# - =**.~** 

# .... .= 

# -



# - =' 

# --- 

# - 

# - 

# - -

- -

:: :.. 

# - 

# -=
.= 

# -**~\** 

# - - - -

= 

# = 

# .:

- 

# - 

# - -

- -



# - 

# - - 

# - =' 

## s:.. '-=-"



# - - -



# - - - 

# - - Monday June 30, 1980



# Part II



# . 

# Department of Energy

Office of Conservation and Solar Energy**Ene~gy** 

### Conservation Program for Consumer Products

### 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

IEnergy Conservation Program

### tor Consumer Products

AGENCY: Department ofEnergy.
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 ofEnergy prescribe energy effiCiency standards for

consumerproducts. The Department is today proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 430 to include energy efficiency standards for classes ofrefrigerators 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 SubpartD. a new Subpart Econtaining procedures for small business exemptions. and a new Subpart F containing certification'and enforcement procedures.

The purpose ofthis notice ofproposed 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 ofissues. 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 makingwritten

or oral presentations with respect to disputed issues ofmaterial fact. The public meeting will be held on July 16. 1980 at the time and place noted below.

_ PublicHearing, 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 bei'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 ofviews. 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 ofConservation and Solar Energy. Office ofHearings 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 ofConservation and Solar Energy. Division ofBuildings 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 ofEnergy. Office of Conservation and Solar Energy. Office ofHearings 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

ofEnergy, Office ofGeneral 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 ofContents 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Scope ofThis 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 ofClasses 1.3.3 Determination ofthe Maximum

Technologically Feasible Energy Efficiency Level bv Product Class 1.3.4 Me"thod ofSpecifying Energy

Efficiencv Levels 1.3.5 Planned Phase-In ofStandards Z.Definitions 3. Advance Notice 3.1 Discussion ofIndustry Data 3.2 Comments Received in Response to

Advance Notice 4. Determination ofEnergy 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 ofRegulation 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 ofEnergy 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 ofMeeting 11.5 Oral Presentation: Conduct ofHearings


## r. Introduction
1.1 Purpose andScopeofThis Notice

Section 325 ofthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPeA) (P.L 94-163).

# - Federal Register 

## I Vol. 45. No. 127 

## I Monday. rune 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 43977

_

as amended by section 422 otthe National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (P.L. 95-619). requires that the Department ofEnergy (DOE) prescribe energy efficiency standards for the types ofconsumer products listed in section 322(a) ofthe Act. I These

consumer products are sometimes referred to as "covered products:' Standards for nine ofthese covered products are required by section 325. as amended. to be published in the Federal Registerno 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 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.

DOE's first step in prescribing energy efficiency standards for the nine covered products was to publish an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking in the Federal Register ofJanuary Z. 1979 (44 FR49). Section 325(i)(3) ofthe Act requires DOE, as a subsequent step in. establishing energy efficiency standards for consumerproducts. to publish a notice ofproposed rulemaking. proposing energy efficiency standards for each type orclass ofcovered product. and to invite comments from interested-persons relevantto . - establishing the energy efficiency standards. This notice constitutes the second step.

Because ofthe impact ofthe standards on the public. DOEhas provided in Section 11 ofthis notice an

- opportunity for public comment. pursuant to section 325(i)(3) ofthe Act.

on the following matters. among others:

(A) Whether the proposed standards

are economically justified;

(B) Whetherthe standard will achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible;

(G) Ifthe standard does notachieve such improvement. whetherthe reasons for not achieving suchimprovementare adequate: and

(D) Whether the proposed rule should

. prescribe a level ofenergy efficiency

which is higher orlower than that which would otherwise apply in the case of any group ofproducts within the type (or class) thatis 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 ofthe Act. refer to £PeA as amended by NECPA. economic information which will assist DOE in developing a final rule that is expected to be prescribed in December 1980.

Accordingly. this notice presents a discussion ofDOE'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 periodfor standards. a discussion ofthe comments received as a result ofthe advancenotice, a discussion ofthe covered products and classes to which the proposed standards will apply. the certification and enforcement procedures proposed. a summary ofthe basis for arriving at maximum technologically feasible efficiency levelS for each class ofproduct. a summary of the basis for arriving at the energy efficiency standards (intermediate and final) for each class ofproduct. a discussion ofstate/manufacturer preemptionpetitions. small business exemptions. and a requestfor comments
on various standards-related issues. In supportofthis proposed rule. the Department has developed five Technical SupportDocuments. These

_ documents provide detailed information

on importantaspects ofthe proposed rule and are..referred to throughout the

. preamble. 

### NumberandTitle / 1-Draft:RegulatoryAnalysis Z-Environmental.-Assessment 3-Certification and Enforcement

Document 4--Economic Analysis Document 5-Engineering Analysis Document

Copi-es ofthe'proposedrule 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 underDocket No. CASRM-78-110 at the Office ofHearings and Dockets at the address specified at the begining ofthis notice or the DOE Freedom ofInformation Office. between the hours of8:00 a.m.-and 4:30 p.m

.. Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays at the following address: Department ofEnergy. Freedom of Information Reading Room. Room 5B180. Forrestal Building: 1000 Independence Avenue. SW

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

A limited supply ofthe proposed rule and Technical Support Documents will also be available upon request through August 29. 1980 from the Office ofHearings and Dockets between the hours of9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. except Federal holidays at the follOWing address: Deoartment ofEne:'?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 ofconsumerproducts.
1.2 Ailthority .' 1.2.1 Background. The energy conservationprogram for consumer products is designed to require

. manufacturers to produce. and

consumers to purchase. significantly

more efficientproducts. The legislative plan enactedby Congress sets forth two interrelated elements for accomplishing this objective. The first element is to require manufacturers to produce more efficient products. and the·secondis to inform the purchaser ofconsumer products ofthe relative energy efficiency. annual operating costs and otherenergy use factors ofthe products. Given this information. the purchaser will be equipped to selectthe more energy efficientproducts.

The first element, described in section 325 ofEPCA. priorto amendmentby NECPA. called for the promulgation of voluntary efficiency improvement targets representing aggregate industry efficiency improvements thatwere to be achievedby 1980.1\s an incentive for the industry to try and achieve these targets. a reporting and monitoring system was to be establishedby DOE to trackindustry progress. 

### In the eventthat achievement ofa target for a particular covered product appeared unlikely. DOE would have beenrequired 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 ofNECPA amended section 325 of EPCA to provide for a mandatory energy efficiency standards program.

The second element set forth in section 324 ofthe Act involves the development ofa 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 labelingrules and administering the labeling program. The final rule for labeling only included

room air conditioners. furnaces. clothes washers. dishwashers. waterheaters. refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.

### 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 ofits 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 F'rOpOseo rule Final rule Covered produCl type

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 ofenergy 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 ofcovered 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 onlyI. and furnaces. The second set of products: dishwashers. television sets. humidifiers and dehumidifiers. and clothes washers were the subject ofa ' separate advance notice which was published in the Federal Register (44 FR 72276). ofDecember 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 ofproposed rulemaking for the second set ofproducts 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 ofsuch 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. Proposed lUie F'onal rule Covered product type

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 i42 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 ofNovember 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 ofthe 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 ofthe information provided on the labels. This is intended to encourage comparison shopping and to generate consumer demand forthe

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 that DOE develop test procedures for the determination ofestimated annual operating costs and at least one other

measure ofenergy.consumptionfor 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 oftheir 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 ofthe rules is listed inTable 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. DOEis aware that new products or designs will be developedFederaFRegister / Vol. 45. No. 1::::7 / !vIonday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 

### 43979

1.3 

### PlannedReg,.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 ofproposed rulemaking for dishwashers. television sets. clothes washers. and humidifiers and dehumidifiers appeared in the Federal Register ofDecember 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. waterheaters. room air conditioners. home heating equipment notincluding 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 ofcoveredproduct or class. "Type" ofcovered products refers to one ofthe categories ofconsumer products designated in section 322 ofthe Act identified by DOE as having met the criteria stated in section 325(a) ofthe Act. "Class" ofcovered product means in general a group ofbasic models within a covered product that constitute

a type which has the same primary energy source. Products may have a different capacity or otherperformance related feature which affects the energy efficiency ofthe 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 notintended for export.

1.3.2 Criteria for Selection of Classes. DOE has grouped the basic models ofeach covered product into classes which accountfor type offuel used and performance related features. These classes were determined with the

use ofdata supplied by interested persons in response to DOE's advance notice ofproposed rulemaking. Different classes may be specified in the final rule ifDOE receives datao views and arguments which justify changes. DOE used the following criteria to group feature which otherproducts 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 within a class. refrigerator-freezers with sidefreeezers have different standards depending on volume or capacity ofthe 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

orpart ofthe'requirements ofan energy efficiency standard. This exemption may not extend beyond 2years from the

_effective date ofany 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 ofcompetition. This exemption is discussed in greater detail in section 8. "Small Business Exemptions,"

Other.provisions ofthe Act are: (1) a review oftest procedures within 3 years ofNECPA enactment and from time to time thereafter [section 323(a)(7)]; (,Z) reevaluation ofthe standards within 5 years ofprescription [section 325(h)]; (3) procedures for preemption ofstate energy efficiency regulations [section 327J. '

Section 326 ofthe Actimposes 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 ofdata 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 ofthe Act provide for: (1) DOE to prescribe rules requiring manufacturers to allow the Department to observe testing and inspect results oftesting conducted by the manufacturer or his agent [section 326(b)(5)]: (2) manufacturers to supply to DOE a reasonable number ofproducts 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 reliefagainst 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 ofcovered product if: (1) there is no DOE test procedure for the type or class:

or (2) DOE determines. by rule. that the establishment ofa standard for the particular type or' class would not result in significant conservation ofenergy 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 accordancewith the procedure set forth in sections 336(a) and 325(i). After reviewing comments on the proposa!;'DOE must then determine that the benefits ofthe standard exceed its burdens based. to the greatest extent practicable. on a weighing ofthe following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact ofthe standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers ofthe 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 ofthe covered products which are likely to result from. the imposition ofthe standard.

(3) The totel projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition ofthe standard.

(4) Any lessening ofthe utility or the performance ofthe covered products likely to r"sult from the imposition ofthe standard.

(5) The impact ofany lessening of competition. determined in writing by the Attorney General. that is likely to result from the imposition ofthe standard.

(6) The need ofthe Nation to conserve energy. and'

_

(7) Any other factors which DOE considers relevant.

In developing the consumer,products efficiency standards. the economic effects ofalternative efficiency levels

were systematically analyzed. To weigh effectivelY the above seven legislative criteria. it was necessary to quantify the expected consequences ofenergy efficiency regulcrtions. including impacts

on·consumers. manufacturers. and the Nation. This analysis is discussed in depth in section 5' ofthis notice.

Section 325(£) ofthe 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 offuel. or (2) they have a capacity or other performance-related

### 43980 Federal Register / Vol. -i5. No. 127 

## f**~vfon.day.** 

### June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

basic models ofeach 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 ofthe 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 ofmodels with the feature to be different from that ofmodels 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 thatthe Department believes are economically justified for each class ofcovered

consumerproduct subject to this notice. This determination was made in part on the basis ofdata supplied to DOE by manufacturers and other interested' parties in response to the advance notice ofproposed rulemaking which appeared in the Federal Regisjer. January 2. 1979 (44 FR 49). and the notice ofopportunity 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 ofStandards and from DOE contractors.

The maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency'levels identifiedhere may be modified in the final rule either

as a result of (i) modifying the definition of "maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency level." (ii) receipt of additional information regarding the highest levels ofenergy 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. ifafter efficiency standards are prescribed. DOE determines that standards are justified for a nonregulated class either due to**~eceipt** ofadditional information regarding the level ofenergy efficiency Improvements possible. significant increase in the number ofunits 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 ofSpecifying Energy Efficiency Levels. For refrigerators and reffigerator-freezers. freezers. clothes 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 equaland 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." TSDNo.5. contains a more detailed explanation ofthe rationale for variable standards by.capacity.

1.3.5 Planned Phase-In ofStandards. Section 325(c)'ofthe Act allows for a phasing-in ofthe standards over a period not in excess of5 years through the estabishment ofintermediate standards. Use ofthe full 5 yearperiod provides manufacturers with more planning and development time. to meet final standards than otherwise would be proposed ifa shorter period was adopted;

Accordingly. DOE plans to utilize the full phase-in period and has proposed final standards which are to be achieved byJanuary 1. 1986. Intermediate standards proposed for the subject

consumerproducts 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 ofproducts being eliminated from the market place. DOE is proposing intermediate standards which it believes

are technologically feasible and economically justi.fied.

2. Definitions

For purposes ofthis notice. the following terms are defined:

"Basicmodel" ofcovered product

means all units ofa 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 ofa 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 certification. available to DOE or required ofa manufacturer or private labeler 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 ofthe measure ofenergy effiCiency (energy factor. annual fuel utilization efficiency. energy efficiency ratio. or seasonal energy efficiency ratio as defined and measured according to DOE test procedures) ofany basic model for each class that DOE expects to be commercially available at the time of the effective date ofthe final standard.

