### 17712 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy



### 10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No

. CE-RM-88-1011

Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products ; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for
Dishwashers

, Clothes Washers, and Clothes Dryers

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION : Advance Notice of Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY : The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), requires the Department or Energy to administer a program of energy conservation standards for 12 types of household appliances. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking addresses the requirement of EPCA: to consider amending the energy conservation standards for dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers. The purpose of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking is to : (1) Present for comment the product classes that DOE is planning to analyze; (2) present a detailed discussion of the expected analytical methodology and analytical models that the Department expects to use in performing the analysis to support this rulemaking; and (3) facilitate the gathering of information prior to publishing the notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES : Written comments in response to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking must be received by the Department by July 18, 1988.

ADDRESSES : Written comments are to be submitted to: U.S. Departmen of Energy,
Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of Hearings and Dockets, Energy Efficiency Standards forConsumer Products, Docket No. CERM-88-1o1, Room 6B-025, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
9320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Barry P. Berlin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation andRenewable Energy, Mail Station CE132, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9127 Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station GC-12, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202)
586-9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Introduction a. Authority b. Background 11. Methodology III. Models, Data and Assumption a. Engineering Performance Models and Costing Analysis 1. Appliance Classes 2. Baseline units 3. Design options 4. Maximum technologically feasible designs 5. Performance models 6, Costing analysis 7. Price-efficiency relationships 8. Data sources 9. Outputs from the Engineering Analysis b. LBL Residential Energy Model (LBU-REM) 1. Structure 2. Housing stock submodel 3. Efficiency choice algorithm 4. Thermal integrity 5. Modeling efficiency standards 6. Turnover of appliance stocks
7. Calculation of market shares 8. Usage behavior 9. Energy consumption calculations
10. Model outputs 11. Other consumer impacts c, Manufacturer Impact Models 1. Conceptual approach a Measures of impact3. LBL Manufacturer Impact Model (LBLMIM) 4. Data sources d. Utility Impact Model e. Sensitivity Analyses
IV. Comments a. Questions for Public Comment
b. Comment Procedures

1. Introduction

a. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, and by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), Pub. L.100- 12,' created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other
than Automobiles. The consumer products subject to this program (often
referred to hereafter as "covered products") are: refrigerators-refrigerator-freezers and freezers; room air conditioners; central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps;

I Part B of Title III of EPCA as amended by NECPA and NAECA, is referred to in this notice as the "Act." Part B of Title III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 at seq

. Part B of Title III of EPCA, as amended by NECPA only, is referred to in this notice as
NECPA. water heaters; furnaces; dishwashers; clothes washers; clothes dryers; direct heating equipment; kitchen ranges and ovens; pool heaters; and television sets; as well as any other consumer product classified by the Secretary of Energy. See section 322. To date, the Secretary has not so classified any additional products. Under the Act, the program consists essentially of three parts: testing, labeling, and Federal energy
conservation standards. The Department of Energy (DOE or Department), in consultation with the . National Bureau of Standards (NBS), is required to amend or establish new test procedures as appropriate for each of the covered products. Section 323. The purpose of the test procedures is to provide for test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs of each of the covered products. Section 323(b)(3). A test procedure is not required if DOE determines by rule that one cannot be developed. Section 323(d)(1). Beginning one hundred and eighty days after a test procedure for a product is adopted, no manufacturer may represent the energy consumption of, or the cost of energy consumed by the product except as reflected in tests conducted according to the DOE procedure. Section 323(c)(2). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is required by the Act to prescribe rules governing the labeling of covered products for which test procedures have been prescribed by DOE. Section 324(a). These rules are to require that each particular model of a covered product
bears a label that indicates its annual operating cost and the range of estimated annual operating costs for other models of that product. Section 324(c)(1). Disclosure of estimated operating cost is not required under
section 324 if the FTC determines that such disclosure is not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically feasible. In such a case, FTC must require a different useful measure of energy consumption. Section 324(c). At the present time there are FTC rules requiring labels under the Act for the following products: room air conditioners, furnaces, clothes washers, dishwashers, water heaters, freezers, refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and central air conditioners. 44 FR 66475, November 19, 1979, and 52 FR 46888, December 10, 1987. 

### For each of 11 of the covered products, the Act prescribes an initial Federal energy conservation standard. Section 325(b)-(h). The Act establishes

### Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

effective dates for the standards in 1988, 1990, 1992 or 1993, depending on the product, and specifies that the standards are to be reviewed by the Department within three to ten years, also depending on the product, Section 325 (b) through (h). After the specified three- to ten-year period, DOE may promulgate new standards for each product; however, such standards may not be less stringent than those initially established by the Act. Section 325(1)(1). The Act also directs DOE to review, for possible amendment, the energy conservation standards on dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers, and
to issue a final rule no later than January 1, X990, for units manufactured after January 1, 1993. Section 325(g)(4)(A). The Act also permits the Department to prescribe standards for any other type of consumer product that, using certain criteria, DOE may classify as a covered product. Section.325 (1), (1) and (m). Any new or amended standard is required to be designed so as to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. Section 325(i)(2)(A). Section 325(1)(2)(B)(i) provides that
before DOE determines whether a standard is economically justified, it
must first solicit comments on a proposed standard. After reviewing comments on the proposal, DOE must
then determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors: (1) The economic impact of the
standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard; (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in this type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (6) The need for national energy conservation; and 

### (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. In addition, the Act specifies criteria for petitions to DOE in regard to amendments to standards. Section 325(k). Under the Act, any person may petition the Department to amend a Federal energy conservation standard for any covered product. Section 325(k)(1).


