## Wednesday December 

## 22, 1982



# Part II


# Department of 

# Ene 

# y

Office Conservation and Renewabie 

## Energy

Ai111>1•nv 

## Conservation 

## Program for Consumer Products; Final Rule for Clothes a.nd Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

### 57198 Federal 

## I Vol. 47, No. 246 

## I December 22, 1982 

# I Rules

Office of

### CoftHNation and RtJnewa* Energy

10CFR Part 430

U>oo!ctat No.**CAS-~M-78-110** (Plllrtlal}l**En~** Connrvliltlon PNmr1lm Consumer Clothe11 Dryent and 

### and Ovens

AGEHtY: 

### Office ofConservl!titm and Renewsble of

that a stb111:lard for a not result in o::inservation ofenergy, is riot feasible, or is not

jUl>iiUIC<t. On 2, 19$2, 

### that

i::rn:crnncv srnnGiara would not s!gnlfiica1nt conservation of



### ac1;nc1mica11vjustified.The nrc1nn,rnd rule 

### also prc1p0:sed**•h~n-i,.~,.i** 

### rules 

## "'"'""'""j"
for "'"'em1r>mm pn?enr1p1100 ofState

er energy 

### use slanclarcls 

### and how manufactu.rers could for a rule to preempt State or local or cm:rgy use standard!!,

[n a settlement 

## """"m"m In a 

### sun ill the 

### States District for the 

### District ofColumbia 

### N-0tural Resources Defem1e CommmcE>rs Union, DOE

a final rule with respect to products October 29. 1982. 

### It was 

### !hls deadline could be

29ueaui.me 

### the rule the additional time and without further 

### !he ofthe ill 

### today

a rule wilh respect to dryern and kitchen rangei and

ovens in which DOE determines that an 

## '""<·"'""Y standard for either of would nol result in a sl;;nifica:nt conservation of 

### Md
not be In addition. DOE is rule 

### with respect lo the which Stalell obtain 

### ex•em:ptH>n

Of

### l!'.leaJ t:Hlc!..'1CU<.;ji "'umu;<H<t• prE:erut1mm as a result

## or a to energy emcte1ncv stam'.la1r<1s and procedures 

### by

mav obtain 

### a rule preempt 

### a State or focal efficiency which there is no Federal final 

### rule.

The rulemaldng 

### with respect

### to the other 

### six products and 

### DOE ill as a result public 

### ofseveral

### of the computer 

### relied upon 

### in 

### the April 2 proposed rule.

DATI!S: for Section 430.32. the effect!\•e of fuis rule is 21, 1983. Section 430.32 is June 20, 1983, in a 

### S!:ate that hes filed pursuant D 

### a notme 

### of 22. 1963, and a 

### the date of 430.32 is the date cm which DOE issues or deniee a final rule that petition.
FOR FIJRTI'lER INFORMATION CONTACT:**~.fichael** 

## J. U.S. Office Renewable 

### Research and 

### Developine1:11

,_,, v i:sirnu. Test and Enilu<ttion Mall Station CE-113, Room GH-068, Forrestal Eui.lding. 1000 lmlependence Ave., SW

.. Washington. D.C. 20585,

Felidrrum. Assistant General C()unsel for Conservation and

of 6B-194, Forresta1 lm:tei:)en.ttence Ave., $.

{202) 252-9507,

or William Funk, Assistant Cenerai

Counsel for Regulatory D'll'"'"''ich uepm'UI1em ofEnergy. Mail Room M-141, forrestal "''"""''"b 1000 Independence**Ave~ asllin~ton.**  !lC. Zillia,'i,

l 

### lnm:iduci:ion

a. Authority

Part B ofTllle 

## m of the F.nergy Policy and Con.servalion Act fEPCA) {Pub. L. 94-163). 

### as 

### amended by the National Conservation Policy Act



### ,..,..,....,,,,.. L. 9H19J,1creates 

### the Pr1'.lwam for Consumer Prooucts Autonllotiiles. The consumer

'PartBviTitle Ill olE!'CA. u amtnded by Iha NECPA iJ; often referred !o in !his notice as Iha ¥Aci." heating equipment not including furnaces; televi!lion sets; kitchen ranses 

### and ovens: clothes washera: 

### humldlfler& and dehumidifiers; central air 

### conditioners; and fumate$, as well as any olherconsumer product

### dassified by fue Secretary 

### ofEnergy. 

### if the product uses a specified minimum

• amount 

### ofenergy. 

### See Section 322. 

### The

Secretary 

### has not soclassified 

### any additional products.

Under 

### the Act the

### program coru;!sts e!ltlentially ofthree parts; testing, labeling, and mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards. The 

### Department ofEnergy, 

### in consultation with the National Bmeau ofStandards, 

### is required to 

### establish test procedures for each of the covered

### products. Section The purpose of

### the test provide for test results reflect !he energy efficiency, energy
use. or estimated annual operating costs ofeach of :be covered products. Section 3Z3{bJ(1}. All test procedures were required to be adopted not later

### than May 1, 1978 Section 323(a) {4) and {6}. A
test procedure was not required ifDOE determined by rule 

### thal one could not be developed. Section 323lali6){l3}. One 

### hundred and eighty days after a test procedure for a**p~oduct** is adopted. no manufacturer may represent the energy consumption ofor the cost ofenergy 

### consumed the μroduct except M reflected in a test conducted act:ording
to 

### the DOE procedure. Section 323{c). Teat 

### procedures have been 

### prescribed relating to all**produt:~ll.** but. on !he basis of continuing review, certain 

### daises of products do not have 

### currently applicable test procedures.



### The Federal Trade Commission 

### fF'i;q is by the Act to

### prescribe ' des governing 

### the labeling of the covered products. Section 324{a). These n lei.i are to fuat each 

### particular mode! of

a covered bear a label tLat 

### indicates annual 

### opeut:ng'c,"st and the 

### range ofestimated annual 

### Gperattng

COitli 

### for other

### mCJ:dels ofthat product. Section 324{c){l). A rule is not required under Section 324 

### ifthe Secretary of Energy 

### determines that 

### di11dosure of estimated annual operating costs on a 

### iabel is not technologically 

### feasible or 

### if the ITC determines 

### that such disclosure iinotlikely to assist consumers in purchasing decisions oris not economically feasible, Section 324(c}. No labelingrule can be made with respect to a product for which there is



### no DOE testing procedure. Section SU(b)(S}. At the present time 

### th«e is an ITC rule labels 

### under the Act 

### for the products: room air 

### conditioners, clothes washers. dfahwashern. 

### water heaters, freezers.•C.«·

...**~~··""''llil.** 

## "'l!*ll' m;;y

## w**m1<~** up 

### not**e~d** 

### Rl million from the effact of 

### the stimdru'd for if.I 

### two determines, after obtafuliru< 

### the .M.rmnH!V Vt'm;nu,



### be a notire upon which persons may make written lilld oral 

### comn1cr1ts, to 

### auJ,sti.on such oomments 

### with mapuum issues of

### material

v""Jv1·t"'1 and Section

iustlf:i.ed, or to seve 

### signlfo::ant amoWlUi ofenergy 

### is a rule that SUJ:Hlrsedes any State standard. Section S25{b}. 

### ll. the.l'tl i11 

### noFederal rule, a State 

### 11tandard i.11 not toHmay


### on On 

### December 13, 1979. 

### the OOE 

### publliihed an advance notice of 

## nn•,.,,..••M rulemaking for dishwashen, u"1"'m,

..1rm 

### uUi, clothea waabers, and hlmlidifieni mid 

### deh!mrldifieNli (44 

### FR An

### iidvanoo notice for central air 0011mtion.en (heat pumps} wae 

### pub!i.11bed on January 23,**l~** 

### (45 FR f«.12). Tlu1H tu:ivancC'I 

### notices weM 

### full discu111ion of**•tu~** 

### program and the process for its 

### implementation. DOE alsotetforth Us 

### views conceming the criteria for ulecti.!::ig dHf!fi kt

### eacll roduct type 

### &nd 

### the feasible dusof mquested oommentll on all mausn**n"~'"'·»t•>t"I** in ihe advruice 

### notices. · MEfl'ltlDJ<s were

### held throu,ghcut 1979

### and solicit 

### ilie views of sll 

### concerned**~es.** Mermooivin8 

### comments on 

### adv&nce 

### notices. on

### June 00, 1900. 

### the OOE set 

### forth Ha fll'st proposed 

### rolemakms for 

### ilie nkte 

### products { 45 FR 

### {Hereafterreferred to as 

### the June 1980

### proposal.) The June 1980 

### proposal set 

### forth the DOE's proposal concerning 

### efficiency 11tanda.rds for 

### iliese
oove1·ee1 Ji also pn:rposed procedu.res for 

### processing pelilions by 

### States that &ought exempllon for regulations subject to 

### ilie general 

## 11,..,.,..,,.,,u.1u requirements ofSection 

### the Aci.

### The 1980proposal 

## ""'""'ti'"""'rl comments received in ttspon&e to the advance notice on these



### rune and made changes in the h:Uttw 

### determinations oom:eming**cla1uu~s** for each covered product and 

### the methods for deh:irmh:Ung energy 

### efficiency standards. The 

### June 1980 

### propose.! waa bai;ed upon five technical aupport 

### di.leutnents which 

### we:re made available for public

### review.

To encourage public participation in 

### the rulemaking prooo11a, 

### Urn DOE held a aeries ofpublic 

### in July 

### ngs
were conducted kt 

### Chicago and Wuhingto:n inAugust 1980. As a result ofthese hearings and the solicitation of 

### 'll>'T'itten comments, 

### over 11300 comments



### were received on I.he June 1900 proposal. These comments addressed all aspects of

### the mdurung 

### the in 

### each 

### covered product 

### type, 

### the feasibillty ofthe J1tam:l!il'd.B Hlected for each covered

un.nn11a. the ofthe assumptions 

### made in the 111.ipport documents, iheprocedure for 

### 11eeking exemptlona for State regulations from the Federal standard. the 

### ofa final regulation. the nnmri1>.w ofstandards for small.·busines!lefl, whether alternative'!**~** reguleiionl! were practical, tmd the pmpoH) fur

### certification and**enforcement~**

On 

### December 17, l9fl0, 

### the Department notified the Congress ofits 

### inability to make a final determination



### on the imposition ofenergy efficiency 1tandard1 on 

### 1he nine covered products 

### by 

### the deadline c!Jannary %, 1961. On 

### Febraary 23. 1981. 

### DOE pub1i5hed a notice oftts intent oot

### toi3sm:i EmJ' 

### energy efficiency stande:rd until it

### funr studied the comments recievedonfue June 30

### proposal andmade a thorough

reass.esmnem

## otthe dam im:pporting 

### the proposal {46 FR 13517).

On April 2, 1982. DOE issued a further Notice ofProposed R1demaidng 

### with respect to the nine priorityproducts {41 .f'R 14424). 

### [Hereafterrefemid to as the April 2 proposal.) With respect to ofthe products DOEproposed e a determination 

### thl!t 11 

### standard wmtld not resultin a significant comi:ervation of energy and would not

### be economical!)' justifiedYI'he April% proposal also proposed rule! governingpetitiom to 

### DOE both by States 

### tu ubtainexemption from premption of State or local energy efficiency standards as well H by manufacturenl to obtainpreemption

# or State orlocal !llandards. TwoniclmicaJ support documents-anEctmomic: Analysis and anEngineering Analysis-- supported the proposal

Hearings were held on 

### tl:ie Apn1 % proposal 

### over three days in Washington. D.C. in which 39 persons presented 

### s!alt>ments. Over 130 written comm.e.nts
were received during the initial
comment period, and 36 additionaJ written commenbl 

### were made on earlier submitted wmmentfi.

In October 

### 1981. the Natural Resources Defense Coo:ncil [NRDC) and Consumers Union of the United State41, Inc., brought suit 

### against DOE for DOE'• failure tn adopt a fmal rule for the nine priority productsby the statutory deadfmeofJenuaryZ 1981. A settlement agreement adopted

### by the parties required DOE lo adopt a final rule for these products {except home heetin,g equipment other than furnaces} 

### by October 29, 1982. The agreement provided, however, for a modification of 

### that deadline for good cauae 

### as approved

### by the court. Nevertheless. 

### the agreement required that, if

### the entire rule couldnot becidopw.l 

### by OctoberZS,

•Tbe April lt propooal dlil oo! P""f'OU any rule**\'!.1tl>~'tel!re~fype~~ eq~L-** **~~or~"""""'°** 10 ih11!1'-vi!li><'**~-T..._**

# ......... ofb.>iil JllJilll' ....u..r heallllS or ...Olli reiap6C! lil th.a
cia•&l?!I ofU..: produci c&ntrol ;;iir rowli!lon"'I! Iha!**a:rehut~** 

### DOEwookl ism!e those tegregable 

### porOOri.1 ef

### tb.e rnle that 

### could be 

### iaued.


### II.DiAC1•fiM**a.~**

Asindicated above, the c.ourt· approved aettlement agreement required 

### DOE to issue 

### by October 29, 1982, s.t 

### leastthoseug:regable portions ofthe rule 

### th&1 could be issuedbythat

### data without delaying the otherparl.!I of the 

### rule. After

### reviewing the comments tec.eiverl H 

### a result of the April 2 

### proposalDO:E determined !hat**q~** raiioe.d 

### and comments made**coo~** 

### the OakRidge NsfimW Laboi:atocy 

### Re$iilimtial Energy Entl 

### UM:? Model {ORNL Model) and its projection of ene:r:g)' aaviJ:lp attributable

## w standardi wue imbstantial 

### and significut. Afwr

### an 

### initial an.a!y1ia 

### to**de~** the scope of the potential prob.leiu with the Model 

### and possible responH:I. it be.came clear that the time 

### and.lil.loaly&ia 

### required 

### ta address theu questiom 

### and oomments madewith respect 

### ta the OR.NL M-0.del would preclw:ie adoption 

## otfinal 

### ruleti 

### f<Y ·the eight products b)' Ocrober29. lOO.Z.

The 

### OR.NI. Model .U the computer model that projects the energy savinp

etw1.a1Lli.We 

### to s 11.tandarrl for a 

### product. MoreoWI!', otheroutputs ofthe 

### Model

a.re 

### tilSed in the Financial 1m:p.act M-Odel 

### and otbei- an&ly!lell.**Con~tly.** 

### the validity 

### d the OR""il. MOOd it II critical factor in aSlle!l&ing po11sible st.a.ru:iard:J formtlllrt products. Wlth respect to two producta,**~'l!~'et'.** 

### ta light of

### all the 

### comments received u well u the 

### mlnimaJ level of

### eo.ergy n vings predictedi.n each iteration of the OR.1'.ll. 

### Model. DOE deU?rminerl that 

### there wu sub.:umtiaJ evidencein the record

## m support a oonclusla.n !hat an energy efflcieact'

### .ta:i:tdan'! wottlrl neither**~** in • significant conser\'<ltion ofeni!'f'gJ

norbe ecot1amically justified. The

### twu products 

### .re clod>ell dryeno 

### and kitdiien ranges and O'l"l!lDL



### N. indicated aboTe. 

### the April 

### 2**~I** alto included 11 pn:wi.R'Jli 

### repniing the preemption ofState aad 

### local I! · • 

### standnds and the petition• for preei:npOOn 1.1r for exemption f:roo**p~.** While there

-**~:rrtilll** colllJM'M 011

## thn allpE!Ct of

### tiM: April

## z proposal. fbe cmnmenlswoe.re ofe tU!lta"e that 

### GonkJ be addreseed 

### ud**r~** 

### to in 

### e reuooable period 

## m tiae. Consequei:rt}y. 

### DOE

### a &doptmg • 

### fiMt rule with respect to

### dothee dryer. 

### a.ad kitchen ranges and ovens and 

### with respect

### to preemptiol'I of

### 1bte 

### Eld1ocal law.**'The~** 

### final 

### nrle**a~** no1 rinl1 to

### the!te

# ""°**pr~** but

### win al&O 11pp11\o d**o&.er~~** 

### when 

### fimii ?'Gies for those 

### products ate**promulg8~** 

### At the p!'tl'Bt!!rt time, 

### hecaut!t! the natm'e

### offire pmhlermheing assened with regard to !he ORNLModel, DOE 

### ii unable 

### toproje.ct 

### with auy certainty 

### wheue 

### fina1 role 

### on the

### remailling 

### Jilx

•products

### will be 

### iuued.**b.~.** 1. 

### Dett.fm:dDOJ:i<J11 

## of 

## E.Dera &v;., 

### ln 

### the Aprll2 

### propoul DOE 

### qua.rrtified 

### t&e
energyuTirlp 

### tit.atwould be atl::ribuiabie 

### to a 

### st.andant imposed at eadl 

### afthe 

### analyzed

### leTei:s ofefficiency for 

### each product.

# nm

- d:cme 

### through

use 

### of

### Ure ORNLModel. '11te OR.NI. 

### Model is fiill7 explained in the 

### Economic**Anal~** 

### Document wiOOh aeoompanied the April 2

### propOHJ. lie#! 

### especially Appendix E. 

### This 

### model wa11 usedl'O project

### rnidentialene-rv lllle

## ota product with 

### and wHhmrt 

### standards. In 

### theApril2 proposal 

### the period

## ot analysls was the period 1967-2005. By comparing the energy.used without a 

### standard during 

### fuis period to the energy used 

### with a particular standard durin,s the 

### aa.m.e period. DOE 

### estimaled the
amountof

### energy saved 

### dariD:g 

### that period 

### due to thlit .ta.Ddlird.

### Th.e eneqy saved waa aprell&ed 

### io

### Qua.di {quadrillion BTU6).

A.Ji 

### indicared above.. certain aspecta of the OR.NL Model were tubjecied to



### some crmcimi

### in the comments on* April Z

### prop09al Probably 

### the it>a.e 

### th.at attracted the 

### greatut attention wt11 

### the Model'1 treatmentoithe relationship between energyprices and the mariu!1'a 

### respormvenims 

### :in producing

### and sellns

more energy efficientproducts.Thia relationship was reflected in the EconomicAnalysis Document {EAD) accompanying the April 2 proposal 