"Minimum energy efficiency level" (MEEL) means the minimum value ofthe

measure ofefficiency (energy factor. energy efficiency ratio. seasonal energy efficiency ratio. annual fuel utilization efficiency). specified in 10 CFR Part430. Subpart 

### C. and measured according to. DOE test procedures in SubpartB. which a covered product must meet or exceed in accordance with Subpart Fin order to be in compliance with an energy efficiency standard.
3. Advance Notice
3.1 Discussion of Industry Data
In order to obtain information on the

consumer product industry suitable for determining probable impacts ofenergy efficiency standards. the following

sources were used: 1) publicly available information (Moody's. Standard &Poor, Census ofManufacturers' Directory. etc.). 2) a survey ofall firms identified as
consumer product manufacturers (Form C5-1i9). 3) a survey ofa sample offirms in the industry (Form CS-195r which

were made available at the DOE Freedom ofInformation Office. Information solicited from the industry

was provided on a voluntary basis and:

as discussed below. was often ofa proprietary nature.

The information provided background

on shipment levels. the overall business climate ofthe 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.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 EfficiencyStandards

Various comments recommended that the standards should vary wIth capacity for clothes dryers. refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. water heaters. central air conditioners and conventional ovens because efficiencv is directly related to the capacity or

. volume ofthe product. Manufacturers generally seemed to prefer increasing the number ofproduct classes to handle the variation ofefficiency with capacity. DOE is today proposing energy efficiency standards that vary with capacity for clothes dryers. refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. freezers. kitchen ranges and ovens. and water heaters.

A number ofcomments 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 ofthis 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 ofcomments urged that the standard levels recognize product variability, manufacturers' tolerances. and test variability and that the standard shouldbe applied to the mean value ofefficiency ofeach.basic model rather than a level every unit must meet. However: one commentrecommended the standard be applied to the mean value ofefficiencv ofa manufacturers' total distribution'ofeach 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 ofa type ofcovered product (or class thereof).

While a number ofcomments 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 ofCalifornia. 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. Afterreviewing 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 ofthis report were the product ofsubstantial consultation with industry.


### 3.2 Comments Receivedin Response to AdvanceNotice 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 ofclassifications ofthe 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. shouldbe exempt completely from the standards. DOE has reviewed these comments and made appropriate revisions based upon the, comments received and criteria identifiedin Section4 ofthis notice.


### Phase-In of Standards Many manufacturers addressed the issue ofinterim efficiency standards. In particular. manufacturers offurnaces 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 differentproducts 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 ofthe 3- to 5-year lead time for introducing new models. While the majority ofthe 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 water heaters that approach the state-of-the-art technology. Based upon its analysis of In order to obtain infornfation on product efficiency. number ofunits shipped. capital investment. and suggested retail price. a survey ofall 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 ofthe survey.
were used to determine the potential impact ofalternative standard levels on manufacturers by determining the number ofmodels 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 ofthe impact. Additional data solicited under Form C3-1i9 concerned design options and the adequacy ofthe 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 effectregulations would have on price and quantities shipped.

In developing an economic model which incorportes the business practices ofthe industry. additional information

was solicited from selected

. representative firms via Form C3-195. a copy ofwhich appears as Appendix D of the "Economic Analysis Document." TSD No.4. This survey was provided to all firms who identified themselves as
consumerproduct manufacturers and

were willing to submit the requested data. This survey gathered information

on normal practices in accounting. financing. decision making. and other informalion practices relevant to a firm's decision to remain in or withdraw from the market. The results ofthis 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 offirms from the market place.

Finallv. manufacturers were asked to comment on and provide additional data for selected draft reports. Chiefamong43982**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.
TestProcedures

Concerns over the testprocedures generally related to the fact that the performance aspects ofmany 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 ofautomatic termination devices andthe standards proposed today are based upon the proposed amended test procedures. Also. no standardis being proposed for microwave ovens. ProductElimination

Several comments expressed concern that the standard might be set at levels sufficiently high to force certain products from the marketplace. These may be significant products for the replacementmarket (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. DOEhas specified separate classes to ensure the

. availability offeatures providing utility when the feature causes the energy efficiency ofthe models with the feature to be different from that ofmodels without the feature.
-Maximum TechnologicallyFeasible Anumber ofmanufacturers believe that maximum technologically feasible designs should not be basedupon models manufactured by companies who have gone out ofbusiness. limited volume trial models ofuncertain commercialization. and models representing an extremely small percentage ofclass 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 ofcovered product to be the highest level ofefficiency for each class that DOE expects to be commercially available at the time ofthe effective date ofthe 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

, paybackperiod for the increased first

costs through reduced energy costs should be 2to 3 years and. in no case.
more than 5 years. The standards proposed today have paybacks which

are on the order offive 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. Afew manufacturers suggested that a
consumer education campaign that recommends efficientmethods of operation ofexisting appliances may achieve greater energy conservation in·a shortertimeperiod 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 consumerproduct education labeling program sponsored 10regional workshops for industry, educators. utilities. and State energy officials in the Fall of1979. Anational

consumer awareness campaign.began last month to inform consumers ofthe appearance of.the consumer product labels and how to use labeling information in the purchase ofenergy efficientproducts. 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 ofthis nationwide effort.

3.2.4 Other. SamplingProcedures

Two trade associations commented that sampling procedures will affect the energy efficiency level which can be met. Anumber ofdifferent 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 6ofthis notice.
PatentInfringement

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 manufacturerproduct design flexibility. Information available to DOE indicates that ofthe design options considered. none have proprietary patent protection.

. Preemption

Two major manufacturers called for clarification ofthe timing ofthe 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 proposedtoday is.tfiscussed in section 7 ofthis notice.
ProductExemption

A number ofmanufacturers 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 economicallyjustified. Labeling

Commenters addressing this subject suggested that labeling would not be necessary when energy standards are established. Concern was expressed

over the complications ofenergy labeling. particularly for water heaters because ofdifferent utility rate structures and use habits. DOE has determined that labeling alone will not satisfy the mandate ofthe 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 whereverpossible and

### 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, ifnecessary. and that testing by DOE shouldbe 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 impactAssessmentofStandards

In order to assess the benefits and impacts ofsetting standards for energy efficiencies at different levels based on the seven criteria specifiedin section 3Z5(d) ofthe Act. engineering and economic analyses were completed for each covered product and the results are summarized within this section. As part ofthis analysis. the relationship between the increased cost ofa
consumerproduct and its efficiency improvementwas estimated for each productclass. Estimates were also made ofthe maximumtechnologically feasible energyefficiency levels for 1"986. 

### 1I?- addition. estimates ofthe investment requiredby a typicallarge and small manufacturerwere made. Estimates by productclass ofthe changes in manufacturing materials needed were made to provide estimates ofmaterials 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 ofconsumerproducts. 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. Theproposed standards were set atthe highest levels technically feasible and economicallyjustified considering these impacts.


### Determination ofClasses

Aninitial task in the development of standards was the establishment of classes for each ofthe nine covered products. The first step was to divide the various models within each covered product into classes according to the type offuel used. as mandated by the Act. Although efficiencies ofhigher values are alwavs better. relative efficiencies across fuel types in a coveredproduct are not comparable**beca~se** point ofuse energy is considered in all cases rather than primary energy source. The second step
was to further segregate each covered product into classes each ofwhich was distinguishedby capacity or a performance-related feature which affects energy efficiency butprovides utility to the consumer. Performance ofa
consumerproductis the objective

measure ofhow well the product does its intendedjob. Measures of performance include capacity and quality. Quality is a measure of :he consistency. uniformity orthoroughness with which the product does itsjob. Utility ofa consumerproductis a subjective measure. based on the consumer's perception ofthe capability ofthe product to satisfy user needs.

Next. an investigation ofthe inherent energy efficiency ofeach class was performed to determine ifdifferent energy efficiency levels were needed for each ofthe classes. Only those classes which used a differenttype offuel or which had an energy efficiency inherently different from similarclasses

were identified in the proposedrule.


### TestProcedures

Measurements ofefficiencywhich are derived from the testprocedures**ar~** used as

# the basis for energy efficiency standards. Manufacturers are required to establishthattheirproducts are in conformance with the standards by testing in accordance with these test procedures. 

### Cost-EfficiencyRelationships

Major assumptions in ,developing manufacturing costrelationships associated with energy efficiency improvements for the 1986 standards

were:

•. production volumes were assumed to remain constantwithin each product class:

• design options selectedfor analysis

were based on technologies which are currently available orhavebeen -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 meetthe energy efficiency levels were long enough so that no significantincrease in .engineering staffwere likely to be required.

The engineering analysis involved three primary steps. First. for each product class. the facilities ofa typical large and smallmanufacturer were characterized in terms ofproduction volumes andproduction line layouts including capital equipment. Second. for each product class. a baseline unit reoresentative of !)r::;;''.lcts at the 1978 shipmentweighted er.2rgy factorwas selected and estimates were made ofthe 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 ofachieving different efficiency levels. 'these steps are described in more detail below.

In order to characterize manufacturers ofeachproduct class. a simulated manufacturing facility for a typical large and small manufacturer and the number oflarge 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 tracklayoutrequired for the production ofthe units. Amore detailed presentation ofthe manufacturing cost analvsis canbe found in the "Engineering Analysis Document. to TSD No.5. 

### Design Options

The design option analysis began vllith the selection ofa baseline unit. The selection was based on data obtained from Form C5-179. a survey ofall identified consumerproduct manufacturers. The baseline unitwas dermed as the unitwith an efficiency, input. output. and size approximately equal to that ofthe most commonlyproducedunit in 1978. Forthe analysis ofthe various design options each baseline unit was characterized in terms ofits 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 ofspecific design options:

(1) Improvements musthave a payback to the consumerofless than the product's life.

(2) Design options to the manufacturer with the shortest lead time andmost cost effective improvements were selected to achieve each efficiencylevel analyzed. ' Various othermethodologies-(series of design improvements) to higher efficiency can be envisioned. For instance. the lowest costto the

consumerto achieve each efficiency level couldhave been assessed. This could lead to a rearrangement ofthe design improvements to achieve the level. However. minimizing lead time

. within the paybackcriterion. was felt to

be the mosteffective and likely scenario

### 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..testprocedures [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 ofthe per unit change In rnaterials and purchased 'parts required to achieve specific efficiency levels.


### CostElements

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 of30 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 perpound with the estimated changes in materials made during the design.option analysis. Purchased component costs per unit

were based on quotes from suppliers. Although somelargermanufacturers might make components.such as compressors orvent dampers. these items were casted as purchased parts unless the majority ofmanufacturers 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 ofthe added cost to the

consumer were made by marking up the factory cost by 35% to obtain an estimate ofthe 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 estimatedadded cost to the consumer, To estimate the price ofa
more efficient unit to the consumer. this estimated cost increase was added to the price ofthe baseline unit. This price and the efficiency ofthe unit were then used to generate a cost vs. efficiency relationship for each product class.


### Maximum TechnologicallyFeasible

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 ofthese'levels over the next 6years. 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 marketby 1986.

.

Even though manufacturers have prototypes in the January 1980 time frame. itis not practical to expect a complete product line transformation considering product development cycleofengineering. 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 itis not economicallyjustifiable to propose energy efficiency standards at the maximum technological limit. 

### Life Cycle Costs andPaybackAnalysis

Two key criteria for assessing impacts

on consumers resulting from standards

are life cycle costs and payback period. Life cycle cost is a measure ofthe discounted total cost ofconsumer product ownership. Included is the total purchase price. energy use over the life ofthe product. and the maintenance costs over the service life ofthe product. discounted to theirpresent values. The

consumerpayback period represents the time required to recoup the increased purchase price ofmore 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 ofthe time it takes to

overcome the initial burden ofhigher product prices.


### FinancialImpactAnalysis'

The financial impact analysis of manufacturers centers on projected changes in profit to net worth ratios and the ability offirms ofdifferent sizes to finance the capital investment necessary to meet 1986 standards. The analysis shows that 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 ofwhom 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 ofgoods 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 ofbusiness 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 oftotal sales. medium firms 6.8 percent. and small firms. 1.2 percent. These percentages. along with estimate.s oftotal industry sales by product types.
were used to disaggregate product type sales in 1978 into market shares for each ofthe 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 ofthe 

### 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 ofthis proposed rule and promulgation ofthe 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 ofall firms in the respective size category. Industry sales were projected for these firms as described in TSD No. 4, Investment requirements to meetFederal 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 ofrepresentative 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 ofearnings for each size of firm producing each ofthe flight product types. Manufacturers were assumed to be able to make the necessary capital investment for 1986 standards ifthey could do so out ofretained earnings during the 1961 through 1985 time frame. Furthermore. they were assumed to be able to make thi; investment out ofa combination ofretained earnings and loans ifany indebtedness could be paid back out ofretained earnings overthe 1986 through 1988 time frame.

