### 44086 

### Federal**Re~ister** \"01. 

### -0\5. :':0. 1::7 

## f :\!onday. June 30. 1980 

### ! P:-oposed Rules

10 CFR Part 430 Energy ConservatIon Program for Consumer Products

AGENCY: Department ofEnergy.

ACTlON: :--lotice ofavailability of environmental assessment and finding ofno sigmficant impact.

SUMMARY: The Deoartment ofEnerQV (DOE) announces "the avaHabl!ity O(lts environmental assessment (EA) ofits Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products (DOE/EA-Q113). DOEhas determined. based on the

# E.a..
that this Program does not constitute

### a major Federal action significantly affecting thi quality ofthehuman environment. within the meaning of section 102(Z)(Qofthe National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321 etseq. Therefore.

a finding ofno significant impa"ct. pursuant to 40 CFR 1501A(e). is hereby issued to notify the public that an environmental impact statement is not reqUired for this action.

ADDRESSES: For copies of the EA: Department ofEnergy. Office of

Hearings andDockets. Forrestal Building. Room 1F-Q85. Mail Station 68-025.1000 Independence Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C. 20585. Phone: 202-252-9319. Department ofEnergy. Freedom of

InformationReading Room. Forrestal Building. Room 58-180. 1000 Independence Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C. 20585. Phone: 202- 252-6020. Mr. James A. Smith. Department of

Energy. Office ofConservation and SolarEnergy. Forrestal Building. Room GH-Q65. Mail Station GH-ooa, 1000 Independence Avenue. S.W

.. Washington. D.C. 20585. Phone: 202- 252-9127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCAI (Pub. 1.. 94-163). as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPAJ (Pub. 1.. 95-819). requires that the Department ofEnergy' (DOE) prescribe energy efficiency standards for thirteen types ofconsumer products. These consumerproducts are sometimes referred-to as "covered products." Standards for nine ofthese product types are required to be published in the Federal Register no later than December24. 1980. The nine product types given priority by£PeA as amended. by NEPCA. and forwhich a rule is thereby proposed today, are refrigerators and refrigerator·freezers. freezers. clothes dryers. waterheaters. room air conditioners. home heatinl! equipment. not including furnaces.

- kitchen ranges and ovens. central air conditioners (cooling only). and furnaces. Standards for dishwashers. teleVISion sets. dothes washers. and humidifiers and dehumIdifiers are reqwred to be pubiished in the Federal Register no later than :--lovember9. 1981" Standards for central aIr conditioners (heat pumps) are required to be pubHshed in the Federal Register no laterthan January 23.1982.

DOE'S first inprescribing energy efficiency standards for the thirteen product types was to publish three advancenotices ofproposed I'\Ilemaking inthe FederalRe'gister. The

### UrsL covering nin"e"product types. WllS publishedon January 2.1979 (44 FR 49). Thesecond. covering dishwashers. television sets. clothes washers. and humidifiers and dehumidifiers. was published on December 13. 19i9 (44 FR :'z::!76). The thiro. coverillg heat pumps.

was published on January 23. 1980 (45 

### FR 56(2).

The notice ofproposed rulemaking for
energy efficiency standards for nine types ofconsumerproducts presents a discussion ofDOE's basis for the proposed standards and the process for implementing theregulation. Ensuing sections deal with the legislative background. the standards implementation process. the phase-in periodfor standards, a discussion ofthe
comments received as a result ofthe advanC2 notice. 

### a discussion ofthe product types and classes to which the proposed standards will apply. the certification and enforcement proceduresproposed. a summary 

### ofthe basis for arriving at maximtml technologically feasible efficiency levels for each class ofproduct. 

### a summary of the basis for arriving at the minimum
energy efficiency standards (intermediate and final) for each class of product. a discussion ofstate preemption petitions. small business exemptions. and a requesl for comments

on various standards-related issues. In support ofthis proposed rule. the Department had developed six TechnicalSupport Documents. These documents provide detailed information

on important aspects ofthe proposed rule.

In accordam:e with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl (42. U.S.c. 4321. etseq,) and the Council ofEnvironmental Quality

• regulations implementing the procedural

provisions ofNEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). DOE stated in the advance notice of January

## z. 1979 that it would prepare an Environmental Assessment on the :mpact ofsetting energy efficiency standards for the nine types of

consumer oroducts covered bv the notice. Subsequent to pubiicaiion of [hl_ advance notice. advance notices were ;JUbiished indicating that DOE is conSIderIng energy efficiency standJrds for dishwashers. televiSIon sets. clothes washers. humldiJiers and dehumldifiers. and heat pumps. In oroer to produce a fun**envir~nm~ntal** review

## d generically similar actions. thereby averting
program segmentation. the Environmental Assessment being made available at this time addresses the potential environmental impacts ofall thirteen types ofconsumer products.