### iii
terms 

### of

### the so--called implicit 

### diBCDwrt rete, IJli!e pp.46-47,EAD. The initial relationship

### betweenlife cycle cost 

### and the efficiency ofmodels 

### in the current 

### ma.rb!t 

### wugiven as an initial implicit discount rate, and the change in the relationship over time wu 

### c:haraderiudby a 

### frnmd•. 

### seep.• EAil. wmcli

### lwe.d theeffect ofclun:qpr:ig the bptic:it**~t** 

### rate u eneqJ 

### prica**c~** IJetJ p.iZ.

### EAD..' 

### Both file

l"floe

......**~** ...........D

.. IB 11ar:aS-Oullllila the OINl.MNlal.. Thai ia.**~** h1 !heMooM!l 

### u Cn1'ea by the implicitdiecount tala. Rather,tlie imp'tidl diat:mmt rob!b an output 1bll1

aan bea.;...ed 0,-**""'~** -1111tile Aprll**~-~--tm•---••** shorthand method**of~** the market .dittortion thl>t .i..... dri"" :P4l1B ofU... Model

## n.. formula did 1101 aet on Ille lmpbclt diKDlllllnt» ttself,Wttmb**~** dlitot'!!OL wbiclJ had the ..rlec!**of~** the implicit dU!cri!ml "'•·

### Register 

# I Vol. 47, No. 246 

# I Wednesday, December 2:2, 

### 1982 

# f Rules and Regulations 57201

initial implicit discount rates and the 

### formula that resulted in their

were criticized ru; 

### allegedly ummpported ta or

### other i!tudies. 

### discount rates were oonsidered to 

### liie too high 

### by lieveral manufacmrers and their representatives, while !he formula was criticized by environmental and consumergroups. Because ofthe seriousness ofthese com.ments.DOEisa
matten thoroughly. ss, nolwithstimdin.g the criticisms ofthe ORNLModel, it 

### appeared that with respect to savings atlributable to standards 

### for clothes dryers and kitchen ranges and ovens, these oomments and**critici~~** 

### were not directly relevant.



### Finl qie initial implicit discount rates for clothes dryers and ranges and ovens

were no!criticized 

## as being too high and

were not totally outside the of what other scientists have as the implicit discount rates for home appliances. Second, unlike the other six product$ analyzed, the effect ofthe**oonlest~d** 

### formula on clothes dryers and kitchen ranges and ovens was to increase the implicit discount rate !:111 

### energy prices increased, which would have the effect ofincreasing energy 1avings attributable to standards. Seep. 52, 

### EAD. That i1, 

### commenters like the NRDC that complained about the formula did so because it 

### generally :reduced the savings atlributable to standards by increasing market :responsiveneas to higher energy prices in terms ofefficient products. With respect to clothes dryers and kitchen ranges imd ovens, however, H 

### energy prices rise the formula indicates that !he market unaccountably becomes less .responsive in terme ofefficient products. Consequently, with respect to both the initial implicit discount rate and its change with higher energy prices, the ORh'L Model's behavior in terms of clothes dryers and kitchen ranges and

ovens is not generally st odds with the oommenters' criticism ofthe Model.

Nevertheless. in order to ensure that any possible problems with the ORNL Modd would not invalidate the conclusions for these two products, DOE

ran two sensitivity The first analysis substitutes the trend in efficiency improvements ofa product for the Model's derived projections based on a relationship between 

### life cycle costs and the efficiency ofthe product. The second analysis increases the initial implicit discount rate by '.100 

### and then bolds it 

### constant.6

"Alxwe, ii WH f!Xplslned tlml In the ORN'L Model llw role wa$ 1101 an input or driving Model. Rather. it wu lUl outpul 

### which ha11 the dual effect ofgreatly increuing the initial discount
rate and ei.imi any effect ofthe disputed 

### f these sensitivity analyses were chosen bfJcause they replace the existing ORNL methodology for determining !he efficiencies ofproducts in future years in 

### the absence of 

### st1mdards wHh mu'uuwg1ef:! 

### that are perhaps more pesslmlstic 1:11> 

### to market responsiveness 

### to higher prices. The resuhs 

### ofthese 

### two analyses, 

### u wen as the normal 

### ORNL Model projection, are in the product specific analyses.

In 

### addition to the major criticisms of the ORNL Model mentioned above, there were some comments on !he Model that DOE il'l 

### now able to te!!pond
to because of their relative simplicity. Consequently, in ofcomments on the April 2 

### and 

### Ha own analysis already made changes
to the Model in four areas and will make

a change in a fifth area.

They are: energy price forecasts; housing forecasts; income forecasts; consumption ofproducts being from stock; 

### Wld marketplace behavior in the standards case.

A. EnergyPrk;e Forecasts. 

### The energy price projections wied in the.April 2 

### proposal werefrom the National Energy Policy Plan. DOE/S-008, July 1981, pp. S

### U !hereafterreferred to 

### as "!\"EPP ID.") A 

### number 

### ofcommenters, induding the General Accounting Office (GA0), 8 

### commented thatDOE used energy

### price projectione eignificantly higher than energy price assumptions ofcertain private organizations. DOE has 

### always used throughout these various rulemaking proceedings the mostrecent. and in DOE's view the most reliable, energy price forecasts. Consistent with this approach, the current analysis makes use ofthe energyprice projeciions from theEnergy Information Administration's 1981 

### Annual Report to Congress,February 1982 

### {DOE/EIA0173(81)/3). The table below shows the historical energy prices and energy price projections for each offour fuel types used in

### this analysis.

HiSTOOICAL ANO F'AOJECTEO &IERGY Pmc:U 1**~** "« 10'aru1

4.18 U19 f!leO

4.l!G lUl3 19115

UC !S.41 l'JA() !!.73 2000 200!;



### s:ro fi.!12 10.00**11~** dif>!!ll.llle.---

.............-
.....................**~--······** 4.40 7.05 7.tl9 14.-01 H.32 :i!CH\3
!JQuKI**-·······-·-····~·-······-··**................... - .......·-·--·--· <1.111 tl.00 Ui6 ll!.U 1M.& 18.54



### The energy price projections used in the analysis generally tend to be lower in the near term (through 1900) 

### then !\TEPP

# mand are higher i.n the out years (beyond 1900). 

### DOE has not compared. these most recent E1A projections with projections from private organizations. The forecasts made 

### by EIA are made totally independent ofand without relation to this Under the Department ofEnergy Act, EIA's statistical and forecasting reports

are not allowed lo

### be subjected to prior approval outside of

### EIA. thereby assuring 1he 

### necessary independence and neutrality ofits forecasts. which become in 

### effect the official government forecasts.

of !he Mode!. ln tlris M!l&itivity analysis. however, the disoounl rllte is 1.1..ed H lUl Input. the Model's normal method o[ computin,g product effici1111cioo.

t OOE luu no basi$ fM believing that !he in.!tiel dlecm.ml ml"" for llw two products in ruleor the olhllr are tou low. To Iha wntrary as no!ed iianything, initial implicit di1count rates for the other product• were deemed too high by a nlllllber of commeo!Mi. lil)' 

### ., B. 

### Income Forecasts. While no oo:mmenter specifically mentioned the income forecast used in the April 2 proposal, DOE has updated the forecast by using the more recent data that went 

### into EIA's energy price forecasts discuHed above. Again, DOE use these data in order that the ORNL Model results a.re based upon the most recent data and a consistent set ofinput.

C. 

### Housing ConstructionForecasts. A number ofcomments were received that DOE's forecasts ofhousing construction

were not consistent with recent history and that they were higher than other forecasts. For the April 2 

### proposal. the ORNL Model projected that the number ofhouseholds would increase from 73

lnduding a eensitivity analysis that increases the ln!lial implicit diacoWll rates by 100 percent for these lwo pro<l11ctJ1, OOE is not auggeslm.g that this is even a l'ea11onable iu:enarlo. ll isintended merely
to demoruitrate beyond cavil that neither of theae
two producta would save 11 significant amount of
energy nan ifthe iilltial implicit disco1111l rale were llastly inflated.

•s..te GAOl'ej><)f'l EMD-82-?'ll; May u., 1002, Appliance Efficiency St1111dlltdll: l&$1le• Needing Resolutiooby OOE (hereafter "GAOReport"J.VoL 47, Ne. 248

pro,iei.;uorus of year 1900 

## rnl'.rlft !he Model prnjected more than 25**~nt** mllil'e

Jl1''Pli11lnc:u H ln<S t-0**ao'i:Hu~m:;e** retiremmls.

## Tm

ton:iullatit::m bettff

ut'l:Dff>X1•"1ati>il what li**~ID** tire

E. 

### Market**!Je,~** 

### in**ti~**

### St.andardlt Cm;e- 

### Tb.e GAO 

### Mid l)()E wwi lncoruristent latts tmat:rrumt of**mar~** forces between the bu.e Cll.!lle and tire l!h!!'lWruo 

### Cll-. GADibted that DOE "asswned 

### the m<il"kat woukl nm imp.-ow; 

### "+'i'""'..,...'" 

## "''""·'""""-'¥ once a miuirrillm**~** base cue**exc:eei~ea** the G.t\O
13-14. Thi$ com.rlllen1 conecHv ae:'<C!'lfif''11 the way the ORNL }..fm:lei**tre~terl** 

### the factur 

# 1-

·- ZJJm

- J•J ,!Ill**.~** .oo
51 ""'**·~** ,41!- Q:;r G,21>**~ ~** 

ctmcur;; ln GAO's conclusion that !his is !m::onsistenl with the method of

unm,,:.:mm market behavior in the bue DOE will make market in lhe rase ;;fter the

1mnrnomnn of standards. That ls. the smpn:,ents that in !he base case would be the standards !eve!

# wrn be set at the standards level in the standards
can, and the that in the base

case would be at than !he 11tandard 

## wm continue ;is ooaffecte<i by the standards.

This

and**fr~ur,~nit fl:Jrnrtn~lf_#:** **f4~** frw, ar**~ ~**  apar:un.$'.:r.tli.,**un.e-~t.b.u:e --~** **~em~** 

### ..mt

:rtor• t1\ifies.. lan;e;r**;:;aie$Urfo~** "'""" cornbm"d for tlw forneal\ \Mo**re,11\d~nce#, "'"""-t~mit.**  rt•ild•rnti•1 a::nd rrmtti -farnm 

### 2. 

### Te> IH!H!!iff 

### ttftl1 economic oo oomwoon**~** would occm**g~aliy** from tM adoptit:m ofetanderds b tM Apn1 2**~1,** DOE condrn;;ted e 

### life-cycle eMt

### {LCCJ and ft !lol\'t p!"MHl'I value !NPV} The

### tee**an~** eak:ul.ated 

### the c:mt of

### owrrernhip for

commmem for uu::h clan 

### ofproduct A number of

### rommm:rten cm the AP'f'!1 2

urnmu'"" l!ltated that the

### teeem!Jym 

### havebeen**ctmd~** 

### wid! 

### m""''"""" ra

### tbe:r thttn 8Vl'Tal!'e rostl.

be calcuiarerl 

### with**mmgma~** o:r average costs, 001!

### belieYt!11 that it

com sim::e it directs s.>;":n>t«rv lo calcul!!te the savings in costs to 

### the commme:r. See**--··•~n-·r** The savings in cm1tll to-the col'l!lumer are average co.stll than



### cos.t analysisperfomied prripo•sal showed that for fil'ld and QVefl$ co11ts at varfous standardll considered were thu that fur 

### the average acld in 1978, 

### No commentll were received d:li;potti.ng 

### !hl.Ji increHe in costs. DOE haJl aot revised the LCC be!:AW!le. given the in price11, !he u11e 

### .of the later energy would not change llw conclusion 2LCC analysili that costs iormost dasseu of these two prndacta woold inr.rease.

The**ORl"~'L ~Wdet**  was used 

## w calculate the**dilll>..r~** eronomk impa.cta oo**~i** ofa p.rodw::.I:

a ru!t present value anaiysill. The Model**~li!S** !he 

### tooil
cost for each product 

### with and 

### without standards. The**~1** costs include the dlscoun

The NPV c.ak:Walirn:J 

### wu 

## ,....,,...,.,i.....i
niJ

### e with llie til.o1te:. DOE dld ool rouOOc:t a Wil detei:mine wbei 

### b.ad oa 

### LOO resultti 

### d

### what 

### wouk! oomtitute a 

### conser<'atio:n of DOE 

### believed

nnmn.i;a1 

### ,.,,.,,,,,.n.,..,, three
nrcmnlli':d !eats to 

### determi.rui 

### if ll 

### resul! in 

### a s!S(:nu1can1 

### ci:m:servaticm of

### energy. II was 

## "''"'"'"'""i'l that 

### ifa 

### sl!:mdard for a 

## v•'-""''"'"''
meet any 

### one of

### the tests, then the attributable to thal 11!andard

deemed The three

the three 

### tellts

or their each ofthe tests received subi!tantial oomment, a nwnber ofcomments were no!
ne1nessa1ilv 

### d.irected to any 

### one of the
tests.

As indicated above, each of 

### the thrff &btrim,cairice teets 

### measured the

"Many oi the oomm..ni- fu•l

## tool<TM'"" witli the !h!"ff U:•t# !l:illt. @"V<m llO, lf!M

wookl

11.!ld de!errn1mntwn -01 tile

attribul11ble le mr.,tnM'll 

### Of 

### who believed tbe
too short



### was shorterthan the useful life 0Humace11 

### and therefore cl.id

a full turnover ofthe "rnnn1m.,1rn 

### stock. DOE hiu comidemd commentli and has concluded thal the s.ame for 

### ail**n~r•nnr'1fQisnotnn'~~~­** 

### oftheae nw>rh11rt

.. 

### these commenters suggested that the total butabie to should be the DOE


### not believe 

### the for 

### such

an interpretation. Section.3Z5(b) states "InJo standard for a 

### covered products !lh prescribed



### •

. .if .••the establishment of such standard 

### will not result in**"''~''"""'"'"''** 

### comiervatlon ofenergy•• , . language 

### makes clearthal the 

### determination

# orwhether a 

### standard 

### will save is to be made on animlMdual**'"'"""c1'"~'** 

### ba&is. not on the basis for all products 

### together would save 

### significant energy.

Another crlticlam 

### made
commenters 

### was that one or



### ,,,,.,,,.,... "'"of**m~u·n,no**

...15

## .uu,'""'""'"" teats. does not believe such criticism ls 

### well founded. Uthe attributable to a standard for a nrururnct 

### cannot meet a 

### partlcular test 

### for signitiicrunce because 

### the tecfm•o!oi;iicall\i 

### improvements are in•mtl'iriont 

### to produce a large amount of this is not by itselfevidence ofa fault of 

### the test. in 

### '"''''"1vnu• certain products concerni.ng 

### would be 

### required tu conduct 

### standards rulemak:ings, 

### cl.id not 

### prejudge ordetermine that a slandard for an;• or all of

### these products could in 

### fact result in 

### a com;ervation of Rather, prodtu:::ts

were included of the amount ofenergy they used. Whether a standard was appropriate, 

### i.e., among other whether It 

### would 

### resull in 

### a**s1~~t1amt** 

### romiervation ofenergy. was 

### to by DOE. For example. in both the June 1900 

### and April 2 

### proposals DOE propotied no 

### standard for elecirlcfurnaces because no irn1tu'l:l•vemenu1 

### would uve energy. No 

### commenterhas d.isputed 

### oondusion. Similarly improvements to effh:::iency 

### in 

### oilier products may save 

### only a small amount of

### energy. it 

### is 

### however, that the 

### !act that the
11v•enum savin:gt> are too 

### tlmail to 

### meet

one ormore o!the 

### significance testa does not constitute a fault 

### with the teat.

Moreover, the fact that 

### a particular does 

### not use enough energy to feasibly to meet the oil orgas and eleci:rlcity 

### tests does 

### not suggest 

### the inappropriateness ofthose 1ests.The NOPR acknowledged that the oil orgas and electricity fl:avingti testshad a narura1 

### biH 

### toward products that use a amount ofthose fuels. That iii, 

### a small improvement in energy efficiency 

### attributable to a standard for



### a that useti a large amount of57204 Federal 

## I VoL 47, 

### No. 246 

## I December 22. 1982 

# ! Rules and

pen:c-il the minimum
to be consumed in ordet to considered a candidate for
s; ;,,mfartls.

