as a cabinet-like appUance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type 

### drum with forced-air circulation. The heat source

• A1thouch ooB erNted aeparate cia

.... 01 prodllCtalor_pac:t c:hnt anduprishl fnezert thai baY' DOl beeD tpedflcalJy OODIidered In th. .ngiDeertq LIle (;yd. Coet &Dalyti.t. or FIM e.naIytil, ooB beUIIYe. that th. IIIlOIIDt of I!llftllY th.1 coald be lavedby**.~** for thea. cia

.... i. extreIllIy amaIl. IHIUPra. CoJJ.equently. DOE beUev

.. thalauch lavingl. oompard 10 the l:ikely bardelll thatwould reaull from .tandards beinaimpoee<! OD two cia

.... of• product. end tbne cia

.... beina nWler iD Dumbere olllDlta. dollarl olll8le

.. orenergy oaed. Indlc:ate thai tha burd.1II of.taDdardalortbne cluaet outw.!Ih tbelr beueflta. 

### . may eitherbe electric orgas. Compact clothes dryers have a 

### drum capacity of less than 4.4 

### cu. ft., 

### and standard clothers dryers have a capacity of4.4 cu. 

### ft. or greater.

Four classes ofcothes dryers are specified by DOE.**~ese** 

### product classes

are distinguishedby different energy

sources and by performance-related features. Go and electricity are the energy sources. Performance-related features are 

### drum capacity and application voltage.

Standard electric dryers use 240 volts. DOE does not know ofany standard electric dryer that works on 120volts. Because compact dryers provide added utility by being suitable for placing in small spaces, while being less energy efficient, a "perate class is established for compact electric dryers. Further. separate product classes are established for compact electric dryerbased on

. appliance voltage. The 120-volt dryers

tends to dry clothes at lower temperatures and for longertime periods 

### than the 240-volt dryer. The 240-volt compact electric dryerprovides added utility to some consumers butis less energy efficient. Two product classes for compact electric dryers are accordingly established. The four product classes for clothes dryers establishedby DOE are Usted in Table 

### 3-3, 

### infra.

2. 

### Design Options Evaluated. Three design options were evaluatedfor improving the efficiency ofclothes dryers. These were:



### (1) Automatic termination 

### bymoisture sensing. Reduces the energy used by ensuring that a dryer is 

### turned offas

soon as the moisture is 

### removed from the clothes

.



### (2)Automatic termination 

### by temperature sensing. Reduces energy consumption by ensuring that a dryer is turned offas soon as the temperature of the exis'ling 

### airreaches a predetermined temperature.

(3} 

### Insulation. During 

### the drying cycle,

some areas ofthe dryer cabinet are at temperatures above room temperature. This results in standby 10lles, which

can be reducedby the use ofinsulation.

The design options 

### and public
comment thereon are more fully discussed in the Engineering Analysis Document. Chapter D-5 

### and E-S.



### 3. EfficiencyLsvelsAnalyzed. Table 

### 3-3 presants the efficiencylevels selected for analysis for 1987. Alternate levels were selectedto generate a range ofImpacts for analysis. Level. for gas and standard electric clothes dryers and level 3 for compact electric clothes dryers correspond to the highest efficiency levels consideredin the engineering analysis. It was felt that manufacturers couldproduce products
at this efficiency. and these products would not have any safety or reliability problems. Lower efficiency levels were not discreetly analyzed in the engineering analysis, but DOE believes the costs are proportional to the efficiency levels considered.

The levels consideredin today's analysis are generally lower than those considered for standards in the June 30 proposal. This renects changes made in 

### the engineering analysis.

TABLE 3-3.-EF'FlClENCY Uvas FOR 1987

FOR Cl.OTHES DRYERS (ENERGY FACTOR, 

### EF, La/KWH)

Vd- IAWf _lyZed PIoduct '*- 

# .....

- (II) 1 2 S 

# ..

1. EIeclriC standaIll

# 1iZ._

8.5 2.7 2.S 2.9 3.0 2. EIoIclrIC, --'

.... 120

Volts SA 2.7 2.85 3.0

..... S. EIoIclrIC, COIlll*l

.... 240

Volts U U 2.5 2.6

... Gou_ 

### e..s u 2.5 2.8 2.7



### Significance of EnergySavings

Were an efficiency standard Imposed, the ORNLModel predicts that over the entire period 1987-2005 the following savings would be attributable to the imposition ofa stand8.rd:


### Electric

.Level 1-0 Quads Levelz-o Quads Level 3-0.04 Quads Level**~.19** 

### Quads



### Gas

Level 1-0 Quads Levelz-o Quads Level 3-0 Quads Level**~.02** 

### Quads


### Oiland-GasSavings

At level4, the savings consist of0.19 Quads ofelectricity and 0.02 Quads of gas. Economic Analysis Document, Table 4-22. 

### The 0.19 Quads savings of electricity would save 0.005 Quads ofoil and 0.01 Quads ofgas over the period 1987-2005

...Thus, at most, standards would save 0.005 Quads ofoil and 0.03 Quads ofgas. The gas savings are less than 18 percent ofthe 4400. 

### barrels per day ofoU that Congress found insignificant. and the oil savings are less than 3 percenLU

"'Thi.

__ thai oil colMlitute. 2.85 percetlt and gu 6.15 percenl 01 the enel'llY u.ed to generate electridty over thilIlime period. The

.. percentages

ant the avera", oftha projected proportion. for the

, ..... lllllO and 1985. SH.upra.

..Four thousand, Fourhundred bun!!. ofoil per day equal .18 Quads over 19 yeara.

### Federal Register 

# I VoL 41, No. 

# I Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 

# I Proposed Rules 

### 14441

against its burdens. no weight need be given to savings ofenergy that are so small.

g. 

### OtherFactors. Because the 

### FlM was not used to assess the impacts on drier manufacturers. DOE is unable to estimate the impact ofa standard for dryers on small manufacturers ofdryers. DOE solicits comments from such manufacturers on the likely impact ofa standard.


### Conclusion

The benefits ofa standard are. compared to the base case ofno standards. that it would save energy and have a positive net present value. The. benefits. however. are minuscule in
amount.

The burdens ofa standard are that; (1) Life cycle costs to the average consumer would increase for over 90 percent of the dryers purchased: (2) increased first
costs for the most prevalent dryer are high enough to preclude new dryer purchases by some lower income
persons; (3) the future utility or performance ofdryers might be lessened: and (4) manufacturers of

_ dryers might forgo investments that are

more beneficial to them.

The need ofthe Nation to save this marginal increment ofgas or electricity is not sufficient to justify any ofthe above burdens.

In light of

### all the factors discussed here and in the general discussion. on balance. DOE believes that the burdens ofan efficiency standard for clothes dryers outweigh the benefits.



### d. WaterHeaters. 1. 

### Selection of classes. Included in this product type

are all residential water heaters operating at a temperature ofless than 180°F which have the following characteristics:

Electric waterheaters with a storage volume ofnot less than 20 gallonll nor more than 120 gallons. with 8J1 inputrating of 12 KW orleas at a voltage no greater than 250 volta; gas waterheaters with a storage volume ofnot less th8J1 ZO gallons normore than 100 gallons. with 8J1 inputrating of 75.000 BTU/HRor less; oil waterheaters with

a storase capacity of50 gallons orless and

an input rating of 103.875 BTUfHRorless.

Five classes ofwater heaters are specified by DOE. Four ofthese product classes are distinguished by different
energy sources (electric. electric heat pump. gas. and oil).

Several manufacturers felt that electric table top waterheaters are significantly different from other electric
water heaters and proposed a separate product class. A main reason for the separate classification was that these table-top water heaters provide a unique 

### through the F1M model. AJj indicated in the General Discussion section. an effect ofa standard would be to require certain Investments to be made that might not otherwise have been made. These required investments would likely result in the forgoing ofcertain other Investments which would be more beneficial to the manufacturer.

b. 

### Life Cycle CostandNetPresent 

### Value. At either of

### the levels of efficiency that would save energy (levels 3 and 4). the life cycle cost 

### increases for the two classes ofdryers that together make up over93 percent of all dryer sales. compared to the life cycle coat in 1978. Thus. whatever
energy would be saved 

### as a result of standards would be as a direct result of penalizing the average consumerby requiring 

### him to purchase a dryer with a higher life cycle cost than is now available. Ofcourse. below average

users and those with below average fuel prices 

### wouldlikely be harmed even

. more.

The 

### NPV analysis Indicates that 

### ifa standard were adapted at level 3. there would be a net present value of$70 million from energy aaV'iDgs over the period 1961-2024. 

### Ifthe net present value 

### ofthis standard were spread

across the Nation. the resulting benefits would come to about 3 cents a year per house hold. At the higher efficiency level. 

### the 

### NPV would be only $60 million. $70million from electric dryers offset by a negative $10 million occuni.ng in gas dryers.



### c. EnergySavings. AJj indicated above. the maximum savings attributable to standards would be 0.21 Quads.



### d. 

### LesseningofUtility orPerformance of

Products. The classes established by DOE assure that the standards analyzed would not lessen the existing utility or performance ofclothes dryers. As indicated in the General Discussion section. however. there is no assurance that future uti1ny orperformance of clothes dryers 

### would not be lessened as

a result ofdisincentives caused by atandards to investments in energyusing new features.



### e. Impactof Lessening Competition. The determination ofthis factor must be made by the Attorney General.

f. 

### Needto Save Energy. In the absence ofstandards. in 1990 only 0.06 Quads of
gas annually 

### will be directly used for clothes drying. and In 2005 halfthat
amount. Economic Analysis Document. Table 3-16. While dryers use almost two percent ofthe electric1ty in the Nation the highest standard would save less than two percent ofthat two percent. In balancing the benefits ofa standard -Electricity uaqe over the period 1987-2005 II e.ttlmated tobe about 100Quada. Sft6apra.

..Tbese priaa to COlmllDefl are the prices reflected iD the englneerill8 lIlI41yal. only for prodUCUI made by Iarp IIWlWId:IIrera. The englneeriDlllll41y.1I indicate. higherprices for the prodw:tl mada by medllllll-aise 1DlLllIILleturen.
becaUH oftheirbigber COIlLTha economic analyala. bowever. indicates that the la.rge manufacturerl are the price leaden in the induatry

.. Therefore. medlum-.ise manufllcturen will not be able to obtain the bighar price reflected far their product butlDatead will bave to WQlO the difference. 

### ElectricitySavings

The cwnuJative electricity savings attributable to the highest standard level would constitute le88 than .03 percent of the electricity used in 

### the Nation during the period 1987-2005.uThese savings

are 80 small as to have no m.easurable effect OIl the environment or the need for new generating capacity.


### ZOPercentSavings

During the period 1987-2005 the maximum energy savings attributable to standards for clothes 

### dryen would constitute less than 2 percent ofthe energy used for clothes dryers during that period without standards. See Economic Analysis Document. Table 3- 18.


### Conclusion

On the basis ofthe above. DOE believes that standards for clothes dryers would not result in a significant conservation 

### ofenergy.


### EconomicJustification



### a. EconomicImpact onManufacturers and Consumers. The perunit increased
cost to manufacturers to meet the highest level ofefficiency ranges from $3.72 for a large manufacturer ofa 240 volt compact dryer to $14.88 for a small manufacturer ofa standard electric dryer. Engineering Analysi& Document, Table 5.10. The increased price to the

consumer at this level**~ea** from over $34 for the standard electric dryer to less than $9 for a 240 volt compact dryer. 

### Id., Table 5.11. This incree,.se in price ofthe standard electric dryer is

.over 15 percent. and this class constitutes over 70 percent ofall clothes dryer sales. 4J

### Id. and Table C--i. A 15 percent increase in price would likely have the result ofprecluding some lower income persons from purchasing a dryer. especially since consumerresponse to price increases in dryers is more price elastic than for most other appliances. 

### See Economic Analyais Document. Table 3-24-

Because ofthe 

### minimal energy savings attributable to standards for clothes dryers. DOE did not analyz:e the impacts on manufacturers ofdryers

## 14442 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 47, No. 64 

# I Friday, April 2. 1982 

# I Proposed Rules

utility for consumers by being used as countertops in kitchens where space is
at a premium but because oftheir size

are less efficient. Therefore. a separate class., electric table-top waterheaters. has been proposed.

The separate classes ofwaterheaters specified by DOE are listed at Table 3-4. 

### infra.

2. Design Options Evaluated The major design options analyzed were:

(1) 

### ImpravedInsulation. Improved insulationinvolves using thicker

. fiberglass insulation. denserfiberglass insulation. or substituting polyurethane foam insulation for fiberglass.

(2) 

### Increase Flue Heat Transferand ReduceMain BurnerRate. These two design options are coupled since increasing the flue heat transfer requires reducing the main burner firing 

### rate in order to maintain acceptable pressure drops through the system.

(3) Retoollacket Top. Jackets in some models are attached to the top ofthe tank. resulting in heat loss due to a fin 

### effect and limiting 

### the insulation thickness on the top. This design option calls for retooling the jackettop and holding it 

### on by attaching it 

### to thejacket side.

.

(4) 

### Heat Traps. Heat traps are used on the waterinlet and outletpipes to reduce natural convection losses.

The design options and public comment thereon are more fully discussed in the Engineering Analysis Document. Chapters D-3 

### andB-3.

3. 

### EfficiencyLevelsAnalyzed. Table 3-4 

### presents the efficiency levels selected for analysis for 1981. 

### Alternate levels were selected to generate arange ofimpacts for analysis. Level 3 corresponds to.the highest efficiency level considered in the engineering analysis which is 

### technologically feasible based on the design options considered. It 

### was felt that manufacturers could produce products
at this efficiency. and these products would nothave any safety orreliability problems. Levels 1 and 2correspond to efficiencies lower than that oflevel 3. While these levels were not. discreetly analyzed in the engineering analysis, DOEbelieves the costs are proportional
to the efficiency levels considered.

The levels considered in today's analysis are generally lower than those considered for standards in the June 30 proposal This reflects changes made In the engineering analysis.

DOE does nothave sufficient data on electric table-top units to perform the engineering and economic analyses for the class. No levels were analyzed for oil waterheaters because ofthe smell quantities being produced and their replacementbygas orelectric water heaters. DOE determined that the water heater testprocedure is notvalid for heatpump water heaters. Section 325(b) ofthe Act states that no standard shall be prescribed ifno test procedure has beenprescribed with respect to the class.

TA8l.E 3-4.-A1.TalNATlVE EFFICIENCY LEvELS

FOR 1987 FOR WATER HEAT11:RS (ENERGY FACTOR. EF) 1



### v

.. ena/y:Nd flrooU:l d.- ume lPfI 1 2 3

1. Gas

___•

_____ M.9 M.1 60.1 2. e-.

___.

___ 52 85.6 88.9 92.1 s. EIec1IiC

_ lqI

_ (a) (a) (a) (a)

•• Oil

___ (a) (a) (a) (a) 5.

______ '

____ (a) (a) (a) (")



### SignIficance 

### of EnergySavings By the year 2005 

### the average efficiency ofnew waterheaters that would be developed in the absence of standards is projected to be over91 percent ofthe efficiency ofnew water heaters developed with standards. Economic Analysis Document. Table 3- 12. This would constitute a 23 percent increase in the efficiency ofnew model gas waterheaters since 1918 without standards and an 11 percent Increase for

new model electric waterheaters. id.

Were an efficiency standard imposed. the ORNLModel predicts that over the entire period 1981-2005 

### the following additional savings would be attributable to the standard: '.



# . EIec1IiC Gas**~,** 0.28 0I.tIds

___ 0.004 

### au-.**~2** Ul5 0I.tIds_ 

### O.oeau-.**~3** 2.01 0I.tIds

___ 0.08 

### au-.

There is a particularvariable in the ORNLModel whose value is peculiar in the case ofwaterheaters such that DOE believes that the savings projectedmay be overstated. The implicit discount rate calculatedfor waterheaters for the base year (1918). using manufacturers 1918 shipment data. is much higher than it is for other appliances with similar characteristica. for instance. m,nances and 

### central air

### conditioners. It

### ranges from 3 to 21 times greater than that used for these products. Forwaterheaters. the analysis shows an implicit discount
rate of163**pe~nt** 

### for electric and 451 

### percentfor gas. Forfurnances and central air

### conditioners. the rate does not exceed 54 percent. Economic Analysis Document. Table 3-6. 

### Despite tome effort. DOEhas been unable to explain this 

### anomalously high 

### implicit discount rate for waterheaters. and DOE requests comments from interested
persons on this issue. The effect ofa high implicit discountrate in 

### the ORNL Model is to lessen the responsiveness of the market to demand more efficient appliances as a result ofhigher energy prices. Seegenerally Economic Analysis Document. I 3.2. Decreasing the implicit discount rate ofwater heaters to that of gas furnances decreases the energy savings to zera for the nominal standards case. i.e.• level 3for electric
water heaters and level 2for gas water heaters. See Economic Analysis Document. Table 5-2. Thus. ifthe implicit discount rate used for water heaters is too high, the savings· attributable to standards may be vastly overstated.



### OilandGas Savings

The maximum savings over the 19 yearperiod of2.07 

### Quads ofelectricity
amounts to 0.05 Quads ofoil and 0.13 Quads ofgas."Thus. the maximum oil and gas savings would be 0.05 Quads of oil and 0.21 Quads ofgas. While the gas savings exceed the 4.400 barrels per day level that the Congress found to be an insignificant level ofsavings in rejecting

an emergency conservationplan. 45 

### there is no indication that any excess over 4.400 barrels per day should be considered significant.

# setsupra. Indeed. they only slightly exceed onehalfofthe 10.000 barrels per day level DOE believes would be significant. ElectricitySavings

The maximum savings attributable to standards over the period 1987-2005 

### would constitute less than .3 percent of the electricity used in the Nation over thatperiod."

20

### PercentSavings

Over the period 1981-2005 

### the highest level ofsavings attributable to standards would constitute less than 3 percent ofthe energy that would have been consumed by waterheaters in the absence ofstandards. See Economic Analysis Document. Table 3-18.

Conclusion

On the basis ofthe above. DOE believes that standards forwater

..Thia a

..umea that oU COMtitutes :2.85 percent and a" lI.15 percent 01 the energy uled to aenerale electricity overthl. time period. Thele pereentaaes are the average ofthe projec1ed proportionl for the
yeare 1990and 11195. See.upra.

• PoW' thouuncia. fOur bW'ldred barrel ofoU per day equal .1S Quacia over 19 yean.

