CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

-=

.~ .... .=

-

-

='

----

---

--

::

:..

-

-

~\

.=-=

--

--

==

.:

-

-----

-- ='-- s:.. '-=-"

---

-----

Monday

June 30, 1980

Part II

.

Department of

Energy

Office of Conservation and Solar Energy

Ene~gy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43976 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Conservation and Solar

Energy

10 CFR Part 430

I

Energy Conservation Program tor

Consumer Products

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

AC1'ION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Proposed Rulemaking. Public

~1eeting and Public Hearings Regarding

Energy Efficiency Standards fol'

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers.

Freezers. Clothes Drvers. Water

Heaters. Room Air Conditioners. Home

Heating Equipment not including

Furnaces. Kitchen Ranges and Ovens.

Central Air Conditioners. and Furnaces.

The Energy Policy and Conservation

Act. as amended by the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act. requires that

the Department of Energy prescribe

energy effiCiency standards for

consumer products. The Department is

today proposing to amend 10 CFR Part

430 to include energy efficiency

standards for classes of refrigerators

and refrigerator.freezers. freezers.

clothes drvers. water heaters. room air

conditioners. home heating equipment

not including furnaces. kitchen ranges

and ovens. central air conditioners and

furnaces. The rule proposed today

establishes intermediate and final

energy efficiency standards for the

above-mentioned covered products. The

proposed rule also includes amendments,

to the State manufacturer preemption

petitions found at Subpart D. a new

Subpart E containing procedures for

small business exemptions. and a new

Subpart F containing certification' and

enforcement procedures.

The purpose of this notice of proposed

rulemaking is to provide interested , - persons an opportunity to comment

upon the proposed rule. and to invite

:nterested persons to participate in the

energy efficiency standards rulemaking

process.

OATES: Written comments on this

proposed_rule must be received by the

Department by August 29. 1980 in order

to be included in the docket.

Public .'v1eeting, Washington. D.C.:

Pursuant to section 336(a)(2) of the Act.

there will be a public meeting in

Washington. D.C.• at which interested

parties may present' question(s)

regarding this rule for the purpose of

clarification of issues. Written

question(s) for clarification must be

s.ubmitted to DOE no later than 5:00

p,m.. July 8. 1980. Persons attending this

meeting will also have an opportunity to

question those persons making written

or oral presentations with respect to

disputed issues of material fact. The

public meeting will be held on July 16.

1980 at the time and place noted below.

_ Public Hearing, Washington. D.C.:

The Washington. D.C. public hearing

will be held August 11 through 15. 1980.

and will continue into the week of

August 18. 1980 as necessary in order to

accommodate'all interested speakers;

requests to speak must be i'eceived by

the Department no later than 5:00 p.m.•

July 18.1980; speakers will be notified

by 5;00 p.m.. July 28. 1980; written

statements must be received by the

Department no later than 5:00 p.m..

AugUst 4. 1980. Interested parties are

given an opportunity for oral

presentations of views. data and

arguments on the proposed rule.

Public Hearing, Chicago. Illinois: The

Chicago. IL public hearing wlil be held

beginning· August 25. 1980. and will

continue throughout that week as

necessary in order to accommodate all

interested speakers; requests to speak

must be received by the Department no

later than 5:00 p.m.• July 28.1980;

speakers will be notified by 5:00 p.m.. .

August 4. 19~; written ~tatements must

be recejved by the Departnle11:tno later

than 5:00 p.m... August 18. 1980.

ADDRESSES: Written comments. requests

to speak at the hearings. and statements

are to be submitted to: Carol A. Snipes

(Hearing Procedures). U.S. Department

ofEnergy. Office of Conservation and

Solar Energy. Office of Hearings and

Dockets. Energy Efficiency Standards

for Consumer Products. Docket No.

CA5-RM-78-110. Mail Station 6.8-{)25.

Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence

Avenue. S.W.• Washington. D.C. 20585.

The public meeting is to be held at;

Room 30ooA. Federal Building, 12th and

Pennsylvania. Washington. D.C.. on July

16.1980 at 9:00 a.m. The two li'ublic '

hearings are to be held at: Room 3000A.

Federal Building. 12th and Pennsylvania.

Washington. D.C.. on August 11-22.

1980. at 9:00 a.m. and Everett McKinley

Dirksen Federal Building. 219 South

Dearborn Street. Chicago. IL. on August

25-29. at 9:00 a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATlON CONTACT:

James A. Smith. U.S. Department of

Energy. Office of Conservation and

Solar Energy. Division of Buildings

and Community Systems. Consumer

Products Efficiency Branch. Room

GH-065. Mail Station 6.8-{)25.

Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence

Avenue. S.W.. Washington. D.C.

20585. (202) 252-9121.

Carol A. Snipes (Hearing Procedures)•.

U.S. Department of Energy. Office of

Conservation and Solar Energy. Office

of Hearings and Dockets. Mail Station

6B-025.,Forrestal Building. 1000

Indeoendence Avenue. S.W..

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-

9319.

Eugene Margolis. Esq .. U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel.

Room lE-254. Mail Station 6A-152.

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue. S.W.. Washington. D.C.

20585. (202) 252-9010.

SUPPl.EMENTARY INFORMATlONTable of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Scope of This Notice

1.2 Authority

1.2.1 Background

1.2.2 Statutory Objectives

1.3 Planned Regulatory Action

1.3.1 Introduction'

1.3.2 Criteria for Selection of Classes

1.3.3 Determination of the Maximum

Technologically Feasible Energy Efficiency

Level bv Product Class

1.3.4 Me"thod of Specifying Energy

Efficiencv Levels

1.3.5 Planned Phase-In of Standards

Z.Definitions

3. Advance Notice

3.1 Discussion of Industry Data

3.2 Comments Received in Response to

Advance Notice

4. Determination of Energy Efficiency Levels

4.1 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers

4.2 Freezers

4.3 Clothes Dryers

4.4 Water Heaters

4.5 Room Air Conditioners

4'.6' Home Heating EqUipment not Including

Furnaces .

4.7 Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

4.8 Central Air Conditioners

4.9 Furnaces

5. Macro-Economic Analysis .

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Value Model Overview

5.3 Economic Sub-Models Within the Value

Model

5.4 Economic Impacts of Regulation

5.5 Acceptability Criteria for Standard

Selection

6. Certification and Enforcement

7, Effect on Other Law

8. Small Business ExemptlOns

9. Environmental Assessment

10. Regulatory Analysis

10.1 Major Alternatives

10.2 Economic Impact on the Proposed " Standar.ds '

10.3 Urban and Community Impact Analysis

10.4 Significant Conservation of Energy

10.5 Summarv

11. Pubiic Comment ProcE!dure

11.1 Consumer Participation

11.2 Comments on Issup.s

11.3 Comment Procedures

11.4 Oral Presentation: Conduct of Meeting

11.5 Oral Presentation: Conduct of Hearings

r. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Scope of This Notice

Section 325 of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (EPeA) (P.L 94-163).
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

- Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 I Monday. rune 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43977

_as amended by section 422 ot the

National Energy Conservation Policy

Act (NECPA) (P.L. 95-619). requires that

the Department of Energy (DOE)

prescribe energy efficiency standards

for the types of consumer products listed

in section 322( a) of the Act. I These

consumer products are sometimes

referred to as "covered products:'

Standards for nine of these covered

products are required by section 325. as

amended. to be published in the Federal

Register no later than January Z. 1981.

The nine cov.ered products given priority

bv the Act. and for which a rule is

h~reby proposed today. are refrigerators

and refrigera tor-freezers. freezers.

clothes dryers. water heaters. room air

conditioners. home heating equipment

not including furnaces. kitchen ranges

and ovens. central air conditioners

[cooling only). and furnaces.

DOE's first step in prescribing energy

efficiency standards for the nine

covered products was to publish an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

in the Federal Register of January Z. 1979

(44 FR 49). Section 325(i)(3) of the Act

requires DOE, as a subsequent step in.

establishing energy efficiency standards

for consumer products. to publish a

notice of proposed rulemaking.

proposing energy efficiency standards

for each type or class of covered

product. and to invite comments from

interested -persons relevant to . -

establishing the energy efficiency

standards. This notice constitutes the

second step.

Because of the impact of the

standards on the public. DOE has

provided in Section 11 of this notice an -

opportunity for public comment.

pursuant to section 325(i)(3) of the Act.

on the following matters. among others:

(A) Whether the proposed standards

are economically justified;

(B) Whether the standard will achieve

the maximum improvement in energy

efficiency which is technologically

feasible;

(G) If the standard does not achieve

such improvement. whether the reasons

for not achieving such improvement are

adequate: and

(D) Whether the proposed rule should

. prescribe a level of energy efficiency

which is higher or lower than that which

would otherwise apply in the case of

any group of products within the type

(or class) tha t is subject to the proposed

standard.

DOE expects that the comments

received as a result onhis notice will

provide additional technical and

'This and subsequent references to the "Act".

and sections of the Act. refer to £PeA as amended

by NECPA.

economic information which will assist

DOE in developing a final rule tha t is

expected to be prescribed in December

1980.

Accordingly. this notice presents a

discussion of DOE's basis for the

proposed standards and the process for

implementing the regulation. Ensuing

sections deal with the legislative

background. the standards

implementation process. the phase-in

period for standards. a discussion of the

comments received as a result of the

advance notice, a discussion of the

covered products and classes to which

the proposed standards will apply. the

certification and enforcement

procedures proposed. a summary of the

basis for arriving at maximum

technologically feasible efficiency levelS

for each class of product. a summary of

the basis for arriving at the energy

efficiency standards (intermediate and

final) for each class of product. a

discussion of state/manufacturer

preemption petitions. small business

exemptions. and a request for comments

on various standards-related issues. In

support of this proposed rule. the

Department has developed five

Technical Support Documents. These

_documents provide detailed information

on important aspects of the proposed

rule and are..referred to throughout the .

preamble.

Number and Title /

1-Draft:Regulatory Analysis

Z-Environmental.-Assessment

3-Certification and Enforcement

Document

4--Economic Analysis Document

5-Engineering Analysis Document

Copi-es of the 'proposed rule and all of

the Technical Sapport Documents. as

well as other documents specifically

identified in this proposed rule. may be

obtained from and will be available for

public review under Docket No. CASRM-78-110 at the Office of Hearings and

Dockets at the address specified at the

begining of this notice or the DOE

Freedom of Information Office. between

the hours of 8:00 a.m.-and 4:30 p.m..

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays at the following address:

Department of Energy. Freedom of

Information Reading Room. Room 5B180. Forrestal Building: 1000

Independence Avenue. SW..

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 25Z-6020.

A limited supply of the proposed rule

and Technical Support Documents will

also be available upon request through

August 29. 1980 from the

Office of Hearings and Dockets between

the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. except Federal

holidays at the follOWing address:

Deoartment of Ene:'?v. Office of

Hearings and Dockets. Room 1F~85.

Forrestal Building. Mail Station 6B-a25.

1000 Independence Avenue. SW.•

Washington.. D.C. 20535. (202)252-9319.

Interested persons are invited to

provide views. written presentations of

data. and arguments relevant to

establishing the interim and final energy

efficiency standards for the nine types

of consumer products.

1.2 Ailthority

.' 1.2.1 Background. The energy

conservation program for consumer

products is designed to require .

manufacturers to produce. and

consumers to purchase. significantly

more efficient products. The legislative

plan enacted by Congress sets forth two

interrelated elements for accomplishing

this objective. The first element is to

require manufacturers to produce more

efficient products. and the·second is to

inform the purchaser of consumer

products of the relative energy

efficiency. annual operating costs and

other energy use factors of the products.

Given this information. the purchaser

will be equipped to select the more

energy efficient products.

The first element, described in section

325 of EPCA. prior to amendment by

NECPA. called for the promulgation of

voluntary efficiency improvement

targets representing aggregate industry

efficiency improvements that were to be

achieved by 1980.1\s an incentive for

the industry to try and achieve these

targets. a reporting and monitoring

system was to be established by DOE to

track industry progress. In the event that

achievement of a target for a particular

covered product appeared unlikely. DOE

would have been required to initiate an

administrative proceeding to prescribe a

mandatory energy efficiency standard

for the covered product in question.

In NECPA. the target.program was

replaced with a mandatory energy

efficiency standards program. Section

422 of NECPA amended section 325 of

EPCA to provide for a mandatory energy

efficiency standards program.

The second element set forth in

section 324 of the Act involves the

development of a labeling program

requiring manufacturers to label covered

products with energy cost or

consumption information which will

assist consumers in making purchasing

decisions. The Federal Trade

Commission (ITG) has the responsibility

for developing the labeling rules and

administering the labeling program. The

final rule for labeling only included

room air conditioners. furnaces. clothes

washers. dishwashers. water heaters.

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43978 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 12;- / :'londay. June 30. 1980/ Proposed Rules

- which either do not fall under the

product test procedures or incorporate

unique design characteristics which

prevent testing according to the test

procedures. or the prescribed test

procedures evaluate the product in a

manner unrepresentative of its true

energy consumotion r:haracteristics.

DOE intends. on a continuing basis. to

modify test procedures to accommodate

new product designs. as necessary. The

Department has proposed provisions

allowing it to temporarily waive test

procedure reqUirements in these cases.

The· proposed waiver provisions

appeared in the Federal Register of

March ,4. 1980 (45 FR 14188).

Table 1-1.-f'ederall'legister Citations for rest

Procedures

Covered produCl type F'rOpOseo rule Final rule

1.2..2 Statutory Objectives. The A.ct

requires that en~rgy efficiency

standards' be prescribed for all the

consumer product types listed in section

322(a). "Energy efficiency standard"

means a performance standard which

prescribes a minimum level of energy

efficiency for a cQvered product. Such

standard will prescribe either the same

energy efficiency leve.I.or an energy

efficiency level which varies with

capacity for all of the basic models of

the class of covered product. Energy

efficiency standards utilize the test

procedures orescribed in 10 CFR Part

430. Subpart B. and any requirements

imposed on manufacturers which DOE

determines are necessary to assure that

each covered product to which a

standard applies meets the required

energy efficiency level specified in the

standard.

Priority is required by the Act to be

given to refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. freezers. cloths dryers. water

heaters"room air conditioners. home

heating equipment not including

furnaces. kitchen ranges and ovens.

central air conditioners (cooling only I.

and furnaces. The second set of

products: dishwashers. television sets.

humidifiers and dehumidifiers. and

clothes washers were the subject of a '

separate advance notice which was

published in the Federal Register (44 FR

72276). of December 13.1979. An

advance notice for central air

conditioners (heat pumps) was

published in the Federal Register of

January 23. 1980 (45 fR 5602). A nutice

of proposed rulemaking for the second

set of products including central air

conditioners (heat pumps) is to be.

published in the Federal Regisler by

March 1981. In addition to those covered

products specifically identified. the Act

also permits DOE to prescribe standards

for other consumer products which meet

certain criteria slaled in section

325(a)(2). A list of such products which

DOE considers may be subject to

standards is required to be published no

later than November 9. 1980. but the list

may be revised thereafter.

The standards proposed are required

by section 3Z5(c} to be designed so as to

achieve the maximum improvement in

energy. efficiency which is

technologically feasible and

Table 1-1.-F-ederal Register Cilatlons for Test

Procedures-Col1ol1ued

14. Tes. Procedure Wa.ver (45 FR

141881

Mar. 4.

1980.

(44 FR 76700)

Oec.27.

1979.

(43 FR 201.47)

May 10.

19781.

;44 FR 60150)

Nov. 25.

1977.

(43 FR 20147)

May 10.

1978.

142 FR 46145)

Seol 14.

1977.

(43 FR 20108)

May 10.

1976. -

(42 FR 27896)

June I.

t971

(42 FR 461401

Seot.14.

1977

i42 FR 461401

Sept 14.

1977.

(42 FR 39964)

Aug.8.

1977.

(42 FR 46-145)

Sect 14.

t977.

(42 FR 541101 OCt. 4. .

19771.

(43 FR 48986)

Oct 19.

1978.

(44 FR 52632)

Sept 7.

1979.

Covered product type Proposed lUie F'onal rule

t. Flefngeralors and (42 I'll

Flegngera.or.Freezers. 215761 Apr.

27. '977.

2. Freezers (42 FR

215761 Apr.

27.1977.

3. Oisl'lwaShel'$._...................... (42 FR

15423)

Mar. 22. 1977.

4. Clotnes O<yetS _ (42 FR

215761 ~.

• 27.1977.

5. Water Healers....................... (42 FR

.. 215761·Al)r.

27.1971.

Amendment (En'"".lY· (43 FR

Factorl. 13888) Apr.

3.1978.

Amen.dment (First Hour (44 FR

RatIng. 271911

May.9.

1979.

6. Floom Alf CondillOners (41 FR

31237) July

21. 1976.

Amendment (packaged (45 FR 26321

termInal all' COnditlonersJ. Jan. 11.

1980.

7. Home Heating EQUiP~ (23FR (43 FR 20126)

(not Indudlt1g furnacesl. 236601 May May 10.

11, 1977 1978.

(unventedl.

(42FR

439301

Aug. 31

t977

(venledl.

B TelevIsIon SelS i 42 FR

21576, A!)(

27. 1977.

9 K'lcnen Ranges ana Ov~ (42 FR

655761

Dee. 30.

1977.

10. Clothes Wasl'lers (42 FR (42 FR 49802)

253291 May Sept 28.

17. 1977. 19m.

I 1. HumIdifiers and (42 FR (42 FR 555991

Oehumldifiers. 2794tl OCl 16.

June I. 1977.

1977.

12. Cantral Air COndItIoners (42 FR

(COOling only). 304011

June 14.

1977.

Amendment (heat PUmpsl ... (44 FR

234681 Apr.

6.1979.

13. Fumaces (42 FR

4(826)

Aug. 11.

1977.

Amendments to Furnaces ... (45 FR 12981

Jan. 4.

1960.

and freezers and appeared in the

Federal Register of November 19. 1979

(44 FR 6(466). Labeling requirements are

expected to be issued for central air

conditioners and heat pumps in the near

future.

In conjunction with the issuance of

the labeling rules. section 337 of the Act

requires DOE to develoo a consumer

education program that'wiil enhance

consumer awareness of the need for

energy conservation and create a better

understanding of the information

provided on the labels. This is intended

to encourage comparison shopping and

to generate consumer demand for the

more efficient products. As a

consequence., it is anticipated that

manufacturers will be influenced to

expedite efficiency improvements for

their various product lines to meet the

market demand.

In order to further effectuate these

programs. section 323 of the Act requires

tha t DOE develop test procedures for

the determination of estimated annual

operating costs and at least one other

measure of energy .consumption for each

covered product (energy factor. energy·

.efficiency ratio. seasonal energy

efficiency ratio; annual fuel utilization

efficiency) which will assist consumers

in making purchasing decisions. Testing

by manufacturers in accordance With

these test procedures will serve as a

basis for: (I) the energy cost and -

consumption information that will be

required to be included on product

labels under the fTC labeling program

and (2) representations by

manufacturers regarding the energy -

consumption characteristics of their

product. Also. measurements of

efficiency which are derived from the

test procedures will/be used as the basis

for energy efficiency standards.

Manufacturers will be reouired to

establish that their produ~ts are in

conformance with the standards by ,

testing in accordance with the test

procedures. Further. compliance with

the standards will be determined bv

using these test procedures. DOE h~s

prescribed final test procedures for the

covered products included in this no-tice.

and the citation to each of the rules is

listed in Table 1-1.

The test procedure design is flexible

enough to allow for technological

variation among different basic models

within a covered product. In order to

provide comparable measurements of

energy consumption. the test procedures

must assure that different

manufacturers'. product lines will be

subject to the same measurement

criteria. DOE is aware that new

products or designs will be developed
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

FederaFRegister / Vol. 45. No. 1::::7 / !vIonday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43979

1.3 Planned Reg,.iic:ory Action

1.3.1 lntroduchon. As DOE's f11'st

step in prescribing energy efficiency

standards. anadva::ce notice of

proposed rulemak::::; for the nine

covered products: refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers. freezers. clothes

- dryers. water heaters. room air

conditioners. home heating equipment

not including furnaces. kitchen ranges

and ovens. central air conditioners

(cooling only). and furnaces was

published in the Federal Register of

January 2. 1979 (44 FR 49). An advance

notice of proposed rulemaking for

dishwashers. television sets. clothes

washers. and humidifiers and

dehumidifiers appeared in the Federal

Register of December 13. 1979 (44 FR

72276) and for central air conditioners

(heat pumps) on January 23. 1980 (45 FR

5602).

Today. DOE is proposing energy

efficiency standards for refrigerators

and refrigerator-freezers. freezers.

clothes dryers. water heaters. room air

conditioners. home heating equipment

not including furnaces, kitchen ranges

and ovens. central air conditioners

(cooling only). and furnaces.

The Act defines energy efficiency

standards as performance standards

·which establish the minimum energy

efficiency level required to be achieved

by each type of covered product or

class. "Type" of covered products refers

to one of the categories of consumer

products designated in section 322 of the

Act identified by DOE as having met the

criteria stated in section 325(a) of the

Act. "Class" of covered product means

in general a group of basic models

within a covered product that constitute

a type which has the same primary

energy source. Products may have a

different capacity or other performance

related feature which affects the energy

efficiency of the product. The standards

will not prescribe the means by which

the level is reached. The standards will

apply only to those covered products

manufactured after the effective date of

the final rule. and not intended for

export.

1.3.2 Criteria for Selection of

Classes. DOE has grouped the basic

models of each covered product into

classes which account for type of fuel

used and performance related features.

These classes were determined with the

use of data supplied by interested

persons in response to DOE's advance

notice of proposed rulemaking. Different

classes may be specified in the final rule

if DOE receives da tao views and

arguments which justify changes. DOE

used the following criteria to group

feature which other products within the

same type or class do not have. For

example. within a type. different

standards based on performance are

prescribed for split system central air •

conditioners. and single package central

air conditioners. and wi thin a class.

refrigera tor-freezers with side freeezers

have different standards depending on

volume or capacity of the unit.

Section 325(e) provides that

manufacturers having annual gross

revenues not exceeding sa.OOO.OOO may

apply to DOE for an exemption from all

or part of the'requirements of an energy

efficiency standard. This exemption may

not extend beyond 2 years from the _effective date of any standards

requirement. This authority will not be

exercised bv DOE unless. after

consultatio~ with the Attorney General.

the Secretary finds that failure to allow

the exemption would likely result in a

lessening of competition. This

exemption is discussed in greater detail

in section 8. "Small Business

Exemptions,"

Other. provisions ofthe Act are: (1) a

review of test procedures within 3 years

of NECPA enactment and from time to

time thereafter [section 323(a)(7)]; (,Z)

reevaluation of the standards within 5

years of prescription [section 325(h)]; (3)

procedures for preemption of state

energy efficiency regulations [section

327J. '

Section 326 of the Act imposes

requirements upon manufacturers to

assure that each covered product to

which a standard applies meets the

required energy efficiency level. DOE is

today proposing certification provisions

which include testing by the

manufacturer and submission of data to

DOE before a manufacturer may

introduce products into commerce.

Section 333 provides that any persons

who knowingly violate any provision of

section 332 (which enumerates,

prohibited acts) shall be subject to civil

penalties. , Enforcement-related provisions of the

Act provide for: (1) DOE to prescribe

rules requiring manufacturers to allow

the Department to observe testing and

inspect results of testing conducted by

the manufacturer or his agent [section

326(b)(5)]: (2) manufacturers to supply to

DOE a reasonable number of products

for testing purposes [section 326(b)(3)J:

(3) manufacturers to submit information

or reports necessary to ensure

compliance [section 326(d)J: and (4)

injunctive relief against any prohibited

act. including distribution of .

noncomplying products [section 334].

These enforcement-related provisions

are detailed in section 6. "Certification

and Enforcement,"

economically justified. Undersection

325(b); however. no standard can be

presribed for a particular type or class

of covered product if: (1) there is no

DOE test procedure for the type or class:

or (2) DOE determines. by rule. that the

establishment of a standard for the

particular type or' class would not result

in significant conservation of energy or

is not technologically feasible or

economically justified.

Section 325(d) provides that before

DOE determines whether a standard is

economically justified.It must first

solicit comments on a proposed

standard in accordance with the

procedure set forth in sections 336(a)

and 325(i). After reviewing comments on

the proposa!;'DOE must then determine

that the benefits of the standard exceed

its burdens based. to the greatest extent

practicable. on a weighing of the

following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the

standard on the manufacturers and on

the consumers of the prodocts subject to

such standard.

(2) The savings in operating costs

throughout the estimated average life of

the covered products in the type (or

class). compared to any increase in the

price of. or in the initial charges.for. or

maintenance expenses of the covered

products which are likely to result from.

the imposition of the standard.

(3) The totel projected amount of

energy savings likely to result directly

from the imposition of the standard.

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the

performance of the covered products

likely to r"sult from the imposition of the

standard.

(5) The impact of any lessening of

competition. determined in writing by

the Attorney General. that is likely to

result from the imposition of the

standard.

(6) The need of the Nation to conserve

energy. and' _

(7) Any other factors which DOE

considers relevant.

In developing the consumer,products

efficiency standards. the economic

effects of alternative efficiency levels

were systematically analyzed. To weigh

effectivelY the above seven legislative

criteria. it was necessary to quantify the

expected consequences of energy

efficiency regulcrtions. including impacts

on ·consumers. manufacturers. and the

Nation. This analysis is discussed in

depth in section 5' of this notice.

Section 325(£) of the Act provides that

energy efficiency standards do not have

to be identical for all products within a

type or class provided either of 1\'1/0

conditions are met: (1) they consumer

different types of fuel. or (2) they have a

capacity or other performance-related
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43980 Federal Register / Vol. -i5. No. 127 f ~vfon.day. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

basic models of each covered product·

into classes:

(1) DOE has specified separate classes for

basic models which have a different primary

energy source. Le... oil. gas. or electrIcity.

(2) DOE has specified separate classes in

order to assure. to the extent :::racticable.

consistent with the intent of the Act. that

consumer products havinll a different

capacity or other performance.related feature

which affect efficiency and utility. remain

available to consumers. Separate classes are'

established when the feature causes the

energy efficiency of models with the feature

to be different from that of models without

the feature.

1.3.3 Determination of ~he Maximum

Technologically Feasible Energy

Efficiency Level by Product Class. The

• rule proposed today identifies the

maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency level and sets forth the

energy efficiency levels that the

Department believes are economically

justified for each class of covered

consumer product subject to this notice.

This determination was made in part on

the basis of data supplied to DOE by

manufacturers and other interested'

parties in response to the advance

notice of proposed rulemaking which

appeared in the Federal Regisjer.

January 2. 1979 (44 FR 49). and the notice

of opportunity for further comment.

which appeared in the Federal Register.

August 24. 1979 (44 FR 49696). In

addition. data were obtained at public

meetings conducted in January and

February of 1979. from the National

Bureau of Standards and from DOE

contractors.

The maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency'levels identified here

may be modified in the final rule ei ther

as a result of (i) modifying the definition

of "maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency level." (ii) receipt of

additional information regarding the

highest levels of energy efficiency of

basic models expected to be

commerCially available in 1986. or (iii)

efticiency improvements that are

expected to be commercially available

by 1986. In addition. if after efficiency

standards are prescribed. DOE

determines that standards are justified

for a nonregulated class either due to

~eceipt of additional information

regarding the level of energy efficiency

Improvements possible. significant

increase in the number of units sold in

that nonregulated class. or any other

information DOE considers relevant. the

Department will propose an amendment

to the final rule to include those levels

DOE believes are technologically .

feasible and economically justified.

1.3.4 Method of Specifying Energy

Efficiency Levels. For refrigerators and

re ffigera tor-freezers. freezers. clo thes

dryers. kitchen ranges and ovens. and

water heaters. it was found that the

efficiency levels within any class vary

with capacity (Le.. net volume).

Therefore. within a single class. basic

models differing according to capacity

are to be subject to different energy

efficiency levels. This method of

establishing energy efficiency levels is

deSIgned to achieve improvements in

production efficiency in all capacity

sizes proportionally equal and not to

penalize certain basic models that have

efficiency differences due to variation in

capacity or volume. For furnaces.

central air conditioners. and room air

conditioners. the analysis indicates that

efficiency levels do not vary with

capacity. Therefore. energy efficiency

levels can be set'at the same level

within each class. The "Engineering

Analysis." TSD No.5. contains a more

detailed explanation of the rationale for

variable standards by. capacity.

1.3.5 Planned Phase-In of Standards.

Section 325(c)'of the Act allows for a

phasing-in of the standards over a

period not in excess of 5 years through

the estabishment of intermediate

standards. Use of the full 5 year period

provides manufacturers with more

planning and development time. to meet

final standards than otherwise would be

proposed if a shorter period was

adopted;

Accordingly. DOE plans to utilize the

full phase-in period and has proposed

final standards which are to be achieved

by January 1. 1986. Intermediate

standards proposed for the subject

consumer products are to be effective

180 days after the rule is published in

the Federal Register. The intermediate

standards take into account the short

fead time manufacturers have in order to

make design changes and the possibility

of products being eliminated from the

market place. DOE is proposing

in termedia te standards which it believes

are technologically feasible and

economically justi.fied.

2. Definitions

For purposes of this notice. the

following terms are defined:

"Basic model" of covered product

means all units of a given type of

covered product (or class thereof)

manufactured by one manufacturer

which have the same primary energy

source (gas. oil or electricity). the same

capacity. and which do not have any

. physical or functional differences that

affect energy consumption. measured in

accordance with the DOE test

procedure.

"Certification" means all actions

available to DOE or required of a

manufacturer or private labeler prior to

or immediately after the beginning of

commercial distribution to ensure that

all covered products not meeting the

applicable energy efficiency standards

are withheld from distribution.

"Enforcement" means all activities

subsequent to certifica tion. available to

DOE or required of a manufacturer or

private la beler to ensure that all covered

products not meeting applicable energy

efficiency standards are withheld from

distribution.

"\1aximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency level" means. for each

class ofcovered product the highest

level of the measure of energy effiCiency

(energy factor. annual fuel utilization

efficiency. energy efficiency ratio. or

seasonal energy efficiency ratio as

defined and measured according to DOE

test procedures) of any basic model for

each class that DOE expects to be

commercially available at the time of

the effective date of the final standard.

"Minimum energy efficiency level"

(MEEL) means the minimum value of the

measure of efficiency (energy factor.

energy efficiency ratio. seasonal energy

efficiency ratio. annual fuel utilization

efficiency). specified in 10 CFR Part 430.

Subpart C. and measured according to.

DOE test procedures in Subpart B.

which a covered product must meet or

exceed in accordance with Subpart F in

order to be in compliance with an

energy efficiency standard.

3. Advance Notice

3.1 Discussion ofIndustry Data

In order to obtain information on the

consumer product industry suitable for

determining probable impacts of energy

efficiency standards. the following

sources were used: 1) publicly available

information (Moody's. Standard & Poor,

Census of Manufacturers' Directory.

etc.). 2) a survey of all firms identified as

consumer product manufacturers (Form

C5-1i9). 3) a survey of a sample of firms

in the industry (Form CS-195r which

were made available at the DOE

Freedom of Information Office.

Information solicited from the industry

was provided on a voluntary basis and:

as discussed below. was often of a

proprietary nature.

The information provided background

on shipment levels. the overall business

clima te of the industry, and new product

offerings. Also included was information

maintained by various credit/finanCial

reporting companies on the finances of

publicly owned firms (corporations).

This information has been incorporated

directly into the financial analysis of

regulatory impacts.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June' 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43981

these comments. GeE is proposing

intermediate (1981; and final (1986)

energy efficiency standards.

Energy Efficiency Standards

Various comments recommended that

the standards should vary wIth capaci ty

for clothes dryers. refrigerators and

refrigera tor-freezers. wa ter hea ters.

central air conditioners and

conventional ovens because efficiencv

is directly related to the capacity or .

volume of the product. Manufacturers

generally seemed to prefer increasing

the number of product classes to handle

the variation of efficiency with capacity.

DOE is today proposing energy

efficiency standards that vary with

capacity for clothes dryers. refrigerators

and refrigera tor-freezers. freezers.

kitchen ranges and ovens. and water

heaters.

A number of comments urged that the

energy efficiency improvement target

levels (43 FR 47118 and 43 FR 15138) be

used to establish 1985 standards for

furnaces, room air conditioners. central

-air conditioners. refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers. In lieu of this

approach. DOE is today proposing

energy efficiency standards which

represent the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency which is

technologically feasible and

- economically justified as required by the

Act.

A number of comments urged that the

standard levels recognize product

variability, manufacturers' tolerances.

and test variability and that the

standard should be applied to the mean

value of efficiency of each.basic model

rather than a level every unit must meet.

However: one comment recommended

the standard be applied to the mean

value of efficiencv of a manufacturers'

total distribution 'of each class of

product. allowing the manufacturer to

continue to offer a complete product

line. DOE is today proposing standards

to be applied to each basic model of a

type of covered product (or class

thereof).

While a number of comments

suggested specific levels to be

considered for standards. one comment

recommended that standards for central

air conditioners in 1981 be set no higher

than the 1975 product sales-weighted

efficiency level. Two comments

suggested that standards should not be

set higher than the levels in effect in the

State of California. while-one comment

urged that the standards be set no lower

than the California levels. Finally. the

comments suggested that standards

which have more than a 3- to 5-year

payback would be unacceptable to

consumers. After reviewing all relevant

these was the report on the costs

required to achieve various energy

efficiency levels. Because these costs

were us~d in evaluating direct impacts

on manufacturers and in assessing

consumer price increases. every effort

was made to ensure their accuracv.

Accordingly. the costs represented in

the final version of this report were the

product of substantial consultation with

industry.

3.2 Comments Received in Response to

Advance Notice

3.2.1 Engineering.

Product Classification

Nearlv all manufacturers and their

trade associations addressed this issue

and. in almost all cases. they felt that

the number of classifications of the

products should be expanded. The

request for expanded classifications

covered most covered products but

particularly furoaces and boilers.

kitchen ranges and ovens, water

heaters. room air conditioners. and

refrigerators. Several manufacturers

expressed the opinion that their

products require separate classifications

or. in some cases. should be exempt

completely from the standards. DOE has

reviewed these comments and made

appropriate revisions based upon the,

comments received and criteria

identified in Section 4 of this notice.

Phase-In ofStandards

Many manufacturers addressed the

issue of interim efficiency standards. In

particular. manufacturers of furnaces

and boilers expressed the desire to have

no interim standards as the testing and

approvals required for each

modification would be a major task.