Expected impacts ofproposed standards on small. medium and large manufacturers are presented in their respective economic sections ofthis preamble. Impacts on the industry refer to the percentage ofindustry sales capacity having a highprobability of successfully financing capital investment. Impacts on small. medium and large firms refer to thatpercentage offirms which are expect-ed to

. successfully meet 1986standards. as reflected in the probability distribution offorecasted 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 ofstocks orbonds. transfer offunds 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 ofthis flexibility for all firms in the industry. Therefore. the percentage offirms identified as having low probabilities ofsuccess. using the conservative assumptions of the financial analysis. probably reflect a higherlevel ofindustry 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 ofsuccessful financing for small manufacturers .of all products except furnaces. central air conditioners and clothes dryers. However. given the conservalive 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 ofmanufacturer impact is not expected to be excessive when compared with the energy savings and net benefit to consumers discussed elsewhere in this preamble.

Ofthe 292 individual firms and major plants comprising the industry. the number offirms producing the different product types is as follows: refrigerator and refrigerator-freezers. 23; freezers. ,18; ranges and ovens. 27: waterheaters. 33;

room air conditioners. 42; central air conditioners. 58: furnaces. 85; and clothes dryers. 17. These firms have combined consumerproduct factory sales ofapproxima!ely $6billion. 

### Impacts an SmallManufacturers EligiblefarExemption

Approximately 80 firms. or27 percent ofthe industry, have individual gross sales from their overall operation of$8 million orless and therefore are eligible upon petition for a 2-year exemption
, from standards. These firms account for less than one percent ofthe total production ofthe eight consumer products. Ifgranted exemptions. 60 firms. or 75 percent ofmanufacturers

. 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 ofthe lowpriced market in 1981-1983 and may have proportionately higherprofits than their largercompetitors 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 ·.:nderS8 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 andRefrigeratorFreezers

4.1.1 Summarv. "Electric refrigerator" mea-ns a cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage offood at temperatures above 3Z'. andhaving a
source ofrefrigerationrequiring an electrical energy input only. Hmay include a compartment for the freezing and storage offood at temperatures below 3Z'F. but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment designed for the freezing ofand the long term storage offood at temperatures below a'F. It has onlY one exterior door. but itmay have interior doors or comoartments.

"Electric refrigerator-freezer" means a cabinet which consists oftwo ormore compartments with at least one ofthe compartments designed for the refrigerated storage offoods at temperatures above 3Z·F andwith at" least one ofthe compartments designed for the freezing ofand the storage of frozen foods at temperatures of8°F or below andmay be capable ofbeing adjustedby the userofa temperature of O°F orbelow. The source ofrefrigeration requires ap. electriclil energy input only.

The**proposed~nergy** efficiency levels for refrigerators andrefrigeratorfreezers are fourid inTable 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.

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

Table 4.1-2':"',J,/temate efficiency Levels (Energy Fscror. EP

. .

'tJ,'k\Vh/24 hrsl

Methddology

In performing the product efficiency analysis. the key design improvements for the cabinet and the refrigeration system considered were: substitution ofpolyurethane foam for fiberglass;

• double door gaskets and reduced throat clearance; improve compressor motor: and removal ofevaporator fan motor from refrigerated space.

_

A computermodel integrating cabinet design and refrigeration system

. subroutines was used to determine the performance ofthe improved designs. The computer model has been verified by comparing predicted results to the actual test results ofa number of production and prototype refrigeratorfreezer designs. A technical discussion ofthe computermodel is contained in the "Engineering Analysis Document." TSD No.5.

The manufacturing cost analysis assumed a facility consisting ofseven 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 offoam 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 ofnumber ofunits ofa particular basic model multiplied by the energy factor. divided by the total number of shiprp.ents within a class-for each class ofrefrigerators 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 ofmeasured<energy factors is used to define final levels because ofthe differences in distribution and definition ofenergy factors among product types and classes. Use ofthis statistical

measure assures that the potential relative impacts ofsimilar 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 estimated 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 ofinsulation throughout the entire cabinet. Improved air system flow paths were employed to reduce the power necessary to operate 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 ofthe

. evaporator and condenser in addition to the use ofavailable technology design options. These levels have not been proposed as the energy efficiency standardbecause 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 Refrigerator-Freezers (Energy Factor. EF. ftJ/kWh/24 hI'S). 5.6 S.2
a.l 124-0,400'1

2.73

...0.178'1 2.76-0.524'1 1.20-0.524'1 1.98 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 Lavel """ouet Class

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.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 refrigerator-freezers by measuring the adjusted refrigerators 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, temperature difference across the freezer compartment walls. Energy factors haveoimensions ofcubic feet per kilowatt hour per·24 hours**(ft3/~Wh/** 24 hrs) and are ,useful indicators of refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer efficiency since they facilitate comparison ofenergy consumption between units ofdifferent total volumes and with different ratios offresh food to frozen'food compartment volumes.

DOE received a comment in response to the advance notice that addressed the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures. The commenter objected to the allowance ofusage credil'fm:. designs which have switches to turn offanti

.. sweat heaters. When operating.1hese heaters provide localized heat to prevent condensation ofmoisture 'On certain exterior surfaces ofthese products when used in high humidity environments. The commenter maintained that these credits discourage design improvements which utilize improved insulation to prevent such condensation. 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 offall ofthe anti-sweat heaters and. consequently. the difference in power consumOlion for some inefficient designs'may also be small. Consequently. changesjn 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 refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers to reduce testing time and burden on manufacturers. The existing test procedures for single-cpntrol refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers require testing at three control settings and for multiple-control refrigeratorfreezers 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 ofthe test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerat.or-freezers 

### will not affect previous test results or the levels ofenergy efficiency standards proposed by this notice.
Indh'iduolProduct Class .4.nalysis

Five comments received in response to the advance notice criticized DOE's establishment of-only three cJasses of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. These commenters stated fundamental physical reasons for the establishment ofadditional classes ofautomatic-

. 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-relatedfeatures which affect both efficiency and utility ofthe unit. These features

are: (1) type offreezer defrost system (manual or automatic). (2) fr.eezer compartment temperature. (3) physical arrangement ofcompartments. and (4) avaHability of through-the-door service features.

As defined in the DOE test procedures. refrigerators are refrigeration products with a compartmentfor refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32'F which may have a compartment for the frozen storage offood 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 longerperiods '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 ofthe refrigeration system, DOE has grouped refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers into separate classes.

DOE.has determined that automatic defrost refrigeration products. those ",,:hich do not require any action by the

user to accomplish defrosting ofthe freezer. provide utility to the consumer. Automatic 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.

Refrigerator-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 ofthe fresh food compartment. Bottom freezers also absorb more heat rejected from the compressor and condenserthan do top freezers since these components are located adjacent to the freezer compartment. Because ofthese fundamental differences which affect both utility and energy consumption. DOE has proposed separate classes for automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with top. side, and bottom freezers.

In addition. certain models oftop freezer and side freezer refrigeratorfreezers incorporate dispensing services

### :,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 dispenserhardware. 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 othermodels. 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 ofrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers have not been established for models with different refrigerated volumes. DOE is aware that the energy factor ofa particular product tends to increase with increasing volume. This phenomenon is due to the fact that as the voluine ofa rectangular cabinet increases. the ratio ofsurface

area to volume decreases. Since heat transfer into the cabinet is directly related to surface area, two refrigerators ofdifferent 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 ofonly 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 ofthis relationship is provided in the "Engineering Analysis Document." TSD No.5.

4.1.3 Economic Impacts ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofrefrigerator and refrigerator-freezer. the average
consumer will realize a lower life cvcle cost (adecrease in the discounted total cost ofproduct 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.

Consumerpayback period. the period oftime elapsed before the higher purchase price ofmore 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 offirms expected to be able to obtain sufficient funds through profit or short-term debt. during the 1981 through 1985 period. to make the capital investmentnecessary 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 othermethods such as sales ofstocks or bonds. transfer offunds from other operating divisions. etc. Therefore. firms having low probabilities ofsuccess will not necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level ofstandards. 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 ofcurrent industry production. Included in those firms expected to be able to make the required capital investment. are 99 percent oflarge 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 ofthose energy savings: the aggregate discounted consumer costs ofmore energy efficient products; and the net present value ofthe above costs and benefits.

Proposed standax:.ds on all classes of refrigerators and rafrigerator-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 ofmore energy efficient refrigerators 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 ofthe proposed regulation

on refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is estimated atbetween $4.5·billion and 56.7 billion. These values'are derived from use ofthe Residential Energy Use Forecasting Model described in section 5.3 ofthis 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 offood at temperatures ofO'F or below. having the ability to freeze food. and having a source ofrefrigeration 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 ofunits ofa particular basic model multiplied'by the energy factor. divided bv the total number of shipmentS-within a class-for each class offreezers. 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 1986are derived from a manufacturing cost estimating technique used to estimate materials. investmentFederal 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 -EnergyEfficiency Levels for Freezers (Energy Factor. EF. ft

### 3/ kWh/24 hrs).

Level PrOdUct Class ofpolyurethane 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 ofhigher 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 ofevaporator fan heat from the refrigerated space. gasket improvement. and an increased evaporatorand condenser surface area were employed when cost effective. For chest freezers, foam substitution for fiberglass in the lid. relocation ofthe condenser outside ofthe cabinet walls. and improvements to compressor motors were methods employed in the analysis.

A computer model. which integrates cabinet design and refrigeration system subroutines. was used to determine the performance ofthe improved designs. The computer model has been verified against a number ofproduction and prototype freezer designs. A technical discussion ofthe computer model is contained in the "Engineering Analysis Document." TSD No.5. The manufacturing cost analysis assumed a facility consisting offour manufacturing lines for both large al1d small manufacturers. It was'assumed that cabinet doorlines 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 material 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 evaluated. These cost· efficiency relationships 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.'



### TestProcedures

The test procedures for freezers found at 10 CFR Part430. SubpartB, provide a standardized method for calculating the efficiency (energy factor. EF) offreezers by measuring the adjusted refrigerated volume and the adjusted electrical

. energy consumption in a 24-hourperiod. The measured energy consumption is adjusted·for chest and upright freezers to correlate

## thetest results to typical energy household consumption. Energy factors have dimensions ofcubic feet per kilowatt hourper 24 hours (ft3/kWh/ 24 hrs) and are useful indicators of freezer efficiency since they account for differences in energy consumption between freezers ofdifferent 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 ofthe test orocedures for freezers will not affect previous test results or the levels ofenergy efficiency standards propose? by this notice.

### 43990 June 30. 1980 

## I Proposed Rules

IndividualProduct

### Cl§~SAnalYSiS

'Thre1! classes offreElzersarespecified in section4.2.1 of**this~otice.** These classes are distinguishEld by performance-related features which affect efficiency and utility. These features are:

(1) configuration, (2) type ofdefrost system....-.rnanual. automatic.

The configuration ofthe unit (chest or upright) provides utiliI:}' which affects efficiency. Uprightfreezers offergreater accessibility to the freezer contents and

more efficient use offloor space than chesttype freezers. H0W'ever, the test procedures assign differentusage factors for chest anduprightfreezers to account for lieat leakage into the cabinet when the dooris opened. The adjusted energy consumption ofuprightfreezers should tend to be higher than the adjusted energy consumption ofchest freezers because ofthe assigned usage factors. Consequently, DOEhas grouped these products into separate classes.

Anotherperformance-relatedfeature which affects utility and efficiflncy is the defrost system which determines the extent ofaction by the userneeded to accomplish defrosting. Automatic defrostunits 

### do not.require any user action to accomplish defrosting. 

### and thus provtde the consumerwith utility notprovidedbymanual defrostunits. Automatic defrostunits, as compared to manual defrost units.. will have lower enllrgy factors because ofthe additional energy required to melt the frost and to
remove the defrostheat to maintain the cabinet temperature. DOEis not aware ofany chest freezers which offer the automatic defrost feature: therefore, today's rule proposes a separate class only for automatic defrostupright freezers.

Different classes offreezers have not been established for models with differentvolumes. DOEis aware that the energy factor ofaparticularproduct tends to increase with increasing volume. As with refrigerators. DOEhas accounted for this relationship by proposing energy efficiency standards which increase linearlywith volume. A detailed discussion ofthis relationship is found in the "Engineering Analysis Document.·· 15D No.5.

4.2.3 Economic Impacts ofthe 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"ofthis notice. Four alternative levels ofstandards 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

. 

### .Amore detailed presentation on impactsresultingfromthe levels which

were not selected is provided in the "EconomicAnalysis Document," TSD No.4.


### Consumers

For each class offreezers. the average
consumerwillrealize a lowerlife cycle cost(a decrease in the discounted total cost ofproduct ownership anduse) for higher efficiency regulated products as comparedwith unregulated products. The reductionin life cycle costs ranges from $295 for manual defrost chest freezers to $546 for manilal defrost upright freezers, corresponding to a Z3 percentreduction and 21 percent " reduction in life cycle costs, respectively.