DOE has considered these comments b:t has concluded that the record docs of the test of 1900.uAt """m""'" was criticized

a number of

'"'l.n.mtw• that it

was too an amount oi
energy lo be deemed significant. Moreover. several commente.rs noted that the amount was less than an had found

N>i,Prlino a CQfl!lllfVlltion Z**nrrmn.~1u** DOE with these comments, stating that the level**nr.nrn'~"** 1900 was too small to in national and was less than 20 of energy that \..D•mzn:11s had rejected as in



### a conservation contingency

Some commenlers, however. took issue with !hese conch.1slons. For
ex<HmJ1e. the t-.'RDC stated that whether

or not the were measurable in national reports was irrelevant, because the Act w1u1 to the of not

standard !h.:.t conservation of is explicit, 

### DOE believes. as mos!
commenters who addressed this issue. that that woiild be too Mrmal DOE re11m·tin.2 

### nolbe

to**""'~'"""** of one to just

some ca

### ae11 

### thiii

so small as to be in rounding the numbers as are In most

cases this amount is le1>s than the level .,..,..,,..r1itrn errorinvolved 

### in the system. The NRDC and some other 

### comm.enters took issue as

### will with DOE's reliance asa basisfor rejectiq the June 1900test on the Congressional rei;er.tion 

### ofa conservation contingency



### cm grounds 

### ofinsufficient 

### savings. provided for five times the savings all the June 1900proposed significance
test. 12The NRDC 

### noted that the 

### ConJZr'es1;io111a1 rejection waii 

### made by

### a different Congress than passed the Act, did not involve home appliances, and involved different forms ofrestriction on 

### businesse11 and lndMduals. DOEhae always acknowledged that Congmu neither defined norgave 

### dearindication

as to the of"significant" energy

conserva 

### April 2 proposal. 

### in**teJE~cuxm** theJune 1980proposed ae'nmmo•n which even theNRDC termed "lenient," looked in part to a different Congressional 

### action for an indication

as to what might oonstitute "significant" 

### ""'"u"''" DOE did not intend to 11uggest Ccin2re!1sl!mill actionwas indl!stin;<ulsha1ble from the present situation. rather that itprovided a genera! sense 

### of\'!that might 

### be considered insignificant

### The commenters, such as theNRDC, that merely catalogued the di.fferencetl between the circumstances present 

### in the rejection ofthe 

### '"'''""''"'"''"""' plan for la nt savings and the present falled to demonstrate why those differences are !llufficient toleadDOE to 

### that Congressional action 

### in trying to determine what should constitute a significant savings under the ActFor exampie, some commentel"!I said it was inlproper to compare savings from an emergency conservation plan
deim!l1t!d for Ul!e

# ma shortage to Sa'ltings from a long-term overall increase in the efficiency ofappliances. DOE disagrees that His improperto make such a comparison butrecognizes that 

### the comparison mustbe viewed with caution. Because this wa.s the only legislative action 

### cited to rui that

nn.antifi••rl a measure ofinsignrncanee, believes 

### it is entitled to some weight. Moreover, the notion. suggested by some com.menters, that 

### the circumstances involving an emergency

measure would naturally require greater iedsoo!llic:ant than**malo~term** conservalion me1urure is not pel'lluasive. it could equallybehypothesized thatin

an emergency savinp would 

### be deemed**~u~nui.uu.H** 

### even if

### smaller than what

"for a full**d~Kl'iptkm** cf**~"iii ~lioruil**  actl<Wu Slim !ha Aprill!pr!>1X36al. lit lff21ii.woold be required

## ro be deem:ed Jignificant in normal times.



### Both interpretatio!'.18 may 

### plausible, butno evidence has been adduce4 to demonstrate that one rather than the otheris determinative. CmlHquently, DOE has no weight to either and 

### has the Congreuion.al action to l'luggestive that <HOO bpd 

### is insignificant Aooordingly, DOE has conc:!m:ied 

### that the record don not support 

### adoption 

### of the significance test pr 

### which t energy s.avings oflen than 1500

### bpd.

Finally, a few commenters, 

### lrocll aia the New York StateEnergy Office, f!tiggested 

### tliat. in

### mea.su.ring the energy s1rvings**a~butable** 

### to ii 

### 111tru:u:mrd 

### for the**purpOi!I~** 

### of detem:Wi.Jng 

### I.heir per to meHure only 

### what would 

### occur in an 

### umegu.Ulted environment. Theirposition was 

### th.at Congress, in rejecting voluntary targets for**manda~ry** standarda, had rejected the co:nceW: ofallowing an'""'""'"""''

.." market to achieverequisite energy efficiencies for products, so that any increased efficiencies 

### achieved by the unregula1ed market 

### should be disregarded. DOE cannot agree with this
comment. Section 32.S(b)'s !:njunctioo 

### against a standerd is that 

### the BWmiord 

### wouldnotresult in 

### a eignificant

conservetion ofenergy, 

### Certainly the best, 

### ifnot the only, 

### way to meatmre whether the conservation ofenergy is the result of the standard or is the result 

### ofsome otherfactor is to consider what would 

### occurin the absence of standards. 

### IfDOE ignored the effect of market-induced efficiencies, 

### the 1Htvings identified in the atandards case could
not be said tobe the result of standarda. Moreover, DOE dlHgrees with these commenteni' a1J11essment that Co:ngrees by enactiflE the cu:mmt Section 325 intended to reject the notion 

### tl:w.t efficiencies 

### that would be obtained

an unregulated market should be ignored. Indeed. DOE believes that
current Section 325(b) WH included to

ensure that DOE did

### not ignore the effects ofan unregulated market. 

### by ensuring thatDOE assessed whether a mandatory standard wali worth the candle in terms oithe amount of energy OOD!lervation achieved

### as a result of the standard.



### Finally, some oommenteni suggested that DOE was the "significant" savings two 

### Slate&- Califomia and New York--fla being the 

### result ofState standards for efficiency of certain 

### DOE hH not ignored these reported DOE notes, however, that the representative PM:ffic**~11** and Electric 

### mdiatoo tha! 

### the Culifomia**were~** entinily a result ofthe uw1uum 

### atandard11 am:i not 

### the il:Jl'Pilltm<:e stmldards, and 

### thatNew estimated HVinglg for all 

### ofill!**~arda** (.OUI Quads (,)Ver five years for all State 

### 11tandru:tis, m lesll 

### than .OM per year) 

### wowd oomtiMe less**~** of

one percent ofeven the State'$



### e importantly, April 2 proposal 

### that**~nee** 

### ofclimate dffierenoes or different energy concern11 (Mpecially with 

### re11pect to 

### where problems are 

### looa1 and in

natute) a standard 

### in a SUlte 

### might have grMter relative positive impacu or than 

### ifthe 11tandud were adopted on a national 

### buis. Thus, 

### even ifmandatory ehmdards in California and New York have resulted in savings signfficant to those States, this iti not evidence that a mandatory standard for a product would 

### have significant nationwide.

l. 

### Oil orGas Servings. AB 

### wu described in the April 2 DOE believes that 

### ii iii to focus on savings

### ofoil or gas it is these fuels that 

### Congress was most com::emed about conserving when it enacted NECPA, amending EPCA to create the existing appliance efficiency standard program. 

### The findiflEs 

### enumerated in 

### l'.'BCPA are instructive:

(a} Finding!l,-TI1e Congn.>t1s finds that- (1) The United :State11 faces an energy 11bortage llriaing 

### from increasing 

### dem1uu! for
energy. particularly for oil m:id ruitural f!ll.ll, and insufficient domestic supplies ofoil

# and
natural gas to satisfy that demand;

f2J Unle11s effective measures are promptly taken by the Federal Government end other

users ofenergy to reduce the rate ofgrowth of demand for energy, the United States will become im::reuingly dependent on the world oil market. iru::reasingly vulnerable to inteITUptions offoreign oil supplies, and unable to provide the energy to meet future needs; and

13} All 11eciOI"ll ofour Nation's economy mual begin immediately to significantly reduce the demand for nonrenewable energy**~sollJ'Q!!fi** such H oil and natural gas by implementing and maintaining effective oonservatinn mea11ures for tl1e efficient uae of these and other energy wuf'Cf!t.

Accordingly, DOE concluded that a saving o? oil or gas would be deemed significant ifit made a significant contribution to reducing this Nation's energy dependence on foreign nations. No commenter specifically took objection to such a 

### test DOEthen stated that Htentatively proposed 10,000 bpd of oil or

### the natural gas equivalent of 10,000bpd

# oroil as the lowest level of Hvings that would still have a significant c:.ontributitm to reducing thi6 

### 1982 

# I Rules and Regulations 57205

Natim::i'11 ' natio:rui, but co:mmentli }Ul to whether

### the 

### figure ahould 

### he 

### different

Some oommenters. such cs the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration lru!titute {ARI),**~ted** that 10,000 bpd was too low a levei ofHvings to

### be deemed significant becauseeven this level was 

### less than one tmith ofonepercent of national oil use and less than 

### 'lo 

### otl percent

# orpetroleum imports. Other commenter& asserted that the 10,000 bpd level was too high.

The AR1 did not suggest a specific higher 

### fignra or indicale what basis DOE 11hould use in reassessing the, proposed '10.000 bpd figure. Some

# or the
commente.rs who believed 10,000 bpd



### was · , suggested pa.rti vels. One suggestion



### was 4400 bpd-the specific level of Hvings projected for the conservation contingencypliiD that had been rejected by 

### CongreH in 

### 1979 as insignificant. 

### As DOE noted 

### in lheApril 2proposal, however, 4400 bpd 

### was rejected as inilignificant. and nothing in the history 

### ofthat action suggests that this figure tihould constitute the breakpoint 

### between significaru::e 

### and insignificance. The New York Swte Energy Office suggested 1165 bpd, 

### the oil equlva]ent

### of HL67 percent ofthe minimum energy use

a product must use before 

### it can be consideredfor standards under Section •Z-'i{a)(2}(B). 13 This amount is, ofcourse,

even less than the test proposed 

### by DOE in

### June 1980, the rejection 

### of which was described above. Accordingly, DOE do!'-!! not believe this is an appropriate figure. The Northern Stfltes Power Company suggested 1000 bpd as the level 

### because "[t)his amount ia 

### typical of many oil wells, each ofwhich are accoi.mted 

### for nationally," 

### In 

### fact. DOE does not sccount for each oil well, nor, 

### if it 

### did, would the lack ofproduction from

one be noticeable orrecognizable in nstional figures, Moreover, none of these oommenters ,indicated how his proposed level would relate to a 

### meaningful contribution to reducing this Nation's energy dependence on foreign nations. It l11 difficult to understand how

e saving too small even to be discernible

or measurable on national reports could be said to make a significant contribution to reduciflE ournational
energy dependence on foreign nations.

As a further basis for the 10,000 bpd test, in the April 2 proposal DOE indicated that 10,000 bpd was a rough

### 57206 Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 22. 1982 / Rules and Regulations

approximation ofthe per-product 

### oU savings to result from the adoption of standards, es estimated at the time by 

### the Administration that proposed the NECPA amendment to the appliance efficiency program. Also the April 2 proposal indicated that 

### a 10,000 bpd 

### oil savings for each ofthe products specified in the Act would be in 

### the

same range of savings ea 

### other major conservation programa propoaed by 

### the Administration that proPQaed mandatory appliance standards. No
commenter took issue with either of these points.

Accordingly, 

### after considering 

### the various comments on the 10,000 bpd
test. DOE believes the record supportll adoption of the teat. While ARI 

### ia right 

### that 10.000 bpd is itaelf

### a very email
amount ofoil or gas, DOE believes that in light of Congress' special concern 

### for oil and gas in the findings of

### NECPA. such a level still Is appropriate.

Some commenleni distinguished between the derivation ofthe 10,000 

### bpd
test and Its application. For example, the Environmental Policy Center (EPC) 

### stated that its problem with the 10,000 

### bpd test was "with its application (as opposed lo derivation) by DOE." "(May 19. 1982, 

### al 11). 

### The NRDC asserted that DOE defined the oil and gaa problem away by allegedly using 

### "NEP

# m forecasts which show oil and gas use

### by utilities 

### will be inconsequential by 1990." 

### (May 20, 1982, 

### at 6). 

### ln fact. however. DOE did not nae the National Energy Policy Plan ID 

### forecasts of oil and gas use by 

### utilities. Rather, ii 

### used the most recent Energy Information Administr!ltion (ElAJ 

### Annual Report 

### to Congress, which had only been recently issued. As indicated above, DOE la committed to using the most recent and reliable data in this rulemaking. Moreover, the forecaats made by EIA 

### (whether of energy usage or price) are made totally independent ofand without relation to thia rulemaking. Thus, 

### the oil and gas problem was not "defined away." Rather, to the extent that the projections are accurate, and no commenter suggested they were not or offered recommended substitutes, it ia 

### simply a fact that future electricity savings will save smaller and smaller
amounts of oil and gae ae those fuel& are used less to generate electricity.

"EPC'1 problem with OOE's 11pplle111i<111 of It. 10.000 bpd tetl WAR EPC't belit!I tha, DOE only measured site energy Htrinp, "thereby Prin.Ithl
vast inefficiency ofelectrlc aeneretlon. imd. thei-efore oil and SH consumed In po-. pmduciiCIJJ," Id. In**lac~** the ORNL Model imd tM

energy ""vlrl.8• l\gurell In the Aprll Z propotal.did
not meaaure •ile oa•ins- ofelectricity.**b~!** rether savlnss of energy input. to pmduce the el&elridty, f01' the very n.aso111 enundB ted by El"C. 

### Onecommenter asked for clarification less than one percent ofthe gas used in

BB to 

### whether the 10,000 bpd test central space heatif'.g. 

### See 47 FR 14430. 

### required 

### a savings ofeither 10.000 

### bpd Thus, these figures are entirely of 

### oil or the e<iuivalent of 10,000 bpd of reasonable for measuring separately oil
gas, or only 

### a total savings of oil and ga1 and gas savings. that wou1d equal 10,000 bpd of oil In 

### the 2, Electrlr:ity

### Savings. In 

### the April 2 April 2 

### proposal the test required 

### that proposal DOE 

### proposed that. the savings attributable to 

### a standard notwithstanding NECPA's 

### focus on oil


### must save either 10,000 bpd of oil or 

### an ' and gas savings. some level ofelectricity equivalent amount of gas, not just 

### a total savinga should also be deemed savings of oil and gas equalling 10,0CK> significant because of the positive social bpd. 

### lnother words, 

### ifa standard would benefits from eaving electricity, separate result 

### in a savings of 10,0C(l 

### bpd of oil 

### or from the consequent saving of any oil if it 

### would renlt in 

### a Hvings ofgas and gu uaed to generate the electricity. equal to 10,0C(l

### bpd ofoil (approximately In 

### the April 2 

### proposal DOE indicated 538 

### mcf/day), the savings would ba that such social benefits might include 

### deemed significant. 

### If, on the other reducing environmental problems. band. neither 10.000 bpd ofoil nor ita With reapect to environmental equivalent in gas were saved. the benefits from electricity savings, 

### DOE savings would not 

### be deemed si.gnificant noted that the F.nvironmental Analysis

even 

### iftaken together they were the that accompanied the June 1980 

### equivalent of 10,000 bpd of oil. proposal determined that even 

### if all the

The commentet suggested that. standards proposed at that time were becauae oil and gas were often adopted. the positive effect on the aubatitutes, the 10,000 bpd shouldrefer environment would not be significant. In


### to the sum ofoil and gee 

### savings. DOE the June 1980 

### proceeding that conclusion has coMidered this comment but has was not challenged. Inasmuch as the concluded that such a change is Environmental Analysis considered the inappropriate. First. oil and gas are not total potential energy savings that direct substitutes in the appliances would be attributeble to imposition of subject to thia rolemaki.ng. For example, standards for all products al the highest

one furnace can use oil: another can use standard level considered, the finding gas; no furnace canuse both. Moreover, that the positive impacts on the

even in 

### the generation of electricity, the environment would not be significant 

### in substitutability ofgas for oil or 

### vice the June 1980 

### proposal was viewed in

versa le often more theoretical than real the April 2 

### proposal as clearly indicating except in 

### the long term. Consequently, that electricity savings attributable to DOE believes it 

### would nol be proper lo any one standard would not be

asswne the perfect substitutability that eignificant in terms of their positive adoption ofthis comment would impact on the environment. No neceesarily imply. commenter on the April 2 

### proposal look

Second. 10.000 

### bpd oroil ia itselt such issue with thie**conclusion.·~** 

### a email amount. barely discernible in Consequently, DOE has determined that national reports, and the equivalent of electricity savings attributable to a 10,000 bpd 

### of

### gas ie also such a small standard would not be significant in
amount (lesa than one tenth of one terms of their environmental impact. percent of the gas used), that effectively TheApril 2 

### proposal. however,
to lower these separate teets by suggested that an additional social allowing the sum of oil and gas savings 

### benefit associated with electricity
to 

### be measuredagainst the 10,000 bpd savings would be the reduction in need level would lower the teet and the for new incremental generating
a.mount below the level of significanca. capacity. Therefore, DOE proposed that MoTeOver, as indicated in the April 2 a savings of electricity would be deemed proposal the original savings estimate**~ignificant** 

### if the savings**ei~ificantly** 

### by the Administration which propoeed reduced the need for such new, the NECPA amendment was incremental generating capacity. Most approximately 10,000 bpd of oil per commenter&, inc!udirJR those who standard plus approximately the eama criticized the proposed test, supported for gas. See 

### 49 FR 14429 n.15. this concept. DOE proposed to quantify

Finally. neither 10,000 bpd ofoil nor this concept by requiring 11 

### standard lo lta equivalent ofgu are large amounts result in a savings of electricity over the offuel lo be saved compared to the nineteen-year period 1987-2005 

### equal to amounts oftheee fuels consumed by the eight prodnct1 subject to this

### rulemaldng. For example, .021 Quads (the BTIJs in 

### 10.tnl bpd of oil in a year)

was in 

### 1980 lesa than one percent of the oil used in 

### central space heatins and NRDC in ill com.mente 011 the April 1 propos..:J raised qunstion< concerning !he adl!'Quacy

or**th~** EnvironmentaJ Analysiv'**~onsiderabon** or 

## po••ible neg a Iivc imp•ct• iI no**~tB**nda!'d5 Wen! adO'p!ed. which**wo1~d** preempt State stAn<larila. 51!'1! in.fm.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 47, No. 246 

## I Wednesday, December 22, 

### 1982 

# I Rules and RPgulafions 57207

one pereent ofthe total electricity used during thal period. DOE explained 

### this required level of savmgs by saying that "fb}ecause the relative need for new capacity differs substantially among 

### different regions 

### of the Nation, 

### DOE beheves a 

### national a<wings would a! 

### least have to exceed one percent of national usage overthe period of analysis in order to have a:n effect on the need for new generating capacity, 

### which at the utility level 

### is distinguishable from otherfactors!' 47 FR 14430. 

### Several com."Tienters disagreed that e one percent electricity savings

wae the appropriate test 

### for determi.rlng the significance 

### ofelecl:rici vings.**'~**



### Several commentera felt this level of 11avmgs was 

### simply too 

### high because ii 

### was an amount in excess of (a) the minimum emounl ofenergy specified in Section 325[b) 

### that other products would have to use lo 

### qualify for consideration of standards, (bl the amount of energy proposed in 

### tlrn June '.1980 

### proposal to be deemed signl!icant, or [c) 

### the amounl that it

### is even theoretically possible fot

some products to save. All of these arguments have been addressed ear.lier.

