CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

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 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

57198 Federal I Vol. 47, No. 246 I December 22, 1982 I Rules 

Office of CoftHNation and RtJnewa* 

Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

U>oo!ctat No. CAS-~M-78-110 (Plllrtlal}l 

En~ Connrvliltlon PNmr1lm 

Consumer 

Clothe11 Dryent and 

and Ovens 

AGEHtY: Office of Conservl!titm and 

Renewsble of 

that a stb111:lard for a not result in 

o::inservation of energy, 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 of State 

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 of Columbia 

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 of the 

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 

of several 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 of Energy. Mail 

Room M-141, forrestal 

"''"""''"b 1000 Independence Ave~ 

asllin~ton. !lC. Zillia,'i, 

l lnm:iduci:ion 

a. Authority 

Part B of Tllle 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, 1 creates the 

Pr1'.lwam for Consumer Prooucts 

Autonllotiiles. The consumer 

'Part B vi Title Ill ol E!'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 olher consumer product dassified 

by fue Secretary of Energy. if the 

product uses a specified minimum 

• amount of energy. See Section 322. The 

Secretary has not so classified any 

additional products. 

Under the Act the program coru;!sts 

e!ltlentially of three parts; testing, 

labeling, and mandatory minimum 

energy efficiency standards. The 

Department of Energy, in consultation 

with the National Bmeau of Standards, 

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 

of each 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 if DOE 

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 of or the cost of energy 

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 of estimated annual Gperattng 

COitli for other mCJ:dels of that product. 

Section 324{c){l). A rule is not required 

under Section 324 if the 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 

ii not likely to assist consumers in 

purchasing decisions or is not 

economically feasible, Section 324(c}. 

No labeling rule 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. 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

•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 of energy is a rule that 

SUJ:Hlrsedes any State standard. Section 

S25{b}. ll. the.l'tl i11 no Federal 

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 also tet forth 

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. 

Mer mooivin8 comments on 

adv&nce notices. on June 00, 1900. the 

OOE set forth Ha fll'st proposed 

rolemakms for ilie nkte products { 45 FR 

{Hereafter referred 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 of Section 

the Aci. The 1980 proposal 

""'""'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 of public 

in July ngs were conducted kt Chicago and 

W uhingto:n in August 1980. As a result 

of these 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 of the 

J1tam:l!il'd.B Hlected for each covered un.nn11a. the of the assumptions 

made in the 111.ipport 

documents, ihe procedure for 11eeking 

exemptlona for State regulations from 

the Federal standard. the 

of a final regulation. the 

nnmri1>.w of standards for small 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

. ·busines!lefl, whether alternative'! ~ 

reguleiionl! were practical, tmd the 

pmpoH) fur certification and 

enforcement~ 

On December 17, l9fl0, the 

Department notified the Congress of its 

inability to make a final determination 

on the imposition of energy efficiency 

1tandard1 on 1he nine covered products 

by the deadline c! Jannary %, 1961. On 

Febraary 23. 1981. DOE pub1i5hed a notice oftts intent oot to i3sm:i EmJ' 

energy efficiency stande:rd until it funr 

studied the comments recieved on fue 

June 30 proposal and made a thorough 

reass.esmnem ot the dam im:pporting the 

proposal {46 FR 13517). 

On April 2, 1982. DOE issued a further 

Notice of Proposed R1demaidng with 

respect to the nine priority products {41 

.f'R 14424). [Hereafter refemid to as the 

April 2 proposal.) With respect to 

of the products DOE proposed e a 

determination thl!t 11 standard wmtld not 

result in a significant comi:ervation of 

energy and would not be economical!)' 

justifiedYI'he April% proposal also 

proposed rule! governing petitiom to 

DOE both by States tu ubtain exemption 

from premption of State or local energy 

efficiency standards as well H by 

manufacturenl to obtain preemption or 

State or local !llandards. Two niclmicaJ 

support documents-an Ectmomic: 

Analysis and an Engineering 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 products by the statutory 

deadfme ofJenuary Z 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 could not be cidopw.l by October ZS, 

• Tbe April lt propooal dlil oo! P""f'OU any rule 

\'!.1tl>~'tel!re~fype~~ 

eq~L- ~~or~"""""'° 

10 ih11!1'-vi!li><' ~-T..._ ......... of b.>iil JllJilll' ....u..r heallllS or ...Olli reiap6C! lil th.a cia•&l?!I of U..: produci c&ntrol ;;iir rowli!lon"'I! Iha! 

a:rehut~ 

DOE wookl ism!e those tegregable 

porOOri.1 ef tb.e rnle that could be iaued. 

II.DiAC1•fiM 

a.~ 

As indicated above, the c.ourt· 

approved aettlement agreement required 

DOE to issue by October 29, 1982, s.t 

least those ug:rega ble portions of the 

rule th&1 could be issued by that data 

without delaying the other parl.!I of the 

rule. After reviewing the comments 

tec.eiverl H a result of the April 2 

proposal DO:E determined !hat 

q~ raiioe.d and comments made 

coo~ the Oak Ridge 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 made with 

respect ta the OR.NL M-0.del would 

preclw:ie adoption ot final ruleti f<Y ·the 

eight products b)' Ocrober 29. lOO.Z. 

The OR.NI. Model .U the computer 

model that projects the energy savinp 

e tw1.a1Lli.We to s 11.tandarrl for a product. 

MoreoWI!', other outputs of the 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 

for mtlllrt 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 

predicted i.n each iteration of the OR.1'.ll. 

Model. DOE deU?rminerl that there wu sub.:umtiaJ evidence in the record m 

support a oonclusla.n !hat an energy 

efflcieact' .ta:i:tdan'! wottlrl neither ~ 

in • significant conser\'<l tion of eni!'f'gJ 

nor be 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 of State 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 cmnmenls woe.re of e 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 Eld 1ocal 

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 of fire pmhlerm heing assened 

with regard to !he ORNLModel, DOE ii 

unable to proje.ct with auy certainty 

wheu e fina1 role on the remailling Jilx 

• products will be iuued. 

b.~. 