### •b. Background

NECPA required the Secretary, by rule, to prescribe energy efficiency
standards for each of 13 covered products.2 These standards were to be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that was technologically feasible and economically justified. NECPA provided, however, that no standard for a product was to be
established if there were no test procedure for the product, or if DOE determined by rule either that a standard would not result in significant conservation of energy, or that a standard was not technologically feasible or economically justified. In determining whether a standard was economically justified, the Department
was directed to determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceeded its burdens by weighing the seven factors
set forth above. NECPA specified the priorities and procedures to be followed in adopting efficiency standards. Nine of the 13 covered products were given priority. These nine products were: refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, clothes dryers, water heaters, room air conditioners, home heating equipment not including furnaces, kitchen ranges and ovens, and central air conditioners. The DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the nine first priority products on January 2, 1979. 44 FR 20. On December 13, 1979, the DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for dishwashers, television sets, clothes washers, and
humidifiers and dehumidifiers. 44 FR
72276. An advance notice for central air conditioners (heat pumps) was published on January 23, 1980. 45 FR
5602. After receiving comments on the advance notices, on June 30, 1980, DOE published its first proposed rulemaking for the nine products. 45 FR 43976. (Hereafter referred to as the June 1980 proposal.) The June 1980 proposal set forth DOE's proposed energy efficiency

2 The consumer products covered by NECPA included: refrigerators and refrigerator

-freezers; freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; water heaters; room air conditioners ; home heating equipment not including furnaces ; television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers: humidifiers and dehumidifiers; central air conditioners; and furnaces. 

### 17713

standards for these covered products. It also proposed comprehensive requirements for certification and
enforcement of the standards and procedures for processing petitions by States that sought exemption for regulations subject to the general preemption requirements of NECPA. On April 2,1982, DOE issued a further notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the nine priority products. 47 FR 14424. (Hereafter referred to as the April 1982 proposal). With respect to eight of the products, DOE proposed to
make a determination that a standard would not result in significant conservation of energy and would not be economically justified.3 The April 1982 proposal also proposed rules governing petitions to DOE both by States to obtain exemption from preemption of State or local energy efficiency standards, as well as by manufacturers to obtain preemption of
State or local standards. On December 22, 1982, DOE published
a final rule in which DOE determined that efficiency standards were not warranted for clothes dryers and kitchen ranges and ovens. 47 FR 57198. (Hereafter referred to as the December 1982 final rule.) At that time, DOE also adopted final procedures by which States might obtain exemption for State or local efficiency standards from Federal preemption, and by which manufacturers might obtain preemption
of a State or local standard not otherwise preempted. On August 30,1983 , DOE published a final rule with respect to the remaining six covered products; refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, water heaters, furnaces, room air conditioners
and central air conditioners. 48 FR 39376. (Hereafter referred to as the August 1983 final rule). For each of the six products covered by the August 1983 final rule, except central air conditioners, DOE determined that an energy efficiency standard would not result in significant conservation of energy and would not be economically justified. With respect to central air conditioners, DOE found that an energy efficiency standard would result in significant conservation of energy, but would not be economically justified. On April 1, 1985, DOE published a proposed rule with respect to four covered products: dishwashers,

8 The April 1982 proposal did not propose any rule with respect to the product type "home heating equipment, not including furnaces" or with respect
to that class of the product water heaters made up of heat pump water heaters or with respect to those
classes of the product central air conditioners that are heat pumps.

### 17714 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

television sets, clothes washers and
humidifiers and dehumidifiers. 50 FR 12966. (Hereafter referred to as the April 1985 proposal). For each of the four products covered by the 1985 proposal, DOE proposed that an energy efficiency standard would not be economically justified and would not result in a significant conservation of energy. During 1983, DOE's December 1982 and August 1983 final rules were challenged in a lawsuit brought by the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and others against the Department. On July 16,1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals set aside DOE's December 1982 and August 1983 final
rules. NRDC v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Consequently, on March 5, 1986, DOE published notices in theFederal Register removing the December 1982 and August 1983 final rules and withdrawing the April 1985 proposal. 51 FR 7549 and 51
FR 7582. The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), which became law on March 17,1987, amended EPCA in part by: redefining "covered products" (specifically, refrigerators/ refrigerator-freezers, and freezers were combined into one product type from two; humidifiers and dehumidifiers were deleted; and pool heaters were added); establishing Federal energy
conservation standards for 11 of the 12 covered products (with television sets being the exception); and creating a
schedule for which these standard levels are to be reviewed to determine if they
should be amended. The effective date
of NAECA's standards for the three products being addressed in this ANOPR was January 1, 1988. The Act directs DOE to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR), with a 60-day comment period, in advance of the Department's consideration of prescribing a new or amended standard. Section 325(m)(1). On December 7,1987, DOE published such an ANOPR with respect toconsideration of amending the NAECAimposed standard levels on ' refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers

, of establishing a small gas furnace standard between 71 percent and 78 percent efficiency, and of considering energy conservation
standards for television sets.
Publication of the final rule in the Federal Register for which this
document is an advance notice is scheduled'by January 1, 1990. The

purpose of this rulemaking is to review, for possible amendment , the energy
conservation standards for dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers, that
have been established by the Act. 

### II. Methodology

This section provides a brief description of the analysis of the impacts of standards. It offers an overview of the analytic methodology, and discusses the major components of the analysis: the Engineering Analysis, the Manufacturer Analysis, and the Impact Analysis which includes the Consumer Analysis. The section also discusses the interrelationships among the components which ensure consistency throughout the analysis. A later discussion, Impact Models, Data and Assumptions, describes the computer models used in the analysis. The models predict the response of consumers, manufacturers, and utilities to future changes in the economy, including the imposition of energy conservation standards. Quantitative estimates of the impacts of standards will be calculated from the outputs from
the models. The models that will be utilized in the analysis are: • Engineering Performance Models. Consumer Impact Models. • Manufacturer Impact Models. • Utility Impact Model. 

### The function, data sources, assumptions and validity of the results for each model are discussed below. The impact of appliance conservation standards will be determined by - comparing projections under the base case,4 with the projections under potential standards. These projections will first be made for a base case by use of the analytic models described below. The calculations will then be repeated imposing the potential standard levels.

The differences between the projections of the energy consumption
and economic variables in the base and standards cases provide quantitative estimates of the impacts of the standards. To evaluate the significance of the differences, 'a sensitivity analysis will be performed on the key parameters and assumptions. 