Several manufacturers suggested that

standards become effective at different

times for different products to spread

the testing requirements. There was a

general desire to know as early as

possible what the finallltandard would

be to provide as much time as possible

to meet that standard. Twenty-four

comments suggested three standard

levels (1981. 1983. and 1985) would be a

burden.on industry because of the 3- to

5-year lead time for introducing new

models. While the majority of the

comments recommended standards for

1981 and 1985. two comments

recommended 1983 and 1985. and four

comments recommended only 1985

standards. Also. three comments

recommended that no standards be set

for water heaters as 47 states have

adopted ASHRAE Standard 90-75 which

includes standards for wa ter hea ters

that approach the state-of-the-art

technology. Based upon its analysis of

In order to obtain infornfation on

product efficiency. number of units

shipped. capital investment. and

suggested retail price. a survey of all

identified consumer product-'

manufacturers was conducted. The

survev instrument was Form C3-179. a

copy ~f which appears as Appendix C of

the "Economic Analysis Document."

TSD No.4. Responses were made

available to DOE in aggregated form by

the trade associations in order to protect

the confidential information gathered

via this survey. The results of the survey.

were used to determine the potential

impact of alternative standard levels on

manufacturers by determining the

number of models potentially falling

below variow; efficiency levels. Models

falling below' specified levels represent

lost sales and lost revenues to the firms

producing them and are thus used (with

other data) in assessing the size of the

impact. Additional data solicited under

Form C3-1i9 concerned design options

and the adequacy of the class

definitions proposed by DOE.

The trade associations provided

aggregated data on the relationship

between retail price and energy

efficiency (and. where appropriate.

capacity). This information was used in

analyzing· the effect regulations would

have on price and quantities shipped.

In developing an economic model

which incorportes the business practices

of the industry. additional information

was solicited from selected .

representative firms via Form C3-195. a

copy of which appears as Appendix D of

the "Economic Analysis Document."

TSD No.4. This survey was provided to

all firms who identified themselves as

consumer product manufacturers and

were willing to submit the requested

data. This survey gathered information

on normal practices in accounting.

financing. decision making. and other

informa lion practices relevant to a

firm's decision to remain in or withdraw

from the market. The results of this

survey were incorporated into the

economic models used in analyzing

impacts on manufacturers and are

available in the "Economic Analysis

Document." TSD No.4.

The financial/economic models.

developed in part from Form C3-195.

were used to assess impacts on

manufacturers. In particular. the models

were used to determine the number of

firms forced to leave the market place.

effects on profits. changes in debt and

assel levels. and how market shares

would be reapportioned as the result of

the exit of firms from the market place.

Finallv. manufacturers were asked to

comment on and provide additional data

for selected draft reports. Chief among
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43982 Fede~al Register ! Vol. 45. No. 127 I Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

comments. DOE is toda.y proposing

standards- which wHl achieve the

maximum improvement in efficiency

which is technologically and

economically feasible.

Test Procedures

Concerns over the test procedures

generally related to the fact that the

performance aspects of many product

features. such as microwave oven

browning elements and automatic

termination on clothes dryers are not

adequately recognized. Amendments to

the test procedures for clothes dryers

have been proposed to include the

performance aspects of automa tic

termination devices and the standards

proposed today are based upon the

proposed amended test procedures.

Also. no standard is being proposed for

microwave ovens.

Product Elimination

Several comments expressed concern

that the standard might be set at levels

sufficiently high to force certain

products from the market place. These

may be significant products for the

replacement market (horizontal

furnaces) or contain features which

have a utility to the user (refrigeratorfreezer with through-the-door services1

Even though certain basic models may

be eliminated. DOE has specified

separate classes to ensure the .

availability of features providing utility

when the feature causes the energy

efficiency of the models with the feature

to be different from that of models

without the feature.

-Maximum Technologically Feasible

A number of manufacturers believe

that maximum technologically feasible

designs should not be based upon

models manufactured by companies

who have gone out of business. limited

volume trial models of uncertain

commercialization. and models

representing an extremely small

percentage of class model mix. Further.

they believe only models that have been

commercially available for at least 3

years should be considered technically

feasible. The numerical value given in

the advance notice for standards for

home heating equipmentllot including

furnaces. freezers. and room air

conditioners were claimed to be too

high. After review. DOE today has

identified the maximum technologically

feasible energy efficiency level for each

class of covered product to be the

highest level of efficiency for each class

that DOE expects to be commercially

available at the time of the effective

date of the final standard.

3.2.2 Economics.

Impacts

Comments on economic impacts were

varied and came mainly from

manufacturers. Points raised included:

the need to address product

maintenance costs in economic

justification: the difficulty and cost of

providing economic data: and the

product development and testing costs

for small companies. DOE has taken ail

these factors into account along with

other major factors as detailed in the

"Economic Analysis Document:' TSD

No.4.

Payback

One manufacturer suggested that the

, payback period for the increased first

costs through reduced energy costs

should be 2 to 3 years and. in no case.

more than 5 years. The standards

proposed today have paybacks which

are on the order of five years or le9'5.

and are derived from life cycle cost

analysis discussed in the "Economic

Analysis Document". TSD No.4

3.2.3 Consumer Education.

A few manufacturers suggested that a

consumer education campaign that

recommends efficient methods of

operation of existing appliances may

achieve greater energy conservation in·a

shorter time period than will energy

efficiency standards~ It was also

suggested that the educational phase of

the energy efficiency standards program

should coincide with the introduction of

labels and energy fact sheets. DOE has

developed a consumer education

program to complement the energy

labeling program. The consumer product

education labeling program sponsored

10 regional workshops for industry,

educators. utilities. and State energy

officials in the Fall of 1979. A national

consumer awareness campaign .began

last month to inform consumers of the

appearance of. the consumer product

labels and how to use labeling

information in the purchase of energy

efficient products. A consumer

information booklet. public service

announcements for radio and TV.

educational exhibits and a training

package for retail sales persons are

among the components of this

nationwide effort.

3.2.4 Other.

Sampling Procedures

Two trade associations commented

that sampling procedures will affect the

energy efficiency level which can be

met. A number of different sampling

procedures were suggested. DOE has

considered the proposed sampling

procedures in developing the

certification and enforcement program.

The proposed approach. "Mixed

Certification and Enforcement

Approach" and alternatives considered

are described in section 6 of this notice.

Patent Infringement

One manufacturer stated that energy

efficiency standards should not be

based ori' a product that is covered by

patents. In particular. the manufacturer

cites patents involving the convection

oven. DOE has studied the problem of

patent infringement and has determined

that achieving today's proposed

standards does not infringe any existing

patents. The Department is proposing

performance standards. thus allowing

the manufacturer product design

flexibility. Information available to DOE

indicates that of the design options

considered. none have proprietary

patent protection. .

Preemption

Two major manufacturers called for

clarification of the timing of the

preemption clause. Their preferred

interpretation was that once the Federal

standard is prescribed for a given

product an existing State standard is

automatically and immediately

preempted. The State preemption

process proposed today is.tfiscussed in

section 7 of this notice.

Product Exemption

A number of manufacturers and a

trade association favored the exemption

from energy efficiency standards of

various products including kitchen

ranges and ovens. clothes dryers. space

heaters. and packaged terminal air

conditioners based on the grounds that

there is little difference in energy

consumption between different models.

No standards are proposed today for

those classes for which standards are

not economically justified.

Labeling

Commenters addressing this subject

suggested that labeling would not be

necessary when energy standards are

established. Concern was expressed

over the complications of energy

labeling. particularly for water heaters

because of different utility rate

structures and use habits. DOE has

determined that labeling alone will not

satisfy the mandate of the Act. For

further discussion on the impacts of

labeling on energy savings the reader is

referred to the "Economic Analysis

Document" TSD No.4.

Enforcement

Trade associations suggested that

current industry certification programs

should be used wherever possible and
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 12i I Monday. rune 30. 1980 / Proposed Ruies 43983

that a common· enforcement program

should be used for the labeling and

energy efficiency standards programs. It

·Nas suggested that in cases where data

is in question a manufacturer should be

allowed to verify his own tests first.

followed by testing by an independent

laboratory, if necessary. and that testing

by DOE should be used only as a last

resort. DOE has reviewed these

comments and is today proposing an

enforcement approach which is

discussed in detail in section 6 of

today's notice.

4. Determination of Energy

Efficiency Levels

4.0 Methodology

impact Assessment of Standards

In order to assess the benefits and

impacts of setting standards for energy

efficiencies at different levels based on

the seven criteria specified in section

3Z5(d) of the Act. engineering and

economic analyses were completed for

each covered product and the results are

summarized within this section. As part

of this analysis. the relationship

between the increased cost of a

consumer product and its efficiency

improvement was estimated for each

product class. Estimates were also made

of the maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency levels for 1"986. 1I?-

addition. estimates of the investment

required by a typical large and small

manufacturer were made. Estimates by

product class of the changes in

manufacturing materials needed were

made to provide estimates of materials

availability for the different alternate

efficiency levels. Cost-efficiency

relationships were used to estimate

national energy savings through the year

2005 considering changes in purchases

of consumer products. An estimate of

industry impacts was developed using

data from.industry surveys and the cost

efficiency curves. Finally. environmental

impacts and enforcement costs were

evaluated. The proposed standards were

set at the highest levels technically

feasible and economically justified

considering these impacts.

Determination ofClasses

An initial task in the development of

standards was the establishment of

classes for each of the nine covered

products. The first step was to divide

the various models within each covered

product into classes according to the

type of fuel used. as mandated by the

Act. Although efficiencies of higher

values are alwavs better. rela tive

efficiencies across fuel types in a

covered product are not comparable

beca~se point of use energy is

considered in all cases ra ther than

primary energy source. The second step

was to further segregate each covered

product into classes each of which was

distinguished by capacity or a

performance-rela ted feature which

affects energy efficiency but provides

utility to the consumer. Performance of a

consumer product is the objective

measure of how well the product does

its intended job. Measures of

performance include capacity and

quality. Quality is a measure of :he

consistency. uniformity or thoroughness

with which the product does its job.

Utility of a consumer product is a

subjective measure. based on the

consumer's perception of the capability

of the product to satisfy user needs.

Next. an investigation of the inherent

energy efficiency of each class was

performed to determine if different

energy efficiency levels were needed for

each of the classes. Only those classes

which used a different type of fuel or

which had an energy efficiency

inherently different from similar classes

were identified in the proposed rule.

Test Procedures

Measurements of efficiency which are

derived from the test procedures ar~

used as the basis for energy efficiency

standards. Manufacturers are required

to establish that their products are in

conformance with the standards by

testing in accordance with these test

procedures.

Cost-Efficiency Relationships

Major assumptions in ,developing

manufacturing cost relationships

associated with energy efficiency

improvements for the 1986 standards

were:

•. production volumes were assumed

to remain constant within each product

class:

• design options selected for analysis

were based on technologies which are

currently available or have been

-demonstrated to be feasible;

• only design options which are

measurable by existing DOE test

procedures were considered; and

• lead times for implementing desi8)l

changes required to meet the energy

efficiency levels were long enough so

that no significant increase in

.engineering staff were likely to be

required.

The engineering analysis involved

three primary steps. First. for each

product class. the facilities of a typical

large and small manufacturer were

characterized in terms of production

volumes and production line layouts

including capital equipment. Second. for

each product class. a baseline unit

reoresentative of !)r::;;''.lcts at the 1978

shipment weighted er.2rgy factor was

selected and estimates were made of the

energy efficiency improvements which

would result frem implementing various

design options. Finaily. two estimates

were made-the added cost at the

manufacturing level. and the cost to a

consumer of achieving different

efficiency levels. 'these steps are

described in more detail below.

In order to characterize manufacturers

of each product class. a simulated

manufacturing facility for a typical large

and small manufacturer and the number

of large and small manufacturers were

estimated so that the total shipments per

year would be equal to the original

shipment estimate. The facilities were

further characterized in terms of

manufacturing equipment and

production track layout required for the

production of the units. A more detailed

presentation of the manufacturing cost

analvsis can be found in the

"Engineering Analysis Document. to TSD

No.5.

Design Options

The design option analysis began vllith

the selection of a baseline unit. The

selection was based on data obtained

from Form C5-179. a survey of all

identified consumer product

manufacturers. The baseline unit was

dermed as the unit with an efficiency,

input. output. and size approximately

equal to that of the most commonlyproduced unit in 1978. For the analysis

of the various design options each

baseline unit was characterized in terms

of its features which relate to efficiency.

Various combinations of

manufacturi.iJ.g design options and their

potential for energy savings were

identified. The following philosophy was

applied to the selection of specific

design options:

(1) Improvements must have a

payback to the consumer of less than

the product's life.

(2) Design options to the manufacturer

with the shortest lead time and most

cost effective improvements were

selected to achieve each efficiency level

analyzed. '

Various other methodologies-(series of

design improvements) to higher

efficiency can be envisioned. For

instance. the lowest cost to the

consumer to achieve each efficiency

level could have been assessed. This

could lead to a rearrangement of the

design improvements to achieve the

level. However. minimizing lead time

. within the payback criterion. was felt to

be the most effective and likely scenario
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43984 Federal Register / Vo!' -!5. :..Io. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980' / Proposed Rules

for introducing energy savings at the'

earliest possible date.

Using engineering analysis and

computer simulations. the efficiency

improvements which would result from

implementing various design options

were estimated. The design options

considered were limited to those based

on "available" technology, defined as

those technologies presently

imolemented in units available in the

m~rketplace. Only those design options

were considered which were covered by

existing..test procedures [final and

proposed}. These design options are

described in detail in the "Engineering

Analysis Document:' TSD No.5 for each

covered product. The design option

analysis provides estimates of the per

unit change In rna terials and purchased

'parts required to achieve specific

efficiency levels.

Cost Elements

Four basic cost elements (investment,

materials. purchased -components. and

labor) were considered. Investment

included capital equipment, plant. .

tooling. allowance for costs related to

inventory. spare parts. and reissuing .

product literature. Pel" unit costs were'

estimated by amortizing these

investment costs using the yearly

production volume and depreciation

periods of 30 years}orplant. 10 years for

capital equipment. and 3 years for

tooling and miscellaneous costs.

Material costs per unit were estimated

by using the material eosts per pound

with the estimated changes in materials

made during the design. option analysis.

Purchased component costs per unit

were based on quotes from suppliers.

Although some larger manufacturers

might make components.such as

compressors or vent dampers. these

items were casted as purchased parts

unless the majority of manufacturers

produced them in-house. Labor costs

were obtained by estimating the change

in labor in minutes for each design

option and using a labor rate of $17.34

per hour (direct cost plus burden). These

four cost elements were summed to

estimate the added factory cost.

Pn'ce Mark-Ups

Estimates of the added cost to the

consumer were made by marking up the

factory cost by 35% to obtain an

estimate of the cost to a who!esalerdistributor. The wholesaler-distributor

cost was finally marked up by 60% for

water heaters. furnaces. and central air'

conditioners and 70% [':>1" refrigerators

and refrigerator-freezers. freezers.

clothes drvers. kitchen ranges and

ovens. and room air conditioners to

obtain the estimated added cost to the

consumer, To estimate the price of a

more efficient unit to the consumer. this

estima ted cost increase was added to

the price of the baseline unit. This price

and the efficiency of the unit were then

used to generate a cost vs. efficiency

relationship for each product class.

Maximum Technologically Feasible

DOE believes that for 1986. oroduct

designs in prototype form Jan~ary 1980

represent the maximum technologically

feasible products. Although there will be

advances in development beyond some

of these 'levels over the next 6 years.

DOE believes that these developments

could not be demonstrated,as

technologically feasible in that the long

lead times would not allow such

products to be introduced into the

market by 1986. . Even though manufacturers have

prototypes in the January 1980 time

frame. it is not practical to expect a

complete product line transformation

considering product development cycleof engineering. prototype fabrioation.

laboratory testing. field testing.

production engineering and production

facility modification. As a result it is not

realistic to expect that in 1986 the

manufacturer would be able to produce

only those products whose energy .

efficiency is equal to or greater than the

maximum technologically feasible.

Consequently, DOE has determined that

it is not economically justifiable to

propose energy efficiency standards at

the maximum technological limit.

Life Cycle Costs and Payback Analysis

Two key criteria for assessing impacts

on consumers resulting from standards

are life cycle costs and payback period.

Life cycle cost is a measure of the

discounted total cost of consumer

product ownership. Included is the total

purchase price. energy use over the life

of the product. and the maintenance

costs over the service life of the product.

discounted to their present values. The

consumer payback period represents the

time required to recoup the increased

purchase price of more energy efficient

products through reduced energy bills.

Decreases in product life cycle costs

represent the net benefit to consumers

while the consumer payback period

gives an indication of the time it takes to

overcome the initial burden of higher

product prices.

Financial Impact Analysis'

The financial impact analysis of

manufacturers centers on projected

changes in profit to net worth ratios and

the ability of firms of different sizes to

finance the capital investment necessary

to meet 1986 standards. The analysis

shows tha t small firms may experience

greater difficulty tn meeting standards

than their larger competitors. The

methodology underlying this analysis is

as follows.

For the consumer product types

subject to propOsed standards. 292

manufacturers have been identified, Of

these. financial data were available on

146 firms. These data were obtained

primarily from public sources such as

Dun & Bradstreet. Privatelv held firms.

many of whom are small manufacturers.

are underreoresented in the data base

because fin~ncial information is not

generally made available to the public.

DOE requests manufacturers to submit

additional financial data to expand the

information available for financial

impact analysis.

F6r the years 1973 through 1978. data

were compiled on assets. liabilities. cost

of goods sold. fixed costs and earnings

for each firm. The data were not

available by product type so it was

necessary to break down aggregated

data by line of business for diversified·

firms. The 146 firms were first rank

ordered by their total sales. Large firms

are defined as the largest 20 percent of

the 146 firms. medium firms are the next

20 percent. and small firms are the

remaining 60 percent.

Data analyses indicated that large

manufacturers represent approximately

92 percent of total sales. medium firms

6.8 percent. and small firms. 1.2 percent.

These percentages. along with estimate.s

of total industry sales by product types.

were used to disaggregate product type

sales in 1978 into market shares for each

of the 146 firms in the data base. In this

way. estimated income and balance

sheet data were derived for 146 firms for

1978 on a product type basis. These

financial data were used to develop .

probability distributions around

expected earnings for each product type

for small. medium and large firms.

This procedure was used only after

exhausting other potential sources of

accounting data on each of the 146 firms.

The industry. through the trade

associations. was requested to provide

detailed delineated financial data. Each

such request was denied. DOE will

continue in its attempts to obtain this

information during the time between

issuance of this proposed rule and

promulgation of the final rule.

The financial impact analysis was

generalized to small. meqium and large

representative firms for each product.

type. These representative firms were

taken to have the mean financial values

of all firms in the respective size

category. Industry sales were projected

for these firms as described in TSD No.

4, Investment requirements to meet
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 / !\.'{onday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43985

standards. as described in TSD No.5.

were added to fixed costs. The resulting

change in earnings for each

representative firm was calculated for

the 1981 through 1988 time frame.

From the above analysis. expected

average earnings were calculated for

each size of representative firm for each

product type. These average earnings

were applied to the industry probabfIity

distributions described above in order to

determine the projected industry

distribution of earnings for each size of

firm producing each of the flight product

types. Manufacturers were assumed to

be able to make the necessary capital

investment for 1986 standards if they

could do so out of retained earnings

during the 1961 through 1985 time frame.

Furthermore. they were assumed to be

able to make thi; investment out of a

combination of retained earnings and

loans if any indebtedness could be paid

back out of retained earnings over the

1986 through 1988 time frame.

Expected impacts of proposed

standards on small. medium and large

manufacturers are presented in their

respective economic sections of this

preamble. Impacts on the industry refer

to the percentage of industry sales

capacity having a high probability of

successfully financing capital

investment. Impacts on small. medium

and large firms refer to that percentage

offirms which are expect-ed to .

successfully meet 1986 standards. as

reflected in the probability distribution

of forecasted earnings.

It should be recognized that

manufacturers have flexibility for

creative financing. creative production

approaches and cost reduction. Those

firms not abie to successfully finance

compliance with standards by means of

funds from earnings or loans may be

able to use other methods such as sales

of stocks or bonds. transfer of funds

from other operating divisions. etc. This

flexibility will result in a greater success

rate in meeting standards than that

indicated by the conservative financial

analysis presented here.·

However. it is impossible to know in

advance the full extent of this flexibility

for all firms in the industry. Therefore.

the percentage of firms identified as

having low proba bilities of success.

using the conservative assumptions of

the financial analysis. probably reflect a

higher level of industry impact than will

likely occur.

The financial impact analysis. even

given its conservative assumptions.

showed that the in9ustry capacity

estimated to be maintained after

standards are imposed ranges from j5

;Jercent for freezer manufacturers \0

nearly 100 percent for furnace

manufacturers. Furthermore. sufficient

production will be available for every

consumer oroduct class to meet

consumer demand. The analysis

indicates a low probability of successful

financing for small manufacturers .of all

products except furnaces. central air

conditioners and clothes dryers.

However. given the conserva live

assumptions concerning manufacturer

flexibility. the expected low impact on

overall industry capacity and the

potential for a Z-year exemption for

firms under 58 million. the estimated

level of manufacturer impact is not

expected to be excessive when

compared with the energy savings and

net benefit to consumers discussed

elsewhere in this preamble.

Of the 292 individual firms and major

plants comprising the industry. the

number of firms producing the different

product types is as follows: refrigerator

and refrigerator-freezers. 23; freezers. ,18;

ranges and ovens. 27: water heaters. 33;

room air conditioners. 42; central air

conditioners. 58: furnaces. 85; and

clothes dryers. 17. These firms have

combined consumer product factory

sales of approxima!ely $6 billion.

Impacts an Small Manufacturers

Eligible far Exemption

Approximately 80 firms. or 27 percent

of the industry, have individual gross

sales from their overall operation of $8

million or less and therefore are eligible

upon petition for a 2-year exemption ,

from standards. These firms account for

less than one percent of the total

production of the eight consumer

products. If granted exemptions. 60

firms. or 75 percent of manufacturers .

with sales less than $8 million. are

expected to be able to meet the

proposed standards. They may be able

to capture a greater share of the lowpriced market in 1981-1983 and may

have proportionately higher profits than

their larger competitors who must

comply earlier with the standards.

Proposed standards for 1981 were set

in order to allow the overallindustry

sufficient earnings to make the

necessary changes for meeting proposed

1986 standards. However, small

manufacturers will have greater

difficulty meeting 1986 standards than

their large counterparts due to their

smaller earnings. The exemption of

small firms wiL'J sa:es ·.:nder S8 million

are expected to mmnte this greater

burden by allowing':: years of

proportionately higher earnings and a

greater lead time for production

changes.

4,1 Refrigerawrs and RefrigeratorFreezers

4.1.1 Summarv. "Electric

refrigerator" mea-ns a cabinet designed

for the refrigera ted storage of food at

temperatures above 3Z'. and having a

source of refrigeration requiring an

electrical energy input only. Hmay

include a compartment for the freezing

and storage of food at temperatures

below 3Z'F. but does not provide a

separate low temperature compartment

designed for the freezing of and the long

term storage of food at temperatures

below a'F. It has onlY one exterior door.

but it may have interior doors or

comoartments.

"Electric refrigerator-freezer" means a

cabinet which consists of two or more

compartments with at least one of the

compartments designed for the

refrigerated storage of foods at

temperatures above 3Z·F and with at"

least one of the compartments designed

for the freezing of and the storage of

frozen foods at temperatures of 8°F or

below and may be capable of being

adjusted by the user of a temperature of

O°F or below. The source of refrigeration

requires ap. electriclil energy input only.

The proposed~nergy efficiency levels

for refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are fourid in Table 4.1-1. Table

4.1-2 presents the alternative efficiency

levels selected for"analvsis for 1981 and

1986.· •

4.1-1 Energy Efficiency Levels for

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers

(Energy Factor. EF. ft3/kWh/24 hrs)..

ProduCt etass July 15. 1981 January 1.

1986

1. EleC1nC retngerelOt; manual 1.20+0.524V 11.04+0.47l1V

defrost.

2. Eiee1ne refrigerator-lreezer; O.06+0.~V 6.29·0.432V

manual defrost tteezer.

3. Electne refngerator.freezer; 1,69 +"0,HBV 4.91 + O.183V

automatic delros1 witl\ tOIl

freezer.

4. ElectrIC refrigerator-lreezer; 3. 19+0.09V 5.20.,.O.082V

automatic detrost wil1'l side

freezer.

S. Electric refrigerator-freezer; 4.6 8.1

automatic defrost wt(h

bonom freezer.

6. Eleetnc ret"geraror-lreezer, 5.4 7.4

automatic defrost With top

treezer and through·ttledoor Ice or liQuid service.

7. Elecmc:-ret"geralOr.freezer; 4.7 6,3

automatic detrost with side

freezer and through·thedoor ICe or liQUId S8MC8,

v= Total Unadjusted VOlume. expressed In tP.

Note.-See rabonale tor vanaDIe standards in section 4.1.2.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43986 Federal Register / Vol. -±5. 010. 127 / Monday. jolne 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

Table 4.1-2':"',J,/temate efficiency Levels (Energy Fscror. EP. .'t J ,'k\Vh/24 hrsl

Me thddology

In performing the product efficiency

analysis. the key design improvements

for the cabinet and the refrigeration

system considered were: substitution of polyurethane foam

for fiberglass;

• double door gaskets and reduced

throat clearance;

improve compressor motor: and

removal of evaporator fan motor

from refrigerated space. _

A computer model integrating cabinet

design and refrigeration system .

subroutines was used to determine the

performance of the improved designs.

The computer model has been verified

by comparing predicted results to the

actual test results of a number of

production and prototype refrigera torfreezer designs. A technical discussion

of the computer model is contained in

the "Engineering Analysis Document."

TSD No.5.

The manufacturing cost analysis

assumed a facility consisting of seven

manufacturing production lines for a

large manufacturer and five for a small

manufacturer. It was assumed that the

product lines shared oroduction lines of

cabinet doors and co~pressors were

purchased from other manufacturers.

-Cabinet equipment suitable for

polyurethane foam substitution was

identified a~d costs determined. Tooling

changes for outer cabinet and liner

changes·to accommodate foam

substitution were casted. Tooling

changes for mounting new purchased

parts and other cabinet alterations were

evaluated. Some plant costs were

identified in conjunction with the

additional space required for the

foaming equipment.

Increased costs. per unit of foam

material. were assessed and the

increase in labor was estimated. Parts

which must be purchased for

compressor improvement. evaooratorThe levels selected for analysis for 1981

-are derived from the 1978 shipment

weighted energy factor (SWEF1-which -

is the summation of number of units of a

particular basic model multiplied by the

energy factor. divided by the total

number of shiprp.ents within a class-for

each class of refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers. Level 2 in 1981

corresponds to the SWEF in 1978. Level

1 is one standard deviation below the

SWEF. while Lavel 3 and Level 4 are 1

and 2 standard deviations above the

SWEF. respectively. The standard

deviation of measured<energy factors is

used to define final levels because of the

differences in distribution and definition

of energy factors among product types

and classes. Use of this statistical

measure assures that the potential

relative impacts of similar trial standard

levels are the same for different classes.

The levels selected for analysis for 1986

are derived from a manufacturing cost

estimating technique used to estimate

materials. investment and engineering

costs required to market products of

higher efficiencies in the 1986 time

frame. Level 3 in 1986 corresponds to the

maximum level which is technologically

feasible and economically justified. A

detaded exDlanation on the

technological feasibility and economic

justifiability can be found in the

- Engineering Analysis and Economic

Analysis Documents. TSD No.4 and No.

5. respectively. Levels 1- and 2

correspond to proportionally lower

levels which have fewer design

improvements required and correspond

to lower first cost and generally higher

life cycle costs. Level 4 corresponds to

an advance technology case which

incorporates design options not on the

market place in any great quantity or .

only in prototype stages at this time.

The rationale for selecting the

proposed levels appears in sections 4.1.2

and 4.1.3.

4.1.2 Engineering Analysis

Product class

v = Totat Unadjusted Volom<!. eXPfessed in It'.

1. Electnc refrigerator: manual oefrost............. 16 _ 474'1

2. EJectnc retngerator·treezer. manual defrost

freezer , ,....... 11.9 -132V

3. Electnc refngerator.treezer: automatIC de--

frost wHn fOP freezer _._ 7, 1 -+ . 183V

4. Electric retrigefator.freezer. automatic (je·

frost wrth SIde freezer...................................... 8.62 + 090'1

S. E!ectne retrigerator.treezer: au(omanc de-

'rost with bottom freezer................................. 9. i

a. EJelCtne refrigerator·freezer. automahC defrost wllll lap freezer ana Illrougn.lhe-<loor

ICe or liqUId seMce _ 8.9

7. Electne relngerator.freezer:- automatic defrost with SIde freezer and lhrough-lhe-<loor

Ice or fiquod servICe _........................... 8.9

fan improvement. double freezer gasket

and anti-sweat heater switch were all

estima ted for each efficiencv level.

These were combined with per unit

investment costs to obtain estimates of

the total added cost to achieve each

efficiency level evaluated. These costefficiency relationships are explained in

more detail in the "Engineering Analysis

Document." TSD :-40. 5.

Maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency levels were developed

using.advanced technologies. For the

automatic defrosting units. a forced

convection standard evaporator in the

freezer was used in series with a free

convection passive defrosting heat

exchanger in the fresh food

compapment. Improved refriger\ltion

system efficiencv and reduced defrost

requirements re;ulted. Insulaton

thickness was optimized to achie\'e

maximum internal storage volume with

minimum heat gain. This induded

increased door insulation as well as a

redistribution of insulation throughout

the entire cabinet. Improved air system

flow paths were employed to reduce the

power necessary to opera te the fan.

Maximum technologically feasible

levels. for the electric refrigeratorfreezer: manual defrost freezer and

electric refrigerator: manual deftost

were achieved by increasing insulation

thickness in the door and increasing

heat transfer surface areas of the .

evaporator and condenser in addition to

the use of available technology design

options. These levels have not been

proposed as the energy efficiency

standard because of the present

requirement for economic justifiabilitv

discussed in the "Economic Analysis'

Document." TSD No.4.

The maximum technologically feasible

levels for 1986 for refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers are shown in Table

4.1-3.

4.1-3 ~faximum TechnologicallY

Feasible Levels for Refrigerators and

Refrigera tor-Freezers (Energy Factor. EF.

ft J/kWh/24 hI'S).

5.6

S.2

a.l

124-0,400'1

2.73 ... 0.178'1

1.20-0.524'1 1.98 0.524'1 2.76-0.524'1

3.84 .... 0.J.7J.V 11.04 0 ...n.:.v 0.06-0.400'1 0.65_0.•00'1

2.99-0.432'1 6.29-0.432'1

1.69-0.178'1 2.21 0.178'1

3.7t-0.183V • 91 0.183'1

3.19 - 0.09'1 ;.54 _ 0.09'1

".70 ... 0.082'1 5.20 -0.082'1

'.5 4.9

6.3 U

5.3 5.7

6.5 7.7

5.0 5.3 .

6.0 6.3

1981 4.8

198a 5.5'

1981 0.42 -0.524'1

1986 2.44_0.474'1

1981-·;.52 -0.400'1

1986 0.69-0..32'1

1981 1.16 ... 0.178'1

1986 2.01 -0.183'1

1981 2.94_0.09'1

1966 4.20_0.082'1

1981 42

1986 6.4

1981 5.0

1988 <.8

"""ouet Class Lavel

I. =lectnc refngeratOf'. manual defrost •.•••.•

v = Total unacliusted vOlume. expressed in It '.

2. ~jectnc "etn9erator~treezer. manuaj de/rose

;ree::er.

J. Eiecmc retng&"at()(~lTee!er. aucomaoc aetrost

.,."Itn too treezgor.

4. E!ecmc ~errigerator·ireez9f', automatJc detrost

wUh side freelet'.

5. Elec:nc r9fngara!or-lreeze<. 3otomatlc defroSt

with oonom treezef'. 6. EIe<ilnC reirigeratOt.lreezer. automatic defrost

wllh lOP freezer and tIYOugn-tne-dOO< ICe or

!:qUld seMce.

7 Elecuic retrigerator·ireezer. automaUc defrost

""lt1 SIde freeze< and tnrough-the-OOO< ice or

liqUId serw:e.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 I Proposed Rules 43987

Test Procedures

The test procedures for refrigerators

and refrigerator-freezers found at 10

CFR Part 430. Subpart B. provide a

standardized method for calculating the

efficiency (energy factor. EF) of

refrigerators and refrigera tor-freezers by

measuring the adjusted refrigera tors

volume and the electrical energy

consumption in a 24-hour period. The

adjusted volume is calculated by adding

the fresh food compartment volume to

the product of the freezer compartment

volume and an adjustment factor which

accounts for the increased heat transfer'

into the freezer due to the large,

tempera ture difference across the

freezer compartment walls. Energy

factors haveoimensions of cubic feet

per kilowatt hour per·24 hours (ft3/~Wh/

24 hrs) and are ,useful indicators of

refrigera tor and refrigera tor-freezer

efficiency since they facilitate

comparison of energy consumption

between units of different total volumes

and with different ra tios of fresh food to

frozen' food compartment volumes.

DOE received a comment in response

to the advance notice that addressed the

refrigera tor and refrigera tor-freezer test

procedures. The commenter objected to

the allowance of usage credil'fm:. designs

which have switches to turn off anti..

sweat heaters. When operating.1hese

heaters provide localized heat to

prevent condensation of moisture 'On

certain exterior surfaces of these

products when used in high humidity

environments. The commenter

maintained tha t these credits discourage

design improvements which utilize

improved insula tion to prevent such

condensa tion. Based on actual field test

data. DOE maintains that the credits

provided for this-feature are appropriate

and necessarv and therefore has made

no changes p~rsuant to this comment.

It was suggested that a 50 percent

credit be given for each class and size

category based upon the particular

design which requires the least amount

of anti-sweat heater energy. l\TBS and

DOE have carefully analyzed this

suggestion. The commenter assumed

that the most efficient designs are those

which have small differences in energy

consumption when the anti-sweat -

switch is moved from the high energy

consumption position to the low energy

consumption position. This assumption

is not necessarily true since switches in

certain inefficient designs may "not turn

off all of the anti-sweat heaters and.

consequently. the difference in power

consumOlion for some inefficient

designs'may also be small.

Consequently. changes jn the lest

procedures 10 accommodate this

commenter's suggestions have not been

made.

DOE. in response to a petllion for

rulemaking. has proposed an

amendment to the tes.t procedures for

refrigera tors and refrigera tor-freezers to

reduce testing time and burden on

manufacturers. The existing test

procedures for single-cpntrol

refrigera tors and refrigera tor-freezers

require testing at three control settings

and for multiple-control refrigera torfreezers at four control settings with a

load (thermal mass) in the freezer. The

proposed test procedures require testing

at onlv two control settings and does not

requiie a load in the freezer of

automatic defrost units.