Some commenters noted that the one percenl savings of 

### electricity (approximately 7 

### Quads over the period 1007-2005) was more 

### than the '10,000 bpd savings proposed for gas or oil savings (approximately .4 

### Quads over the period 1007-4005). DOE recognizes this difference, but the fact thi::t the electricity savings would have to be larger than oil orgas Mlvings in order to be deemed significant is intentional and, DOE believes. supported 

### by the 

### high priority 

### NECPA 

### gives lo 

### 1;;;ivings ofoil and gas. Moreover, it 

### is important to remember that each test is intended to quantify a different concept-the one saving enough oil or gas to reduce this Nation's 

### dependence on foreign sources of energy. and the other saving enough

,.A m1mber t1f the•e co!llt!lenten apparently mi!tmderstn"<l the 

### ""'t. the April 2 proposal's clea• 1rid1cat1on the total electridty 1111vings over nme1<>en )'Hr& would havt to exc1M1d

one percent ofth• l<>teI electricity i.wa11e over the

same period. the EflnN>mnenlal Policy**~mer** fEPCl
wa& ofthe "'""' tha1 H•'•Yl8• were only considered

aa an "annual aurn averaged acroaa theentire perlcxl." Mey ill. 19il2. at Hl Several commenters. auch a• !he NRDC and the Depntment of Veteran and Communny Aflairs or the State ofFlorida. appeared le behe•·e the requ1r1'rnent waG a one percent**sav\ng~** fX1Cft year. because !hey M•ggesled tha! a one percen1 savlllg• was s majorponioo of DOE's proiected rwo-to-three percent annual increased eiectncal di!mand. in fact. wherea• the tuta} aavings O'lit'ff the**ni.nt:~tem1·ye1:u ;:~riod**  1981- 2005 had only lo ire one l*'l'<'..enl o! !o!al mw over tiu!t period. eiec!ricity demand it**f~cest** to increate over 33 percent in !ht! len-y&ar period of 1005-ll!l!S !1981 Annual Rejl<:lli tu**Co~s.** OOE/ ElA--017)(81)/3 al Etnd over Wperten! in the l':\fteM·)ffll!ll )?t'rioo {NKPP Ill. OOE/S.. 

### oooe aU1}. 

### electricity lo reduce significantly the need for new, incremental generating capacity-thus. it 

### ls not surprising that the quantifications are 

### different, and that fact does not by 

### itselfsuggest that

one percent electricity savings is too 

### high a level.

Several commenters complained that l.n 

### quantifying a 

### te11l for 

### electricity turvings, 

### DOE had not quantified the
amount ofnew additional capacity that 1mch a 

### savings would 

### make
unnecessary. None of

### these commenters 

### 11ugge11ted what 

### amount of

### additional

new capacity should have to be avoided 

### in order to be deemed significant Rather, several commenlers attempted
to translate the aggregate electricity savings for

# au products using electricity, 

### ifstandards were edopled 

### for all those products, into 

### additional new capacity that could be avoided. These estimates ranged from 16.8 

### CWe {ACEEE, 

### June 16, '.1982, 

### at 11) 

### to 17.6 

### GWe (Northern States Power, June 15, :1982, 

### at 1) in 

### the )'ear 2005. 11

### Each ofthese com.menters also reflected these estimated 

### avoided capacities in terms ofpowerplant equivalents, which 

### ranged from '.17 

### 1000 MW planttl to 22 800 MW plants.These capacities avoided were all 

### felt to be "significant" by the commenter&.



### First, even asswrJng that these
emounts were significant savings under Section 325(b)(2), 

### they would not support a finding that a standard for any

one product would resuit in significant 

### savings, for these amounts reflect aggregate savings frorn standards on all products using electricity. Under 

### even ACEEE'11 methodology the largest reduction 

### in need 

### for new, incremental capacity atl:ributable to one standard (elecl:ric waterheaters] would be only 36 

### percent 

### of the aggregate figure presented. Under DOE's base case projection. the largest reduction would be only 17 

### percent ofthe aggregate figure presented, or approximately 3 GWe or three 1000 .!vfW 

### powerplant equivalents nationwide. As discussed earlier, Section 32b(bJ 

### requires DOE to make a determination ofllignifican1 11avings on an individual product type basis, 

### not on the basis 

### of the aggregate 

### 11avinga 

### if standards were imposed on all products.

Second, it 

### is no! al all clear that even

a 17to18CWe theoretical reduction of

"Th"EPC al&o ruad" an estimate. HB figure of 40.2 GWe by !he year 2000 i11. OOE believes. founded on a methodological error. Th" ACE:E:E 11lalt'• !hat !!J) figure I$ bes1'1:! on the OF.NL Model'• projection ofthe h1s1orical ll'ends base caae """"""""" with the $lands1'!!3 case, rather then on base caae projection. which would reduce ACEEE·s 1.10 Quada ofelectricity IMlv:ings iri the
year 2;tJ05 lo 1).32 Quada. The Nol'them Stauis Power Companydid not**11~** ill! m'i!lhodolQSY. 

### additional new capacity is significant in term!l ofactually affecting potential

new. incremental capaclly. The 17to18 GWe capacity savings projected by the 

### commenters would 

### be li'ss than 

### 2 percentofthe approx1m.;te forecasl capacity

### for the year 

### 20n5. and these eavings would for the mo<.l 

### part be 11pread overlarge parts. 1f

### not all, ofthe Nation. 11 

### The result of thn1 is that 

### in

aome utility service aret1s. the level at which decisions are made as to the need for new, incremental capacity. these marginal savings could be so small compared to other fric1ors. e.g

.. demographic changes. thr.! they would have no impact on 

### actual construction decisions. Thus. one cannot reliably

assume that whatever number of gigawatts one may mathematically back 

### out as 

### a result 

### ofreduced kilowat! hours attributable to a standard represents the actual gigawatts ofcapacity 

### construction foregone.

For the above reasons. DOE is unable
to accept these commenters' position that the standards analyzed in the April 2 

### proposal saved a significant amoun'. of electricity.



### The final major comment made 

### b:,•
commenters with respect to 

### the electricity sa'vings test related to consideration ofpeak load demand. These commenters criticized the one 

### percent savings test saying it 

### failed to take adequate account cf savings' effed



### on peak load. Unfortunately, as DOE noted in the April 2 

### proposal. the nature ofa utility's peak load and the impacts ofprojected increases are highly regional, if

### not local, ma!lers. Many utilities are winier peaking ilS 

### a rcsul! of electric space heating. whereas others

are summer peaking because of air conditiornng. Moreover. the nature of peaking capacity differs greatly. and in many circumstances peak load probler.is

can be alleviated through load management techniques. No comn1er.!er provided or suggested a methodology for relating the ORNL Model's savmgs projections to peak load problems. Moreover, at the present time DOE hef 

### been unable to develop such a methodology.

The no-5tandard rule being issued today does not include air condJtionir.g equipment, the products invariably cited
to DOE as those for which analysis of peak load is most important. DOE is continuing to study whether some

mmmer ofaddressing the peak load problem for air conditioning equipment

n1n rhe ACEEE an11!y11$, leH than 20**~rceni** c;f the electricity**11a~ing•** are attributable to central or
room air condl1lonl1J8, wMd1 sllvinl!s might be m<•f!' regionlil lhan national.

### 57200 

## I Vol. 47, No. 246 

## I

ls 

### f,;;;sible lov,•ards the end

an additional test of in the firu1l rule for air

and <>IDrtY"irH»r tr:sts related to their i:npect at the national level, and :.his was both !he most natural and the most meanlng of !o 

### asi11:iss whether

was to of ent>rgy !o a s!zmdard for a

; 1m•"'1d in**rn!ilt~nn** to the energy use by S;idi a test is neutral as to**~,;.~:-'r;:e~l** ui thoss: :;,,v,,:-a! cGmmentrcrs look issue with

dS 1ifH! in certain DOE 

### "His foun<l :he comments taken, Fi;st several commenters HtJted that the 20 percent in :he former Section 325 referred lo a W ydcent in the ;;:ocucts, w """

,.,..,. to a 20 pt:rcent in

use ;is result ofan increase 

### in

effu.:ie'.'it1es, Several ofthese
out that

a 20 percent i.ncrease in

a rnsulls in a UH!7 per:..ent decrease 

## rn use, not a 20 percent decri?ase. Thus, some

"The addihvn of""""" ttt! for d°"" create an**ad:d~t~ormi** hurdle for a il ihe ettributlib1t w • •tam!ucl the 11!andiml lo Min Thotk <'ffOh aitd\1\<lMi**1~$!** in f;ICI**''d~s** 

### ire of a standard bemjj doomlK! '.::a V€**tng~ ~heant** **~nergy** tli:&vtn3$. several commenters noted Iha! :.mder the 2 rm:io1::1s1u nNmucrn would not meet

a standard 1e<mu1eu sold to use no energy at anomalous result occurred because so much of the energy measured in the standards case consumed
!he 

### ""'"''"'i.."'

ofa For ranges and cve::s the ilfetune is 18 years, and the

nrnu«1T1" case assumes slar:dardis are put inlo effect in 1987, so the sav;r:12s in the 2005 would used
to c!e!ermine there ,,·as a 16.67 percent decrease in kitchen and 'Jvens'

use in the case from the case. This limits the mirnsurement 

### the standards case t-0

u!t.H.ILI.Ll>i that W(lfe WhC!l standards were deemed in effect.

\\ ith these has met !he com:nenters test in the April 2 Im)pinm

even with the have been met ccmmenters were of the view !hat the 2 20 percent lest was IO the 20 

### im::rease in referred in former Section 325, and, therefore, the 2 test had no basis at all. Some of
commenters streHed the difference& in how and what the 20 percent measured in former Section 325 and the April 

### 2 Moreover, several commenters complained that the former Section 3Z5's 20 percent increase 

### in wa11 measured 

### 1:111 the difference the relative efficiencies 

### ofproduct11 in 

### the two years 1972 and 1980, whereas the April 2 proposed

## zo percent test was the ,difference in energy mm between a base

case and a standards case over the 1987-200lL•lit! These stated that becawte there have already been some substantial improvements in efficiency between 1972 and 1971!, this reduces the potential for further incret1sirt2 efflclencles hy significant percentages, and. accordingly, 20 percent i.s too high a figure.

DOE acknowledges, 

### as it did with respect to the April Z that the
current test of a product's energy use 

### ifa standard were adopted compared to the nr'""'"' c energy use ifno siarn:lard were is not 

### ex1H:tly the same 

### nor is it in exactly the same ctr·cums!a11cefs as the minimum energy tarimts that were under former Section 325, >:evertheless, these differences are not ofa sufficient or of a kind or nature to that DOE's 11'1.67 p;,;rcent test is out of lo the target In former Rather, in
to define a reasonable lest of

constitute a significant cDr:»ervatlon of for all products, am! for products DOE noted

"'"' ULlt'U 8 Vfl!1 !J11< :;urv**tar~et** of at !east a 20 percent increase in the ofall the products between a.nd moo. Only 

### ifa; voluntary target were not met, wi:mld a standard be considered.

the differences between**u:~:ui<m.niV** scheme and the test DOE believes that the suggests the

of the measure**~dopted** new DOK Mornover. even ihhe
commenters were correct that 

### OOE could not rely on the former Section 325 target in adopting its 16.57 percent IHl. DOE believes the record still supports the reasonableness ofa significance !est based on a 16.67 percent decrease in
energy use 

### by the product at Issue,

4, 

### Conclusion, On the basis of

### the foregoing, DOE ill adopting three tests to determine whether the nv\ngs attributable to a staru:iard would result

("nd th!! raf<>m•ul.o·l<Kl miru.mW:tl for eacli

'"" The adoptoo lt!.117**tl~ue<l** at!illldatd» ease one yur all products

### rn ""'" have l>ffn 11t1•n<ili.rdJ

### m the stant:!arde cue).

# I Vol. 47, No. 246 

# I Wednesday, December 

### 22. 1982 

# I Rules 

### and Regulations 

## moo

in a tdgniliunt oon11ervation 

### ofenergy 

### imderSection 325 

### (b) {1). 

### The fin;t 

### test would deem significant ilie aavinga 

### attributed;ile to fl 11tandam 

### Ifthe 

### standard would 

### result in 

### the &avin.s of 10,000 

### bpd 

### ofoil orthe nving ofnatural 

### Hover



### e question**b~** with

### the 

### yeu '.1007. 

### The ,;econd test would deem li!lgnificant 

### the 

### savings attributable 

### to a 

### standard Jf 

### the 1tandam

### woold 

### re11ult in 

### the saving ofone percent ofnational 

### electricity ut>e over ilie

### period

### ofthe average 

### life ofthe product 

### in question beginning with the yearj007. The third
testwould deem savings 

### significant 

### if the 

### nvinga attributable to a standard for a product were equal to 16.67 percent ofthe energy tha1 would be used 

### by that product 

### in the absence of a standard 

### measured over the one 

### year period 

### following the period 

### ofthe average 

### life of the product purcli.ased in 

### the last 

### year before 

### the standard would bee 

### imposed.


# n. (d) EconomicJW!tification



### As discussed in theAprll 2 proposal, SectionSZS(b} eitio prohibits an 

### appliance efficiency 

### standard 

### ifthat 

### standard is not economicallyjustified Thus. even 

### ifa ,;ta.ndam savea fllgnificant amounts ofenergy, no 11tandlil"d could be issued unless 

### it was 

### determined to he economically justified. Section 325(dJ 

### statu that e etandard can be economicallyjustified only 

### ifDOE 

### determines that the benefits of standard 

### exceed its burdens. 

### lo determining whether the benefits ofa particular standard 

### exceed the burdens, DOE

### must weigh six specific factora as 

### well as any other factors that DOE deems to be 

### appropriate. 

### See Section 325{d) (l}-(7).ilO All of these 

### facton were 

### addreHed in the April 2 propo11aL Comments have been received which criticized DOE's views concerning 1mme of

### these factol'l!. 

### However. no 11peciiic 

### comments 

### were received which addressed any of

### the factol'l! in relationship to the two :products 

### involved in 

### today's rulemaldng.

Becau11e no specific comments on the economicjustification

### involving clothes 

### dryers antl ranges and 

### ovens were received 

### i.md becamie some ofthe economicjW1tification factor11 rely

..TlH• NRDC**po!n~** out in lit oommenta tha! ktion 325{dj by 1111 tenm onl)' refeni to Sectioo 32/l{c}, 1101 to Stocti""**~).and** lherefou &11$8fliled Iha! OOE nood 

### nm and *1ioolcl not dewrmine i'OOtlomic ju•tincation on the biia!JI o! the welghilljii ofth11 ;r;>eci&td flactOl'll. Whelheror not S..ction 32/l{dj f'tK/WIW Ill! tat tn apply to detl!rminatlom !If eoonomlcj,...ti!'i®ru:.u imrl"1 SeclioD 3211{1>}. orooly lhoee delerminalloM made underSection S:lli(c), OOE !:mli<!vl!1> the le<11t inSoclioo 3.W(d) te1>I is 111ppropmle for cle:termining