..E1ectricityuaage over the period 1987-2005 ill atimated (0 1M about 700 Quacia. Set!.upra.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14443

heaters would not result in a significant conservation ofenergy. U


### EconomicJustification



### a. Costs 

### toManufacturers and Consumers. The perunit increased cost to manufacturers to meet the level 3 efficiency for water heaters ranges from $13.65 for a gas water heatermade by a large manufacturer to $14.65 for an electric water heater made by a medium-size manufacturer. See Engineering Analysis Document. Table**~lL** .

The increased price to 

### the consumer for a water heater meeting a level 3 standard ranges from $31.30. or a 19 percent increase. for an electric water heater to $29.90. or a 15 percent increase. for a gas water heater. The price to the consumer ofa level 2gas water heater increases about $18. or9 percent. and the price ofa level 2 electric water heater increases about $20. or 12percent.

..• At level 1. price increases are minimal. 

### See Engineering Analysis Document. Table 3.12. DOE believes that the price increase at the higher levels ofefficiency would likely preclude some lower income persons from purchasing new water heaters.

The FlM predicts that a prototypical medium-size manufacturer would suffer

a 15 percent increase in business 

### risk at all standard levels analp;ed. and that prototypical large and small 

### flrm.s would incur a 10percent ineree..se at level 3, with large 

### flrm.s incurring a 15 percent increase in busine8fJ risk at level 2. 

### See Economic Analysis Documeot. Table 4- 28. 

### If shipments decrease 15 percent from manufacturers' anticipated levels. the effects ofa level 3 standard for

.. DOE created aeparale c1asael ofprodUetlI for electric table top. 

### au lI.Ild heat pump water heaters that were not lpecifically a.naIysed in leveral ofthe analysel. The leles volume ofelectric table top water heaterl, however. la very amall. 8tH Englneerinll AnalYlia Document. Table e-.1. and l'>e
energy un by011 water heaters. Imall to begin with. decreasel rapidly durlnll the period 1987-2005 In the absence ofltandards. lettEconomic Analysia Document. Table 3-18. ConNCluently. DOE believes that the deterlllination that a ltandard for water heaten would not result in a lignificant c:on.aervation ofenergy applies to these two product c1a_ al well Becauae heat pump watar heaten

are very new. becaule there ia no test procedure for them. and beca

.... they have a potential for I!gnificant markat penetration. DOE II relervlng I determination u to the lign.ificance ofsavinsl of beat pump waterheaters.

••TheM pricea to COMumera &l'I! the pricea rel1ected In the engineerlD& a.naIYlia only for produetllllL1lde by larie manufacturel'll. The 

### ensJneerinl anaIYlia lndlcalel higherpricel for the prodUetlI IIL1Ide by medJum-aize manufacturers. bees

.... oftheir hlPer coata. The economic analYlia. however. indlcalal that the

### Iatse manufacturers era the price leaden in the induatry. Therefore. medlum-alze manufacturel'll will not be able to obtain the higherprice reflected for their product. butlnalead will have to fot'JO the difference. electric waterheaters and a level 2 standard for gas water heaters would be
to increase business risk to 20 percent for large firms. 

### to 30 percent for mediumsize firms. and to 20 percent for small firms. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 5-14. By 1991 (the last
year ofanalysis) the FlM predicts that the prototypical large-size manufacturer will have been losing increasing
amounts ofmoney thelast two years at level 3 and the last three years atlevel 2. For the four years following the year that standards would be imposed. medium manufacturers would average 

### a 27 percent decrease in profitability at level 2 and a 23 percent decrease at leval For small firms the comparable figures are a 12 percent decrease and a 19 percent decrease. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table A-4-9.'"



### In addition to the .abovementioned quantified impacts on manufacturers. 

### an effect ofa standard. as indicated in the General Discussion section. would be to require certain investments to be made that might not otherwise have been made. These required investments would likely result in the forgoing of certain other investments which would 

### be more beneficial to the manufacturer.

b. 

### Life Cycle CostandNetPresent Value. An anly.sis ofthe life cycle cost results shQws that for water heaters, the II106t efficient model studied had the lowest 

### life cycle cost. The reaults 

### ofthe sensitivity analysis regardins llB889
rates show that the minimum 

### LeC fan6
at the most efficient model studied. The minimum

### LeC Is always at a p:eater

••M Indicated in the Gen«a.l Di8cuaaion section.

u well al the otherprodUct-Ipect.fiC cn-.utons. the

.. Impecll are fu1I¥ accurate on1}' to the lD($ent that the prototypicellirm did nol make Investments in improvins appliance efficiency al part ofIta hi.atorlcally indicated inveatJnenta. Improvements In efficiency projected between 1975 and 1967. however. likely reflect IUch hiltoricalinvaltmenlll and Ihould reflect an order ofmagnitude decrease in the impaetll projected by the FIM. Gas water beaten inerea

.. in efficiency 70 percentbatween 1978 and 1987. whila electric wate heatets increase In efficiency only 20 percent. lndicating more hi.atorlcelinveltmentin gal than electric water heater efficiency Improvementa. Because most firml maldnt water heaten make both gal and electric

. watar heatara. however. the

.. percentages do not neceuarlly reflect the deere

..e in PJM impactl for a prototypical finn. Becauae it i.I projected that gal
waterbeaterMlel will decrea

.. from a majority of all water heater lala in 1978 to just a quarter aE sales in ll19O. DOE believes a ltandard for water bealen will have itagreateetlmpect on the tDallufacture ofelectric weter heatara. where the lealt investments were made. Thla leads DOE to believe that the projected FIM impacta on the

Maverage" lia terms 01. shipment weighted efficiency ofIta productal. prototypicallirm would be decre.sed by a percentage closer to 20 percent than 70percent. OfCOW'M. to the extent that a firm wal
not "average.M buthad inveated little orno money in efficiency impronment.a S;rlor to a ltandard beinll impoIed. the PJM projecliooa would remain
accurate. efficiency than the analyzed levels. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 

## s10.

The net present value for each ofthe effiCiency levels studied is:

L8YeI 1...

__._ 5490 mllIion

,..,._,... S40 m,lI;an,
lJr,Iej 2

__•.• 1.15 billlon., 1ll mollan, L8YeI 3 2,65 billion 180 ""Ilion.



### Ifthe level 3 net present value was spread across the Nation. the benefits would amount to about $1.10 per year perhousehold.

As noted above. DOE has doubts concerning the base year (1978) implicit discount rate for water heaters. Above it

was demonstrated how a change in that implicit discount rate to a level representative ofproducts purchased in similar situations would eliminate all savings ofgas and electricity attributable to a standard. A similarly dramatic result occurs to the net present value 

### ifthe base year implicit discotmt
rate for water heaters is reduced to that ofgas furnaces. For gas water heaters. the 

### NPV becomes zero. while for electric
water heaters the 

### NPV becomes a 

### negative $40 million. Economic Anal}'sis Document. Table 5-3.

Co 

### EnergySavings. As indicated above. the maximum savings attributable 

### to standards would be 2.15 

### Quads during 

### the period 1987-2005.



### d. Lessening ofUtility orPerformance of

Products. As indicated above. DOE established a new class ofproducts in order to assure that the standards analp;ed would not lessen the existing utility or performance ofwater heaters. As indicated in the general discussion

. however. there is no assurance that future utility orperformance ofwater heaters would not be lessened by standards.

e. 

### Impact of Lessening Competition. The determination ofthis factor must be made by the Attorney General.

f. 

### Needto Save·Energy. More energy is used to power electric water heaters

,than gas water heaters. The maximu."Tl
amount ofelectricity that would be saved by standards for water heaters
amounts to less than .3 percent ofthe electricity used in the Nation during this time period. Similarly, the maximum gas savings attributable to standards for
waterheaters would account for about .06 percent ofnatural gas use during the

same period.eo In balancing the benefiIs ofa standard against its burdens. no

"Naturalsaa UI. durl1lg the period 1987-2005 it estimated to be about 380 Quads. This flgUr& is derived from NEPP W.

### 14444 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 64 / Friday. April 2, 

### 1982 / Proposed Rules

weight need be given to sav:ings of
energy that are so small



### g. 

### OtherFactors. Above, under impactl on manufactarera. the impactl projected by the 

### FIM em the prototypical small manufacturer ofwater heaters

were presented. The negative impacts

on small manufacturers were projected
to be 

### less than the negative impacts on large and medium manufacturers. 

### In the General Discussion leCtion, however. It

was explained that DOE believes the 

### FIM understales the negative impact of stand.an:UJ on small businesses relatiTe
to other size firms. Thus, DOEbelieves that the negative impacts shown in the 

### FIM for the prototypical small manufacturer ofwater beaten are likewise understated.. DOE solicits
comments 

### on this, especially from small manufacturers ofwater beaten.


### Conclusion

The benefits ofa standard for water heaters are that. compared to the base

case ofno standard.&. it might save energy and mighthave a positive net present value. The seDaitivity analysis indicates. however. that 

### ifthe anomalous base year implicit discount
rate for water heaters is too 

### high. the benefits attributable to standards could be entirely eliminaled.

The burdens ofa standard are that (1) It would adversely affect the financial well-being ofall 

### firms making water heaters. with potentially .erious impacta

on some size firms at certain levels; (2) It could result in some lower iDcome persons being precl¥ded from purchasing new waterheaters. 

### if a standard were .et at 

### one of the higher levels: (3) it could IMaen the utility or performance ofthis product in the future by creating a disincentive 

### to the development ofenergy-uaing new features; and (4) manufacturers ofwater heaters might forgo iDvestments that are

more beneficial to them.



### The need ofthe Nation to save this 

### margin.al increment ofelectricity or natural 

### gal is not .ufficient tojustify
any ofthe above burdens.

.

, In light ofall the factors discussed here and in the general discussion. on balance. DOE believes that the burdens ofan efficiency standard for water heatera outweigh the benefits.

# 'I

e. 

### RoomAir Conditioners.-1. 

### Selection q[

### Classes. "Room air

., At DOtlld aboTe. DOE crealed Mp&l'llte cJa58el1 ofprod8cu for eIoIc:tric: tabietop, oiL and beet pump waterbHllIn tbat DOt**~J'** COIWdenrd In aevaral

### atthe maIy

.... Forthe

_ 

### i.Ddi.c.atad
above. DOE UI reM1"rillg a detenninatloll

.. to the ecoDomic to-tlflcatlonfor a ltarldanl for heal pump Willer h.aten, AlJIo for lba reillOJIlI indicaled abo_
hOWft8r. DO£ bel:ieYea thet itI.UIdarda for the other two cLuau. whiclI

_ IIDalllUllOQSlla offuel, woWd nol be ecooomic&lly justi5ed. conditioner'" means a consumerproduct which is powered by a single phase electric current, which is an encased assembly designed 81 

### a unit for mounting in a window or

### through the wall for the purpose ofproviding delivery ofconditioned air to an enclosed .pace. which is not a 

### '"packaged terminal.air conditioner." 

### ult include. 

### a prime .ource ofrefrigeration and may Include a means for ventilating and heating.

DOE

# w reviewed the comments regarding reverse cycle unitt and agrees that thele unitt have 

### a distinct utility by having 

### the capability ofproviding heat. The efficiency 

### of

### areverse cycle room air conditioner it decreased because of losses in efficiency llS30ciated with the reversing valve. Therefore. DOE is establishing a leperste clas. for these units.

DOE has reviewed the comments regarding units 8,fXX) 

### Btu/hr and lesa and agrees that certain units, such as casement type room air conditioners.. bave a diltinct utility due to their dimensions. 

### Alao. 8,000

### Bw/hrroom air conditioners are typically used in bedrooma aa are 8,fXX) 

### Btu/hr and less units. Therefore, the upper limit ofthe 

### MOO

### Btu/hr and le58 clasa us been raised to 8,000 Btu/br.

DOE 

### has established two new classes for those units with outdoor side louvers and capacity greater than 8,fXX) 

### Btu/hr but leu than 2:O,fXX) 

### Btu/hr. This revision

wu based upon DOE's review of
comments regarding the appropriateness ofusing a single 

### bueline unit to represent the entire capacity range of units greater 

### than

## a.ooo Btu/brbut less than 

### 20.000 Btu/hr. Since DOE has revised the analysis to use the largest capacity unit in each class u the baseline unit. the potential improvements in efficiency ofthe smaller capacity units would be underestimated 

### if

### a single 

### clan were 

### ut.ed for this capacity range. Therefore, the two new 

### clall88tl for room air conditionera with outdoor side louvers

are those with 

### a capacity greater 

### than 8,fXX) Btu/brbut

### leu than 14.fXX) Btu/br and thOle with a capacity 

### of14.000Bta/ hr or greaterbutless than 2:0.000 Bta/hr.

DOE haa established two separate claISe. for thOle room air conditionera without outdoor aide louvers. those with

a capacity of8.000 Bta/br orless and those with a capacity greater than 8,000

.. "P1Ic:I<apc:Ilar.IDI.lwll air c:aDdI1:1aaer" meeJII a wall .1

....... and a Mp4Z'8la UI>l!De&aed builder JPldfied combinatlOll

### atbMliDs and coolln3 a_bG8a Intended for IIIOUIIliDs 

### t.brousb the waI1. It lncluda a prime IIOCQ of l'tItfrigeratlOIl. M'p&I'8b1e oatdoor loorva:ra. forced

...ntilatlon. GId halial availability 

### b7 bllilden cboice of weter ••team

or electricity. Btu/hr. These claues were based upon DOE's analysis ofcomments in which DOE determined that. as in the case of those room air conditioners with outdoor side louvers. 8,000 Btr/hr or less unit. are usually used in bedrooms and that improvements in efficiency are limited by cabinet sizes.

The product classes for the room air conditione""category are listed in Table 

### 3-5. infra.

2. 

### Design Options Evaluated. Design options employed in the analysis ofthe

room air conditioner consisted of increased heat-transfer surface area. sometimes accompanied by a decreased
compressor size. and fan motor improvement orreplacement where\'er possible.

The heat exchanger surface area is generally increased. 

### In come cases. an increase in the heat exchanger depth increases the efficiency slightly; however. this is partially offset by increased air system losses. As the heattransfer surface Is increased the
compressor displacement must be reduced to maintain the desired unit capacity.

Along with the change in pump displacement the manufacturer would change the compressor motor as well. Often, the reduced capacity compressor for the highest efficiency design is already available as the next logical increment a compressor manufacturer offers.



### The design options and public
comment thereon are more fully discussed in the Engineering Analysis Document. Chapten and E-9.



### 3. 

### EfficiencyLevelsAnalyzed. Table 3-5 presents the efficiency levels selected for analysis for 1987. Alternate leveu were selected to generete 8 range ofimpacts for analysis. With the exception ofclass 1. level 4 corresponds
to the highest efficiency analyzed in the engineering analysis. Levels 1. Z. and 3 C1:lrrespond to efficiencies lower than that oflevel 4. While not all of these levels were discreetly analyzed in the engineering analysis. DOE**~lieves** the
costs are proportional to the efficiency levels considered.

The highestpotential standard level analysed for class 1 (small room air conditioners with outdoor side louvers)

was less than the highest efficiency attainable in the engineering analysis because It would not be pouible to achieve the highest efficiency for that class within the existing appliances

_ case. The costreflected in the engineering analysis to achieve the highest efficiency would not necessarily be accurate because the engineering analysis assumed a metal cabinet.

### Federal Relister 

## I Vol. 47. 

### No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14445

which would cost lesl to modify than the plastic cabinet that many models in this class han.

The levels considered in today's analysis are senerally lower than those considered for standards in the June 30 proposal. This reflects changes made in the engineering analysis.

DOE doss not have sufficient data on the reverse cycle units to perform the engineer:lng and economic analyses for the class.

TABU! 3-5.-ALTERNATlVli EFF1cIeNcY l.EV£LS

FOA 1987 FOR ROOM AlA CoNDIT1ONEI'lS (ENERGY EFFIcIENCY RATlO, EER. BnJI WATT-HR)**l.ewla~** 

# """"""



# .... 1 2 3 

# •

1. Wtln QUIdocl<

_ IouW<S;

capec:rty 01 8.000 B1u/l.- or



# _ .....

# _-----_._- 7•• 7.6 7.9 8.7 2- WI1h outdcOt

_ 1olMIl'S;

C8Il8CitY grMlllt lhan 8.000 Btu/l.- buI

_ lhan 1••000 ElIutl.-

.

___••

____ 8.8 8.9 9.1 10.2 3. Wtln QUIdocl<

_ 1OIMIrS;

c.pecilr 01 1•.000 etutl.- bUt _lhan 20.000 B1u/l.-._ 7.8 7.a 8.1 9.7 4. Willi outdoor

_ Io<Ne<a;

capacity 01 20.000 Blutl.- or grea1eI' -.--._._-- 8.0 8.2 8.. 8.4 5. No outdoor

_ Iowe<1; eapoo:;ty 01 8.000 etu!llr or lest 7.5 8.1 8.7 9.6 6. No outdcOt

_ IcluWrI; eapec:rty 17M\« lhan 8,000 B1u/l.- 7.0 7.3 7.5 7.8 7. FI..,

.. cyde (1) (1) P) P)

1 Not anafy.zlld.



### Significance

## 01EnergySavings

By the year 2005 

### the average efficiency ofnew room air conditioners developed in the absence ofstandards is projected to be 95 

### percent ofthe efficiency ofnew room air conditioners developed with standards. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 3- 12. 

### this would represent a 13 percent improveinent since 1978 

### in the efficiency in new models without standards. Were

an efficiency standard imposed. the ORNLModel predicts that over the entire period 1987-2005 

### the following additional savings would be attributable
to the standard:**Levell~.24** 

### Quads

Level 2-0.30 Quads Level**~.34** 

### Quads Level 4-0.64 Quads.


### OilandGas Savings



## As indicated in the product-specific dlscu

..ion ofcentral air conditioners. air conditioners are more likely to be found and to be heavily used in the southern parts ofthe Nation. 

### Air conditioners are also more heavily used in the summer than at other times ofthe
year. As is also discussed later. however. differences in the source fuel for generating electricity among**~egions** 

### are generally not great enough to 

### make national average proportions inappropriate 

### figures 

### to aS8ess the order ofmagnitude impact on oil or electricity savings attributable to standards for air condition8l'll.u This is even more true of

room air conditioners than central air conditioners, because room air conditioners use only 20percent ofthe energy used by central air conditioners.