The proposed test procedures are

expected to reduce testing time and

burden bv more than one-third. NBS

experimentation has determined that

energy consumption and energy factors

measured via the proposed test

procedures will be essentially identical

. to·those determined according to the

existing procedures. Consequently.

revision of the test procedures for

refrigera tors and refrigera t.or-freezers

will not affect previous test results or

the levels of energy efficiency standards

proposed by this notice.

Indh'iduol Product Class .4.nalysis

Five comments received in response

to the advance notice criticized DOE's

establishment of-only three cJasses of

refrigera tors and refrigera tor-freezers.

These commenters stated fundamental

physical reasons for the establishment

of additional classes of automatic- .

defrost refrigerator-freezers. DOE and

NBS carefully analyzed these comments

and. consequently. sev~n classes of

electric refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are proposed in section 4.1.1 of

this notice. These classes are

distinguished by performance-relatedfea tures which affect both efficiency

and utility of the unit. These features

are: (1) type of freezer defrost system

(manual or automatic). (2) fr.eezer

compartment temperature. (3) physical

arrangement of compartments. and (4)

avaHability of through-the-door service

features.

As defined in the DOE test

procedures. refrigera tors are

refrigeration products with a

compartmen t for refrigera ted storage of

food at temperatures above 32'F which

may have a compartment for the frozen

storage of food at temperatures below

32°P and above 8°F. Refrigeratorfreezers are refrigeration products with

compartments for refrigerated storage of

food at temperatures above 32'F and a

compartment for frozen food storage at

temperatures below 8'F. Since frozen

food can be stored :'or longer periods 'of

time at temperatures below 8'F than at

temperatures above 8'F. DOE has

concluded that the lower freezer

compartment temperature provides

additional utilitv to toe consumer. Also.

since lowering the freezer temperature

increases heat leakage into the freezer

and increases energy consumption of the

refrigeration system, DOE has grouped

refrigera tors and refrigera tor-freezers

in to separate classes.

DOE.has determined that automatic

defrost refrigeration products. those

",,:hich do not require any action by the

user to accomplish defrosting of the

freezer. provide utility to the consumer.

Automa tic defrost products consume

additional energy first. to melt the frost

when performing a defrost cycle and.

second. to remove the defrost heat from

the cabinet in order to maintain

compartment temperatures.

Consequently. DOE has grouped

automatic defrost and manual defrost

. units separately.

Automatic defrost refrigeration

products have been segregated

according to the location of the freezer

compartments. DOE has determined that

products with bottom or side freezers

provide different utility to consumers

than do units with top freezers.

Automatic defrost refrigerator·

freezers with side freezers provide

utility to consumers because of the

opportunity for users to more

conveniently locate items placed in both

the fresh food and freezer ,

compartments. Units with side freezers

tend to have higher energy consumption

than units with top freezers because the

increased door seal area increases heat

leakage into the cabinet. Also. since the

bottom of the side freezer is located

near the compressor and condenser.

more heat rejected from these

components leaks into the refrigerated

space than with top freezer units.

Refrigera tor-freezers with bottom

freezers also tend to require more

energy to operate than top freezers.

Increased fan power is required to

transport cold,air from the bottom

freezer up to the top of the fresh food

compartment. Bottom freezers also

absorb more heat rejected from the

compressor and condenser than do top

freezers since these components are

located adjacent to the freezer

compartment. Because of these

fundamental differences which affect

both utility and energy consumption.

DOE has proposed separa te classes for

automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers

with top. side, and bottom freezers.

In addition. certain models of top

freezer and side freezer refrigeratorfreezers incorporate dispensing services
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

:,13988 Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 ! Monday. June 30. 1980 I Proposed Rules

which provide chilled water. ice. etc..

withou't opening the door. Refrigerator

doors which contain dispensing

equipment cannot be insulated as well

as doors without this feature. Also.

electric heaters mav be reauired to

prevent condensati~n from occ:lrring on

the dispenser hardware. These factors

combine to increase heat which is

absorbed by the refrigerated space.

Consequently. models with through-thedoor s~rvices inherently consume more

energy than other models. DOE has

determined that the convenience

associated. with such dispenser designs

constitutes a distinct utility to those

consumers who want this feature. and

separate clas~es have been established

for refrigerator-freezer des-ign

configurations which provide these

services.

Different classes of refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers have not been

established for models with different

refrigerated volumes. DOE is aware that

the energy factor of a particular product

tends to increase with increasing

volume. This phenomenon is due to the

fact that as the voluine of a rectangular

cabinet increases. the ratio of surface

area to volume decreases. Since heat

transfer into the cabinet is directly

related to surface area, two refrigerators

of different volumes but with equivalent

insulation and refrigeration system

efficiency will have different energy

factors. DOE has accounted for this

relationship by proposing energy

efficiency standards which increase

linearly with volume. Variable

standards are not proposed for units

with bottom freezers and units with

through !!te door services due to the

availability of only a small range of

different volumes. This concept assures

that smaller units will not be penalized

and all units must achieve

proportionally the same increased

efficiencv imorovement. Additional

explanation ~f the determination of this

relationship is provided in the

"Engineering Analysis Document." TSD

No.5.

4.1.3 Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards for Refrigerators

and Refrigerator-Freezers. Economic

benefits and burdens resulting from the

proposed standards were assessed from

consumer. manufacturer and national

perspectives. as described in section 5

of this notice. Four alternative levels of

standards were evaluated for each

perspective. From this evaluation. the

levels proposed in this notice were

selected. impacts resulting from these

levels are presented herein. A more

detailed presentation on impacts

resulting from the levels which were not

selected is provided in the "Economic

Anaiysis Document." TSD No.4.

Consumers

For each class of refrigerator and

refrigera tor-freezer. the average

consumer will realize a lower life cvcle

cost (a decrease in the discounted total

cost of product ownership and use) for

higher efficiency regulated products as

compared with unregulated products.

The reduction in life cycle costs ranges

from 591 for automatic defrost

refrigerator-freezers with side freezer

and through the door services. to 5322

for automatic defrost refrigeratorFreezers with top freezer. corresponding

to a 4 percent reduction and 21 percent

reduction in life cycle costs.

respectively.

Consumer payback period. the period

of time elapsed before the higher

purchase price of more energy efficient

products is recouped through reduced

energy costs. ranges from 0.54 years for

manual defrost refrigerators to 0.79

years for refrigerator-freezers with

manual defrost freezers.

Manufacturers

Impacts on refrigerator and

refrigerator-freezer manufacturers

resulting from standards at the proposed

level were estimated. The effects are

presented as the percentage of firms

expected to be able to obtain sufficient

funds through profit or short-term debt.

during the 1981 through 1985 period. to

make the capital investment necessary

for January 1986 standards. Those firms

not able to successfully finance

compliance with standards by means of

funds from earnings or loans may be

able to use other methods such as sales

of stocks or bonds. transfer of funds

from other operating divisions. etc.

Therefore. firms having low

probabilities of success will not

necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level of standards.

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer

manufacturers estimated to be able to

obtain sufficient funds during the 1981

through 1985 period to make the capital

investment necessary for January 1986

standards represent approximately 98

percent of current industry production.

Included in those firms expected to be

able to make the required capital

investment. are 99 percent of large

manufacturers and 98 percent of

medium-sized manufacturers. These

estimates were developed using analytic

techniques which examine the worst

case impacts by using conservative

assumptions about demand growth.

market share and financing. Details of

the analysis are provided in the

"Economic Analvsis Document.·· TSD

No.4. .

Nation

Burdens and benefits from the

national perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers and

manufacturers. In addition. the national

perspective addresses those impacts

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct national

impacts resulting from the proposed

standards are: estimated energy savings:

the discounted dollar value of those

energy savings: the aggregate

discounted consumer costs of more

energy efficient products; and the net

present value of the above costs and

benefits.

Proposed standax:.ds on all classes of

refrigera tors and ra frigera tor-freezers

combined are estimated to save

between 3.64 and i.56 Quadrillion Btu's

(QBtu·s) cumulative for the 1982 through

::005 penod. valued between 56.2 billion

and 59.1 billion in 1978 dollars. The

aggregate increased cost of more energy

efficient refrigera tors and refrigeratorfreezers during that same 1982 through

ZOOS period is estimated to be between

51.61 billion and $2.53 billion in 1978

dollars. Therefore. the national net

present value of the proposed regulation

on refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers

is estimated at between $4.5·billion and

56.7 billion. These values'are derived

from use of the Residential Energy Use

Forecasting Model described in section

5.3 of this notice and the "Economic

Analysis Document." TSD No.4.

4.2 Freezers

4.2.1 Summary. "Freezer" means a

cabinet designed as a unit for the

storage of food at temperatures of O'F or

below. having the ability to freeze food.

and having a source of refrigeration

requiring an electric energy input only.

The proposed energy efficiency levels

for freezers are found in Table 4.2-1.

Taule 4.2-2 presents the alternate

efficiency levels selected for analysis for

1981 and 1986. The levels selected for

analysis for 1981 are derived from the

1978 shipment weighted energy factor

(SWEF}-which is the summation of

number of units of a particular basic

model multiplied'by the energy factor.

divided bv the total number of

shipmentS-within a class-for each class

of freezers. Level 2 in 1981 corresponds

to the SWEF in 1978. Levell is one

standard deviation below the SWEF.

while Level 3 and Level 4 are 1 and 2

standard deviations above the SWEF.

respectively. The levels selected for

analysis for 1986 are derived from a

manufacturing cost estimating technique

used to estimate materials. investment
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43989

,j Table 4.2-2.-Alternate Elticlency Levels <Energy Factor. EF. ""'lkWhI24 hrs)

v.Total Unadjusted Volume. expressed In It'.

Note.-See rallonale lor vanable standards In section 4.2.2.

1. CheSllreezer. manual 6.18-0.337V 1:h72+0.332V

defrost.

2. UOtlgnt Ireezer. manual 3.00+0.393v 10.85_0.342V

detrost.

3. UOnght Ireezer. aulomallC 3.30+0.197V 8.07+0.093V

defrost

cost and generally higher life cycle

costs.

Table 4.2-1 -Energy Efficiency Levels

for Freezers (Energy Factor. EF. ft 3/

kWh/24 hrs).

PrOdUct Class Level

of polyurethane fcam msulation was

increased throughout the cabinet design.

along with increased evaporator and

condenser surface areas. High efficiency

compressors and ian motors were used.

and double gasket systems were

inc.orporated throughout. Ffrr the upright

automatic defrost freezer. an improved

inner distribution system reducing the

fan power requirements was employed.

The maximum technologically feasible

energy levels for 1986 for freezers are

shown in Table 4.2-3 below:

Table 4.2-3 Maximum

Technologically Feasible Levels for

Freezers (Energy Factor. EF. ft 3/kWh/24

hrs). .

JUly 15. 1981 January 1.

1986

?rOduct class

and engineering costs required to

market products of higher efficiencies in

the 1986 time frame. Level 3 in 1986

corresponds to the maximum level

which is technologically feasible and

economically justified. A detailed

explanation on the technological

feasibility and economic justifiability

can be found in the Engineering

Analvsis and Economic Analvsis

Docu"ments. TSD No.4 and N~. 5.

respectively. Levels 1 and 2 correspond

to proportionally lower levels which

have fewer design improvements

required and correspond to lower first

Level 4 corresponds to an advanced

technology case which incorporates

design options not on the market place

in any great quantity o~ only in

prototype stages at this time.

The rationale for selecting the

proposed levels appears in sections 4.2.2

and 4.2.3.

4.2.2 Engineering Analysis.

Methodology

Key energy, saving technologies used

in the product efficiency analysis for

freezers closely parallel those

applicable to refrigerators and

refrigerator·freezers. For upright models.

foam substitution for fiberglass.

compressor efficiency improvemen~.

removal of evaporator fan heat from the

refrigerated space. gasket improvement.

and an increased evaporator and

condenser surface area were employed

when cost effective. For chest freezers,

foam substitution for fiberglass in the

lid. reloca tion of the condenser outside

of the cabinet walls. and improvements

to compressor motors were methods

employed in the analysis.

A computer model. which integrates

cabinet design and refrigera tion system

subroutines. was used to determine the

performance of the improved designs.

The computer model has been verified

against a number of production and

prototype freezer designs. A technical

discussion of the computer model is

contained in the "Engineering Analysis

Document." TSD No.5.

The manufacturing cost analysis

assumed a facility consisting of four

manufacturing lines for both large al1d

small manufacturers. It was'assumed

that cabinet door lines were shared by

the four production lines and that ,

compressors were-purchased from other

manufacturers.

Cabinet equipment suitable for

polyurethane foam substitution was

identified and costs determined. Tooling

changes for outer cabinet and liner

changes to accommodate the foam

substitution were costed. Tooling

changes for mounting new purchased

parts and other cabinet alterations were

evaluated. Some plant costs were

identified associated with the additional

space required for foaming -equipment.

The increased cost per unit of

substituting foam ma terial for fiberglass

was assessed and the increased labor

costs estimated. Part purchased for

compressor improvement and anti·

sweat heater switch were estimated as

appropriate for each efficiency leveL

These were combined with per unit

investment costs to obtain estimates of

the total added cost to achieve each

efficiencv level evalua ted. These cost·

efficiency rela tionships are given in the

"Engineering Analysis Document." TSD

No.5.

Maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency levels were developed

using adnnced technologies. To

• achieve these maximum technologically

feasible levels for freezers. the thickness

Product class

1 Chest freezer. manual delrost .

2. UPf1ght treezer. manual delrosL .

3. Upright freezer, automatic defrost ._ .

V:;: Total unadjusted volume. expressed In tt J'

Level

1981

1986

1981

'986

1981

1986

4.i9 ...0.337V 6.18+0.337V 7.42+0.337V

7.22+0.332V 11.12_0.332V 13.i2+0.332V

1.98... 0.393V 3.00_0.393V 401-0.393V

6.05+0.342V 8.35+0.342V 10.85... 0.342V

2.47+0.197V 3.30 ... 0.197V· 4.13+0.197V

3.97 +O.093V 6.87 +O.093V 8.07 "'0.093V

8.66 _ O.337V

5.02 + 0.393V

4.95-0.197V

1. Chest Ire~zer. manual defrost..._ 17.5 332V

2. Uonght freezer. manual detrosl..................... 16.1 + .342V

3 UOtlgnt freezer. automahc defrost................ 16.1 ....093V

V. Total \jnadjusted Volume. exptessed In It.'

Test Procedures

The test procedures for freezers found

at 10 CFR Part 430. Subpart B, provide a

standardized method for calculating the

efficiency (energy factor. EF) of freezers

by measuring the adjusted refrigera ted

volume and the adjusted electrical .

energy consumption in a 24-hour period.

The measured energy consumption is

adjusted·for chest and upright freezers

to correlate the test results to typical

energy household consumption. Energy

factors have dimensions of cubic feet

per kilowatt hour per 24 hours (ft 3/kWh/

24 hrs) and are useful indicators of

freezer efficiency since they account for

differences in energy consumption

between freezers of different volumes.

No comments addressing the freezer

test procedures were received in

response to the advance notice.

however. DOE is proposing an

amendment to the test procedures for

freezers to reduce testing time and

burden on manufacturers. The existing

test procedures for freezers require

testing at three control settings. The

proposed test procedures require testing

at only twocontfol settings. These

procedures are expected to reduce

testing time and burden by about one·

third. NBS has determined that energy

consumption and energy factors

measured via the proposed test

procedures will be essentiallv identical

to those determined according to the

existing procedures. Consequently. the

revision of the test orocedures for

freezers will not affect previous test

results or the levels of energy efficiency

standards propose? by this notice.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43990 June 30. 1980 I Proposed Rules

Individual Product Cl§~SAnalYSiS

'Thre1! classes of freElzersarespecified

in section 4.2.1 of this~otice. These

classes are distinguishEld by

performance-related features which

affect efficiency and utility. These

features are:

(1) configuration,

(2) type of defrost system....-.rnanual.

automatic.

The configuration of the unit (chest or

upright) provides utiliI:}' which affects

efficiency. Upright freezers offer greater

accessibility to the freezer contents and

more efficient use offloor space than

chest type freezers. H0W'ever, the test

procedures assign different usage

factors for chest and upright freezers to

account for lieat leakage into the cabinet

when the door is opened. The adjusted

energy consumption of upright freezers

should tend to be higher than the

adjusted energy consumption of chest

freezers because of the assigned usage

factors. Consequently, DOE has grouped

these products into separate classes.

Another performance-related feature

which affects utility and efficiflncy is the

defrost system which determines the

extent of action by the user needed to

accomplish defrosting. Automatic

defrost units do not.require any user

action to accomplish defrosting. and

thus provtde the consumer with utility

not provided by manual defrost units.

Automatic defrost units, as compared to

manual defrost units.. will have lower

enllrgy factors because of the additional

energy required to melt the frost and to

remove the defrost heat to maintain the

cabinet temperature. DOE is not aware

of any chest freezers which offer the

automatic defrost feature: therefore,

today's rule proposes a separate class

only for automatic defrost upright

freezers.

Different classes of freezers have not

been established for models with

different volumes. DOE is aware that

the energy factor of a particular product

tends to increase with increasing

volume. As with refrigerators. DOE has

accounted for this relationship by

proposing energy efficiency standards

which increase linearly with volume. A

detailed discussion of this relationship

is found in the "Engineering Analysis

Document.·· 15D No.5.

4.2.3 Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards for Freezers.

Economic benefits and burdens resulting

from the proposed standards were

assessed from consumer. manufacturer

and national perspectives as described

in section 5" of this notice. Four

alternative levels of standards were

evaluated for each perspective. and

from this evaluation. the levels proposed

f~f~isri(lticewere selected. Impa.cts

J.'t:Sc'll1~ingfromthese levels are presented

herei.tt. .A more detailed presentation on

impacts resulting from the levels which

were not selected is provided in the

"Economic Analysis Document," TSD

No.4.

Consumers

For each class of freezers. the average

consumer willrealize a lower life cycle

cost (a decrease in the discounted total

cost of product ownership and use) for

higher efficiency regulated products as

compared with unregulated products.

The reduction in life cycle costs ranges

from $295 for manual defrost chest

freezers to $546 for manilal defrost

upright freezers, corresponding to a Z3

percent reduction and 21 percent "

reduction in life cycle costs,

respectively.

Consumer payback period, the period

of time elapsed before the higher

purchase price of more energy efficient

products is recouped ~ough reduced

energy costs. ranges from 0.19 years for

automatic defrost. upright freezers to

0.44 years for manual defrost, chest

freezers..

Manufacturers

Impacts on freezer manufacturers

resulting from standards at the proposed

level were estimated; These effects are

presented as the percentage" of firms

expected to be able to obtain sufficient

funds through profit or short-term debt.

during the 1981 through 1985 period. to

make the capital investment necessary

for January 1986 standards. Those fIrms

not able to successfully finance

compliance with standards by means of

funds from earnings or loans may be

able to use other methods such as sales

of stocks or bonds. transfer of funds

from other operating divisions, etc.

Therefore. firms having low

probabilities of success will not

necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level of standards.

freezer manufacturers estimated to be

able to obtain sufficient funds during the

1981 through 1985 period to make the

capital investment necessary for

January 1986 standards represent

approximately 75 percent of current

industry production. Included fn those

firms expected to be able to make the

required capital investment are 82

percent of large manufacturers. These

estimates were developed using analytic

techniques which examine the worst

case impacts by using conservative

assumptions about demand growth.

market share and fInancing. Details of

the analysis are provided in the

"Economic Analysis Document," TSD

No.4.

Nation

Burdens and benefits from the

national perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers and

manufacturers. In addition. the national

perspective addresses those impacts

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct national

impacts resulting from the proposed

standards are: estimated energy savings:

the discounted dollar value of those

lmergy•.savings: the aggregate

discounted consumer costs of more

energy efficient products: and the net

present value of the above costs and

benefits.

Proposed standards on all classes of

freezers combined are estimated to save

between 0.82 and 1.4 QBtu's during the

1982 through 2005 period.. valued

between $1.4 billion and $2.0 billion in

1978 dollars. The aggregate increased

cost of more energy efficient freezers

during that same 1982 through zoos

period is estimated to be between $0.4

billion and $0.6 billion in 1978 dollars.

Therefore. the national net present value

of the proposed regulation on freezers is

estimated at between $1.0 billion and

$1.4 billion. These-values are derived

from use of the Residential Energy Use

Forecasting Model described in section

5.3 of this notice and the "Economic

Analy.sis Document," 15D No.4.

4.3 Clothes Dryers

4.3.1 Summary. "Clothes dryers"

mean an electric clothes dryer or gas

clothes dryer. "Electric clothes dryer"

means a cabinet like product designed

to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum

with forced air circulation. The heat

source is electricity and the drum and

blower{s) are driven by an electric

motor(s). "Gas clothes dryer" means a

cabinet-like product designed to dry

fabrics in a tumble-type drum with

forced air circulation. The heat source is

gas and the drum and blower(s) are

driven by an electric motor(s).

The proposed energy efficiency levels

for clothes dryers are found in Table

4.3-1. Table 4.3-2 presents the alternate

efficiency levels selected for analysis for

1981 and 1986. The levels selected for

analysis for 1981 are derived from the

1978 shipment weighted energy factor

_(SWEFl-which is the summation of

number of units of a particular basic

model multiplied by the energy factor.

divided by the total number of

shipments within a class-from a

manufacturing cost estimating technique.

used to estimate materials. investment.

and engineering costs required to

market products of higher efficiencies in

the 1986 time frame. Leyel 3 in 1986

corresponds to the maximum level
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43991

Table #..3-,2-Altemate Efficiency Levels (Energy Factor. EF. tb/kwtl}

V = Qrum. Volume. expr_ lIT tr'.

NOle.-5<le rallOnele lor -.arl8tlle standaros in seelJOn 4.~.2.

,. EleC1nc. stanoarG $l%e_......_ 2.96 - O.048V ~.31 - 0.048V

Z. Electric; comoaC1 size. 120 2. 6~ 2. 85

lIolt

~. Electric. comoacl Size. 240 2.~5 2.54

VOlt 4. Gas __• •• 2.71 - O.048V 2.91 - O.048V

market place in any great quantity or

only in prototype stages at this time.

Table 4.3-1 Energy Efficiency Levels

for Clothes Dryers (Energy Factor. EF.

Ib/kWh).

These costs were t:s~d ,....ith the

corresponding effic:ency levels to

develop cost efficiencv curves which arE

shown in the "Engineering Analysis

Doctmlent." TSD No.5.

For clothes drvers. the maximum

technolOgically feasible energy

efficiency levels utilize the four design

options discussed in this section. The

maximum technologicallv feasible

energy efficiency le~els for 1986 for

clothes drvers are shown in Table 4.3-3

below. .

Table 4.3-3 Maximum

Technologicallv Feasible-Le\"els for

Clothes Dryers1Energy Factor. EF.

Ib/kWh).

JUly 15. 1981 January 1.

1986

Product Class

which is technologically feasible and

economically justified. A detailed

explana tion on the technological

feasibility and economic justifiability

can be found in the Engine~ring

Analvsis and Economic Analvsis

Documents. TSD No.4 and No.5.

respectively. Levels 1 and 2 correspond

to proportionately lower levels which

have fewer design improvements

required and correspond to lower first

cost and generally higher life cycle

costs. Level 4 corresponds to an

advanCed technology case which

incorporates design options not on the

"PreOuCI class

1. Electnc. standard Size _ ..

Level 1. 2 4

1981 2.90-0.0118V 2.96-0.048V ~.02 -O.048V 3.08-0.048V

1986 3.01-0.048V 3.11 - O.048V 3-.31-0.048V ._---_.._.__._...

1981 2:54 2.63 2.72 2.81

1966 ...................._.... 2.75 2.65 ------_.

PrOdUCt Ciass

1. Electnc. stanoard $l%e _ ..__• • ~.34-~.048V

2. EleClnC. comoact sIze. 120 Volts "."._."_.,, .3.01

~. Electric. comcact Size. 240 Volts .....__.... 2.72 4. Gas__•• . . •• •__ 3'.03-0-.046'1

v = D<um VOlUme. exoressed ... ft·

The rationale for selecting the

proposed·levels appears in sections 4.3.Z

and 4.3.3.

4.3.2 Engineering Analysis.

Methodology

Four design options were evaluated

for improving the efficiency of clothes

dryers. These were:

• Reduced drying temperatures:

• Automatic termination with

moisture sensing: • Automatic 'termination by

temperature sensing: and

• Insulation.

The efficiency improvements for these

design options were drawn from NBS

test data. The use of automatic

termination. either through temperature

or moisture sensing. is covered in the

proposed test procedure amendments

discussed in this section. and the

associated credits for these options

were used in estimating the efficiency

improvements. The use of improved

insulation. coupled with reduced. drying

temperatures. was estimated to give a

total of 7% improvement in efficiency.

The manufacturing cost analysis

assumed one large manufacturer with

seven production lines and six small

manufacturers with two production lines

each. The large manufacturer was .

assumed to have lines specifically

dedicated to electric or gas clothes

drvers. while small manufacturers were

assumed to share a single line for both

3. Electnc. co"'llllCl. siza. 240 ...01111 ·

4. Gas ..

V= Drum vtJIUmQ. expressed fa It'.

1961 z.3II %.3S 2'.36 2::l7

1966 2.54

~81 2.62'-0'.01t1'lV Z71-0.048V 2.BO-O.O'41lV 2;B9'-0:04lW 1986 _. _ • 2,91 •.__._.•._

types. Compact clothes dryers are

assumed to be built on a separate line.

The use of sensors to automatically

terminate cycles was cost.ed assuming

new tooling to manufacture a bracket

for mountiag the sensors. purchasing of

the sensors. and additional labor to

install the sensors. Reduced drying

temperat\U'es impact the product's utility

by increasing the drying tim:es- but

should not inaease manufacturing cost.

Insu.l:ation added to the dryer requires

major investment in capital equipment

and tooling. The analysis assumed four

welding fixtures per production line to

weld studs onto the interior of the

cabinet for holding the insulation; and

additional station for finishing the

welded pieces: an additional station for

additing insulati-on; and th~ necessary

chains and belts to carry the parts from

OIre station to the other. In addition. an

allowance was made for additional area

required by added production facilities.

This estimate assumed that the

additional spaoe could be found within

the existing plant."

The costs of additional labor were

also added to allow for the welding.

painting and insulation installation. The

investment costs were amortized as

appropriate for the type of investment

and combined with. the per unit cost

estimates for added materials. labor and

purchases parts to estimate the final

added costs for each efficiency level.

Test Procedrrres

The t-est oroceduxes for clothes drvers

found at 10'CFR Part 430. Subpart B:

provide a standardized method to

calculate the- efficiency (energy factor.

EF) of clothes dryers by measuring the

.energy consumption per cycle. Energy

factors· have dimensions of pounds of

clothes per kilowatt-hour (lb/kWh} i3-

pound load for compad. dryers and 1-

pound load f£Y: standard dryers) and are

useful indicators of clothes dryer

effidency since they account for the

differences in energy consumption

bet~ clothes dryers of different

capacities and designs.

Several comments specifically

addressing the clothes dryer test

prooedures were received in response to

the advance notice. These comments

relate to the follOWing areas: (1) energy

consumpticm associated with automatic

termination of the drying cycle. (2) test

voltage for electric dryers which can

operate a t any of several voltages. arni

(3) variability of test results. Based upon

. NBS analysis of the above comments.

DOE determined that the ·test

procedures for clothes dryers should be

amended. Proposed amendments to the

clothes dryer tes,t procedure address the

above comments. The proposed energy

efficiency levels for clothes dryers. in

today's notice. are based upon the

proposed amendment to the clothes

dryer test procedures. The proposed

amendments provide for measuring

different energy consumptions for .

different types of terminabon controls

by means of different field use factors in

the equations for energy consumption

per cycle. The energy saving potential

for automatic termination is measurable
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43992 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

using the proposed test procedures. For

clothes dryers which can operate at any

of several voltages. the amendments

propose that testing be required at the

highest rated voltage. To reduce test

variability. the clothes dryer proposed

amendment contains recommendations

related to test clothes. i.e.•

preconditioning of new test cloths. test

cloth specifications. and moisture

content of the test cloth at the start of

the test.

Inidividual Product,Class Analysis

FQur classes of clothes dryers are

specified in section 4.3.1 of thi.s notice.

These classes are distinguished by the

type of ene~ consumed and the size of

the unit. Clothes dryers are segregated

based on the type of fuel used (gas or

electric). Electric clothes dryers are

further divided into standard size

("reater than 4.4 f13 drum capacity) and c~mpact size (less than 4.4 ftJ drum

capacity) clothes dryers because the test

conditions are different for compact and

standard dryers. thus resulting in

appreciable differences in the energy

factor. which is based on pounds of

clothes dried per kilowatt hour of

electricity used. Compact dryers are

further divided into two classes

according to operating voltage (120V

and 24OV) in order to preserve the

product's utility (faster drying time of

the less efficient 240 volt unit) which

constrains the technical design that can

be implemented. For the reasons stated

above. DOE proposes that the classes

fol" clothes dryers shall be gas; electric

compact. 120V~ and electric compact.

240V; and electric standard size.

Three comments indicated a need to

set energy efficiency standards for

clothes dryers which vary with dryer

drum capacity. because under the DOE

test procedures. clothes dryer efficiency

decreases in direct proportion to the

increase in dryer drum capacity.

DOE is aware that the efficiency of

standard size clothes dryers decreases

with increasing volume. due to two

facts: one. as capacity increases. there is

an increase in the mass of the dryer

drum relative to the mass of clothes: and

two, due to air flow paths which tend to

-bypass small clothes loads in larger

drums. DOE has accounted for this·

relationship by proposing energy

efficiency standards which decrease

linearly with volume. This concept

assures that larger units will not be

penalized and all units must achieve

proportionally the same increased

efficiency improvement. Because of the

uniformity of the size of the drum of

dUTerent basic models. it is not

necessary to similarly correct for

volume dependence for compact dryers.

Additional explanation of the

determination of these relationships is

provided in the "Engineering Analysis

Document." TSD No.5.

·*-3.3 Economic Impacts of the

Prooosed Standards for Clothes Drvers.

Eco'nomic benefits and burdens res~lting

from the proposed standards were

assessed from consumer. manufacturer

and national perspectives as described

in section 5 of this notice. Four

alternative levels of standards were

evaluated for each perspective. and

from this evaluation. the levels proposed

in this notice were selected. Impacts

resulting from these levels are presented

herein. A more detailed presentation on

impacts resulting from the levels which

were not selected is provided in the

"Economic Analysis Document.'. TSD

No.4.

Consumers

For each class of clothes dryers. the

average consumer will realize a lower

life cycle cost (a decrease in the

discounted total cost of product

ownership and use) for higher efficiency

regulated products as compared with

unregulated products. The reduction if!

life cycle costs ranges from $6 for gas

clothes dryers to $47 for electric.

standard size- clothes dryers.

corresponding to a 2 percent and 6

percent reduction in life cycle costs.

respectively.

Consumer payback period. the period

of time elapsed before the higher

purchase price of more energy-efficient

products is recouped through reduced

energy costs. ranges from 2.8 years for

electric, standard size, to 5.5 years for

electric. compact size. 120 volt.

JYJanufacturers

Impacts on clothes on clothes dryer

manufacturers resulting from standards

at the proposed level were estimated.

These effects are presented as the

percentage of firms expected to be able

to obtain sufficient funds through profit

or s,hort-term debt. during the 1981

through 1985 period. to make the capital

investment necessary for January 1986

standards. Those firms not able to

successfully finance compliance with

standards by means of funds from

earnings or loans may be able to use

other methods such as sales of stocks or

bonds. transfer of funds from other

operating divisions.. etc. Therefore firms

haVing low probabilities of success will

not necessarily fail to meet the

standards.

At the proposed'ievel of standards.

clothes dryer manufacturers estimated

to be able'to obtain sufficient funds

during the 1981 through 1985 period to

make the capital investment necessary

for January 1986 standards respresent

approximately 99 percent of current

industrv oroduction. Included in those

firms e~oected to be able to make the

required' capital investmeni are 99

percent of large manufacturers. 99

percent of medium-sized manufacturers.

and 91 percent of small manufacturers.

These estimates were developed using

analytic techniques which examine the

worst case impact by using conservative

assumptions about demand growth.

market share and financing. Details of

the analysis are provided in the

"Economic Analysis Document!" TSD

No.4.

Nation

Burdens and benefits from the

national perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers an,d

manufacturers. In addition. the national

perspective addresses those impacts

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct national

impacts resulting from the proposed

sta'ndards are: estimated energy savings:

the discounted dollar value of those

energy savings: the aggregate

discounted consumer·costs of more

energy efficient products: and the net

present value of the above costs and

benefits.

Proposed standards on all classes of

clothes dryers combined are estimated

to save between 0.32 QBtu's and 0.59

Q8tu's during the 1982 through 2005

period. valued between $0.5 billion and

$0.7 billion in 1978 dollars. The

aggregate increased cost of more energy

efficient clothes dryers during that same

1982 through 2005 period is between 80.2

billion and 50.3 billion in 1978 dollars.

Therefore. the national net present value

of the proposed regulation on clothes

dryers is estimated at between 80.3

billion and 50.4 billion in 1978 dollars.

These values are derived from use of the

Residential Energy Use Forecasting

Model described in section 5.3 of this

notice and the "Economic Analysis

Document." TSD No.4.

-I.-J Water Heaters

4.4.1 Summarv, "Water heater"

means an autom~tically controlled

thermally insulated vessel designed for

heating water'and storing heated water.

which utilizes either oil. gas. or

electricity as the fuel or energy source

for heating the water. which is designed
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43993

Table 4.4-2.-Allernale Efficiency Levels (Energy Faclor. EFl

1981 0.B2B-O.0013V 0.B60-0.0013V O.892-0.0013V . O.923-0.0013V

1986 O.946-0.0013V O.9B6-0.0013V O.996-0.0013V _ .

1981 O.S08-0.001BV 0.546-0.001av 0.S804-0.0016V 0.621 -O.OO1BV

1986 O.633-0.00062SV Q.643-0.00062SV 0.653-0.000825V .

NA _ _ _ __ .

NA '" __ .

v = Storag~ VOlume. expressed In gallons.

Note-See ratlonate for vanable standarcjS In section 4.4.2.

information from manufacturers on

insulation used. and various water

heater configurations on which

operational data was available. The

efficiency improvements from the use of

heat traps were based on the DOE test

procedure values. Vent damper and lID

credits were estimated by engineering

analysis based on laboratory test data.