### ""'°"OllUc jlll!tifiool:ion !Wder&cilmi**~}.** on the O.R.'P.;"1 model,ti DOEis 

### 111scu1;1m1J1 all 

### ofthe norH1pecific
comments with 

### respect to its economicjustification.

### Where slgnificant adverse comment was received 

### with to a general factor discuHed in 

### the Discussion 

### of th:e April 

### 2**prcpot11~l** 

### and 

### DOE 

### is not responding to it in this rule, 

### DOE is not giving any to tha1 general factor in this M.Jle.**m.C!oth~**


### a. TechnicalIssues

lo

### th:e technical 

### area, comment& regarding clothes dryers 

### addressed the 

### design options considered in

### DOE'e 

### analysis, the dasses proposed, and DOE's test procedures for clothes 

### dryeu.

DOE evaluated three design options for 

### improving the efficiency of clothes 

### dryers in the analysis which led to the April 2 

### proposal. The 

### three were: insulation, 

### automatic termination

### by moisture !lensing, and automatic termination by 

### temperature sensing.



### Several 

### commenters stated thal the 

### insulation design 

### option should 

### not have been considered. 

### Two ofthe
commenters. Webster City Products 

### [Webster City) and 

### Whirlpool Corporation fvVhirlpool), suggested 

### that the extended payback period ofthis design option should 

### disqualify it from consideration. 

### Webster City

### remarked that its laboratory 

### test investigation showed a 15 to 20 year payback period for this design option 

### while \'Vhirlpool 

### used cost figUJ"ee from POE·e EngineeringAnalysis 10 

### compute 

### a 22..3 yearpayback 

### period.



### DOE agrees that

## the payback for this design option iJ; not attractive, but this fact, given the purpose for which the design options 

### in the Engineering Analysis are used, 

### does not compel its elimination. The design options are used 

### to assess the relationship between increases in 

### the efficiency 

### ofa product end increases in the cost of

### that product. This relationship is then used in other analyses 

### to project the 

### effects that

. would be attributable to stam:lards set at different levels. Design 

### options with a range ofpayback periodB maybe useful in the 

### derivation ofthe 

### relationship between im::reases 

### in efficiency and 

### increases in 

### cost 

### Of course, 

### a standard that 

### would require use of 

### euch a design option maynot be economically justified.

GenereJ

### Electric Company (GE) commented 

### that DOE's estimate ofa '.Ui



## *' Fwexa:mple, wilil tiill Jasul!t l:nvolving the O!t"'ll. Model are satisfactorily re•o!ved the fffil:>nomic U:npac! oo roanufac!urel'I! H 1n&uuredby tl:ie i'i.'lru!dal lmparuModel canm1! be**cU.t~** percent energyHvings for insulating 

### clothes dryer11 was overstated. 

### GE claimed that this

### level of energy 

### savings could 

### only 

### be achieved

### under the condition ofcomparing the energy consumption of rm insulated clothes 

### dryer with 

### that ofan uninsulated unit 

### operated formultiple consecutive cycles drying certain types ofclothes loads. 

### DOE's estimate 

### of1.5 percent &a\'ingl!

was taken from NBS test data and from

an analysis ofprevious industry
ru:m:.unents relative 

### to improvements that could 

### be gainedfrom wwation. 

### Inits comment, GEdid

### not the 

### basis 

### for its conclusion 

### or i 

### here DOE might 

### have erred. Accordingly. DOE was unable to conclude that GE'e comment



### wasjustified.

The :remaining comment made pertaining to ilie insulation design 

### option was an expression ofconcern 

### on 

### the part 

### ofthe Association 

### ofhome Appliance Manufacturers {A.HAM) 

### that insulation in 

### clothers dryers could 

### degrade with 

### time with the 

### resultant potential for loose

### particles ofinsulation ooing drawn into the 

### clothes load or 

### exhausted into 

### the home environment. The type ofinsulation which DOE considered in its 

### analysis ofthis 

### design option wati vinyl-clad 

### fioorglass, one 

### inch in thickness, 

### which is commonly wmd in airducts where high velocityhot 

### air ls encountered. DOE is nol 

### aware of any problem11 a11sociated with this application ofthis material. Therefore, DOE does notproject any problems or risks asliociated with using this type of insulatingmaterial on the inside of 

### clothee dryer cabinets.

Other comments pertaining to clothes dryer design 

### options concerned automatic termination controls. Whirlpool questioned DOE'11 estimate of 

### the energy 11<1vings 

### associated with 

### the application ofmoisture sensing automatic termination controls on 120 volt compact dryers. Since such controls 

### have not been 

### applied in 

### production to 120

### volt compact dryers. the commenter pointed out that DOE's energy savings estimate cannotbe verified 

### with field



### use results. 

### It ill 

### true that no field use data are 

### available for 

### this application 

### of this design option. However, field use 

### data 

### are available for 240

### volt standard clothes 

### dryeni equipped with :inolsture aensing automatic termination 

### devices 

# anrl it is OOE's position that. 

### in the absence ofdata to 

### the contrary, 

### it ie 

### reasonable to apply the field usage factor determined from 

### these data to 120 

### volt compact clothes 

### dryen equipped with the srune design option. 

### Consequently, DOE has not made changes to the E.ngineeriJl8 Analysis in this regard.

### "This same wmmsntmffurlfirrp. 

### rema&& bb iFI 

### rsnelysk tempera&% aeaw ~auaame@a: temtnatioa cont.ratoapparmdyware not 

### ass:ped &e

### hD eaaew sa%ws &at D%9E 

### accadedmots* smalw au!omatic tenilinalian 

### contnrlrr,

### T%i@ cowmeszteris corn& for malysia DQE 

### used 

### the field use 1Fectail.sfa 

### iempt.rrl@ 

### aen'sns- arad anofstm senel% eaatoanaaPictemirae@cwn casm1s found

### in tks pmspsed anrtenh~nts to

&C 

### test pmedms

### farclotbea @em gubfistnedanjuPy 1% Ii, [IIS 

## 1.

mesaproporsd Factam wen* 

### maismsknsiqserutmatdctennkah asd 1.16 

### for IempemW searring eutonaot'ls:tenrtinehan.The mtiond f@r @us, 

### asmbtd 

### in DO@'@ -nee* haigsis,was %el tempraturn sertsm 

### rely an e fisil ia 

### the temperaiPirr

### of tbe emkg

### et ta temins2a a tycIt?.

### Siam such a tempem- rise 

### mm afterrhe noisrutat 

### in the 

### foe& haa,

### kn wmcp~e& 

### WE reasoned Chat ar tmpmtm 

### aeneing ~onhnd 

### would tennilmate

### a 

## v& isle? &a*f 

### rr motas- sm'sns~ m~~f, 

### other

## &tm hi* eqaag. 

### k&sn 

### &a lmsilroaafus

# mAt &a 

### lime. &ese 

### $roped

### Reld

### ma factorsrepresent& I3QFs 

### best =&me& ofthe 

### rtrkal enemaaviSXp associatd wi& 

### the aWCl types 

### of antmet.l(l ternlaasdolaml~~ls* 

### fndusw

### rnmmm& and ders aubmiltedIn reswne 

### ?sr

### h pr&rpord 

### test ~cdm mmdnteat estabiishd ht 

### tempam

# mm controb rsre 

### &e 

### equd of maism

seas- chanmis in 

### trCh*8f&eE&M enew setringasAs B 

### resalt, 

### WE assiyred

same Fie& use fador 

### fmtempemtufe 8clasaniJaolomartxe aemahm

### mofwh a$fat 

### molarwe amshsulomaric termanation

### urnmls, 1M 

### aXrtihr rialmle rrmenk 

### LLn@te for dorbea dwem publiah 

### y 18, 1m P)% FR3%3. Wm 

# m1D @b 

### Its swnerjmg analpsis for eloh 

### dryere to 

### awnt 

### lor &is &- 

### tia

### ths

@em, 

### Mm subsmdem.a 

### 'h for 

### thja 

## mm 

# m. pnaElinBqto 

### the fw claUEm *em wwera 

### received. GE momended that dothea dryem &Bt are?

### )~n&?d-ady ~bQ1ld kt@ 

### madre rl 

### oeparmta? dam 

### Am- fa

### ttkLI. Acr, .fore &at 

### &at affects

### trEili@ end

### mm cmsw*~
&%rtit 

### tirmtd-mlg 

### @em 

### *em& tend to

### be less eneme&cttnf 

### than

### do&% clam

### why mnsmem wodd

### pe~f;eI~s dmlded egoinstomft"yiw 

### a vaim &at 

### &em dryem offer 

### any added ubltty. 

### adjurmtrzneatfarwmpact datatea 

### hem. Shce

### &e Wed-orily feawrmre 

### doer aot Themanrrt?.iuPgt&~icfi$ 

### gem

### miad &Bad 

### pmdad

# earn%WE bas 

### 9 ro cla&ea *m 

### mmm& cfetemebf&at

### e separark 

### pmdud rrlrrsa vatritrbih& of 

### twtpmedFw Wed-ody

### hem shadd not 

### be f30Epabhketd 

### axnmded &a% 

### estebbbad.



### &WfgrwI xcamended 

### that gas fmBB 

## 2'9213
hefed campad da&etr 

### dvc?rs be mods 

# '@"

sopantec~sas snd 

### fdc~, gat

### aoy 

### ~~~~~~~",&HpmL WrIrsteT 

# asrI smddpew* and

### WM~lar-aked that 

### testresd 

### ea?m ba a finrrction af 

### b volwe, 

## Bags teat 

### p~dm far cEa&es 

### &em 

### debecawpad &m 

### a8 &ase 

### 6th dmrn valarrntls of lass thfasn mtbic

### feel* sr&,$Uny 

### pmau*it4e& Arcom 

### 65-1- #Re ad&ss 

### t~zla wnma m@Pf@l 

### gag

### h@bdcornpa@

## bes Tests &e Hs~ma] 

### &a@ af 

### made in IW2, huD lnodeb 'Va''sua 

### Standlirtaabsve sat *Ailailedva&abili% 

### fnade 

### tz wdnu 

### mad~lrr m of 

### test

### mfsultro

### at&e orderexpdand 

### pmjeetedbr1W 

### included with 

### tse 

### by gy~~ 

### cgn&ura
-1m 

### dare wae ifsfomationw&& jb 

### toreaoive &is 

### issue show& heevewe 

### vc-kme however, my

### stew taken 

### dong

### &ere for Q7wzl of 

### c1a&@s 

## hem 53 rn

### not expected la have

### any ctrbic feet in 19$9,B.12 

### cubicfeet in iW% 

### inpeel an 

### &e msuits 

### eny of &a 

### and 8.S 

### mbXc

### feet

### iB '5880+ 

### DOE

### dida;rt 

### andyoesr &gc;cmBsed 

### hemh pmwae ar 

### areparatepraduct damfor gar 

### hefed compoa dathes 

### bcamiae it 

### b+ S&"ifi 4 

### Tbr!t~ble bplow wBeas

### the proje~tret

enewetilnngs 

### rlrt~brttafsle ta s 

### aam&ctmd 

### in I%?, 

### the year 

### &at my 

### standard for

### rarcfothas 

### @em at each 

### of sbanM

### pmdhdin &ern- the 

### stimdhrds ievelssnalyzdunder the 

### wadd have become e&cQ:trve.Fufther, iax 

### OR%%Model as 

### \.reg as 

### tbe results

### af



### mvaem ghe a1711

### data, 

### D0Eatw 

### ehe mmiti'sity

### tmdysea pri?rfermedtsn found

### w eW1mntmrreEatmoo btvc'em 

### sterndardlevel

# +

WMS ~YERS

Wan

### w a3e 3%

MI aae oar 601 

### m rn

E -D O % 3 3 S d 0 

# - - -- bB P 3 0 r D

%

### mafes",~gs 

### d sf-1 

### prus Wil;k mpxl to

### elrcMdvsavings, plnder 

### &a OWL

### Mod& my

### af the 

### nans aZ

### thepmjectians &@a 

### even to 

### ihe 

### senri%sO'jB 

### amlywe68 

### ~nivalent af level

### of Ke 

### of the one

### percent af 

### bgxt sf

### o&=lesethm 

### the bfi p(ie!ct4-;cxty lgezlpe

### overthe perfod &st 

### that

# m~ would dm s~m~ 

### 80Evva& 

### dsem si&>cankS



### FmlBv, the 

### lanaest

### =-tam

### electrldty UM 

### bue ca9e, len**p~** that DOE woold doom 

### •fk.!!nt.

On the buis 

### of Ute 

### lllbow. DOE amchide11 

### tlmt**a~ far~**  dryers woold l!D't 

### ffiuh

## m.**~t** OOIWel."Qti.OO t)f°**~·** 

### c, 

### Economic

## fusi.if !cation.
1.**Economic~** 

### oomamifocturen 

### andconsw:mm;. DOE

## w reviewed its initial determinations**~the** mrlt 

### im:reaned cMt to 

### me.m.if.acturenl 

### meet the 

### hi8he•t level u well H 

### the im:reuedpricu

## w

romum.en at 

### ail sand.a.rda level.a. No

, comments were 

### received ilia! have



### persuwieJ;I DOE

## walter these 

### cooclu.aicp.

AB disoossed in the April 2 proposal. DOE 

### dlrl 

### no! analy:i:e 

### the impacts on manufacturel"l:i ofdryers 

### by use 

### ofthe Ymanciru Impacts Model. However, 

### DOE indlceted that It believed that an effect ofa 

### standard generallywould 

### be to**req~** 

### certaininveliltments to be made**th~t** might not 

### han otherv.111e 

### been made. Theoo required investments would probably result in the of certain 

### other inveslme.ntll 

### whl be more beneficial to 

### the manufacturer. No specific com.ments were 

### received 

### disputing this determlnation, 

### but
comments were 

### received from a number

ormanuiaclureni 

### that they concurred 

### in this general auessment.

Z. 

### Life-cyclecostandnetpresent 

### value. No specific comments were 

### received concerning DOE'ii determinations on the 

### life-cycle cost and nel present value of

### clothes dryers. All 

### i.m:l.icatedJ.rHhe April 2 

### proposal. the life cycle cos! ofdotbes dryen. atboth levels 3 and 4 

### (the only two levell! 

### that &ave any energy) actually 

### increases for the two 

### claHes ofdryers 

### that 1ru:Jde up 93 

### percent 

### ofthe 

### lllfil'ket in 1978. 

### Thus,

as eel forth in 

### the Aprll l proposal. 

### any energy 

### saved would be as a re&ult of 

### penalizing 

### fue u-erage cantrumer requiring 

### that consumerto purcliase a dry 

### life-cycle oost than is no

The net 

### present value {NPV) analyi;is Ui 

### execnled by

### use ofthe OR.NL 

### Model. Accord!ngly. for reasons discu!!sed 

### earlier, DOE sub}ecied the NPV analysis
to the same 

### three sem1itivity 

### analyses as the energy**FIB~** an&)ysis. At oo 

### ltandard 

### level and**~none** 

### ofthe sensitivity analyi!ett l'rn5 

### there e pollftive NPV for gas 

### clothm1 dryen. The**l~t** NPV for electric dothett wiu $197 

### million frmn avt'JT

### the period comM to about five rents a year

### per 0011U>!rold.

..,,,.,**NP\."~ fut~~** **'1s~ r~** **from~** m.illim! 

## s. Energy**IJ~** 

### Nii**~tad** prevlowiiy the mu:imu:zn**~·** 

### attributable to standards for**clo~** dryers under any of

### the aruil:yi;ru; would be

## o.:m quads.

4. L.etnem'rtg

## of utility or 

### peif ormance 

### cf

prodoota. Nii mdk:.atro 

## mthe April 2 propo!J3i. the**CUUI~** Ntablidied 

### by DOB were 

### intended to**a~** 

### that the standards analyzed would not**~** the**e~** utility

### m pmf orma.nee of 

### clothes dryen. 

### AB mKnHed in 

### the April 2 proposal. however, 

### the future utility or perlormance ofclothee 

### dryers involving invelllments in energy- using new features could be lessened aa a 

### result of**~dards.** No comments were remived that disputed this detennination.

5. 

### Impact of lessenina competition. The Attorney General 

### has determ:ined that the ab6ence ofa Federal standard 

### for clothes dryer!l would have no impact


### on_competition.

6. 

### Need to save

### energy.**~** 

### ah.awn above, standards for clot.lre$ dryen1 

### would save 

### very little gall 

### or ttlectric!ty. 

### in 

### fue April 

### 2propoo.al. DOE stated that In 

### balancing the benefits of

### a mndard against its 

### burdens, no 

### weight need be given 

### to 11avings ofenergy 

### that are 

### so small. No oom..men.l.li were 

### reccived dlsputing this determination.



### 7. Otherfactors. Became the FiM 

### was not w.ed to 

### esseN ilie impacu of •Wlrla.rm on dryer JruIDuiacturen. DOE 

### did notestimate the impact cfthe standard for**~** 

### on small mamrfacturen ofdryers. No 

### ron:u:m.mts

were received 

### from any 

### 11IDali

, manufacturers concerning the impact of standarm on dryers.