### The economic analysis will be performed in the following areas: • An Engineering Analysis, which establishes the technical feasibility and product attributes including costs of design options to improve appliance' efficiency. • A Manufacturer Analysis, which provides an estimate of manufacturers' response to the proposed standards. Their response is quantified by changes in several financial performance

measures.

* The base case assumes implementation of the conservation standards that were set by the Act. • A Consumer Analysis, which forecasts appliance sales, efficiencies, energy use, and consumer expenditures. • A separate Life-Cycle Cost Analysis to evaluate the savings in operating expenses relative to increases in purchase price. • A Utility Analysis that measuresthe impacts of the altered energyconsumption patterns on electric
utilities. • An Industry Impact Analysis that provides the financial and competitive impacts on the appliance industry. • A Cost-Benefit Analysis that collects the results of all the analyses
into the net benefits and costs from a national perspective. Each analysis area will be performed for each of the three products under
consideration. The results of the Engineering Analysis will be reviewed by DOE to determine whether standards for each product could yield measurable energy savings. If standards would not yield energy savings, for example, if there is no combination of design options that would result in improved product efficiency, the analysis will be terminated. If energy savings are possible, then a detailed analysis is performed. For dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers, the analysis will be performed for a base case plus
three levels of standards. The levels to be analyzed will be selected after the Engineering Analysis is completed and
reviewed. There is interaction among the Engineering, Consumer, Utility and Manufacturer Analyses. The Engineering Analysis establishes appliance designs and related attributes such as efficiency and costs. Based on the relationships between the prices and efficiencies of design options, the Consumer Analysis forecasts sales and efficiencies of new and replacement appliances. These data are used as inputs to the Manufacturer Analysis,
which uses them to determine the
financial impacts on prototypical firms within the industry. The Consumer Analysis also forecasts energy savings and consumer expenditures on the purchase and operation of the appliances. Consumer expenditures (both purchase and operation) are employed in the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis to determine consumer impacts. Changes in sales, revenues, investments, and marginal costs of utilities are calculated from the energy savings in the Utility Analysis. Three periods of time are considered by the analysis. First, the analysis extends over a time period that is
consistent with the lifetimes of each of

### Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules 17715

the products. Second, the Manufacturer Analysis is performed for a typical year after the standards have been imposed. The typical year selected is the fifth, by which time all major impacts of a standard would have occurred. Third, the Engineering Analysis examines the technical feasibility of improving the efficiency of the covered products
before the standards are effectivewithin the next three to five years.

III. Models

, Data and Assumptions


### a. Engineering Performance Models and Costing Analysis

The Engineering Analysis addresses two statutory requirements. The first requirement is the Department's
evaluation of the maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are technologically feasible. The second
relates to the lessening of utility to the consumer of any of the covered products due to the imposition of standards. In addition, the Engineering Analysis provides information on efficiencies, manufacturing costs, and appliance prices to other components of the overall analysis. The features of appliances that provide utility to the consumer are incorporated into the analysis through the creation of appliance classes. Classes are a subset of appliance types. For example, clothes washers comprise an appliance type, while front-loading washers comprise an appliance class. The Engineering Analysis develops cost and efficiency data for a set of design options within each appliance class. These data are the output of the engineering performance models and costing analysis discussed in subsections 5-9, below.


### 1. Appliance Classes

The first step in the Engineering Analysis is to segregate product types into separate classes to which different energy conservation standards apply. Classes are differentiated by the type of energy use ( oil, natural gas orelectricity), or capacity or performancerelated features that provide utility to the consumer and affect efficiency.
Classes are differentiated in order to ensure that consumer products having different capacities or other performance-related features affecting efficiency and utility remain available to

consumers. For each of the three appliances, the following are the classes that the Department plans to review. DOE welcomes comments, in response to today's notice, on whether additional
classes are needed. (i) Dishwashers. The following are the
classes of dishwashers that the Department is proposing to examine:
Compact Dishwasher

Standard Dishwasher Water Heating Dishwasher, Compact (115V) Water Heating Dishwasher, Standard (115V) Water Heating Dishwasher, Compact (230V) Water Heating Dishwasher, Standard (230V)
Compact dishwashers use less water and energy than standard size
dishwashers. While standard size
dishwashers have an exterior width greater than or equal to 22 inches, compacts have an exterior width less
than 22 inches.4A Water-heating dishwashers have the ability to heat incoming hot water. Water-heating dishwashers allow for a lower inlet water temperature since they can operate at that temperature by providing internal water heating in at least one wash phase. 

### (ii) Clothes Washers. Six classes of clothes washers are specified in this notice. These are:

Front Loading
Suds Savers Top Loading, Compact Top Loading, Standard Top Loading, Large Top Loading, Semi Automatic
Front loading washing machines use less water than top loaders; since most of the energy used by a clothes washer is for heating water, front loaders, by using less water, consume less energy. On the other hand, top loaders spin the clothes dryer. Suds savers can reuse
suds and warm water from an earlier wash by pumping them back into the washer; therefore, less energy is used since less water is heated. The Department is planning to divide top loading washers into three classes by capacity: compact (1.6 cubic feet, or less), standard capacity (1.6 to 2.59 cubic feet), and large capacity (2.6 cubic feet, or greater) since the size of the unit affects the amount of water used and, in turn, the amount of energy used. Inaddition, a separate class for semiautomatic clothes washers is specified, since the Department has estimated higher hot and warm water usage for semi-automatic than for fully automatic
clothes washers. (iii) Clothes Dryers. Five classes of clothes dryers are specified in this
notice. These are:

'" These definitions of "standard" and "compact"
differ from the definitions in the Federal Trade Commission's Appliance Labeling Regulations,

where a "standard" size dishwasher is defined as one capable of cleaning 8 place-settings at a time. Therefore, some dishwashers that the FTC classifies as "standard" would be classified as "compact" by these proposed classes. - Electric, Standard Electric, Compact (120V) Electric, Compact (240V) Gas, Standard Gas, Compact