The manufacturing cost analysis

assumed that large manufacturers had

three major prod~ction lines plus one

specialty line. and small manufacturers

had a major production line plus one

specialty line. It was assumed that both

gas and electric units could be

manufactured on the same line. Major changes in implementing design

options dealt primarily with the change

in amount of insulation used. To

increase fiberglass insulation thickness.

costs included changes tq existing

tooling to manufacture new size

insulation jackets. increased material

costs for added jacket area and

additional irisulation. and increased

assembly line time due to handling

thicker and denser insulations. It was

assumed that existingpresses would be

able to handle the larger jacket pieces.

A major capital equipmemt investment

is required for foamed insulation. For

costing purposes it was assumed that a

manufacturer would elect to foam all

manufactured water heaters of one class

after making the initial decision to go to

foam. The cost of this equipment was

amortized over the production volumes

of the product class being analyzed.

To improve the efficiency of gas-fired

water heaters by reducing burner input

and increasing flue baffling. it was

assumed that tooling for manufacturing

only the modified flue baffle was

required.

In order to implement a design option

employing an intermittent ignition

device and a vent damper it was

assumed that a manufacturer would

purchase both parts and would make an

investment in tooling for making a

bracket to mount the IlD. In addition.

added labor costs for the installation of

the two items were included in the costs.

The design option employing a heat trap

assumed that the heat trap would be

purchased and additional labor would

be required for installing it. These

manufacturing costs were used with the

efficiency levels estimated as described

above to generate cost efficiency

relationships for water heaters. These

cost efficiency relationships and their

deriva tion are described in detail in the

"Engineering Analysis Document." TSD

No.5.

The' maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency levels for 1986 for

water heaters are shown in Table 4.4-3

4

0.996-

0.0013V

0.653-

0.00062SV

No Slanoaro.

July 15.1981 January '.

1986

3

PrOduCI Class

,. EleC1I1c 0.880-

0.OOt3V

2. Gas.:~ _._._...... 0.5.46-

0.OO18V

3 Oil........................................... No Sfandard.

justified to set standards for oil water

heaters.

4.4.2 Engineering Analysis.

,\,fethodology

In performing the efficiency

improvement analysis. the available

technology options for improving the

efficiencies of water heaters are:

• Improved insulation:

." Increased flue baffling with reduced

burner input: " Vent dampers and intermittent

ignition devices (lIDs); and

• Heat traps.

In the analysis of electric water

heaters various efficiency levels were

projected by using improved insulation

either in the form of higher density and

thicker fiberglass insulation or the use of

fo.amed polyurethan insulation. The

analysis was carried out using a 52

gallon upright unit as a baseline. The

highest energy factor achieved with

available technology incorporated foam

insulation and heat traps.

For the analysis of gas-fired water

heaters. it was assumed that increased

flue baffling for improved heat transfer

plus reduced burner input would be

implemented at all efficiency levels.

This was accompanied by varying levels

of improved insulation as described

above for electric water heaters. The

highest efffiency level evaluated

employed a vent damper. lID. and

advanced fiberglass insulation.

Estimates of the energy factors which

could be achieved using various

combinations of these design options

were made using data from computer

simuJations plus laboratory

measurements. These were

complemented by engineering analysis

based on published energy factors for

various models of water heaters

obtained from the California list of

approved water heaters. advertisements

for water heaters disclosing insulation

thickness and energy factors.

Level

v:Storage Volume. expreased on gallons.

NA=Not available.

2 Gas .

1. Eleclnc ..._ •.•• .

The levels selected for analysis for 1981

are derived from the 1978 shipment

weighted energy factor (SWEF)-which

is the summation of number of units of a

particular basic model multiplied by the

energy factor. divided by the total

number of shipments within a class-for

each class of water heaters. Level 2 in

1981 corresponds to the SWEF in 1978.

Levell is one standard devia tion below ..

the S\'VEF. while Level 3 and Level 4 are

1 and 2 standard deviations above the

SWEF. re·spectively. The levels selected

for analysis for 1986 are derived from a

manufacturing cost· estimaling technique

used to estimate materials. investment

and engineering costs required to

market products of higher efficiE!Dcies in

the 1986 time frame. Level 3 in 1986

corresponds to the maximum level

which is technologically feasible and

economically justified. A detailed

explanation of the technological

feasibility and economic justifiability

can be found in the Engineering

Analysis and Economic Analysis

Documents. TSD No.4 and No.5.

respectively. Levels 1 and 2 correspond

to proportionally lower levels which

have fewer design improvements

required and correspond to lower first

cost and generally higher life cycle

costs. Level 4 corresponds tolin

advanced technology case which

incorporates design options not on the

market place in any great quantity or

only in prototype stages at this time.

The rationale for selecting the

proposed levels appears in sections 4.4.2

and 4.4.3.

No standards are proposed today for

the class of oil water heaters. This is

based largely on the small number of oil

water heaters being produced today by

generally small manufacturers and

because many older oil water heaters

are being replaced by other classes of

water heaters: consequently. it was

df'termined not to be economically

to produce hot water at a temperature of

less than 180·F.

The proposed energy efficiency levels

for water heaters are found in Table

4.4-1. Table 4.4-2 presents the alternate

efficiencv levels selected for analvsis for

1981,and"1986. •

Table 4.4-1 Energy Efficiency Levels

for Water Heaters (Energy Factor. EF).

.. 3 Oil
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43994 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127i :Y[onday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

v Storage Volu..... ..pressed in gallOns.

1. Eleclric _ _ .•__. 0.979-5.56

Xl0-'V

2. Gas _ 0.885';'6.5

x 10-'V

3. Oil" •.._••, ,.................................................. NIA

below. To achieve the maximum

technologically feasible efficiency level

for a gas-fired water heater.

manufacturers must convert their

product lines to use foam insulation and

to go to a condensing design.

Table 4.4-3 ~laximum

Technologically Feasible Energy

Efficiency Level for Water Heaters

(Energy Factor. EF).

Condensing may be achieved either by

use of a low thermal mass side-arm .

hea ter. which will also reduce standby

losses. or by use of a power vent or

power burner with condensing and

existing center flue designs. For electric

water heaters. the maximum

technologically feasible level covered by

the existing test procedures would be

achieved by foam insulation plus heat

traps. RecentlY'a heat pump water

heater has been introduced in the

market. However. the existing DOE test

pro.cedures do not evaluate the

performance of this product. Because the

performance of a heat pump water

heater is different than that of a

standard electric water heater. a new

class would be established when

amendments to the test procedure are

promulgated. For these reasons.

maximum technologically feasible. for

electric water heaters does not reflect

the incorporation of the heat pump

water heater. In addition. for both the

gas and the alternative electric water

heater configurations. the suitability of

the maximum technologically feasible

unit for use in the retrofit market is

questionable and a requirement that all

units be manufactured to this level

would have severe consumer utility

impacts in that replacements would not

be able to be easily adaptable to

existing size constraints within the

building.

Test Procedures

The test procedures for water heaters

found at 10 CFR Part 430. Subpart B. are'

used to measure key operating

characteristics which include:

(1) Recovery efficiency. the ratio of

.the heat transferred to the water to (a)

the energy input to the heating elements

(for electric water heaters); or (b) the

heat content of the fuel consumed by the

burners (for gas or oil water heaters);

Different classes of water heaters

have not been established for models

with different storage volumes. DOE is

aware that the energy factor of a

particular product tends to decrease

with increasing storage volume. DOE

has accounted for this relationship ,by

proposing energy efficiency standards

which decrease linearly with an

increase of storage volume. Additional

explanations of the determination of

these curves and classes are provided in

the "Engineering Analysis Document."

TSD No.5.

Three comments expressed concern

that the classes of water heaters

identified in the advance notice would

eliminate off-peak-type water heaters.

Other comments urged the consideration

of water heater capacity and design in

establishing product classes. With the

establishment of efficiency standards by

volume. DOE has addressed these

comments in today's proposed rule.

4.4.3 Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards for Water Heaters.

Economic benefits and burdens resulting

from the proposed standards were

assessed from consumer, manufacturer

and national perspectives as- described

in section 5 of this notice. Four

alternative levels of standards were

evaluated for each perspective. and

from this evaluation. the levels proposed

in this notice were selected. Impacts

resulting from these levels are presented

herein. A more detailed presentation on

impacts resulting from the levels which

were not selected is provided in the

"Economic Analysis Document," TSD

No.4.

Consumers

For each class of water heaters. the

average consumer will realize a lower

life cycle cost (a decrease in the

discounted total cost of product

ownership and use) for higher efficiency

regulated prod1.lct5 as compared with

unregulated preducts. The reduction b

life cycle costs rar.ges from $130 for gas

water heaters to $170 for electric water

heaters. corresponding to a 15 percent

and 8 percent reduction in life cycle

costs. respectively.

Consumer payback period. the period

of time elapsed before the higher

purchase price of more energy-efficient

products is recouped through reduced

energy costs. ranges from 0.73 years for

electric water heaters to 1.1 years for

gas w.ater heaters.

A1anufacturers

Impacts on water heater

manufacturers resulting from standards

at the proposed level were estimated.

These effects are presented as the

percentage of firms expected to be able

(2") Standby loss. the ratio of the heat

loss per hour to the heat content of the

stored water above room temperature:

(3) Average daIly energy consumption:

(4) First hour rating. the maximum

volume of hot water which can be

delivered at a 90' F temperature rise in a

1-hour period: and

(5) Daily hot water energy

consumption.

By using the test procedures. the energy

factor as a management of efficiency for

a water heater can be derived. The

energy factor for a water heat is the

quotient of the energy content in· the

average daily hot watei' usage divided

by the average daily energy input to the

water heaters. Therefore. DOE proposes

to use. the energy factor as the basis for

energy efficiency standards for water

heaters.

One electric utility stated that for offpeak rate structures to be successful.

homeowners need 80- to 15D-gallon

water heaters. which may be eliminated

by the existing test procedures unless

they ar.e changed or the energy standard

for water heaters varies. with capacity.

Three comments expressed concern that

the DOE test procedures for water

heaters penalize the larger storage-type

water heaters. The comments suggested

that there is a possibility that storagetype water heaters will be driven from

the market place. thereby depriving

consumers of the opportunity to take

advantage of time-of-day electric rates.

One comment urged DOE to develop a

measure of efficiency which includes

first hour supply rating. DOE is

proposing energy efficiency levels that

vary with capacity in order not to

discriminate against larger storage

water heaters; The flrst hour supply

rating test procedures for water heaters

have been amended in the final test

procedures for water heaters prescribed

on September 7. 1979 (44 FR 52632).

A manufacturer and an electric utility

company claim that first-hour supply

rating for water heaters is meaningless

to the concept of energy consl?rvation

and should not be part of the standard.

Today's proposed standard for water

heaters does not use first-hour supply

rating to measure efficiency.

Individual Product Class A.nalysis

Three classes of water heaters are

specified in section 4.4.1 of this notice.'

These classes are distinguished by the

type of energy consumed. Le" gas.

electric or oil. Efficiencies of water

hea ters vary widely depending on fuel

type and storage volume. Without

distinct classes by fuel type. certain

products using a specific fuel type could

be eliminated from the market place.

Product class Level
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43995

Table 4.5-2.-Altemative Efficiency Levels (Energy EffiCiency Ratio. EER. Stu/WarMr)

Product Class , Level ·2 3 ..

I. Wi\ll OUlooor SIde louvers: capllCity 01 6.000 1981 5.4 6.3 7.1 7.9

Btu/ tv or leSS. 1986 7.5 8." 9.1 .......................... 2. Willl outdoor side louvers: capaCIty greater 1981 6.0 7.2 83- 9.5

than 6.000 Btu/hr but less tnan 20.000 iltu/nr. 1986 8.6 9.1 9.5 .......................... 3 Wllh outdOor side louvers; capaCIty 01 20.000 1981 6.1 6.6 7.2 7.i Btu/IV or greater. 1986 7.5 8.0 8." ....._................... 4. Without outdoor SIde louvers: or reverse CYCle... 1981 5.4 6.5 7.6 8.6

1986 8.6 9.1 9.5 ..........................

to obtain sufficient funds through profit

or short-term debt. dl.lring the 1981

through 1985 period. to make the capital

investment necessary forJanuary 1986

standards. Those firmS not able to

successfully finance compliance with

standards by means of funds from

earnings or loans maybe able to use

other methods such as sales ofstocks or

bonds. transfer of funds from other'

operating divisions. etc. Therefore. firms

having low probabilities of success will

not necessarily fail to meet the

standards."

At the proposed level of standards. '

water heater manufacturers estimated to.

be.~1:lI~~(121:l.t~i!1.~llmc:i~!1t ..fllIl~~. dUl."ing the 1981 through 1985 period to make the

capital inv~stment necessary for

January 1986 standards represent

approximately 80 percent of current

industry p·roduction. Included in those

firms expected to be able to make the

required capital investment are 85

percent of large manufacturers. These

estimates were developed using analytic

techniques which examine the worst

case impacts by using conservative

assumptions about demand growth.

market share and financing. Details of

the analysis are proVided in the

"Economic Analysis Document." TSD

No.4.

Nation

Burdens and benefits from the

na tional perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers and .

manufacturers. In addition. the national

perspective addresses those impacts.

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct-national

impacts resulting from the proposed

standards are: estimated energy savings:

the discounted dollar value of those

energy savings: the aggregate

discounted consumer costs of more

energy efficient products: and the net

present value of the above costs and

benefits.

Proposed standards on all classes of

water heaters combined are estimated

to save between 3.87 QBtu's and 5.91 .QBtu's during the 1982 through 2005

period. valued between $5.9 billion and

S6.6 billion in 1978 dollars. The

aggregate increased cost of more energy

efficient water heaters during that same

1982 through 2005 period is between $0.5

biilion and 50.6 billion in 1978 dollars.

Therefore. the natonal net present value . of the proposed regulation on water

heaters is estimated at between $5.4

billion and $6.0 billion in 1978 dollars.

These values are derived from use of the

Residential Energy Use Forecasting

Model described in section 5.3 of this

notice and the "Economic 'Analysis

Document." TSD No.4.

4.5 Room Air Conditioners

4.5.1 Summary. "Room air

conditioner" means a consumer product

which is powered by a single phase

electric current. which is an encased

assembly designed as a unit for

mounting in a window or through the

wall for the purpose of providing

delivery of conditioned air to an

enclosed space. which is not a

"packaged terminal'air conditioner." It

includes a prime soUrce of refri~ration

and may include a means for ventilating

and heating.

"Packaged terminal air conditioner"

means a wall sleeve and a separate

unencasedbuilder speciffed

combination of heating and cooling

assemblies intended for mounting

through the wall. It includes a prime

source of refrigeration. separable

outdoor louvers. forced ventilation. and

heating availability by builders choice

of hot water. steam or electricity.

The proposed energy efficiency levels

for room air conditioners are found in

Table 4.5-1. Table 4.5-2 presents the

alternate efftCiency levels sele!=ted for

analysis for 1981 and 1986. The levels

selected for analysis for 1981 are

derived from the 1978 shipment

weighted energy factor (SWEF)-which

is the summation ofnumber of uriits' of a

A detailed explanation on the

technological feasibility and economic

justifiability can be found in the

Engineering Analysis and Economic

Anab'sis Documents. TSD No.4 and No. 5. respectively. Levels 1 and 2 .

correspond to proportionally lower

levels which have fewer design

improvements required and correspond

to lower first cost and generally higher

life cycle costs. Level. 4 corresponds to

an advance technology case which

incorporates design options not on the

market place in any great quantity or

only in prototype stages at this time.

The rationale for selecting the

proposed levels appears in sections 4.5.2

and 4.5.3.

particular basic model multiplied by-the

energy factor. divided by the total

number of shipments within B class-for

each class of room air conditioners.

Level 2 in 1981 corresponds to the S\VEF

in 1978. Levell is one standard

de,,;ation below the SWEF. while Level

3 and Level 4 are 1 and 2 standard

deviations above the SWEF. .

respectively. The levels selected for

analysis for 1986 are derived from a

manufacturing cost estimating' technique

used to estimate materials. investment

and engineering costs required to .

market products ofhigher efficiencies in

the 1986 time frame. Level 3 in 1986

corresponds to the maximum level

which is technologically feasible and

economically justified.

Table 4.5-1 Energy Efficiencj' Levels

for Room Air Conditioners (Energy

Efficiency Ratio. EER. Btu/Watt-hrl.

P'oduct Class July 15. 1981 January I.

1986

1. WI\Il outdoor Side lOuve's: 6.5 8."

capacity 01 6000 Btu/IV or

less.

2. W.\Il OUldoor SIde louvel'S: 7.5 9.5

capacity greale' tnan 6000

Btu/IV but leSS man 20.poo

·Blu/hr.

3. w.1Il OUldoor SIde 1ouv1ll'S. 6.7 84

capaCity of 20.000 Btu/IV

or greate,.

4. Willlout outdoor Side 6.7 9.0

louvel'S or 'everse cycle.

-

4.5.2 Engineering Analysis.

Methodology

The. room air conditioner engineering

efficiency analysis utilized a component

computer model which explicitly treats

all major system elements. A detailed

discussion of the computer model is

contained in the "Engineering Analysis

Document.': TSD No.5. Energy sa\'ing$

were identified through the use of:

increased heat exchanger surface area.

improved fan motor efficiency, and

improved compressor efficiency.

Condenser surface area was increased

to the limit of standard \'\'indow

dimensions. Evapora tor surface area

was· increased to a maximum to provide
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43996 Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 127 I .\1onday, rune 3D, 1980 I Proposed Rules

either by configuration. design or

capacity of the unit. Room air

conditioners are segregated according

to: (1) configuration. whether or not they

have outdoor side louvers: (:) design.

whether or not they are reverse r.yc!e:

and (3) capacity.

DOE considered further se~rega tlOg

room air conditioners on the baSIS of

voltage: however, as discussed in the

"Engineering Analysis Document." TSD

No.5. DOE has determined that, while

voltage is a feature that provides utility,

it does not affect efficiency. DOE also

con~dered segregation of room air

conditioners based upon portability.

However, research done by NBS

indicates that the weight of

approximately 34 pounds is the Hmit for

portability and the maximum size is a

cube with dimensions of 15 inches on

each side. Based upon these cnteria.

DOE is not aware of any portable air

conditioners on the market. Thus. DOE

has not established a class for portable

room air conditioners.

Room air conditioners with outdoor

side louvers were segregated because

the outdoor side louvers increase air

flow over the condenser coils and

reduce recirculation of cooled air;

therefore. higher efficiency levels are

possible on units as compared to 'those

without outdoor side louvers. The units

were further'segregated according to

capacity..which affects efficiency.

Improvements in efficiency for units

larger than 2.0.000 Btulhr are limited due

to restraints on cabinet size (maximum

window opening) which impacts product

design. Improvements in efficiency for

units 6.000 Btu/hr or less are limited

because of the relatively greater costs

associated with incremental .

improvements in efficiency for products

of this size. This is discussed in detail in

the "Engineering Analysis Document."

TSD No.5. Units which are greater than

6.000 Btu/hr and less than 20.000 Btu/hr

have the potential for the greatest

improvements in efficiency at the least

cost .

Without outdoor side louvers room air

conditioners and reverse cycle room air

conditioners are separate categorie!'l

because of features which affect

efficiency. Room air conditioners

without outdoor side louvers offer the

consumer the option of mounting the

unit flush with the outside wall.

However. this configuration decreases

product efficiency because the flow of

air over the condenser coil is reduced

and cooled air is recirculated. further

decreasing the efficiency of the unit.

Reverse cycle room air conditioners

offer the utility of being able to provide

air heating by reversingrefrigerant flow.

12.1

9.8

11.0

10.8

1. WiIh ouldoot· side lolMn: capacity 01 eooo Stu/hr 0/' Iess ._._._._..__...._.__

2. Willi outdo« side capacity greater than

6000 Btu/hr but no more than 20.000 Slu/ht._._.•_·

3. Willi outdoat side Iotivens; C<IllaCity graarer than 20.000 Btulhr _. . ••_.__._ _

4. Without outdoOt side iOIM!rS 0/' rENerse cycle _•••

One comment suggested that.

ASHRAE Standard 37-89. "Methods of

Te~ting for Rating Unitary Air

Conditioning and Heat Pump

Equipment." be included in the DOE test

procedure for room air conditioners as

an alternate test procedure for PTAC·s.

By rule. DOE is proposing to exclude

PTAG's from the consumer products'

efficiency program and therefore no

alternate test procedure is necessary.

Individual Product Class Analysis

Seven comments suggested rhat the

classes of room air conditioners

identified in the advance notice be

further classified on the basis of

capacity because improvements in

. efficiency are limited by cabinet

dimensions and component

configurations. Also, some comments

requested that portable room air

conditioners be considered a separate

class' and the voltage is a feature which

has utility and an impact on

performance.

Four classes of room air conditioners

are specified in section 4.5.1 of this

notice. These classes are distinguished

Test Procedures

The test procedures for room air

conditioners found at 10 CFR Part 430,

Subpart B. provide a standard method

for testing to determine the energy

efficiency ratio (EER) of room air

conditioners by measuring the cooling

capacity and electrical enew consumed

by a room air conditioner at standard

operating conditions. DOE has received

comments regarding the inability of the

approximately 54°F evaporating present test procedures to measure the

temoerature under standard test effect on performance of design options

conditions. Evaporating temperatures which affect the unit as the compressor

above that level are judged to result in cycles on and off (automatic fan). The

unacceptable dehumidification. Cabinet National Bureau of Standards is

sizes to accommodate the increased evaluating the automatic fan mode of

heat exchanger frontal area were operation of room air conditioners to

assumed to be limited to the present five determine its contribution to cyclic

different cabinets plus an additional performance. Amendments to the test

larger cabinet to permit increased procedure will be proposed if it is

efficiency in the largest class of room air determined that the automatic fan mode

conditions. Because of increases in heat of ooeration contributes to increasing

exchanger surface area. the compressor the efficiency of room air conditions.

capacity was reduced to maintain the Also, DOE has proposed amending the

rated unit capacity. When standard general provisions or the Department's

compressor increments would meet the energy conservation program for

. design criteria. they were incorporated: consumer products (45 FR 2632.), January

otherwise. tht:! stroke of the existing 11. 1980..to clarify room air conditioner

compressor ~vas reduced to achieve the test procedures as applied to package

required rating. Whenever shaded pole terminal· air conditioners (PTAC's). Any

fan motors were used on the baseline air conditioning product which a

units. higher efficiency permanent split manufacturer identifies as a PTAC but

capacitor motors were substituted. Fan which does not fall within DOE's

diameter and blade pitch were adjusted definition is nevertheless covered by

to achieve near optimal air volume for energy efficiency standards and isthe increased heat exchanger surface included in without outdoor side louvers

areas as described above. room air conditions or reverse cycle

The manufacturing facility was room air conditioners.

assumed to consist of five assembly Table 4.5-3. Maximum

lines capable of manufacturing five .. Technologically Feasible Levels for

chassis with a variety of cabinet heights.. Room Air Conditioners (Energy

Increased investment. due to the Efficiency Ratio. EER. Btu/Walt-hr).

ildditibn of a larger cabinet, was Product=- I.eveI

included along with tooling changes for

any fan or compressor change requiring

new mounting brackets. Increased costs

for fan motors and fan blades to

maintain near optimum air volume as

well as reduced costs for the compressor

were estimated.

As the that transfer surface areas are

increased to dimensional and

performance constrained limits. the

remaining gains in efficiency are left to

the compressor and fan systems. To

determine maximum technologically

feasible efficiency levels. a compressor

with an energy efficiency ratio of 11 was

used (the highest compressor efficiency

available in January 1980 was just under

10). Permanent split capacitor fans with

improved air induction and exhaust

systems to reduce fan systems losses

were also employed. The maximum

technologically feasible eqergy

efficiency levels for 1986 are shown in

Table 4.5-3.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 12i / \t1onday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43997

The efficiency of a reverse cycle room

air conditioner is decreased because of

losses in efficiencv associated with the

reversing valve. While these units have

different utility. thev have been included

in the same clasl:i because improvements

in efficiency for the two are

approximately equal.

4.5.3 .Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards for Room Air

Conditioners. Economic benefits and

burdens resulting from the proposed

standards were assessed from

consumer. manufacturer,and nationalperspectives as described in section 5 of

this notice. Four alternative levels of

standards.were.evaluated for each

perspective. From this evaluation. the

levels proposed in this notice were

selected. Impacts resulting from these

levels are presented herein. A more

detailed presentation on impacts

resulting from the leve1s which were not

selected is provided in the "Economic

Analysis Document." T~D No.4.

•Consumers

For each class of room air

conditioners. the average consumer will

realize a lower life cycle cost (a

decrease in the discounted total cost of

product ownership and use) for higher

efficiency regulated products as

compared with unregulated products.

The reduction in life cycle costs·ranges

fj;om $33 for room air conditioners with'

outdoor side louvers: capacity greater'

than 6000 Btu/hr but no more than

20.000 Btu/hr. to $112 for room air

conditioners with outdoor.side louvers:

capacity greater than 20.000 Btu/hr.

corresponding to a 5 percent reduction

and 6.8 percent reduction in life cycle

costs. respectively. • Consumer payback period. the period

of time elapsed before the higher

purchase price of more energy efficient

products is recouped through reduced

energy costs. ranges from 1.5 years for

those with outdoor side louvers.

capacity less than 6000 Btu/hr to 4.6

.years for those with outdoor side

louvers. capacity, greater than 6000 Btu/

hr but less than 20.000 Btu/hr.

Manufacturers

Impacts on room air conditioner

manufacturers resulting from standards

at the proposed level were estimated.

These effects are presented as the

percentage of firms expected to be able

to obtain sufficient funds through profit

or short-term debt. during the 1981

through 1985 period. to make the capital

investment necessary for January 1986

standards. Those firms not able to

successfully finance compliance with

standards by means of funds from

earnings or loans may be able to use

other methods such as sales of stocks or

bonds. transfer of funds from other

operating divisions. etc. Therefore. firms

having low probabilities of success will

not necessarily fail to meet the

standards.

At the proposed level of standards.

room air conditioner manufacturers

estimated to be able to obtain sufficient

funds during the 1981 through 1985

period to make the capital investment

necessary for January 1986 standards

represent approximately 93 percent of

current industry production. Included in

those firms expected to be able to make

the required capital investment are 96

percent of large manufacturers and 72

percent of medium-sized manufacturers.

These estimates were developed using

analytic techniques which examine the

worst case impacts by using

conservative assumptions about

demand growth. market share and

financing. Details of the analysis are

provided in the "Economic Analysis

Document." TSD No.4.

Nation

Burdens and benefits from the

national perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers and

manufacturers. In addition. the national

perspective addresses those impacts

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct national

impacts resulting from the proposed

standards are: estimated energy savings;

the discounted dollar value of those

energy savings; the aggregate

discounted consumer costs of more

energy efficient products; and the net

present value of the above costs and

benefits.

-Proposed standards on all classes of

room air conditioners combined are

estimated to save between 0.22 QBtu's

and 0.56 QBtu's during the 1982 through

200S'period. valued between $0.4 billion

and $0.7 billion in 1978 dollars. The

aggregate increased cost of more energy

efficient room air conditioners during

that same 1982 through 2005 period is

between $0.2 billion and $0.3 billion in

1978 dollars. The national net presenf

value of the proposed regulation on

room air conditioners is estimated at

between $0.2 billion and $0.4 billion in

1978 dollars, These values are derived

from use of the Residential Energy Use

Forecasting Model described in section

5.3 of this notice and the "Economic

Analysis Document." TSD No.4.

4.6 Home Heating Equipment Not

Including Furnaces

4.6.1 Summary. "Home heating

equipment. not including furnaces"

means vented home heating equipment

and unvented home heating equipment.

"Unvented home heating equipment"

means a class of home heating

equipment not including furnaces used

for'the purpose of furnishing heat to a

space proximate to such heater directly

from the heater and without duct

connections and includes electric

heaters and unvented gas heaters.

"Vented home heating equipment"

means a class of home.heating

equipment not including furnaces

designed ~o furnish warmedair to the

living space of a residence. directly from

the device without duct connections and

includes: vented wall furnace. vented

floor furnace. or vented room heater.

DOE anticipates that a test procedure

amendment for home heating equipment

not including furnaces to incorporate

several techni.cal changes and to include

a thermal stack damper analysis will be

issued later in 1980. Because the

installation of a thermal stack damper

for home hea ting equipment is

considered an available major design

option for the improvement in energy

efficiency of home heating equipment.

DOE has determined that the test

procedures for home heating equipment

should be amended to include the

measurement of the effect of energy

efficiency of thermal stack dampersbefore the development of the efficiency

standard can be adequately calculated..

Today's notice therefore assigns "space

reserved" .to·this product typ'e.

4.7 Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

4.7.1 Summary. "Kitchen ranges and

ovens" mean consumer products that .

are used as the major household cooking

appliances. They are designed to cook

or heat different types of food by one or

more of the following source's of hea t:

gas. electricity. or microwave energy.

Each product may consist of a

horizontal cooking top containing one or

more surface units and/or one or more

heating compartments.

The proposed energy efficiency levels

for kitchen ranges and ovens are found

in Table 4.7-1. Table 4.7-2 presents the

alternate efficiency levels selected for

analysis for .1981 and 1986. The levels

selected for analysis for 1981 are

derived from the.-1978 shipment

weighted energy factor (SWEF)--'which

is the summation of number of units of a

particular basic model multiplied by the

energy factor, divided by the total

number of shipments within a class-for

each class of kitchen ranges and ovens.

Level 2 in 1981 corresponds to the S\VEF

in 1978. Levell is one standard

deviation below the SWEF. while Level

3 and Level 4 are 1 and 2 standard

deviations above the SWEF.

respectively. The levels selected for

analysis for 1986 are derived from a
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

43998 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / ?vfonday. lune 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

Table 4.7-2.-Altemative effiCIency Levels (energy Factor. €FPercent)

air;

• intermittent ignition device to

replace standing pilot:

• reduced oven mass through smaller

cavities or lighter racks;

• reduced electric resistance heater

contact resistance: and

'manufacturing cost estima ling technique

used to estimate materials. investment

and engineering costs required to

market products of higher efficiencies in

the 1986 time frame. Level 3 in 1986

corresoonds to the maximum level

which \s technologically feasible and

economically justified: A detailed

explanation on the technological

feasibility and economic justification

can be found in the Engineering

Analysis and Economic Analysis

Documents. TSD No.4 and No.5.

respectively. Levels 1 and 2 correspond

to proportionally lower levels which

have fewer design improvements

required and correspond to lower first

cost and generally higher life cycle

costs. Level 4, corresponds to an "

Product daSII Lll'oIel

V-Total oven volUme. in It'.

1, ~crowave oven .._.......................................... .4" 2. Electnc COOKlflg top __ _ ,..... 79

3. Electnc oven 20.2· 157V

4. EleolnC oven. sell-<:Ieanong 184_ \ 5iV

5. Gas coa.'ng top __ _........................... 45

6. Gas aven _ : 9.3-0.73V

7 Gas o""n. self·cleanong................................... a.7 - O. 73V

Test Procedures

The test procedures for kitchen ranges

and ovens found at 10 CFR Part 430.

Subpart B. provide a standardized

method for determining the efficiency

(energy factor. in percent) for kitchen

ranges and ovens by measuring annual

useful cooking energy output and the

total energy input at standard conditions

for conventional cooking tops.

conventional and microwave ovens.

associated with these changes.

calculated on a per unit basis including

an allowance for additional labor. were

totaled to obtain an estimated

incremental cost change for each

efficiency level. The increment in

sheathed electric resistance heater

element efficiency for elt:lctric cooking

tops was casted by assuming a higher

reject rate (of lower efficiency units) and

more time in quality control. resulting in

an additional labor allowance per unit.

For gas ranges and ovens. the costs to

use an intermittent ignition device to

- replace the standing pilot assumed that

either a spark igniter or globar for the

range top and oven were purchased.

Additionally, costs for retooling to

manufacture a mounting bracket. tooling

changes to the range top to

accommodate the intermittent ignition

device. and additional labor fqr

assembly were all estimated. Costs

attributed to improved insulation were

the same as those for electric units. The

cost efficiency relationships developed

are given in the "Engineering Analysis

Document." TSD No.5.

The maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency levels for these

products were based on the efficiency of

units presently on the market. These

units include design options such as

improved insulation. better isolation of

the oven liner from the outside cabinet.

forced convection. and reduced vent air.

The maximum technologically feasible •

efficiency levels for 1986 for kitchen

ranges and ovens are detailed in Table

4.7-3.

Table 4.7-3 Maximum.

Technologically Feasible levels for

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens (Energy.

Factor. EF, 'fa).

No standard.

No stanaard.

20.2-1.57V

18.3-1.57V

45 .

9.2-0.73V

8.6-0.73V

43 :0 44 .. _ _ _

79 63

79 _ ..

18.8-1.57V 20.0- t.57V

20.2 - U7V _ .....•

l8.S-1.57V 20.8-1.57V

18.3-1.57V _._ ..

37 44 4S "__,,.__._._

7.8-'l.73V 9.2-0.73V

9.2-0.73V _

7.9-0.73'1 8.6-0.73V 8.6-0.73V _ ..__...:..._

July 15. 1381 January 1.

1986

~Toduct class

advanced technology case which

incorporates design options not on.(he

market place in any great quar.tity or

only in prototype stages at this time.

Table 4.7-1 Energy Efficiency Levels

For Kitchen Ranges and Ovens (Energy

Factor. EF. %).

v Talai oven '401utne. ."",_ "' It J.

Nal.,-See 'atlonale tor vanaale standards In seeoan 4.7.2.

• reflective pans under burners.

The analysis of the efficiency

improvement which comes from the

application of these design options was

based on engineering analysis of

experimental data and industry data

from Form C3-1i9.

The manufacturing cost analysis _

assumed one large manufacturer with

four major production lines and eleven.

small manufacturers each with one

specialty production line for electric

ovens and cook tops. For gas ovens and

cook tops. assumptions made in the

analysis were that there were three

large manufacturers with three major

production lines and one speciality

production line. plus fiv~ small

manufacturers with two specialty

production lines. These production lines

_were distributed among standard

products and speciality units such as

high oven combination ranges and other

consumer products.

For electric ranges and ovens. the

costs associated with implementing the

design options resulted from additional

material for denser fiberglass and

thicker insulation. and tooling for a

smaller oven cavity. The costs

,. ,'..4icrowave oven ...n ••••••_;... No standard.

, 2. Eleetnc cooKing tOP .._........ No standard.