Consumerpayback period, the period oftime elapsed before the higher purchase price ofmore 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 atthe proposed level were estimated; These effects are presented as the percentage" offirms expected to be able to obtain sufficient funds through profit or short-term debt. during the 1981 through 1985 period. to make the capital investmentnecessary for January 1986 standards. Those fIrms not able to successfully finance compliance with standards by means of funds from earnings orloans may be able to use othermethods such as sales ofstocks orbonds. transfer offunds from otheroperating divisions, etc. Therefore. firms having low probabilities ofsuccess will not necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level ofstandards. freezer manufacturers estimated to be able to obtain sufficient funds during the 1981 through 1985 period to make the capital investmentnecessary for January 1986 standards represent approximately 75 percent ofcurrent industry production. Included fn those firms expected to be able to make the required capital investment are 82 percent oflarge 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 dollarvalue ofthose lmergy•.savings: the aggregate discounted consumercosts ofmore energy efficientproducts: and the net presentvalue ofthe 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 ofmore energy efficient freezers during that same 1982 through

## zoos period is estimated to be between $0.4 billion and $0.6 billion in 1978dollars. Therefore. the national net present value ofthe proposedregulation on freezers is estimated atbetween $1.0 billion and $1.4 billion. These-values 

### are derived from use ofthe Residential Energy Use ForecastingModel described in section 5.3 ofthis 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 orgas 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 andthe 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 4.3-2presents 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 ofunits ofa 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 ofhigher efficiencies in the 1986 time frame. Leyel 3 in 1986 corresponds to the maximum level

### 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_ lITtr'. 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:encylevels 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 TechnologicallvFeasible-Le\"els for Clothes Dryers1Energy Factor. 

### EF. Ib/kWh). JUly 15. 1981 January 1. 1986 Product Class which is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. A detailed explanation 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 EngineeringAnalysis. Methodology

Four design options were evaluated for improving the efficiencyofclothes 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 ofautomatic 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 ofimproved 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 assumedto 

### be built on a separate line.

The use ofsensors to automatically terminate cycleswas 

### cost.ed assuming

new toolingto 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 increasingthe 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 theinterior ofthe cabinet for holding theinsulation; and additional station for finishing the welded pieces: an additional station for additing insulati-on; and**th~** necessary chains andbelts to carry theparts from
OIre station to the other. In addition. an allowance was made for additional area required by added production facilities. This estimateassumed that the additional spaoe could be found within the existing plant."

The costs ofadditional labor were also added to allow for the welding. painting and insulation installation. The investment costs were amortized as appropriate for the type ofinvestment 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 forclothes drvers found at 10'CFR Part 430. Subpart B: providea standardized method to calculatethe- efficiency (energy factor. EF) ofclothes dryers by measuring the .energy consumption per cycle. Energy factors·have dimensions ofpounds of clothes perkilowatt-hour (lb/kWh} 

## i3- poundload for compad. dryers and 1- pound

### load

### f£Y: standarddryers) 

### andare usefulindicators of

### clothes dryer effidency since they account for the differences in energyconsumption**bet~** clothes dryers ofdifferent capacities and designs.

Several comments specifically addressing the clothes dryer test prooedures were received in response to the advancenotice. These comments relate to the follOWing areas: (1) energy consumpticm associated with automatic termination ofthe drying cycle. (2) test voltage for electric dryers which can operate a t any of several voltages. arni (3) variability oftestresults. Based upon

. NBS analysis ofthe 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 ofterminabon controls by means ofdifferent field use factors in the equations for energy consumption per cycle. The energy saving potential for automatic termination is measurable

### 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 ofseveral 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 ofnew test cloths. test cloth specifications. and moisture content ofthe test cloth at the start of the test. InidividualProduct,ClassAnalysis

FQur classes ofclothes dryers are specifiedin section 4.3.1 ofthi.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 offuel 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 perkilowatt hour of electricityused. Compact dryers are further divided into two classes according to operating voltage (120V and24OV) in orderto 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 begas; 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 testprocedures. clothes dryer efficiency decreases in directproportion 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 ofthe dryer drum relative to the mass ofclothes: 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 ofthe uniformity ofthe size ofthe drum of dUTerent basic models. it is not necessary to similarly correct for volume dependence for compact dryers. Additional explanation of the determination ofthese relationships is provided in the "Engineering Analysis Document." TSD No.5.

·*-3.3 Economic Impacts ofthe 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 5ofthis notice. Four alternative levels ofstandards 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 ofclothes dryers. the average consumerwill realize a lower life cycle cost (a decrease in the discounted total cost ofproduct 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 2percent and 6 percentreduction in life cycle costs. respectively.

Consumerpayback period. the period oftime elapsed before the higher purchase price ofmore 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 offirms 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 offunds from earnings or loans may be able to use other methods such as sales ofstocks or bonds. transfer offunds from other operating divisions

..etc. Therefore firms haVing low probabilities ofsuccess will not necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed'ievel ofstandards. 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 ofcurrent industrv oroduction. Included in those firms**e~oected** to be able to make the required'capital investmeni are 99 percent oflarge manufacturers. 99 percent ofmedium-sized manufacturers. and 91 percent ofsmall 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 dollarvalue ofthose energy savings: the aggregate discounted consumer·costs ofmore energy efficient products: and the net present value ofthe 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 ofmore energy efficient clothes dryers during that same 1982 through 2005 period is between 80.2 billion and 50.3 billion in 1978dollars. Therefore. the national net present value ofthe 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 ofthe Residential Energy Use Forecasting Model described in section 5.3 ofthis notice and the "Economic Analysis Document." TSD No.4.

-I.-J WaterHeaters

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

### 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 majorproduction 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 ofinsulation 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 largerjacketpieces. Amajor capital equipmemt investment is required for foamed insulation. For costing purposes it was assumed that a manufacturerwould elect to foam all manufactured waterheaters ofone class aftermaking the initial decision to go to foam. The cost ofthis equipmentwas amortized over the production volumes ofthe product class being analyzed.

To improve the efficiency ofgas-fired waterheaters by reducing burnerinput 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 manufacturerwould purchase both parts and would make an investment in tooling for making a bracket to mount the IlD. In addition. added laborcosts for the installation of the two items were included in the costs. The design option employing a heat trap assumed that the heat trap wouldbe 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 waterheaters. These cost efficiency relationships and their derivation are described in detail in the "Engineering Analysis Document." TSD No.5.

The'maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency levels for 1986for waterheaters are shown inTable 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 ofwaterheaters are:

• Improved insulation: ." Increased flue baffling with reduced burnerinput:

" Vent dampers and intermittent ignition devices (lIDs); and

• Heat traps. Inthe analysis ofelectric water heaters various efficiency levels were projectedby using improved insulation either in the form ofhigher 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 incorporatedfoam insulation and heat traps.

For the analysis ofgas-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 ofimproved insulation as described above for electric waterheaters. The highest efffiency level evaluated employed a vent damper. lID. and advanced fiberglass insulation.

Estimates ofthe energy factors which could be achieved using various combinations ofthese design options

weremade using data from computer simuJations plus laboratory measurements. These were complemented by engineering analysis based on published energy factors for various models ofwater heaters obtained from the California list of approved waterheaters. advertisements for waterheaters 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 ofnumber ofunits ofa particular basic model multiplied by the energy factor. divided by the total number ofshipments within a class-for each class ofwaterheaters. Level 2in 1981 corresponds to the SWEF in 1978. Levell is one standard deviation below

.. the S\'VEF. while Level 3 and Level4 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 ofhigher efficiE!Dcies in the 1986 time frame. Level 3in 1986 corresponds to the maximum level which is technologically feasible and economically justified. A detailed explanation ofthe technological feasibility and economicjustifiability

can be found in the Engineering Analysis and Economic Analysis Documents. TSD No.4 and No.5. respectively. Levels 1 and 2correspond to proportionally lowerlevels which have fewer design improvements required and correspond to lowerfirst cost and generally higherlife cycle costs. Level 4 corresponds to

### lin 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 ofoil waterheaters. This is based largely on the small number ofoil waterheaters being produced today by generally smallmanufacturers and because many olderoil waterheaters

are being replaced by other classes of waterheaters: 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 waterheaters 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 WaterHeaters (Energy Factor. EF).

.. 3 Oil

### 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 eitherby

use ofa low thermal mass side-arm

. heater. which will also reduce standby losses. or by use ofa power vent or power burner with condensing and existing center flue designs. For electric waterheaters. the maximum technologically feasible level coveredby the existing test procedures would be achieved by foam insulation plus heat traps. RecentlY'a heatpump water heater has been introduced in the market. However. the existingDOE test pro.cedures do not evaluate the performance ofthis product. Because the performance ofa heat pump water heater is different than that ofa standard electric waterheater. a new class would be established when amendments to the test procedure are promulgated. For these reasons. maximum technologically feasible. for electric waterheaters does notreflect the incorporation ofthe 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 testprocedures 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 waterheaters); or (b) the heat content ofthe fuel consumedby the burners (forgas oroil waterheaters); Different classes ofwater heaters have not been established for models with different storage volumes. DOE is

aware that the energy factor ofa 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 ofstorage volume. Additional explanations ofthe determination of these curves and classes are provided in the "Engineering Analysis Document." TSD No.5.

Three comments expressed concern that the classes ofwater heaters identified in the advance notice would eliminate off-peak-type waterheaters. Other comments urged the consideration ofwater heater capacity and design in establishing product classes. With the establishment ofefficiency standards by volume. DOE has addressed these comments in today's proposed rule.

4.4.3 Economic Impacts ofthe 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 ofthis notice. Four alternative levels ofstandards were evaluated for eachperspective. 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 ofwater heaters. the average consumerwill realize a lower life cycle cost (a decrease in the discounted total cost ofproduct 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 paybackperiod. the period oftime elapsed before the higher purchase price ofmore 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.aterheaters. 

### A1anufacturers Impacts on waterheater manufacturers resulting from standards at the proposed level were estimated. These effects are presented as the percentage offirms expected to be able (2") Standby loss. the ratio ofthe heat loss per hour to the heat content ofthe stored water above room temperature:

(3) Average daIly energy consumption: (4) First hour rating. the maximum volume ofhot water which can be delivered at a 90' Ftemperature rise in a 1-hourperiod: and

(5) Daily hot water energy consumption. By using the test procedures. the energy factor as a management ofefficiency for

a waterheater can be derived. The energy factor for a waterheat is the quotient ofthe energy content in· the average daily hot watei' usage divided by the average daily energy input to the waterheaters. 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 testprocedures unless they ar.e changed or the energy standard for waterheaters varies.with capacity. Three comments expressed concern that the DOE testprocedures for water heaters penalize the larger storage-type waterheaters. The comments suggested thatthere is a possibility that storagetype waterheaters will be driven from the market place. thereby depriving

consumers ofthe opportunity to take advantage oftime-of-day electric rates. One comment urged DOE to develop a
measure ofefficiency which includes first hour supply rating. DOE is proposing energy efficiency levels that vary with capacity in order not to discriminate againstlarger storage waterheaters; The flrst hour supply rating test procedures for water heaters have been amended in the final test procedures for waterheaters prescribed

on September7. 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 ofenergy consl?rvation and should not be part ofthe standard. Today's proposed standard for water heaters does not use first-hour supply rating to measure efficiency.


### IndividualProduct ClassA.nalysis

Three classes ofwater heaters are specified in section4.4.1 ofthis notice.' These classes are distinguished by the type ofenergy consumed. Le" gas. electric oroil. Efficiencies ofwater heaters 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. Level Product class

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

Table 4.5-2.-Altemative Efficiency Levels (EnergyEffiCiencyRatio. 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 thecapital investment necessary forJanuary 1986 standards. Those firmS not able to successfully finance compliance with standards by means offunds from earnings or loans maybe able to use other methods such as sales ofstocks or bonds. transfer offunds from other' operating divisions. etc. Therefore. firms having low probabilities ofsuccess will not necessarily fail to meet the standards."

At the proposedlevel ofstandards. ' waterheatermanufacturers estimated to.**be.~1:lI~~(121:l.t~i!1.~llmc:i~!1t** ..**fllIl~~.** dUl."ing the 1981 through 1985period to make the capital**inv~stment** necessary for January 1986 standards represent approximately 80 percent ofcurrent industry p·roduction. Included in those firms expected to be able to make the required capital investment are 85 percent oflarge manufacturers. These estimates were developed using analytic techniques whichexamine 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 ofthose energy savings: the aggregate discounted consumercosts ofmore energy efficient products: and the net present value ofthe above costs and benefits.

Proposed standards on all classes of waterheaters combined are estimated to save between 3.87 QBtu's and 5.91

.QBtu's during the 1982 through 2005 period. valuedbetween $5.9 billion and S6.6 billion in 1978 dollars. The aggregate increased cost ofmore energy efficient waterheaters during thatsame 1982 through 2005 period is between $0.5 biilion and 50.6 billion in 1978 dollars. Therefore. the natonal netpresent value

. ofthe 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 ofthe Residential Energy Use Forecasting Model described in section 5.3 ofthis noticeand

### the "Economic'Analysis Document." TSD No.4.


### 4.5 RoomAirConditioners

4.5.1 Summary. "Room air conditioner" means a consumerproduct 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 ofproviding delivery ofconditioned air to an enclosed space. which is not a "packagedterminal'air conditioner." It includes aprime 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 ofheating and cooling assemblies intended for mounting through the wall. It includes a prime

source ofrefrigeration. separable outdoorlouvers. forced ventilation. and heating availability by builders choice ofhot water. steam orelectricity.

The proposed energy efficiency levels forroom 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 selectedfor analysis for 1981 are derived from the 1978 shipment weighted energy factor (SWEF)-which is the summation ofnumber ofuriits'ofa

Adetailed 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. particularbasic model multiplied by-the energy factor. divided by the total number ofshipments within B class-for each class ofroom air conditioners. Level 2in 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 2standard 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 andengineering costs required to

. marketproducts ofhigher efficiencies in the 1986 time frame. Level 3 in 1986 corresponds to the maximum level which is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified.