1. Dett.fm:dDOJ:i<J11 of E.Dera &v;., ln 

the Aprll 2 propoul DOE qua.rrtified t&e 

energy uTirlp tit.at would be 

atl::ribuiabie to a st.andant imposed at 

eadl af the analyzed leTei:s of efficiency 

for each product. nm - d:cme through use of Ure ORNL Model. '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 used l'O 

project rnidential ene-rv lllle ot a 

product with and wHhmrt standards. In 

the April 2 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 es timaled the 

amount of 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 treatment oi the relationship 

between energy prices and the mariu!1'a 

respormvenims :in producing and sellns 

more energy efficient products. Thia 

relationship was reflected in the 

Economic Analysis 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 between life cycle cost and 

the efficiency of models in the current 

ma.rb!t wu given as an initial implicit 

discount rate, and the change in the 

relationship over time wu 

c:haraderiud by a frnmd•. seep.• 

EAil. wmcli lwe.d the effect of clun:qpr:ig 

the bptic:it ~t rate u eneqJ 

prica c~ IJetJ p. iZ. EAD..' Both file 

l"floe ...... ~ ........... D .. IB 

11ar:a S-Oullll ila the OINl. MNlal.. Thai ia. ~ 

h1 !he MooM!l u Cn1'ea by the implicit diecount tala. 

Rather, tlie imp'tidl diat:mmt rob! b an output 1bll1 

aan be a.;...ed 0,- ""'~ -1111 tile Aprl l 

~-~--tm•---•• shorthand method of~ the market 

.dittortion thl>t .i..... dri"" :P4l1B of U... Model n.. 

formula did 1101 aet on Ille lmpbclt diKDlllll nt» 

ttself, Wt tmb ~ dlitot'!!OL wbiclJ had the 

..rlec! of~ the implicit dU!cri!ml "'•· 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

Register I Vol. 47, No. 246 I Wednesday, December 2:2, 1982 f Rules and Regulations 5720

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 consumer groups. 

Because of the seriousness of these 

com.ments.DOEisa 

matten thoroughly. ss, 

nolwithstimdin.g the criticisms of the 

ORNL Model, 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 of the 

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 of increasing 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 of efficient 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 of efficient 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 of the 

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 of a product 

for the Model's derived projections 

based on a relationship between life 

cycle costs and the efficiency of the 

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 of greatly 

increuing the initial discount 

rate and ei.imi any effect of the 

disputed f these 

sensitivity analyses were chosen 

bfJcause they replace the existing ORNL 

methodology for determining !he 

efficiencies of products 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 of these 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 of comments 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 of products being 

from stock; Wld marketplace 

behavior in the standards case. 

A. Energy Prk;e Forecasts. The energy 

price projections wied in the.April 2 

proposal were from the National Energy 

Policy Plan. DOE/S-008, July 1981, pp. S

U !hereafter referred to as "!\"EPP ID.") 

A number of commenters, induding the 

General Accounting Office (GA0), 8 

commented that DOE used energy price 

projectione eignificantly higher than 

energy price assumptions of certain 

private organizations. DOE has always 

used throughout these various 

rulemaking proceedings the most recent

and in DOE's view the most reliable, 

energy price forecasts. Consistent with 

this approach, the current analysis 

makes use of the energy price 

projeciions from the Energy 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 of four 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.!1

10.00 11~ 

dif>!!ll.llle.---............. - ..................... ~--······ 4.40 7.05 7.tl9 14.-01 H.32 :i!CH\

!JQuKI -·······-·-····~·-······-·· ................... - ....... ·-·--·--· <1.111 tl.00 Ui6 ll!.U 1M.& 18.5

The energy price projections used in 

the analysis generally tend to be lower 

in the near term (through 1900) then 

!\TEPP m and 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 of and without 

relation to this Under the 

Department of Energy 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 of its 

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 

rule or the olhllr are tou low. To 

Iha wntrary as no!ed ii anything, 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 of input. 

C. Housing Construction Forecasts. A 

number of comments were received that 

DOE's forecasts of housing 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 

of households 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 is intended merely 

to demoruitrate beyond cavil that neither of theae 

two producta would save 11 significant amount of 

energy nan if the iilltial implicit disco1111l rale were 

llastly inflated. 

• s..te GAO l'ej><)f'l EMD-82-?'ll; May u., 1002, 

Appliance Efficiency St1111dlltdll: l&$1le• Needing 

Resolutioo by OOE (hereafter "GAO Report"J. 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

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 la tts tmat:rrumt of mar~ 

forces between the bu.e Cll.!lle and tire 

l!h!!'lWruo Cll-. GAD ibted 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 

of etanderds 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 of product A 

number of rommm:rten cm the AP'f'!1 2 

urnmu'"" l!ltated that the tee em!Jym 

have been 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 analysis perfomied 

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 2 LCC 

analysili that costs ior most 

dasseu of these two prndacta woold 

inr.rease. 

The ORl"~'L ~Wdet was used w 

calculate the dilll>..r~ eronomk 

impa.cta oo ~i of a 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:Wa lirn: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 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

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 if a 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 of the 

tests received subi!tantial oomment, a 

nwnber of comments 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 shorter than the 

useful life 0Humace11 and therefore cl.id 

a full turnover of the 

"rnnn1m.,1rn stock. DOE hiu comidemd 

commentli and has concluded thal 

the s.ame for ail n~r•nnr'1fQisnotnn'~~~­

of theae nw>rh11rt .. 

these commenters suggested that the 

total butabie to 

should be the 

DOE 

not believe the for suc

an interpretation. Section.3Z5(b) states 

"In Jo standard for a 

covered products !lh prescribed 

• . . if .•• the establishment of such 

standard will not result in "''~''"""'"'"'' comiervatlon of energy •• , . 

language makes clear thal the 

determination or whether a standard 

will save is to be 

made on an imlMdual '"'"""c1'"~' 

ba&is. not on the basis fo

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. U the 

attributable to a standard for a 

nrururnct cannot meet a partlcular test fo

signitiicrunce because the tecfm•o!oi;iicall\i 

improvements are in•mtl'iriont 

to produce a large amount of 

this is not by itself evidence of a fault of 

the test. in 

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

would be required tu 

conduct standards rulemak:ings, cl.id not 

prejudge or determine 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 of energy they used. Whether a 

standard was appropriate, i.e., among 

other whether It would resull in a 

s1~~t1amt romiervation of energy. was 

to by DOE. For example. 

in both the June 1900 and April 2 

proposals DOE propotied no standard 

for elecirlc furnaces because no 

irn1tu'l:l•vemenu1 would uve energy. 