3. Electric oven _ 17.6-1.57V

4. EIecm<: oven, sed-<:taanrnq. 17.6-1.57V 5. Gas cooKing too .__ _.... 31

6. Gas oven 6.4_0.73V

7 Gas oven, seJt-<:teamng._ 7.2-0.73V

2

1981 30 . 36

1986 _.._ _ _ ..

1981 72' 75

1986 _.

1981 18A-l.57V 17.6-1.57V

1986 18.1-·1.57V 19.7-1.S7V

1981 16.3-1.57V 17.6-1.S7V

1986 16.3-1.57V 18.1-1.57V

1981 24 . 31

1988 _ :..... 42

1981 5.0-0.73V 6.4-0.73V

1986 6.6-0.73V 6.8-0.73V

1981 6.S-0.13'J 7.2-0.73V

1988 8.0-Q.7.3V 6.3:"0.73V

P'odUCI Class

v_Talai oven volume. expressed in It '.

,. Microwave oven,............................•................••.•....

5. Gas COOKing too ....·.._._..... .._

2. EleclnC COOKing too _ _ _

3. Elecmc own.. _ :_ _

The rationale for selecting the

proposed lev.els appears in sections 4.7.2

and 4.7.3.

No standards ar~ proposed today for

the classes of microwave ovens and

electric cooking tops. DOE has

determi'ned that there are no cost

effective design options for reducing the

energy consumption of these classes

without affecti,ng product utility "'1hich

would result in a significant

conservation of energy.

4.7.2 Engineering Analysis.

.'v!ethod%gy

In performing the efficiency analysis.

6 different design options were applied

as appropriate to improve the efficiency

of kitchen ranges and ovens. These

design options were: .

• increased insulation by using

thicker or denser fiberglass:

• improved gaskets or reduced excess

6. Gas oven _ _ _ _ ..__ .

1. Gas d\f8l1, self ete8llltlg..__..........__:-__. _

.

4. Elecmc QV8n, setl eteanlng....._.._ .. ....._._
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 I Monday. June 30. 1980 I Proposed Rules 43999

DOE anticipates that it 'vVill amend the

test procedures within the next 12

uonths to add the following products

hich presently represent only a small

traction of the market: (1) cooking tops

which utilize induction surface heating

elements; (2) single compartment ovens

which are capable of heating food by

means of electric resistance heaters and

microwave energy; (3) a microwave

oven in combination with a

conventional oven; and (4) a microwave

oven in combination with a

conventional cooking top. Revision of

the test procedures is not expected to

affect previous testing results or to

affect the minimum energy efficiency

levels proposed by this notice. The

energy factor'fs a useful indicator of the

efficiency of conventional cooking tops.

conventional ovens and microwave

ovens because it accounts for

differences in energy consumption

corresponding to typical consumer

usage. For multiple conventional ovens.

·it is intended that the energy factor for

each conventional oven be determined

using the test procedures cited in section'

4.1.4.1 of Appendix I of Subpart B.

Cooking efficiency. the ratio of the

cooking energy output during a

laboratory test to the cooking energy

input for the same test another measure

t)f energy consumption in the test

rocedures. has not been chosen as the

measure of energy consumption because

by failing to include the annual energy

consumption of pilot lights. clocks and

self-cleaning. it does nof represent

typical consumer energy consumption as

well as the energy factor.

Several comments received in

response to the advance notice

suggested that the standards should take

into account the following issues: (1) the

energy used by browning elements in

microwave ovens. (2) the energy factor

varies with capacity for conventional

gas and electric ovens. and (3)

thermostatically controlled burners

reduce the energy consumed by

conventional gas cooking tops. DOE

believes that the choice of proposed

classes and varying efficiency levels by

volume proposed today adequately

address the above comments.

Individual Product Class Analysis

Seven classes of kitchen ranges and

ovens are specified in section 4.7.1 in

this notice. These classes are

distinguished by performance related

features which affect both the unit's

efficiency and utility. These features are:

(1) the type of energy consumed (gas or

~lectric). (2) the function of the unit

(cooking top. conventional oven or

microwave oven). and (3) the type of

cleaning system. Failure to establish

separate classes according to the type oi

energy consumer might result in the

elimination of all basic models

consuming a certain type of energy.

Kitchen ranges and ovens are further

segregated by the different functions

(microwave oven. conventional ovens or

cooking tops) each of which has a

distinct utility. The test procedures

differ for each function to take into

account the differences in cooking.

Therefore. the energy factors differ for

each function.

DOE has determined tha t ovens which

do not require any manual effort by the

consumer to clean provides utility to the

consumer. Electric ovens and gas ovens

have been segregated into classes of

self-cleaning ovens and other than selfcleaning ovens. Self-cleaning ovens tend

to have lower efficiencies than other

ovens because of the extra energy

consumed by the self-cleaning cyCle.

Since self-cleaning ovens offer a distinct

performance-related feature which

affects utility and efficiency. DOE is

specifying two classes of self-cleaning

ovens. one electric and one gas. in order

to ensure that such units remain

available to customers.

DOE is aware that the efficiencv of

conventional ovens decreases with

increasing volume because of the

increase of the volume of the oven

relative to the mass of the

representative test load. Thus. DOE has

accounted for this relationship by

proposing energy efficiency levels which

decrease linearly with volume. This

assures that larger units will not be

penalized and that all units must

achieve proportionally the same level of

energy efficiency improvements. This

rela tionship of efficiency to volume is

discussed in detail in the "Engineering

Analysis Document." TSD No.5.

4.7.3 Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards for Kitchen Ranges

and Ovens. Economic benefits and

burdens resulting from the proposed

standards were assessed from

consumer. manufacturer and national

perspectives as described in section 5 of

this notice. Four alternative levels of

standards were evaluated for each

perspective. and from this evaluation.

the levels proposed in this notice were

selected. Impacts resulting from these

levels are presented herein. A more

detailed presentation on impacts

resulting from the levels which·were not

selected is provided in the "Economic

Analysis Document," TSD No.4.

Consumers

For each class of kitchen ranges and

ovens. the average consumer will realize

,a lower life cycle Gost (a decrease in the

discounted total cost of product

ownership and use)faf higher efficiency

regulated products as c;ompared with

unregulated products. The reduction in

life cycle costs ranges from $14 for a

self·cleaning gas oven to S90 for gas

cooking tops. corresponding to a 3

percent reduction and 17 percent

reduction in life cycle costs.

respectively.

Consumer payback period. the period

of time elapse before the higher

purchase price of more energy-efficient

products is recouped through reduced

energy costs. ranges from 1.6 years for

standard electric ovens to 3.4years for

self-cleaning gas ovens.

Manufacturers

ImfHlcts on kitchen range and oven

manufacturers resulting from standards

at the proposed level were estimated.

These effects are presented as the

percentage of firms expected to be able

to obtain sufficient funds through profit

or short-term debt. during the 1981

through 1985 period. to make the capital

investment necessary for January 1986

standards. Those firms not able to

successfully finance compliance with

standards by means of funds from

earnings or loans may be able to use

other methods such as sales of,stocks or

bonds. transfer of funds from other

operating divisions:etc. Therefore. firms

having low probabilities of success will

not necessarily ·fail to meet the

standards.

At the proposed level of standards.

kitchen range and oven manufac~urers

estimated to be able to obtain sufficient

funds during the 1981 through 1985

period to make the capital investment

necessary for January 1986 standards

represent approximately 94 percent of

current industry production. Included in

those firms expected to be able to make

the required capital investment are 95 .

percent of large manufacturers and 94

percent of medium-sized manufacturers.

These estimates were developed using

analytic techniques which examine the

worst case impacts by using

conservative assumptions about

demand growth. market share. and

financing. Details of the analysis are

provided in the "Economic Analysis

Document," TSD No.4.

Nation'

Burdens and benefits from the

national perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers and

manufacturers. In addition. the national

perspective addresses those impacts

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct national

impacts resulting from the proposed

standards are: estimated energy savings;

the discounted dollar value of those
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44000 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / :\tlonday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

Table 4.8-2.-Altemate Efficiency Levels (Seasonal £nergy £fficiency Ratio. S££R. Btu/Watt·nr)

4.8.2 Engineering Analysis.

Methodology

Increased condenser and evaporator

surface areas were the energy saving

design options considered in the

efficiency analysis of central air

conditioners. Additional frontal area

and condenser depth were considered

as well as increased frontal area for the

evaporator. By using available larger

cabinet sizes or manufacturing a new

cabinet beyond the largest 5 ton unit

heat transfer was increased. These

changes can also be viewed as downsizing the compressor within the existing

cabinet and heat exchanger assembly.

The two approaches are synonomous.

The engineering analysis utilized a

component computer model which

explicitly treats..all major system'

elements (a detailed discussion of this

model is contained in the "Engineering

Analysis Document." TSD No.5). With

each change in heat transfer area. air

flow volume and compressor capacity

were varied in order to maintain the

system capacity at the lowest power

consumption. Consideration was given

to cabinet air flow resistance effects and

other nonideal air flow factors. The

standard energy consumption of the

Level 3 in 1986 corresponds to the

maximum level which is technologically

feasible. and economically justified. A

detailed explanation on the

technological feasibility and economic

justifiability can be found in the

Produlrt class 2 3 4

indoor fan specified in the test

procedure for a split system was.

employed in the analysis. A fixed

external resistance on the indoor units

was applied to packaged systems. A

baseline compressor with an efficiency

of 8.86 was employed throughout the

analysis. This represents the highest

effiCiency compressor for which DOE

has. published performance information.

The manufacturing cost analysis

computer performance model predicts

the pounds of copper and aluminum

required for the improved heat transfer

surfaces. The added material costs for a

large manufacturer to purchase these

materials was then calculated. It is

assumed that a small manufacturer

would purchase fabricated coils. paying

approximately a 10 percent premium.

Cost reductions in downsizing the

compressor were treated as a function

of the reduced capacity. Cost reductions

resulted primarily from reduced motor

size. The investment necessary to build

a new large cabinet. beyond the existing

5 ton cabinet. was assumed to be shared

by all units within the product class.

Maximum technologically feasible

energy efficiency levels are likely to be

achievable through the use of tbe more

Engineering Analysis and Economic

Analysis Documents. TSD No.4 and 1"-

5. respectively. Levels 1 and 2

correspond to proportionally lower

levels which have fewer design

improvements required and correspond

to lower firs t cost and generally higher

life cycle costs. Level 4 corresponds to

an advanced technology case which

incorporates design options not on the

market place in any great quantity or

only in prototype stages at this time.

The rationale for selecting the

proposed levels appears in sections 4.8.2

and 4.8.3.

Because test procedures have not

been finalized for three classes of

central air conditioners. space has been

reserved for energy efficiency levels for

those classes.

19S1 6.2 7.0 7.8 8.6

19S5 9.2 10.1 11.1 _ .

19S1' Il.3 8.9 7.5 8.1

1986 8.5 9.6 10.7 _ .

1961 NA .._ _._ _ _ . 1986 ._ _ __ _ .

19S1 NA __ _ ..

1966 "'."_"'__'._"". ._.__ _. 1961 NA _ •...: . 1986 _ __.__

Level

JUly 15. 1981 January 1.

1986

, ?roduet class

'. Solil system, COOling only.... 7.8 , 1.0

2. Single package. coo'ing 7.5 10.5

cr:ry.

3. A.U' source. sOlit system, Space reserved.

:"leat cump.

4. Air source. single pacltage. Soace reserved.

neat pump.

5. Aif source. split system. Space reserved,

heatIn<J only heat pump.

Energy Efficiency Ratio. SEER. Btu/

Watt-hrJ.

2. Single package. cooling only._.__......_ ...

4. Air source. sin\ll. package. Ileat pump.••_.__

5. Ail saun:e. Sllfil SYSle1Tl. healing only heal

pump.

3. Air source. split system. heat pump ...

I, Split system. cooling only ..__••__.._ ........

energy savings: the aggregate

discounted consumer costs of more

energy efficient products: and the net

present value of the above costs and

benefits.

Proposed standards on all classes of

kitchen ranges and ovens combined are

estimated to save between 0.26 QBtu's

and·O.82 QBtu's during the 1982 through

2005 period. valued between SO.4 billion

and $1.0 billion in 1978 dollars. The

aggregate increased cost of more energy

efficient kitchen ranges and ovens

during that same 1982 through 2005

period is between $0.1 billion and $0.3

billion in 1978 dollars. The national net

present value of the proposeeIregulation

on kitchen rapges and ovens is

estimated at beween $0.3 billion and

$0.7 billion in 1978 dollars. These values

are derived from use of the Residential

Energy Use Forecasting Model

described in section 5.3 of this notice

and the "Economic Analysis Document."

TSDNo.4.

4.8 Central Air Condit~oners

4.8.1 Summary. "Central air

conditioner" means a consumer product

which is powered by single phase

electric current. which is rated below

65.000 Btu/hour•.which is not contained

within the same cabinet as a furnace

with a rated capacity above 225.000 Btu/

hour. and which is either a "heat pump"

or a "cooling only uItit."

The proposed energy efficiency levels

for central air conditioners are found in

Table 4.8-1. Table 4.8-2 presents the

alternate efficiency levels selected for

analysis for 1981 and 1986. The levels

selected for analysis for 1981 are

derived from the 1978 shipment·

weighted energy factor (SWEF)--which

is the summation of number of units of a

particular basis model multiplied by the

energy factor. divided by the total

number of shipments within a class-tor

each class of central air conditioners.

Level 2 in 1981 corresponds to the SWEF

in 1978. Levell is one standard

deviation below the SWEF. while Level

3 and Level 4 are 1 and 2 standard

deviations above the SWEF.

respectively. The levels selected for

analysis for 1986 are derived from a

manufacturing cost estimating technique

used to estimate materials. investment

and engineering costs required to

market products of higher efficiencies in

the 1986 time frame.

Table 4.8-1 Energy Efficiency Levels

for Central Air Conditioners (Seasonal
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday, June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 44001

efficient two speed or modulating

compressors which varies the output of

the unit to correspond to the building

ioad of the dwelling to take advantage

of the credit given for this type of .

system in the test procedure. Industry

data was provided for the analysis of

the twin compressor performance. The

maximum technologically feasible

efficiency levels for 1986 for central air

conditioners are found in Table 4.&-3.

Table 4.&-3. Maximum

Technologically Feasible Levels for

Central Air Conditioners (Seasonal

Energy Efficiency Ratio. SEER, Btu/

Watt-hrl·

ProjeCt ClaSS Level

1. Splil system. cooling onty ••_ ••_ ••••_._••••••_.... ,~.O

2. Single package. cooling onty ••••••••••• 13.0

3. Air source. spilt. system. heal pump _ _......... N/A

~. Aw source. single package. heal pump _........ NIA

5. Air source. splil sYStem. ne&q onty heel pump •.• NIA

Test Procedures

The test procedures for central air

conditioners found at 10 CFR Part 430,

Subpart B. provide a standard method

for testing to determine the efficiency of

central air conditioners by measuring

the cooling and heating capacities and

electric energy consumption of central

air conditioners at standard test

conditions. The measure of efficiency

accounts for such factors as oversizing,

cycling of the unit when the building

load is less than the output of the unit.

hours of operation at different climatic

conditions, and actual operating'

controls of the particular unit being

tested. The measure of efficiency of

central air conditioners. cooling mode

(seasonal energy efficiency ratio, SEER)

is defined as the total cooling provided

in Btu's divided by the total electrical

energy consumed in Watt-hours in a

normal cooling season. The measure of

heating efficiency for central air

conditioners in the heating mode

(heating seasonal performance factor.

HSPF) is dermed as the total heating in

Btu's. divided by the total electric

energy consumed in Watt-hours in a

normal heating season.

No comments specifically relating to

test procedures for cooling only central

air conditioners were received in

response to the advance notice;

ho~ever, the test procedure has been

recently revised (44FR 76700, December

17,1979) to include testing procedures

for heating and cooling performance of

heat pumps. This amendment included

minor changes to the testing procedures

for cooling only central air conditioners;

no measurable differences in SEER

resulted from the revision. Thus. existing

test data on SEER remains accurate and

has been used to determine the energy

efficiency levels for cooling only units in

today's proposed rule...

Individual Product Class Analysis

In the advance notice, DOE

segregated cooling only central air

conditioners into two classes according

to whether the unit is designed as a

single package or as a split system with

separate indoor and outdoor

components connected by refrigeration

and electr4callines. Several comments

were received in response to these

suggested classes. One commenter

stated that since both types of cooling

only central air conditioners serve the

same function, they should be combined

into a single class. The commenter

stated that in the construction industry,

split systems and single package units

are competitors anciare used almost

interchangeably, and that split systems

can be used almost'in any place that

package units are used. Consequently, to

create two separate standards for these

products because of a few isolated . situations would not maximize energy

savings.

DOE has reviewed this comment and

has determined that single package units.

and split systems units should not be

combined into one class. Combining $e

two classes would adversely impact

single package'units which are

inherently less efficient due to space

limitations and size constraints, .

Efficiency improvements to go to the

same level"of standards are not cost

justified as single package units nave

higher associated costs than split

systems units. DOE today proposes

separate classes for· single package and

split system centralair conditioners.

Another commenter stated that DOE

should establish additional classes of

cooling only central air conditioners

based on capacity since industry data

indicate that products at the lower and

upper end of the capacity -range tend to

be less efficient. DOE and NBS have

concluded that there is no fundamental

technical reason which causes these

decreases in product efficiency. It is

possible to design high and low capacity

models to have efficiencies equal to

models of medium capacity, and DOE is

not aware of any noticeable decrease in

product utility that would result _

therefrom.

The commenter stated that single

package cooling equipment and

combination heating and cooling

equipment may typically be less

efficient than split system cooling only.

No data were supplied by the

commenter to substantiate this claim.

DOE has concluded that these units are

nearly always designed as single

package units and that the separate

class proposed for single package units

.is adequate to account for any possible

differences in efficiency of these units.

A final comment was received from a

manufacturer of a single-package air

conditioning system that utilizes a high

pressure and high velocity air

distribution system. The commenter

stated that because of his specific

design. he is unable to attain cooling

efficiencies as high as lower velocity

cooling equipment can attain. The

commenter also stated that losses in his

prefabricated duct system were

substantially less than those incurred by

. normal ductwork far low-velocity

distribution systems. DOE has reviewed

the comments and has determined that

the commenter may have a valid

argument. However, in the absence of

any data or further design information,

DOE cannot verify the comments. DOE

has addressed this issue by amending

the test procedures by granting waivers

for unique designs that cannot be

measured by the existing procedures (45

FR 14188. March 4. 1980).

Five classes of central air conditioners

are specified in section 4.8.1 of this

notice. These classes are distinguished

by performance related features which

affect both efficiency and utility. Central

air conditioners are segregated between'

units which only provide cooling

(cooling only units) and which may also

provide heating (heat pumps). Because

the test procedure for heat pumps was

prescribed on December 27, 1979, the

·effective date for implementation is June

24.1980; today's notice, therefore,

assigns "space reserved" to all three

classes of heat pumps; air source, split

system heat pump; air source, single

package heat pump; 'and air source.

heating only heat pump.

Cooling only central air conditioners

have been further segregated into single

package and split system cooling only

units. These units have specific utility

based on space availability and on the

physical location of the units.

Architectural considerations of certain

residences either do not allow or do not

have outdoor space to install the

outdoor unit of a split system. When this

occurs, a different type of unit must

either be mounted through the wall or in

the attic of a house. Improvements in

efficiency for single package units are

limited due to size constraints

(maximum wall and ceiling openings)

which impact product design. These

design limitations are discussed in the

"Engineering Analysis Document," TSD

No.5. For these reasons DOE has

determined that it is necessary to

propose separate classes for split
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44002 Fede·ral. Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

Btu's per hour. A furnace is either an

electric central furnace. electric boiler.

forced air central furnace. gravity

central furnace. or low oressure steam

or hot water boiler. The' heat input rate

of a furnace is iess than 300.000 Btu's per

hour for electric boilers and low

pressure steam or hot water boUers. and

less than 225.000 Btu's per hour for

forced air central furnaces. gravity

central furnaces and electric central

furnaces. \

The proposed energy efficiency levels

for furnaces are found in Table 4.9-1.

Table 4.9-2 presents the alternate

efficiency levels selected for analysis for

1981 and 1986. The levels selected for

analysis for 1981 are derived from the

1978 shipment weighted energy factor

(SWEF)-which is the summation of

number of units of a particular basic

model multiplied by the energy factor.

divided by the total number of

shipments within a class-for each class

of furnaces. Levei 2 in 1981 corresponds

to the SWEF in 1978. Levell is one

standard deviation below the SWEF.

while Level 3 and Level 4 are 1 and 2

standard deviations above the SWEF.

respectively. The levels selected for

analysis cost estimating technique used

to estimate materials. investment and

engineering costs required to market

products of higher efficiencies in the

1986 time frame. Level 3 in 1986

corresponds to the maximum level

which is technologically feasible and

economically justified. A detailed

explanation on the technological

feasibility and economic justifiability

can be found in the Engineering

Analysis and Economic Analysis

Documents. TSD No. -'\ and No.5.

respectively. Levels 1 and 2 correspond

to proportionally lower levels which

have fewer design improvements

required and correspond to lower first

cost and generally higher life cycle

costs. Level -'\ corresponds to an

advanced technology case which

incorporates design options not on the

market place in any great quantity or

only in prototype stages at this time.

Table 4.9-1 Energy Efficiency Levels

For Furnaces (Annual Fuel Utilization

Efficiency. AFUE, percent).

July 15. 1981 January 1.

1986

system and single package central air

conditioners.

4.8.3 Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards for Central Air

Conditioners. Economic benefits and

burdens resulting from the proposed

standards were assessed from

consumer, manufacturer and national

perspectives as described in section 5 of

this notice. Four alternative levels of

standards were evaluated for each

perspective and from this evaluation,

the levels proposed in this notice were

selected. Impacts resulting from these

levels are presented herein. A more

detailedpresentationon impacts

resulting from the levels which were not

selected is provided in the "Economic

Analysis Document," TSD No.4.

Consumers

For each class of central air

conditioners. the average consumer will

realize a lower life cycle cost (a

decrease in the discounted total cost of

product ownership and use) for higher

efficiency regulated products as

compared with unregulated products.

The reduction in life cycle costs range

from 5303 for split system central air

conditioners to $429 for single package

central air conditioners corresponding to

an 11 percent reduction and 15 percent

reduction in life cycle costs,

respectively, . Consumer payback period. the period

of time elapsed befpre the higher

purchase price of more energy·efficient

products is recouped through reduced

energy costs. ranges from 2.6 years for

.single package air conditioners to 5.7

years for split system central air

conditioners.

Manufacturers

. Impacts on central air conditioner

manufacturers resulting from standards

at the proposed level were estimated.

These effects are presented as the

percentage of firms expected to be able

to obtain sufficient funds through profit

or short-term debt. during the 1981

through 1985 period. to make the capital

investment necessary for January 1986

standards. Those firms not able to

successfully finance compliance with

standards by means of funds from

earnings or loans may be able to use

other methods such as sales of stocks or

bonds. transfer of funds from other

operating divisions. etc. Therefore. firms

having low probabilities of success will

not necessarily fail to meet the

standards.

At the proposed level of standards.

central air conditioner manufacturers

estimated to be able to obtain sufficient

funds during the 1981 through 1985

period to make the capital investment

necessary for January 1986 standards

-represent approximately 99 percent of

current industry production. Included in

those firms expetted to be able to make

the required capital investment are 99

percent of large manufacturers. 99

percent of medium-sized manufacturers.

and 96 percent of small manufacturers.

These estimates were developed using

analytic techniques which examine the

worst case impacts by using

conservative assumptions about

demand growth, market share and

financing. Details of the analysis are

prOvided in the "Economic Analysis

Document," TSD No.4.

Nation

Burdens and benefits from the . national perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers and

manufacturers. In addition. tlie national

perspective addresses those impacts

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct na tional

impacts resulting from the proposed

standards are: estimated energy savings;

the discounted dollar value of those

energy savings; the aggregate'

discounted consumer costs of more

energy efficient products; and the net

present value of the above costs and .

benefi~; . Proposed standards on all classes of

central air conditioners combined are

estimated to save between 2.62 QBtu's

and 3.73QBtu's during the 1982 through

2005 period. valued between $4.1 billion

and $4.3 billion in 1978 dollars. The

aggregate increased cost of more energy

efficient central air conditioners during

that same 1982 through 2005 period is

between $3.3 billion and 53.9 billion in

1978 dollars. The national net present

value of the proposed regulation on

central air conditioners is estima ted at

between $0.4 billion and 50.8 billion in

1978 dollars. These values are derived

from use of the Residential Energy Use

Forecasting Model described in section

5.3 of this notice and the "Economic

Analysis Document." TSD No.4.

4.9 Furnaces

4.9.1 Summary. "Furnace" means a

device. utilizing only single-phase

electric current in the case of electric

furnaces and boilers. single-phase

electric current in conjunction with

either natural gas, propane, or home

heating oil in the case of gas and oil

forced air furnaces and gas. and oil

boilers, or only gas in the case of gravity

central furnaces, which1s designed to be

the principal heating source for the

living space of a residence and which is

not contained within the same cabinet

with a central air conditioner of a rated

cooling capacity in excess of 65.000

Product Class

1. EI'!ctne No sta"dard.

2. Gas gr8vrty __•• No stan<lard.

3. Gas. forced air. indoor ..._ 65

4. Gas. forced alf. outdoor 58

nonwatherprOOf hon%o"tal.

5. Gas. forced air. outdoor 68

Oth<lt' than nonwealnertJroof.

6. Gas boiler. in<loor._......_ 65

7. Gae bOIler. outdoor..••_. No standard.

8. all. forced air. indoor...._.. 75

9. O~. forCed air. outdoor._ 71

10. Oil boiler. in<loor ......._ 7e

11. Oil. boiler. OUldoot.__._ No standard.

No standard.

No staMard

81

74

79

No standaro.

80

78

82

No standard.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 12i / Monday, June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 44003

Table.4.9-2.-Altemste EffiCIency Levels (Annual Fuel UtIlization £ffiCJency. AFU£. Percent)

The rationale for selecting the

proposed levels appears in' sections 4.9.2

and 4.9.3. . No energy efficiency standards are

proposed today for the following cla~ses

. of furnaces: electric: gas gravity: gas

boiler. outdoor: and oil boiler. outdoor.

Electric furnaces currently operate at or

about 100% efficiency because all the .electric energy is transferred into the

conditioned space. Losses due to

inefficient motors and improvements

achieved by added insulation are·taken

into account becaul:\e the test procedures

assume that all standby losses are

'usable heat for the dwelling. Thus. DOE

has determined that it is not

technologically feasible to propose

energy efficiency standards for this

class of furnaces. For the other 3 classes

there presently exist such a limited.

production that DOE has determined

that standards are not economically

justified for these classes and no

significant energy conservation, as

discussed in sec;tion 10.5. can be

realized by imposing standards on these

classes of products. .

4.9.2 Engineering Analysis.

Methodology

In performing the efficiency analysis.

the following design options were

applied as appropriate: .

• increased heat exchanger surface

area:

• intermittent ignition device to

replace standing pilot:

• stack damper to reduce standby

losses;

• power burner or power unit: and

• retention head burner.

1981 _ _ _ _ ..

1986 _ _ .._ __ .

1981 : ..

1986 .

1981 61 65 69 73

1986 67 73 81 .

1981 52 56 60 65

1986 65 70 74 .

1981 65 '66 71 73

1986 70 72 76 .

1981 62 65 66 71

1986 67 73 79 ._ _ .

1981 _: ~_ _ _ _••_ .._ _ ..

1986 _ __ __••_._ " __'__""_"_ _ _.

1981 73 75 78 81

1986 __.._. 75 80 _ ••_ _

1981 89 71 73 76

1986 70 73 78 _ .

1981 74 76 78 80

1986 78 80 82 .

1981 74 75 75 76

1986 __ _ _

The analysis of the various product

classes was completed using a computer

model coupled with experimental data

from various sources and engineering

analysis. A technical discussion of the

calculations.us·ed to estimate the

efficiency improvements from use of

these design options is contained in the

"Engineering Analysis Document:' TSD

No.5.

The manufacturing cost analysis

assumed a certain nu.tilber of large

manufacturers and small manufacturers

for each product class. These were:

• gas·warm air: furnaces-three large

manufacturers; ten small mimufacturers:

• gas boilers-:-four large

manufacturers:'four small

manufacturers:

• oil warm air furnaces-three large

manufacturers: four small

manufacturers:

• oil boilers-four manufacturers:

four small manufacturers:

• gas horizontal units

(nonweatherprooO-three large

manufacturers; ten small manufacturers:

and . I

.• gas oiltdoor weatherproof unitsthree large manufacturers: ten small

manufacturers.

The number of production lines were

ncit estimated for furnaces as

implementation oUhe design options

required only tooling changes and these

were based on the number of units

which could be produced per year on a

single tool.

Most design options required

mounting of a·purchased part. such as a

stack damper. intermittent ignition

device. power burner or power vent. or a

Product class Level

retention head burner. Implementation

of these designs at most a small amount

of tooling for mounting brackets.

additional labor for installation, and the

cost of the purchased part.

Increasing the heat exchanger surface

area is an example of a major design

optionwhich was costed. This could be

done by derating the unit. i.e.. reducing

the burner input rate per unit of heat

exchanger area; or the surface area

could be- increased by enlarging the

existing heat exchanger. For gas-fIred

units, the heat exchanger was

considered to be common to all models

and the tooling costs were therefore

amortized over the complete product

line. Cabinet changes were also

considered. For typical large and small

manufacturers an estimate was made of

the number of models produced in order

to estimate the tooling requirements for

cabinet design changes. These various

costs amortized on a per unit basis were

used to develop estimates of the cost

efficiency-relationship for each product

class. These relationships are explained

in the "Engineering Analysis

Document." TSD No.5.

The maximum technologically feasible •

energy efficiency levels for furnaces are

found in Table 4.9-3. The maximum

technologically achievable efficiency

levels are obtaIned by use of a

condensing mode of operation which

removes latent heat from flue gases.

This requires a major redesign in the

finlill section of the heat exchangers.

coupled with a'forced draft burner

system such as the use of a power vent.

power burner. or pulsed combustion.

New corrosion resistant materials will

be required and a complete furnace'

package will have to be redesigned. The

impact of this will be highly dependent

on the present design and manufacturing

procedures for individual

manufacturers. but in all cases it will

require substantial investment in capital

equipment and tooling.

Table 4.9.3. Maximum

Technologically Feasible Levels for

Furnaces (Annual Fuel Ut'ilization

Efficiency, AFUE. percent)..

1. Electric _ _ ..__ NIA 2. Gas gravity _ _ _ _ _ NIA

3. Gas. forced air. indoor _....................... 94

4. Gas. forced air. outdOOr. nonweatner;lrool honZon181 _ _ _............. 92.

5. Gas: forced air. outdoor. other tnan nonweatne<.

proot : __.. •__ 92

6. Gas boiler. tndoor _..__ __ 96

7. Gas botle<. outdoor _ _......................... NIl'. •

6. Oil, forced air, indoor _.._ _ _.... 94

PrOOuel Class Level 3 4

10.011 boiler. Indoor · •..··• ·

11. 011 bOlle<. ouldqo< .

7. Gas boiler. outaoor .

2. Gas gravIty , .

9. 011. forcea /lit. outaoor ..•.•••••••.••.•••••••••••:.:•.::•._......

8. 011. forced air. indoor..••_ _ - .

1. EleCtni: -.••••_ ..

4. Gas. torced at(. oulClOOr. nonwealherPl'oot hanzontal.

5. Gas. forced 81<. outdOOr. other than nonweath·

aroroot.

6. Gas boiler. ItIdoot ..

3 Gas. forced' at(. ondOOt .
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44004 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 127 / \londay. June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules

Product Class Level

9. oa. forced P. outdoor _._••__ _ _ 92 10. Oil boiler. ,Moor ...•_.._.._.__.•__.. .__.._.... 96

11. ou boiler. OUlooor _............................ NI A

Test Procedures

The test procedures for furnaces

found at 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B.

provide a standardized method to

determine the efficiency (annual fuel

utilization efficiency, (AFUE) of

furnaces by measuring the characteristic

losses of the furnace.

Comments expressed concern that the

standard:smight be setat a level which

would affect the reliability and safety of

furnaces. DGlE has analyzed only design

o"ptions that can be· incorporated into the

product without reducing its reliability

or safety.

Comments were received which

suggested that the furnace test

procedures should be amended in crder

to adequately account for electrical

energy consumed by gas and oil

furnaces. DOE furnace test procedures

do account for the electrical energy

qonsumed by fossil-fueled furnaces in

• the calculations required for determining

the annual operating cost." However, the

measure of efficiency in the existing test

procedure does not account for the

efficiency pi!r£ormance of electrical

components. DOE has sought to develop

a new efficiency measure which will

reflect differences in electrical energy .

consumption. Accordingly; DOE has

proposed such an efficiency measure in

an amendment to the furnace test"

procedure published in the Federal

Register of January 4. 1980 (45 FR 1298).

One comment expressed concern that

the present DOE furnace test procedures

provide a credit for dampers on indoor·

furnaces but do not provide the same

_ credit for dampers on outdoor furnaces.

The primary savings for dampers is the

reduction in infiltration losses. Because

of the use of outdoor air in the

combusition process. these losses are

assigned a zero value in the test.

procedures for units installed outdoors.

Therefore, the overall evaluation of

indoor and outdoor units is correct as

prescriblad in the final furnace test

procedures.

DOE has learned that some

manufacturers. through testing

experience. have questioned the test

procedures. which they feel should be

expanded or changed. A number of

cases in point have been the subject of

applications for exception to DOE"s

Office ofHearings and Appeals (OHA).

On the basis of infonnation submitted

by applications to OHA. comments

submitted bv manufacturers and other

available information. DOE issued an

advance notice on ~,.fav 29. 19i9 (44 FR

30978). to amend the furnace test

procedures to include procedures for

testing two new furnace designs-pulse

combustion furnaces 5lnd condensing

furnaces-and to incoroorate the

provisions of the Exceptions granted by

OHA.

In the proposed amendments to the

furnace test procedures. DOE is

proposing procedures for testing pulse

combustion and condensing furnaces

which DOE has incLuded in its analysis

of maximum technologically feasible

lever of efficiency for furnaces. The

remaining issues discussed in the

proposed amendments are minor

technical improvements. and the values , of AFUE-denved from the proposed

amendment will be consistent with prior

test results.

Individual Product Class Analysis

rour comments recommended that the

classes for furnaces recognize the

configuration and location of the unit

(up flow. down flow. forced ail". boiler

and furnace}, while two comments urged

that furnaces and boilers should not be

segregated into separate classes. Three

comments suggested that classes be set

for indoor and outdoor applications.