### see Economic Analysis Document. Table 3-15. and the maximum energy that could be saved as a result ofstandards for room air conditioners is 

### less than 15 percent ofthe energy that might be saved by standards for central air conditioners.

Using the national average proportions ofoil and gas used to generate electricity. the maximum savings ofoil and gas attributable to standards would be 0.013 Quads ofoil and 0.046 Quads ofgas over the period 1987-2005. 506 

### The larger figure is only about 25 percent ofthe 4.400 barrels of oil per day savings that the Congress found to be an insignificant level of savings.50 

### See supra. ElectricitySavings

The maximum savings attributable to standards would constitute les8 than .1 percent ofthe electricity used in the Nation. II This 

### additional percent is so small as to have no measurable effect

on the environment or the need for new generating capacity.

20

### PercentSavings

Over the period 1987-2005 

### the highest level ofsavings attributable to standards would constitute only 8 

### percent ofthe energy that would have been consumed by room air conditioners in the absence ofstandards. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 3- 18.

11Mt.**~d** under cenlral air conditionei'll. there are reasonl to believe that national average proportiona ofgaa used to generate electricity might be more lnaccurate. Because DOE doel not have
any balll for projectiO'lll offuture proportion. except on • nal10Gai beau.. bQW1lver, a national
average t. uaed forPi aa walL Becaue available data lndicatel gaa ia • 

### blaherproportion ofthe aDt!rgy uaed to generate electriaty In the lummer and oili•• Iowa' p_tage. DOE baa lncreaaed the projected 8IlIII1a1 natiOGai .verageproportion by 17 percent for gu aad dec:reaaed tha proje<:ted proportion for oil by 18 percentln .Iaeuing 18v!.ng. for ltandarda on air conditionen. See

### in/ro.



### '"TId. aaaumes thet 011 con.al1lUtel U5 percent

. and ga. 7.% percentofthe energy uaed to generate electricity onr thi1I time period. The oil percentage II the average ofthe projectedproportiona for the yean 1990 and 1995, decreaaed by 19 percenL The 

### sa' percentage t. the average ofthe projected proportionl for the yeara1990 and 1995. increased by 17 pen:enL See supra.

..Four thousand and four bundred banels ofoil
per day equal .18 Quade over 19 years.

II Electricity uaqe overthe period 1987-2005 il estimated to be about 700 Quads. See supra. 

### Conclusion

On the basis ofthe above. DOE believes that standards for room air conditioners would notresult in a significant conservation ofenergy. 51


### EconomicJustification



### a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers andConsumers. The per unit increased
cost to a manufacturer to meet the level 4 

### efficiency for the most prevalent class ofroom air conditioner-the below 8000 Btu/hr with outdoor side louvers. with 44 percent ofthe market-is a mere $6.13. or less than 5 percent. However. all the rest ofthe classes ofroom air conditioners, making up 56 percent of the market. have significant increased first costs. ranging from 15 to 50 

### percent increases. Also. it 

### is noteworthy that medium-sized manufacturers have increased costs 15 to 20 percent higher than the large firms. Engineering Analysis Document. Table 9.16 

### and Table 9.17.



### The Increased price to the consumer at a level 4 standard reflects the same trend. with the most prevalent class of

room air conditionerincreasing in price only $18. 

### The price increases ofall the other classes. however. are significant. with the next two most prevalent classes (8-14 

### and 14-20 thousand Btu! hr. with outdoor side louvers) having price increases of25 percent. and the currently least expensive class having the largest percent increase. over45 percent. 5& 

### See Engineering Analysis Document. Table 9.17.



### At lower standard levels the increased first costs and prices are substantially reduced. Forexample. at level 3 the price increases for the second and third most prevalent classes and the least expensiv.e class are all less than 10 percent

### Id. DOE believes that these increased prices will result in some

.. Although DOE created a separate class of producta for revel'lle cycle room air conditionei'll that haa not been specifically considered in the angineering analysis. Life Cycle Cost analysis. or FIM Bnalysil. the class ofreverse cycle room air conditionera il lncluded In the product type room ait conditionera For purposes ofthe ORNL Model. which determined energy savings. Accordingly. DOE believes that the conclusion that a standard would not result In a significant conservation of
energy can be applied to the entire product type.

..Tl!ese prices to conaumers are the prices reflected In the engineering analysis only for products made by large manufacturel'll. The engineering analysis lndicates higherprices for the producta made by mediwn-size manufacturers. because oftheirbigber costs. The economic analysis. bowavat'. lndicatel that the large manufacturera are the price leadel'llin the lndustry. Therefore. medium-size manufacturera will not be able to obtain the higherprice reflected For their producL buriN,tead will have to Forgo the difference.

## 14446 Federal

### R.~t8r 

## I Vol. 47. No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

lower income households forgoing room air conditionerpurchases.

The FIM predicts that at level 4 a prototypical medimn-lized manufacturer ofroom 

### air conditioners would have a Z5 percent increased business risk and a large manufacturerwould have • 10 percent increased business risk compared to the hese case without standards. At level 3 the medium-sized manufac:turerhas a 10percent increased businell 

### riJJk. EcoDomic Analyais Document. Table A-4-1. The sensitivity analysis indicates thatbuainesa risk is highly leDSitive to manticipated

revenue reductions. For example. if shipments decrease 15 percent from the anticipated level. the effects ofa level 3 standard (the only level tested in the sell.llitivity analysis) would 

### be to increase business 

### riak to 4.5 percent for the medium-size manufacturer and to 35 percent for the large manufacturer. Economic Analysis Document. Table 5- 14.

The FIM also indicates that by the
year 1991 (the last year ofanalysis) profitability deteriorates for 

### all sizes of fums at 

### all standards levels analyzed. For example. at level 4, the mediurn-size fum has a 47 percent decrease in profitability compared to the base case with no standards. and a small fum has

a 27 percent decrease. Economic Analysis Document. Table A-4-7. At 

### all standards levels, the debt/equity ratio of

### all sizes offirms deteriorates. For the meciium-.ize fum the deterioration is
extreme. Economic Analysis Document. Table A-4-&. II

b. 

### Life Cycle Costand

### NetPresent Value. A standard set at level 4 would require efficiencies for four ofthe six product classes at a level higher 

### than the average consumer's 

### Lee minimum.

II iIIdlc.ated i:D the GeDeral DiIc:uHioa IIIC1loD. these Impactl are fully accurataoalJ to the ex1eDt that the prototypica11itm did not make investmenta in improvins appUanoe eftldenc:y a. pa.rt of ita historically indicated investmenta. 0therwiM. not all of the inveslmeDt iIIdlca1ed by the en8ineeriDg analyaia would be required to be tMde ill order to produceappliancaa to llleet the required .tancIard level. DOEbeJi,evu llIat a me.a.ltrllDlCIt 01 the incre

....d abiplDCnt weighted efflc:ieDq ofa product between 1117ll-1ll87 will bes.r an order of mqnltud4J relation to tha deauHd invatmal:lt required 01 an average Iitm to _t a .1aIId.ard leva!. MOI'lIOVer. DOE beIlavu that the de<:.reued lDwetmeDt requiremal1twould Ulr.e1y baY. a limiIarClI'dlll' of magnitude affed on the FIM'. pl'OjeeWd iIIlp.<:ll attributabla to a&aDdarda. lD the

_ oll'DOlD alr conditiOllln. the ORNLWodal iIldlI:a

... that the ahipment weltbllld d!ldaacywill iIICN_ about 22 plIrcaI1t betw_ 1m and Ul87 in the a.Dee 01 any standard. CoaMqu4tlti)'. DOE t.IIave. that the
negalive lmpacta actu.aIly attrib.l.lbla to IW>darda would be aimoat fov-fiftha 01 tboIe projeded by !be
FIM. 'l'his oonc1wllou. however. appliea only to tha "average." prototypical firm. TIle nepttve impecta .uffered by a Iitm that had made limillld or I\lO Investment. in Imp.roved prod1Id efficieI>I:y WO<I1d .tiIl approach orbe thOle reflectedby !be rn.L One would be 10 

### high as to result in an 

### increase in life cycle cost compared to the 1978 average model ofthat class. Level 4 for one clan-tbe largest capacity room 

### air conditioner with outdoor side louvers-is set at the 

### LeC minimum for that class. Forthe most prevalent class ofroom air conditioner, level 4 it slightly below the 

### LeC minimum.

At level 3. four ofthe classes are at their LCC minimmn. 

### and two are below it. Moreover. for one ofthe classes at level 3 that is below the average consumer's LCC minimum. the level is the 

### LeC minimum for consumers wh01le
usage is that likely to be found in the northern parts ofthe Nation. IIIAt levels 2 and 1 

### all standarda would be set well below the 

### Leeminima for 

### all classes.

The net present value ofstandards for

room air conditioners increases with the stringency ofthe standard, from $420 million to $730 million overthe period 1987-2020. Spread overthe Nation's 80 million households, this would equate to at most less than 27 cents perhousehold per year.



### c. Energy

### Savings. AI indicated above, the maximum savings attributable to standards would 

### be 0.64 Quads ofelectricity.

d. Lessening

### ofUtility orPerformance 

### of

Products. AB indicated above. DOE established new classes ofproducts in order to assure that the standards analyzed would not lessen the existing utility or performance ofroom air conditioners. A.lindicated in the General Diacua.ion section. however, there is no assurance that future utility

or performance ofroom air conditioners would not be les.ened aa a result of disincentives caused by standards to investments in energy-using new features.



### e. 

### Impact of Lessening Competition. The determination of this factor must be made by the Attomey General.

f. 

### Need To SaveEnergy. As is also indicated in 

### the product-specific discuaaion ofcentral air-oonditioners. the greater part ofthe additional energy saved by standarda on air conditioners 

### will be concentrated in certain parts of the Nation 

### and will be concentrated during sununer peak load periods for utilities. 

### AI. is al.o indicated in the discussion ofcentral air conditioners. while peak load saving. are more valuable to utilities than normal load savings. the nature ofthe peak load and its relative cost are highly regional in

'"Thi.I cla._l4-20 thouaand 

### 8t:II/IIr 1rith outdoor .ide**Ioun~** tha cmIy clue 01I'0OIII air conditioner whOM LCC IlIiIIimIDD ia dtffaroeDt at lowert.baD average 

### -all. s.tIl!.caDota.ic A.IWIly.is Document. Table 5-41. character. Thus. although savings of electricity associated·with air conditioners are potentially more valuable than other forms ofelectricity savings. the need for those savings is

more regionally specific than is the case for other electricity savings.

g. 

### OtherFactors. Above, under impacts on manufacturers. the impacts projected by the FIM on the prototypical small manufacturer ofroom air conditioners were presented. Except with respect to reduced profitability with standards. the impacts were not significant. In the General Discussion section, however, it was explained that DOE believes the FIM understates the negative impact ofstandards on small businesses relative to other size businesses. Thus, DOE believes that the negative impacts shown in the FIM for the prototypical small manufacturer of

room air conditioners are understated relative to the impacts reflected for medium-size fums. DOE solicits
comments on this. especially from small manufacturers ofroom air conditioners.



### Conclusion

The benefits ofa standard for room air conditioners are, compared to the baae case ofno .tandards. that it would

save energy and have a positive net present value. These benefits. however,

are small in amount even at the strictest standard level. The benefits become less !It 10wer.1evels ofmandated efficiency.

The burdell.ll ofany standard for room air conditioners are: (1) It 

### will likely preclude some lower income persons from purchasing new room air conditioners; (2) It 

### will have a negative impact on manufacturers' profitability and**d~bt/equity** ratio. especially harmful to medium-.ize manufacturers. but DOE believes the negative impact on small businesses is understated relative
to other size firms; (3) it might lessen the utility or performance offuture room air conditioners; and (4) it may require manufacturers to forgo more beneficial investments.

At level 3. and especially at level 4. 

### all ofthe above burdell.ll are increased. In addition. at level 4: The efficiency required for four ofthe six classes of

room air conditioner is higher than the
average consumer's 

### LeC minimum; medium-size and large manufacturers suffer an Increase in businen risk ofZ5 and 10 percent. te8pectively; and the
costs to manufacturers and the prices to

consumers offive ofthe six classes of product increase 

### from 15 to 50 percent. At level 3: The Increased business risk for a medium-size fum attributable to the standard would be 10 percent. which

### Federal Registef 

## I Vol. 47. No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14447

would increase 

### to 45 percent 

### if shipmentJ decreased by 15 percent.

The need to laYe the e'D81'8Y that would be saved 

### by a natiema1 

### stalIdard far 

### room air 

### CODditiaDerl is man! regional than national innature.

In light 

### ofall the facton 

### di.scuased here 

### and iJl 

### the 

### Gae.ra.I DiM:useion sec&n. 0.11 

### ba1aDce. DOEbelieve. that the bW'dena

### ofan efficiency ltandard for

room air c:cnditioners outweigh the benefits."



### f. 

### Home HeatingEquipment(Nat Including

### Furnaces). The Department of Energy is not proposing a rule with respect to the prodnct home heating equipment (not including furnaces) (hereafterreferred to as "home heating equipment"). At the present time, there is no testprocedure applicable to unvented oil or gas home heating equipment. Thus, a standard would be precluded for this 

### clau, even though it probably is the largut growi.ng class in the product type. Moreover, it does not appear likely that it wouldbe technologically feasible 

### to improve 

### the efficiency 

### ofelectric resistance bome heating equipment for the same reasons described with respect 

### to electric furnaces, 

### see 

### infra. Finally. DOE intends
to propose modifications to the existing
test procedures relating to vented home heating equipmentin light oftheir burden on manufacturers as weD as

concerns raised

### With respe<;t to the 

### failure ofthe existing procedure to

measure the effects ofthermal stack dampen on energy efficiency.

In light 

### of the above. 

## roE believes it would be prematufe 

### to

## propo.e any rule
at 

### the present time with regard 

### to home heating equipment.



### g./Citc.heD Il.tulgu

### andOYens.-1. Selection 

### of CiotJse& This producttype includes cosiswnerproducts that are used u the major household cooking appliance. They are designed to 

### cook or to heat different types offood using gas

or electricity. Electricity may be used for resistance or microwave heating. The product type includes ho:ri.ztl!1tal cooking surfaces and eitherconventional or microwave ovena or' combinations 

### of these product clanes"

Nine clallS" 

### ofkitchenranges 

### and

oven. ,are specified 

### byDOE. These product classes are distinguished by: (1) The kind ofene1'8Y uaed for cooldng, (2) tile 

### functioll. (3) the types 

### of

### oven cleaning system 

### and (oil tJtility 

### features.



### Product classification. 

### are established for 

### applianca that

### use different energy

soarces. These energy 

### aources are gas ' and electric. 

### Tb.reeproduct 

### classes are baaed 

### on the 

### function ofthe appliance. Ovel1l have a different inteud.ed hmctian than cooJc::iDg tapl. 

### The diffenmt method 

### ued in transferringbeat 

### to the food results in 

### the c:.ooldng top being inherently more efficient; thus. separate product classes are established. A separate product class is provided for microwave ovens because these ovens provide a particularutility 

### to coa.sumers 

### and are inherently more 

### efficient than conventional electric oven&.

The type ofoven cleaning system is a performance-related feature that affects utility. The 

### three types ofoven cleaning systems are the standard. the continUOWl cleaning. 

### and the selfcleaning system. 

### The standard. or noncleaning. system requires CODlRID1er effortfor cleaning the own 

### and uses no electricity. The continuoWJ cleaning system is a catalytic process where
grease ilJ soaked upon to the oven surface coated with an oxidizing catalyst. 

### The self-cleaning system is a pyrolytic process where grease is oxidized during a spedal aeU'-c!esning cycle. These ovenahave added insulation becaWle they 

### operate at higher temperatures 

## d.urins the cleaning cycle 

### than fOf cookin3. Even 

### though the coDiinuous cleaning oven hal greater utility than 

### the standard 0YeD. one product clus is established for both continuous cleaning 

### and standard ovens because both types ofovens 

### tend to use the same amounts ofenergy. Many

consumers prefer the self-cleaning oven. As the self-cleaning ovenuses ele?ridty during the cl..eaning cycle 

### and is betterinsulated. its energy consumption iI difl'erent from the standard and continuous clea.ni.Bg

ovens. Since the self-cleaning oven provides a utility to the consumer, a separate product claas for 

### this oven is 'establiahed.

Gas ranges and ovens with pUot lights provide unique utility since they can 

### be used in 

### homes without 

### the need 

### to provide 

### electric: service to the range and

oven. HOW1!"n!!', ranges 

### and anns with pilotlights are 

### 1,,88 energy efficient

### than

. identical products with electronic: ignition. DOE recognUed 

### the utility 

### of pUotlighta in situations where an electric outlet ia not located near the l'8J1IIL As a result, gas ranges 

### aDd ovens have been partitioned into 

### da.ses with and without electric power supplied. The nine

### prod~ct c1allles for kitchen
ranges and ovens established by 

### DOE

are listed at Table 3-7. 

### infra.

2. Design Options Evaluated. The**s~ific** design options 

### analyzed were: (1) 

### Impraved1:D.sulation. Denser fiberglasa insulation is used to reduce lOsses. Increased insulation thickness wal not considered a viable option 

### as it requires a reduction in cavity size 

### and a corresponding reduction in consumer utility.

(2) 

### Reduced VentSize. Vent rate in standard ovena is reduced 

### to the rate 

### of self-cleaning ovens by eitlHlrreducing the vent tube size or adding a baffle.

(3) 

### ReducedConduction Losses. Standard oven suspension has been upgraded 

### to the level 

### ofself-cleaning

ovens. 

### This includes modifications at the door including additional thermal brea.k. an improved gasket and a modified inner panel.

(4) 

### Improved Contact Conductance. This applies to sheath-type electrical resistance cooking tops. Their efficiency is improved by designing them to maintain better thermal contact with cooking utensils.

The design options 

### and public
comment thereto are more fully discussed in the Engin.ee.riIlg Analysis Document. Chapters**~7** and E-7.

DOE has determined t:lu\t it is not technologically feasible to establish an energy efficiency standard for microwave ovens and electric cook tops.