These classes are distinguished by different energy sources and by performance-related features. Gas and electricity are the energy sources. The performance-related features include drum capacity and application voltage.
Class distinctions were considered based on the type of control used to end the drying cycle but are not being proposed. The three types of control systems are: (1) a present time control, (2) an automatic temperature- sensingcontrol, and (3) an automatic moisturesensing control. The energy efficiency for a dryer is related to these controls. However, product classes based on
these controls were not established because: (1) the test procedure accounts
for effects of controls with a field use factor, which gives efficiency "credits" for automatic controls; and, (2) the Department does not believe that automatic controls provide utility to the

consumer, Product classes were established for electric dryers based on drum capacity and application voltage. The test procedures specify two sizes of drum capacity. These are: (1) compact, electric dryers with a drum capacity of less than 4.4 cubic feet and (2) standard -electric dryers with a drum capacity of 4.4 cubic feet or more. The compact dryers tend to be less energy-efficient than the standard dryers. Also, since compact dryers provide utility-they are suitable for small spaces-a separate class was
established for them. Separate product classes were established for compact electric dryers, based on appliance voltage. The 120-volt dryer tends to dry clothes at lower temperatures and for longer time periods than the 240-volt dryer. In general, the 240-volt dryer is less energy-efficient, because, by operating at higher temperatures (even for shorter time periods), it consumes more energy per load. Many consumers feel that the 120- volt dryer has utility because it can be installed anywhere, while the 240-volt dryer must be near a 240-volt outlet. Since the 240-volt compact electric dryer is less energy-efficient and provides utility to consumers, a separate product
class was established for it. A clothes dryer's efficiency is related to its drum capacity. Larger drums have a higher thermal capacity and, therefore, require more energy to reach a desired temperature than do smaller drums. Since the test procedure uses a fixed load size, independent of drum size.

### 17716 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

larger capacity dryers use more energy per pound of clothes, as measured by the test procedure. In addition, the air flow through the tumbling clothes is affected by the ratio of the load size to
the drum size. If small loads are used in large drums, the air tends to bypass the clothes, increasing the energy required to dry the test loads. Using the same test
load for all sizes of standard dryers means smaller capacity standard dryers have higher energy efficiency (as measured by the test procedure) than large capacity standard dryers. Relationships between efficiency and capacity were derived from data submitted by individual manufacturers. Testimony submitted by industry on the June 1980 proposal indicated that gas units would have the same relationship between efficiency and capacity as
electric ones do. Data from these sources all indicated a distinct negative relationship between capacity and efficiency for standard size electric units; that is, the larger the drum size, the lower the efficiency. The same relationship was assumed for electric and gas units. For compact units, the
available data were inconclusive about the relationship between efficiency and capacity. In some cases, as capacity increased, efficiency increased; in other cases, the opposite relationship existed. In any case, the extent of the relationship was small. Therefore, the standard for compact dryers was assumed to be independent of capacity.

2. Baseline Units

For the purpose of generating a cost/ efficiency relationship the Engineering Analysis needs to define a starting point or baseline. The Engineering Analysis

uses information gathered from trade organizations, manufacturers, and consultants with expertise in specific product types to select a baseline unit. In past analyses a baseline unit represents a typical model within an appliance class sold during the base year of the analysis. For this analysis,
DOE intends to use the same baseline units as in the April 1982 (for clothes dryers) and April 1985 (for dishwashers and clothes washers) proposals.5 Once identified, each baseline unit is characterized by its efficiency-related design options.

3. Design Options 

### The Engineering Analysis will identify individual or combinations of design

6 See Consumer Products Efficiency Standards Engineering Analysis Document, March 1982, DOE/ CE-0030 and Technical Support Document Energy Use Projections for Four Consumer Products, DOE/ CS/20315-1, March 1985. options with a potential for improving energy efficiency. Design options that are currently on the market or that are likely to be on the market by the time standards are effective January 1, 1993,
will be considered. 

### The following is a list of design options that will be examined:
(i) Dishwashers (A) Improved Food Filters (B) Improved Spray Arm Geometry (C) Improved Fill Control (D) Modified Sump Geometry (E) Optional Power Dry (F) Reduced Inlet Water Temperature (G) Improved Motor Efficiency (H) Increased Insulation
(ii) Clothes Washers

(A) Eliminate Warm Rinse (B) Improved Fill Control (C) Water Use Reduction From Changed Configuration (D) Reduced Thermal Mass (E) Saved Suds (F) Added Insulation (G) Improved Motor Efficiency (H) Thermostatically-Controlled Mixing Valves (I) Electrolytic Dissociation of Water (J) Ultrasonic Vibration
(iii) Clothes Dryers (A) Automatic Termination by Moisture Sensing (B) Automatic Termination by Temperature Sensing (C) Added Insulation (D) Condenser Use (E) Recycle Heat Exchanger Use (F) Inlet Air Preheat (G) Modified Operating Conditions (H) Heat Pump Use (I) Microwave Dryer Use 

### 4. Maximum Technologically Feasible Designs
The analysis also will identify the combination of design options in each class that DOE believes would yield the highest efficiency and could be commercially produced by the time standards are effective. This represents the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level.

5. Performance Models

Computer simulation models will be used to determine efficiency levels for various design options for dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers. The energy consumption of these appliances is based on data collected by DOE, including measured performance data obtained from manufacturer testing.

6. Costing Analysis 

### The manufacturer cost data are being obtained through a process that includes meetings and evaluation of manufacturing facilities, manufacturers' costing data, and review of the data received. The cost data that will be presented for each product class will represent the average of figures
obtained from at least two different
sources. It will be in the form of incremental cost data disaggregated into labor, purchased parts, materials, shipping/packaging and tooling.