Eleven classes of furnaces are

specified in section 4.9.1 of this notice.

These classes- are distinguished either

by the type of fuel consumed or by

performance.related features which

affect utility and efficiency.

One performance-related feature

affecting utility is' the method of heat

distribution tOo the household. Gas

furnaces use air circulation systems

based either on the effect of gravity on

low density hearted air or on the action

of a blower (i.e.. forced air). Gravity

type systems offer the utility of

operating without an electrical

connection. In addition. another

category of furnaces. gas boUers. uses

hot water 01" steam to distribute heat.

These various heat distribution systems

result in different characteristics of heat

transfer from the furnace combustion

chamber to the conditioned space and

different losses through the flue.

Because of the aoove factors. the

measures of efficiency of gravity gas

furnaces tend to be lower than the

measure of efficiency of forced air gas

furnaces. Also. the measure of efficiency

of gas for~d air furnaces tend to be

lower than the measure of efficiency for

gas boilers. Identical arguments lead to

separate classes for forced air aU

furnaces and oil boilers. A class of oil

furnaces using gravity to circulate hot

_air is not specified because DOE is not

aware of any such units distributed in

commerce.

Another distinct utility which affects

efficiency is whether the basic model is

installed indoors or outdoors. In the test

procedures. outdoor installed units have

L'leir jacket heat losses evaluated and

these losses are deducted from the

efficiency rating. This efficiency

deduction is justified by the

architectural utility that may be afforded

a consumer by outdoor models. The

efficiency of direct vent units is

evaluated in the test procedures on a

similar basis as outdoor units. The test

data are corrected for the use of outdoor

air for combustion and infiltration losses

are not deducted when evaluating

indoor direct vent and outdoor models.

However. the difference in efficiency

between direct vent units compared to

other similar indoor units is negligible

because the effects of heating outdoor

air for combustion and low infiltration

losses are offsetting.

Another utility feature which affects

efficiency is the horizontal configura tion

of so"me models of outdoor forced air gas

furnaces. This horizontal configuration

results in less efficient heat transfer

than other configurationil but has the

utility of being uniquely adaptable ta

attics and crawt spaces. Therefore.

separate classes of gas horizontal

furnaces are proposed to prevent the

possible elimination of this type of

configuration from the market. Also, it

was determined that horizontal units

'with weatherproof cabinets have fewer

dimensional constraints than

nonwea therproof horizontal units which

are typically installed in attics or crawl

spaces. However. no significant

difference in efficiency is evident for

weatherproof horizontal basic models

when compared to any other outdoor

model. DOE has determined that there

exists no utility associated with

horizontal units when installed indoors.

Therefore. since an attic or crawl space

is considered an outdoor- installation in

the DOE test procedures because it is

not in the conditioned space. only

outdoor nonweatherproof horizontal

furnaces are identified as: those having

justifiable reduced performance.

4.9.3 Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards for Furnaces.

Economic benefits and burdens resulting

from the proposed standards were

assessed from consumer. manufacturer

and national perspectives as described

in section 5 of this notice. Four

alternative levets of standards were

evaluated for each perspective. from this

evaluation. the levels proposed in this

notice were selected. Impacts resulting

from these levels are presented herein.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 1Zi / ~fonday, June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 44005

A more detailed presentation on impacts

resulting from the levels which were not

elected is provided in the "Economic

.nalysis Document." TSD No.4.

Consumers

For each class of furnaces, the _

average consumer will realize a lower

life cycle cost (a decrease in the

discounted total cost of product

ownership and use) for higher efficiency

regulated products as compared with

unregulated products. The reduction in

life cycle costs range from $62 for oil,

forced air, to $624 for gas. indoor boilers.

corresponding to a .5 percent reduction

and 9 percent reduction in life .cycle

costs, respectively. Consume~ payback period. the period

of time elapsed before the higher

purchase price of more energy-efficient

products is recouped through reduced

energy costs. ranges from 0.25 years for

oil. forced air. indoor furnaces to 2.7

years for gas. forced air. indoor

furnaces.

Manufpcturers

Impacts on furnace manufacturers

resulting from standards at the proposed

level were estimated. These effects are

presented as the percentage of firms

expected to be able to obtain sufficient

funds through profit or short-term debt.

!uring t.1o:Ie 1981 through 1985 period. to

make the capital investment necessary

for January 1988 standards:Those firms

not able to successfully finance

compliance with standards by means of

funds from earnings or loans may be

able to use other methods such as sales

of stocks or bonds. transfer of funds

from other operating divisions. etc.

Therefore. fIrms having low

probablilities of success will not

necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level of standards.

furnace manufacturers estimated to be

able to obtain sufficient funds during the

1981 through 1985 period to make the

capital investment necessary for

January 1986 standards represent

'approximately 99 percent of current

industry production. Included in those

fIrms expected to be able to make the

required capital investment are 99

percent of large manufacturers. 98

percent of medium-sized manufacturers.

and 95 percent of small manufacturers

are expected to be able to make the

required capital investment. These

estimates were developed using analytic

techniques which examine the worst -

case impacts by using conservative

assumptions about demand growth.

market share and financing. Details of

the analysis are prOVided in the

"Economic Analysis Document." TSD

No.4.

Nation

Burdens and benefits from the

national perspective encompass the

impacts on consumers and

manufacturers. In addition. the national

perspective addresses those impacts

which affect the collective national

welfare. The most direct national

impacts resulting from the proposed

standards are: estimated energy savings:

the discounted dollar value of those

energy savings; the aggregate

discounted consumer costs of more

energy efficient products: and the net

present value of the above costs and

benefits.

Proposed standards on all classes of

furnaces combined are estimated to

save between 2.0 QBtu's and 4.27 QBtu's

during the 1982 through 2005 period.

valued between $3.5 billion and $5.1

billion in 1978 dollars. The aggrega te

increased cost of more energy efficient

furnaces during that same 1982 through

2005 period is between $1.0 billion and

$1.7 billion in 1978 dollars. The national

net present va'ue of the proposed

regulation on furnaces is estimated at

between $2.5 billion and $3.4 billion in

1978 dollars. These values are derived

from use of the Residential Energy Use

Forecasting Model described in section

5.3 of this notice and the "Economic

Analysis Document." TSD Nd. 4.

5. Economic Impact AnalySis

5.1 Intro_auction

A regulation prescribing energy

efficiency standards for consumer

. products will result in impacts on both

consumers and manufacturers of these

products. Consumers will experience the

following impacts: (1) higher purchase

price: and (2) lower energy cost of

operation. Som'e manufacturers will

experience: (1) retooling and equipment

costs: (2) changes in sales volume: and

(3}-changes in sales revenue..

In addition. there will be national

impacts. These impacts include: (1)

changes in gro~s national product: (2)

changes in energy consumption: and (3)

changes in income distribution.and

employment. The standard levels

selected represent tradeoffs that were

made among impacts in order to realize

the largest energy savings coupled with

the least disturbance of any particular

sector of the economy.

5.1.1 Impact EstL"Dates for Proposed

Standard Levels. Evaluation of the many

alternative levels of standards for each

class of consumer product resulted in

the selection of preferred alternatives..

These alternatives have been shown to

be technologically feasible and

economically justified by the impact

analyses which are presented in the

"Economic Analysis Document." TSD

No.4. Summaries of specific product

impacts of the proposed standard levels

for consumers. manufacturers and the

Nation can be found in section 4 of this

notice.

For all products combined. the

proposed standards are estimated to

save between 13.64 QBtu's and 24.87

QBtu's during the 1982 through 2005

period. valued between 822.4 billion and

$29.4 billion in discounted 1978 dollars.

The aggregate increased cost of more

energy efficient products during tha t

same period will be between $7.3 billion

and $10.2 billion in discounted 1978

dollars. The national net present value

of proposed standards on all product

types combined is estimated to be

between $15.1 billion and 819.2 billion in

1978 dollars.

For the remaining national impact

indicators such as change in gruss

national product. inflation. balance of

trade. inflation and employment. there is

negligible impact. In addition. the

differential impacts across consumer

income groups are negligible. A detailed

analysis of these impacts is presented in

the "Economic Analysis Document."

TSD No.4.

5.1.2 Purpose. Scope and

Methodology. The purpose of the'

economic analysis was to determine

whether or not a standard was

economically justified and if the benefitsof the standard exceed the burdens. This

analysis was based upon the seven

factors in section 325(d) of the A9t and

listed in section 1.2.2 of this notice. The applicaffon of these legislative

criteria required that the impacts on

consumers. manufacturers and the

Nation be quantified. The analysis

separately adciressed impacts from all

three perspectives and then integrated

the results. Economic efficiencv tests.

which evaluate the magnitude 'of

impacts resulting from energy efficiency

standards regulations. were applied

from the perspective of consumers.

manufacturers and the Nation as a

whole. Equity tests. which assess how

these impacts are shared across

consumer groups. different sized

manufacturers and geographical regions.

were also applied.

Each alternative energy efficiency

level of a standard was assessed to

determine the magnitude of any of the

following impacts:

• changes in life cycle cost (LCe) to

the consumer; 1

I Life cycle cost is a measure of the total cost of

consumer product ownership represented by the

summation of product purchase cost. and

maintenance and operaling-expenses over service

life of the product. discounted to their present

values.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44006 Federal Register j Vol. -!5. No. 12i / ~{onday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

• the distribution of costs and

benefits among consumer groups: • the' distribution of costs and

benefits between regions:

• loss of economic efficiency by

manufacturers; • the distribution of economic

efficiency effects among manufacturer

groups. especially those wi th less than

58 million in sales; and • exposure of any particular group of

manufacturers. especially those with

sales under 58 million annually.. to

greater risk of financial failure.

Alternative energy efficiency levels

were ranked in accordance with each of

the impact measures above. including

national energy savings and national net

present valuer

5.1.3 Relationship of Ana!ysis to

Legislative Criteria. The seven

legislative criteria identified were

quantitatively applied in the economic

analysis as follows:

(1) Economic Impact on Consumers

and Manufacturers. The economic

impacts of standards' on consumers

were quantified by calculating consumer

payback. consumer life cycle costs and

the dispersion of these life cycle costs

across income groups. Standards that

potentially imposed a greaterli.[e cycle

cost than currently exists were dropped

from consideration. Additionally, any

standard that could produce an

inequitable burden on lower income

groups was given special attention. The

economic efficiency impacts of the

standards on manufacturers were

assessed through estimation of changes

in the ratio of profit to net worth. Equity

impacts on manufacturers were

measured by analyzing shifts in the

distribution of profit/net worth for

manufacturers of varying si.:les and any

changes in the likelihood of firm failure.

In addition. the ability of individual

manufacturers to generate sufficient'

funds to make capital investment for

1986 standards was assessed.

(2) Cost Savings. Changes in national

net present value and consumer life

cycle costs were calculated. Any

. standard that did not lead to aggregate

cost savings was eliminated from fur!her

consideration.

(3) Energy Savings. Baseline

projections of energy use were

compared to calculations of energy use

under energy efficiency standards. Any

standard that did not produce a net

energy savings compared with the

baseline was eliminated from further

consideration.

(4} Utility or Performance.

Consideration was given to various.

performance and utility features in

making product class selections. The

analysis addressed only those standards

which ensured the existence of products

having essential consumer utility

characteristics. as determined by DOE.

(5) Lessening of Competition. Impacts

on competition were measured by

calculating any change in the likelihood

of firm failure resulting from the

imposition of a standard. If the

likelihood of failure was great. the

standard was eliminated from further

considera tion.

(6) Need of the Nation to Conserve

Energy. Consideratiotl.of the Nation's

need to conserve energy was

incorpora ted in the economic

methodology by rar:tking alternative

standard levels by their national energy.

savings.

(7) Any Other Factors the Secretary or

DOE Considers Relevant. The analysis

addressing the above six criteria was

expanded upon by estimating any

resulting changes in income distribution.

the distributiqn of life cycle costs across

regions. gross national product.

inflation, balance of trade and

employment.

5.2 Value Model Overview

The Value Model is a computer

program developed to evaluate

alternative standard levels in

accordance with regulatory guidelines~

and requirements in the Act. It·was

developed so that the economic impacts

of regulation could be systematically

compared. evaluated and sequentially

ranked. It is organized by group'

perspective (consumer. manufacturer

and Nation) and type of impact

(economic efficiency, equHy).

Impact measures incorporated within

the mod~ include:

.Consumer

• Consumer lire eycle costs • Consumer payback • Consumer income inequality

coefficient

Manufacturer

• Average- manufacturer profit to net

worth ratio

• Interquartile shifts in manufacturer

profit to net worth ratios

• AvailabilitY of funds during the 1981

to 1985 period requir~d to make capital

investments for 1986 standards.

Nation

• Macro economic variables such as

gross. national product. balance of trade..

inflation,.and employment

• Regional life cycle cost changes • National energy savings .

• National net present value.

The Value: Mode! was run in two

phases. In the fU'st phase the effect of

standards 011 the various impact ,.- .

measures was calculated. In the second

phase. the acceptability of these impa~'~

was evaluated. Its output included a

of acceptable options prioritized by

energy savings and impacts o~ ,

consumers. manufacturers ana :ne

.'Iation. For a more detailed discuSSlOn

of this analysis. the- reader is referred to

the "Econo~ic Analvsis Document."

TSO No.4. .

5.2.1 Consumer Perspective. The

consumer impacts of alternative energy

efficiency levels were calculated by

estimating both the level of induced

costs and benefits and their distribution

across-different income groups and

regions.

IdentJfication ofDecision Making

Criteria

Consumer impacts were measured by

the net benefits to consumers who

purchase and operate energy efficient

consumer products. Benefit for this

analysis was defined as the savings in

life cycle costs accruing to consumer

product owners. Decision making

criteria for consumer impacts'included:

the average LCC savings resulting from

energy efficiency improvements in

consumer products; the specific impacts

of these savings on different consumer

groups: the payback period for

recouping the increased purchase cost,

more efficient products: and changes in

disposable consumer income.

5.2.2 Manufacturer Perspective. The--

Value Model incorporated the potential

effects of consumer product efficiency

regulations on the financial posture of

manufacturers. In developing the impact

indicators. consideration was given to:

assets. liabilities, market share.

profitability. and gross sales•

Identification ofDecision ,Hoking

Criteria

The impact of regulation on

manufacturers was reflect~d in changes

to costs and revenues. These impacts

resulted from changes in capital costs.

material costs. borrowing costs. sales

volumes and sales prices. The measure

representing manufacturer economic

efficiency impacts was percent change

in the profit to net worth. ratio. This ratio

incorporated the entire spectrum of

financial calculations including various

cost items. as well as capital acquisition

and debt effects.

Mannfacturet" equity was considered

in two ways: first. as a measure of how

economic efficiency impacts are shared

among mannfaeturers: and second.. as a

measure of the change in exposure to

failure resulting from regula tion·linked

changes in a firm's financial position. In

both measures. the industry was

segmented into small. medium, and large
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45, 1"0. 12i / Monday. June 30. 1980 / ProDosed Rules 44007

1"' swr=r •

phased standards for each product

class. A preliminary standard level is

being proposed for implementation in

July 1981, and a final standard level is

proposed that will take effect on January

,1,1986.

In the determina tion of 1981

standards, four trial levels of analysis

were defined for each product dass. For

each such class a sales weighted

efficiency factor for 1978 was

determined from industry survey data.

This SWEF defined the second level for

analvsis of each class. The first level of

analysis was determined by subtracting

the 1978 standard deviation of the

efficiencv factor from the SWEF. Levels

three and four were determined

respectively by adding one and two

standard deviations to the SWEF. The

, sales weighted efficiency factor (SWEF)

was defined as follows:

n",aber ot "J)"U.n~• .adel.

1:" .0411

ahi ~nc. 'of ttl•.l th .add

Iner'fY f ..lao, o"t: to". 11.1\ .ooel.

",n.re II •

1 •

$WI •

ETi •

The four triallev-els utilized in the

analysis of alternative 1986 product

class standards were derived as follows:

• level four was based on

implementation of advanced energy

efficiency technologies (equipment

designs not widely available in

commerce) ,

• level three was near the maximum

product class efficiency factor

considered to be attainable through

conventional technologies (equipment

designs widely available in commerce)

• levels two and one were derived bv

scaling down level three. This scaling .

down represented DOE's judgment

regarding alternative burdens on

manufacturers and was taken to provide

a lower bound for choosing the

preferred alternative.

5.5 Acceptability Criten'Q Used for

Standards Selection.

The Value Model provides a display

of equity and economic efficiency

and beha vioral effects in predicting

future energy demand.

EXPLOR. a national econometric/

input-output model, was used to

estimate the effects of alternative

standards on employment. inflation,

gross national product and balance of

trade. To estimate the impacts of

regulation. certain input data were fed

into the model. The key data were:

direct energy savings (provided by the

energy use model). demographic

. projections, discount rates and changes

in costs and materials. With these

inputs, the EXPLOR model ca:1culates

how economic impact~ on the indtlstrial

and residential sector, directly affected

by proposed standards, interact with the

rest of the economy. The model traces

the various regulatory impacts through

the different sectors and aggregated

them into summary estimates of changes

in: GNP ($), inflation ('Vo), balance of

trade ($), and employment'(numbers of

jobs}. Impacts were projected for the

1982 through ZOOO period.

Impacts of consumer product

efficiency standards on manufacturers

of consumer products were estimated

using two principal models: (1) the -

Dispersion Model. which analyzes how

many product models. shipments, and

revenues are lost at each level of

regulation, and (2) the Financial Model,_

which analyzes the financial and

business impact ~n manufacturers. Both

models are fully described in the

"Economic Analysis Document," TSD

No.4. For each alternative standard

level, the revenue loss resulting from the

loss of noncompliant product lines was

derived using the Dispersion Model. The

resulting loss of revenue is used as input

to the Financial Model. That model

analyzes the percentage of

manufacturers usable to maintain

financial health without resorting to

untenable levels of debt, change of

ownership or closure.

Ufe cycle costs and payback were

analyzed by varying energy prices,

discount rates, product usage rates.

efficiency factors. and capital costs to

determine through sensitiVity analysis

the relative impacts on the consumer.

Life cycle costs and payback were

analyzed by varying energy price's,

discount rates, efficiency factors, and

capital costs to determine through

sensitivity analysis the relative impacts

on the consumer.

5.4 Economic Impacts of Regulation.

5.4.1 Selection of Alternative Levels

for Analysis. DOE is proposing timefirm'S, with a comparison made to __

determine whether an unfair distribution

of burdens could exist between different

groups. Furthermore. assessment was

made of the percentage of firms unableto obtain sufficient funds through profit

or short-term debt. during the 1981

through 1985 period, to make the capital

investment necessary for January 1986

standards.

5.1.3 'Nation's Perspective, National

impacts of consumer product efficiency

standards encompass all consumer and

manufacturer impacts. In addition. the

national perspective considers those

factors which affect the future well

being of society in the United States as a

whole (Le., inflation, gross national

product, balance of trade, etc.).

Identification of Decision Making

Criteria

The impacts of standards flow

through the economy to effect s~ch

national indicators as gross natIonal

product, inflation. balance of trade and

employment. The Value Model assesses

these impacts and displays their

magnitudes. In addition the Value Model

estimates the total energy savings and

the national net present value resulting

from alternative levels of standards. (A

detailed presentation of this analysis

can be found In the "Economic Analysis

Document," 1'5D No. 4,) T~ese latter two

indicators serve as the criteria by which

otherwise acceptable alternatives were

sequentially ranked. The net present

value is calculated as the discounted

value of energy savings minus the

discounted total cost of increased

product prices and Federal costs. The

energy savings indicatormeasures the

total amount of energy savings ,

attributable to consumer product energy

efficiency improvements.

5.3 Economic Sub-Models Within The

Value ModeJ.

The Value Model organizes estimates

of regulatory impacts into a framework

for sequentially ranking alternative

energy :efficiency levels. The estimates

of various impact measures are provided

by the various sub-models described

below.

The Residential Energy Use

Forecasting Model calculates total

energy use, by product type and fuel

type, over the period 1982-2005.

Estimates of energy use with and

without standards are compared to

assess the energy savings attributable to

alternative energy efficiency standards.

The model incorporates technological
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44008 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / :\<ionday. June 30. 1980 / Proooseci Rules

impacts. as discussed abo~e. As

estimates of these impacts were viewed

as a whole. a range of suitable trade-offs

emerged. These trade-offs provide the

criteria bv which certain alternative

energy efficiency levels were classified

as unacceptable. A complete description

of these acceptability criteria. or

thresholds. can be found in the

"Economic Analysis Document," TSD

:\0. 4. To summarize some of the

principal thresholds. a level of standard

is acceptable only if: product life cycle

costs-are reduced: energy savings

accrue: natioQal net present value is

positive: and the ability of the industry

to effectively compete is preserved,

6.0 Certification and Enforcement i~·

6.1. Introduction

Industry compliance with energy

efficiency standards wHl be assured

through a two part program approach of

certification and enforcement activities.

Certification is the process whereby a

manufacturer by means of testing in

accordance with DOE procedures, prior

to commercial distribution. insures that

the product complies with the energy

efficiency standard. The manufacturer

certifies compliance by filing a

statement of compliance based on such

testing with DOE. Enforcement involves

all subsequent DOE activities or

manufacturer requirements which insure

that the continued production of a

manufacturer remains in compliance

with the standard.. 6.1.1 Alternative Certification and

Enforcement Approach. Four alternative

approaches to consumer product

certification and enforcement were

developed and investigated. These

included:

(a) A Minimum Government

Intervention:

(b) A Strong Certification Control:

(c) A Strong Enforcement Audit:

(d) A Mixed Certification and

Enforcement.

Each of the four approaches are

present in a wide range of public and

private standards programs. The first

approach represents the lowest level of

direct Federal intel"\tention into the

consumer product industry but limits

DOE's control of assuring that all

products distributed in commerce are in

compliance with applicable energy

efficiency standards. The remaining

three approaches represent a larger

level of effort. each placing the major

program emphasis on different stages of

the certification and enforcement

process.

The second approach emphasizes the

certification process and provides

assurances of compliance before

products are distributed in commerce.

The third approach emphasizes the

enforcement process by stressing

continuing test and record audits of

post-certification production. The fourth

approach represents a mix between the

second and third approaches.

distributing the emphases between the

roles of certification and enforcement

audit activities.

The selectfon criteria used in

evaluating the four certification and

enforcement approaches included an

"assessment of anticipated impacts on

and associated costs of the program (to

the Federal government. industry and

commerce). the likelihood of discovering

noncompliant products and consequent

impact on the anticipated level of

compliance.

These approaches are discussed in

detail in TSD No.3. "Certification and

Enforcement Analysis,"

6.1.2 Proposed Certification and

Enforcement Approach. The

certification. and enforcement portion of

the rule being proposed today is the

Mixed Certification and Enforcement

Approach. This approach will yield a

superior data base required to monitor

the compliance behavior of

manufacturers. Test costs will be spread

Table 6-1.-l:valuation of Sampling Pran Options

Cost of teSllng -.

more evenlv over all of the basic models

being distrihuted. The. potential for

adversely affecting new product

introduction and placing smaller

manufacturers at a disadvantage

through delays in distribution and

production will be reduced. The

anticipated level of compliance (and

consumer confidence) will be higher.

The proposed approach is discussed in

detail in sections 6.4 and 6.5.

6.2 Statistical Analysis

6.2.1 E,'aluation of Sampjing Plans.

.. Te.§t procedures have been promulgated.

among other things. for determining if

consumer products sold on the market

are actually in compliance with the

applicable standards. The test

procedures could be conducted on each

consumer product produced. or a sample

of the total population could be selected

for testing. There are several sampling

plan options which could be used bv

DOE in the certification and .•

enforcement efforts. Eighteen different

sampling plan options were analyzed to

determine if they met the following

criteria:

a. Minimize manufacturers' testing

costs:

b. Limit the calendar time required for

testing: .,.

c, Assure compatibility with the

sampling plan promulgated for the FTC

labeling program: .

d. Provide a high statistically valid

probability that a manufacturer

preliminarily found to be in

noncompliance will actually be in

noncompliance: and

e. Provide a high statistically valid

probability that basic models that are

tested meet applicable energy efficiency

standards. A summary evaluation of the

eighteen options appears in Table 6-1. A

more detailed discussion is contained in

Appendix G of the "Certification and

Enforcement Analysis," TSD No.3.

Expected total Ca/landat time requtred

lor tesllng

ConSiStency Wlth

FTC nJle

OPbOn '_Ag uMS tesled divided by 0 pet InteaSible Proportlonal tel productIOn vellume Inteaslble No.

detective standard _

Opll()/1 jl2-Fixed sample divided by,•.o pet HiqnesL : EQUSI. Shortesl (d) •• OptIOn more preCIse (e. bl.

detective standard

OPbOn jlJ-Inleget _bal samoOng W1tl'l Low................................................ UnGQUaI but lavor-s effioent rno<lefS. Longesl and unlimited Option more precise (a. bl.

unlltntted 'teratJorts ~ed by 0 pel detec·

tive stan<Jan2. ..

Option ",4-Integet _lIal samPling; limit· Lowest _ Unequal but tavors ettioent mo<lelS. Multiple ot unit lestllme _.:: Option more preose (a. b'.

ed iterabOns divided by 0 pet detective

standard.

Option "'S-8atcft sequential sampling Wlln Moderate (e) but unOrnIlel1 Unequal but faVOt$ effioent models. Moderate (el but unlimited __ Opnon more preose Ia. bl.

"nlimlted itetallOnS dIVIded by 0 pet defective sta11danl.

OPtion N6-Batell _!Ial ilaf'llQting W1tl'l lolode<ale lei :. UneQUal but tavors elfioenl modelS. Moderate (e) OptIOn more oreose (e. b'.

linuted iteratJorts dMded by 0 pet delectMI

Standard.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 44009

Tab"6-1.-~V81us1JOflof Sampiing Plan Options-Continued

Cost 01 testing

Expected total tlisInbutlOll among

manulacturlll's

Calendar lime reouwl!d

to< tesllng

OotlOn #7-An ....ils tested divided by greater InklaSlble .•__••__.•.•.•.•. PmportlOl'lIlllO produeoon YOlurne._. Inleasible__...._ ...._..._......... .... No.

than 0 1lCl delectNe Standel'll. .' OptIOn ,so_Fixed sample d <led by grea"" Htgnesl..••_ ••__ __••__.. EQl<aI. _ _ _ __._._ Shortest tdl.-_- _ ••_ ..__• Opllon more preasa la. 01.

than 0 pet defective standard.

OpllOn II&-Integer aeQUen10al sample with Low._. ••_ ...._._. olJneqUQI 0Ul Javots eHicl8n1lT1<l<lel$. Longest and-unlimned ... • OptIOn l'IlClfe prec:ole fa. 0).

unllmlleditlll'atlOns dtv.Oed by 91"''''' lI\an

o pet oelectNe Standard.

OptIOn , ,o-tnteglll' sequenlta! sampling with Lowesl...._ ........_ ...__... UtWl<lU8l OUItaVOtS eHic1e<>t 1T1<l<le1$. MultiPle 01 unit test nme•••_ ..._ ••_.__• OptIOn more ill'8CISe tao 0).

limned itlll'etlOllS divided by 91ea"" tnan 0

pet deteetnre standard. . OPhOh ",-!latell sequential1lamping with Mode<ate Col but unlimited _ UAeqU8l. bullavors'.elllcienl models. USual __.._. . <>phOn more pr8C1S8 ca. bl.

unhmlled iteratlOl'lS divided by .grea1er 1IlaIl

opet oeleC1lVe S18tldatd.

-OptJon lI'lZ'-Batcll _-mal sampllng with ModeI'ate te) "Unequal ._ Moderate CCl .....-. .•_ ... 'OptiOn more precise ca. bl.

limIIe<l Iletaliona dM<led by greater than 1) pctde__

OphOn ,,3-AIi unIIS 1esle<f divided by maen lnle8Slble .._ .._ ••__• Ptoportion8lIo prod_ volume•••• Inleasil:lle.._.._•• ._. No.

energy efficiency stfndard. . OPlJQn ,'<t'_Filled !l'ample 4Mded by mean H1ghest... •••_.__ Equal._.__..__... .._. Shor\8Sl (dl__........__......__ OptIOn more precise COl.

energy effICiency S\llfl<l8ftl.

OpllOn #,S-lnl6gflf sequential sampling with Low .--.....-. Unequal-but 1a¥orseffieienllT1<l<lels. l.Ongest and unfmvted_._....__.... OotiOn more fl"lCIS8tb).

unlltMed 1\eIa1lOt1S -dM<led by mean 4lne'Vf

efficlency standard.

OpliOn ,,6-lnleger _1Ial sampling willi ·LowesI • Ui'le<lulIl 'CUI --.. effictenImodels. Multiple 01 unit lest time._...._._.__••. Op!lOn ll\OI'e precl8e CO).

_ell llerattOnS -diW:led by mean .-qy

efficiency slandanld.

OptiOn ,17-Baten eequenUal sampling with Moderate (0) but unlimned_. ~.but1a..as ~lIident models. 11.1_,01 OUI unllmrted. • 'OpbOn more ~ec:iSe Ill).

unItml1ed l\enIliOns <tMded.by mean ""8l9Y .

effiCIency .uand8rd.

OptIOn' 'S'-El8tch _ntlal sampAi,g willi Moderate le) _ .._ .._.__ 'l/ne<ltl8I buI.fIMll's efflCienl modelS. M_e CCI.__...._. Op1lOn more 'bl.

limited lIfl<l11ioM divided by mean _rgy

efficienCV I\.IIldatd.

•. Alter'tnll'lslomIalion -01 EEL's III 1:IetectNe indicstons.

b. For eenaift confIdenCe limIlS and tolerances..

c:. 0eIlenda IlIIICII SiZe. as'Well as om., parameters. d. 'Same as..... _ time.

'l're1ened >cptionS.

requirements. thus reducing the testing

burden of the two programs, _

.6,2.3, Types ofSampling Plans. The

,proposed rule includes a sequential

sampling plan for determining

compliance with energy efficiency

standards. Various systems that could

be used for selecting the number of units -

to be tested and the number of test

sequences for determining compliance

were analyzed. Three alternative

systems that were studied are:

a. Test the total population of covered

consumer products (which would entail

100%'sampling);

b. Test a predetermined fixed number

of production units; this is called a

"single sampling plan:"

C. Test units within a basic model, one

at a time or in groups, until a

-determination can be made that a basic

model is in compliance or

noncompliance: this is called a

"sequential sampling plan."

The only way to determine

conclusively (with 100% certainty) that a

basic model of a covered product is in

compliance with an applicable energy

efficiency standard is to test every ;nit

in the basic model. The cost and time

constraints associated with this

alternative make it infeasible. Although

testing the total population is the only

way to be 100% certain of compliance

avai~able statistical sampling methods

To account for production variation.

whereb-y..some..unitS maybe well.below

or well, above the stllndardefficiency .

'. -level. a rule might also include a -

"standard deviation" statistic to

measure the variability of energy

efficiencies among units. A

"combination mean and standard

deviation" approach combines the;mean

and·standard deviation measures int'O a

single index. and the basic model index

would have to exceed the standard.

Alternatively. production variation

might be accounted for by combining the

mean approach and the percent

defective approach•.so that basic models

must have average energy efficiencies

which meet or exceed the standard

average efficiency and include less than

a given production of units with

efficiencies below the given percent

defective allowed.

Although each approach has some

advantages. the mean approach was

judged superior. insofar as it controls

the overall energy efficiency level for a

given basic model and requires less

testing than the alternate approaches.

The mean approach is consistent with .

the energy conservation goal and the

certification and enforcement testing

objective. The mean approach has the

further advantage of being consistent

with the approach selected for the FTC

ene~ efficiency labeling program

6,2.2 .Types of-Standards. The

sampling plan options.are designed for'

'COmpatibility with four types of

standards: (1) the mean efficiency'"

standard. (2) tM percent defective

standard. (3) the combination of an

energy efficiency mean and standard

deviation, and (4) the combination of an

energy efficiency mean and percent

defective standard,

A "mean·efficiency standard" seeks to

maximize the average efficiency of a

basic model. Such a standard

establishes the minimum allowable level

of average energy efficiency for a given

basic modeL

An "energy efficiency standard" may

be established so that a basic model is

allowed to have a specified percentage

of sampled units which does not meet

the standard..Defective units. in the case

of energy efficiency standards. are

defined as units with energy efficiencies

below the established standard. The

percentage of defective units is

computed by dividing the number of

defective units bv the nlirnber of units

tested and multiplying by 100. A

"percent defective" approach requires

that a specified percentage of units

produced achieve energy efficiencies

greater than the efficiency standard.

That is. only a given proportion of units

are allowed to have energy, efficiencies

below the efficiency standard.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44010 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 1':7 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

can be used to generate highly accurate

information.

A second alternative considered was

the use of a single sampling plan. In

order to use the single sampling plan.

sufficient numbers of units must be . tested to vield results with high levels ot

certainty: e.g..-97.5%.

The determination of the number of

units to be tested is based in part on

expected unit-to-unit va~iabilit~.

Reliable estimates of umt to umt

variability are unavailable an~

significant differences may eXist among

basic models and manufacturers._Thus.

a single saIl1ple size giving sufficiently

hl"h assurance of compliance cannot be

established without incurring

unacceptably high testing costs for some

manufacturers.

The third alternative that was.

considered was sequential samplmg. In

sequential sampling, .the s~ze of the total

sample is not determmed m advance.. Instead. after each unit or group of umts

is tested. a decision is made to (1) -

accept, (2) reject. or (3) suspex:d . judgment and continue samplmg untIl a

decision is ultimately reached..

Sequential sampling m~thodsoIten . permit reaching a deciSion on the baSIS

of fewer tests than single sampling

plans. There are two basic types of

sequential sampling schemes:

a. Integer sequential sam~ling, and

b. Batch sequential samplmg. . Integer- sequential sampling consl~ts

of makino the accept. reject. or continue

testing d;cision at the co~pletion of

each individual test. The mteger

sequential sampling process may be

designed so that there is no maximum

number of units tested to make the

accept or reject decision for each basic

model. This would be referred tq as an

unlimited iteration plan since no . termination point is set on the maximum

test size. Inteoer sequential sampling ,

may also be c"onducted wi~h limite~ iterations. In this plan. a given maximum

sample size is designated as a.

termination point in the sampling

process. e.g., a maximum number of

units that may have to be tested is -

. established before making an accept or

reject decision. . The other basic type of sequential

sampling plan is batch sequen~ial.

sampling. where a group of.umts IS

tested before each accept. reject. or

continue testing decision. The unlimited

versus limited iteration distinction also

applies to batch sequential sat?pling.