No commenter has 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 or more 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 or gas 

and eleci:rlcity tests does not suggest the 

inappropriateness of those 1ests. The 

NOPR acknowledged that the oil or gas 

and electricity fl:avingti tests had a 

narura1 biH toward products that use a 

amount of those fuels. That iii, a 

small improvement in energy 

efficiency attributable to a standard for 

a that useti a large amount of 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

57204 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 error involved in the 

system. 

The NRDC and some other 

comm.enters took issue as will with 

DOE's reliance as a basis for rejectiq 

the June 1900 test on the Congressional 

rei;er.tion of a conservation contingency 

cm grounds of insufficient savings. 

provided for five times the savings 

all the June 1900 proposed significance 

test. 12 The 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 of restriction on 

businesse11 and lndMduals. DOE hae 

always acknowledged that Congmu 

neither defined nor gave dear indication 

as to the of "significant" energy 

conserva April 2 proposal. in teJE~cuxm the June 1980 proposed 

ae'nmmo•n which even the NRDC 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 action was 

indl!stin;<ulsha1ble from the present 

situation. rather that it provided a 

genera! sense of \'!that might be 

considered insignificant The 

commenters, such as the NRDC, that 

merely catalogued the di.fferencetl 

between the circumstances present in 

the rejection of the 

'"'''""''"'"' '"""' plan for la nt 

savings and the present 

falled to demonstrate why those 

differences are !llufficient to lead DOE to 

that Congressional action in 

trying to determine what should 

constitute a significant savings under 

the Act For 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 of appliances. DOE disagrees 

that H is improper to make such a 

comparison but recognizes that the 

comparison must be viewed with 

caution. Because this wa.s the only 

legislative action cited to rui that nn.antifi••rl a measure of insignrncanee, 

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 equally be hypothesized that in 

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. 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

woold be required ro be deem:ed 

Jignificant in normal times. 

Both interpretatio!'.18 may plausible, 

but no evidence has been adduce4 to 

demonstrate that one rather than the 

other is 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 of len than 1500 bpd. 

Finally, a few commenters, lrocll aia 

the New York State Energy 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. Their position was th.at 

Congress, in rejecting voluntary targets 

for manda~ry standarda, had rejected 

the co:nceW: of allowing an'""'""'"""'' .. " 

market to achieve requisite 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 

would not result in a eignificant 

conserve tion of energy, Certainly the 

best, if not the only, way to meatmre 

whether the conservation of energy is 

the result of the standard or is the result 

of some other factor is to consider what 

would occur in the absence of 

standards. If DOE ignored the effect of 

market-induced efficiencies, the 1Htvings 

identified in the atandards case could 

not be said to be 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 of an unregulated market. by 

ensuring that DOE assessed whether a 

mandatory standard wali worth the 

candle in terms oi the 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 of State 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~ 

en tinily a result of the uw1uum 

atandard11 am:i not the il:Jl'Pilltm<:e 

stmldards, and that New 

estimated HVinglg for all of ill! ~arda 

(.OUI Quads (,)Ver five years for all State 

11tandru:tis, m lesll than .OM per 

year) wowd oomtiMe less ~ of 

one percent of even the State'$ 

e importantly, 

April 2 proposal 

that ~nee of climate dffierenoes or different energy concern11 ( Mpecially 

with re11pect to where 

problems are looa1 and in 

na tute) a standard 

in a SUlte might have grMter 

relative positive impacu or than 

if the 11tandud were adopted on a 

national buis. Thus, even if mandatory 

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 or Gas Servings. AB wu described in the April 2 DOE 

believes that ii iii to focus on 

savings of oil 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 of oil and 

natural gas to satisfy that demand; 

f2J Unle11s effective measures are promptly 

taken by the Federal Government end other 

users of energy to reduce the rate of growth 

of demand for energy, the United States will 

become im::reuingly dependent on the world 

oil market. iru::reasingly vulnerable to 

inteITUptions of foreign oil supplies, and 

unable to provide the energy to meet future 

needs; and 

13} All 11eciOI"ll of our 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 if it made a significant 

contribution to reducing this Nation's 

energy dependence on foreign nations. 

No commenter specifically took 

objection to such a test DOE then stated 

that H tentatively proposed 10,000 bpd of 

oil or the natural gas equivalent of 

10,000 bpd or oil as the lowest level of 

Hvings that would still have a 

significant c:.ontributitm to reducing thi6 

1982 I Rules and Regulations 5720

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 to

low a levei of Hvings to be deemed 

significant because even this level was 

less than one tmith of one percent of 

national oil use and less than 'lo otl 

percent or petroleum imports. Other 

commenter& asserted that the 10,000 bp

level was too high. 

The AR1 did not suggest a specific 

higher fignra or indicale what basis DO

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 

contingency pliiD that had been rejected 

by CongreH in 1979 as insignificant. As 

DOE noted in lhe April 2 proposal, 

however, 4400 bpd was rejected as 

inilignificant. and nothing in the history 

of that 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 o

HL67 percent of the minimum energy us

a product must use before it can be 

considered for standards under Section 

•Z-'i{a)(2}(B). 13 This amount is, of course, 

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 o

many oil wells, each of which are 

accoi.mted for nationally," In fact. DOE 

does not sccount for each oil well, nor, i

it did, would the lack of production from 

one be noticeable or recognizable 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 discernibl

or measurable on national reports could 

be said to make a significant 

contribution to reduciflE our national 

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 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

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

approximation of the 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 of the 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 of oil 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 of the 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 of and 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.I thl vast in efficiency of el ectrlc aenere tlon. 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- of electricity. b~! rether 

savlnss of energy input. to pmduce the el&elridty, 

f 01' the very n.aso111 enund B ted by El"C. 