### 3. EfficiencyLevelsAnalyzed. Table 3-7 presents the efficiency levels selected for analysis for 1987. Alternate levels were selected to generate a range ofimpacts for anallo'llis. The initial level selected for gas and electric ovens. level 4, corresponds 

### to the highest efficiency level considered in the engineering analysis. 

### It was felt that manufacturers could produce products at this efficiency, 

### 8.nd these products would not have any safety or reliability problems. Levels 1, 2 and 3 corresPQnd to efficiencies lower than thatoflevel 4. Whlle these levela were not all discreetly analyzed in the engineering analysis, DOE believes the costs are proportional to 

### the efficiency levels considered. 

### The initial level selected for
gu cook tops. level 3, corresPQnds to the efficiency ofthe engineering analysis's buelioe unit. Engineering Analysis Document. Table 7.1. Thus, the highest level analyzed as a possible standard for gas cook topa would not involve any "improvements." The levels considered in today's analysis are generally lower than those considered for standards in the June 30 proposal. This reflects changes made in 

### the engineering analysis.

### 14448 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

TABLE 3-7.-ALTERNAl'IVe EFFICIENCY Uv£1.S

FOR 1987 FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OvENs (ENERGY FActOR, EF, PERCENT)



### Significance of EnergySavings
Were an energy efficiency standard imposed. the ORNLModel projects that

over the entire periods 1987-2005 

### the savings attributable to a standard would be:

-N.turaI

...

### uuse

_ the period 1987-2005 i.
eltlmated to be .bout380 Quade. SH,upro.



### "Wh.U. th

... IIvlDp exceed the 4.400 btmll per d.y level thet baa ben CODlidered inlllgnlfu:an1. ,tit!

•upra.

# .1

noted in the Ccneral Dilcuaalon

..etlon there it DO indication that.any excel' of40400 blU'Tell perdAly .bauldbe conlidenld .Ignlflcant. The

.. l.vlDp are wellbelow the 10.000 ba:rellper day level that DOE bellave. may be 'ignlflcant. 

### b. Life Cycle Cost andNetPresent Value. At the only two levels of efficiency that would save electricity, the standard would be set higher than

. the average consumer's LCC minimum. Therefore, a standard at this level would penalize the average and below average

consumers by banning their optimal

oven from the market. The net present value attributable to standards for electric ranges and ovens is zero.

At the two levels ofefficiency that would save gas (levels 3 

### and 4), 

### the

. standards for gas ovens wouldbe set higher than the average consumer's 

## Lee minimum. Therefore, a standard at these levels would penalize the average and below average consumers by banning their optimal oven from the market. For

some classes of.oven. the life cycle cost is increasedby standards from the 1978 

### average. The net present value attributable to a standard for gas ranges and ovens a(eitherlevel 3 

### of4 

### is negative. This demonstrates that

consumers as a whole would suffer economically from imposition ofa standard.

Co 

### EnergySavings. As indicated above, the maximum electricity savings

over the period 1987-2005 

### attributable to

a standard for ranges and ovens is 0.04 

### Quads, and the maximum gas savings

over that time is 0.28 

### Quads

.

d. Lessening ofUtility orPerformance of

Prrxiucts. The classes established by DOE were intended to assure that the stand'ards analyzed would not lessen the existing utility orperformance of ranges and ovens. As 

### indicated in the General Discussion section, however, there is no assurance that future utility

or performance ofranges**an~** 

### ovens would not be lessened as a result of disincentives causedby standards to investments in energy-using new features.



### e. Impactof Lessening Competition. The determination ofthis factor must be made by the Attorney General.

f. Needto Save Energy. The electricity thatmight be saved by standards for ranges and ovens is minimal. The gas thatmightbe saved is less than .08 

### percent ofthe natural gas used during the period 1987-2005. In 

### balancing the benefits ofa standard against its burdens, no weightneed be given to savings ofenergy that are so small.

g. OtherFactors. Beca.use no FIM analysis was made with respect to ranges and ovens, DOEis unable to

assess the impact ofpossible standards for ranges and ovens on small manufacturers. ..E1ect:rIdty 1Wl8I dUring the period 1961-200S is .Itimetad to be .bout 100 QuadL See BUpro.

IITheae prien to COI1BlIIDfIn are the price. rellected In theeqineeli.lli**ana.lY'~** only for producta madAI by 

### !arlJe DWlufacturers. The tmgiJleerins an.IYlit Indlcata. higherprice. for the producta madAI by medlWll-BiJ:e manufacturers. because oftheirhlsherco.ta. The. economic analy.i

.. however. IDdlcalel that the large manuf.ctw'ln'I are the price leaders in tha IDduatry

. Tharefore. medlll!ll-liu DWluf.cturers will not be able to obtain the hlsher price reflected for their

. produet, but iDltead will bave to fOJ'110 the dlIference.



### percentofthe electricity used during the period ofthe savings. M

Co

### 2DPercentSavings. Over the period 1987-2005 

### the greatest savings of electricity attributable to standards for electric ranges and ovens is less than

one percent ofthe electricity used for ranges and ovens during that period. Savings ofgas attributable to standards for gas ranges and ovens 

### are less than 10

### percent atlhe gas used ingas ranges/ and ovens during the same period. See Economic Analysis Document. Table 3- 18.

- 

### Conclusion

On 

### the basis ofthe above, DOE believes that energy efficiency standards forranges and ovens would
not save significant amounts ofenergy.
EconomicJustification

a. Impacts onManufacturers and Consumers. The perunit increased cost to a manufacturer to meet a standard at the highest efficiency level ranges from

a high of$12.31 

### for a medium-sized manufacturerofgas ranges without a power cord to a low of$3.71 

### for a large manufacturer ofself-cleaning electric

ovens. EngineeringAnalysis Document. Table 7.14. 

### The increased price to the

consumerranges from $26.1:10 

### for a gas
oven without a power cord to $8.80 

### for a self-cleaning electric oven. Engineering Analysis Document. Table 7.15. 

### The price ofthe most prevalent productstandard electric ovens-increases 11.5 

### percent. The price ofthe mostprevalent gas oven increases less than 5 percent. 61



### Because ORNLModel trial runs indicatedlittle orno energy savings associated with ranges and ovens. DOE did notperform an FIM analysis for this product.

In 

### addition 

### to the above mentioned quantified impacts on manufacturers, an effectofa standard as indicated in the General Discussion section wouldbe to require certain investments to be made that mightnot otherwise have been made. These required investments would likel}' result in the forgoing of certain other investments which would be more beneficial to the manufacturer. o 

### o 0..22 0.2S t.-. anatyzed P!ocalCt

_ 1 2 3 

# •

1.**~_** .._.

_____. 

## , • • • 2. ElIlctnc llOCll<in9 lDP

____ 

## • l l 

# . l 3. Elec1nc

_ ...

______ 12.1 13.0 13.3 13.8



### .. e-

....... MII-";.

__. 11.1 12.0 12.3 12.8 50 G.- -.0

..

_ -.;c

_ClIO'" 22



# -- S. G.- COGIOnl/ 1IlP. ..., -.;c

_ ccn1...-

___._. "5 50 56.5 t-- 1. G.- -..

__ WIlhoul

...,.

lric_CIIO"'-

____. 3.1 U 3.1 3.8

.. G.- -.. 

### -a.

_ -.;c

_ carel.- 4.1 5.0 5.3 5.S t. Gd

....... MII-";

___ 4.ll U 5.2 5.3

1-ll.02

. .**~2-ll.04** L_ 3-(0.24)

...-**~.33)** • • .•

__

As 

### may be seen. the projected effect ofa standard for electric ovens at levels 3 

### or .4 

### would be to decrease energy savings from what they would have been in the absence ofstandards.

a. OilandGas Savings. The maximum gas savings attributable to a standard0.28 

### Quada-over the period 1987-2005 

### equals 6884 barrels per day ofoil. This represents less than .08 percent ofthe national use ofnatural gas over the

same period oftime.a 

### At level 3 the savings attributable to a standard-o.2Z Quada-overthe period 1987-2005 

### equals 5409 barrels per day ofoil. U 

### This represents less than .06 percent ofthe national use ofnatural gas over the

same period. At levels 1 

### and 2the savings are only ofelectricity, and they



### are so small that the amounts ofoil and gas that wouldbe indirectly saved would be minuscule.

b. ElectricitySavings. Atlevels 3 and
4 

### no electricity is saved by a standard. The maximum electricity that couldbe savedby a standard would be 0.04 

### Quada atlevel 2. 

### This is 

### less than .006

## FecJ..al RePter 

## I Vol. 47, 

### No. M , 

### Friday, April 2. 1S8Z 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14449

Conclusilm

The 

### benefita ofa standard are. compared tc 

### the base 

### case 

### of'no standards, that it would save energy. The dttctrfcllll!ftef'lT sawd, 

### l1oweYef', would be miniaeuJe. The gse

..

### Ted

_ would

### be • 

## -a II1DO'lIIrt.

The burdens of

### a .tandard aN thaf: (1) Thauet pI'1IlIeDt

### 'ftl1uaia 

### eitblr %C'O OC' 

### JIe8llti

....; (2) ill

-- 

### to saveftWIY the standU'da 

### W'OI:Id almDst

### alw:ay1 

### haw to be Nt

## WsI-rthan 

### 1tl.

### life,c:yde c:wt 

### miDimUDI .forthe a'ftfqB camurae:o; (3) for**s~** 

### c::lu8es 

### ofpoodud. the 

### life cycle cost ofan appliance meeting the standard would actually increase from the 1978 

### average life cycle coR for that clasa; (4) the 

### futwe utility 01' performance 

### ofrange. 

### cmd 0Ye.J!;&might be lB••

### e:ued: ad (5) 

### mauufac:turel:s of
ranges 

### and ovens might 

### forgo investmentll that 

### are Dlonl 

### beJwfici&J to them.

_

The 

### need ofthe Natioa 

### to aave 

### thia marginal increment 

### of gu or e.1edricity is not sufficient to jastify 

### any 

### of the above 

### burdena. /

In light of all the factors 

### discus8ed here 

### and in the 

### General D:iac:ussion sectiem. em. balal'lC8, DOE beliews that the burdena 

### of an effi.cUmq standard for 

### range. and emma octweigh the 

### benefit&.

h. 

### CentralAirConditiOl'len..-1. Selection ofClasses. A central air conditioDe!' ia

### a coaaumerpn:x:hu:t that la powered

### b,-

## amp pha.e 

### electric 

### current. baa

### a capadty 

### under 65.000

## Btu/ hr and 

### is DOt

### C'OIItaiDed ill a fm'nace' whose 

### rated c:aplldtJ 

### is 

### above 25O,.OClO 

## Btu/hr.



## Eilhtcla.ae. 

### have been 

### establ:.i.shed for central 

### iUrccoditiollers. These classes are 

### cliatiDguished by 

### different performance featurn IlDd capac:ities 

### which affect

### bath efliciAmcy and utility. Central air CODditimIen are divided between lIDitI which provide only· cooling and units which may also provide heating (heatpumps).

From a utility ltaDdpoint. fOO1' product cluses forcooliDg

## cm.1rwereidentified. They are:

(1) Split**ayI~** only39.000 Btu/hr and below.

(2) Single packaged units-<:ooling only-39.0r0

## Bta/brmdbelow.

(3) Split 

### oaJ,- aboft 39,000BtsJhr.

(4) Single packaged unita--<:ooling anly--abo

.... 39,AlOO Dba/hr.

_

A separate 

### dan wall established because ofreatrldiona 

### In desip caused by havi:Ds 

### the fu.ma,ce liD the lI&IXle 

### eDdOAl:'e:

(5)

## SinPtpecIcqe. 

### aD ;rear

### with 

### pI furnace.



### Tha da.1eI for tboM UDita which 

### may also provide heAItiag are: (I) 

### Air '0III'ClI. 

### a:p1It qPem. 

### hat

Air llGUl:'Ca

... plIchp

...

### at '
pump.

(8) Air

### aoan:e. apCiI..,.tea

### -tiDI onlJ beatpump.

.

2. Desip 

### C>pti«16**B~** 

### lJesiIn opticml empkJred 

### iD the 

### of central air

### coaditioDerlt CG&1SiIrt gfthe fonowin&:



### f1}lDcreanD 

### Conda6er

### aDI1 Evapora/1:N'HetJt

### ExchontierSurfot;4 A.recr. Both the CODduael' 

### ad 

### evapcntorare assumed to 

### be c:gpper tube and 

### ahtmiDum c:ornapted 

### fi.n.. 

### The frontal area 

### oftbe beat UChanger and ita depth (row.) 

### are 

### i:Dcreued. lncreaaed fan power 

### to maiDt&iJl 

### the properair velocity through the heat uc1lanler was included.lDcreaaed 

### heat exchanger size also reqll.iml m1arged 

### chusiaand cabinet construetiou. Evaporator s:Ue

was limitedby available apace within the home. Evaporator coil &ret for unitll below 39,000 Btu/br

### wu limited to 

### five square feet. Units above 

### 39.000Btu/hr had 

### a maximum evaporator

### fa<:e area of

.even square feet. In addition. the overall evaporatorheat transfer c0- efficient was limited 10 as to 

### proYide adequate late1It capacity.

(2} Comp.restU1rSize. In caojunction 

### with number (t) aboTe, the
compre.sor 

### ai:ze must be 

### redtIa!d in 

### orderto maintain the 

### bueJine unitrated capacity. This was accompHahed by reducing 

### tIwt piatoa.

.

(3) 

### ChangeFaa/Motor. Aa the fan
power 

### requi:remmt:a 

### change 

### with
pressure andfiowrate, 

### the. faD 

### motor

was 

### cl:l.a!IgIed.

.

(4) 

### 1.Dcr«1HdFanlMoIDrEffJCiertcy. 60-81 

### percentpes:maneDt aplit capacitor IDOton W1lrl 

### rep1aA:ed with 70perceat pe1'tJS&DlllltIpIit capac::i:tor .otors.



### The design options 

### and pv.bllc
comment thereon are more fully discussed in 

### !:beF.JI@h..mtg Anal:ysia Document. Chapters D-a and E-8.

, 3. 

### Efficiency LevebJAnaJyz.ed. 

### Table 3-8 pre.entll the 

### efficienq lefta .elected for lI.JUl1yl:Ls far 19&1. Alternate leTeI. were 

### .elected to geurate a range ofimpacts for**~.** The 

### izsitiallnel selected. level 4. corresponds 

### to the highest eftidency level coalidered in the

. engiDeeriag 

### malyIi

.. II 

### wu felt that JIW1ufactarenJ coald produce 

### procmc:ta at this efficiency, and these products would not have any safety orreliability 

### )II"O!Xem.I. La."d. 1, 2, 

### and $ correspond to effictencie. 

### lowerthaD that oflnel4.

While not

### aD ofthelle

### leve1a were 

### dilcreetly 

### IIDa1y&ed iD 

### the aDalylill, DOE

### beti.,..,. the c:osts 

### an proportioaaJ to tha 

### effideacylevels couf.dered.

The l.eveacoaaidered. ill 

### today', analysis are 

### senera1ly lowerthan those considered for .tandards in the June 30 proposal. ThiI reflects cha:l:18es made in the engiDeel':lDfa::s.alym.**DOE~** DOt 

### line

## au:ffi'deDt data on heat pa:rpc 

### UId pechge central air cmlditiOQ&l1l. 

### all year

### with ps 

### furnace. to perl'orm the**e~ng** 

### and ecooomil: lID&1yMS for theM**c~**

TAAE**~T'ENlATM** Emc:lecY

FCIA 1117 Rlft CSC'nw. NA COfClI'T'l()NERS ($£A.SOHAL &eMrr ER:1clec'f RATIO, ST1!ER. 

### 8'f'U!WATT-HouR1**~......,...** I"!'oduCI cIaa 1 2 3 

# "

l Split fYlI*lI, -. 0I'i¥. 39,OQO

lhu/IW'

_ b8Icw '.1 '.5 U 10.4 2- Single



## .......... oNr.

• .IIOCl

...... _b8Icw

__ Il3 U Hl.4 11.2 3. Split -..
.... CP'*

39.000 8Wnw

____.

__. 9.1 '.5 U 10.2



# ...**==:"'-..~~** 

# .. 9.1 La**~.4** 1U 5. Sln\lIe**~.** II

,.. - gu

fI.nW:e

..

__•

____•

__. Pl (.) P) PI 

### e. Nt 

# -. opIll 

## .,-. 

# -.



# _._-------_._- I') I') I') (.) 7. Nt -. lingle pecIoIQe.

pump--_. (') I') 1') ")

.. ,.. .........

_ ..... -.ne

0lYy

- ------ P) P) PI 

### r)

Signi[i&atlC8 

## cifEnergySaving3

By the year ZOOS the weighted average efficiency ofnew central air conditioners that would be developed without standards is projected to be

over90 percent ofthe efficiency ofnew central air conditioners developed with standards. EconomicADalysis Document. Table 3-12. Thla would repreaent an increase in the efficiency of central air conditioners ofover 20 percent since 1978 without standards. 

### ld. Were an 

### efficiency standard imposed at

one ofthe following levela, the ORNL Model projectll that over the entire period 1987-2005 the following savings would be attributable to a standard:

Level 1-2.13 Quads. Level 2-2.90 Quads. Level 3-3.66 Quads. Level 4-4.52 Quads. There are. however. certain aspects of the ORNL ModeL which are pecn.liar to

orhave theirgreatest 

### impact on central air conditioners. thatDOE beliens may result ill theM savings being overstated. First, 

### the ORNLModel estimates real income growth at %.4 percent annually, which is higher

### thaD the recent past and 80me forecuts. Since the purchase

# or central.ifconditioners is more sensitive


### to income estimates than the purchase ofother 

### ccm!lJ'ed products, an overestimate ofreal income would produce an crrerestlmate ofnew sales and. thaa. an overntimate ofenergy savings.

### 14450 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 47. No. 64 / Friday. April 2. 1982 / Proposed Rules

Second. the 

### oRNL Model does not distinguish between central air

. 

### conditioners and heat pumps that

. provide central cooling in ita.analysis. By counting and calculating theseheat pumps 

### as cental air 

### conditioners that could besubject to 

### the standardlevels analyzed. whereas in fact they would
not be. the model likely overestimates the savings for central air 

### conditioners that would be attributable to standards. The amount ofoverestimation would depend on the share oftl!e central cooling market that heat pumps would
occupy during the period 1987-2005. DOE does not currently have that information. As of1978, heatpumps appeared to have approximately 13 percent ofthe central cooling market.

Third. the ORNL Model overestimates the saturation level ofcentral air 

### conditioners in 

### the multi·family hou!ling market. That is. the estimated saturation level for multi.family homes includes central heating or cooling systems that

are not specific to. a household unit but service the entire building. 

### See Economic Analysis Doc:u.rrient. Table 

### E17. In 

### many. 

### ifnot most. ofthese cases the central air cooling system would not be a "consumerproduct" as defined in 

### section 321(a)(1) ofthe Act. Including such systems in the ORNL analysis would result in the savings attributable
to standard. being overestimated. Again. 