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 ofthe 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 ofstandard \'\'indow dimensions. Evaporator surface area
was·increased to a maximum to provide

### 43996 Federal Register 

### I Vol. 45, No. 127 

### I .\1onday, rune 3D, 1980 

### I Proposed Rules

either by configuration. design or capacity ofthe 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 ofroom 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 of15 inches on each side. Based upon these cnteria. DOE is not aware ofany 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 recirculationofcooled 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/hror less are limited because ofthe relatively greater costs associated with incremental

. improvements in efficiency for products ofthis 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 offeatures which affect efficiency. Room air conditioners without outdoor side louvers offer the

consumer the option ofmounting the unit flush with the outside wall. However. this configuration decreases product efficiency because the flow of air over the condensercoil is reduced and cooled airis recirculated. further decreasing the efficiency ofthe unit. Reverse cycle room air conditioners offer the utility ofbeing able to provide airheating 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 andHeat 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. 

### IndividualProduct ClassAnalysis

Seven comments suggested rhat the classes ofroom 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 ofroom air conditioners

are specified in section 4.5.1 ofthis notice. These classes are distinguished 

### TestProcedures

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) ofroom 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 ofthe approximately 54°F evaporating present test procedures to measure the temoerature under standard test effect on performance ofdesign 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 ofStandards is sizes to accommodate the increased evaluating the automatic fan mode of heat exchanger frontal area were operation ofroom 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 ifit is efficiency in the largest class ofroom air determined that the automatic fan mode conditions. Because ofincreases in heat ofooeration contributes to increasing exchanger surface area. the compressor the efficiency ofroom air conditions. capacity was reduced to maintain the Also, DOE has proposed amending the rated unit capacity. When standard general provisions orthe Department's compressor increments would meet the energy conservation program for

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

otherwise. tht:! stroke ofthe 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 capacitormotors 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 includedin without outdoor side louvers

areas as described above. room air conditions orreverse cycle

The manufacturing facility was room air conditioners. assumed to consist offive assembly Table 4.5-3. Maximum lines capable ofmanufacturing five

.. Technologically Feasible Levels for chassis with a variety ofcabinet heights.. Room Air Conditioners (Energy Increased investment. due to the Efficiency Ratio. EER. Btu/Walt-hr). ildditibn ofa largercabinet, was Product

# =- I.eveI included along with tooling changes for any fan orcompressorchange requiring

new mounting brackets. Increased costs for fan motors and fanblades 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 justunder 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.Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 12i / \t1onday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 

### 43997

The efficiency ofa 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 ofthe Proposed Standards for Room Air Conditioners. Economic benefits and burdens resulting from the proposed standards were assessed from

consumer. manufacturer,andnationalperspectives 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 ofroom air conditioners. the average consumer will realize a lowerlife 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 forroom air conditioners with' outdoor side louvers: capacity greater' than 6000Btu/hrbutno more than 20.000 Btu/hr. to $112 forroom air conditioners with outdoor.side louvers: capacity greaterthan 20.000 Btu/hr. corresponding to a 5percent reduction and 6.8 percent reduction in life cycle costs. respectively. •

Consumerpayback period. the period oftime elapsed before the higher purchase price ofmore 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 offirms 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 offunds from earnings or loans may be able to use othermethods such as sales ofstocks or bonds. transfer offunds from other operating divisions. etc. Therefore. firms having low probabilities ofsuccess will not necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level ofstandards.

room air conditionermanufacturers 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 oflarge manufacturers and 72 percent ofmedium-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 ofthe 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. Themost direct national impacts resulting from the proposed standards are: estimated energy savings; the discounted dollar value ofthose energy savings; the aggregate discounted consumer costs ofmore energy efficient products; and the net present value ofthe 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 ofmore 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Residential Energy Use Forecasting Model described in section 5.3 ofthis notice and the "Economic Analysis Document." TSD No.4.

4.6 

### Home Heating EquipmentNot 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 ofhome heating equipment not including furnaces used for'the purpose offurnishing 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 ofhome.heating equipment not including furnaces designed**~o** furnish warmedair to the living space ofa residence. directly from the device without duct connections and includes: vented wall furnace. vented floor furnace. orvented 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 ofa thermal stack damper for home heating equipment is considered an available major design option for the improvement in energy efficiency ofhome heating equipment. DOE has determined that the test procedures for home heating equipment should be amended to include the measurement ofthe effect ofenergy efficiency ofthermal stack dampersbefore the development ofthe efficiency standard canbe adequately calculated

.. Today's notice therefore assigns "space reserved" .to·this producttyp'e.

4.7 

### Kitchen Ranges andOvens

4.7.1 Summary. "Kitchen ranges and ovens" mean consumerproducts that

. are used as the majorhousehold cooking appliances. They are designed to cook

orheat different types offood by one or
more ofthe following source's ofheat: gas. electricity. or microwave energy. Each product may consist ofa 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 ofnumber ofunits ofa particular basic model multiplied by the energy factor, divided by the total number ofshipmentswithin a class-for each class ofkitchen ranges and ovens. Level 2in 1981 corresponds to the S\VEF in 1978. Levell is one standard deviation below the SWEF. while Level 3 and Level 4are 1 and 2 standard deviations above the SWEF. respectively. The levels selected for analysis for 1986 are derived from a43998 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 127 / ?vfonday. lune 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

Table 4.7-2.-Altemative effiCIencyLevels (energyFactor. €FPercent)

air;

• intermittent ignition device to replace standing pilot:

• reduced oven mass through smaller cavities orlighterracks;

• reduced electric resistance heater contact resistance: and 'manufacturing cost estimaling technique used to estimate materials. investment and engineering costs required to market products ofhigher 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 designimprovements required and correspond to lower first costand generally higher life cycle costs. Level 4,corresponds to an

"

Lll'oIel Product daSII

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



### TestProcedures

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 ahigher reject rate (oflower efficiency units) and

more time in quality control. resulting in

an additional labor allowance perunit. 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 linerfrom 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 T alai oven '401utne. ."",_ "' It J. Nal.,-See 'atlonale tor vanaale standards In seeoan 4.7.2.

• reflective pans underburners. The analysis ofthe efficiency improvement which comes from the application ofthese 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 majorproduction 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 ofmicrowave ovens and electric cooking tops. DOE has determi'ned that there are no cost effective design options for reducing the energy consumption ofthese classes without affecti,ng product utility "'1hich would result in a significant conservation ofenergy.

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 ofkitchen 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

.....

_..

_ .. ....._._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 ofthe market: (1) cooking tops which utilize induction surface heating elements; (2) single compartment ovens which are capable ofheating food by

means ofelectric resistance heaters and microwave energy; (3) a microwave

ovenin 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 affecttheminimum energy efficiency levels proposed by this notice. The energy factor'fs a useful indicatorofthe efficiency ofconventional cooking tops. conventional ovens and microwave

ovens because it accounts for differences in energy consumption corresponding to typical consumer usage. Formultiple conventional ovens. ·it is intended that the energy factor for each conventional ovenbe determined using the testprocedures citedin section' 4.1.4.1 ofAppendix IofSubpartB. Cooking efficiency. the ratio ofthe cooking energy output during a laboratory test to the cooking energy input for the same test anothermeasure t)fenergy consumption in the test

rocedures. has notbeen chosen as the

measure ofenergy consumptionbecause by failing to include the annual energy consumption ofpilotlights. clocks and self-cleaning. it does nofrepresent typical consumerenergy 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 ofproposed classes and varying efficiency levels by volume proposed today adequately address the above comments. 

### IndividualProduct ClassAnalysis

Seven classes ofkitchen 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 ofenergy consumed (gas or**~lectric).** (2) the function ofthe 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 ofall basic models consuming a certain type ofenergy.

Kitchen ranges and ovens are further segregated by the different functions (microwave oven. conventional ovens or cooking tops) each ofwhich has a distinctutility. 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 that ovens which do notrequire any manual effort by the

consumer to cleanprovides utility to the

consumer. Electric ovens and gas ovens have been segregated into classes of self-cleaning ovens and otherthan selfcleaning ovens. Self-cleaning ovens tend to have lower efficiencies than other

ovens because ofthe extra energy consumed by the self-cleaning cyCle. Since self-cleaning ovens offer a distinct performance-related feature which affects utility and efficiency. DOEis specifying two classes ofself-cleaning

ovens. one electric and one gas. in order to ensure that such units remain available to customers.

DOEis aware that the efficiencv of conventional ovens decreases with increasing volume because ofthe increase ofthe volume ofthe oven relative to the mass ofthe representative test load. Thus. DOEhas accounted for this relationship by proposing energy efficiency levels which decrease linearly with volume. This

assures thatlargerunits will notbe penalized and that all units must achieve proportionally the same level of energy efficiency improvements. This relationship ofefficiency to volume is discussed in detail in the "Engineering Analysis Document." TSD No.5.

4.7.3 Economic Impacts ofthe 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 describedin 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 presentedherein. 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 ofkitchen ranges and

ovens. the average consumer will realize
,a lower life cycle Gost (a decrease in the

discounted total cost ofproduct ownership and use)fafhigher 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 oftime elapse before the higher purchase price ofmore 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 offirms expected to be able to obtain sufficient funds through profit

or short-term debt. during the 1981 through 1985 period. to make the capital investmentnecessary for January 1986 standards. Those firms not able to successfully finance compliance with standards by means offunds from earnings or loans may be able to use othermethods such as sales of,stocks or bonds. transferoffunds from other operating divisions:etc. Therefore. firms having low probabilities ofsuccess will notnecessarily·fail to meetthe standards.

At the proposed level ofstandards. 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 oflarge manufacturers and 94 percent ofmedium-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 ofthe 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 ofthose

### 44000 Federal Register / Vol. 45. 

### No. 127 / 

### :\tlonday. June 30. 1980 / 

### Proposed Rules

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



### 4.8.2 Engineering Analysis. 

### Methodology

Increased condenser and evaporator surface areas were the energy saving designoptions considered in the efficiency analysis ofcentral air conditioners. Additional frontal area andcondenser depth were considered

as well as increased frontal area for the evaporator. By

### using available larger cabinet sizes ormanufacturing a new cabinet beyond the largest 5 ton unit heat transferwas 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 ofthis 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 othernonideal air flow factors. The standard energy consumption ofthe Level 3in 1986corresponds to the maximumlevel which is technologically feasible. and economicallyjustified. A detailed explanation on the technological feasibility and economic justifiability can be found in the

Produlrt class 4 3 2



### indoor fan specified in the test procedure for a split system was. employed in 

### the analysis. A fixed external resistance on the indoorunits

was applied to packaged systems. A baseline compressorwith an efficiency of8.86 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 ofcopper 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 wouldpurchase fabricated coils. paying approximately a 10 percent premium. Cost reductions in downsizing the compressor were treated as a function ofthe 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 oftbe 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 firstcost and generally higher life cycle costs. Level 4corresponds 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. heatpump

... I, Split system. cooling only

..

__••

__..

_ ........ 

### energy savings: the aggregate discounted consumer costs ofmore energy efficient products: and the net present value ofthe 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. valuedbetween SO.4 billion and$1.0 billion in 1978 dollars. The aggregate increased cost ofmore 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 presentvalue ofthe proposeeIregulation

on kitchen rapges and ovens is estimated atbeween $0.3 billion and $0.7 billion 

### in 1978 dollars. These values

are derived from use ofthe Residential Energy Use Forecasting Model described in section 5.3 ofthis notice and the "Economic Analysis Document." TSDNo.4.


### 4.8 CentralAir**Condit~oners**



### 4.8.1 Summary. "Central air conditioner" means a consumerproduct which is poweredby single phase electric current. which israted below 65.000Btu/hour•.which is not contained within the same cabinet as a furnace with arated capacity above 225.000Btu/ hour. and which is eithera "heatpump"

or a "cooling only 

### uItit."

The proposed energy efficiency levels for central airconditioners 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 selectedfor analysis for 1981 are derived from the 1978 shipment· weighted energy factor (SWEF)--which is the summation ofnumber ofunits ofa particularbasis model multiplied by the energy factor. dividedby the total number ofshipments within a class-tor each class ofcentral air conditioners. Level 2in 1981 corresponds to the SWEF in 1978. Levell is one standard deviation below the SWEF. while Level 3 and Level 4 are 1 and 2standard 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 marketproducts ofhigher efficiencies in the 1986 time frame.