It 

### should be noted 

### that while
comments 

### were received suggesting that standards should he adopled 

### for a number of 

### specified appliances, no 

### oommenter suggested that s uanclard 11hou1d be 

### t1d.opted for dothrui dryer..
Conclw;ion



### OOE**~** 

### determined tluit in light 

### oftill the factors**~above** and in 

### the April 2 prnposal. the burdens of an efficimcy sUi.ndard for clothes 

### drven outweigh the benefits. 

### ACl.."'Ofdingly, no 

### efficiency standard for clothes dryers ls 

### eoonomic:aliyjustified.

Model am! !ht!**~ty** •n11l}"Si6**~** & but 

## °""" efl\c:kmcy .,.,.,.tanl**~** h; l\167, II!) $1411 1nillioo**~th<!** -*tivlty IUlll>lr-**~** efficieru:;y improvem.m-,ts projoc\W into future, It> $197 million under the sen,,ltivity**anal~·11fa** !hat doobled till! lmpljci1 dlacmmt rate mid !lmi held It oonelantThe NPV ;,,**b~sed e~·**  8'0vingi

!>Vt!!'**the~** 19117...mti !rom**~ ~er**  1Se**~tiod** 191ll'-al00.**IV.~R~tmd~** 

### a. Technicollssues

In**the~** 

## area. oommenta**re~ kitchen~**  

## imd ovens 

### su::lclresud the 

### design optioo.s 

### ooruiiderecl in OOE'e analysis.

The NROC and·the ACHEE asserted 

### thathad a certainprototype electric



### oven bf.en included 

### in 

### DOE"e engineering analysis, then the ref!ulting potential energy savings anociated with standards fm 

### electric**ran~** 

### and ovens 

### would have been significant. 

### Theyrelied 1rp0n data contained in a report 

### on work performed at DOE'a Oak Ridge 

### National Laboratory. The 

### oven in 

### question is 

### termed a "bi-radlant" design. It

### ut1lizes highly 

### reflective cavity surfaces and 

### highly absorptive cookware to 

### minimize radlan! energy IOises. As 

### acknowledged by 

### one 

### ofthese commenters, 

### th.is oven design i!I 

### available in prototype form only and

### no production cost estimates have 

### been made.The commenter contends, however, that the physical description 

### ofthe prototype design nnplies that the oosi would 

### be low.

DOE has considered 

### th.i11 comment but 

### has concluded that prototype versions of products 

### that are not a:valiable in the marketplace and for which production 

### cost estimates arenot 

### available should notgenerally be included as design options in the Engineering 

### Analysis. Moreover, DOE bureviewed the 

### work of'the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in developing this 

### advanced oven design and de!ermined 

### that the general 

### considerations that militate against inclm1ion ofprototypes 

### as design options



### are equally applicable 

### to this particular

oven. Specifically, 

### because it 

### is a prototypical model, lt

### hn not 

### been demonstrated that it lends 

### itselfto efficient 

### mass production, 

### h?s general market potential. oreven whether such

e level ofefficlencv 

### could be 

### obtained 

### from a mas

.. production model. Moreover, even ifft were 

### feasible, it 

### could require a separate product class (as is true ofmicrowave ovens) hecause 

### of unlque 

### utility features. Finally, the Inability 

### to determine production 

### costll with reliability precludes its 

### use in 

### the Engineering 

### Analysis.

Another 

### comment concerned the reduced vent size design option for 

### standard

### ovens. This design 

### option involved reducing the vent 

### size in standard ovens to the size in self· cleaning ovens. Whirlpool remarked 

### 'that 

### this design option

### could cause :moisture condensation on 

### cooler range audaces and lead to undcrbakcd food products.This manufacturerfurther 

### commented that the vent on current models of

### aelf-clearung ovens is reallythrottled down more than i& de!!irable from a but hi
necessary for the the vent to prevent excess smoke generation.

DOE has test results which confum the 

### energy 11avinga potential

### ofreduced

oven

### vent These results 

### were obtained 

### cummtly avelJable

oven des· believe!! the 

### clear

ovens indicates that their characterl:s!ics 

### are acceptable. ""''"""'''DOE

### has not 

### its

OO:em lvi>I

-**t9!lM,~lOO"' ~**  .()14 .<m -,3(111 .oot ,QQ::I S1 p---;,;-ll'f.-inh



### Y'"" 2000

- lo

## a_..,_'·- I) l)

,,,......t

....t**sav~** 

### ofnatural 

### gaa OR..._'L Model orany of the 

### is 

### the flqulvalent of 7500 

### bp<l thim the 10,000 that DOE would deem 

### 11ignificant

lV! '"""''"''''" this 

### ii! at the 

### direct expense increased electricity Thai is. under all the 

### the ls e!m01Jt entirely standard influencing the electricn1thtlr thim and ovena.Thia ia net present value
costa involved in standudl'! ranges and ovena. Thus. the savings ofgas attributable to standards are for the most part the result of

### fower gas and crvem purchased, 

### increHed 

### eu1c1·em:y of those under 

### thE.! under most of the ·**11w~wa1:u** 

### is the 

### ofincreased of electrickitchen ranges and

ovens. not any decrease i.n their 

### effici1em:y com,na•red to 

### the base catIB. I) 

### December 22, 1982 

# I

estimate orthe saving!! attributable to option.


### b. Sifzm'fi;:::an,r:;e

The 

### table below reflects the nl'<'1rnr:m11 energy eltributable to a 1!itandard end ovens 

### at each 

### ofthe under 

### the OR!';'L Model as well as results of the performed on

-,300 -.100

- ,31JO ,OOll!

.:m1 .066 .315 .304

'I) -1 l)

usage 

### over the thal 

### DOE would deem**significant~**

Finally, the largest percentage decrease in energy use attrii:mtabie to a standard for the product kit,.Jien rangea and ovens reflected in ofthe analyses i11 4 

### ofthe base

case less 

### than the percent DOE would deem eignificant

On the basis of the above, DOE concludes that a standard for kitchen and ovens would not resul! in a 

### iHgnm1ca1:n conservation ofenergy,

1.

### Economic impacton m111rmfnr.t11nr>N 

### a.miconsumers. 

### DOE has reviewed its 4

initial detenninatfons the per wlit incre111ied cost to to 

### mHt 

### the level ofefficiency as well as the prlce11 to con11u.mers at 

### all 11tam:lards levels.

### No
comments wart! received that 

### hhve peniuaded DOE lo alter tlnifffl conclu11iona.

As rliscussed in the OOE did not an the mnmlfacturer
overu; use of the Finencial

.,,..,,,,..,..,, Model OOE believed thet an efi'oot of a standard would certain 

### noi

over the !Xlriod 1007-:l!'lm bl JOO Quadi, 41FR14436 n. 

### a have otherwiH beenmadt1. TheH re<lWll'etl investments would probably reindt in the forgoing ofcertain other investments 

### which would be mom beneficial to the manufacturer. No specific comments werereceived disputing this determination. but comments 

### were received 

### from a number 

### ofmanufacturers that 

### they conC1.ll'l'ed in thi1J 

### aHeHment

Z. 

### Life-cycle cost andnetpresent value, 

### No spool.fie c1.n:nments 

### wem received 

### concerningDOE's determinatiorw on the**iiie~cycle** cost and
net present value for rrmges and ovem. As indicatedin 

### the April 2propoaa} 

### and a!! continues lo 

### be- true, at every level of**""'"''~'n':t** analyzed as a potential e.lectric ovens, the 

### atandard wouldbe 

### set higher than 

### the average consumer's 

### LCC mlninmm

.. Therefore, 

### a standard et this level 

### would penalize the average and below average consumers

· ovenfrom the

mar slightly positive NPV projected at levels l and 2 ($16 

### million and $38 million. respectively,



### over the 38yearperiod], there is e !'<'PV 

### at stendardlevels 3 end4 the ORNL Model and under two 

### ofthe three sensitivity analyses.

### Umier the 

### sensitivity analysis 

### ofstandard level 4 where the 

### initial implicit discount 

### rate is increased 100 percent and then held 

### constant. the Model 

### shows a 

### $473 million NPV. inasmuch 

### as three 

### of the reflected a negative NPV at DOE d0€snot believe the
occurrem;;e ofa positive NPV in one sensitivity rmalysis is a sufficient 

### basis
to conclude that a level 4 standard would have a positive NPV. Even were 

### this one 

### analysis deemed to project the actual NPV, thitJ 

### figure represents a benefit ofless that 13 cenl11 per 

### yearper household. Consequently. DOE does not believe that this NPV is entitled to great weight in 

### measuring the benefits 

### and burdens ofpossible standards. especially

### when this benefitis directly 

### at the experuie 

### ofbanning

### from the market the minimal LCC oven for averqe consumers.

At the twolevels ofefficiency that would save the most gas (levels 3 and 4}. the standard& for 

### gas ovens would 

### betrnt higher than the average co.:m;umer's 

### I.CC minimum. Therefore, a standard at these levela would penalize the average and below consumern 

### by tiann:inJi their oven from the

some 

### claHes ofoven. th.e
oost is increasedby standards from 1978 

### average. The net present 

### value aUribuJ.able to a standardfor gas



### raoses and ovemi 

### is either zero or 11£8Btive at each standard level and under each seruiltivity analysis.Thhl

### Vol. 47, No. 246



## "'"''"'"'"""-<>"''" that oonW1wnem u**~whole** suffer economically

### from imposition of ti standard.

3. Energysavings. The energy**~** are indicated a& roKUuedm 

### the Significam::e ofEnergy Sa'll'inga 

### eecti.on above.

,



### 4.1.asMingofutilityorJ)erfor:mtmce of

products. As indicated in the April 2 proposal. the**class~?11** e•tabiillhed by DOE were intended to insure that the i;tandards analyzed would ootleMen the exhiting utility or

### perf omumce 

### of**ra~e** 

### and ovens, However, 

### u we Mated in the April 2 proposal, lltanda.rcl.s 

### could di11coll!"age inve11tmenUI 

### that 

### wP!Wd improve future utility or 

### perfom11mce ofranges 

### and ovens with 11001e additional energy use. No i>peclfic
comments were received disputing 

### this deter:tninatfon.

5. impact of lessening competition. The Attorney General has determined that the fl.b&ence ofa Federal standard for rllllgea and ovens would have no impact on competition.

6. Needto save energy. As shown 

### aoov!',. a standard 

### for kitclu:m ranges and ovens would save at

### m08t .398 Quade overnineteen years, leu than 2. percent ofthe energy used over

### thiit period 

### by that product.1t1

In the 

### April 2**prop~al** 

### DOE concluded that in balancing the benefits ofa sl.andard against its burden. no weight need be given to sa'itillgfS ofsuch

a small amount. No commenter disputed this conduaion. Moreover, as discus1md above, virtually ail the saving!! ofgas

are directly attributable to perooll!l not purchasing gas kitchen ranges and oven!! 8.1! a result of a Federal 

### standard making the appliance less economical. The need to save oil and gas i11 not so 

### great to justify standards that have the**eff~ct** ofinfluencing persons merely to !!Wllcb from gas or oil products to electrical products in o!'der to save that 

### o.il orgll.ll.

7. Other factors. 

### DOE received no commenl.!l from manuJacturen di&cussing the impact ofpo11aible standards for ranges a.nd ovem oo small manufacturers.

Two applianceinanufactu.reni (Amana and Carrier}. however, and theNorthern States P(!wer Company, all three of :which supported 

### standards for 

### some products, notably made an exception with respect to shmdards for**ki~ ra~s**  

### and overu1. 

### Conolu11iot1

DOE has determined that l.n light ofall 

### the factoN! discussed above and in the April 2**p;~** 

### tbe bw-dens 

### ofan efficiency standard for kitchen Nillgeli 

### Wl\i ovens outw · the bmi.efim. 

### Accordingly, tandard for kitchen ranges 

### andovens is economicallyjustified.

...**~(lff!,m~~**

Saction S27fa)f2J ofEPCA. as emended, 

### providefi that 

### any F'ederai etanda."11 applicable under l!ection 325 supel"Hdea any non-identical State or 

### iocal. standard. 

### Section 325(b} 

### explicitly
reqrures that a "n<Htandard" standard Ukewiee supe Stare or local 111andard. 

### &cti however, provides that a State mny petition for 

### and DOE 

### ah.all adopt a 

### rule exempting a State orlocal standard from being superseded. 

### ifDO:E finds that there is a significant State or local interest to justify the State or local standard and the standard is more stringent than the Federal standard.ti!Nevertheless. DOE fa prohibited from such a rule 

### if Urn State orloca1 sta would unduly burden interstate commerce.



### l:n the NOPR. DOEproposed to establish the effective n which 11uperse11Sion ofState an standards wmild take**pla~** and the general procedures by which Stales oould petition for rules exempting their State orlocal etandaxcl.s for 

### all covered products.

Major comments were received 

## mthe 

### following areas:

(l} the effect of 11 Federal "nostandard" delennl.nation on the appropriateness ofState and local standards; {2) the criteria by which DOE would determine whether ornot to issue

El role exempting a Sl.iite or local · standard from preemption; (3} questions



### as to the date upon which State or local laWll wottld be superseded 

### by the Federal standard; {4) which Slate or 

### local. regulations would be an "energy**e~c1ency** standard or other requirement 

### With respect to energy efficiency or energy use ofa covered producttt within the mea.ning of the statute; and (5) questions on theproceduralrules governing State submiswion of petitions for e mle to exempt a State l'ltandard from llUptlflll:lSlllOTI.

The final rule 

### 11dopted today establishes the procedures that 

### will apply in all cases in which State11

## !>e~ti?n ilie 

### DOE for rules

.. exempting mdividual State or local standards. It 

### should 

### he emphzi.sizecl that the regulation applies oot only to the two oovered product. subject to this rulemaking

### but 'G\iU also apply to all othe.r coveredproducts when final**t>t~** are promulgated for them..

1. The Effectof a ''No-Standard'' 

### Determination m1 

### RelatedState Regulations

Many oommenten appeared to believe that DOE had the preemption of Statelaw as one ofite aims inproposing

a**"n~tandard"** standard. To the contrary, DOE recognized in the NOPR that manyenergy problems are local 

### in
nature. Indeed, this fact ls one of the**rea~cms** discuHecl above why a single. national 11tandard either imposes too great 11 cost onlarge numbers of persons
or fails to eave significant energv over ilie entire nation. Thus, analvses that DOE believes demonstrate the in eness ofFederal standards atutory tests do not necessarilv indicate thelr inapproprlateness on a Stale or local basis. Moreover. this Administration's policy ofNew Federalism supports the fre7dom ofthe States to take regulatory achone they deem appropriate to Stale

or 1.ocal interests, so long as the!'e actions do not unduly burden interst;lle
commerce, and such freedom is inconsistent \\lith 1rntomatic preemption by a Federal no-standard determination Accordingly. the Administration supported one 

### bill in Congress that would have legislatively eliminated anv Federal standard and any automatic • Federal preemption and did not oppose

a bill that simply would have eliminated automatic Federal preemption 

### ifa no· standard mle for a product were adopted.

So long 811 currimt prcnisions of the Act remain

## w effect. however, the Department 

### will faithfully execute the law and. 

### ifpetitioned, determine the appropriateness ofState and local 11tanda.rde in each particular case of their desired continuation or implementetion. AB is discussed further below, the DOE believes that many. 

### if not 

### all, rudf!ting State 

### a.nd local 

### standards might 

### well prevail in 

### rulemaldn8fl for exemption from Federal preemption.

2. The CriteriaforExemptions From 

### Preemption

TheNOPR did not specif\/ the criteria upon which DOE would**as~ess** petitions 

### from States that theirstandards nol he wperseded by the Federal "no. 

### standard" 11tendard, other than statingthat in a detenninatfon DOE would balance State's interest in Ha standard with the standard's hurden on interstate commerce\ &th States and 

### mam.1facturers aoughl further 

### in the

1!.hun1fach1ltel!'ll '"""'''""'''"" suggested that DOE apply same criteria in uriessing 

### Stalepetltiorui aa DOE in making its determination on standards, This 

### would that significant energy would saved 

### by the State standard and that the State 

### standard

### be justified**ac1~ordii:u2** to the telmli section 

### DOE has not

Section 3li'fbl!3l grant 

### an ex,emotl.on State more"""'"""""' Federal standard and there a significant Stale or local interest to justify the unless 

### DOE fmds the State l:mrderw interstate commerce. The that Congress created different tests. different words. for a rule**"'"''""'~'""'** Slate standard than for a rule aeliJptmg Federal standard star11i3rd" !hatthe !elltll were to he 

### un'""""" the State i11timn1t and 

### burden on 

### ' cc1mr:ner·cet.ests lti.ave 

### been y courts in 

### as1;es,siru1 the constitulionality of 

### Stale

,.tt.

..Mino interstate commerce without the neces1Hty of involved co11i·heneut 

### tests.

Even HDOE had the discretion to adopt such cost-benefit tests in 

### as1ses,s1r!lil Slate stam:lards, however, DOE not. The standards at issue

are State standards. Federal concern under the Act involves assuring that there is a significant State interest to justify the standard and that the standard does not burden interstate commerce.