With limited iterations. a maximum

number of test samples is established

prior to the initiation of testing. When

this maximum'is reached. the testing is

curtailed and an accept or reject

decision is made on the basis of

information obtained in the testing

process.

A particular varia ~ion .of .the ba tch.

seouential system WIth hmlted IteratlO!1s

is the double sampling plan. In this type

of DIan. a relatively small first test

sa~ple is selected and tested.If the test

results show that the pasic model

clearly exceeds the standard. then the

model is considered in compliance. If

the results demonstrate that the model is

clearly below the standard then the

model is determined in non-compliance. - II the results. however. are close to the

standard. a second sample is selected,

the test results are combined with the

results of the first test sample. and the

model is then detennined to be in

compliance or noncompliance.

The proposed rule incorporates a _

double sampling plan as a compro~lse

between single and integer sequential

sampling plans. The major disadvantage

of the integer sequential sampling plan

is the test time involved-in making .

decisions under this system. Units of

basic models would be required to be

tested one at a time in.sequence until a

decision-could be made.. Under the .

batch sequential approach (double

sampling), the units selected for the ,first

batch can be. tested simultaneously

rather than sequentially. If a second

batch is necessary, these units can also

be tested simultaneously. Therefore.

total test time for the batch sequential

approach can be minimized. If the

inteoer sequential approach were

utili~ed. then total test time for

completing the sampling plan would be

equal' to the number of units require~ to

be tested multiplied by the time reqUlred

for conducting the test procedure. In

most cases the number of units tested

would be about the same under both the

integer and batch sequential sampling

plans. The anticipated number o.f test

units. is four or five for most baSIC

models. If. for example. five units were

required to be tested under an integer

sequential sample approach. then test

time could be 150% greater than the

batch sequential approach. If more thanfive units are required. then this

percentage could increase. Test costs in

both of these approaches were

considered to be equal: therefore the

batch sequential plan (double sampling

plan) was considered to be superior to

all alternatives considered.

6.3 Discussion of Proposed Double

Sampling Plan

6.3.1 General Sampling Consideratio~

Sampling a few units from a

. population of units inherently im:olves

the risk that the characteristics ooserved

for the sample are not typical of the

total·population. Some risk is justified

by the substantial cost reduction

obtained by testing a sample rather than

all units produced. This sampling plan.

like all sampling plans. has been . developed with the factors of sampling

risk and cost in mind. _

In other previous research and . industrial sampling situatlons. vanous

sampling designs have been combined

to balance risk and cost. Based on th-ese

situations. the consumer produd energy

efficiency standards' sampling plan was

formed by melding two well accepted

methodologies: double sampling and.

mean efficiency standard. The samphng

procedures are statistica~ly valid a~d

adhere strictly to theorettcal sampling

principles with two constraints requir.ed

for effective enforcemenlby DOE. ThiS

section discusses initially the sampling

plan in general. and second. addresses

features required by extreme and

unusual basic model characteristics.

The average energy efficiency of all

units of a basic model is referred to as

the "true mean," arid. generally. it is the

intent of the sampling procedure to - detennine whether the true mean of a

basic model meets or exceeds the DOE

energy efficiency standard. Emphasis is

placed on the concept that the tests' are

conducted to make an inference about

the true mean energy efficiency of the

model. Should the energy efficiency

values of test units indicate with

sufficient assurance that the true mean

is below the energy efficiency standard.

then the model is not in compliance.

Thus. the sample test results are the sole

source of information used to determine

comoliance or noncompliance. ' DOE recognizes that units of a basic

model vary in energy efficiency for a

number.of valid reasons. including

differences in component parts.. production. and testing. The distribution

with which energy efficiency values

could occur for a basic model is

illustrated in Figure 6-1. The Figure

illustrates normal unit-to-unit

variability. In the sampling plan. unit-tounit variability is measured by the

standard deviation or the coefficient of

vaJ:iation. Both the standard deviation

and coefficient of variation are standard

measures of variabrtity commonly

defined in statistics textbooks.
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Fed~rakRegister I Vol. 45. No. 127 I Monday. June 30.1980 I Proposed Rules 44011

Energy Efficiency

Figure 6-1 nlustration of Distribution o.f Energy Efficiency

Values for Units of a Basic Model

..

I

,

l

I

within a reasonable range about the

standard or, for very efficiently designed

units, well above the standard. Such

ranges are referred to as "tolerance

limits:'

In developing ,the tolerance limits and

sample sizes. consideration has been

given to the manufacturer's and the

public.'s risks. The manufacturer's risk is

the possibility that a model with a.true

mean equal to the standard is found in

noncompliance because the sample

,mean of the test units is unreasonably

low. In statistical hypothesis testing, the

risk of falsely rejecting a true hypothesis

is generally kept within a range of 1 to

10 percent The FTC sampling plan

usually sets this level at 2.5 percent.

DOE's judgment is that a 2.5 percent

level of manufacturer's risk is

reasonable.in terms of sample size and

associated test costs. Further, a

manufacturer can reduce his risk by

designing basic models above the

energy efficiency standard. The

sampling plan controls the producer's

risk at 2.5 percent. This tolerance limit

has also been chosen to limit the

public's risk of inefficient models being

determined in compliance. The DOE I',:

tolerance limit for determining sample

size is therefore 5 percent of the .!

standard. including a manufacturer's

risk of no greater than 2.5 percent that a

complaint basic model would be

rejected (with the exception of models " j

with extremely high coefficients of

variation, discussed in section 6;3.2). I'

In summary. the primary design for

the sampling plan is drawn from

statistical sampling principles that are !

statistically valid and widely applied I .

and discussed in most statistical

textbooks. Selected references are listed

in Appendix G of TSD #3.

6.3.2 Special Sampling Considerations

In statistical sampling theory and in

the procedures set forth in the proposed

- rule. the size of the sample depends

upon the variability of energy efficiency

of individual units. the tolerance

specified by DOE for the accuracy of the

results. and the risk level borne by

manufacturers'and the public.

The following additional

considerations were important in

developing the sampling plan:

a. Generally, available information is

inadequate for determining the standard

deviation of a model;

increasingly good as sample size

increases. A sample size of four units

has been shown to be large enough tomeet the assumptions of the central limit

theorem. Consequently. the minimum

sample size appropriate for testing a

basic model is four. and certification

decisions are made only With sample

sizes of four or more. An important

application of the central limit theorem

is the ability to control the standard

error by specifying the sample size. For

example. if the standard deviation

(variability of the unit energy

efficiencies) is 10 and the sample size is

4. then the standard deviation of the

sample means (called the "standard

error") is equal to 10 divided by the

square root of 4 (10/V4). or 5. The

equation for the standard error is

presented as equation 3 in Appendix A

of the Certification and Enforcement

subpart of the rule. The standard error

declines as the sample size increases

and, in general. the standard error for a

given distribution of unit energy ,

efficiencies is controlled by the size of

the sample chosen.

Consequently, the rule contains a

well-deflned procedure for determining

the sample size. By requiring a specified

number of units for testing, the sample

means of units can be expected to fall

"

tiumbeyo of Units

The variability of unit energy.

efficiencies implies that if the

certification decision for an entire basic

model is based upon the test results of a

single unit. substantial risk is entailed. A

single test unit dra'wn randomly from .the

population of units of a basic model may

by chance have a very high or very low

energy efficiency. The public would

suffer if. by mere chance. a highly

efficient unit were drawn from a model

whose true mean energy efficiency is

below the standard. and the

manufacturer would suffer if a very low

energy efficiency unit were drawn from

a basic model with a true mean above

the DOE standard. The public's and

manufacturer's risks are teduced

through the application of a statistically

meaningful sampling plan and basing

the certification decision on the mean

energy efficiency of the sample units.

The relationship between the

variability of the energy efficiency of

individual units and the variability of

sample means is treated in the central

limit theorem. In the case of energy

efficiency testing. the central limit

theorem means that the sample mean

energy effiCiency variability is equal

approximately to the standard deviation

divided by the square root of the sample

size. the approximation becomiI'l:8
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44012 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

b. Sample size should be minimized

for models with superior mean energy

efficiency and low unit-to-unit

variability.

Until some testing has been

conducted. estimates oc variability are

unavailable. Consequently. a sampling

plan which begins without an estimate

of variability is required. Also. DOE

desires to reduce the test burden

through the selection of a sampling plan

if the public's risk is not increased by

the adoption of such a plan. A sampling

procedure recommended in such

situations is. the double sampling plan•.

Double sampling is a sequential

process in which additional testing is

contingent upon previous test results.

(The procedure is illustrated in Figure 6-

z.) In a double sampling plan. a small

sample is drawn initially and the units

are tested. As discussed above. DOE

has determined that the minimum first

sample size is four. Following the first

test. one of three decisions is reached.

First. a sample mean significantly

below the standard implies that the

model ism noncompliance. Therefore.

testing is curtailed and the model is not

certified. The probability of this case

occurring erroneously is the "producer's

risk" shown in Table 6-2. Second. a

sample mean significantly above the

standard or a sample mean within the

DOE tolerance limits where the .

.variability of the initial sample units are

sufficiently small implies that the model

is in compliance. Therefore. testing is

curtailed and the model is certified.

Models which can be tested with small .

samples are often found in compliance

with minimal sample sizes. The

probability of this case occurring is

shown in Table 6-3. as "Probability of

Compliance after First Sample." Third. a

sample mean the results of which do not

clearly indicate whether the model is

complying or not. are used to determine

the second sample size. The variability

of the units within the first sample. the

tolerance limit and the risk level provide

the information necessary for

determining a second sample size.

Based on the second sample. one of

two decisions may be made. First. a

sample means of all units tested. which

falls significantly below the energy

efficiency standard. implies that the

basic model has a mean energy

efficiency level which fails to comply

with the standard. Therefore. the unit is

not certified. The risk of not being

certified increases rapidly as the true

mean energy efficiency of the model

declines. Probabilities of noncertification of noncomplying models

are reported in Table 6-4. Second. a

sample mean which is above the

standard or not signi~icantly below the

standard (but above the tolerance limit)

is accepted as being in compliance.

All testing is stopped following the

second sample.

BILLING eoCE 645<l~'-M
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 127 I Monday, June 30, 1980 I Proposed Rules

Com;>ute:

o to'lean (i,)

-

44013

C ' •. ' e~-:'7"ca:ior,

- Stop ies:ir.; ~cn - Ce~~ifica:ion

S:'op ies:ing

...- .......:1 Compa!"e Sa:i:i'1e #1 Mean (xl) If------~l "l I...'

t.c::::::-.=:LC==::':.....:;to:::..'..::U.=8.=--__....; ,.

1.-1-_;_i_1_<_L~C-:..- I· If LCL: xl > U:L

t • Dct~rmi ne -Sa~ 1e ~2

Size (nZ) Using:

-

o S~~1e €1 S~andaic

Devia-:ion (sl)

o Desired ic1e~an:e'

Lin:i~ (r)

,-

J Sam: 1e f2 D!"cl't'Ti' }

Compute for Com:inec S~?les:

o Mean (ii ' o Standard Deviation (s)

Com~are Com~inec S~m?1e

n ane #.:2 Mean (xi to LCl

I

u:~ ]

t'

r ,'" Xz < LCL \ IJ X.z. '> LC!. ... t

J Nor. - Certification I Certifica:;or.

D~UBL: SAM?LING PLAN

(LIM!~ED BhiCH S£OUE~Tl~)

F! GU?~ 6-2
44014

CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 I :Vlonday. June 30,1980 I Proposed Rules'

, ' moLE )

OPERATI NG (IIAIlJ\CnR1S11CS or "fur

PROPOSro SAf1PU Net rl.J\N

frue Hean CocHlclenl of Varlalfon (tv Dnli flcgutrcd Sa Ie Size (n)

lelatlve to CV=.02. n::~ - CV=.oif~i;!)- - cV;-.06 L!!=O-- ,lv=o.'10. n:1n

JOE Standard Producer Consumer rroducer Consulller ·ProdiJcer ConsuRum rro(fiiCer l:oilsiiiiiCt=' --- - -------_.- ----_.- -_..._.._.._-- ---_., --_..... _-- _._,.-.. _~.:..

-lOX - 0.3% - 2.5% 2.51: , -- ZAX _. ------ -7.5% . - J.2% - U.::l!. - .lJ.91'· - _ 15.2% ..

-5.01 - 0.51 - 50% - 50% - 50%

-2.5% - .·]J.3% - OO.'J% -- 06.n f __"1.:...8_L

Same \

2.51 - l.5% - 2.5% - l.U - - - , _. l.!;~ 0.5% - 0.72: - 0.5% - .0.3t - ------ - ----- -------- 5.01: 0.21 - 0.3t - o.n - ox -- I

---- 1.5t O.IX \

- o.n - 0 - OX -- -,----

10.0% 0 - O~ IX - 0 - OX - --

I - r(T< t)

Hote: Consumer risk tn the probability P{t) that a true mean (\1) relative to the DOE standard

1.0 wIll generate a sample mean (x) greater than it given lower confidence limit (LeL):

t :: (I!L~"l • LCl. . CViln-' ; P(T~ t) .

Producer rIsk 15 the prohahility that a true mea" relative to the 1I0E standard greater

a sample mean lower than a given lower confidence limit.

(A·) of less than

than 1.0 wIll generale
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 127 / Monday, June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 44015

TAS:":: 2

PR05A2:~!7Y Or CEK7!F'ICATION ArTER FIPS7 SAMP~E

of FO~i\ UN:TS FOR VARIOUS DESIGN LEVELS AND

COEFFlCIENTS OF VAR1AT10N

True Mea;. Reia:ive Coefficient of Probabiiity of Compiiance

to DO:: StaMe. r"C Varia:ion After Fi !"$: Samde

1.000 .02 . 0.975

1.025 .02 0.995

1.050 .02 0.998

1. 075 .02 0.999

1.100 .02 l~OOO

1.000 .O~ 0.025

1. 025 .04 0.073

1. 050 .ot. 0.26i

1.075 .04 0.E9G

1.100 .04 0.915

1.000 .06 0.025

~.025 .05 n.051

1. 050 .06 0.115 :

1.075 .06 0.t75

1.100 .06 0.561

1.000 .10 - 0.025 ..

1. 025 .10 0.038 ',"':.,'

1.050 .10 0.059

1. 075 .10·' 0.096 ,.

1.100 ~10 0.162
CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44016 Federal Re~iste~ / Vol. ~5. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

r lADLE 3

nlSK Of HO"-CEnTIFICATIOH

INCURRED OY MJ\HUFACTUItERS WITII UI\SIC

HODEl TRUE MEANS "EtOW nOE STI\NUI\IU)

-

, Tr'ue Mean Coefficient of Variation (CV) and Required Sample Size (11)

Relative To - DOE Standard , CV = .02, n=4 CV = ,04, n=5 CV = .06, n :. 8 CV := O. 1L~r=J!\_______

. . -10% 99.1% 97.5% 97.5% 97.61.

-1.5% 98.8X 88.3l 06. u: Oa.fl't

-5.0]; 91.5X SO% fiOt !lnx

-2.S2: 26.1l 11.71. 13.91. 15.2X

Nole: These calculations based on lhe producer's risk equation:

I'Vx·)-lCl . t= ('IT(J\- ; I-P(T~ t)

IIIUING CODE '.~O-lll-C
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register/ Vol. 45, No. 127/ Monday, June 30. 1980/ Proposed Rules 44017

The double sampling plan follows the

procedures set forth in standard works-

on the subject (H.F. Dodge and H.G.

\oming, Sampling Inspection Tables:

Jingle and Double Sampling. Second

Edition, John Wiley& Sons. Inc.. New

York, 1959; and G. B. Wetherill,

Sequential Methods in Statistics. John

Wiley

& Sons. Inc.. New York. 1966),

except for two features:

a. The minimum sample mean,

acceptable for compliance is 0.900 times

the efficiency level of the applicable

energy efficiency standard: and

b. The maximum sample size to be

selected for enforcement testing is 20

units.

These constraints are required to

assure attainment of objectives and to

provide for establishment ofa viable

enforcement program. Both features are

designed to reduce consumer risk (risk

of inefficient models receiving

compliance) for models with extreme

variability (coefficients of variation

greater than 0.1). When

a model has an

extreme variability. the estimate of the

required second..sample size is more

prone to error than in the case of models

with smaller variability. Also, models

with extreme variability are likely to

require substantial testing cost and time

to demonstrate.compliance or

noncompliance. Consequently. DOE is

seeking to limit the maximum number of

units to be tested for' enforcement

purposes to assure timely and effective;

·enforcement action. It.should be noted,

that these restrictions apply only to

models with extremely large coefficients

of variation.

Information supplied DOE by industry

sources which has not been

substantiated indicates that only ina

few cases is

a coefficient of variation of

.05 ,ever exceeded.

DOE solicits any additional data or

comments on coefficient of variation

related to energy efficiency standards

and potentiaLtest sample sizes of the

proposed double sampling plan.

BILLING CODE 1460-01-M

"
CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44018 federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / ?vfonday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

The standard 'el'ror of the UOllle me4n (Si) Is est l\nated accord

step 4 as foflows:

..:.!!L 14 .. .071

,.

UCl

lCL .. Efl - t s-Xl

$1 .. .141

where Efl is the appHca~le enertly efficiency stalldard and

a statistic based on confidence llivel (95") aod saRlpl~ size.

(t-statistics VAlues are given in Table jl.-5 o'f Append h A to

the rule.)

$ .. 1

Using an 8.4 energy efficiency rating as Efl.

, .

'.

I.:.Ith the estimated stand,ard. error ,of t~e Sern;:lle mean. th!, lJp;>er and

lower !=o.nfidence limits are calculated according to stapS as:

•• 8.5

b. 8.4

c. 8.5 /

4. 8.2

Xl is the sample mean.

"1 is the number of units tn the first sample.

EEl' is the measured energy ,ff1ciency of unit t.

Therefore, 'il .. 8.5 .. 8.4 .. 8.5 .. 8.2

4

1, nl

Xl .. iiI ~r"l EEl)

where

'il .. 8.4

The standard deviation (sl) of the measured efficiency level for the

first sample ts calculated according to step 3 with the following formula:

The first sample mean (Xl) and standard.deviat10n (sl) using the units

in the first samp~e (n1) Ire computed. The sample mean. Is computed

according to step Z of Appendix A of this subpart, IS follows:

6.3.3 ',EXAMPLES OF DOUBLE SAMPLING

'The first example presents a situation 1n which compliance ts found

for a basic lIIodel after the fint sample h drawn and tested. According

to the certification rule. four production test units of room air condition- , I

ers Ire selected in accordance w1th the specified rand~ selectio~,procedures of this proposed rule. The DOE energy efficiency standard is as~ullled

to be 8.4. The test results of the four units Ire as follows:

LCl 8.4 - 3.182 (.071) • 8.2 and

UCL 8.4 .. 3;182 (.07B • 8.6 •
CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 I Monday, June 30. 1980 I Proposed F:l::'$ 44019

According to step 6, the sample mean {ill of 8.4 is compared to the

upper and lower confIdence limits. The sample mean falls between the upper

confidence ltmit (8.6) and the lower confidence limit (8.2), and therefore,

a second sample size must be determined. ]t is necessary to continue

with step 7. The example will continue using the alternate procedure of

Appendix A••

Th~ coefficient of variation is calculated by dividing the standard

deviation (sl) by the sample'mean (xl)'

CV • • i~~l • 0.017

x]

From Table A.4. the required minimum sample size of 4 units is determined.

In the first sample. 4 units were tested. and consequently no further

sampling is required. The sample mean is greater than the lower confidence

limit. Therefore. the model Is found to be in compliance.

A second example is presented to Illustrate a basic mode1 which is

certified after the second sample. Following step] of Appendix A of

this subpart, four production test 'units of room air conditioners are

selected ~n accordance with the specified random sample sel.cilon procedures of this proposed rule. The energy efftciency (EE) test results of

the four units are as follows:

where

Xl is the ulltJle mean.

n1 Is the nulTber of units in the first SllItJle.

EE i 1$ the measured energy efficiency of unit t.

Therefore. Xl • 7.7 .. 7.9 + 8.5 + 8.7

4

x] • 8.2

The standard deviation (sl) of the measured efficiency level for the

first sample Js calculated according to step3 with the following formula:

n i

I (EEi - xl

)2

i-I

n1 -

The standard error of the simple mean (si) is estimated according to

step 4 as follows:

lower confidence ltmits are calculated according to step 5 as:

WIth the estimated standard error of the sample mean, the upper and

a. 7.7

b. 7.9

c. 8.5

d. 8.7

The first sample mean ~xlr and standard deviation (sl) using the

units in the first sample (nl

) are then c~mputed. The sampl. mean is

computed according to step 2 as follows:

'.

.. ..:£!. /4 • 0.238

LCL • EEl - t s-Xl

UCl • EEL .. t sII
CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44020 ]flgderai Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 I Monday, June 30.1980 I Proposed Rules

where EEL 1s the COE energy efficiency standard and t is . .' i a statistic based on confidence level (95~) and sample

size. (t-stat1stlcsllalues are given in Table A·S of

appendix A to the rule.)

Using an 8.4 energy efficiency rating as EEL.

leL • 8.4 - 3.182 (.238) • 7.6

UCL • 8.4 + 3.182 (.238) • 9.2

According to step 6. the sample mean (Xl) of 8.2 is ~o~pared to

t~e upper .lId lower c;onfldence l1mits. III this example, the Sllmple ~an

1$ ~tween the confidence limits, Ind the initial sample is inSufflc;iently

large to provide lower and upper confidence limits that li~ within •

tolerance limit of plus or minus S percent of the applic;able standard.

Therefore, further testing is required.

units are selected and tested. for Ixample. the results of the additional

test lng are as fo I lows:

,

a. 7.1

b. 8.0

c. 8.'

d. 8.7

~der stepS 8 and 9 it Is necessary to fompute the samole mean (i2) lind standard.

deviation (52) using the units tested in both the first and second samples.

Using the formulas given under ste~ 8 and 9 the calculations are

", l ", t:;:' ,,) • ~7 + 7.9 8.5 + 8.1 ; 7.7 + S.O + 8.4 + 8.7 • 8.2

Continuing with this example, it is necessary to proceed to step 7

of Appendix A. The eXlImple will continue using the alternate procedure

of Appendix A. T4bl~ A-' is used to calculate the sample ~jle for nZ'

The coefficient of variation is calcultted by dividing the standard devi-

.tlon (51) by the sample mean (Xl)'

Cl( • •476

U • 0.058

Ind

• 0.42$

n1 + n2 - 1

Under step 11 compute the lower confidence limit for

the sample mean with a confidence lev,l of 97.5 percent (one.talled test) .

this can be done by using Table A-3 and a calcula~ion of the new coeffi.

cient of variation.

cv • .052

With the new cv of .052 and a toU I test $Imp Ie size of 8 entering . tab Ie A.3, the va lue is .958. Thh is ....1t ip Hed by the OOE stanoard to

By entering Table A-4 with' coefficient of variation equal to ,OS8,

n

2

is found to be equal to 8 minus n1, or, using the example, n2 is

equal to 4 units required to be tested,TheiadditiOnal test

determine the new lCl.

BILLING COOl 1.$0-01-<:
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. '127'/ Monday, June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 44021

LeL = .958 X 8.4 = 8.047

According to step 12 if the sample

mean (X 2) we're less than the lower

confidence limit, the basic model would

be determined to be in noncompliance.

If the sample mean is greater than the

LCL. the basic model is determined to be

in compliance. In this example, the

sample mean (xd is greater than the

LCL and the model is in compliance.

8.22 EE > 8.047 EE

Only in a very few cases, for basic

models with high unit-to-unit variability,

might the lower confidence limit. after a

second test sample, be lower than 90

percent of the.applicable energy

efficiency level. In such cases, DOE

requires t~at the calculated lower

confidence limit be replaced -by a value

equal to 90 percent of the applicable

standard prior to making a compliance/

noncompliance determination. This

minimum applies to all certification and

enforcement efficiency testing

conducted under the proposed rule.

6.3.4 Random Selection of Test

Units. The following is the basic process

for selecting individual production units

for required certification or enforcement

testing:

A batch is defined as the collection of

production units of a basic model from

which iRdividual test units may

eventually be selected. It shall include

all production units produced during a

two-day or longer period, or produced

during a specific production run if it is

shorter than two days. A batch is

normally defined in terms of production

over a specified period of time. For the

purposes of certification testing. the

manufacturer may define the batch over

an extended period of time. so as to

include different production runs,

manufacturing facilities, or other

variables. For the purposes of a DOE

enforcement test audit. a batch may be

defined to include all production units

on a manufacturer's premises at a

specific period of time. .

Individual test units are selected from

the batch in the following manner: First.

a batch sample is randomlY'selected

from the batch. Second. individual test

units are randomly selected from the

batch sample. To assure that an

adequate number of units are available

to complete the testing without retaining

the entire batch, a batch sample of no

fewer than 20 units is selected and

retained. Assuming that the batch

sample size is sufficient to assure

completion of the testing, there is no

need to retain the remainder of the

batch.

Each selection. whether of units for

the batch sample or of individual test

units. shall be made by the following

random process:

(a) All units in the batch or batch

sample, from which the selection is to be

made. are sequentially numbered.

(b) A random numbers table is used to

determine the numbers of the units in

the collection to be selected.

The purpose of the random sample

selection is to eliminate potential bias in

the test sample results caused by .

intentional or unintentional systematic

selection of units with above or below

average energy efficiencies. With a

random selection. each unit is just as

likely to be selected as any other unit in

a given collection. i.e.. batch or batch

sample.

Recognizing that there may be

alternative methods of selecting units at

random. DOE solicits comments on the

random selection process proposed.

There will be occasions when DOE

under an enforcement test audit may

have reason to suspect that units of a:

basic model being manufactured at a

specific facility or using components

from a specific supplier are more likely

to be in noncompliance than other.units

of the same basic model. There may be

situations where a manufacturer has

changed component suppliers or is

assembling some of the units with

different configurations than other units

within the basic triodel. To have an

effective enforcement approach it is

necessary for DOE to assure that all

configurations of the basic model meet

the applicable energy efficiency

.standards. Under these circumstances, a

DOE inspector may subdivide the batch

utiliZing specific criteria (Le.. date of

manufacture. component supplier.

location of manufacturing facility or

other criteria which may differentiate

one unit from another within a basic

model). The batch sample will then be

randomly selected from one or more

subdivided groups within the batch. ' 6.3.5 Skewness. Skewness which is

defined asa nonsymmetrical frequency

distribution around the mean. is a

potential problem. In the case of skewed

distributions. the frequencies of energy

efficiency factors for a basic model are

different from a normal distributed

frequency. Although this condition is

assumed to be nonexistent. there is the

possibility that it actually does exist.

Therefore. the existence of skewness

and its effects may bias the statistical

tests. The assumption of a symmetrical

distribution becomes increasingly valid

as the sample size increases. Tests

conducted on samoles of various sizes

lead to the conclusion that if at least 4

units are tested. skewness is not

unusually extreme. Thus. by using a

mean standard and sample sizes of at

least 4 units. the effect of skewness is

expected to be slight.

See TSD No.3. Gertification and

Enforcement Analysis for further

discussion.

6.4 Certification

Basic compliance with the energy

efficiency standards under the propos~d

rule will be insured by the

manufacturers of the covered products.

The method by which they will achieve

this is by testing of basic models before

their distribution by"the sampling

methods discussed earlier and by the

test procedures prescribed by DOE

regulations. The results of such tests and

the data on which they are based will be

submitted to DOE as a statement of

compliance and will constitute the basis

on which the manufacturer's

certification of compliance rests. These

requirements apply to current models

which are in production on the effective

date of the final rule. and to any new.

models produced after that date.

6.4.1 Pre-Certification. Report

A pre-certification report for all

covered products manufactured shall be

submitted by certified mail within 60

calendar days after the promulgation

date of this rule and shall include:

(1) A list of the covered products

. manufactured or sold:

(2J A list of the models of each ,_

covered product ~anufactured~grouped

according to basic model;

(3) Starting serial numbers or other

numbers identifying-the date of

manufacture of covered products; and

(4) A scheduled ofanticipated

certification testing. • .

A pre-certification report will be

required to be submitted by certified

mail for all new models subsequently

manufactured at least 60 days prior to

planned certification testing. All

requirements of the pre-certification

report are given in Appendix C to the

rule.

6.4.2 Certification Report

A certification report. based on the

testing of production units. will be

required for each covered basic-model

prior to distribution in commerce.-

Although the product certification report

is not an annual requirement for each

covered basic model, DOE anticipates

that recertification testing and reporting

of up to 10 percent of all carry-over

basic models each year may be

requested. Considerations that may'

affect the Secretary's decision to require

recertifica tion include: a change in the

standard for the basic model in

question; performance of the basic

model based on certification and
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44022 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 12i / Monday, June 30. 1980 I Proposed Rules

enforcement test data; and. the number

and type of design or other changes

incorporated into the basic model that

may affect energy usage. Le.. changes in

.production processes or facilities. in

quality control practices, in component

suppliers.

Each certification report will include a

"statement of compliance" executed in

accordance with the requirements of the

proposed rule. The "statement of

compliance" includes a declaration by

the manufacturer that all batches of the

basic model including all models and all

configurations within the basic model

are repres~nted by the units reported in

the certification report for that basic

model and comply with-the applicable

energy efficiency s!andards. The

certification report will include: test

data necessary for detennination of

product compliance. a description of the

basic model. a list of manufacturer

model numbers represented by the basic

model being certified and information

on anticipated production and

certification test schedules of the model.

Copies (using standard size paper) of alJ.;.

pertinent test data must be retained on

file by the manufacturer for possible

DOE review.

A manufacturer's certification of

compliance of a basic model must be

based on the testing of production units

in accordance with the sampling plan

set forth in Appendix A of the proposed

rule.

6.4.3 ConditionalCertification

DOE has mitigated possible adverse

effects of the above production unit

testing requirement on the introduction

of new products. The proposed rule

provides for a manufacturer to submit a

certification report. allowing distribution

in commert:e for a prescribed limited .

pertod of time. based on the testing of

one of more nonproduction units. A

conditional certification report that

includes a compliance statement based

on nonproduction unit testing must be

submitted by certified mail at least 50

days prior to distribution in commerce

of the basic model and must include a

schedule for"anticipated certification

testing of production units. The

nonproduction unit testing must conform

with the following requirements: . 1. Units tested shall be representative

of production units with respect to all

energy efficiency and consumer

discernible characteristics;

2. One valid test shall be conducted

for each unit in accordance with

applicable DOE test procedures:

3. If a manufacturer has tested

prototype units to satisfy test

requirements of the Federal Trade

Commission Labeling Rule. and

production of the first batch of that

basic model has not begun. then the

results of all such tests shall be included

in the "conditional" certification test

data;

4. Each unit tested shall have an

energy efficiency that is no less than the . applicable energy efficiency standard

for the subject basic model to be

determined to be in compliance; and.

5. If anv unit tested has a measured

energy efficiency that is less than the

applicable en,ergy efficiency standard.

the basic model is determined to blJ in

noncompliance. "

Continued distribution of a

"conditionally certified" basic model is

contingent on the required production

unit testing being conducted on test

units drawn randomly from the first

available production of the basic model.

A new statement of compliance and test

results meeting the sampling

requirements shall be submitted in a

certification report by certified mail

within a specified number of a calendar

days from the start of production for

that model. as follows:

(1) Furnace and boilers: 20 days.

(2.) Water heaters: 20 ~ays.

(3) Refrigerator/freezers: 55 days.

(4) Kitchen ranges and ovens: 20 days.

(5) Central air conditioners: 40 days.

(6) Clothes dryers: 20 days.

(7) Room air conditioners: 2.0 days.

(a) Freezers: 55 days.

The above schedule for _submitting the

supplemental product certification

report reflects the differences in the time

required to test different products. The

allotted number of days is based upon

the estimated time required to

sequentially test four units of each..

product. The time allotted to

"refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers" and

"freezers"is based upon a proposed

amendment to the test procedures for

these product categories that requires

the use of no more than two test points.

DOE may grant an extension of time to

complete testing. upon a written request

from the manufacturer. ifsupported by

evidence that additional time is

necessary (e.g.• evidence that the testing

of more- than four units is required).

6.4.4 . Quarterly Post-Certification

Report

The proposed rule calls for the

submission of a quarterly postcertification report by certified mail for

each basic model. beginning three

months after the date of the certification

report. which includes:

1. Substantive revision required to

update.the information contained in the

product certification report (e.g.•

additions to or deletions from the model

numbers being manufactured under a

given basic model);

Z. A description of other major events

that might affect the energy efficiency of

any covered product/model (e.g.•

modifications in production processes);

3. The number of energy efficiency

tests performed according to DOE test

procedures since the last quarterly

report and the summary test data from

each test: and

4. Schedules of anticipated production

and energy efficiency testing.

8.4.5 Private Labeler Reporting

Requirements

Private labelers are required to submit

pre-certification. certification. and postcertification reports that conform to the

same requirements prescribed for

manufacturers for all basic models they

distribute in commerce, with the

exception that private labelers are not

required to conduct certification tests to

demonstrate the compliance of their

products with DOE standards. In lieu of

such tests. they may submit:

(1] A signed statement from the actual

manufacturer that the required testing

has been conducted and that the tests

demonstrate compliance of the basic

model.

(2) The date of the manufacturer's

certification submittal to DOE.

(3) The location of the underlyUig test

data.

Manufacturer and private labeler

reporting requirements are summarized

in Table 6-4.

-6.4.8 Retention ofCertIfication Test.

Units

The production unit. tested to satisfy a

basic model's certification test

requirements. which has the highest

measured energy efficiency among all

units included in the certification test

sample, shall be retained by the

manufacturer. The unit shall be retained

in retestable condition for not less than

two years after the basic mlJdel has

ceased to\)~procltlced.bythe

manufacturer. The proposed rule also

provides for the retention of all other

production test units for 30 calendar

days after the date of filing of the

statement of compliance and

certification report unless DOE notifies

the manufacturer to retain such units for

an additional 120 days. The reason for

this is to enable DOE to exercise its

option to retest such units under section

430.72 of the rule to verify a

manufacturer's certification statement of

compliance.

If the manufacturer elects to submit a

statement of compliance with a

conditional certification report based on

the testing of !lonproduction units. then"
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Va!. 45. No. 1:::7 / Monda~'. June 30. 1980 i Proposed Rules 44023

Table 6-4.-Summary 01 Aeowred SubmittalS

determination.-the first test sample

results wiil be used to determine the

number of additional test units required

to make a compliance or noncompliance

determination in accordance with the

requirements of Appendix A of the rule.