### however. DOE does not have data to determine the magnitude ofthis**overestimatio~** 

### .

Because DOE does nothave data or a quantitative basis to determine the
amount ofoverestimation that may exist. for purposes ofthis proposed rulemaldng the analysis has proceeded based upon the savings projected by the ORNLModel. DOE solicits comments that would provide a basis for determining the amount of overestimation that the.ORNL Model may make with respect to energy savings attributable to standards for central 

### air conditioners.


### OilandGas Savings

It 

### may be presumed that central air conditioners are more likely found and

more heavily used in the southern parts ofthe United States. 

### It may also be presumed that central air conditioners

are used more heavily in the. summer than at other

### time.s ofthe year.

The oil 

### and gas proportions ofthe

sources for the generation ofelectricity differ substantially among states. and to

a lesser degree depending on the season ofyear. In the sun belt. however. with the exception ofCalifornia and Florida, the states generally use less than the national average proportion ofoll to generate electricity. Thus. there is not a clearregional bias. Moreover. DOE does
not have specific information relating to future years upon which DOE could reasonably rely in order to find a substitute for a national average. Consequently. DOE believes a national
average proportion is an appropriate

measure ofthe oil that would be saved

as a result ofelectricity savings attributable to a standard for air 

### conditioners. Seasonally. however. there is a cleardecrease both absolutely and proportionally in the use ofoil for the generation ofelectricity in the summer compared to the winter or the average for the entire year. 

### Seegenerally Electric PowerMonthly. In 

### 1981 summer

use ofoil was 81 

### percent ofthe yearly average 

### use. [d. 

### Therefore. DOE is de.ereasing the otherwise projected national average use by 

### 19 percentin order to determine the oil savings that mightresult from electricity savings attributable to a standard for air:. conditioners. With these assumptions and limitations. at each ofthe levels. the oil savings over the period 1987-2005 would be:

Level1-Q.05 Quads or 1226 Bpd. Level 2-0.06 

### Quadfl or 1471 Bpd. Level 3-0.08 

### Quads or 1961 Bpd. Level**~.10** 

### Quads or 2451 Bpd. ill 

### The situation with respect to natural
gas is somewhat·different. Use ofgas as

a source for generating electricity in the

summerincreases hoth absolutely and in its proportion oftotal ele<:trical generation. This increase would appear to be primarily the result ofair 

### conditioningload. 

### Ofcourse, only a portion ofthis air conditioningload is causedby residential central or room air conditioners. Most ofthis increase in
gas use. however. is concentrated in four states-Texaa. Oklahoma. Louisiana. and California. Lacking more specific information for future years. however. DOE is forced to use national average proportions ofgas as a source of electrical generation to assess possible indirect gas savings from electricity lIavlngs. To take account ofthe apparent increased proportion ofgas used for air conditioning load. however. DOE is increasing by 17 

### percent the otherwise projected gas proportion. S1 

### With these assumptions and limitations. the gas savings over the period 1987-2005 would be:

.

-In theM computationa. DOE use. U5 pereant aI the utional aV1!l'8llII proportion. whicb iI S1 percent ofthe averap of1990 and 1995'. projected propol'tlou. Si!tl.upra.

.

"In thne cromputationa. DOE UMa 7..z percent aa the utioa.a1 average proportion which il1-17 timea the lWerage

## or 1990 and 1l195·. projected proportiona. Si!tlIUpra. The 17 percent inere

..e ia derived &om the percent increased ute ofnatural gal for the s-ration ofelectricity in the aummer of 1961 compared to the year', averap. 

### Level1-Q.15 Quads or 3677 Bpd (equivalent).

Level 2-0.21 

### Quads or 5148 Bpd (equivalent).

Level 3-0.26 Quads or 6373 Bpd (equivalent).

Level**~.33** 

### Quads or 8089 Bpd (equivalent).

Based upon the above information. DOE believes that the savings ofoil and
gas thatwould be attributable to a standard for central air conditioners would not be sufficient to constitute a significant conservation ofenergy. 68 

### ElectricitySavings

The saving attributable to standards for central air conditioners predicted by the ORNL Model are savings in 

### electricity. The highest level ofsavings. however. is less than .7 percent of national electricity usuage over the period 1987-2005. &II

### Even 

### if the southern portions ofthe nation benefited disproportionately from this savings because ofgreater central air conditioneruse there. such a level of savings 

### is not sufficiently large when spread over almosthalfthe nation and its utilities to have a significant impact

on the environment or measurably affect the need for new generating capacity.



### 20PercentSavings

Over the period 1987-2005 the highest level ofsavings attributable to standards would constitute about 11 percent ofthe energy that would be consumed by central 

### air conditioners

over that period without standards. 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 

## a18. Thus. even at the strictest standard analyzed. a standard for central air conditioners would not result in a savings of20 

### percent ofthe energy that would be used by central air conditioners without standards.


### Conclusion

On the basis ofthe above. DOE believes that a standard for central air conditioners would not result in a significant conservation ofenergy.


### EconomicJustification

a. 

### Cost

### toManufacturers and Consumers.The per unit increased cost to manufacturers to meet the highest

"While the ga. aavi.np at level. 2. 3. and 4 would exceed the 4.400 barrela per day level that bas been con.aidered insignificant. at noted in the general diacuaaion the" iI no .UllIltlation that any excess
over4.400 barrela per day ill .lgnificanLThe maximum figure of8Oll9 barreLt per day II Ie

.. than 

### ..z percent ofpetroleum Imporll and i. Ie

.. than the 10.000 balTlll. per day that DOE would deem .ignilicanL

-Electricity uaap over the period 1967-2005 la estimated to be about 7tlO Quada. See supra.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14451

level ofefficiency ranges from a low of $261 

### for a large manufacturermaking a large split system to a high ofS400 for a small manufacturer making a small package system. Most classes ofthe product have cost increases in excess of $300 

### or over 50 

### percent to achieve the highest level ofefficiency. See Engineering Analysis Document, Table 8.14 and Table 8.15.

The increased price to the consumer 

### if

a standard were set at the highest level ranges from $716 

### for the large split systemto $989 for the small package system. Most classes ofproducthave price increases in excess of$850 

### or 75 percent. The lowestpercent increase in price is 36 percent, for the most expensive class. while the largest absolute increase in price-$989-is for the previously least expensive class. a 97 percent increase In price. 70

### A standard set at level 3 also would result in substantial price increases. ranging from $411 for a large split system to $524 for a large package system. The price Increase for the lU!'!..all split system, with 62 percent ofthe market, is over S400 or 37 percent. At levels 2 and 1. the price increases decline only slightly. See Engineering Analysis Document. Table 8.15.

While lower income persons are the least likely to purchase central air conditioners today, a standard requiring first cost increases ofsuch a magnitude would likely'price not only lower income persons butmany middle income persons out ofthe market for central air 

### conditionerll.

Despite the large Increases in manufacturers' costs the FlM predicts only moderate impacts on central air conditionermanufacturers. see Economic Analysis Document, § 

### 4.5. A prototypical medium-sized manufacturer faces a 10 percentincreasedbusiness risk.

### See 

### id .• Table 4-28. Profitability for the prototypical large 

### firm improves very slightly: profitability for the medium-size 

### firm is reduced 10percent. with the prototypical small 

### firm suffering 10-15 percent declines In profitability as the strigency ofthe efficiency level increases. Id .• Table 4- 29.



### The sensitivity analysis, however. Indicates thatbusiness riskis extremely .eMitive to unanticipated reductions in

-Thne prICl1l1 lu the CODIUIIIe1' ue only the priCllll ndJected In the eIliiD"rlDi analyaia for central airCOlldillOllera made by large The analyaia lDdlcalBll hisherprlcea for produClImade by medlum-aile IIW1waeturen. re1lectlntl thalrbJPercoata. 11Ie lICODOlIIic analyllia, bowever. Indicatea thatlatge IIW1wac:turen ue ,nce leaden lu the Indultry; therefore. medium-aile IIW1wac:turen will notbe able to obtain the pricea reflected for theirproduc:ta. but lDatead will have to foJ:80 the difference. 

### revenues. Forexample. alii-percent reduction in shipments from anticipated levels escalates the increased business risk attributable to a standard at level 3 (the only level tested in the sensitivity analysis) for the prototypical large 

### firm from 

## ato 30 percent, for the prototypical medium-size 

### firm from 10 to 60 percent, and for the prototypical small 

### firm from 5 

### to 20 percent. 71 

### See Economic Analysis Document. Table 5-14.

Because ofthe substantial Investment by manufacturers necessary to meet standards. DOEbelieves there is a substantiallikeV:hood that other Investments by central air 

### conditioner manufacturers will 

### be forgone, Investments that might 

### be more beneficial to the manufacturer. DOE solicits comments on this possible impact ofstandards on manufacturers of central air conditioners.

b. LJfe Cycle CostandNetPresent Value. A standard let atlevel 4 would require a level ofefficiency that would be too high 

### from an LCC perspective. Ratherthan being set at the LeC minimum. level 4is let at B 

### higher efficiency. ranging from 104-112 percent ofthe LCC minimumlevel. For two of the classes this results in an increase in life cycle costs from the 1978 average efficiency. Such a standard would penalize the "average" central air conditioner cons,umer for all classes by banning his optimally efficient air

. conditioner from the market, forcing 

### him

to Incurunnecessarily high 

### life cycle costi!.

A standard .et at level 3 would equal the LCC minimumfor three ofthe four classes ofcentral air conditioners. The

.fourth class would still 

### be too efficient.

TJ

,.. indicated In the General D1l1ClUU1ion aectlon. these impac:te ue fully ac:curete only to the extent that the prototypic:alllzm-dldnotmalta Inveatmenta In improYini appllance effldency aa part ofita hlatorlc:ally Indicated lDvestmeDta. Otherwise. not all Qfthe Investment Indicatedby the englDeerlD& anaIyal8 wouldberequired to be made lu orderto produce appllancea to meetthe required atandard leveL DOE bell

...es .thata measuremeIlt ofthe luCreesed ablpmentwel&bted effldllJlCy of a product between 1978-1887 will bear an orderofmagnitude relatloll to the dec:reesed IIrnatmlll1trequired of &II averll3tlfirmto meeta atandard level. Moreover. DOEbeliev

.. that tha dec:reaaed Investmlll1t requlrem8Ilt would likely haw a aimilarorderof JDqIlltude effect OIl the FJ),f. projected impacta attrlbuteble to atllIldarda. !II the 

### cue ofc:entral air c:ondillooen. the ORNLModal iIldlcatea that the ablPllllllltwel&bted .ffldlll1C1 wiJllDcrease about 22 perc:eutbetwnn 1mand 1887 lu tha abaeIlce of any atandard. Couaequantly. DOE bellevea thatthe nesallve impaeta ac:tual1y attrlbuteble to ataDdarda would likely be aboutfour-flflha oft1loM projected by the FlM.

### nu. c:oDduaion, however. appllea only to the "averap" (!II terlII8 ofthe ahipment weishted ef:fIdllJlCy ofita product), prototypic:al ftrm. The Delallve impaeta aufieredbJ a firm thathad made IlmJted or DO !IlvestmeIlta 1Ilimprovedproduct 

## .mdenc:y would atill approach orbe tbote refla<:ted by the FIM. 

### at 105 percent ofthe LCC minimum. and. therefore. even "average" consumers of this class ofcentral air conditioners would have their optimal central air conditionerbanned. The sensitivityanalysis. however. indicates that persons with low usage rates (rates that in fact may be average in the northern part ofthe Nation) have a different LeC minimum from persons at the national average usage rate for two classes ofcentral air 

### conditioners. See Economic Analysis Document. Table 5- 9. The result ofa IItandard set at level 3. 

### therefore. would be to ban the central air 

### conditioner in two classes ofthat product that would be most economic for large portions ofthe Nation and large numbers ofpersons. These areas and persons would be penalized by having to pay unnecessarily high life cycle costs for efficiencies they do not need in 

### those classes ofcentral air conditioners. One ofthe two classes constitutes over 60 percent ofthe entire central air conditioner market.

A standard set at level 2would be below the average consumer's LCC minimum. for all classes. but still would be higher than the LCC minimum of persons In the northern part ofthe Nation for the same two classes of central air 

### conditioners. Thus. while this level would lessen the number ofpeople disadvantaged and lessen the dollar disadvantage ofthose who remain disadvantaged, by reducing the national mandatory efficiency level. this level would continue to place an unnecessary burden on large portions ofthe central air conditioner consumerpopulation.

Levell is still lowerbut exhibits the

same characteristics as level 2. 

### That is. the minimum allowed efficiency for two classes ofcentral air conditioners exceeds the LCC minimum for usage at a rate that is average for large portions of the Nation.-

The netpresent value for each ofthe levels ofefficiencies is:

Levell-$l.Z3 billion Level 2-$1.27 

### billion Lavel 3-$1.00billion Level 4-$.10 billion Unlike almost every other product analyzed. the netpresentvalue does not Increase 

### 8S the standard becomes more strict, and the barely positive NPV at level 4 Indicates that large numbers of persons would suffernegative net presentvalues. While the maximum NPV is relatively large in absolute tenns compared to otherproducts (although .hared among the 60 million households

overthe period involved it is less than 85 cents peryear. perhousehold). it should be noted that the ratio between the NPV and energy saved is the lowest

### 14452 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47,No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

ofall the products with a positive NPV. This means that it costs consumers more to save equivalent amounts ofenergy through standards on central air conditioners than through standards on any otherproduct. FInally. 

### as noted In the General Discussion section. merely because the NPV Is poeitive does not

mean 

### that all consume1'l obtain a positive benefit compared to the nostandards 

### case. Rather. 

### as i. indicated by the 

### renlts ofthe 

### LCC sensitivity analy.is. the positive NPV for central 

### air conditioners is what remains ofthe positive present velues enjoyed by some consume1'l as a result ofstandards. after subtracting the negative present values suffered by othen.

Much ofthe above discussion highlights the problems created by a single national standard level when
usage and the relative optimal efficiencies 

### are highly regional in character. In the June 30 proposal. this led some commenters to suggestthat DOE adopt regional. rather than

national. standards. After a thorough review of the Act, DOE has concluded that the Act does not permit the adoption ofregional standards. Moreover. as other commenters to 

### the June 30 proposal noted. there are substantial practical problema assocIated with regionalstandarda that
create other types ofburdens.

c. EnergySavings. As indicated above. the cumulative energy savings attributable to standards for central air conditioners during the period 1987-2005

are projected to be:

Level 1-2.13 Quads Level Z-2.90 Quads Level 3-3.66 Quads Level 

### 4-4.52 Quads As noted above. there 

### are elements of the ORNL Model that lead DOE to believe that these savings 

### are likely overestimated.

d. 

### Lessening ofUtility orPerformance of

Products. As indicated In the General Discussion section. DOE established

new classes ofproducts in order to e1lminate any lessening ofthe existing utility orperformance ofcentral air conditioners. As was also indicated In the General DisCU8sion section. however, there i. no assurance that 

### as a result of

### standards disincentivet to investmentin new performa.nce orutility features thatmightreduce efficiency would not lessen the utility or performance offuture products. This is especially true where

### manufacturers will have already been required to make large investments merely to comply with standards.

e. 

### Impactof Le68ening 

### Competition. The determination 

### of this factor muat 

### be made by the Attorney CeDeraL f. NeedtoSavtfEnergy. N indicated In 

### the General Discussion. generally the relative need to lave electricity is lesl than the need to lave 

### oil and gas. Moreover. while standards for central airconditioners 

### are projected to 

### be able
to save a greater amount ofenergy than

a astandard for any otherproduct. the
amount ofelectricity saved I. less than t percent ofthe electricity used in the

. Nation.

There are two**pecuJiari~es** with respect to central air conditioners that affect these general considerations. First. the greaterpart ofJhe energy saved by standards 

### will be concentrated In certain parts ofthe Nation. rather than spread more orless equally over the whole Nation. U Second. air conditioner u.ae is generally associated with summerpeakload for utilities. Generally. savings ofpeak load energy is more valuable to utilities because the
cost ofgenerating Incremental amounts ofelectricity at peakload is higher than
average COlts. Thus. there a greater economic utility in savingpeak-load electricity (i.e•• that often used by air conditioners) than in saving average load electricity (i.e

.. that which is char"teristic ofwhat is used by most other electric products). Nevertheless. the nature ofthe peak load and its relative cost 

### are highly regional in character. Thus. although savings of electricity associated with air conditioners are potentially more valuable than otherforma ofelectricity savings. the need for those savings saved as a result of standards for central air conditioners is even more regionally specific than is the 

### case generally for electricity savings.

g. 

### OtherFactors. Above it was Indicated that the FIM's projected negative impacts on small manufacturers were modest, except where there was an unanticipated shorfall in revenues. 

### As noted in the General Discussion section. however. DOE believes that the FIM understates the impact ofstandards on small businesses relative to other size 

### firms. ThUs. it 

### 1.1 possible that small businesses might suffer severe impacts 

### as a result ofthe large investments that Itandards for central air conditionen would require. DOE solicits comments on these views from small manufacturers of central air conditioners. especially in
terms ofwhat impacts on theirbusiness they would foresee 

### as a result ofthe

TOWhile IDt1I.llmtI:y .- WOG1d expect the

..vtnp IlD be

__trated Ia tIM South. thra may no! be 10 beca

....**d~** OIl die local eledrk:ity price. IlIduced el8aIen<:y**~tlI_y** be**conCllDtra~** In die bigb 11NlJ'll1"l\lloDa. and \!HI urinlla lIttribatable IlD mndude would not lnc:Iude lIavinga that result from Free-market sctivity. costs reflected in the engineering anaylsis.



### Conclusion

The benefits of

### a standard for central air conditioners are that it would save energy and would provide a positive net present value.

The burdens ofa standard for central air conditioners are that (1) It would have a negative impact on small and medium-size fimis; (2) It would increase the price ofcentral air conditioners to such an extent that large numbers of persol1B might not be able to afford 

### them; (3) because ofthe size ofthe investment required ofa manufacturer
to meet a standard. it is likely that other Investments that might be more beneficial to the manufacturer would be foregone; (4) at all standards levels. large numbers ofpersol1B are disadvantaged by having a national. Federal minimum efficiency level set at

a level higher than is most beneficial for them. requiring these persOI1B to pay a higher than necessary life cycle cost; (5) it might create a disincentive to the development ofenergy-using new features; and (6) it might have a significant negative impact on small businesses.