One commenter asked for clarification less than one percent of the gas used in 

BB to whether the 10,000 bpd test central space heatif'.g. See 47 FR 14430. 

required a savings of either 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 of electricity 

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. ln other words, if a 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 of gas and gu uaed to generate the electricity. 

equal to 10,0C(l bpd of oil (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 of oil 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 if taken 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 should refer environment would not be significant. In 

to the sum of oil 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 can use both. Moreover, that the positive impacts on the 

even in the generation of electricity, the environment would not be significant in 

substitutability of gas 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 of this comment would impact on the environment. No 

neceesarily imply. commenter on the April 2 proposal look 

Second. 10.000 bpd or oil 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 The April 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 measured against 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 of oil nor this concept by requiring 11 standard lo 

lta equivalent of gu are large amounts result in a savings of electricity over the 

of fuel lo be saved compared to the nineteen-year period 1987-2005 equal to 

amounts of theee fuels consumed by the 

eight prodnct1 subject to thisrulemaldng. 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 q u nstion< concerning !he adl!'Quacy 

or th~ EnvironmentaJ Analysiv' ~onsiderabon or 

po•• ibl e neg a I ivc imp• ct• i I no ~tB nda !'d5 Wen! 

adO'p!ed. which wo1~d preempt State stAn<larila. 51!'1! 

in.fm. 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 246 I Wednesday, December 22, 1982 I Rules and RPgulafions 57207 

one pereent of the 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 over the 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 other factors!' 47 

FR 14430. Several com."Tienters disagreed 

that e one percent electricity savings 

wae the appropriate test for determi.rlng 

the significance of elecl: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 of energy 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 or gas Mlvings in order to 

be deemed significant is intentional and, 

DOE believes. supported by the high 

priority NECPA gives lo 1;;;ivings of oil 

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 of th• l<>te I electricity i.wa11e over the 

same period. the EflnN>mnenlal Policy ~mer fEPCl 

wa& of the "'""' tha1 H•'•Yl8• were only considered 

aa an "annual a urn averaged acroaa the entire 

perlcxl." Mey ill. 19il2. at Hl Several commenters. 

auch a• !he NRDC and the Depntment of Veteran 

and Communny Aflairs or the State of Florida. 

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 major ponioo 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 itself suggest 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 of new 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, 

if standards 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 of these com.menters 

also reflected these estimated avoided 

capacities in terms of powerplant 

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 water heaters] would be only 

36 percent of the aggregate figure 

presented. Under DOE's base case 

projection. the largest reduction would 

be only 17 percent of the 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 of llignifican1 

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 17to18 CWe 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 of the h1s1orical ll'ends base caae 

""""""""" with the $lands1'!!3 case, rather then on 

base caae projection. which would reduce 

ACEEE·s 1.10 Quada of electricity IMlv:ings iri the 

year 2;tJ05 lo 1).32 Quada. The Nol'them Stauis Power 

Company did not 11~ ill! m'i!lhodolQSY. 

additional new capacity is significant in 

term!l of actually affecting potential 

new. incremental capaclly. The 17to18 

GWe capacity savings projected by the 

commenters would be li'ss than 2 

percent of the approx1m.; te forecasl 

capacity for the year 20n5. and these 

eavings would for the mo<.l part be 

11pread over large parts. 1f not all, of the 

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 of reduced kilowat! hours 

attributable to a standard represents the 

actual gigawatts of capacity 

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 of peak 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 

of a utility's peak load and the impacts 

of projected 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 of addressing 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. 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

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 of an increase in 

effu.:ie'.'it1es, Several of these 

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.."' 

of a 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 of product11 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 if a 

standard were adopted compared to the 

nr'""'"' c energy use if no 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 

of a 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 

"'"' ULl t'U 8 Vfl!1 !J11< :;urv 

tar~et of at !east a 20 percent increase in 

the of all the products 

between a.nd moo. Only if a; 

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 of a 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). 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

I Vol. 47, No. 246 I Wednesday, December 22. 1982 I Rules and Regulations moo 

in a tdgniliunt oon11ervation of energy 

imder Section 325 (b) {1). The fin;t test 

would deem significant ilie aavinga 

attributed;ile to fl 11tandam If the 

standard would result in the &avin.s of 

10,000 bpd of oil or the nving of natural 

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 of one percent of national 

electricity ut>e over ilie period of the 

average life of the product in question 

beginning with the year j007. The third 

test would deem savings significant if 

the nvinga attributable to a standard 

for a product were equal to 16.67 percent 

of the energy tha1 would be used by that 

product in the absence of a standard 

measured over the one year period 

following the period of the average life 

of the product purcli.ased in the last year 

before the standard would bee imposed. 

n. (d) Economic JW!tification 

As discussed in the Aprll 2 proposal, 

Section SZS(b} eitio prohibits an 

appliance efficiency standard if that 

standard is not economically justified 

Thus. even if a ,;ta.ndam savea 

fllgnificant amounts of energy, no 

11tandlil"d could be issued unless it was 

determined to he economically justified. 

Section 325(dJ statu that e etandard can 

be economically justified only if DOE 

determines that the benefits of standard 

exceed its burdens. lo determining 

whether the benefits of a 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 

economic justification involving clothes 

dryers antl ranges and ovens were 

received i.md becamie some of the 

economic jW1tification 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 

of th11 ;r;>eci&td flactOl'll. Whelher or not S..ction 

32/l{dj f'tK/WIW Ill! tat tn apply to detl!rminatlom !If 

eoonomlc j,...ti!'i®ru:.u imrl"1 SeclioD 3211{1>}. or ooly 

lhoee delerminalloM made under Section S:lli(c), 

OOE !:mli<!vl!1> the le<11t in Soclioo 3.W(d) te1>I is 

111ppropmle for cle:termining ""'°"OllUc jlll!tifiool:ion 

!Wder &cilmi ~}. 

on the O.R.'P.;"1 model, ti DOE is 

111scu1;1m1J1 all of the norH1pecific 

comments with respect to its 

economic justification. 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. Technical Issues 

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 of the 

commenters. Webster City Products 

[Webster City) and Whirlpool 

Corporation fvVhirlpool), suggested that 

the extended payback period of this 

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 

Engineering Analysis 10 compute a 22..3 

year payback 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 of a 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 of payback periodB may be useful 

in the derivation of the relationship 

between im::reases in efficiency and 

increases in cost Of course, a standard 

that would require use of euch a design 

option may not be economically 

justified. 

GenereJ Electric Company (GE) 

commented that DOE's estimate of a '.Ui 

*' Fw exa: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&uured by 

tl:ie i'i.'lru!dal lmparu Model canm1! be cU.t~ 

percent energy Hvings for insulating 

clothes dryer11 was overstated. GE 

claimed that this level of energy savings 

could only be achieved under the 

condition of comparing the energy 

consumption of rm insulated clothes 

dryer with that of an uninsulated unit 

operated for multiple consecutive cycles 

drying certain types of clothes loads. 