Table 4.8-1 Energy Efficiency Levels for Central AirConditioners (Seasonal

### Federal Register / Vol. 45. 

### No. 127 / Monday, June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 

### 44001

efficient two speed ormodulating compressors which varies the output of the unitto correspond to the building ioad ofthe dwelling to take advantage ofthe creditgiven for this type of

. system in the test procedure. Industry data was provided for the analysis of the twin compressorperformance. 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 EfficiencyRatio. 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

TestProcedures

The testprocedures for central air conditioners found at 10CFRPart 430, SubpartB. provide a standard method for testing to determine the efficiency of central air conditioners bymeasuring the cooling andheating capacities and electric energy consumption ofcentral air conditioners at standardtest conditions. The measure ofefficiency accounts for such factors as oversizing, cycling ofthe unit when thebuilding loadis less than the outputofthe unit. hours ofoperation at different climatic conditions, and actual operating' controls ofthe particularunitbeing tested. The measure ofefficiency 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 inWatt-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 inWatt-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 unitsin today's proposedrule

... IndividualProduct ClassAnalysis

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 systemwith 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 ofcooling only central air conditioners serve the

same function, they shouldbe 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
canbe used almost'in any place that package units are used. Consequently, to create two separate standards for these products because ofa few isolated

. situations would notmaximize energy

savings.

DOE has reviewed this comment and has determined that single package units. and split systems units should notbe combined into one class. Combining $e two classeswould 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"ofstandards are not cost justified as single package unitsnave higher associated costs than split systems units. DOE today proposes separate classes for· single package and split system centralair conditioners.

Another commenter stated thatDOE 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 ofthe 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 designhigh and low capacity models to have efficiencies equal to models ofmedium capacity, and DOE is not aware ofany noticeable decrease in product utility that wouldresult

_ 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. DOEhas 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 ofthese units.

A final comment was received from a manufacturer ofa single-package air conditioning system thatutilizes a high pressure and high velocity air distribution system. The commenter stated that because ofhis specific design. he is unable to attain cooling efficiencies as high as lowervelocity cooling equipment can attain. The commenter also stated that losses in his prefabricated duct system were substantially less than those incurredby

. normal ductwork far low-velocity

distribution systems. DOEhas reviewed the comments and has determined that the commenter may have a valid argument. However, in the absence of any data or further designinformation, DOE cannotverify the comments. DOE has addressed this issue by amending the test procedures by granting waivers for unique designs that cannotbe measured by the existing procedures (45 FR 14188. March 4. 1980).

Five classes ofcentral air conditioners

are specified in section 4.8.1 ofthis notice. These classes are distinguished by performance related features which affectboth efficiency andutility. Central air conditioners are segregatedbetween' units which onlyprovide cooling (cooling only units) and whichmay also provide heating (heatpumps). Because the testprocedure forheatpumps 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 ofheat 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 ofthe units. Architectural considerations ofcertain residences either do not allow or do not have outdoor space to install the outdoorunit ofa split system. When this occurs, a different type ofunit must either be mounted through the wall orin the attic ofa 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 DOEhas determined that it is necessary to propose separate classes for split

### 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 waterboiler. The'heat input rate ofa 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 ofunits ofa particular basic model multiplied by the energy factor. divided by the total number of shipments within a class-for each class offurnaces. Levei 2in 1981 corresponds to the SWEF in 1978. Levell is one standard deviation below the SWEF. while Level 3 and Level 4are 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 ofhigherefficiencies in the 1986 time frame. Level 3in 1986 corresponds to the maximum level which is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. A detailed explanation on the technological feasibility and economicjustifiability

can be found in the Engineering Analysis and Economic Analysis Documents. TSD No. -'\ and No.5. respectively. Levels 1 and 2correspond 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 ForFurnaces (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 standardswere 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 presentedherein. A more detailedpresentationon impacts resulting from the levels which were not selectedis provided in the "Economic Analysis Document," TSD No.4.


### Consumers

For each class ofcentral air conditioners. the average consumerwill 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 percentreduction and 15 percent reduction in life cycle costs, respectively,

.

Consumerpaybackperiod. the period oftime elapsedbefpre the higher purchase price ofmore 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 offirms expected to be able to obtain sufficient funds through profit

or short-term debt. during the 1981 through 1985 period. to make the capital investmentnecessary forJanuary 1986 standards. Those firms not able to successfully finance compliance with standards by means offunds from earnings or loans may be able to use other methods such as sales ofstocks or bonds. transfer offunds from other operating divisions. etc. Therefore. firms having low probabilities ofsuccess will not necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level ofstandards. central air conditionermanufacturers 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 oflarge manufacturers. 99 percent ofmedium-sized manufacturers. and 96 percent ofsmall 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 ofthe 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 national impacts resulting from the proposed standards are: estimated energy savings; the discounted dollar value ofthose energy savings; the aggregate' discounted consumer costs ofmore energy efficientproducts; and the net presentvalue ofthe 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. valuedbetween $4.1 billion and$4.3 billion in 1978 dollars. The aggregate increased cost ofmore 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 ofthe proposed regulation on central air conditioners is estimated at between

### $0.4 billion and 50.8 billion in 1978 dollars. These values are derived from use ofthe Residential Energy Use Forecasting Model described in section 5.3 ofthis 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 ofelectric furnaces and boilers. single-phase electric current in conjunction with eithernatural gas, propane, or home heating oil in the case ofgas and oil forced air furnaces and gas. and oil boilers, or only gas in the case ofgravity central furnaces, which1s designed to be the principal heating source for the living space ofa residence and which is not contained within the same cabinet with a central air conditioner ofa rated cooling capacity in excess of65.000 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.

### Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 12i / 

### Monday, June 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 

### 44003

Table.4.9-2.-Altemste EffiCIencyLevels (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**



### .offurnaces: 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 testprocedures

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 offurnaces. For the other 3 classes there presently exist such a limited. production that DOE has determined that standards are not economically justifiedfor these classes and no significantenergy conservation, as discussed in sec;tion 10.5. 

### canbe realized by imposing standards on these classes ofproducts.

.

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;

• powerburner orpower 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 ofthe various product classes was completed using a computer model coupled with experimental data from various sources and engineering analysis. A technical discussion ofthe 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 certainnu.tilber oflarge manufacturers and smallmanufacturers for eachproductclass. These were:

• gas·warm air: furnaces-three large manufacturers; ten small mimufacturers:

• gas boilers-:-fourlarge manufacturers:'foursmall manufacturers:

• oil warm airfurnaces-three large manufacturers: four small manufacturers:

• oil boilers-fourmanufacturers: four small manufacturers:

• gas horizontal units (nonweatherprooO-three large manufacturers; ten small manufacturers: and

. I



### .• gas oiltdoorweatherproofunitsthree large manufacturers: ten small manufacturers.

The number ofproduction lines were ncit estimated for furnaces as implementation oUhe design options required only tooling changes and these

were based on the number ofunits which could be produced peryear on a single tool.

Most design options required mounting ofa·purchased part. such as a stack damper. intermittent ignition device. power burner or power vent. ora Product class Level 

### retention head burner. Implementation ofthese designs at most a small amount oftooling for mounting brackets. additional labor for installation, and the cost ofthe purchased part.

Increasing the heat exchanger surface

area is an example ofa majordesign optionwhich was costed. This could be done by derating the unit. i.e

.. reducing the burnerinput rate perunit ofheat exchanger area; or the surface area couldbe-increased by enlarging the existing heat exchanger. Forgas-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 numberofmodels produced in order to estimate the tooling requirements for cabinet design changes. These various costs amortized on aperunitbasis were used to develop estimates ofthe 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 inTable 4.9-3. 

### The maximum technologically achievable efficiency levels are obtaIned by use ofa condensing mode ofoperation which

removes latentheatfrom flue gases. This requires amajorredesign in the finlill section ofthe heatexchangers. coupledwith a'forced draftburner system such as the use ofapowervent. powerburner. orpulsed combustion. New corrosion resistant materials will be required and a complete furnace' package will have to be redesigned. The impact ofthis will be highly dependent

on the present design and manufacturing procedures for individual manufacturers. but in all cases it will require substantial investmentin 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 4 3 Level PrOOuel Class

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

.

### 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

_............................ NIA

TestProcedures

The test procedures for furnaces found at 10 CFRPart430, Subpart B. provide a standardized method to determine the efficiency (annual fuel utilization efficiency, (AFUE) of furnaces by measuring the characteristic losses ofthe furnace.

Comments expressed concern that the standard:smightbe setat a levelwhich would affect the reliability and safety of furnaces. DGlE has analyzed only design o"ptionsthat canbe· incorporated into the productwithoutreducing 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 bygas and oil furnaces. DOE furnace test procedures do account for the electrical energy qonsumed by fossil-fueled furnaces in

• thecalculationsrequired for determining

the annual operatingcost." However, the

measureofefficiency in the existing test procedure does not accountfor the efficiency pi!r£ormance ofelectrical components. DOEhas sought to develop

a new efficiency measure which will reflectdifferences in electrical energy

. consumption. Accordingly; DOEhas proposed such an efficiencymeasure in

anamendment to the furnace test" procedurepublished in the Federal RegisterofJanuary 4. 1980 (45 FR 1298).

One comment expressed concern that the presentDOE furnace test procedures provide a creditfordampers on indoor· furnaces but do not provide the same

_ credit for dampers on outdoorfurnaces.

The primary savings for dampers is the reduction in infiltration losses. Because ofthe use ofoutdoor airin the combusition process. these losses are assigned a zero value in the test. procedures for units installed outdoors. Therefore, the overall evaluationof indoor and outdoorunits 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 orchanged. Anumberof

cases in point have been the subjectof applications for exception to DOE"s Office ofHearings andAppeals (OHA). On the basis ofinfonnation submitted by applications to OHA. comments submittedbv 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 ofthe 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 DOEhas incLuded in its analysis ofmaximum technologically feasible lever ofefficiency for furnaces. The remaining issues discussed in the proposed amendments are minor technicalimprovements. and the values

, ofAFUE-denved from the proposed

amendment will be consistent with prior test results.
IndividualProduct ClassAnalysis

rourcomments recommended that the classes forfurnaces recognize the configuration and location ofthe unit (up flow. down flow. forced ail". boiler and furnace}, whiletwo comments urged that furnaces andboilers should not be segregated intoseparate classes. Three comments suggested that classes be set for indoorand outdoorapplications.

Eleven classes offurnaces are specified in section4.9.1 ofthis notice. These classes- are distinguished either by the typeoffuel consumed or by performance.related features which affectutility and efficiency.

One performance-related feature affecting utility is' the method ofheat distribution tOothehousehold. Gas furnaces use air circulation systems based either on the effect ofgravity on low densityhearted airor on the action ofa blower (i.e

.. forced air). Gravity type systems offerthe utility of operating without an electrical connection. In addition. another category offurnaces. gas boUers. uses hot water 01" steam to distribute heat. These various heat distribution systems result in different characteristics ofheat transfer from the furnace combustion chamber to the conditioned space and different losses through the flue. Becauseofthe aoove factors. the

measures ofefficiency ofgravity gas furnaces tend to be lower than the

measure ofefficiency offorced air gas furnaces. Also. the measure ofefficiency ofgas**for~d** air furnaces tend to be lower than themeasure ofefficiency for gas boilers. Identical arguments lead to separate classes for forced air aU furnaces and oil boilers. A class ofoil furnaces using gravity to circulate hot _air is not specified because DOE is not aware ofany 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'leirjacket 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 ofdirect vent units is evaluated in the test procedures on a similar basis as outdoor units. The test data are corrected for the use ofoutdoor 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 ofheating outdoor air for combustion and low infiltration losses are offsetting.

Anotherutility feature which affects efficiency is the horizontal configuration ofso"me models ofoutdoorforced airgas furnaces. This horizontal configuration results in less efficientheat transfer than otherconfigurationilbuthas the utility ofbeinguniquely adaptable ta attics and crawt spaces. Therefore. separateclasses ofgashorizontal furnaces areproposed to preventthe possible elimination ofthis type of configuration from themarket. Also, it

was determined thathorizontal units 'with weatherproofcabinets have fewer dimensional constraints than

nonweatherproofhorizontal units which

are typically installed in attics orcrawl spaces. However. no significant difference in efficiency is evident for weatherproofhorizontalbasic models when compared to any other outdoor model. DOEhas determined that there exists no utility associated with horizontal units when installedindoors. 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 outdoornonweatherproofhorizontal furnaces areidentified as: thosehaving justifiable reduced performance.

4.9.3 EconomicImpacts ofthe 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 ofthis notice. Four alternative levets ofstandards were evaluated for each perspective. from this evaluation. the levels proposed in this notice were selected. Impacts resulting from these levels are presented herein.Federal Register / 

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

Amore 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 offurnaces, the

_ average consumerwill realize alower life cycle cost (a decrease in the discounted total cost ofproduct 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. indoorboilers. corresponding to a .5 percentreduction and 9percent reductionin life

.cycle costs, respectively.**Consume~** paybackperiod. the period oftime elapsed before the higher purchase price ofmore energy-efficient products is recouped through reduced energy costs. ranges from 0.25 years for oil. forced air. indoorfurnaces 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 offirms expectedto be able to obtain sufficient funds through profit orshort-term debt. !uring t.1o:Ie 1981 through 1985 period. to make the capital investmentnecessary forJanuary 1988 standards:Those firms not able to successfully finance compliance with standards by means of funds from earnings orloans may be able to use othermethods such as sales ofstocks orbonds. transfer offunds from other operating divisions. etc. Therefore. fIrms having low probablilities ofsuccess will not necessarily fail to meet the standards.