Moreover. there 

### is no 

### mt;ons1ster1c:v 

### in DOE rejecting the views. opuuows, conclusions, methodologies, or JUClgn:ients of a State in its comments ou proposed federal "no-standard" standard and deferring to that State inthe ofa ior a rule to exempt a Stale from trnpersesaion. !n the former mu;e, in**Jm)mw~:at1tnll:** a rule to the entire nation, DOE reach Its own mc1ep,e11ae:m j1,;1dg1rne1ri! concerning the accuracy or comments and ofthe varioue



### assess and we the record. In the latter cue, however, the of the h1 not 

## """"'""'ri lo he based on to exempt the State standard from is not to scrutil'llle every s!ep the State's decisionmaking procedure to determb:i.e 

### ifDOE**~ell** 

### December 22. 1982 

## I and Regulations

11ufficiently petitioners those OPJJOSll'l$l petition. Further 

### DV<'i."'"'"'""·"· helieva, would

1m12at1cm and greeter

Neverthelel!li, in order to enable 

### mtlinu1ted parties 

### to assess DOE's initial approach lo the1ie Stale petitions. DOE has reviewed the Stale standards thal have been to its attention in the course of !.hill rulemaking.t11 While DOE cimnol. make any com::luslve de!enninationa at this time with lo theae laws, they do not appear to have en undue burden on interstate commerce,

as indeed moat manufacturers edml!ted when auien:1onec1,

to the that**111 '"""~'"'**  would be demonstrated explanations**""''"'~'"'''""'that"'"';'""'"** the States the that expect to achievl'! through their particular 

### atandim:ls. Thm;, with to the State and local laws that DOE has w'""'"'"'a. DOE believes that, in these laws would qualify for en**ex1~m1H1c~n** Imm 

### 3, The Time

The NOPR proposed tha! Stale and local 

### lew11 would be 100 days after related Federal in the Federal Register, unieH a Slate had within that time for a rule its etendard. In the case ofa State or local i;tanderd notbe until and urJeH DOE denied rule but in no event l!Mner than 100 days after of !he standard, 

### In this way could be no hiatus when a Stale or local standard was not in effect 

### ifthe State obtained an exemption."'DOE'll purpoae in 

### "rn""'""'

"'DOI! alll<l "'''iew..d tlmu**!!la~** in Ila**evalu~lioo** l'lf ilm uden'!?irorune:ntal ilnpacu IA•
1ta.ndard"' for the eigl>I Sl>il'IWl<ll!• NOP!< nOJm! Iha 100..;f•

### rul,,,,,,.w.g_

..Simiis.rly, evmlK**lh~** J'<'ld!mil sl11!ld•KI 1!11l!!bliilied a efficiellcy level for I! st

..ooerd, dlll'in$ tl¥I! State® to maintain the 

### status qua to

a detenn.ination the was to avoid the situation where 1101o;nmR a rule. for which 11 State wu would nevertheieH
m<1ouma to the ofthe State and its established public

This 

### wa:s generally criticized and M;inufacturers, for

were of the view !hal S1a1e and 11tandards should he supen>eded on the date that the corresponding Federal standard is published in the federal Re:g:W1ter, This view would result ln a wh1d1 neither 

### a

nor a Stale standard would be in 

### effect,

Menufm:::turers ari.med not only that the Act must be read 10 the early dale, bur also the early would serve important policy goals. They claimed undue burden on themselves were lO be regulated under State regulations aH the way upto the time a Federal '"'""''"""''" came :mto ""!!m"·""" were also ccmcerned that under the NOPR, if Sla<e laws were not to be until the effective date of the standard, a Slate could
enact new standards 

### in the 100 before the Federal sl;mdard was effective and fi!e JIS 

### pel!llon al !he fallt minute lo delay supersesimm of Slate law for the possible time,

The does not find the statutory construction and public policy a.rgu:ments ofmanufacturers to be Unlike manufacturers, DOE "'"""""''" the Ac! based on the language which pi;ovides:

This part """'""""n" insofar as henrn.fter provide for-

### Federal Reg:lsbn 

## I Vot 47, No. MS /•Wednesday, December 22, 

### 1tm2 / Rules and Regulations 57215

States clearly have a iegitima\e interest 

### in maintaining theirregulatlons during the period in which a petition for exemption from preemption is pending before OOE. 

### On the other hand. no comments by manufacturera demonstreted any public policy 

### nece11Sity for a hietua. Menufacturel'll claimed this result would provide them with needed

### protection from having to oomply with two regulatory 

### prognun11 at

onoo. 11 

### However. even

### i1 DOE were to impose substantive Federal standards, there should be few 

### if any instances of impossibility 

### of compliance or other undue burden puiblems. First, there would of necessitybe a 11ubstantially delayed effective date 

### ofthe Federal rule. Second, 

### federal rules would take effect in conjuction with the requirement of section 325fi)(4) ofthe Act that no Federal standard shall apply to any products manufactured before the effective date of lhe 

### shmdard. Thus. there would be little immediate impact



### on manufacturers, MQreover. the 

### risk of
any real burden appears to 

### he virtually non-existent whenever Federal "no· standard" standards 

### are concerned.

However. after reviewing all of the urguments presented by the cm:runenting partie11, DOE has determi.ned to make certain changes to the proposed 

### rule. Thus, in order to balance the concerns of commenting manufacturers who fear last-minute State petitions filed with DOE and the legitrmale interests of the Slates. DOE is adopting in its fmal rule a requirement that in order for the effective dale of the Federal standard to be delayed by the ftling of a petition for exemption. 

### a notice of petition must be filed by a State v.'ith DOE within 00 days of publication ofthe final Federal rule setting forth the standard (or no l!Hmdard) for a particular covered product. The petition itselfmust be 

### med within 120 days ofpublication of the particular rule.n

Some manufacturers al110 11uggested that the OOE tale or local governments adopting any new appliance efficiency standards during the 100 day period prior to the effective rla!.e of the rule. DOR cannot prohibit State or local govermmmts from taking any lall\1u1 actions. However, as not.ed above, only States which file a notice of

"'TheDepartment notes in?•&•int! Iha! durlllg any hiam. ofcoune. manulacrur..,.. would not

### w subject lo crnyrogufolioo of minimum appliance ellfolem:i.,..

.,It should be noled that B Stale may only file a pelltlon after DOE hu reached a llna! d'1termlnalion at1<ndatd11 for a**pa~** wvered product. Thut- ooly file Pf<!l!ion• at th\$ lime wnrA>ming al>l!ldattl• fw d{Jtha& dryer.. and raniws and ovem, •inoe e determination oo a1andard1 for all othercovered products ha$ nm yet i:w.en finalized hy nile. 

### petition and a petition in 

### accordance with § 430.M(b) and I.he provisions of Subpart D 

### will be able to implement 

### my

new standards. Thua, any new 

### iilandard& for a particular covered product {or new levels ofenergy efficiency for States or local governments 

### that**ha~** previously implemented 

### standards), in order

### to

### be effective 100 I.he or that product, would have to 

### he enacted Y.'ithin 00 days 

### of publiyation of this rule and a notice 

### ol petition and the petition itselfwould have to 

### he filed in a timely fuhion. 

### After thi11 

### lime period. 

### State11 may 

### of

coune submit petitions 

### for exemption. However. the State orfocal energy could not be in effe:c 00 day period. until 

### DOE granted the State's petition.13

Some questions 

### were also raised concerrring OOE's ability to consider petll.ions prior to the 

### effective date of the Federal standard. As DOE stated 

### i.n the NOPR. the 

### procedural rules • these petitions in Part 430, 

### will be effective 30 days after their publication in the f&deral Register. Accordingly. the regulations governing the petitions for exemption will 

### he in effec! at the time the DOE reaches its determinations on them.


### 4. State Standards Affectedbythe Federol Buie

Many commenters indicated some 

### uncertainty as to the State and local laws thal would qualify as an "energy efficiency standard or other reqnirement with respect to energy efficiency or energy 

### use" and consequently that would be subject to supersession. A number ofllpecific examples ofState laws and regulations were given in the
comments. DOE does not believe itis appropriate to attempt to specify or define in the actual rule adopted today what State laws orregulations are 1rubjeci to super11ession. Nevertheless, in reviewing economic and environmental

. impacts ofthe proposed "no-standard"

, standards. DOE read "energyefficiency

standard" to he all &et forth 

## msection 321(6) ofthe Act: "a performance standard 

### * • • which prescribes a 

### minimum level ofenergy efficiencyfor ll covered product• • •."Standard!> oould he aet either bylegislation or regulation. Standards subject to preemption would include smmfards for

..Any cbans:es in Stste or local bulldln@ codes wh!ch !mpoae energy el'ficleru:y f!andarda on wvered produeta aN! aubi- I<> federal prumptloo.

even ifa leaser standard fot th" """'" covered product h1<t b<i<!n granted '"' """"'Jltion from**~mplion.** Thw. Sll!le• will have to submit p;!1!t.1ons lo 00£for euch eJ<emptinns each time 11

new &larn:lard**i~** formulated. ruiy particulartype {or class} of

### covered products established by mandatory 

### State or local building 

### codes, including oodes that inoorpotate consensus standards. 

### &uch as those 

### set forth 

### in the American Society 

### ofHeating. Refrigerating. and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards.More specific examples ofOOE's understanding 

### ofthe coverage

### ofthe
statute: a.re listed 

### below.

(a) Voluntary utility rebate or incentive.programs. authorized 

### or required by State law orregulation, are not considered to be subject to preemption.

{b} Any State orlocal law or regulation relati to the purchase 

### by a State or any I subdivision of appliances wouldnot 

### be subject to preemption. In other words, a State or 

### any political subdivision 

### f e.g

.. a public

. housing authority) may set any

efficiency standard orenergy use reqnirement it wishes \lo".ith respect to appliances purchased by the State or any of

### its political subdivisions. 

### See Section 327(c} 

### ofEPCA

(c) Prohibition ofhook-ups for appliances with less than a certain efficiency would be subject to preemption.

(rl) "Point" index programs in construction orbuilding codes that would not set specific requirements for a covered product. but would establish an overall maximum number ofenergy efficiency points for the building or all appllanoos. would not be subject to preemption.

(e) Prohibitions on standing pilot lights would be subject to preemption,34

(f) Prohibition against placing oversized

### furnaces and air conditioners ln new buildings, would not he subject lopreemption.

The DOE makes the following euggestion in order toresolve any uncertainty about whether any particular State orfocal lawor regulation is subject to preemption. Beginning today, any State orperson subject to a State orlocal law or regulation involving a covered product may write to the Department at the address given in the beginning of th.is notice and request an interpretation in this matter. The request for interpretation should be submitted to the OOEpursuant to 10 CFR Part 205, Subpart F. 'fhe OOE requests ilia! interested parsons Identify all laws and

,.I! thould he noted that lhe prohibition ofa "1anding pilot ligh! in 

## ""fl!!"' and (}Vens end ciotlwi dlJlt!N by a Stl!.le or local nandard would I» jlft!llmpled by 1004)"8 rulema1dng, Such a prohibition In a furnace or water**h~a!er** is no! Impacted by !C<lay's rnlemaki1>.g.**nr~~ernil:ltion.** The give notice of all such correspc:mderwe inthe Federal in order that 

### EIH

m1ern:s1eea p!:Nl-Om! maybe lldl!!QtUU•!!lY informed.

Nmnil"INl a "ti•escliotl-011·· the stated 

### that "a SW.bi!



### mus I 

### prescnt information which 

### woWd

on !!$**fa~** to show •

. , 

### that

a1,g:u.w•vwu• State oriocal interest in of the Steta'l! ttl1rullltio1n." 47 FR at 144116. Thi1 OOE 

### hu ilieae comment• and hu determine<l to make no to 

### the**Pil'\CY~'V'!f** 

### le is the co,n01re.Rsi1'.l'na1 intent regarding the burden on

# urn intef!!iaie

commerce issue and ln recognition that it is in the State11' interest to provide the best information rm both these 

### issues. ofthe exact wclrt1rnv ofthe 

### _,ml•>H'''"''"

Some manufacturers asked the DOE affirmatfona from States 

### that 

### ta petil:ioos by ma:nuJiaCl:tml:r11 a& well as by State& 

### and

onprovisions

## m the



### as noted above. 

### OOB

## u adcmtilrw the 

### proeedmat replatiom at 10 

### 400. 

### Subpart

### D. 8JJ**~** in theNOPR.

VI. 

### En'ViromoonW. R

.. 

### tory Impact 

### and Small Entity**Imped~**


### a. JlmrironnumtalReview

The Department ha1 reviewed 

### today'111 final rule in**a~** with

### thi NationalEnvironmental 

### PolicyAct of 1009 (NEPA} (42 U.S.C.**~et** saq.), 

### the Council on

### Envinm.mfmtai Quality Regulations impiementiul

### thi proadu.mi proviliom ofNEPA (40 CFR Pm 1500 et seq.}. and theDepartment'•

own NEPA guidelines (45 FR 20694, March 

### za. 

## :moo. u amendedby47FR 7976, February 23.1002) lrnd findll that neitheran emrironmenial Impact statf!ment normenvirorunentfil H11essmen1 i1 required since 

### there am 

### dearly no ai8nificant enviromnentai 

### impacts Hsociatedwith today's 

### action. 

### inl type• ofconswner products, DOE identified the preemption ofStateenergy efficiem::y standards applicahie to theR products as the one element of

### th.ill proposed action which could have fore&eeable environmental impacil.• DOE considered 

### the possibility that States with exisf:ins standards would not seek exemption from preemption at flN>vitf"rl for Under Seciion 327{b){3} 

### ffl Act orwould be denied an**ex<em1~ticm** from preemption. Ineither
case, State standard would no longer 

## oo effective, thereby permitting sales of prevously noncompllant products In the State. OOEreviewed this potential
outcome and detennined that any impacts as11oda!ed 

### with Federal preempti<:n ofexistlnl State standards

"""'"'""'

... one comment reeli!lved 

## m**re~:po:nse** to April 2 notice conle$ted general determination, stretutlng that the ori.ginfil Environmental Aiwessment {EA) did oot specifically 

### address the environmental 

### rm"'"''"'P•nr••• ofeliminating State

DOEhas considered 

### th.is comment in of 

### fi.rulJ rn!e presaib!.ng "no**for~oiet~fnn** b<i**Mb~** to**<1~i.** Nm'A**e!!JOIHl~r~<H! ~.** **~** ll¥ilh fi""(ttlJ:>!il>!> SU.la**•tm~ ~~~** 

# I Vol. 47, No. 

# m I Wednesday, December 22, 1982 

# I Rules and Regulations 57217

•tandard" for do!het 

### dryen and kitchen
m.nges 

### and ovens. DOE 

### le not aware

# or MY 

### State which bu ever 

### had an energy efficiency standard

### perse applicable to either of !hesti prodi.u:te: however, nine States cu.rrently have regulations 

### prohibifulB standing pilot 

### lights on natursJ gu·fueled versions ofthese producta. 114Today's final rule preempts such regulations as to these
two products. DOE 

### 'won! 

### cue" analysis to assess the 

### worst posslble environmental impacts

# or this action. 

### In the worst case situation. 

### all 

### Sl&tes with standing pilot 

### ligh! bans applicable to clothers 

### dryers and

ovens would fail to exemption 

### from Federal preempt on or would be denied an exemptfon. thereby permitting sales 

### of previously noncornplian! 

### products.



### In 

### the case ofclothes dryers. DOE has determined that the preemption of State regulations banning standing pilot lights 

### sh01;]d l111n·e virtually no environmental impact1i since there 

### are few, 

### ifany. gas dothE:s'dryers manufactured with standing · ti;. DOE considers it 

### highly 

### un in the absence 

### of Stale bans. manufacturers would return to standing gas pllo!s on clo!hes dryers for the following reasons. First, manufacturers h1n·e already made the Investment in tooling for intermittent ignition devices {UD's). Second, HD's Increase the reliability o! clothes dryers 

### by eliminating l!erYice calls for re· lighting pilots. Finally. the increasing price ofgas wjl) increase market demand for 

### IID's on gas clothes dryers. Therefore. there would be no 

### significant adverse 11nvironmen!a! impacts associated with the preemption ofState regulations banning standing gas pilot lights with respect to clothes drrers.

Wil.h regard to kitchen ranges and o\'ens, 

### DOE's "worst case" analysis 

### assumed that 

### 111! future sales ofgas-ft.red units. in those Stales which do not exempt gas ranges and ovens without

. electrical power cords from their ban on standing pilot light! •. would be units equipped with standing pilot lights. Sales

## or units 

### ''ith standing pilol lights 

### In those States with such exemptions



### were assumed to remain unchanged since consumers in those Stales have always been able lo purchase 

### gas ranges and ovens with 11tandi.ng pilot lights. According to DOE'11 analysis. this • 

### "worst cue" would result in an annual

•Therunt Stales are; Arirnna. California. Hawaii. Io•ra. Miclii1511n, Mitmf'eOla. New York. Oreimn. and Wu•ci:m•in. Fouro! l.hi?&e Stale.. Mztina M1d11gan. Minne1'.ltll ll!ld Wiecomin. exemptIi****kitc:hl"~** t&ll,llea and cwrns without eieelricafpcwer cords from I.he &tlillditlll pilot light bu. 