DOE's estimate of 1.5 percent &a\'ingl! 

was taken from NBS test data and from 

an analysis of previous industry 

ru:m:.unents relative to improvements that 

could be gained from wwation. In its 

comment, GE did not the basis 

for its conclusion or i here DOE 

might have erred. Accordingly. DOE was 

unable to conclude that GE'e comment 

was justified. 

The :remaining comment made 

pertaining to ilie insulation design 

option was an expression of concern on 

the part of the Association of home 

Appliance Manufacturers {A.HAM) that 

insulation in clothers dryers could 

degrade with time with the resultant 

potential for loose particles of insulation 

ooing drawn into the clothes load or 

exhausted into the home environment. 

The type of insulation which DOE 

considered in its analysis of this design 

option wati vinyl-clad fioorglass, one 

inch in thickness, which is commonly 

wmd in air ducts where high velocity hot 

air ls encountered. DOE is nol aware of 

any problem11 a11sociated with this 

application of this material. Therefore, 

DOE does not project any problems or 

risks asliociated with using this type of 

insulating material 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 of moisture 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 cannot be 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 of data 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 wmmsntm ffurlfirrp. 

rema&& bb iFI rsnelysk 

tempera&% aeaw ~auaame@a: 

temtnatioa cont.rato apparmdy ware not ass:ped &e hD eaaew sa%ws &at 

D%9E accaded mots* smalw 

au!omatic tenilinalian contnrlrr, T%i@ 

cowmeszter is corn& for malysia 

DQE used the field use 1Fectail.s fa 

iempt.rrl@ aen'sns- arad anofstm 

senel% eaatoanaaPic temirae@cwn casm1s 

found in tks pmspsed anrtenh~nts to 

&C test pmedms far clotbea @em 

gubfistned an juPy 1% Ii, [IIS 1. mesa proporsd Factam wen* 

maism sknsiq serutmatdc tennkah 

asd 1.16 for IempemW searring 

eutonaot'ls: tenrtinehan. The mtiond f@r 

@us, as mbtd 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 after rhe 

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 

lmsilr oaafus 

mAt &a lime. &ese $roped Reld ma 

factors represent& I3QFs best =&me& 

of the rtrkal enem aaviSXp associatd 

wi& the aWCl types of antmet.l(l 

ternlaasdola ml~~ls* fndusw rnmmm& 

and ders aubmilted In 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 setringas As B resalt, WE assiyred same Fie& use fador fm tempemtufe 

8clasaniJ aolomartxe aemahm mofwh 

a$ fat molarwe amsh sulomaric 

termanation urnmls, 1M aXrtihr 

rial mle rrmenk LLn@ te 

for dorbea dwem publiah y 18, 

1m P)% FR3%3. Wm m 1D @b 

Its swnerjmg analpsis for eloh 

dryere to awnt lor &is &- tia ths 

@em, Mm subsmdem .a 'h 

for thja mm m. 

pnaElinBq to 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, 

.for e &at 

&at 

affects trEili@ end mm cmsw*~ 

&%rtit tirmtd-mlg @em *em& tend 

to be less enem e&cttnf than do&% 

clam why mnsmem wodd pe~f;eI~s dmlded egoinst omft"yiw a vaim 

&at &em dryem offer any added ubltty. adjurmtrzneat far wmpact datatea hem. 

Shce &e Wed-orily feawrmre doer aot The manrrt?.iuPg t&~icfi$ gem miad 

&Bad pmdad earn% WE bas 9 ro cla&ea *m mmm& 

cfetemebf &at e separark pmdud rrlrrsa vatritrbih& of twt pmedFw Wed-ody hem shadd not be f30E pabhketd axnmded &a% 

estebbbad. 

&WfgrwI xcamended that gas fmBB 2'9213 

hefed campad da&etr dvc?rs be mods '@" 

sopante c~sas snd fdc~, gat aoy ~~~~~~~",&HpmL WrIrsteT asrI smddpew* and WM ~lar-aked that test resd ea?m ba a finrrction af b volwe, 

Bags teat p~dm far cEa&es &em 

debe cawpad &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@bd cornpa@ bes Tests &e Hs~ma] &a@ af 

made in IW2, huD lnodeb 'Va''sua Standlirtaa bsve sat *Ailailed va&abili% fnade tz wd nu mad~lrr m of test mfsultro at &e order expdand pmjeeted br 1W included with tse by gy~~ cgn&ura 

-1m dare wae ifsfomation w&& jb to reaoive &is issue 

show& he evewe 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 cubic feet in iW% inpeel an &e msuits eny of &a 

and 8.S mbXc feet iB '5880+ DOE did a;rt andyoesr &gc;cmBsed hemh 

pmwae ar areparate praduct dam for gar 

hefed compoa dathes bcamiae it b+ S&"ifi 

4 Tbr! t~ble bplow wBeas the proje~tret enew etilnngs rlrt~brttafsle ta s 

aam&ctmd in I%?, the year &at my standard for rarcfothas @em at each of 

sbanM pmdhd in &ern- the stimdhrds ievels snalyzd under the 

wadd have become e&cQ:trve. Fufther, iax OR%% Model as \.reg as tbe results af 

mvaem ghe a1711 data, D0E atw ehe mmiti'sity tmdysea pri?rfermed tsn 

found w eW1mnt mrreEatmoo btvc'em sterndard level + 

WMS ~YERS 

Wanw 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 elrcMdv savings, 

plnder &a OWL Mod& my af the nans aZ the pmjectians &@a even to ihe 

senri%sO'jB amlywe 68 ~nivalent af level of Ke of the one percent af 

bgxt sf o&=lese thm the bfi p(ie!ct4-;cxty lgezlpe over the perfod &st 

that m~ would dm s~m~ 80E vva& dsem si&>cankS 

FmlBv, the lanaest =-tam 

 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)
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 f usi.if !cation. 

1. Economic~ oo mamifocturen 

and consw: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:reued pricu w romum.en at ail sand.a.rda level.a. No 

, comments were received ilia! have 

persuwieJ;I DOE w alter these 

cooclu.aicp. 