The need to save the energy that would be saved by a national standard for central air conditioners is more regional than national in nature. That is. standards would benefit certain regions
at the expense ofotherregiol1B.

In light ofall the factors discussed here and in the General Discussion. on balance. DOE believes that burdens of

an efficiency standard for central air conditioners outweigh the benefits. n

i. 

### Furnaces-t. Selection ofClasses. A "furnace" is defined as a device designed to be the principal heating

source for the living space ofa**~sidence.** having a heat input rate (accord.in8 to the established DOE test procedures) less than 300.000

### Btu/hr for electric boilers and low pressure steam

or hot waterboilers. or 225.000 Btu/hr for forced-air central furnaces. gravity central furnaces and electric central furnaces.

.. N Indicatedearlier. heat pumps. which constitute Hveral clas

..s ofthe product central air conditioner. are aot included in this rulemalting. Hence. the Nle**pro~** today with respect to central air condltionen does not apply to heat
pumps. Single package ID'ltta with S88 fumaC88 bave
aotbeen analyzed. HOW'lmlr. this product c1au is included in the product central air condilion8l' for pUJ"PO'lM of the ORNL Model. Accordingly. DOE believea that the conclualon that s alandard would
not lIaYe a 8!gnjflcant amount DCeoergy is valid for tIWt cia

... Mon>oVl!t'. bee4use oC Ita amall energy use and aevtnga. DOE believes the burden oCs standard

as this class oCproduct would outweigh its benefita.

### Federal Register 

# I VoL 47. 

### No. 64 

# I Friday. April 2, 1982 

# I Proposed Rules 

### 14453

Within this product type. 

### a distinction is made between "furnaces", when! the heating medium is air. 

### and "boilers" where the hearing medium is water or steam. Furnaces and boilers can be electrically powered. gas-fired or oilfired.

Eleven classes offurnaces are specified by DOE. These classes are distinguished eitherby the type offuel consumed orby performance-related features. which affect utility and efficiency.

Basic models offurnaces are segregated according to whetherthey

use electricity, gas. oroil. The energy efficiencies ofelectric. gas. or oil furnaces are inherently diffen!nt. Electricity is**con~erted** 

### to heat with 100 percent efficiency in a furnace using electrical resistance heating. Both gas and oil furnaces have efficiencies less than 100percentbecause oftheirflue losses. Failure to establish separate classes according to the type offuel used may result in the elimination of models using a certain type offuel.

One performance-related feature which affects utility is the method of heat distribution to the household. Included in this producttype are furnaces which distribute heatby either low-pressure steam (15 psig orless
steam pressure) orhonV'ater. The heattransferprocess from the hot combustion products to air

### is inherently different from heat transfer to water or steam, leading to lowerfuel use efficiences for furnaces. Furnaces and boilers are separatedinto different classes because oftheirinherently different efficiencies.

-

Forced-air furnaces offer the utility of being suitable for use with central air conditioners. central humidifiers, and central air cleaners. Hot water or steam boilers offer the utility ofhaving a distribution system which requires less space than air distribution system. I.e., pipell required less space than air ducts.

Gas furnaces use air 

### circulation systems driven eitherby buoyancy (gravity) orby a blower (forced air). Gravity-type systf:lms offerthe utility of operating without an electrical connection. The efficiency ofgravity gas furnace tends to be lower than the efficiency offorced-air gas furnaces, so
a separate class has been established for gravity gas furnaces. A class ofoil furnaces using gravity to circulate hot airis not specified because DOEis not

aware ofany such units distributed in

commerce.

Another distinctperformance-related feature which affects utility is whether the furnace is installed indoors or outdoors. Anotherperformance-related feature which affects utility is 

### the horizontal configuration ofoutdoorforced-air gas furnaces. This horizontal configuration has the 

### utility ofbeing uniquely adaptable to attics and crawl spaces. Such spaces Is considered an outdoor installation in the DOE testprocedures because It is not in a conditioned space. Since they are installedindoors in unheated spaces, they mustbe insulated butneed notbe weatherized. A separate class ofgas, outdoor, nonweatherproof. horizontal furnaces Is proposed to 'prevent the possible elimination ofthis type ofconfiguration. Outdoorunits. eithervertical orhorizontal. with weatherproofcabinets. have fewer size constraints than the nonweatherproof. horizontal units discussed above. However, no significant difference in efficiency is evident for weatherized. horizontal units when compared to any other outdoorunit. DOE has determined that there exists no utility associated with horizontal units when Installed indoors. Thus. only outdoor. nonweatherproof. horizontal gas furnaces are identified as those having justifiable reduced performance.

The separate classes specifiedby DOE for furnaces are listed at Table 3-9. 

## infra·

2. Design Options Evaluated. The' specific design options evaluated were:

(1) 

### IncreasedHeatExchangerSurface 

### Area. This design optioninvolves increasing the size ofthe heat exchanger
to improve heatrecovery. It 

### can be utilized inboth gas fired and oil fired furnaces and bojIers.

(2) 

### IntermittentIgnition Device (lID). Intermittent ignition devices are used in gas fired furnaces in place ofpilots. The DD's require !llectricaJhook-up.

(3) 

### StackDamper. Stack dampers are used to reduce losses during the standby period. The stack damperis electrically P9werad and wired into the control system so thatIt opens prior to the firing 

### ofthe furnace orboiler and closes after the firing 

### period Is terminated.

(4) 

### PowerBurnerorPower Vent. This design option applies to gas-firedtmits. It 

### involves using a powerblower on the inlet or exit side ofthe unit to promote flow ofthe combustionproducts 

### through the heat exchanger. This optionpermits higher combustion efficiency and reduced standby losses.

(5) 

### IncreasedInsulation. On outdoor units, jacketlosses are reduced by adding insulation. This design option replaces existing insulation with a denserfiberglass having the same thickness as the original insulation.

The design options and public
comment**the~on** 

### are more fully discussed in the Engineering Analysis Document. Chapters 

### D-4 and E-4.



### 3. EfficiencyLevelsAnalyzed. Table 3-9 

### presents the efficiency levels selected for analysis for 1987. 

### Alternate levels wen! selected to generate a range ofimpacts for analysis. The initial level selected. Level 3. corresponds to the highest efficiency level considered in the engineering analysis. It 

### was felt that manufacturers could produce products
at this efficiency, and these products would nothave any safety orreliability problems. Levels 1 

### and 2correspond to efficiencies lowerthan that oflevel 3. While these levels wen! not discreetly analyzedin the engineering analysis. DOE believes the costs are proportional
to the efficiency levels**consl~ered.**



### The levels considered in today's analysis are generally the same as those considered for standards in the June 30 

### proposal.

No energy efficiency levels were analyzed for gas gravity, gas boiler, outdoor. and oil boiler, outdoor. classes offurnaces because ofthe small quantities being produced. No analysis

was conducted for electric furnaces because they operate near 100 percent

. efficiency since all the electric energy is transfernJd into the conditioned space. Losses due to inefficient motors and improvements achieved by added insulation are taken into account because the testprocedures assume that all standby losses are usable heat for the dwelling. Thus. DOEbelieves that it is 

### not technologically feasible to propose energy efficiency standards for this class offurnaces.

TABLE 3-9.-ALTERNATlVE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

FOR 1987 FOR FURNACES (ANNUAL FUEL
UTtUZATlON EFFICIENCY, AFUE, PERCENT

LeYel analyzed

2 3

1. EIec:1r1c.•

_ (ll (ll Pl 2. GM gnMIy (') Pl (') 3. Gas,

_ •• 1ncIoor.••.

___.•..

__.. 76 79 61 4. Gas,

_ •• outdoor. -.lIl- ""'-'llII

_______. 59 66 74 5.Gu.Ion:«l

.... outdoor._ltIIIn

IlOIMU1MIPlDOI.

________•• 71 74 76 

### e.. Gas boiler. 1ncIoor

______••. 75 

### n 79 7. Gas bclijer, outdoor (ll (l) (l) 

### e.. Oil. 1on:«l •• IncIoor.

___._... 75 76 80 t. Oil.

_ .... outdoor

___.

__.. 73 76 7S 10. Oil boiIer.IncIoor.

__•

____• 7S 61 61 11. Oil boiler. outdoor

.

______.. (II (I) 1')

• NaI ..wolYzed.


### Significance of EnergySavings

The ORNLModel predicts thatby 1990 in 

### the absence ofany standards the average new gas and oil furnaces will be

as efficient as what the strictest standard would require. Economic Analysis Document. Table 3-12. 

### This

### 14454 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 47. N". 64 

# I Friday, April 

### Z. 1982 

# I Proposed Rules

would represent 

### a Z8

### percent improvement for gas furnaces and a 14 

### percent improvement for oU furnaces compared to 

### their 1978 

### efficiency levels. Id.Were an efficiency standard imposed. the ORNLModel predicts that there would be no .avings during the period 1987-2005 

### attributable to the standard.

OilandCOlISaV'inp

There would 

### be no oU and gu savings attributable to 

### a standard. ElectricitySaving$

No electricity is savedby the imposition ofstandards at any ofthe levels analyzed.

20

### PercentSavings

Zero percent savings would 

### be attributable to standa.rds.

Conclusion

On 

### the basis ofthe above. DOE believes that standarda for furnaces would notresult in a significant conservation ofenergy. 74


### EconomicJustification



### a. EconomicImpacts on Manufacturers and Consumers. Ofthe

seven classes offurnaces analyzed. gas forced-air indoor furnaces, the least expensive class offurnace, constitute two-thirds ofthe market. The increased

. perunit cost to meet the lowest efficiency level for such furnaces is over $60 

### and to meet the highest level efficiency is over $100. See

### Engineering Analysis Document. Table 4.19.

The price to the consumer to purchase the gas forced-air indoorfurnace that
meets the lowest standard increases $136. orover 30percent. while the price ofa furnace meeting the highest standard increases S220, or over 50 percent. Consequently, DOE believes that the imposition ofan efficiency standard for furnaces would create a significant threat to the ability oflow income.person. to purchue new furnaces. 1'&See

### EngineeringAnalysis Document. Table 4.20.

..Although OOE CI'lHlted teP«I'Ite cla_ of prvducu for

... gravity. p. boiler. oatdoor. aDd oil boUer, outdoor. furucea that bave 1104 been lpeci.fical1y ccmaldered ill the engInMriD& aulyaia.
ute Cycle Coat aulyala. orF1M aulyail. the

.. cl

..... offurucn lJ'IIillcluded ill the product IJpe for purpoeel ofthe ORNLModeL which determlDed tnersY aavi.agl. Accordingly, DOE believes thet the c:oacluaioa thet a.aadMd wvuld Dot remit In a lignificant coaaervatiOll of-fllY ClUJ be applied to the entire product type.

"These prien10 CllMUlDe" _1IMt prien nrilected ill the maJ)'lU ooIy lw produCU made by Iarp llWluUct1IJ'en. The engineering analYli. indicalal higharprice. for the produell made by medJu:m-lilte manufecturen. becau

.. ofthei.r high

.. ca.ta. TIle**~c** 

### The PIM predicts that a prototypical medium-sized manufacturer would suffer a 5 

### percentincrease in business risk at efficiency level. 2 

### and 3. 

### Economic Analysis. Table 4-Z8. 

### Such a percent increase is not considered statistically significant II shipments decrease 15 percentfrom a manufacturer's anticipated level. however, the effects ofstandards would 

### be to increue business risk to 20 percentfor large 

### firms. to 55 percent for medium-sized 

### firma. and to 10percent for .mall 

### firms. SeeId

.. Table 5-14. The FIM predicts that standards would increase the profitability of the prototypical large firm while decreasing 

### the profitability ofthe prototypical small and medium-size firm. 

### At the lowest level of.tandards analyzed. compared
to the 

### base case ofno standards. the medium and small manufacturerhave the saine orreduced profitability in each year 

### begi.nn.ing with the imposition of standards, with the prototypical medium-size manufacturer avera.g:ing a 36 percent decrease and 

### the ama.ll manufacturer averaging a 13 percent decrease inprofitability in the years 1988-1991, compared to a nQ-standards

case. See

### EconomicAnalysis Document. Table A-4-6. At the lowest level analyzed. a medium-size manufacturer's debt/equity ratio deteriorates by.35 percent and a small firm's by almoat 30 percent. See

### Id., Table A-4-9.

,.



### b. Life 

### Cycle CostandNetPreunt Value. An analysis ofthe life cycle coat results ahoWllthatfor furnaces the most

atW:r1ia. bowenr, lDdlcata thai the large JDa.11Ufactu.rera are the price leaden ill the iDdualry. Tbare{0I'II. medlum-li.lte manufacturen will aol be able to obtain the hlgherprice renected for thelt product, but IDIlnd will line In

## torso the difference.

..AI. IDdIeatedill the GeIlillfll1 Discualon le<:tion, these impacu are fully accurate only to tha extent thet the p,mtot'yplcal firm did not make iDveatmentl ill improvtns appU_ efticlency as pert ofill**hiatmcall~** todicatedlDvntmenta. Otherwtae. DOt all oi the illve.tment Iodieated by the enginMrinc atWYlil would

## uvw 10be made ill order to produce appliances to meet the required efflct8l1cyleveL DOEbell_ thet a meuurelll4lt11 ofthe Increaaed ahlpmentweighted efilde:ncy ola product 1915 lIIId 11181 will bear IJI orderoimqnitude relation to the dec:reaaed iIIveatm8l1trequited of IJI averqa llrm to meet a .aadard level ),{oreover. DOS beu.re. thet the decreased tona1meat requfred wvaJd IlbIybew a IIimllarCII"derof mqaitude effect OQ the FIM'I projected lm.pactl attributable to ltandarda. In the caM offumacu. because the ORNL Model prvjecta that the ahlpment weiPtedefflcllIIICJ' ill tlIe abeenCII ofany ItAlDdard will l'Ilach thebicl-t ItUdard Ieni by 1lll11, there should be 11IO Ileptlw Impact OD the

..n

.....• (iD terms ofthe IiI.lpmenl weighted affldency ofIII product). prototyplca1llrm altrlb1ltable to ltaDdarda. Ofc:o_ Ifa pc1ic1I.I&l' llrm bad falIad to lDveat III Improved prod1llct eficle:ncy, ncIl tbalill product'. lbipment weighted efliciency bacI DDt 10 improved. then that firm would Ilkely lufFer negatfYelmpaell al luggeated In tIte FIM. 

### eficient model studied had the lowest life cycle cost.

The 

### NPV analysis indicates that if 

### a standard were adopted for gas furnaces
at any level studied. there would be a negative net present value to the Nation ranging from 

### S20 million to $30 million



### over the period 1967-2028. 

### At a level 3 standard for oU furnaces. the analysis indicates that there would be a positive
net present value of$20 

### million. DOE believes these figures are so small as to be not statistically significant.

Co 

### Energy

### Savings. Ar. 

### indicated above. there would be zero energy savings resulting from standards.

d. 

### Less.ening ofUtility orPerformance of

Products. As 

### indicated above. DOE established classes ofproducts in order
to assure that the standards analyzed would not lessen the existing utility or performance offurnaces. As indicated in the general discussion. however, there is

no assurance that future utility or performance offurnaces would not be lessened by standards.

.



### e. Impactof Lessening Competition. The determination ofthis factor must be made by the Attomey General.

f. Needto Save

### Energy, There are no savings ofenergy associated with standards for furnaces.

g. OtherFactors. As 

### indicated In 

### the General Di8CU8sion section. DOE believes the impacts on small businesses are underestimated relative to other size firms. Consequently, DOE believes the negative impacts described above with respectto small businesses

are understated relative to the impacts described for other size firms.
Conclusion

There are no benefits resulting from a standard being set at any ofthe levels analyzed.

The burdens ofa standard are that: (1) It 

### could adversely affect the financial well-being ofsome medium and small size furnace manufacturers; (2) 

### it would adversely affect lower income

consumers by increasing purchase prices ofnew models; (3) it could lessen the utility orperformance ofthis product in the future by creating a disincentive to the development ofenergy-using new features: and (4) 

### manufacturers of fumaces mightforego investments that

are more beneficial to them.

In 

### light ofall the factors discussed here and in the General Discussion section. 011 

### balance. DOE believes that the burdens ofan efficiency standard for furnaces outweigh the benefits.a

faAlthoqh DOE a'Nted separate cl"l" of producll fot 881 gravity••al boiler. outdoor. and oil boiler. outdoor. fumaeel that have not been
Continued

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14455

327{b)(3) ofthe Ad. a Slate government may peUtIoD tile 5eI::nlter)' I'IIq'IIeItiftl a nde that a State

or local &OoI1'lD' effideacy I1aDda.rd GC' om. reqw.r.-t with twpeet 10 ...." efficiency or energy

_ of a co.,.....;1 product. not be superae<led by the Federal rule. However, a loc:al sovemment may not submit ncb a petition.

(2) any energy efficiency standa.rds or other requirement with respect to energy efficiency

or energy uae of• coveredproduct.

After a review of

### thia provision and otherportions ofthe Act the DOE has concluded that the supersession ofthe State regulation oCCUl'B on the effective date ofthe Federal final rule, and DOE haa so provided in proposed 1430.33.

The effective date ofthe rule for the eight covered products is proposed to

occurgenerally 180 days after the date ofthe final rule's publication 

### 1n the Federal Register. See section 325(i)(4) of the Act. However, 

### if a State government petitions the DOE for a rulemaldng under section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act, the DOE proposes to delay the effective date ofthe rule for that State for the covered products involved in the proceeding until the Secretaryreaches a final determination on the petition. 

### See proposed 1430.34. This 

### will ensure that addition. section 327(b)(1) ofthe Act. permits any person subject 

### to a State or local efficiency standard, including standards for products not covered in this proceeding, to petition the Department to ptellQ"ibe a rule that supersed

.. the State orlocal standard.

Previously DOE had established at 10 

### CFR Part430, SubpartD, procedural regulations for petitions by entities that wished to have rul

.. prescribed to supersede a State orlocal appliance efficiency standard. 42 FR S4264 (October 5, 1977). The DOE later proposed to amend the rule to include a State petition for a rule that a State or local energy efficiency standard not be preempted. 45 FR 43976, at 44026 Uune 30, 1980). 

### The June 30 proposal included burdensome requirements for information. a discretionary hearing procedure and a petition for reconsideration process that was mandatory for exhaustion of administration remedies. As discussed below, the rule proposed today simplifies many ofthe provaions set forth in the June 30 proposal.