7. Price-Efficiency Relationships

The results of the EngineeringAnalysis are summarized in the priceefficiency relationships that show the efficiency, unit energy consumption, and cost of each design option, and combination of design options, for each appliance class. Manufacturer and dealer markups are applied to the manufacturing costs to determine the purchase price of the appliance. The price-efficiency relationships are a fundamental input to the Consumer Analysis,

8. Data Sources

Shipments, data will be based on information from industry sources and published data from industry trade
associations . Cost of purchased - materials and parts will be based on quotations from the suppliers of these
items. Data on engineering and labor

costs are to be taken from on-site visits to manufacturing plants and published

sources.
.9. Outputs From the Engineering Analysis 

### For each combination of design options considered, the models and data provide: • Energy efficiency (expressed as the DOE energy factor); 6 • Increased material, purchased parts, labor, and investment costs for 

### medium 7 and large manufacturers by product class; • Annual energy consumption per unit (based on DOE test procedures); • The relationship between price and efficiency level by product class; and • Other information on product characteristics, such as maintenance

costs.

### b. LBL Residential Energy Model (LBLREM) Early energy demand modeling focused on engineering estimates or on

The energy factor is a measurement of energy efficiency derived from the DOE test procedure for that product.

7 As was the case with the April 1982 proposal, small manufacturers will not be analyzed separately. No general manufacturing approach

could be identified for these firms because of the wide variability in their approach to manufacturing. Therefore, small manufacturers costs have been assumed to equal those of medium manufacturers.

### Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

the relationship between energy consumption and economic growth. In the 1970's, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) developed the first model to integrate these two important aspects, the Engineering-Economic Model of Residential Energy Use (ORNL Model). That model was brought to Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) in 1979, and adapted to the analysis of Federal appliance efficiency standards.
The ORNL Model used in the earlier rulemakings has been documented in the Consumer Products Efficiency Standards Economic Analysis Document, DOE/CE-029, March 1982. The ORNL Model has been updated by LBL, resulting in the LBL Residential Energy Model (LBL-REM) which is
summarized below. The LBL-REM forecasts the appliance purchase choices that households make, as well as their subsequent appliance usage behavior and energy consumption. The model uses engineering estimates of the characteristics of particular designs of appliances, and calculates thenational impacts of a technologyspecific policy on the populations of appliances used in the households. The engineering data provide alternative designs, characterized by purchase price and efficiency, that are available for purchase. The output from the LBL-REM satisfies the legislative requirements regarding energy savings and consumer economic impacts (operating expenses and life-cycle costs). Engineering, economic, anddemographic data are used in the LBLREM. The engineering data for appliances are described above. Additional data include engineering data regarding alternative building shell construction measures and costs, unit energy consumption and efficiency of existing appliances, age distribution of existing appliance stock, and retirement
functions. Economic data includes projected energy price 8 and household income, and models of energy investment, appliance purchase and usage behavior, including fuel and technology choice for each end-use. - Demographic data includes number of households by type, projected housing starts and demolitions, and initial appliance holdings.



### 1. Structure

The LBL-REM segments annual energy consumption into house types, end-uses, and fuel types. The house types are single ; family, multifamily, and mobile homes. Calculations are performed separately for existing and new housing construction each year over the period, 1980-2015. The end-uses are space heating (including room and central), air conditioning, water heating, refrigeration, freezing, cooking, clothes drying, lighting, and miscellaneous. Up to four fuels are considered, as appropriate to each end-use: electricity, natural gas, heating oil, and LPG. The
model exists in two versions: national (one region), and regional (10 Federal regions). Since usage of these appliances is not likely to differ by geographic location, the national version will be utilized in this analysis. The model projects five types of activities: technology/fuel choice; building shell thermal integrity choice; appliance efficiency choice; usage behavior; and turnover of buildings and appliances.

2. Housing Stock Submodel

This submodel prepares data abouthousing stock projections for the LBLREM. The number of occupied households, by type, is taken from the 1980 Censuses of Population and Housing. An exogenous projection of housing starts is obtained and estimates of projected demolition rates by house type are calculated, assuming an exponential function. The housing submodel determines the projected housing stock each year, 1981-2015, by subtracting demolitions from existing stock, then adding starts. The annual demolition rates by house type will be
calculated for single family, multifamily, and mobile homes, respectively.


### 3. Efficiency Choice Algorithm

For dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers, historical efficiency data are available for selected years for eaclt.class of appliance through 1985. The Federal energy conservation
standards for new units of these appliances were met in 1988. After 1988, future efficiency improvements are assumed to be a function of designs available (according to the engineering analysis) and of relevant energy prices. DOE believes the forecasting algorithmis designed to allow annual shipmentweighted efficiency factors (SWEFs) to increase if either more efficient designs become available at lower prices, or energy prices increase. Conversely, if energy prices decrease, the SWEF may decline, but would have a• lower bound
at the 1988 Federal standard level.

4. Thermal Integrity "The projections of energy prices will be taken The projection of she level of from the most regentAnmtglEnergy 0utlooA, a .... publication of the Department's Energy ;Information . investment in thermal integrity
Administration .. measures in new houses is based on a 

### 17717

life-cycle cost calculation, analogous to that done for equipment efficiencies.9
Estimates of the incremental costs of thermal integrity measures are used in conjunction with current fuel prices and
a discount rate.

5. Modeling Efficiency Standards

The LBL-REM projects the average efficiency of new products, for example, dishwashers, purchased each year, in
the absence of additional Federal regulations. A distribution of efficiencies is constructed around the average, based on efficiency distributions observed in the marketplace. This
information includes information from industry sources, published data from the industry trade associations and industry-wide data obtained from Form
CS-179.10 A new Federal standard level would eliminate part of the distribution; therefore, a new distribution isconstructed. The new shipmentweighted average efficiency then characterizes the efficiency of new units in that year. The same process is applied to all years after implementation
of the standard. The model is then run again, for the standards case, with the adjusted average efficiencies, to calculate any changes in market shares,

usage behavior, or investment in building shell thermal improvements that may occur due to standards, and to calculate the net energy savings.

6. Turnover of Appliance Stocks

The initial age distribution of appliances in stock is characterized based- on industry data about historical annual shipments. The- fraction of each product that retires each year is based on the number of years since purchase of the product. For each year's purchase
the model associates an average efficiency, so that when older appliances are retired, they are also recognized as less efficient."" The number of potential purchasers of an appliance in new homes is equal to
the number of new homes constructed each year. The number of potential purchasers of appliances in existing
houses is equal to the number of retiring appliances, plus some fraction of those households that did not previously own the product.