At the proposed level ofstandards. furnace manufacturers estimated to be able to obtain sufficient funds during the 1981 through 1985 periodto make the capital investment necessary for January 1986 standards represent 'approximately 99percent ofcurrent industry production. Includedin those fIrms expectedto be able to make the required capital investment are 99 percent oflarge manufacturers. 98 percent ofmedium-sized manufacturers. and 95 percent ofsmall 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. Themost direct national impacts resulting from the proposed standards are: estimated energy savings: the discounted dollarvalue ofthose energy savings; the aggregate discounted consumer costs ofmore energy efficient products: and the net presentvalue ofthe 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 aggregate increased cost ofmore energy efficient furnaces during that same 1982 through 2005 period is between $1.0 billion and $1.7 billion in 1978 dollars. The national netpresentva'ue ofthe proposed regulation on furnaces is estimated at between$2.5 billion and $3.4 billion in 1978 dollars. These values are derived from use ofthe Residential Energy Use Forecasting Model described in section 5.3 ofthis notice and the "Economic Analysis Document." TSD Nd. 4.
5. EconomicImpactAnalySis


### 5.1 Intro_auction

Aregulation prescribing energy efficiency standards for consumer

.products will resultinimpacts onboth

consumers and manufacturers ofthese products. Consumers will experience the following impacts: (1) higherpurchase 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 standardlevels selected representtradeoffs that were made among impacts in order to realize the largest energy savings coupled with the least disturbance ofany particular sector ofthe economy.

5.1.1 ImpactEstL"Dates for Proposed StandardLevels. Evaluation ofthe many alternative levels ofstandards for each class ofconsumerproduct resulted in the selection ofpreferred alternatives

.. These alternatives have been shown to be technologically feasible and economicallyjustified by the impact analyses which are presented in the "Economic Analysis Document." TSD No.4. Summaries ofspecific product impacts ofthe proposed standard levels for consumers. manufacturers and the Nation canbe found in section 4ofthis 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 ofmore energy efficient products during that
same period will be between $7.3 billion and $10.2 billion in discounted 1978 dollars. The national net present value ofproposed 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 ofthese impacts is presented in the "Economic Analysis Document." TSD No.4.

5.1.2 Purpose. Scope and Methodology. The purpose ofthe' economic analysis wasto determine whetherornot a standard was economicallyjustified and ifthe benefitsofthe standard exceed the burdens. This analysis was based upon the seven factors in section 325(d) ofthe A9t and listed in section 1.2.2 ofthis notice

.

The applicaffon ofthese legislative criteria required that the impacts on
consumers. manufacturers and the Nationbe 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 ofconsumers. manufacturers and the Nation as a whole. Equity tests. which assess how these impacts are shared across
consumergroups. different sized manufacturers and geographical regions.

were also applied.

Each alternative energy efficiency level ofa standard was assessed to determine the magnitude ofany ofthe following impacts:

• changes in life cycle cost (LCe) to the consumer; 1

I Life cycle cost is a measure ofthe total cost of

consumer product ownership represented by the summation ofproduct purchase cost. and maintenance and operaling-expenses over service life ofthe product. discounted to their present values.

### 44006 Federal Register j 

### Vol. -!5. 

### No. 12i /**~{onday.** 

### June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

• the distribution ofcosts and benefits among consumergroups:

• the'distribution ofcosts and benefits between regions:

• loss ofeconomic efficiency by manufacturers;

• the distribution ofeconomic efficiency effects among manufacturer groups. especially those with less than 58 million in sales; and

• exposure ofany particulargroup of manufacturers. especially those with sales under58 million annually

.. to greaterrisk offinancial failure.

Alternative energy efficiency levels

were ranked in accordance with each of the impactmeasures above. including national energy savings and national net present valuer

5.1.3 Relationship ofAna!ysis to Legislative Criteria. The seven legislative criteria identified were quantitatively applied in the economic analysis as follows:

(1) EconomicImpact on Consumers and Manufacturers. The economic impacts ofstandards'onconsumers
were quantified by calculating consumer payback. consumerlife cycle costs and the dispersion ofthese life cycle costs

across income groups. Standards that potentially imposed a greaterli.[e cycle costthan currently exists were dropped from consideration. Additionally, any standard that couldproduce an inequitable burden on lowerincome groups 

### wasgiven special attention. The economic efficiency impacts ofthe standards onmanufacturers were assessedthrough estimation ofchanges in theratio ofprofit to net worth. Equity impacts on manufacturers were measured by analyzing shifts in the distribution 

### ofprofit/networth for manufacturers ofvarying si.:les and any changes in the likelihood offirm failure. In addition. the ability ofindividual manufacturers to generate sufficient' funds to make capital investmentfor 1986 standards was assessed.

(2) Cost Savings. Changes in national net present value and consumer life cycle costs werecalculated. Any

. standard that didnot lead to aggregate

cost savings was eliminatedfrom fur!her consideration.

(3) Energy Savings. Baseline projections ofenergy use were compared to calculations ofenergyuse 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 andutility features in making productclass selections. The analysis addressed only those standards which ensured the existence ofproducts having essential consumer utility characteristics. as determined by DOE.

(5) Lessening ofCompetition. Impacts

on competition were measured by calculating any change in the likelihood offirm failure resulting from the imposition ofa standard. If the likelihood offailure was great. the standard was eliminated from further consideration.

(6) Need ofthe Nation to Conserve Energy. Consideratiotl.ofthe Nation's need to conserve energy was incorporated in the economic methodology byrar:tking alternative standard levels by their national energy. savings.

(7) AnyOtherFactors the Secretary or DOEConsiders Relevant.The analysis addressing the above six criteria was expanded upon by estimating any resulting changes in income distribution. the distributiqn oflife cycle costs across regions. gross national product. inflation, balance oftrade and employment.


### 5.2 ValueModel Overview

The Value Model is a computer program developed 

### to evaluate alternative standard levels in accordance withregulatory**guidelines~** and requirements in the Act. It·was developed so that the economic impacts ofregulation could be systematically compared. evaluated and sequentially ranked. It is organized by group' perspective(consumer. manufacturer and Nation) and type ofimpact (economicefficiency, equHy).

Impact measures incorporated within the**mod~** include:



### .Consumer

• Consumerlireeycle costs

• Consumerpayback

• Consumerincome inequality coefficient 

### Manufacturer

• Average- manufacturer profit to net worth ratio

• Interquartile shifts in manufacturer profit to net worth ratios

• AvailabilitYoffunds 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 oftrade

.. inflation,.and employment

• Regional life cyclecost changes

• National energy savings

.

• Nationalnet presentvalue. The Value: Mode! was run in two phases. In thefU'stphase the effect of standards 011 the various impact
,.-
. measures was calculated. In the second phase. the acceptability ofthese**impa~'~** was evaluated. Its output included a ofacceptable options prioritized by energy savings and impacts**o~** , consumers. manufacturers ana :ne .'Iation. For a more detailed discuSSlOn ofthis analysis. the-reader is referred to the**"Econo~ic** Analvsis Document." TSO No.4.

.

5.2.1 Consumer Perspective. The

consumer impacts ofalternative energy efficiency levels were calculatedby estimating both the level ofinduced costs andbenefits and their distribution across-different income groups and regions. 

### IdentJfication of Decision Making Criteria

Consumerimpacts 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 consumerimpacts'included: the average LCC savings resulting from energy efficiency improvements in

consumerproducts; the specificimpacts ofthese savings on different consumer groups: the paybackperiodfor recouping theincreased purchase cost,
more efficientproducts: and changes in disposable consumer income.

5.2.2 ManufacturerPerspective. The-- Value Model incorporated the potential effects ofconsumerproduct 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 of Decision ,Hoking Criteria

The impact ofregulation 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 representingmanufacturereconomic 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 ofhow economic efficiency impacts are shared among mannfaeturers: and second.. as a
measure ofthe change in exposure to failureresulting from regulation·linked changes in a firm's financial position. In both measures. theindustry was segmented into small. medium, and large

### 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 determination of1981 standards, four trial levels ofanalysis

were defined for eachproduct 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 ofeach class. The first level of analysis was determined by subtracting the 1978 standard deviation ofthe 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 ofalternative 1986product class standards were derived as follows:

• level four was based on implementation ofadvanced 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 lowerbound for choosing the preferred alternative.


### 5.5 Acceptability Criten'Q Usedfor Standards Selection.

The Value Model provides a display of equity and economic efficiency and behavioral effects in predicting future energy demand.

EXPLOR. a national econometric/ input-output model, was used to estimate the effects ofalternative 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 andmaterials. With these inputs, the EXPLORmodel ca:1culates how economic**impact~** on the indtlstrial and residential sector, directly affected by proposed standards, interact with the rest ofthe economy. The model traces the various regulatory impacts through the different sectors and aggregated them into summary estimates ofchanges in: GNP ($), inflation ('Vo), balance of trade ($), and employment'(numbers of jobs}. Impacts were projected for the 1982 through ZOOO period.

Impacts ofconsumerproduct efficiency standards on manufacturers ofconsumerproducts were estimated using two principal models: (1) the

- Dispersion Model. which analyzes how manyproduct models. shipments, and

revenues are lost at eachlevel of regulation, and (2) the Financial Model,_ which analyzes the financial and business impact**~n** manufacturers. Both models are fully describedin the "EconomicAnalysis Document," TSD No.4. For each alternative standard level, the revenue loss resulting from the loss ofnoncompliantproduct lines was derived using the Dispersion Model. The resulting loss ofrevenue is used as input to the Financial Model. Thatmodel analyzes thepercentage of manufacturers usable to maintain financial health withoutresorting to untenable levels ofdebt, change of ownershipor closure.

Ufe cycle costs and payback were analyzed by varying energyprices, discount rates, product usage rates. efficiency factors. and capital costs to determine throughsensitiVity 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 EconomicImpacts of Regulation.

5.4.1 Selection ofAlternative Levels for Analysis. DOE is proposing timefirm'S, with a comparison made to

__ determine whether an unfair distribution ofburdens could exist between different groups. Furthermore. assessment was made of the percentage offirms 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 ofconsumerproduct efficiency standards encompass all consumer and manufacturerimpacts. 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 oftrade, etc.). 

### Identification of Decision Making Criteria

The impacts ofstandards flow through the economy to effect**s~ch** national indicators as gross natIonal product, inflation. balance oftrade 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 netpresentvalue resulting from alternative levels ofstandards. (A detailedpresentation ofthis analysis

can be found In the "Economic Analysis Document," 1'5D No. 4,)**T~ese** lattertwo indicators serve as the criteriaby which otherwise acceptable alternatives were sequentially ranked. The netpresent value is calculated as the discounted value ofenergy savings minus the discounted total cost ofincreased product prices and Federal costs. The energy savings indicatormeasures the total amount ofenergy savings
, attributable to consumerproduct energy efficiency improvements.


### 5.3 Economic Sub-Models Within The Value ModeJ.

The Value Model organizes estimates ofregulatory impacts into a framework for sequentially ranking alternative energy :efficiency levels. The estimates ofvarious 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 ofenergy use with and without standards are compared to

assess the energy savings attributable to alternative energy efficiency standards. The model incorporates technological

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

impacts. as discussed**abo~e.** As estimates ofthese impacts were viewed

as a whole. a range ofsuitable trade-offs emerged. These trade-offs provide the criteria bv which certain alternative energy efficiency levels were classified

as unacceptable. A complete description ofthese acceptability criteria. or thresholds. can be found in the "Economic Analysis Document," TSD :\0. 4. To summarize some ofthe principal thresholds. a level ofstandard is acceptable only if: product life cycle costs-are reduced: energy savings

accrue: natioQal netpresentvalue is positive: and the ability ofthe industry to effectivelycompete 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 oftesting 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 statementofcompliance based on such testing with DOE. Enforcement involves all subsequentDOE activities or manufacturerrequirements which insure that the continued production ofa manufacturerremains in compliance with the standard

..

6.1.1 

### Alternative Certification and EnforcementApproach. Four alternative approaches to consumerproduct certification and enforcement were developed and investigated. These included:

(a) AMinimum Government Intervention:

(b) A Strong Certification Control: (c) A Strong Enforcement Audit: (d) AMixed Certification and Enforcement. Each ofthe four approaches are present in a wide range ofpublic 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 ofassuring that all products distributed in commerce are in compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards. The remaining three approaches represent a larger level ofeffort. 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 ofcompliance 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 ofcertification and enforcement audit activities.

The selectfon criteria used in evaluating the four certification and enforcement approaches included an "assessmentofanticipated impacts on and associated costs ofthe program (to the Federal government. industry and commerce). the likelihood ofdiscovering noncompliantproducts and consequent impact on the anticipated level of compliance.

These approaches are discussed in detail inTSD No.3. "Certification and EnforcementAnalysis,"

6.1.2 

### ProposedCertification and EnforcementApproach. 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 ofSampling Pran Options

Cost of teSllng -. more evenlv over all ofthe 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 ofcompliance (and

consumer confidence) will be higher. The proposed approach is discussed in detail in sections 6.4 and 6.5.

6.2 

### StatisticalAnalysis

6.2.1 

### E,'aluation ofSampjingPlans.

.. Te.§t procedures have been promulgated. among other things. for determining if

consumerproducts 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 ofthe 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 ifthey 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 ofthe eighteen options appears in Table 6-1. A

more detailed discussion is contained in Appendix Gofthe "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.Federal Register / 

### Vol. 45, No. 127 / Monday. June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 

### 44009**Tab"6-1.-~V81us1JOfl** ofSampiing 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 moreill'8CISe tao 0).

limned itlll'etlOllS divided by 91ea"" tnan 0 pet deteetnre standard.