As part

### ofthia proposed rulemaking, the DOE has reviewed the question of the time ofpreemption ofState orlocal efficiency standards by the Federal rule.

Section 327(a)(2) ofthe Act provides that:

'I'lu. part supersedes any State regulation insofar as such State regulation may now or hereafterprovide forIV. Preemption ofStale**R~tions**

As part oftoday's proposal, DOE is proposing to establish varying effective dates for its proposed rule not 

### to impose any energy efficiency standards for the eight covered products. DOE is also settiD& forth regulations to implement section 327(b){3) ofthe Act. and to revise the regulations that currently implement section 327(b)(1) ofthe**~t.** These proposed regulations 

### are reqwred
to give both States (section 327(b)(3)) and otherpeI'llOns (section 327(b)(1)) an opportunity 

### to petition the agency for a review ofState or local efficiency standards or**o~er** requirements with respect to energy efficiency or energy

use ofa coveredproduct (the standards). 

### In the past. some State 

### and local governments have implemented appliance energy efficiency standards. 

### If DOE adopts the rule proposed today not to adopt energy efficiency standards with regard to each ofthe eight products, any State aridlocal appliance efficiency standards that may cover those products would be superseded pursuant to section 327(a)(2) ofthe Act. Any State orlocal appliance efficiency standard with respect to these products adopted after the effective date ofthis rule also would be preempted. 111

State governments may, however, peititon the Departmentpursuant to section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act· either'to maintain or to implement State orlocal
energy efficiency standards for particular covered products.·o 

### In

ipedllcally <lCImidered In the llll8!neerin8 analysia, Life Cycle Cost lll.1ylIis. orFIM malylia. DOE believes tbat t.be amount ofmergy that could be saved by a sta.udard for lheM cluaea La 8X1ame1y

sman. aft aupra. Couequeotly, DOE believes tbat such saviIigs. compared to lhe llkely burdelUl lhat would relult from a staDdard impoeed OIl but tbnIe cI

..... ofa prodlICt. aDd those cia-. 

### bein8
smaller in numbers ofunits. dollan of aa.les. or energyused. indicate that the burdeoa ofa sllU1dard for the

.. cla

...s outweigh their benefill.

Tilt Ie DOE"s opinion that the preemption of State and local eoero tflideDcy ate.ndarda by oectioa 327(a)(2) of the Ad would !nchKIe t.be pnemptioa of Stete or local sta.udarda tbat adopted appUan<:e effidency requirllmentl inclnded In the AmericaD Society ofHeatins- Refrl3"ntlon. aDd AIr Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard flO. Similarly. Metion 321(a)(2) oftba Ad would fUPllrI8de a State orloca1all'ideacy sta.udard reqnireiDg Intermlttentlpltion dPtcea on gsa buminC appU

__ Itabouldbe DOted.lIowever. that thia

## ..-.u**~ptlOD** ofState and local
energy efBciomc:y IIlanda.rda would occur even if DOE adopted energy el!ideocy staDdarda ror covered produc:tll, Iflhe State and local nandardll
were nottIM

__ u \be Feden.l1Itandard. DOE lnvita commeatII 011 the typet ofStete aDd loc:al standa.rd. wh.Ic.b ID8Y be preempted by lDday's propoeeci rule aDd the \mpecll 01 ncb preemption.

..Underaec:tIoIIll ofthe Ad. "'State" meana "a Slate. !he Dlmct ofCoIWDbia. Pucto R.Ico. GC' any territory or**~iOll** ofthe IJDIted Stetea." Section 321{d) 01 tbaAd. defiDea the term "State regulation" u "a IlIw orregulation ofa State 01' politiClllllUbd:mlriOll thereof." Thus. mder MCtloft 

## • • • 

# .. 

# .. no State orlocal appliance efficiency standards will be terminated until the State has had a 

### full opportunity to presentits case to the agency.

. The procedural rules set forth in Part 430, Subpart D. however, will be effective 30 days after their publication in final form in the Federal**R~ster.** These procedural nLles, unlike the rules proposed today thatprescribe no Federal energy standard for the eight covered products. are not constrained by the provisions ofsection 325(i)(4). That provision prohibits rules establishing energy efficiency standards from taking effect less than 180 days from their publication in the Federal Register. Procedural rules, such as those
set forth in proposed Subpart D, must only adhere to the provision set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.c. 553(d).

The Department

### will review State petitions to maintain existing or implement new State regulations pursuant to the 

### three statutory standards setforth in section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act The Departmentmust make
two findings: that there is a significant State or local interest to justify the State regulation; and that the State regulation contains a more stringent energy efficiency standard than the Federal standard. However, no rule may 

### be prescribed 

### ifthe Department finds that the State regulation would unduly burden interstate commerce. 11

The Departmentmust. ofcourse, treat such petitions 

### as requests for rulemaking and must adhere to general rulemaking procedures. The DOE must conduct an environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of1969, 42 U.S.c. 4321, to determine whether or not the adoption ofthe proposed rule 

### will be a major Federal action having a significant impact on the quality ofthe environment. The DOE must also consider the impact ofthe proposed regulation on small busine8lles pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U,S.c. 601 

### atseq. Finally, under Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 1393, February 19, 1981), the DOE would be required to prepare a regulatory impact analysis 

### ifDOE determines that the propsed rule is a majorrule, 

### as that tenn is defined in the Order. These reviews. however. in most cases will likely result in findings ofno major impact.

n Similarly. In rapondlng to • manufacturer's petition pu1"lIuaDt to section 327(b)(1) of the Act. th<! Department mal' pI'IMCrlbe a rule pl'ftlnpting in wbole or in pert a Stelll regulation if it finds no si3nificant 511111 or local interest sumcientto jl1.ltify such e regulation and that the State regulation unduly burdens intel'ltBIII commerce. See §430.47.

### 14456 Federal Register 

## I VoL 47, No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

In its petition for rulemaking, a State
must present information which would appear on its face to show that the State's regulation is more stringent than the Federal standard and that there is a significant State**o~** 

### local interestin issuance ofthe State's regulation. The State is not required to provide information concerni.l:lg the State regulation's impactupon inteI'lltate

commerce. A peI'llon opposing the State's petition should present

. information which would,appear onits face to show that the State's proposed rule would place an undue burden on inteI'lltate commerce. Such a peI'llon may also present information to rebut the State', initial submission. Information presented by both the State and opposing peI'llons would be open for
comment 

### and rebuttal

Similarly, in a petition submitted under section 327(b)(1) ofthe Act, the petitioner must provide information which would appear on its face to show that there is no State orlocal interestin the contested regulation and that the State's rule unduly burdens inteI'lltate

commerce. This presentation would be subject to comment and rebuttal by any parties supporting or opposing the petition.

In review petitions submitted under sections 327(b)(1) and (b)(3) ofthe Act, the DOE

### will evaluate and analyze all factual and legal materials presented by the petitioneI'll and all other interested

oropposing parties. It 

### is DOE's intention in applying section 327 to determine whether a State standard unduly burdena inteI'lltate commerce by balancing 

### ths slgni.ficant State interest in having a standard with the burden on inteI'lltate commerce created by the standard. In assessing the burdens ofa standard. DOE 

### will be guided by the principles ofE.O. 12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Because ofthe requirement in section 327(b)(3) that DOE find a significant State orlocal interest in a State effficent standardbefore DOE can issue a rule exempting the State standard preemption. it does not appearpossible
to issue a rule tht would make a blanket deterination for all States withrespect

. to the same efficiency standard. It 

### should be noted that the Department has proposed to review only Slate regulations that are appliance efficiency standards. The Department is proposing to not review State orlocal regulations that have only a peripheral effect on the energy efficiency ofa coveredproduct. The statute at section 327(a)(2) clearly provides that only those regulations which provide for 

### "any ene1'8Ystandardorotherrequirement with respect 

### to energyefficiencyor energyuse ofa coveredproduct" 

### will be supeI'lleded. (Emphasis added). Thus, a rule that established the energy efficiency ofa particular appliance would be supeI'lleded by the Federal rule and would be subject to review upon the petition ofthe State, A rule whose purpose is otherthan energy efficiency such as a law on fire 

### safety, would not appear to be preemptedby the Federal rule, even 

### if it

### has a secondary and incidental effectofimproving the efficiency ofa covered product.

In addition to the specific proposed provisions discussed above. Subpart d includes the following provisions. Proposed § 

### 430.42 sets forth filing 

### requirements for petitions submitted under section 327(b)(1) and (b)(3) ofthe Act. This rule Includes the requirement

.as F 43O.42(b)9) that each Slate serve all affected manufactureI'll ofcovered products with its petition. Such a requirement, however, could be onerous 

### ifmany firms manufacture a particular covered product. The DOE seeks
comments on whether such a requirementis needed to assure that all affected parties receive notice ofa State's petition. orwhether the burden ofthe requirement on the State would outweigh its benefits to the affected firms. The DOEproposes, 

### as an alternative to proposed § 

### 43O.42(b)(2). to deem service on affected manufacturers to be accomplished by a notice ofthe petition published in the Federal Register. 

### The DOE requests comments from manufactureI'll concerning the feasibility ofsuch a proposal.

Proposed § 

### 430.43 indicates the notice requirements for each petition. Proposed § 

### 430,44 includes the requirements for both States and those subject to a State regulation with respect to their submission ofpetitions for supeI'llession. 

### As previously noted. these requirements have been significantly reduced from the June 30proposal. Instead ofthe complex economic analysis required by the June 30 proposal today's proposal requires only information needed to satisfy the statutory criteria set forth at section 327 ofthe Act. Hence. this proposed rule is substantially easierfor a petitioner to utilize.

Sectin430.45 proposes to allow DOE
to consolidate any or all matters atissue In two ormore proceedings pending before the agency. Thus. for example. petitions submitted by both a Slate wishing to retain ormake effective a standard. and a manufacturer wishing to have that standard supeI'lleded couldbe consideredin a single proceeding. Section430.46requires the Secretary to hold public hearings to afford interested parties an opportunity to present their

. views as required by section 336{a)(1) of the Act.

As 

### discussed above. § 

### 430.47 proposes the criteria for evaluating petitions. as set forth in section 327(b)(1) and 327(b)(3) ofthe Act.

Section 430.48 

### proposes procedures for the disposition ofpetitions, similar to those proposed on June 30. The DOE has proposed at 

### I 430.49 to make the Secretary's decision on a petition final agency action for purposes ofjudicial review,

As 

### this briefdescription indicates. the procedural rules proposed today are both simpler and much less burdensome than those proposed on June 30, 1980.

V. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. and Small 

### Entity Impact

### Reviews

The Department

### bas reviewed today's proposed action in 

### accordance with the Dep.artment's obUgations under:

• The National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 

### et Beq.). the Council on Environmental Quality'regulations implementing the procedural provisions ofNEPA (40 

### CFR Part 1500 etseq.) and the Department's

own NEPA regulations (10 

### CPR Part 1021):

• Executive Order 12291 (46 

### FR 13193, February 19. 1981) which pertains to agency review ofthe impact ofFederal regulations: and

• The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

### U.S.C. 601 etBeq.) 

### which requires. in part. that an agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any proposed rule unless itdetermines that the rule 

### will not have a "significant

. economic impact on a substantial

number ofsmall entities," In the event that such an analysis is not required for

a particular rule. the agency must publish a certification and explanation ofthat determination in the Federal Register.

The Department's proposed action does not contemplate the imposition of Federal energy efficiency standards on any ofthe products which are the subject oftoday's notice. The rule would, moreover. supersede any substantive State standards for these products unless the Department, upon State petition. issued a rule which permitted a State to have an energy efficiency standard or standards.

Therefore, the Department believes that implementation oftoday's proposal would result in 

### few, 

### if any, differential impacts upon the environment or the economy. Including the economic affairs of"small entities" as that term is used in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Department, moreover, expects to consider relevant environmental and

### Federal Resister 

## I Vol. 47. 

### No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 14457

(


# , economic factors in 

### taking action on petition. to preserve or supersede State standard. 

### meier section 327{b) 

### ofthe Act. Conti.tentwith 

### this. the Department today is 

### propoliJIi that petitioo8J'll provide relevant

. environmental and economic information. Interested personl would also have an opportunity to provide information on these matters and to comment on petitioners' submil8ions, in the context ofthe proposedrulema.kings initiated by petitions.

A. 

### EnvironmentalReview

The Departmentproposes to establish

no energy efficiency standards for 8 

### types ofconsumerproducts, pursuant to its authority under section 325 ofthe act. Further, by operation 

### ofthe Act. 

### all State energy efficiency standards 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 ac:tion potentially haa 

### three elements: (1) 

### No establishment ofenergy efficiency standards In those States that do not

now have standards in effect (2) Federal approval ofcertain State standards (i.e., exemption from Federal preemption); and (3) 

### Federal "supersession" ofcertain existing State standards.

The first element clearly would not 

### be environmentally significant since itis simply a continuation ofthe 

### status quo.

As for the second element. in all easel where DOE Is requested to approve .• State standards DOE 

### will conduct an appropriate NEPA review on a ease-bycase basis. It 

### il anticipated that the vast majority ofthese easel 

### will be adequately covered 

### by the Environmental Assessment (EA) 

### (DOE! EA-o(13) and the Addendum to the EA 

### which the Department prepared and issued on the impact ofsetting 

### and implemented energy efficiency standards for all 13 type. of

### consumer product. Identified in section 322(a)(1)- (13) ofthe Act. A FIndiJliofNo Significant Impact and Notice of Availability ofthat EA

### were published with the June 30proposedrule for minimum energy efficiency .tandards for eight ofthe productl (45 FR 44086). Copi81 ofthatEnvironmental AsseHment and addendum may 

### be obtained from the add.rea indicated 

### at the beginning ofthiI notice.

It is

### j:Joaaib1e that a State

### with existing standards will not 

### leek exemption from preemption orwill be denied an exemption from preemption. 

### The Departmenthas reviewed this potential third 

### element of

### the proposal and determined 

### on the 

### basi. ofinformation contained In 

### the above-mentioned EA that any impacts auociatedwith preempting existing State standards would not have signiflcant environmental impactl.

The Department

### has accordingly 

### determiDed that the propoeed action wouldnot 

### be • majorFederal action significantly effecting the quality ofthe human environment and that an Envi.r!Jnmental Impact Statement ia 

### not required under the 

### NEPA.



### B. RegulaJoryImpact

### Review

In light ofthe foregoiJIi analysis ofthe effect ofthe proposed action. DOE has concluded that the rule is not a "majQr rule" for p\1l1>Olea ofExecutive Order 12291 

### because it will notresult In: 

### (1) An 

### annual effect 

### on the economy of$100 

### million or more; (2) 

### a majorincrease in
costs orprice. for consumers. individual industries, Federal, State, orlocal government agencies. or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects

on competition. employment. investment. productivity, innovation. or

on the ability ofUnited States-hased enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic orexport marketl. Therefore. in accordance with section 3(c)(3) ofthe Executive Order. which applies to rules otherthan major rules. the proposedrule was submitted
to OMB for review without. regulatory impact analysis.

Although the proposed rule 

### fa not a "majorrule" 

### as defined In Executive Order 12291. 

### DOE has followed the philosophy set forth 

### in the Executive Order. Thaa. regulatory alternatives

were considered In the-process of formulating the proposal and the potential costl and benefitl ofthe proposal were 

### extensively analyzed.

Finally, as mentioned above. the Department Intends to consider the regulatory impacts. consistent with Executive Order 12291, 

### ofall rules propoaed 

### in response to petitions to preserve or supersede State standards under aectioD 321{b) 

### ofthe Act.



### C SmallEntityImpactReview



### In lightof

### the foregoing. 

### the Departmenthas determined and hereby certifies pum1&ntto section 605(b) ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act that the proP/)sal. 

### ifpromu.1gated will not have a "significant economic impacton a substantial numberohman entities. H



### Although the Departmenthas concluded thatno 

### formal regulatory flexibility analyst. 

### need 

### be prepared. the spirit ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act is fully evidentin the extensive cost-benefit analyses. examination of altematives, and otherworkundertaken

. in preperation ofthe proposed rulemaking. The impacts on small businesses which are appliance manufacturers were assessed very closely together with other relevant factors. Indeed. under section 325(d)(7). the Department specifically added the pOSlible impact on small businesses to the factors considered in weighing the benefits and burdens ofpossible standards. Forpurposes ofassessing these impactl. the term "small business"

was defined in consultation with the Small Business Administration.

In addition. as mentioned above. the Department will consider, as appropriate. any significant economic impact on small entities in deciding petitions to preserve or supersede Siate standards under section 327(b) ofthe Act.



### VI. Public CommentProcedures

a. 

### Participation in Rulemaking. DOE
encourages the maximum level ofpublic participation possible in this rulemaking. Following publication ofthe advance notice ofproposed rulemaking, DOE held a total ofseven public meetings to acquaint the public with the issues relating to this particular rulemak.ing and invited public participation In the rulemaking process; following publication ofthe June 3Q, 

### 1980. notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE held five public meetings and two public hearings. There were also opportunities for the public to submit written
comments on 

### the advance notice and the latternotice ofproposed rulemaking.

The Department again encourages interested persons to participate in this rulemaking. Individual consumers. representatives ofconsumer groups, manafacturers' associations, States or other governmental entities, utilities. retailers, distributors, manufacturers. and others 

### are urged to submit written
statements on the proposaL The Department alao encourages interested
persons to participate in the public hearings to 

### be held in Washington. D.C., and Chic:ago.1Jlinois. at the times and places indicated at the 

### beginning of this notice.

Two technical support documents have been prepared in connection with this proposedntle and 

### are often referenced above In the text ofthis preamble. They are the Engineering Analysi. Document and the Economic Analysis Document. Copies ofthese docwnentl may 

### be found in the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room. Intereeted persons may obtain copies of either orboth ofthese documents by writing 

### to the address specified at the beginning ofthis notice.

### 14458 

### FeCleral 

### Register 

## I Vol. 47. No. 64 

## I Friday. April 2. 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

The DOE has established an initial
comment period of75 days following publication ofthis notice. for persons to comment upon this proposal. Upon completion ofthis 75-day 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 ofInformation Reading Room. Comments on comments received will be accepted during the following 45-day period. The DOE believes that this additional 45-day period will enable interested parties an opportunity to review other submissions and present information relevant to them.

b. 

### Written CommentProcedures. 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 ofthis notice and below. It is requested that, wherever reasonably possible. comments for each product type be addressed separately and that comments regarding the generic sections ofthe rule. such as petitions to exeI;1pt State regulations from supersession. be addressed separately from the product specific comments.