AB disoossed in the April 2 proposal. 

DOE dlrl no! analy:i:e the impacts on 

manufacturel"l:i of dryers by use of the 

Ymanciru Impacts Model. However, 

DOE indlceted that It believed that an 

effect of a standard generally would be 

to req~ certain inveliltments 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 

or manuiaclureni that they concurred in 

this general auessment. 

Z. Life-cycle cost and net present 

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.icated J.rHhe April 2 proposal. the life 

cycle cos! of dotbes dryen. at both 

levels 3 and 4 (the only two levell! that 

&ave any energy) actually increases for 

the two claHes of dryers that 1ru:Jde up 

93 percent of the 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 consumer to purcliase a 

dry life-cycle oost than 

is no 

The net present value {NPV) analyi;is 

Ui execnled by use of the 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 of the 

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 m the 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 of clothee 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 of a 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 2 propoo.al. DOE stated that 

In balancing the benefits of a mndard 

against its burdens, no weight need be 

given to 11avings of energy that are so 

small. No oom..men.l.li were reccived 

dlsputing this determination. 

7. Other factors. Became the FiM was 

not w.ed to esseN ilie impacu of 

•Wlrla.rm on dryer JruIDuiacturen. DOE 

did not estimate the impact cf the 

standard for ~ on small 

mamrfacturen of dryers. 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 of till 

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:aliy justified. 

Model am! !ht! ~ty •n11l}"Si6 ~ & but °""" efl\c:kmcy .,.,.,.tanl ~ h; l\167, II!) $1411 

1nillioo 

efficieru:;y ~th<! improvem.m-,ts 

-*tivlty 

projoc\W 

IUlll>lr-into future, ~ 

It> 

$197 million under the sen,,ltivity anal~·11fa !hat 

doobled till! lmpljci1 dlacmmt rate mid !lmi held It 

oonelant The NPV ;,, b~sed e~· 8'0vingi 

~er 

!>Vt!!' 

1Se 

the~ 

~tiod 191ll'-al00. 

19117...mti !rom ~ 

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 

that had a certain prototype 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. They relied 

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 of these 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 of the 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 are not available should 

not generally be included as design 

options in the Engineering Analysis. 

Moreover, DOE bu reviewed 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 of prototypes 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 itself to 

efficient mass production, h?s general 

market potential. or even whether such 

e level of efficlencv could be obtained 

from a mas .. production model. 

Moreover, even if ft were feasible, it 

could require a separate product class 

(as is true of microwave 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 manufacturer further 

commented that the vent on current 

models of aelf-clearung ovens is really 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

throttled 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 of reduced 

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~ of natural gaa 

OR..._'L Model or any 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 

electric n1thtlr thim 

and ovena. Thia ia 

net present value 

costa involved 

in standudl'! ranges and ovena. 

Thus. the savings of gas attributable to 

standards are for the most part the 

result of fo wer gas and crvem 

purchased, increHed 

eu1c1·em:y of those under 

thE.! 

under most of the · 

11w~wa1:u is the of increased 

of electric kitchen ranges and 

ovens. not any decrease i.n their 

effici1em:y com,na•red to the base catIB. 

I) 

December 22, 1982 I 

estimate or the 

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 of the 

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 of the 

analyses i11 4 of the 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 of energy, 

1. Economic impact on m111rmfnr.t11nr>N 

a.mi consumers. DOE has reviewed its 

4 

initial detenninatfons the per 

wlit incre111ied cost to to 

mHt the level of efficiency 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 been madt1. TheH 

re<lWll'etl investments would probably 

reindt in the forgoing of certain other 

investments which would be mom 

beneficial to the manufacturer. No 

specific comments were received 

disputing this determination. but 

comments were received from a number 

of manufacturers that they conC1.ll'l'ed in 

thi1J aHeHment 

Z. Life-cycle cost and net present 

value, No spool.fie c1.n:nments wem 

received concerning DOE's 

determinatiorw on the iiie~cycle cost and 

net present value for rrmges and ovem. 

As indicated in the April 2 propoaa} and 

a!! continues lo be- true, at every level of 

""'"''~'n':t analyzed as a potential e.lectric ovens, the atandard 

would be set higher than the average 

consumer's LCC mlninmm .. Therefore, a 

standard et this level would penalize the 

average and below average consumers 

· oven from the 

mar slightly positive 

NPV projected at levels l and 2 ($16 

million and $38 million. respectively, 

over the 38 year period], there is e 

!'<'PV at stendard levels 3 end 4 

the ORNL Model and under two 

of the three sensitivity analyses. Umier 

the sensitivity analysis of standard 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€s not believe the 

occurrem;;e of a 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 year per 

household. Consequently. DOE does not 

believe that this NPV is entitled to great 

weight in measuring the benefits and 

burdens of possible standards. 

especially when this benefit is directly 

at the experuie of banning from the 

market the minimal LCC oven for 

averqe consumers. 

At the two levels of efficiency 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 of oven. th.e 

oost is increased by standards 

from 1978 average. The net present 

value aUribuJ.able to a standard for gas 

raoses and ovemi is either zero or 

11£8Btive at each standard level and 

under each seruiltivity analysis. Thhl 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

Vol. 47, No. 246 

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

imposition of ti standard. 

3. Energy savings. The energy ~ 

are indicated a& roKUued m the 

Significam::e of Energy Sa'll'inga eecti.on 

above. , 4.1.asMing of utility or J)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 oot leMen 

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 of ranges 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 of a Federal standard 

for rllllgea and ovens would have no 

impact on competition. 

6. Need to save energy. As shown 

aoov!',. a standard for kitclu:m ranges 

and ovens would save at m08t .398 

Quade over nineteen years, leu than 2. 

percent of the energy used over thiit 

period by that product.1t1 

In the April 2 prop~al DOE 

concluded that in balancing the benefits 

of a sl.andard against its burden. no 

weight need be given to sa'itillgfS of such 

a small amount. No commenter disputed 

this conduaion. Moreover, as discus1md 

above, virtually ail the saving!! of gas 

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 of influencing persons merely to 

!!Wllcb from gas or oil products to 

electrical products in o!'der to save that 

o.il or gll.ll. 

7. Other factors. DOE received no commenl.!l from manuJacturen 

di&cussing the impact of po11aible 

standards for ranges a.nd ovem oo small 

manufacturers. 