If. using the applicable provisions of

Appendix A. a total required sample

size exceeds 20. testing will be

terminated after 20 units with the lower

confidence limit (LCL) calculated for a

test sample size of twenty. If the

calculated LCL is less than 90 percent of

the applicable energy efficiency level.

the determination of compliance or

noncomoliance shall be made On the

basis o(an LCL equal to 90 percent of

the energy efficiency level.

6.6 Other Certification and

Enforcement Provisions

6.6.1 Rights of Entry and Inspection.

Any inspection activities conducted by

DOE inspectors will.-among other things.

be for the purpose of determining: (1)

whether certification tests are being

conducted pursuant to the requirements

of this rule; (2) whether products

manufactured for distribution in

commerce conform to applicable

standards; and {3) whether required

.records are being properly maintained.

The DOE inspector shall be given entry

to any facility or site of a manufacturer

or private labeler during normal

operating hours: where required tests '-

. are conducted or activities connected

with such tests are or were performed:

where any test unit is present: and

where records: reports. other

documents. or information required to

be maintained or submitted are located.

The DOE inspector. upon entering the

facility or site. will be furnished such

reasonable assistance as may be

necessary to complete his duties. A

manufacturer. private labeler. or other

person subject to the Act and this rule

will be required to cause those in charge

of a facility or site to·furnish such

assistance without chargt to DOE.

The provision of right of entry shall

apply whether the facility or site is

owned or controlled by the

manufacturer or private labeler. If a

manufacturer enters into a contract with

a testing laboratory to conduct required

certification testing. such contract

should include notice of DOE's right to

observe such testing and to inspect the

results thereof.

6.6.2 Manufacturer Responsibility

for Alonitoring Compliance, A

manufacturer will be required to monitor

the production of covered products after

certification in order to assure continued

Reouwements tor

aClOlUana/ submittals

reasonable number of units of a specific

basic model to any laboratory

designated by the Secretary. The

number of units of a basic model

specified in a test notice shall not

exceed twenty. unless units that are

supplied fail to complete the test. All

test data conducted under enforcement

testing at a designated laboratory shall

constitute official test data for that basic

model. Such test data will be used by

DOE for determination of compliance or

noncompliance of the ba~c model being

audited in accordance with applicable

provisions of the rule if sufficient

number of tests have been conducted in

accordance with Appendix A of this

subpart.

The manufacturer will be required to

pay shipping expenses for those units

supplied to the DOE designated

laboratory. DOE will pay all test costs

a&5ociated with performing the testing at

the laboratory to the extent provided in

appropriation Acts. Tes.ting at the

independent laboratory may be

witnessed by the manufacturer. or his

designa ted representa tive.

6.5.2 Enforcement Testing

Unless otherwise specified. DOE will

require a first test sample size of four

units. Fewer than four units may be

specified in the first test sample by

DOE. but in those situations no

compliance or noncompliance

determination will be made.

One test will be·conducted in

accordance with applicable DOE test

procedures for each unit selected for

testing. Compli.ance or noncompliance

determinations are made according to

the double sampling plan prescribed in

Appendix A of the rule.

If a second test sample is required to

obtain a compliance or noncompliance

condition until the manufacturer

completes the certification production

un!! testing requirements.

Date ot Initial subrrnttal

Withll'l 60 days atter rule 1$ pUOhSned tor eXIsting modelS. Al None.

.east 60 days poor to centncatlon testing lor new"models.

At least 60 days pnor to dlstlibul10n In commerce (based on None.

leslmg 01 otner man prOOuct,on urutSI.

Pnor to distribUtIon In commerce If based on production unit None. unless requested by

lesllng. tne 5ectetary.

------------_._--

Name of report

,

from which the units are to be selected.

the batch sample and test sample

selection plans. the date at which a DOE

inspector will select the batch sample

and test sample. the date at which

testing shall begin. the date by which

testing is scheduled to be completed and

the facility at which testing will be

conducted. The Test notice may provide

for testing of alterna tive basic models

where the selected basic model is

unavailable for testing.

DOE may seek a judicial orde:

restraining a manufacturer from

distributing in commerce any covered

product with respect to which a

manufacturer refuses to comply with the

provisions of a test notice issued by

DOE pursuant to the rule or refuses to

comply with any of the applicable

provisions of the rule.

6.5.1 Supply of Products for Testing

DOE may request. in a test notice that

a manufacturer supply at his expense a

CondltJOnal cer.dicatlon rePOrt ...•....

Precenrhcatlon report...••........•.•.......

Certrl\C.lluon report (rl not

preceCled by concl'bOna!

certrllCal1Onl.

CertilicabOn report (n pteee<le<l by

conditoonal certijlCa~

Withon 20 10 55 days (dependIng on prooUCI categoryl 01 the

begl"""'9 of prOOUCbOn. onlY if Ine producl certJlicauon

report 1$ based on Ina leslmg of otnar man prodUCbOn

,,",IS.

1"051 certllocallon repart Tnree monlns alter tne dale 01 tne produel certification OUarterly. report.

the manufacturer must retain such

nonproduction units. The nonproduction

units must be retained in retestable
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44024 Federal Register / Va!. 45. No. 127 / ~fonday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

Table &-<i.-ManlJfacturer First Year C/c Costs

(Upper Bound EstimatesI

Certification and Enforcement Program.

Test costs in subsequent years will be

s.ubstanially lower than those for the

fIrst year. since carryover models wdl

not normally require additional

certifica tion testing.

Certification testing requires the

testing of four or more production units

by the manufacturer. The estimates

given are based on an assumption that

75 percent of all basic models will be

certified with a sample size of 4·and that

the remaining 25 percent will require an

average sample size of 6. This gives an

average sample size of five production

units per basic model tested for

certification. In addition. it is assumed

that 20 percent of all models are new,

and that an average of two protype units

are tested per new basic model to obtain

conditional certification. The cost of

testing to satisfy FTC labelina . • 0

requirements (applicable to all producls

except for kitchen ranges. ovens and

clothes dryers) has been eliminated

from the estimates in Table 6-6.

It is also assumed that 20 percent of

all basic models will receive

enforcement test audits by DOE at test

laboratoriils. These frequencies would

r~sult in the audit testing each year of

virtually all models' determined by DOE

to be marginally close to the applicable

standard.

Total manufacturer test c~sts appear

small relative to the value of

manufacturer shipments. For all

products except central. air conditioners.

manufacturer test ccsts average less

than 0.3 percent of the value of

shipments during the first year of the

proposed Certification and- Enforcement

Program. and even less in subsequent

years. The upper bound estimate of

manufactuer test costs for central air

conditioners during the first year

approximate 1 percent of the value of

manufacturer shipments. (.

Value of Test costs as a

Number 01 ratal test costs manufacturer percent 01

tlasic mOdels 1000) Sl'1q)menIS value at

1000.000) $I1lp",enrs

i ~;;c~~:t:'~~~~~.:::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2~~; 1~~ 3. Refngeralorsl Relrigerators-Freezers 1,720 165 :: ~~:7 ::~~Ovens (gas only) _.. 3.801 200

!::g~~~~~~~ __ --_~ J

028

027

0.01

0.14

0.97

0.02

0.10

0.06

0.18

5622.8

601.5

2, 118.2

863.3

596.1

478.5

1,100.5

303.5

6.374.3

$1.752

1.609

284

760

5,780

114

1.069

197

11.564

rest cost per

tlasic mOdel

PYoducI

involved. the duration of the field test.

the ownership arrangement of the units.

and the final disposition of the units.

6.~.5 Imported and Exported _ Proaucts. Noncomplying products may

not be Imported into United States

commerce. Under the Act. the

compliance of imported products with

energy efficiency standards is LInder the

jurisdiction of the Department of the

Treasury. DOE and the Department of

the Treasury are currently working on

an agreement concerning the

implementation of this statutory

reqUIrement.

Any covered product. intended for

export. shall be labeled or marked "For

Export Only" in an easily visible .

location on the outside of the container

and on the product itself and shall be

exempt from the prohibition and

requirements ofthe Act and this rule.

6.7 Estimated Manufacturer Test Costs

Under the Proposed Approach.

Additional costs incurred by

manufacturers as a result of certification

and enforcement requirements of the

proposed rule relate primarily to the

cost of manufacturer certification

testing. The cost of supplying products

to DOE (product plus shipping costs) for

enforcem~nt 'audit testing at testing

laboratones r.esults in an additional. but

substantially lesser. cost element than

manufacturer certification does. Other

costs (e.g.. completing the non-testrelated portions of the product

certification report) are considered

relatively small. DOE solicits comments

on tM cost impacts to manufacturers

and private labelers of these

requirements. /

Two types of testing are involved in

the proposed rule: certification testing

by the manufacturer and enforcement

audit testing by DOE. Table 6-8 presents

upper bound estimates of test-related

cos~s to be incurred by manufacturers

durmg the first year of the proposed

,

compliance of each basic model with

a.pplicable energy efficiency standards.

If. after a basic model has been

certified by a manufacturer to be in

c~~plian<::e with applicable energy

etflclency standards. the manufacturer

has reason to believe that the mean

energy efficiency level of the basic

model is or may be below the applicable

energy efficiency standard. the

mantifacturer will immediately notify

DOE and provide a description of the

information or event which aives rise to

such belief; and take all- nec~ssary action to determine if the model is in

_noncompliance and-the extent to which

noncompliant units. if any. have been

distributed in commerce. Failure to

comply with these requirements may

make the manufacturer subject to a civil

penalty for a "knowing violation." as

defined in the Act. or such other action

as may be permitted by law.

6.6.3 Prohibited Acts. The prohibited

acts which subject a manufacturer or

private labeler to assessment of a civil

penalty in accordance with Section 333

of the Act. are: .

(1) Failure to permit access to; or

copying of records required to be

supplied under the Act and this rule or

fail to make reports or provide othe;

information required to be supplied

under the Act and this rule;

(2) Failu.re of a mariufacturer to

supply at his expense a reasonable

number of covered products. to a test

laboratory designated by the Secretary'

(3)-Failure of a manufacturer to •

~ermit a representative designated by

the Secretary to observe any testing

required by the Act and this rule and

inspect the. results of such testing; and

(4) Distribution in commerce by a

manufacturer or private labeler of any

new covered product which·is not in

co~~liance with an applicable energy

efficIency standard prescribed under the

Act and this rule.

The assessment of such civil penalties

s~131l be for a knowing violation of a

prohibited act. Such a violation is

defined in the Act as: (1) the having of

actual knowledge. or (2) the presumed

having of knowledge deemed to be

possessed by a reasonable man who

acts in the circumstances. including

knowledge obtainable upon tlieexercise

of due care. 6.6.4 Field Test Exemption. A field

test exemption may be granted by the

Secretary to a manufacturer or private

labeler. upon request. for the following

purposes: research. investigations.

studies. demonstrations. or training. The

request shall include the number of units
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register / Vol. 45,- No. 127 / Monday. June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 44025

'The probability that the measura of efficiency determtned

tor anv gJVen prn<luel tor anv grvan test will lalI w1ltwI the un- certaInty range specified is 95 percent.

Nota.-DOE is currently onvolved in refining the uncertaInty

analysis pertonned on the test ptOC8dures to QUanllIy the un- <:enalnly 01 the measures Of ettiaencles·by product Cl8$S tor

88et'l product type.

variability between their facilities and

the testing labol1Eltories.

6.8.3 Small Manufacturer Concerns.

DOE recognizes that the proposed rules

will not impact all manufacturers in the

same way. and is particularly sensitive

to potential adverse impacts on small

manufacturers. Particular concern has

been expressed by small manufacturers

about (1) the possible need for large

capital investments in new test

facilities. and. (2) the extent to which

manufacturer test facilities and

technical staff will be diverted from

necessary research and development

and quality control activities unless

adequate time is allowed to adjust to

DOE-required efficiency testing.

DOE requests further comments on

these potential impacts, as well- as any

financial data which is reIevent for their

assessments.

Table 6-7.-Uncertainty of Meastires of Efficiency

Determined-Using DOE Test ProcIiIdUfes

6.8 Additional CertIfication and.

Enforcement Issues.

6.8.1 Relationship between DOE

Enforcement of Standards and Industry

Trade Association Programs. The .

Department of Energy's proposed rules

include no utilization of existing or

potential trade association testing and

certification programs. (The

manufacturer, of course, may utilize

such programs in order to accomplish

testing required for product certification.

as long as all requirements of the

proposed r'ule are accomplished.) DOE

realizes tha t not all manufacturers are

represented in the industry trade

association prpgrams. DOE has .

proposed a certification and

enforcement plan for each of the

covered products that will be applicable

to all manufacturers and private

labelers.

Consideration by DOE of trade

association programs as they may

impact DOE's enforcement approach

requires an investigation of several

issues to determine whether the public

will be better served through the

utilization of these programs. DOE

solicits comments on:

(1) The effectiveness of liaison and

advisory functions served to industry by

trade associations and the extent to

which these functions can be utilized by

DOE;

(2) The potential benefits and. . concerns of utilizing trade aSSOCIations

. as an intermediary between DOE and

manufacturers; .

(3) The criteria which should be

established for initial acceptability of

specific trade association programs and

for monitoring the performance of these

programs:

(4) How could the use of trade

association programs distribute costs

more equitably between large and small

manufacturers;

(5) To the extent that DOE

enforcement involves the use of

proprietary information. could the use of

trade associations mitigate the concerns

of manufacturers without decreasing the

usefulness of enforcement information;

and

(6) The ability of DOE and the trade

association to agree upon procedures for

establishing the utility of specific trade

association programs to assist DOE's

program objectives.

DOE decision concerning possible

utilization of industry trade association

programs awaits further investigation of

these issues. DOE requests comments on

the applicability of industry programs

for incorporation into the DOE's

certification and enforcement program.

6.8.2 Test Variability Among

DIfferent Test Facilities. In accord~nce

with today's proposed rule. the testmg

conducted to enforce the energy

efficiency standards for consumer

products would be conducted at testing

laboratories selected by DOE. Such test

results would be compared to the

prescribed energy efficiency standard

for the class of consumer product to

which the tested basic model belongs to

determine whether the basic model is in

compliance with the applicable

standard.

In adopting the proposed rule, DOE

has evaluated procedures of existing

industrv certification programs for' using

testing iaboratories to determine

compliance. DOE notes that the

approach of these industry certification • programs is the same as that of the

proposed DOE enforcement program.

I.e., the results of the tests conducted by

the designated test laboratory are taken

to be correct. regardless of any

difference between those results and the

results obtained by tests conducted at a

manufacturer's test facility.

To enable participating consumer

product manufacturers to correlate test

results obtained at their own test facility

with those obtained at a certification

test laboratory, industry certification '

programs have sponsored "round-robin"·

test programs. (Round-robin testing

involves testing units at more than one

facility). After a sufficient number of

round-robin tests have been conducted.

a manufacturer is able to predict the test

results that would be obtained by a

testing laboratory for a particular unit

based on the results of tests conducted

at his own facility.

Toward quantifying the variability in

test results to be expected between

different test facilities. DOE requested

the National Bureau of Standards to

evaluate this factor for all of the DOE

test procedures for consumer products. . To make these determinations. NBS.

calculated the combined effect of the

contribution of allowable test conditions

or test measurement tolerances

specified in the measures of efficiencies

of each of the test procedures. The

results represent the variability to be

expected between test facilities solely

due to the allowable tolerances for

testing. Variability due to random

measurement, recording, calculation. or

instrument error. etc.. are not addressed

by this analysis. For results of the

analysis. refer to Table 6-7.

DOE is currently planning a roundrobin test program for consumer

products involving manufacturer's and

testing laboratories. The effort. which

will be headed by NBS. will assist

manufacturers to estimate potential

Product

Relrigeratots. refrigerator·lree-. &freezers:

1. Single temperat... control w/4 a~t..._ .heater switdI ,

2. Single ~1Ift control wi MtiSweal__ l'Ieater SWlteh _

3. 0uaIheater ~lUnt switch control wlo anlillweal...-_

04. Dual temperabJre comrol wi antillweat.__' heater. _

Room lIir COlldilioo_

1. Q:loIing capaaily 5.000-10,000 81u1hr__

2. Cooling C8Il8City 10.000-20.000 8wlhr__

3. Cooling C8P8dtV 20.000-36.000 8tu/hr__

CentnlJ·... condi~

1. Cooling-onIy: ,

L Single speed_ l Capacity <201< Bw/hr· _

i. Capacity 2OK-38K Blu/hr _

iii, Capacity 38K-SSK 8w/hr _

b. Two IiIPe8ll c:ampr_. lllI'O compressora, at

cylinder unloading: i. Capacity <2OK Btu/hr. _

i. Capacity 20K-38K Btu/ht••_ •••• •••_

Iii. Cepacit',< 38K-65K Btu/hr__....._....._ •••__•

2. CoolinQ and heating 11M$:

L Sing1811PMd c:ampr8SllOl: l Cepacity <2OK Btu/hr...._. _

Ii. Capacity 2OK-38K 8tu/hr

ii. Capacity 38K-6SK 8tu/hr

b, Two speed c:ampr_. lllI'O comprllSSOl'S. or

cylinder unloading: /'

l Call8dlY <20K Btu/'" Ii. Capacity 2OK-38K Btu/hr. _

. iii. Capacity 38K-65K Btu/ht • _

CIolhes clryers: Energy lactor _

Water heaters: Energy lactor. eleetric__._~-•• •__

Energy factor. gas '., .. _

Kitchen ranges and ovens:

Energy tactor. electne ovens. eleetric oven•.seIf· cleanIMg. gas cooking lOP ._._. .. ..

Energy lactor. gas oven, gas oven, saIloCleaning_

Furnaces: "MU81 tuel ublizatiOn effiCienCy _.__•• _

:::10

:::12

:::13

:::15

.::8

:::5

:::3

::'7'-

:::6

:::5

:::9

:::8

:::6

:::11

:::9

:::7

:::13

-=":::9

:2

:::1.5

:2
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44026 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / ~londay. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

7. Effect on Other Law

DOE is today proposing to amend

Subpart 0 of 10 CFR Part 430 entitled

"Petitions for Prescription of a Rule to

Supersede a State Appliance Energy Use

or Efficiency Standard:' This subpart

was issued pursuant to section 327(bJ(l)

of EPCA which provided for the

preemption of State energy efficiency

standards once Federal standards were

prescribed. States and manufacturers

had the right to petition the Secretary of

Energy to be exempted from preemption

or to preempt a State standard.

respectively.

The National Energy Policy

Conservation Act amended section

327(b) to est1l.blish a period of automattc

preemption of State. standards

prescribed after January 1. 1978. This

automatic preemption of standards ends

on July 1. 1980. for the thirteen consumer

products listed in section 322(a) of the

Act. The Act permits manufacturers to

petition DOE for a rule preempting the

State standards pending prescription of

a Federal standard. After July 1. 1980.

once a Federal standard is prescribed

for any product. all State standards for

such a product are preempted.

regardless of when the State standard

was enacted. The Act also permits

States to petition DOE for a rule that a

State energy efficiency standard or other

requirement not be preempted.

Under NEPCA. the burden of proof for

a petitioner who is a State has been

modified. Under current law. the

Secretary is required to determine the

extent to which the State regulation

would unduly burden interstate

commerce. A petitioning State does not

have to prove a negative prediction•.i.e.•

that its State regulation would not

impose an undue burden on interstate

commerce.

These changes have been

incorporated within the new rules

proposed today. Procedures are

prescribed for States to petition for a

rule that a State energy efficiency

standard or other.requirement not be

preempted: and or any person subject, to

such regulations to petition for a rule to

preempt a State's standards. New

informational submission requirements

are proposed for petitioners in order to

permit the Secretary to make the

determinations required under the Act.

Small Business Exemptions

Pursuant to Section 325(e) of the Act.

DOE today is proposing a new Subpart

E to establish procedures by which

manufacturers. whose annual gross

revenues for the preceding 12-month

period do not exceed $8.000.000. may

petition DOE to be temporarily exempt

from the standards. The exemption may

be grant-ed for a period of up to 24

months from the date such rule is

prescribed for all or part of the energy

efficiency standards. In establishing

eligibility for the exemption. the annual

gross revenues of any person who

controls. is controlled by. or is under the

common control with th-e petitioning

manufacturer. are to be taken into

account. Applications shall be submitted

to the Secretary within 60 days from the

date the standard was prescribed for

which an exemption is sought. All firms

affected by the same standard are

required to file at the same time in order

to enable the Secretary to make the

requisite determination concerning

competitive effects in the industry.

The purpose of this subpart is to

enable manufacturers who could not

comply with the standards to continue

operations for a period of up to two

years.

Sechon 430.54 details the relevant

information which must be provided to

DOE to permit the Secretary to make the

determinations required under the Act.

The necessary relevant information

includes: annual financial statements.

profit and loss statements. and balance

sheets: annual gross dollar income .

resulting from the manufacture and sale

of the covered product: estimates of the

total costs and schedule necessary to

comply with the applicable standard: a

list of products manufactured by

applicant and dollar volume of sales for

each type or class of covered product: a

list of principal manufacturers of the

covered product and their respective

market shares: evidence that applicant

would be at an operational or financial

disadvantage vis-a-vis other

manufacturers: a description of

applicant's efforts to comply with the

standard: and a statement whether. at

the.. end of the exemption period.

applicant will be able to comply with

the standard. . .

Section 430.55 outlines the steps

applicant must take in filing the

application. and the requirement that

applicant is to notify all known

manufacturers of domestically marketed

units of similar product type of the

application for exemption.

Sections 430.56 through 430.58 specify

the procedures to be followed by DOE in

granting or denying an exemption. The

written views of the Attorney General

shall be obtained prior t9 a finding by

the Secretary that a failure to allow an

exemption would likely result in a

lessening of competition. Such a finding

is required for each exemption granted.

The decision reached by DOE and the

reasons therefor are to be publishec;i in

the Federal Register.

9. Environmental Assessment

In accordance with its obligations

under the National Environmental Polil

Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.c. 4321. et seq.) and

the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations implementing the procedural

provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

DOE stated in the advance notice that it

would prepare an Environmental

Assessment on the impact of setting

energy efficiency standards for the

affected product types covered by this

proposed rule. Subsequent to

publication of the advance notice. other

advance notices were published .

indicating that DOE is planning to

develop energy efficiency standards for

dishwashers. television sets. clothes

washers humidifiers and dehumidifiers.

and central air conditioners (heat

pumps). In order to produce a

comprehensive impact statement on all

energy efficiency standards. thereby

averting segmentation. the

Environmental Assessment being made

available for public comment at this

time addresses the potential

environmental impacts of all 13

consumer products.

The analyses indicated that air

pollution and commitments of land 'and

energy resources will decrease as a

result of reducing future energy demand

through the proposed standards. For

example. emissions of sulfur oxides are

projected to be reduced by up to 1.1.

X 10 6 tons per year and oxides of

nitrogen by up to 423.000 tons per year:

. commitments of land to coal

development will be reduced by as

much as 6.000 acres per year. and·

production of solid waste will be

reduced by 3.0 to 5.5 X 10 6 tons per

year of fly ash and .75 to 1.36 X 10 B tons

per year of bottom ash.

Indoor air/quality was found to be not

significantly affected by implementation.

of standards. The exact effect could not

be measured because the design options

that will be selected by manufactllrers

for improving the efficiency of gasburning products. could not be

as~ertained. The program was found to

have no significant effect on water

quality. noise or air pollution levels.

An increase in the use of

chlorofluorocarbons was projected. but

this increase was found to be less than

4% of total U.S. production. 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 ,

saved from' lower operating costs would

be likely to be spent on goods and'

services in the general economy and

therefore might stimulate additional
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 127 IMonday. June 30. 1980 I Proposed Rules ·1,4027

pollution .whichwould not have

occurred without the program. This

amount was estimated to have no

significant effect on future

environmental quality.

The Environmental Assessment also

summarizes the socioeconomic impacts

of the program in a number of areas:

diange in the life cycle costs for

consumers: the differential impact of the

programonvarious income groups:

change in the profitability to

manufacturers of consumer products:

the value of the program to the Nation

as a whole and to various regions of the

country: and secondary effects of the

program on the national economy,

including effeats on employment.

infla tion. gross na tional product. and

balance of trade. These socioeconomic

impacts are more fully treated in the

"Economic Analysis Document." TSD

No.4

Alternatives to the energy efficiency

standards as proposed were assessed

from the perspective of environmental

impact. None of the alternatives

analvzed was found to significantly

affect the environment. The proposed

action was found to benefit the

environment to a greater degree than

most alternatives considered. Those

alternatives expected to benefit the

environment to a greater degree dian the

proposed action were not selected for

economic reasons.

Based on its evaluation of the

Environmental Assessment. DOE has

reached a finding of no significant

impact regarding energy efficiency

standards for consumer products, and

therefore no environmental impact

statement is required. The

"Environmental Assessment." TSD No.2

is available upon request. as indicated

at the beginning of this notice.

410. Regulatory Analysis

Executive Order 12044. "Improving

Government Regulations" (43 FR 12661.

March 14. 1978), directs that all Federal

regulations·achieve their intended goals

without imposing unnecessary burdens

on the economy. on individuals. on

public or· private organizations. or on

State and local governments. To this

end. a Regulatory Analysis is prepared

for significant major regulations. Such

an analysis presents major alternatives

to the regulation. examines the

economic and administrative effects

arising from each alternative and

explains why one alternative was

selected over the others.

DOE has determined that this

proposed rule is significant and is likely

to have a major impact on residential

energy consumption and on

manufacturers of consumer products.

Accordingly. a. Draft Regula tory

Analysis has been. prepared.

The Regula tory Analysis is

summarized below. This summary

focuses on the major alternatives

considered in arriving at the proposed

approach to improving the energy

efficiencygfconsumer products. The

reader isrefe1'red to the complete draft

"Reguiatory Analysis." TSD No.1, .

which will be available f{)r public

COmment as indicated at the beginning

of this notice. It consists of: (1) a

statement of the problem addressed by

this regulation. and the mandate for.

government action: (2) a description and

analysis of the feasible policy

alternatives to this regulation: {3) a

quantitative comparison of the impacts

of the alternatives: (4) the economic

impact of the proposed standard; (5) an

analysis of urban and community

impacts: and (6) other regulations and

programs that might be affected by this

regula tion.

10.1 . Major Alternatives

10.1.1 Alternatives for Achieving

Consumer Product Energy Efficiency . Six major alternatives were identified

by DOE as representing feasible policy

alternatives for achieving consumer

product energy efficiency. These

. alternatives include:

• No Regulatory Action

• Informational Action

-Product labeling

-Consumereducation-

• -Prescriptive Standards • FinanCial Incentives-

-Tax credits

-Rebates

• Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets

• The Proposed Approach

(Performance Standards)

Each alternafive has been evaluated

in terms of its ability to achieve

sig~ificant energy~ savings at reasonable

costs. and has been compared to the

effectiveness of the proposed regulation.

If "no regulatory action" were taken,

then no standards would be

implemented for any of the covered

products. In this case. some energy

savings would occur due to other

government actions such as the

consumer product labeling program.

}3\lilding Energy Performance Standards,

DOE's public education and information

program. State standards. and the

deregulation of energy prices.

Several alternatives to this regulation

can be grouped under the heading of

informationa1 action. Thev include

consumer product labeling and DOE's

public education and information .

program. Both of these alternatives are

mandated by the Act. and are currently

underway. Consumer product standards.

labeling. and consumer education were

designed by Congress to act together to

promote energy conservation in the

residential sector. DOE has determined

thaJ neither the labeling nor the public

education and information alternatives

could stand alone and even approach

the expected savings attributable to

consumer product efficiency standards.

Prescriptive standards (i.e..

intermittent ignition devices. flue

dampers) would also fail to achieve the

effectiveness of the proposed

performance standards. In order for

DOE to prescribe standards that could

duplicate the projected energy savings

under the proposed regulation.-DOE

would essentially have to specify

designs of the thousands of models of

consumer products produced. The time

an.d costs involved with doing this

would be prohibitive, and the results

would tend to stifle comRetition in the

industry.

Another method of prescribing

standards would entail requiring that

certain design options be used on each

product. The effect of this alternative

would be to lower energy savings while

increasing the cost of regulation and

decreasing competition in the industry.

Financial-incentives are another group

of alternatives that have been

considered. They include tax credits,

rebates. low interest financing and loan

guarantees. Rebates for the purchase of

more efficient consumer products were

found to have costs which could

significantly outweigh benefits. This

alterna tive. although potentially

beneficial to consumers, would provide

limited incentives to manufacturers for

the production of more efficient

products. The length of time over which

the rebate would be extended was also

a factor in rejecting this alternative. A

long-term program could be very costly.

while a short-term program may not

achieve lasting benefits.

The alternative of providing tax -

incentives for purchasing or

manufacturirrg energy efficient products

was also considered by DOE. Many of

the same problems that were anticipated

in the rebate alternative were also

pertinent to this alternative. In both

programs. the majority of the associated

costs would be borne by the Federal

government, i.e.. distributed among all

taxpayers. while the benefits would be

derived only by the purchasers of

covered products. Thus, on an individual

consumer basis. the costs would

outweigh the benefits for those

taxpayers who do not purchase the

covered products.

Several other financial incentives

designed to stimulate the purchase or

production of energy efficient products
 CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

44028 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

were considered by DOE. Concepts such

as providing low interest financing

through utility companies for purchase

of energy efficient products or low

interest loans to low income groups who

might have more difficulty in purchasing

the higher priced energy efficient

products. Such concepts were not

considered to provide viable

alternatives to the proposed approach in

that they could not reasonably achieve

the same energy savings that would

accrue under the proposed approach.

EPCA called for industry to set up

voluntary energy efficiency targets for

the covered products. In amending the

Act (NECPA) (Pub. L. 9~19l. Congress

specifically changed this section of the

legislation to provide for immediate

establishment of mandatory Federal

standards. The~fore. voluntary

standards are no longer a viable

alternative for consideration.

Under the proposed approach. the

energy efficiency standards are

performance standards. The standards

will establish the minimum energy

efficiency level (MEEL) required jo be

achieved by each product type. but will

not prescribe the means by which that

level is to be reached. The levels are

specified by energy factors which relate'

to the energy efficieney of the particular

product type. The MEELs vary from

. product to product. depending UpOD , their design limitations.

Expected Impacts ofProgram

Alternatives

In Table 10.1-1, each of the program'

alternatives are evaluated in terms of

their expected energy savings. costs.

feasibility and national net present

value. M the comparison shows. the

proposed approach results in ..

appreciably higher energy savings and a

greater national Det present value than

any of the alternatives:

10.1.2 Alternatives Available Within

the Proposed Approach. Within the legal

framework of the Act there are several

alternatives available to DOE in setting

performance standards. These include

various national regulatory levels.

regional regulatory levels for certain

consumer product types and alternative

phase-in periods.

In determining the standard levels

selected for this proposed regulation. a

process to identify the standard level

offering the maximum potential benefits

was developed. This process considered

the following options: • Four alternative regulatory levels

for 1981 standards and four alternative

regulatory levels for 1986 standards; • Regional standards for consumer

products exhibiting significant

climatological use differences.; and

• No regulation (in cases where none

of the above standards is economicallv

feasible). "

BIU.ING. coo£ 645G-<l\-M

\

..
CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 01

Federal Register! Vol. 45. No. 127 ! Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed R'::2S 44029

'l'able 10.1-1. Expected Impacts of Program Alternatives

-----------!t------l----I-------l----'-----II--~-----------._----_._-_. - ."-'.__.._......_-_.-

- -_.- - --~-_._._----

•

> Majo, 'j to Dan 1"'8 to t'f)llJpl aau(:e a",' II .<1 .. ... " Implemenlatlolll lltl,••'t In\l

·a~ t"fu,cem.."t coml·elilioll ltt·',ul' t!mont,.-·

~~ -_.__._----- _... ._----_.

... Holle 1I0lle U,tneEqul ty IMpactS·

l"equJtle_ between slate. due

to nonunlfo'lll

Btandard.

tlone

lIet P,esent

Value for Fuel

find Equl~ent

(In blllionsl

(In 1911) hI

o

Ene'9Y

Savlng8

(Qlltu'.1

436.3

to

460.4

Ener9Y

Use

IQBtu'.I

National En"~9Y Policy

'10 act 'on

'11111,act8

1--------.:::'>1-------,----- AIt..natl~ ------------------+--

T<l.. Cr",11 ts

ICoustlm"r at

415.9

to

460.2

.4

to

.2

$ .48

to

$ .98

\

Some Costs ,,11 1

be borne by all

taICpayet:. 1'''- 9a~dle.9 of I'urchae~ of energy

efficient product

tIo Hone,. other Lhan

legislative

H.lY favor J aeq"

1M1l'" aCJ:t\rer s

Could Loe

t ...~le"'ly

---~--I------I-----t-------I----:------I---I-~------l--------'- --.-.-------

Mlnlm.. 1

Ilftallunahl e

HJIllmal re(IO,Uu9

but ""lenslvo

t"lltlu9

None

Not AIlt.1-

(;oml.etltl Ve

Hay reduce numher

of lllO<IelB and

cOl'l'etl tlnn

tIouu

llone

EnCorcement "rohlema likely

No assurance that

partIcipation wIll

be "ldesl'~..ad

~estrlcts develop-

..Slit of innovative

teelUiology

Potential dlfCI- ~ul ties In .

8,lmlnlstra tlon

------------1------------1--------

Yes

Yes

tIo

None

Hone

None

lione

$ .)9

to

$ .79

$ .80

to

$1.64

'$ 9.24

to

U2.1)

$ 5.45 to

$ 8.36

, 1.45 to

$ 2.79

$ 3.28

to

$ 3.52

$15.21

to

$19.21

2.2 I

to

2.7

2.4 to

6.8

6.5 to

14.5

4H.2

to

457.7

F.nhancL..1

L.."el'''9 a,"'

ConRumer

E<Jllcatloll

re,(ormltnce

Stan.Jards

VQllllltary

I':flN-'1Y

Efficiency

'tarqet"

---------_.

S-yr. 429.8 to

~!!!L_ 445,9

IO-yr. -~:o-r.;-

delay 4~).6

I---------l------I-----~I_-----_f----~---f_---I--------·I------ ---

422.6 11.6

to l:D

415.5 24.\1 _

.---------'--,--r,------ ._..L. , ---------'----- ------------ ..--

r:ey I . Noue =- O. or not. eiqulfIcant

VOtu's • 10'5 Btu'. of ener'lyor

olle quadI' U 1I0u BtU'R

trOTFS, • EconomIc well-being of Natloll as a wllOle.

•• Interpreted to ap"ly ollly to ,egulato,y I"0'l,ams, ..ot as a m"..sure oC tdf ..cllve.., ,,~.

... Yes, If ,It, Bhudard is juatHICtI.

•

BllUIIO CODE 11450-01-C