### Increase in 

### gH range energy comn.unption ofapproximately one half 

# or onepercent This is about 0.0015 Quad.a 

### ofadditional

### gas energy consumption 

### in 1900. 

### Th.is is a dearly lnsigrdflcant 

### increase in 

### gas energy 

### oon.sumption.

Thus, DOE has concluded that the "no etam:!ards" final rule for these two products clearly will no! have a significanl impact on the quality ofthe human environment Therefore. DOE 

### bu determined that 

### no EA or Envi.rornnental Impact Statement 

### need be prepared for tl:>Js rulemaking.



### b. Executive Order 12291

Executive Order 12291 requires agendeF L" determine 

### ifa rule 

### is a

. "major 1ule" under the Order. 

### In the

April 2 DOE determined that the rule proposed there would not be a major rule because, ifadopted, ii would nol result in 

### (lJ an annual effect on the economy 

### of$100 million or 

### more; (2) a major increase in costs or for**consu.'Der~.** individual industries, Federal, 

### State, or local government agencies. 

### or geographic 

### or (3) r;ig:-:ificant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment. producth·ity. innovation, or on the
atUity of United States-based enlerptises to compete with foreign·**ba~ed** enterprises in domestic 

### or export markets. This**condu~ion** was not criticized in the rulemakh""lg proceeding. The rule adopted today 

### is !l part of the rule proposed on April 

### 2 and, accordingly, would likewise not be a majorrule under the Executive Order. Consequently, this rule has been reviewed 

### by OMB under the proceduree applicable to rules other than major rules.



### c. RegulatoryFlexibility



### In the April .2 proposal DOE certified. pursuant 

### lo Section OOS(b) 

### of the Reguls.tory fiexibihty Act, that the proposal. 

### i!promulgated. would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

### number o.f small 

### entitles. While the April 2proposal received
comment from small businesse11 involved in the manufacture of app!iances, generally supportive of

### th\',) pmpol!al. the commenlett; did not take issue v.ith DOE's certification. Accordingly, DOE certifies that this rule 

### will not have a significant economic impact on a &ubstentia! number of 11mall entities.



### In considetetion 

### ofthe foregoing. Part 

### 430 

### of Chapter Il 

### ofTille 10, Code 

### of Federal Regulations, Is amended as ::et forth below. 

### Utt ofSubject.ti in 

### 10 CFR Part 430

Administrativepractice and procedure. Energy conservation. Household appliances.



### Issued ill 

### Washington. D.C

.. December 15. 1982. Jouph

## J. Tribble, AssistantSflctetcry, ConservoJion and RenewableEnergy.

FAflT 43o-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

1. Section 430.2 is amem.led 

### by adding

or revi6ing the following definitions: 

### I 430.2 0.flnltlll>l'IL

"Acl" 

### means the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-1£3). as amended 

### by the National Energ;· Conservation Policy Act (Pub. 

### L. 95-619)



# . .

... 

# .

*'Consumer product*' means any article (other ths.n an automobile. as defined 

### in section 5CJ1[1J of the Motor Vehicle 

### Information and Cost 

### Sin·ings Act) ofa type:

(a) Which in operation consumes. or is designed to consume, 

### energy: and

· (b) Which. to any significant o tent is distributed in commerce 

### for personal

use or consumption 

### by individuals: Y.ithout regard to whether such article 

### cf such type 

### i11 in !acl distributed in

commerce for personal use or consumption 

### by an individual. 

## • 

# .. 

# .. "Covered product" means 

### a consumu product 

### ofa type specified in section 322 of the Act. ·



# .. • •

"Ertelbj' efficiency standard" means a performance standard:

(a) Which prescribes a minlmum lev(:;I ofenergy efficiency for a covered product, determined in accordance with teFt procedures prescribed undt:r secfam 323 ofthe Act, and

(b) Which include any other requirements which the Secretary may 

### prescribe under section 3Z5{c] ofthe 

### Act

"Manufacturer" mean11 

### tny person who manufactures a consumer product



# .. •

"Person" 

### includes any individual. corporation, company, association, firm, partnernhip. 

### society. t.rustjoint venture

orjoint stock company, the government. and any agency of the United Stales or any State or political s 

### .bi'.ivision thereof.



# ..

### Vol. 47, No. W3



# .. Z. C 

### ofPart 430 is 

### revied to 

### read as**Slmp~rt~f~lta!!~** Sec. 4;io,;n Purpn11e and 430.3Z final enefiY effiiciency**atu~** 43!.l.33 oht$te n-gwaltimi$. 430.34 datti..

Authority: lmefiY PoHcy 1wl'!d umlll!:l'VlltiOll Act, Pub. L M-163. u amended by Pub. L. 95-619: fed1m1! Admlnistratlon Act of 1974, Pub. L u <Lmended Pub. L 94-31>5; of Act, Pub. £.0.
Subpart**C-~ f:ffi~ncy**  Standard**§~.31 ~-~~** 



### This !lubpart 

### contaim any**aH•~">Mr"U** 11tandt1fQ$ 

### fof**clae~** covered product11 thai are requirt!d to 

### be vrc1mutlli!aled 

### by the Department 

### of
nu:Nluiml to 

### the energy

t'01UP""Jl rtN1'>1"am 

### fot CQIU!l.Ullef 

### '"'N"°'"'"°'" other sutomobll"under Energy Policy and Comervatioo Act.

as amended {42 US.C. 62:91 etaeq.}.**§~.~ ~.-m-~~**  

### 1ctaooarcts.

The final efficiency**11umd~** 

### for each class covered products are:

(a) Refrigeralon and refrigerator· 

### freezers. [Reserved)

fb) freezers. Ub'""''""e•tl! 

### (cl (d) 

### Clothes dcyera: for all danes. Water heaters: For the 

### dnaea t.**el~c.** electric !able oil m,,

....,,""

...r11 For the churn heet pump water heater. [Reaerved]



## lfl Room air ci:mditioMn. 

### [Rnenoed] lpment. 

### not

(h) Television M!tB. m1!>l!lenM!oi'.l {i) 

### Kitchen ranges 11ttmdard for all 

### classe11.



# m Clothes wa11hen. U<t•

.... ,....,..... H (k} Humiume111 

### and tiet1um:1cw:i.en.. [Reserved]

{l) Centml air oonditii:men: (ll for the cla&IMlll 

### which irn::h.u:ie 

### all split systerm and**~ie** unit3 which do not npera.. a ptm:tp. 

### [Reserved]

(2) For the 

### cla3cmH• whlch operate 

### with

a baa! pump. !Reserved]

(m) Furnaces. [Reaerved} fU).U**~Of~·~~** "'""'vi'i'ina for any



### f 00.34**[~mt**..



### The effective date oh final energy 

### efficiency standard {i.ncludtng a 

### delemtlnaticm ofno 

### titandru-dj 

## m l 430,32 

### shall be the laterof: 180 

### days after 

### in the {b} 

### With

k. 43<'.Hl Petition fo<" pn?IKl"iptioo of a roki. requirements.. Anloounce:me:nl uf petitioo far

Coruiolld11tion of**prt><:l!1~dl.1:;g11.** Heari!li$ and comments inl•ere11ted peN1on11. · 430«41 Evaltllltion ofpetition. 430.4S ofJ)('tition.**~**• .fcS remw.**Au~** Enel'IJ Policy and**~at!oo** Act. Pub.!. 94-le:l. 1111 amended 

### by Pub. L. llMl!i: Federal Energy Administration AC'! o1 1914. Pub. L 83-275. 118 

### amended by Pub. L.**~;** nf Act Pub. E.0.**Subpart~~** Fhtgulatk.lM**~oc.A1 ~t@t~of•r-.** 

(a)**~wmt** 

### to ection ofthe Act. any pel'Mm 

### 1rnbj«t to a regulation may 

### petition the Secretary 

### for

11 rule 

### lo 11uper&ede in whole

### m: in part that Swte**~ation** 

### ,_,..,...,..,,...r.1mc 

### efficiency or 

### recnm·ement**~tmf!** 

### eW!rgy u&e or energy efficiency of a type (ar claM) 

### oI covered products.

{b)(l) 

### Punuu11 to 

### aectioo W(b)(3) 

### ti the Act 

### State may petition 

### thti

a rule 

### th.at a**~** H energy


### or other """'""""""""' efficiru:lcy for a type 

### {or class) of covered product&. not 

### be superseded. 

### A SUite may 

### aubmit a notice of
to 

### the Secreial')' 

### with.in 60

### days

rmt>lir"h'"' ofa fmal standard for



### a covered product and 

### a complete petition 

### within 120 daya after publication ofsuch a 

### fmal standard for a eoveredproduct

## morder toimplement the 

### provisione of

### t**~}** 

### ofth.ia Part.


### f**U).4~ ~** **nlqi.11~**



### (•l A nol.ice ofpetition or a petition for a rule under this section shall 

### be tubm!tted in triplicate to: U.S.

for Consumer ndenc:e Avenue, 

### S.W., Washln8ton. 

### D.C..**~**

{b}(1J A petitionfor a rule to**·euperse~** 

### a Stateorlocal regWation and 

### all related 1rnbminions 

### shall 

### be 11erved 

### upon each 

### State agency, depl$rtme.nt or 

### imtrwnentality whoa regulation the petitioneraeeke to**superse~.**

(Zj 

### All materials requirt!d to 

### be served under 

### this Part 

### shall be served 

### personally or by 

### ngistererl or certified mail. Service upon a person's 

### duly authol"i.zed 

### representative 

### 1hall constitute service upon that pe!"!lon.**Se.~** 

### by regl11!ered 

### orcertified mail is complete upon malling.



### le) 

### Ifthe DOE determines 

### that there ls 

### wirufficient information upon which to base a decision e.nd 

### if u 

### the
necen.ary adwtiona a not 1rnbmitted, 

### the OOE may 

### deny the 

### petition without 

### prejudice. The 

### Secretary 11hall publish 

### notice ofsuch 11 denial in 

### the 

### fedaw Register and the nHuon for !rucb a 

### denial.

{dj 

### Ifany peraon wi&het to claim confidential treatment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552or16 U.S.C. 1905, for any information contained 

### in the petition or 

### other 1focumenl submitted

### prior to the issuimce ofa final 

### decision, that person 

### aha.ii submit together with 

### the 

### original document, ti 

### copy ofthe docUlr!ent 

### m triplicate., from which hasbeen deleted the 

### information wr 

### whlch suchpenon wis.hes 

### to claim**ronfi~ntial** treatment.. 

### The penon ahall indii::ale 

### in 

### the original document that it 

### is confidential or contains confidential information and 

### ahall 

# me a etatement tlpecifytng the 

### 1usnncaru:m for non-disclosure 

### ofthe

u.uvaucn;vu for which confidential
treatment II! claimed. 

### Ifthe person atate11 that 

### the informatfon comes 

### with.in !he exception in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) for trade 

### secrets and commercial or

### financial mformatioll. 

### Heh pem;>n 

### .hall

### fnC.h.&die a statement specifying whynch 

### information ls 

### pr!\ ar confidential. H the person filing a ument doe1 notFederal Register / 

### Vot 47, No.**~** 

## JWednesday, December 22, 1982 

## I Rules and Regulations 57219

submit a copy ofthe document with the confidential information deleted, the 

### DOE may a!lstime that there ill no objection to public discclosW'e ofthe 

### document 

### In Us entirety. The 

### DOE retains the 

### light to make its own**~** determination with regard to any claim 

### ofoonfldentiallty. Notice of the 

### decision bythe DOE to deny such claim, 

### in whole

or 

### In part and an opportunity to respond 

### shall he given to a person claL'lling confidentiality of

### L11fon:natlcm no less than five daya prior to itspublic 

### disclosuni.

§ 430.43**~ei'lt** of Pf!tltlon fOf

## ~"""

Promptly after receipt of a petition, an announcement 

### ofsuch 

### a petition 

### shall be published in the 

### Federal Register. The announcement shall set forth the availability for public review of all data, and information available, a.nd shall &oliclt comments. data and information with respect to the petition. Each
announcement shall contain a amn.mary ofthe Slate orlocal regulation at if!Sue and either (a} the petitioner's reasons for

a rule to supersede the State 

### o:r local regulation. or (b) the petitioner's teasons for s rule not to supersede the regulation. Except as may otherwise be specified, the period for public comment shall be 00 days after the announcement appears in the 

### Federal Register. This 

### comment period shall be the same as any comment period specified 

### by the Secretary pursuant to 

### Ii 430.46(b).


### J 430

.

### .u 

## eonmiu.

{aj A petition 

### to supersede a Slate regulation under section 327(b]!l} of the Act shall include:

(1) The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner;

(ZJ A 

### statemen! 

### ofthe interest 

### ofthe petitioner for which a superseding rule 

### is 11cmght:

(3) A copy of the law or regulation for which supersession 

### is sought:

{4) 

### Specification ofeach type or class ofproduct for which a superseding rule is sought:

(5) Information which would show why such regulallon unduly burdens interstate 

### commerce;

(6} 

### Information which would show {7J 

### Any otherinformation that the petitioner considers relevant or that the 

### Secretary may require,



### fb) A petition 

### from a State for a rule 

### for exemption 

### from supersession 

### ofs State regulation under section 327fbj[3) ofthe Act shall include:

(1} The name, address. Emd telephone number of the

(2} A statement 

### of the authority 

### to represent entity in this proceeding;

{3} A copy 

### ofthe law or regulatlon which tlrn State or local entity requests 

### not 

### be superseded;



### (4J Specificetlon ofeach 

### type or class

or product covered 

### by the regulation;

(5} A description 

### ofthe significant State or local interest justifying such State regule!ion;

{6) Any other information tha1 :.he petitioner considers relevant or that the Secretary may require.

(c) A notice ofpeiition submilled under § 430,41(b)!2] from a Stale shall include the irJorrnatiun contairwd in 

### I 431H4[b) (1). end \3).



### (d) All petitions and comments 

### by interested persons 

### shall be 

### made available 

### for public review. except 

### for information determined 

### to be confidential 

### pursuant to § 430 42(d}.

§ 430.45 Coo$0liclation of proceedingr.,



### DOE may consolidate any or all


### matters at issue 

### in two or more proceedings docketed where 

### lhere exist

comrnon 

### questions of fact end law, and where such consolidation would expedite or simplify consideration of the issuei. Consolidation shall not affect the right 

### ofany party le raise issues that could have been raised 

### if consolidation bad not occurred.

§ 430.46 Hurlng.e and comtn(lnts of**lnter~$te-d** Pf!r&on11-

(a) The Secre1ary shall hold a public 

### hearing to afford interested persons a reasonable opporlun.ity to present oral data, views, and arguments with respect to the proposed rule, and publi.sh notice in the Federal Register ofthe date and location of the hearing. A transcript shall be kepi of the hearing.

{b) The Secretary shall accept 

### vnitten
comments from interested persons with thal there is no Bignifican! State or local interest sufficient lojustify the State regulation in i!lsue: • respect to the proposed rule.**~** 43.(U7 Eva!Ufltion of Pf!'tltion. {a) In evaluating a petition submit:ecl pursuant to section 327[b){1} ofthe Act. the Secretary shall issue a requi>sted 

### rule only 

### ifthe Secretary determines:

('l) 

### There is no significant State 

### or local interest suffic:lent tojustify such regulation: or

(2) Such State orlocal regulation 

### u.nduly burdens interstale commerce.

(b) In evaluating a petition submitted punrnant 

### to section 327[b)i3} ofthe Act. the Secretary 11hall issue the requested rule only ifthe Secretary determines:

(1) There is a significant Stale or local interest to justify such regulation: and

(2} Such State 

### or local regulation contains a more stringent energy efficiency standard than such Federal standard: except that the Secetary may no! prescribe such rule lf he finds th.;t t:!<'.+ 

### Slate or local regulation would undul» burden interstate comm?rce. 

### f "30.46 !)ls.position of ?fftltion.

{a) The Secretary shall prescribr, 11 final rule or deny the pelition 

### wi!bn 6 months after the 

### dale the peliliM 11' filed, except that the**Secrtdar~ rlid~**  publish a notice in the federal RegistN extending such 

### period lo 

### a dale cen;,in Such notice shall 

### include !lie reasons fur the delay.



### (b) The 

### final rule issued by 

### the Secretary or a determination to der:y lhe 

### petition 

### by the Secretary shall include a written statement setting forth the factual and legal 

### basis for the decision. A copy ofthe Secretar:{s decision sli;,li be sent to either {1) the petitioner and the affected State orlocal agency 

### if the 

### petition ie for a rule lo supersede 

### a St111r regulation. 

### or (2) the 

### peillioncr and llll persons subject to the State regulatio'."! who have submitted comments 

### if thr petition is for a rule not to superse<l!' a 

### Stale regulation. The Secrt:tary**~>,alJ** publish in the Federal Register a ni<il'to of 1he final rule or a notin' of 

### llw d

..n:.d of the petition and the factual and lt:g;;l basis for the decision.

§ 430.49 Judicial rttvlew.



### The decision issued 

### by the Secre!<iry concerning a petition filed under thif 1mbpart shall be a final determination of the DOE of which anv 

### adversdv affotted person may seek judicial 

### review, lf'R V0<:**!U-~Ml** Pol.cl 12-1&-& 4**~5** prr.; eiu.Jlflii coor t..15.(H}l-M