The analyses in the Environmental Assessment indicated thaI airpollution and commitments ofland and energy

resources decreased as 

### a result of dec:resing future energy demand. Indoor air quality was found to be at worst unaffected by implementation 

### of standards and at best somewhat improved: the exact effect could not be measured because the design options that will be selectedby manufacturers for imprOVing the efficiency ofgasburning appliances could not be ascertained. The program was found to have no significant effect on water quality. noise levels or solid waste levels.

-

A maximum ("worst case") increase ofabout 4 percent (29 million pounds) in the production/consumption of chlorofluorocarbons in the United States is projected to occur

### by the year 1990 as


### a result ofimplementing tke proposed standards. when compared to 1977 consumption levels. This increase is not considered to be significant for the following reasons:

• The "worst case"' projection uses 1977

chlorotluorocarbon consomption in the appliances covered by the proposed standards as a baseline reference and**assum~** that. absent the proposed standards. there would not be anv**incr~ase** in the use ofchlorofluorocarbons'in those appliances. However. gh:en the present trends in improving the energy eificieocy of

a numberofthese products. some increase in chlorofluorocarbon usage is likely tlo>

occureven without implementation ofthe proposed standards.

• The4 percent projected increase in United

Slales consumption represents only about 1 percent ofworld consumption of chlorofluorocarbons.

• The projected increaseiw small when

compared to the approximately 0170 mtiIion pOWld decrelille in chlorotl\1orocaroon consumption that has OCCUlTed in the United States since 1973 with the phasmg oQt (and.. beginrung in 1978. the total.ban) ofthe use ofchlorofluorocarbons in aerosol
sprays. As a result ofthis decrease. total United-States consumption of chlorofluorocarbons has dropped by over

### Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 

### 1:7 

## I Mondav. 

## Iune 30. 1980 

## I Proposed E'-lles 

### 44087

150 million pounds per year since the peak

vear of1973.

• The Environmental Protection Allene\' is

currently developing strategles**f~r** the control ofthe release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere. and has been informed ofthe projected Increase inconsumption due to the Implementation ofthis proposed program. The Agency has informally stated that they believe that this potential increase can be mitigated through implementation ofone or

more ofthe control strategies presently underdevelopment. These strategies are discussed in the program environmental
assessment. 

### Projected increases in the use of
copper. steel. iron. aluminum. plastic and fiberglass were not considered to be significant. when compared to total U.S. production. In addition. it was found that money savedfrom lower operating
costs would be likely to be spend on goods and services in the general
economy and might therefore stimulate additional pollution wjlich would not have occurred without the program. This
amount was estimated to be minimal and to have no significant impact on future environmental quality.

The Environmental Assessment also summarized the socioeconomic impacts ofthe programin a numberofareas. Change in the life cycle costs for

consumers; The differential impact of the program on various incomegroups; Change in the profitability of manufacturers ofconsumerproducts; The value ofthe program to the Nation

as awhole and to various regions ofthe country; Effects ofthe program on the health and safety ofworkers in the

consumerproductmanufacturing industry; and Secondary effects ofthe
program on the national economy. including effects on employment. inflation. gross national product. and balance oftrade.

Alternatives to the energy efficiency standards as proposed were assessed from the perspective ofenvironmental impact. None ofthe alternatives analy-zed Was found to vary significantly from the program with respect to its impact on the environment.

Based on the results ofthe Environmental Assessment. DOE has determined that the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products does not represent a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality ofthe human environment within the meaning ofSection 120(Z)(C) 

### ofNEPA.



## n. Public Access to Information

Single copies ofthe EA may be obtained from the Office ofHearings and Dockets at the address listed above. Copies ofthe EA are also available for public review in the DOE Freedom of Information Re.ading Room at the address listed above. between the hours of8 a.m

.. and 4p.m

.. Monday through Friday. except Federal holidays.

Interested parties should be aware that a 

### public meeting will be held on the Notice oiProposed Rulemaking on July
9. 1980 

### and that public hearings are scheduled to be held in Washington. D.C. 

### over the period July 21-August 1. 1980 

### and in Chicago. Illinois over the period August 4-8. 1980. 

### Mr. Jarr.es A. Smith. whose address is listed above.



### can provide any additional information desired. •

Issued in Washington. D.C. June 15.1980.
Ruth C. Clusen. A.ssistantSecretaryforEnvironment.

fFR Doc. 80-19191 filed S-24-llO: S:45 ami

B1L1.ING 

### eoCE &45G-01-1oI