Comments should 

### be labeled both on the envelope and on the'documents, "Appliances (Docket No. CAS-RM-7&- 110)," and must 

### be received by the date specified at the beginning ofthis notice. in order to insure 

### full consideration. Fifteen copies are requested to be submitted. All comments received by the date specified at the beginning of

, this notice and otherrelevant information will be considered by DOE before final action is talcen on the proposed regulation. The initial
comment period will extend over a period of75 days. Comments on the
comments submitted to DOE during the initial 75-day period will be accepted for

an additional 45 days following the close ofthe initial comment period.

All written comments received on the proposed'rule will be available for public inspection at theFreedom of Information Reading Robm as provided
at the beginning 

### ofthis notice.

Pursuant to the provisions of10CFR 1004.11. any person submitting information or data which is believed to be confidential and exemptby law from public disclosure. should submit one complete copy ofthe document, and 15 copies. 

### ifpossible. from which the information believed to 

### be confidential has been deleted. DOE will make its

own determination with regard to the confidential status ofthe information or data 

### and treat it according to its determination.

Factors ofinterest to DOE, when evaluating request. to treat as confidential information that has been submitted include: (1) A description of the item; (2) an indication as to whether and why such items ofinformation have been treated by the submitting party as confidential. and whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry: (3) whether the information is generally known or avallable from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to ' others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation ofthe competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) an indication as to when such information might lose its ' confidential character due to the passage oftime; and (7) whether disclosure ofthe information would be in the public interest.

Co 

### Pl.JbJicHearings. 1. 

### ProcedureforSubmitting Requests


### to Speak. In order to have the benefit of

a broad range ofpublic viewpoints in this rulemaking. DOE will hold two public hearings. Usted at the beginning ofthis notice are the dates. addresses. and DOE contracts for these hearings. Any person who has an interest in these proceedings, or who is a representative ofa group or class ofpersons having an interest, may make a written request for

an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the public hearing. Such requests should be labeled both on the letter and the envelope, "Appliances {Docket No. CAS-RM-7&-110)," and should be sent to the address and must 

### be received by the time specified at the beginning ofthis notice.

The person making the request should briefly describe the interest concerned and. 

### ifappropriate. state why he or she is a properrepresentative ofthe group'

or class ofpersons that has such an interest, and give a telephone number where he or she may be contacted. Each person requesting an opportunity to speak should give a concise summary of the proposed oral presentation. Each person selected to 

### be heard 

### will 

### be so notified by DOE by the date specified at the 

### beginning ofthis nO,tice.

Eachperson selected to be heard is requested to submit 15 copies ofthe
statement by the date given at the beginning ofthis notice. 

### In the event any persons wishing to testify cannot meet this requirement, alternative arrangements can be made with the Office ofHearings and Dockets in advance by so indicating in the letter requesting to make an oral presentation. Lists ofthe persons. selected to be heard at the hearings will be available
upon request from the Office of Hearings and Dockets at the address and after dates specified at the beginning ofthis notice. The lists will also be available for inspection in the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room as specified at the beginning of this notice.

2. 

### Conduct of Hearing. DOE reserves the right to select the persons to be heard at this hearing, to schedule the respective presentations. and to establish the procedures governing the conduct ofthe hearing. The length of each presentation is limited to 20 minutes.

A DOE official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The hearing will
not be a judicial or an evidentiary-type hearing, but will be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and section 336 ofthe.Act. At the conclusion ofall initial oral statements at each day ofthe hearing, each person who has made an oral statement will be given the opportunity to make a rebuttal statement, subject to time limitations. The rebuttal statements 

### will be given in the order in which the initial statements

were made. The official conducting the hearing will accept additional comments

or questions from those attending. as time permits. Any interested person may submit to the presiding official written questions to be asked ofany person making a statement at the hearing. The presiding official will determine whether the question is relevant and whether time limitations permit it to be presented for answer.

Further questioning of speakers will be permitted by DOE. The presiding official 

### will afford any interested person

an opportunity to question. with respect to disputed issues ofmaterial fact, other interested persons who have made oral presentations, as well as Federal employees who have made written or oral presentations, relating to the proposed rule. This opportunity will be afforded after any rebuttal statements, to the extent that the presiding official determines that such questioning is likely to result in a more timely and effective resolution ofdisputed issues of material fact. II the time provided is sufficient or inconvenient, DOE will consider affording an additional opportunity for questioning at a mutually convenient time. Persons interested in making use ofthis opportunity must submit their request to the presiding official no later than shortly after the completion of any rebuttal statements and be prepared to state specific justification. including

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47. No. 64 

## I Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 / Proposed Rules 

### 14459

why the issue is 

### one ofdisputed fact and how the proposed questions wquId expedite theirresolution.

Any further procedural rules regarding
proper conduct ofthe hearing 

### will be announced by the presiding official.

A transcript ofeach hearing 

### will be 'made. and the entire record ofthis rulemaking. including the transcripts. 

### will be retained by DOE and made ' available for inspection at the DOE Freedom of

### Informatl'on Reading Room

as provided at the beginIling ofthis ' notice. Any person may purchase a copy ofthe transcript from the transcribing reporter.



### In consideration ofthe foregoing, it is proposed to amend Part 430 ofChapter II 

### ofTitle 10. 

### Code ofFederal Regulations. as set forth below.

ISSlled in Washington. D.C.• March 29.1982. Joseph

### J. TrIbble. AssistantSecretary. Conservation and RenewableEnergy.


### List ofSubjects in 10 CFR Part430

Administrative practice and procedure. Energy conservation. Household appliances.

PART 43O-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS



### 1. Section 430.2 is revised to read as follows:


### 1 430.2 DeflnltloM.



### "Act" means the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163). 

### as

. amended by the National Energy Conservation PolicyAct (Pub. L. 95-619).

"Consumerproduct" means any

, article (otherthan an automobile. as

.

defined in section 501(1) ofthe Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) ofa type:

(a) Which in operation consumes. or is designed to consume.**energy~** 

### and

(b) Which, to any significant extent. is 

### distributed in commerce for personal

use or consumption by individuals; withoutregard to whether such article of such type is infact distributed in

commerce for personal use or consumption by an individual.

"Covered product" means a consumer product ofa type specified in section 322 ofthe Act.

"Energy efficiency standard" means a perfomiance standard:

.

(a) Which prescribes a minimum level ofenergy efficiency for a covered product. determined in accordance with
test procedures prescribed under section 323 ofthe Act, and

(b) Which includes any other requirements which the.Secretary may prescribe under section 325(c) ofthe Act. "Manufacturer" means any person who manufactures a consumerproduct

"Person" includes any individual. corporation. company. association. 

### firm. partnership, society, trust. jointventure

orjoint stock company. the government and any agency ofthe United States or any state orpolitical subdivision thereof.

"Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

.

"State" means a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any territory
,or possession ofthe United States. "State regulation" means a law or regulation ofa State orpolitical subdivision thereof.

Z. 

### Subpart C ofPart430 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart C-Energy Efficiency Standards

430.31 Purpose and scope. 430.32 Final energy efficiency standards. 430.33 Preemption ofstate regulations. 430.34 Effective date.

Authority: Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. 1.. 94-163. as amended by Pub. 1.. 95-619, Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974. Pub. 1.. 93-275, as amended by Pub. 1.. 94-385: Department ofEnergy Organization Act. Pub. 1.. 95-91; E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267. 

### Subpart C-Energy Efficiency Standard.

1430.31 Pwpose and acope.



### This subpart contains any energy efficiency standards for classes of covered products that are required to be promulgated by the Department of Energy pursuant to the energy conservation program for consumer products other than automobiles under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 etseq.).

1430.32 FlnalllMfllY efflclenc:y lltan<Iards.



### The final energy efficiency standards for each class ofcovered products are:

(a) Refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers: No standard for 

### all classes.

(b) Freezers: No standard for 

### all classes.

(c) Dishwashers: [Reserved]. (d) Clothes dryers: No standard for 

### all classes.

(e) Waterheaters: (1) Forthe clasaes gas. electric, electric table top and oil: No standard;

(2) Forthe class heat pump water heater: [Reserved],

'(f) 

### Room air conditioners: No standard for 

### all classes.

(g) 

### Home heating equipment, not including furnaces: [Reserved].

(h) 

### Tefevision sets: [Reserved]. (i) Kitchen ranges and ovens: No standard for 

### all classes.



# m Clothes washers: [Reserved]. (1<) 

### Humidifiers and dehumidifiers: [Reserved]. 

### (1) Central air conditioners: (1) 

### For the classes which include all split systems and single package units which do not operate with a heat pump: No standard.

(2) 

### For the classes which operate with

a heat pump: [Reserved].

(m) Furnaces: No standard for all classes.

1430.33 P""imptlonofltate regulations.



### Any state regulation providing for any energy efficiency standard. or other requirement with respect to the energy efficiency or energy use, ofa covered product that is 

### not identical to a federal standard (including a determination of

no standard) in effect under this subpart is preempted by that standard.

§430.34 Effective 

### date.

The effective date ofa final energy efficiency standard (including a determination ofno standard) in §

### 430.32 shall be the later of:

(a) 180 days afterpublication ofthat standard in the Federal Register; or

(b) With respect to a covered product in a particular state for which that state has filed a petition under section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act prior to the effective date ofa standard under §

### 430.32. the date upon which the Secretary issues or denies a final rule concerning that petition.

3. SubpartD or"Part430 is revised to read as follows:
SubpartD-G4tneral Procedural RegUlations

Sec. 430.41 Petition for prescription ofa rule. 430.42 Filing requirements. 430.43 Notice ofpetition. 430.44 Contents. 430.45 Consolidation ofproceedings. 43O.116 Hearings and comments ofinterested
persons. 430.47 Evaluation ofpetition. 430.48 Disposition ofpetition. 430.49 Judicial review.

Authority: Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Pub. 1.. 94-163 as amended by Pub. L. 95- 619, Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974. Pub. 1.. 93-275, as amended by Pub. 1.. 94-385: Department ofEnergy Organization Act. Pub. 1.. 95-91: E.O. 12009. 42 FR 48267. 

### SubpartD--General Procedural Regulation

1430.41 PetItIon fOt pmlCf'lption ofa rule.



### (a) Pursuant to section 327(h)(1) ofthe Act. any person subject to a state regulation may petition the Secretary for

a rule to supersede in whole orin part that state regulation prescribing an energy efficiency standard or other requirementrespecting energy use or

### 14460 Federal Register 

## I Vol 41, No. 64 

## f Friday, April 2, 

### 1982 

## I Proposed Rules

energy efficiency ofa typa (or clan) of covered products.

(b) 

### Pursuant to 

### seeton 327(b}{3) 

### ofthe Act. any Itate may petition the Secretary for a rule that a state regulation preacribing an energy 

### efficiency standard or 

### otherrequ.i.remeD.t respecting energy use or 

### energy efficiency for a type (or class) of coveredproducts not be superseded.

§430.42 AlI119 ntqUInImentL

_



### {a) A petition for a r:ule under this section shall be submitted in triplicate
to: U.s. Department ofEnergy, "Section 327 Petition-Energy Efficiency Program for ConsumerProducts", 1000 

### Independence Avenue SW.• Washington. D.C. 2OS8S.

(b)(1) 

### A petition for a rule to 

### supersede a state or local regulation and all related submissions shall be served
upon each state agency. department. or 

### instrumentality whose l"e8Uiation the petitioner seekB to 

### supersede.-

(2) 

### A petition for a nxle not to 

### supenJede a 

### state or

### IGC41 regu.lation 

### and all related submissions shall be served

on each manufacturer ofa covered product 

### who. to the best ofthe petitioner's knowledge. would be affected by the state regulation which the petitioner seeks to sustain.

(3) 

### All materials required to be served under this Part shall be served personally or by registered or certified mail. Service upon a person's duly authori2:ed representative shall constitute service upon that penon. Service by registeredorcerti.fiad mail

## w complete upon mailing.

(c) 

### Uthe DOE determines that there is insufficient information upon which 

### to base 

### a decision and 

### ifupon requelt 

### the
necessary additional information

## a DOt submitted. the DOE may deny the petition withoutprejudice. The Seaetary 

### shall publish notice ofsuch a denial in the Federal Register and the

reason for such a deniaL

(d) 

### Ua petitionerorotherparty tei a petition wishes to claim confidential
treatmentpursuant to 5 

### U.S.C. 552 

### or 18 

### U.S.C. 1905, 

### for any information containedin the petition or 

### other document submitted prior to the issuance ofa final 

### decision. that person shall submit together with the original document. a copy 

### of the document in 

### triplicate. from which has beendeleted the information for which such person wishes to 

### claim confidential treatment. The penon thall indicate in 

### the original 

### document that it il CIOIlfidential or containa confidential information and shall file a ttateme.ut 

### .pec.iI;yi.ns the justificatioo for 

### DOO-diec101ur8 ofthe

. information for which coDfidential '
treatment is claimed. 

### Uthe pel'8OJlltates that the information comes within the exception in 5 

### USC. 552(b)(4) 

### for trade
secrets 

### and 

### commercial or financial information. 

### web penon shall Include a statement 

### apec:i.fyi.ng why such information il privileged 

### or confidential. 

### Ii the penon filing • 

### document does oot submit a leCOod copy ofthe document with the confidential information deleted. the DOE may assume that there is no objection to public disclosure of the document in 

### im entirety.1'he DOE retains the right to 

### make Its own determination with regard to any 

### claim ofconfidentiality. Notice ofthe decision by the DOE 

### to deny such claim. in 

### whole

orin part. and an opportunity to respond shall 

### be given 

### to a penon clai.ming confidentiality ofinformaoonno less than five 

### daf1l priorto its public disclosure.

§ 430.43 Nottce of petttlon.



### Promptly after receipt ofa petition. notice of

### suchpetition shall be published In 

### the 

### Fed.ral Register. The notice 

### ahall setforth 

### the availability for public review 

### ofall data and information available, and shall solicit comments, data and information with respect to 

### the petitioo. 

### Each notice lhall contain a summary ofthe state or

### local regulation at issue and either (1) 

### the petitioner's reuexa for

.. rule to 

### supersede the state or

### local regulation.

or (2) 

### the petitioner'. reasons for a rule
not to 

### supersede 

### the regulation. Except

as may otherwiH 

### be specified. the period for public comment shall be 60 

### days after the notice appears in 

### the Federal Register.

§430.44 

### Content&.

(a) Apetition to supersede a state regulation under section 327(b)(1) 

### ofthe

. Act 

### ahall include: (1) 

### The name. addresses 

### and telephone number ofthe petitioner;

(2) A 

### statement ofthe interest ofthe petitioner for which a superseding rule is sought;

.

(3) A coP7 ofthe law orregulation for 

### whk:h supersession is sought;

(4) 

### Specification ofeach type or class ofproductfor which a superseding rule is 

### sought;

..

(5) 

### information which would thow why such regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce:

(6) 

### Information which would show that there il no li8nificant ltate or

### local interest sufficient tojusti.{y 

### the state regulationin 

### islue;

(7) 

### Any otherinformatioo that the petitioner considers 

### relevant 01' 

### that the Secretary may require.

(b) 

### A petition from a state for a 

### rule for exemption from supersession ofa atate regulation under section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act shall include:

(1) 

### The name. address and telephone number ofthe petitioner;

(2) A 

### statement ofthe petitioner's authority to represent the governmental entity in 

### thi.a preceeding;

(3) 

### Acopy ofthe law or regulation which the state orlocal entity requests not be superseded:

(4) 

### Specification 

### ofeach-type or class ofproduct coveredby the regulation;

(5) 

### A description ofthe significant
state orlocal interestjustifying such
state regulation;

. (6) 

### Any other information that the petitioner considers relevant or that the Secretary may require.

(c) 

### All petitions and comments by interested persons shall be made available for public review.

§430.45 ConsolIdatIon of procMdlngs.



### DOE may consolidate any or all
matters at issue in 

### or more proceedings docketed where there exist

common questions offact and law, and where such consolidation would expedite or simplify consideration ofthe is.uel. Coo.solidation shall not affect the right ofany party 

### to raise issues that could have been raised 

### if consolidation had not occurred.

§430.48 Hearlll9s and comments of Interested persons.



### (a) The Secretary shall hold a public hearing to afford interestedpersons a reasonable opportunity to present oral data. vieW'll. and arguments with respect to the proposed rule, and publish notice in the Federal Register ofthe date and location ofthe hearing.

(b) The Secretary shall accept written
comments from interested persons with relpect to the proposed rule.

§430.47 Evaluation of petltlon.



### (a) In 

### evaluating 

### a petition submitted pursuant to section 327{b)(1) ofthe Act. 

### the Secretary .hall issue a requested role only 

### if the Secretary determines:

(1) There is 

### no sisnificant state or local interest sufficient to justify 

### such regulation; or

(2) Such state orlocal regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce.

(b) In 

### evaluating a petition submitted pursuant to section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act. the Secretary 

### shall issue the requested rule only 

### if the Secretary determines:

(1) 

### There i. 

### a significant state or local interest to justify .uch regulation; and

(2) Such state or local regulation contains a more It:ringent energy efficiency standard that such federal standard; except that the Secretary may not prescribe such rule ifhe finds that

### Federal Register 

# I Vol. 47, 

### No. 64 

# I Friday, April 2, 1982 

# I Proposed Rules 

### 14461

such state orlocal regulation would unduly burden interstate commerce.
§430.48 Dlapoaltlon of petition.



### (a) The Secretary shall prescribe a final rule or deny the petition within 

### 6 months after the date the petitionis filed. except that the Secretary may publish a notice in the Federal Register extending such period to a date certain. Suchnotice shall include the reasons for the delay.

(b) 

### The final rule issued by the Secretary or a determination to deny the petition by the Secretary shall include a written statement setting forth the factual and legal basis for the decision. A copy ofthe Secretary's decision shall be 

### sent to either (1) 

### the petitioner and the affected state orlocal agency if

### the petition is for a rule to supersede a state regulation, or (2) 

### the petitioner and all persons subject to the state regulation who have submitted comments ifthe petition is for a rule not to supersede a state regulation. The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice ofthe final rule or a notice ofthe denial ofthe petition and the factual and legal basis for the decision.

§430.49 Judicial review.



### The decision issued by the Secretary concerning a petition filed under this subpart shall be a final determination of the DOE ofwhich any adversely affected person may seek judicial review.

[FRDoc. 82-8844 Flied**+-1~** 8:45 amI

B1WNG COOE fI4SO-01'"