Two appliance inanufactu.reni (Amana 

and Carrier}. however, and the Northern 

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 of all 

the factoN! discussed above and in the 

April 2 p;~ tbe bw-dens of an 

efficiency standard for kitchen Nillgeli 

Wl\i ovens outw · the bmi.efim. 

Accordingly, tandard for 

kitchen ranges and ovens is 

economically justified. 

... ~(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 or local standard from being 

superseded. if DO: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 or loca1 sta would 

unduly burden interstate commerce. 

l:n the NOPR. DOE proposed to 

establish the effective n which 

11uperse11Sion of State an 

standards wmild take pla~ and the 

general procedures by which Stales 

oould petition for rules exempting their 

State or local etandaxcl.s for all covered 

products. 

Major comments were received m the 

following areas: 

(l} the effect of 11 Federal "nostandard" delennl.nation on the 

appropriateness of State and local 

standards; {2) the criteria by which DOE 

would determine whether or not 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 of a covered producttt within 

the mea.ning of the statute; and (5) 

questions on the procedural rules 

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 covered products when final 

t>t~ are promulgated for them.. 

1. The Effect of a ''No-Standard'' 

Determination m1 Related State 

Regulations 

Many oommenten appeared to 

believe that DOE had the preemption of 

State law as one of ite aims in proposing 

a "n~tandard" standard. To the 

contrary, DOE recognized in the NOPR 

that many energy 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 on large numbers of persons 

or fails to eave significant energv over 

ilie entire nation. Thus, analvses that 

DOE believes demonstrate the 

in eness of Federal standards 

atutory tests do not 

necessarilv indicate thelr 

inapproprlateness on a Stale or local 

basis. Moreover. this Administration's 

policy of New Federalism supports the 

fre7dom of the 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 if a 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. if petitioned, determine the 

appropriateness of State 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 Criteria for Exemptions From 

Preemption 

The NOPR did not specif\/ the criteria 

upon which DOE would as~ess petitions 

from States that their standards nol he 

wperseded by the Federal "no. 

standard" 11tendard, other than stating 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

that 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 Stale petltiorui 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" 

!hat the !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 H DOE 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 

in the of a 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 

of the 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 if DOE ~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 of a State or local 

i;tanderd not be 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 if the State obtained an 

exemption."' DOE' ll purpoae in "rn""'""' 

"'DOI! alll<l "'''iew..d tlmu 

!!la~ in Ila evalu~lioo l'lf ilm 

ud en'!?irorune:ntal ilnpacu IA• 

1ta.ndard"' for the eigl>I Sl>il'IWl<ll!• 

NOP!< nOJm! Iha 

100..;f• rul,,,,,,.w.g_ .. Simiis.rly, evm lK 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 of the 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 up to 

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 of manufacturers to be 

Unlike manufacturers, DOE 

"'"""""''" the Ac! based on the language which pi;ovides: 

This part """'""""n" 

insofar as 

henrn.fter provide for-
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

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 their regula tlons 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 necessity be a 11ubstantially 

delayed effective date of the Federal 

rule. Second, federal rules would take 

effect in conjuction with the requirement 

of section 325fi)(4) of the 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 of the final Federal rule 

setting forth the standard (or no 

l!Hmdard) for a particular covered 

product. The petition itself must be med 

within 120 days of publication 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 

"'The Department notes in ?•&•int! Iha! durlllg 

any hiam. of coune. manulacrur..,.. would not w 

subject lo crny rogufolioo 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 other covered 

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 of energy 

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 itself would 

have to he filed in a timely fuhion. 

After thi11 lime period. State11 may of coune submit petitions for exemption. 

However. the State or focal 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 Affected by the 

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 of llpecific examples of State 

laws and regulations were given in the 

comments. DOE does not believe it is 

appropriate to attempt to specify or 

define in the actual rule adopted today 

what State laws or regulations are 

1rubjeci to super11ession. Nevertheless, in 

reviewing economic and environmental 

. impacts of the proposed "no-standard" 

, standards. DOE read "energy efficiency 

standard" to he all &et forth m section 

321(6) of the Act: "a performance 

standard * • • which prescribes a 

minimum level of energy efficiency for ll 

covered product• • •."Standard!> 

oould he aet either by legislation 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 if a 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 particular type {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 of Heating. 

Refrigerating. and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards. More 

specific examples of OOE's 

understanding of the coverage of the 

statute: a.re listed below. 

(a) Voluntary utility rebate or 

incentive.programs. authorized or 

required by State law or regulation, are 

not considered to be subject to 

preemption. 

{b} Any State or local law or 

regulation relati to the purchase by a 

State or any I subdivision of 

appliances would not 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 or energy 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 of hook-ups for 

appliances with less than a certain 

efficiency would be subject to 

preemption. 

(rl) "Point" index programs in 

construction or building codes that 

would not set specific requirements for a 

covered product. but would establish an overall maximum number of energy 

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 

lo preemption. 

The DOE makes the following 

euggestion in order to resolve any 

uncertainty about whether any 

particular State or focal law or 

regulation is subject to preemption. 

Beginning today, any State or person 

subject to a State or local 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 OOE pursuant to 10 CFR Part 205, 

Subpart F. 'fhe OOE requests ilia! 

interested parsons Identify all laws and 

,. I! thould he noted that lhe prohibition of a 

"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. 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

nr~~ernil:ltion. The give 

notice of all such correspc:mderwe in the 

Federal in order that EIH 

m1ern:s1eea p!:Nl-Om! may be 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 or iocal 

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. of the exact wclrt1rnv 

of the _,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 on provisions m the 

as noted above. OOB u 

adcmtilrw the proeedmat replatiom at 

10 

in theNOPR. 