11 The equipment efficiency and thermal integrity decisions are not solved simultaneously, but recursively. The previous year+s thermal integrity is assumed in projecting. this year's equipment : efficiency; then this year's equipment efficiency is used to calculate this year's thermal integrity.
10 Survey of Consumer Product Manufacturers through Trade Associations in 1979, . 11 See ConsumerProducts Efficiency Standards Economic Analysis Document, DoE/CE-0Q29, March 1982, pp. 412-13. -

### 17718 Federal Register / Vol, 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

7. Calculation of Market Shares

Potential purchasers may purchase any competing technology within an end-use, or none. For example, for dishwashers, the decision to purchase or not is modeled, and the fraction of the
total that chooses each class, e.g., compact, is specified exogenously. For dishwashers, long-term market share
elasticities have been estimated with respect to equipment price, operating expense, and income respectively. The effect of standards is expected to be lower operating expense and increased equipment price. The percentage changes in these quantities are used, together with market share elasticities, to determine changes in market share resulting from standards. The model assumes that higher equipment cost will
decrease market shares

, while lower operating expense will increase market shares. The net result (predicted market share) depends on the standard level selected, and associated equipment price and operating expense.

8. Usage Behavior

For some products, changing the operating expense results in changes in usage behavior. These changes are modeled using usage elasticities in operating expense and income. For dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers, we expect these elasticities to be at or near zero; usage behavior is not influenced by the cost of operating the appliance. The Department will appreciate any comments on this assumption.

9. Energy Consumption Calculations

The total energy consumption per
house for each end-use and fuel by house type and vintage (existing or new) is the product of the unit energy consumption (accounting for efficiency and capacity changes), and usage factor, e.g., relative hours of full-load use for dishwashing. The corresponding energy consumption for all households is the consumption per house times the number of households of that type and vintage, times the fraction of those households owning that appliance.. Aggregate energy consumption is obtained by summing intermediate results. For example, national electricity consumption for residential dishwashing in a particular year is the sum of house types and vintages of standard electric dishwashers, compact ones, and the
various classes of water-heating
dishwashers. National residential electricity consumption in that year is the sum of all end-uses of electricity consumption in the residential sector. 10. Model Outputs
The principal outputs from the LBLREM for each year are: • Energy consumption by end-use and
fuel. • Per unit equipment price and operating expense by product. • Total residential energy consumption by fuel. 

### • Projected annual shipments of residential appliances. • Differences in these quantities between a base and a standards case. These outputs are provided annually (or for selected years) and cumulatively over a period of time, e.g., 1990-2015. Energy savings are provided annually from implementation of standards to the end of the period. Net present value of
standards is evaluated for each regulated product, and for the end-use(s) comprising the regulated and competing products. Energy savings are calculated as the difference in energy consumption
between the base case and standards case. Energy consumption in both the
base case and standards case includes building shell improvements, changes in fuel choice, or changes in usage behavior. Therefore, the energy savings capture the net energy savings due to regulation, including the effects induced by shifts in market share or changes in usage behavior. Net present value, on the other hand, excludes these types of effects,12 Net present value is calculated from per unit changes in equipment and operating costs, multiplied by base case shipments. If the net present value were calculated without normalizing to base case shipments, erroneous results would
be obtained: if standards caused decreased purchases of a product, this would appear an economic benefit, namely less money spent on purchasing and using appliances; 18 and if

12 Present value is the discounted total value of energy consumption during the appliances'
lifetimes

, plus the discounted equipment costs for those appliances that are purchased during those periods

, at alternative standards levels. The
difference between each of the two cases is the net present value (NPV) attributable to standards (or amended standards). A positive NPV for an appliance at a given standard level indicates that, If that standard were adopted

, consumers of that appliance as a whole would save that much more money in fuel costs

, discounted to the present, than they would pay in increased first cost for a more efficient appliance

, discounted to the present, compared to the base case.

Without normalization

, the greatest economic benefit would be obtained by a standard level that resulted in no future purchases of the product. Then no money would be spent on purchasing the product, or on operating expenses

, and the value of the savings would equal the amount of money that

would have been spent without the standard. This would clearly be a misrepresentation of the net present value of standards. standards resulted in increased purchases, this would be incorrectly counted as a cost, when it reflectsconsumers' preference for the poststandards product. Base case usage is assumed in calculating the net present value, since any "rebound effect" 14 reflects the consumer's judgment that increased usage is worth more than the direct energy savings associated with keeping usage constant. Therefore, deduction of any foregone energy savings resulting from a possible "rebound effect" prior to calculating the net present value, would
result in an underestimate of the true- net present value associated with a given efficiency improvement.

11. Other Consumer Impacts

One measure of the effect of standards on consumers is the change in operating cost as compared to the change in purchase price, This is quantified by the difference in life-cycle
cost between the base and standards case for the appliance classes analyzed. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price and the operating cost discounted over the lifetime of the appliance. It will be calculated at the average efficiency for each class in the year standards are imposed using consumer discount rates of five, seven, and ten percent. The purchase cost is based on the factory costs in the Engineering Analysis and includes a factory markup plus a distributor and retailer markup. The operating cost is calculated from the unit energy consumption derived in the Engineering Analysis adjusted for differences in usage, i.e., operating load hours, between the test procedure and the LBL Residential Energy Model. Projected energy efficiencies and usages
are taken from the results of LBL-REM.

Two other measures of economic impact are useful in evaluating the impacts on consumers. The payback period measures the amount of time it takes to recover, through lower operating costs, the additional expenditure on increased efficiency. Numerically, it is the ratio of the
increase in first cost between the base
and standards cases to the decrease in annual operating costs. Both the

14 The "rebound effect" is the projected energy savings (from an efficiency improvement ) that does

not occur

. This results when purchasers of more energy efficient appliances use them more intensively, thereby saving less energy than the engineering estimates would have indicated. Empirical studies indicate that approximately 15 percent of the potential energy savings is thus not

achieved

. Therefore

, in calculating energy savings,

the LBL-REM assumes that only 85 percent of the savings that are indicated by engineering estimates will actually be achieved.

### Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules 17719

numerator and denominator of this expression are evaluated at the average efficiency in the year standards come. into effect and at the energy prices in that year. The cost of conserved energy
is the increase in first cost amortized over the lifetime of the appliance at the consumer discount rate divided by the annual energy savings. The consumer
will benefit whenever the cost of conserved energy is less than the price of energy for that end use.

c. Manufacturer Impact Models

1. Conceptual Approach

The Manufacturer Impact Analysis estimates both the overall impact of new
or amended standards on manufacturers
as well as the distribution of effects among different manufacturers.

2. Measures of Impact

The analysis examines three types' of long-run impact: profitability; growth; and, competitiveness. To do this, three measures of impact are tracked for the industry as a whole and for any segments that may exist. The three impact variables are: return-on-equity (ROE); assets; and labor. ROE provides the primary measure of profitability,-although gross margin,return-on-assets (ROA), and return-onsales (ROS) are also reported. Assets and labor provide the measures of growth (positive or negative). The impact on competitiveness is analyzed by looking at the relative changes in growth and profitability for large and small firm segments: Two short-run impacts are also analyzed. First, the ability for the industry as a whole and for specific segments of the industry to provide the one-time investments required to meet
the new standard is examined. These expenditures are compared to available
cash and to their historical variation. Second, if standards result in decreased sales for the particular industry being analyzed, the possibility of a price war in the time period when the industry is adjusting to a lower sales volume is
examined.

3. LBL Manufacturer Impact Model (LBL-MIM)

In order to estimate the impacts of energy efficiency standards a computer spreadsheet model, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Manufacturer Impact Model (LBIrMIM), was developed. The LBL-MIM uses a "typical year" approach rather than a dynamic approach. This approach models a "typical year" for the.industry both in
the modified standards case and in the existing-standards case. The typical year chosen for the model is the fifth year after the imposition of standards. Five years is considered long enough to capture any major impacts from the standard, such as profitability changes or firm entry into or exit from the industry. Ideally, a manufacturer analysis should look at the impact of a proposed regulation on every firm that does business in the industry under question. However, because the industries being analyzed have many manufacturersmaking a particular product, a firm-byfirm analysis would be a very expensive undertaking. In addition, the engineering
and financial data for most manufacturing firms are proprietary and are not routinely available for public analysis. Because of these limitations on data and resources, the analysis. estimates the impact of the standards by using prototypical firms. A prototypical firm is a hypothetical firm representative of a particular portion of an industry. The goal of defining the prototypical firms is to
characterize 'firm-to-firm variations in the industry as best as possible. Prototypical firms are defined. in terms of parameters that have importance in determining the level of impact and are consistent with industry data for that particular portion of the industry. Important parameters used in the model include the cost and marketing strategies. An important simplifying assumption
of the LBL-MIM is that each prototypical firm offers products to several different markets. The product offerings are generally differentiated by using the product classes established by
the. Act. -Different markets are defined in terms of the technological characteristics of the products, e.g.; standard size or compact dishwashers. At times, this market segmentation plays an important role in determining a firm's profits. Generally, appliance manufacturers are thought to be able to charge different markups for different products. Firms are able to charge higher markups on products that have
desirable characteristics. Products on the low end of this spectrum are generally bought in larger quantities at lower prices by consumers who are more highly price conscious, and thus the markups for these products are lower. The per unit profits made by
manufacturers for these different products may differ significantly. The model incorporates this market reality by allowing firms to charge different markups on different'products. 

### The model sets product prices:inthe modified standards case in two stages. In the first stage the price is computed by assuming that the industry's gross margin remains unchanged under the new standards. This is the pricing rule most often referred to by the industry. Stage two drops the assumption of a constant gross margin, and instead
assumes that firms face a downward sloping demand curve and set price to maximize profit. Economic theory states that this is done by setting price equal to the long-run marginal cost (LMC) times a markup that depends only on the elasticity of the demand curve. Stagetwo begins by dividing costs into longrun fixed costs and LMC, and then estimating the firm's markup. Before using the markup, a new LMC is computed which includes any additional unit variable costs and the variable part of levelize.d capital and engineering coats. Once the new LMC is computed, this figure is multiplied by the markup factor to determine the new price. A change in standard level affects the analysis in three distinct ways.
Increased levels of standards will require additional investment, will raise production costs, and will affect revenue both through price and demand.
The most obvious investment induced by standards is the purchase of new plant and equipment. This cost first is evaluated from engineering data, and then averaged by taking into account the life of the investment, the date on which it is made, tax laws, and the appropriate
cost of funds. An additional and sometimes larger investment takes place as the old inventory is replaced with more expensive new units. The model assumes previous inventory ratios. are
maintained. A third form of investment tracked by the model is the change in
the transactions demand for cash that accompanies'a change in revenues. Increased costs of production are modeled by coupling engineering data on changes in unit costs caused by
standards with data from LBL-REM on the marketplace demand of the product. Revenue is affected by both price and shipments. Price is computed from costs in two stages. First, a constant gross margin pricing rule is used. Then a markup over long-term marginal costs is computed and used to determine an optimal price. Demand is determined by measured price and operating cost elasticities, coupled with the changes in price and operating costs resulting from
the standards. The LBL-MIM produces several outputs used in analyzing the impact of
standards on manufacturers. A simplified.pro forma income statement is prepared for each' prototypical firm. In addition to the-income statement, the

### 17720 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

outputs present four measures of performance: gross margin, return on sales, return on total assets, and return on equity. The results are presented for
the without-standards case and the with-standards case, and the relative
difference between the two is also given. Another output table analyzes the source of changes in income, expenses, and assets from an economic point of view, while a third output table analyzes price and profitability changes under the two pricing scenarios
mentioned above.

4. Data Sources

The LBL-MIM needs data that characterize both a particular industry and prototypical firms within that industry. Estimates of data are based on information from five general sources: LBL business consultation groups; the Engineering Analysis; the Consumer Analysis, public financial data; and industry profiles.