400. Subpart D. 8JJ ~ 

VI. En'ViromoonW. R .. tory Impact 

and Small Entity Imped~ 

a. Jlmrironnumtal Review 

The Department ha1 reviewed today'111 

final rule in a~ with thi 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1009 (NEPA} (42 U.S.C. ~et saq.), the 

Council on Envinm.mfmtai Quality 

Regulations impiementiul thi 

proadu.mi proviliom of NEPA (40 CFR 

Pm 1500 et seq.}. and the Department'• own NEPA guidelines (45 FR 20694, 

March za. :moo. u amended by 47 FR 

7976, February 23.1002) lrnd findll that 

neither an emrironmenial Impact 

statf!ment norm envirorunentfil 

H11essmen1 i1 required since there am 

dearly no ai8nificant enviromnentai 

impacts Hsociated with today's action. 

inl 

type• of conswner products, DOE identified 

the preemption of State energy 

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 or would be denied an 

ex<em1~ticm from preemption. In either 

case, State standard would no longer 

oo effective, thereby permitting sales of 

prevously noncompllant products In the 

State. OOE reviewed this potential 

outcome and detennined that any 

impacts as11oda!ed with Federal 

preempti<:n of existlnl 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••• of eliminating State 

DOE has 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~ 

~~~ 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

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 per se applicable to 

either of !hesti prodi.u:te: however, nine 

States cu.rrently have regulations 

prohibifulB standing pilot lights on 

natursJ gu·fueled versions of these 

producta. 114 Today'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 of clothes 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, if any. 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 of gas 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 

of State 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 of gas-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 

•The runt Stales are; Arirnna. California. 

Hawaii. Io•ra. Miclii1511n, Mitmf'eOla. New York. 

Oreimn. and Wu•ci:m•in. Four o! l.hi?&e Stale.. 

Mztina M1d11gan. Minne1'.ltll ll!ld Wiecomin. 

exempt Ii** kitc:hl"~ t&ll,llea and cwrns without 

eieelricaf pcwer cords from I.he &tlillditlll pilot light 

bu. 

Increase in gH range energy 

comn.unption of approximately one half 

or one percent This is about 0.0015 

Quad.a of additional 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 of the 

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 if a rule is a 

. "major 1 ule" under the Order. In the 

April 2 DOE determined that 

the rule proposed there would not be a 

major rule because, if adopted, 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 

at Uity 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 

major rule under the Executive Order. 

Consequently, this rule has been 

reviewed by OMB under the proceduree 

applicable to rules other than major 

rules. 

c. Regulatory Flexibility 

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 2 proposal 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 of the foregoing. Part 

430 of Chapter Il of Tille 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, Is amended as ::et 

forth below. 

Utt of Subject.ti in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. Energy conservation. 

Household appliances. 

Issued ill Washington. D.C .. December 15. 

1982. 

Jouph J. Tribble, 

Assistant Sflctetcry, ConservoJion and 

Renewable Energy. 

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) of a 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 of a type specified in section 322 

of the Act. · .. • • 

"Ertelbj' efficiency standard" means a 

performance standard: 

(a) Which prescribes a minlmum lev(:;I 

of energy efficiency for a covered 

product, determined in accordance with 

teFt procedures prescribed undt:r secfam 

323 of the Act, and 

(b) Which include any other 

requirements which the Secretary may 

prescribe under section 3Z5{c] of the 

Act 

"Manufacturer" mean11 tny person 

who manufactures a consumer product .. • 

"Person" includes any individual. 

corporation, company, association, firm, 

partnernhip. society. t.rust joint venture 

or joint stock company, the government. 

and any agency of the United Stales or 

any State or political s .bi '.ivision 

thereof. .. 
 CAS-RM-78-110 (Partial)

Vol. 47, No. W3 

.. Z. C of Part 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'Vll tiOll 

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 et aeq.}. 

§~.~ ~.-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 of no titandru-dj m 

l 430,32 shall be the later of: 

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 of petition. 

430.4S of J)('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 of the 

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'"' of a fmal standard for 

a covered product and a complete 

petition within 120 daya after 

publication of such a fmal standard for a 

eovered product m order to implement 

the provisione of t ~} of th.ia Part. 

f U).4~ ~ nlqi.11~ 

(•l A nol.ice of petition 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 petition for a rule to 

·euperse~ a State or local regWation 

and all related 1rnbminions shall be 

11erved upon each State agency, 

depl$rtme.nt or imtrwnentality whoa 

regulation the petitioner aeeke 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 or certified mail is 

complete upon malling. 

le) If the 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 of such 11 

denial in the fedaw Register and the 

nHuon for !rucb a denial. 

{dj If any 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 of a final decision, that person 

aha.ii submit together with the original 

document, ti copy of the docUlr!ent m triplicate., from which has been deleted 

the information wr whlch such penon 

wis.hes to claim ronfi~ntial treatment.. 

The penon ahall indii::a le in the original 

document that it is confidential or 

contains confidential information and 

ahall me a etatement tlpecifytng the 

1usnncaru:m for non-disclosure of the 

u.uvaucn;vu for which confidential 

treatment II! claimed. If the 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 why nch 

information ls pr!\ ar confidential. 

H the person filing a ument doe1 not 
submit a copy of the document with the 

confidential information deleted, the 

DOE may a!lstime that there ill no 

objection to public discclosW'e of the 

document In Us entirety. The DOE 

retains the light to make its own ~ 

determination with regard to any claim 

of oonfldentiallty. Notice of the decision 

by the 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 its public 

disclosuni. 

§ 430.43 ~ei'lt of Pf!tltlon fOf 

~""" Promptly after receipt of a petition, an 

announcement of such 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 

of the Slate or local 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 sta temen! of the interest of the 

petitioner for which a superseding rule 

is 11cmght: 

(3) A copy of the law or regulation for 

which supersession is sought: 

{4) Specification of each type or class 

of product 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 other information that the 

petitioner considers relevant or that the 

Secretary may require, 

fb) A petition from a State for a rule 

for exemption from supersession of s 

State regulation under section 327fbj[3) 

of the 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 of the law or regulatlon 

which tlrn State or local entity requests 

not be superseded; 

(4J Specificetlon of each type or class 

or product covered by the regulation; 

(5} A description of the 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 of peiition 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 of any 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 of the 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 lo justify 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} of the Act. 

the Secretary shall issue a requi>sted 

rule only if the Secretary determines: 

('l) There is no significant State or local interest suffic:lent to justify such 

regulation: or (2) Such State or local regulation 

u.nduly burdens interstale commerce. (b) In evaluating a petition submitted 

punrnant to section 327[b)i3} of the Act. 

the Secretary 11hall issue the requested 

rule only if the 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 of the Secretar:{s decision sli;,li 

be sent to either {1) the petitioner and 

the affected State or local 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 not in' 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