### d. Utility Impact Model

The Utility Analysis serves several purposes within the overall assessment of the impact of the proposed standards. It contributes to quantifying the energy savings by determining the reduction in
fossil fuels used for electricity generation. The reduction in fossil fuel consumption is also an input to the
Environmental Assessment. By calculating utility avoided costs, this area of the analysis provides marginal electricity costs to be used in evaluating
the societal benefits of standards. Finally, it examines the impacts on the electric utility industry in terms of changes in investment, revenue requirements, the need for new generating capacity, and residential load
factors. The Utility Analysis adopts the
standard convention that the value of electricity savings can be broken down into energy (or marginal cost) savings and capacity (or reliability) savings. The energy impact measures the production costs avoided by reduced electrical demands, valued at the marginal energy costs of the utility. The capacity impact

measures the reliability value of reduced loads during system peak periods, which is, by convention, valued at the cost of a
combustion turbine that would have
been needed to meet the load. The analysis characterizes these avoided costs per kWh of heating, cooling, and baseload energy saved.15 These values

16 For the purposes of calculating utility avoided costs, electric heating appliances are defined as electric heat pumps and electric resistance heat. cooling appliances

.are defined as room and central air conditioners plus heat pumps, and baseload appliances are defined as all other appliances. are used to calculate societal benefits from reduced electricity consumption. The utility impact model calculates avoided energy costs based on a disaggregation of the generation fuel mix to the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) regions and a simplified load duration curve for each region. First, the model allocates national electricity savings that are forecasted by the LBL-REM to NERC regions in proportion to their current consumption of heating, cooling, and baseload energy. The regional proportions are derived from data on regional appliance saturations, efficiencies, and hours of use. The fraction of the electricity that would have to be generated at the margin from oil and gas is calculated from the total regional oil and gas fraction and the simplified load duration curve. Projected utility natural gas and coal prices, weighted by the oil and gas fraction and the non-oil and gas fraction respectively, are used to calculate utility marginal costs over the forecast period. The marginal costs are adjusted to
account for seasonal differences. The avoided capacity cost calculation
in the model is based on conservation load factors (CLFs) for the energy savings attributable to the standards, as well as the capacity value of a
combustion turbine. A conservation load factor is defined as the average hourly energy savings of a conservation measure divided by its peak load savings. The CLFs are a way of characterizing the peak demand savings of a conservation measure. They are used to convert the capacity value of the standards into the per kWh values
described above. The NERC forecasts of capacity requirements for each region are used to account for regional variations in reserve margin. If NERC forecasts an adequate reserve margin in a region for a given year, no reliability value is given to the capacity savings in the region. The inputs needed for the utility impact model are conservation load factors, state-level utility fuel prices, appliance saturations, efficiencies, and hours of use, as well as electricity generation by fuel type and capacity need by NERC region. The outputs of the analysis are the fuel savings, the reduction in the need for new generating capacity, and the avoided energy and capacity costs for heating, cooling, and baseload appliances per million Btu of resource energy. These marginal costs
are used to calculate societal costs and benefits of standards,

e. Sensitivity Analyses 

### Sensitivity studies are performed to determine how changes in technical and operational parameters affect key engineering and economic indicators used in evaluation of appliance standards. This makes it possible to place limits on the overall results of the analysis and to gain an understanding of which variables are most important in producing these results. Sensitivity analyses are developed in a series of distinct steps. For each component analysis in the overall analysis, critical input parameters are identified and reasonable ranges of variation determined. The sensitivity of the model to changes in the value of each important parameter is then estimated by running the model for both the base
case and the standards cases. The results of the sensitivity analyses are examined to determine the sensitivity of the forecasts to exogenous variables and assumptions and the sensitivity of
the differences between the base and standards cases (impacts of alternative standards).



### IV. Comments

a. Questionsfor Public Comment

DOE is interested in receiving comments and data concerning the accuracy and workability of this methodology.! Also, DOE welcomes discussion on improvements or alternatives to this approach. In particular, DOE is interested in gathering data on the incremental costs of improving the energy efficiency of dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers. The design options listed above can be used as a startingpoint; however, data for additional design options would be welcome. While the Department has been unable to identify any small manufacturers, nevertheless, for purposes of this analysis, small
manufacturers' costs are assumed to equal those of medium manufacturers. The Department is especially interested in learning of the existence of such manufacturers, and in obtaining costing
data from small manufacturers of the products under consideration. For the LBL Residential Energy Model, DOL requests interested parties to provide historical data on shipments and average efficiencies by class for the products subject to the proposed rulemaking. Data on consumer prices.,
and on the installation and maintenance costs of these appliances are also requested. The manufacturer analysis needs the financial data from the product division level, i.e., dishwashers, clothes washers,, and clothes dryers. All of these data are available at the firm level, but firms are

### Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 1988 / Proposed Rules

typically much larger than the relevant division, and thus firm data may give a misleading indication of the division's
finances.

An income statement and balance
sheet at the division level would be most.helpful. If this is not available, then data on the following variables are considered most essential: net income, revenue, selling and general and administrative expenses, engineering expenses, cost of goods sold, interest, taxes, debt-to-equity ratio, net depreciable assets, net assets, capital investment, and long-term debt.
The Department also would welcome
current data on unit sales and revenue
for the industries as a whole.

b. Comment Procedure
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments to DOE.
Comments should be identified on the outside of the envelope and on the
documents submitted to DOE with the designation CE-RM-88-10. Ten copies are requested to be submitted. All comments received by the date specified at the beginning of this notice and all
other relevant information will be considered by DOE before the Department continues this rulemaking proceeding. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information
which he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit one complete copy of the document and five copies, if possible, from which the
information believed to be confidential
has been deleted. DOE will make its own determination with regard to the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests 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 of information 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 available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 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 of time ; and (7) whether
disclosure of the information would be in the public interest. Issued in Washington, DC, May 5,1988.

Donna R. Fitzpatrick,
Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 88-10976 Filed 5-17-88; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-M 

### 17721