. OPhOh ",-!latell sequential1lamping with Mode<ateCol 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

._ ModerateCCl

.....-. .•

_... '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

..

_ ..

_ ••

__• Ptoportion8lIoprod_ 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.Ongestand unfmvted_._

....

__.... OotiOn more fl"lCIS8tb).

unlltMed 1\eIa1lOt1S -dM<led bymean 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_.**~.but** 1a..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 eenaiftconfIdenCe limIlS and tolerances.. c:. 0eIlenda IlIIICII SiZe. as 'Wellasom., parameters. d. 'Sameas

.....

_ time. 'l're1ened>cptionS. requirements. thus reducingthe testing burden ofthe

### two programs,

_

.6,2.3, 

### Types of SamplingPlans. The ,proposedrule includesa sequential samplingplanfor determining compliance with energy efficiency standards. Various systems that could be used for selecting the number ofunits

- to be tested and the number oftest sequences for determining compliance

were analyzed. Three alternative systems that were studied are:

a. Test the total population ofcovered

consumerproducts (which would entail 100%'sampling);

b.Test a predeterminedfixed number ofproduction units; this is called a "single sampling plan:"

C. Test units within a basicmodel, one at a time orin 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 ofacovered 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 ofcompliance**avai~able** statistical sampling methods To accountforproduction variation. whereb-y

### ..some..unitS maybewell.below

orwell,above thestllndardefficiency

. '. -level. a rulemightalso include a - "standarddeviation" statistic to
measure the variability ofenergy efficiencies among units. A "combinationmean and standard deviation" approach combines the;mean and·standard deviation measures int'O a single index. and the basicmodel index would have to exceed the standard.

Alternatively. production variation might beaccounted for bycombining the

mean approach and the percent defective approach•.so that basic models musthave average energy efficiencies which meet or exceedthe standard average efficiency and include less than

a givenproduction 

### ofunits 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 ofbeing consistent with the approach selected for the FTC**ene~** efficiency labeling program 6,2.2 .Types

### of -Standards. The sampling plan options.are designedfor' 'COmpatibilitywith four types of standards: (1) themean efficiency'" standard. (2) tM percent defective standard. (3) the combination ofan energyefficiencymean and standard deviation, and (4) the combination ofan energy efficiencymean and percent defective standard,

A "mean·efficiency standard" seeks to maximize the average efficiency ofa basic model. Such a standard establishes the minimum allowable level ofaverage energy efficiency for agiven basic modeL

An "energy efficiency standard" may be established so that a basic model is allowedto have a specifiedpercentage ofsampled units which does notmeet the standard

..Defective units. in the case ofenergy efficiency standards. are defined as units with energy efficiencies below the established standard. The percentage ofdefective units is computed by dividing the number of defective units bv the nlirnber ofunits tested and multiplying by 100. A "percent defective" approach requires that a specified percentage ofunits produced achieve energy efficiencies greater than the efficiency standard. That is. only a given proportion ofunits

are allowed to have energy, efficiencies below the efficiency standard.

### 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 ofunits must be

. tested to vield results with high levels ot certainty: e.g

..-97

### .5%.

The determination ofthe number of units to be tested is based inpart on expected unit-to-unit**va~iabilit~.** 

### Reliable estimates ofumt to umt variability are unavailable**an~** 

### significant differences may eXist among basic models and manufacturers._Thus.

a single sa

### Il1ple size giving sufficiently hl"h assurance ofcompliance 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** 

### ofthe total sample is not determmed m advance

.. Instead. after each unit orgroup ofumts is tested. a decision is made to (1)

- 

### accept, (2) reject. or (3) suspex:d

. judgmentand continue samplmg untIl a decision is ultimately reached

.. Sequential sampling**m~thodsoIten** 

### . permit reaching a deciSion on the baSIS offewer 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** 

### ofmakino the accept. reject. orcontinue testing d;cision atthe

### co~pletion of each individual test. The mteger sequential sampling process may be designed so that there is no maximum number ofunits tested to make the accept orreject decision for each basic model. This wouldbe referred tq as an unlimitediterationplan 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. agiven maximum sample size is designated as a. termination point in the sampling process. e.g., a maximum numberof units that may have to be tested is

-

. established before making an accept or

reject decision.

.

The other basic type ofsequential 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 oftest samples is established prior to the initiation oftesting. When this maximum'is reached. the testing is curtailed and an accept orreject decision is made on the basis of information obtained in the testing process.

Aparticular varia**~ion** 

### .of.the batch. seouential system WIth hmlted IteratlO!1s is the double sampling plan. In this type ofDIan. arelatively small first test**sa~ple** 

### is selected and tested.Ifthe 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 ofthe first test sample. and the model is then detennined to be in compliance or noncompliance.

The proposedruleincorporates a _ double sampling plan as a**compro~lse** 

### between single and integer sequential sampling plans. The majordisadvantage ofthe integer sequential sampling plan is the testtime involved-in making

. decisions underthis system. Units of basic models would berequired tobe 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 ratherthan sequentially. If

### a second batchis necessary, these units can also be tested simultaneously. Therefore. totaltest time for the batch sequential approach can be minimized. Ifthe inteoer sequential approach were

### utili~ed. then total test time for completing the sampling plan wouldbe equal'to the number ofunits**require~** 

### to be testedmultiplied by the time reqUlred for conducting the test procedure. In most cases the number ofunits tested wouldbe about the same under both the integer andbatch sequential sampling plans. The anticipated number o.ftest 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 couldbe 150% 

### greater than the batch sequential approach. If

### more thanfive units are required. then this percentage could increase. Test costs in both ofthese approaches were considered to be equal: therefore the batch sequential plan (double sampling plan) was consideredto be superior to all 

### alternatives considered. 6.3 Discussion ofProposed Double Sampling Plan 6.3.1 GeneralSampling**Consideratio~** 

### Sampling a few units from a

. population ofunits inherently im:olves

the risk that the characteristics ooserved for the sample are not typical ofthe 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 ofsampling risk and cost in mind.

_

In otherprevious 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 requiredby extreme and unusual basic model characteristics.

The average energy efficiency ofall units ofa basic model is referred to as the "true mean," arid. generally. it is the intent ofthe sampling procedure to

- detennine whether the true mean ofa

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 ofthe model. Should the energy efficiency values oftest 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 ofinformation used to determine comoliance or noncompliance. '

DOE recognizes that units ofa basic model vary in energy efficiency for a number.ofvalid 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 ofvariation are standard

measures ofvariabrtitycommonly defined in statistics textbooks.**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 

# , lI 

### within areasonable range about the standard or, for very efficiently designed units, well above the standard. Such rangesare 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 amodel with a.true
mean equal to the standardis found in noncompliance because the sample ,mean ofthe test units is unreasonably low. In 

### statisticalhypothesis testing, the risk offalsely rejecting a true hypothesis is generally keptwithin arange of1 to 10

### percentThe FTC sampling plan usually sets this level at 2.5 percent. DOE's judgmentis that a 2.5 percent level ofmanufacturer'sriskis reasonable.in terms ofsample size and associated test costs. Further, a manufacturercanreduce his riskby 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 beenchosento limitthe public's riskofinefficientmodels being determinedin compliance. The DOE

I',: 

### tolerance limit for determining sample size is therefore 5percent ofthe

.

## ! standard. including amanufacturer's riskofno greaterthan 2.5 percent that a complaintbasicmodelwouldbe rejected (withthe exception ofmodels "

## j with extremely high coefficients of variation, discussed in 

### section6;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. Selectedreferences are listed in Appendix GofTSD #3. 

### 6.3.2 SpecialSampling Considerations

In 

### statistical sampling theory and in the procedures set forth in the proposed

- rule. the size ofthe sample depends

upon the variability ofenergy efficiency ofindividual units. the tolerance specified by DOEfor the accuracy ofthe results. and the risklevel 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 ofa model; increasingly good as sample size increases. A sample size offour units has been shown to be large enough tomeet the assumptions ofthe central limit theorem. Consequently. theminimum sample size appropriate for testing a basic model is four. and certification decisions are made onlyWith sample sizes offour ormore. An 

### important application ofthe central limit theorem is the ability to control the standard

errorby specifying the sample size. For example. if

### the standard deviation (variability ofthe unit energy efficiencies) is 10 

### and the sample size is 4. 

### then the standard deviation ofthe sample means (called the "standard error") is equal to 10

### divided by the square root of4 (10/V4). 

### or5. The equation for the standard erroris presented as equation 3 

### inAppendixA ofthe Certification andEnforcement subpart ofthe rule. The standard error declines as the sample size increases and, in general. the standard error for a given distribution ofunit energy , efficiencies is controlled by the size of the sample chosen.

Consequently, the rule contains a well-deflnedprocedure for determining the sample size. Byrequiring a specified numberofunits for testing, the sample

means ofunits can be expected to fall " tiumbeyo of Units



### The variability ofunit energy. efficiencies implies that ifthe certification decision for an entire basic model is based upon the testresults ofa single unit. substantial riskis entailed. A single testunitdra'wn randomly from .the population ofunits ofa basic model may by chancehave a very high orvery low energy efficiency. The public would suffer if. 

### by mere chance. a highly efficient unit were drawn from amodel whose true mean energy efficiency is 

### below the standard. and the manufacturerwould 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 ofa statistically meaningful sampling plan and basing the certification decision on the mean energy efficiency ofthe sample units.

The relationship between the variability ofthe energy efficiency of individual units and the variability of sample means is treated in the central limit theorem. In 

### the case ofenergy 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 ofthe sample size. the approximation becomiI'l:8

### 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 ofvariability is required. Also. DOE desires to reduce the testburden through the selection ofa sampling plan ifthe public's riskis not increased by the adoption ofsuch 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 contingentuponprevious testresults. (The procedure is illustrated in Figure 6- z.) In a double sampling plan. a small sample is drawninitially andthe units

are tested. As discussed above. DOE has determined that the minimum first sample size is four. Following the first test. one ofthree decisions is reached.

First. a sample mean significantly below the standardimplies that the model ismnoncompliance. Therefore. testing is curtailedand the model is not certified. The probability ofthis case occurring erroneously is the "producer's risk" shown in Table 6-2. Second. a sample mean significantly above the standard ora sample mean within the DOE tolerancelimits where the

.

.variability ofthe initial sample units are sufficiently small implies that the model is in compliance. Therefore. testing is curtailed and the model is certified. Models which canbe tested with small

. samples are often found in compliance with minimal sample sizes. The probability ofthis case occurring is shown inTable 6-3. as "Probability of Compliance afterFirstSample." Third. a sample mean the results ofwhich do not clearly indicate whether the model is complying ornot. are used to determine the second sample size. The variability ofthe 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 ofall units tested. which falls significantly belowthe energy efficiency standard. implies that the basic model has a mean energy efficiency level which fails to comply with the standard. Therefore. theunit is not certified. The risk ofnot being certified increases rapidly as the true
mean energy efficiency ofthe model declines. Probabilities ofnoncertification ofnoncomplying models

are reported in Table 6-4. Second. a sample mean which is above the standard ornot**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**

### 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::::::-.=:L C==::'

### :.....:;to:::..'..::U.=8.=--

__....; ,.

1.-



### 1-_;

## _i_ 1 _<

# _L~C-:..- I· If LCL: 

### xl > 

### U:L



### t •**Dct~rmi** 

### ne**-Sa~** 

## 1e**~2** 

## Size (n

## Z ) Using:

- 

## o**S~~1e** 

## €1**S~andaic** 

## Devia-:ion (sl)

o 

## Desired**ic1e~an:e' Lin:i~**  

### (r) 

# ,- 

# J Sam: 1

## e 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 )
OPERATING (IIAIlJ\CnR1S11CS 

## or "fur PROPOSro SAf1PUNet rl.J\N



### frue Hean 

### CocHlclenl of Varlalfon 

### (tv Dnli flcgutrcd Sa 

### Ie Size (n) lelatlve to 

## CV=.02.**n::~** 

### -**CV=.oif~i;!)-** 

## - cV;-.06L!!=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

### 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:: S

### taMe. 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. 1**L~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**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 andDouble Sampling. Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons. Inc

.. New York, 1959; and G. B. Wetherill, 

### SequentialMethods 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 ofthe applicable energy efficiency standard: and

b. The maximum sample size to be selected for enforcementtesting is 20 units.

These constraints are required to
assure attainment ofobjectives and to provide for establishment ofa viable enforcementprogram. Bothfeatures are designed to reduce consumerrisk (risk ofinefficientmodels receiving compliance) formodels with extreme variability (coefficients ofvariation greaterthan 0.1). When a model has an extreme variability. the estimate ofthe required second..sample size is more prone to errorthan in the case ofmodels with smallervariability. Also, models with extreme variability are likely to require substantial testing cost and time to demonstrate.compliance or noncompliance. Consequently. DOEis seeking to limit the maximum number of units to be tested for'enforcement purposes to assure timely and effective ; ·enforcementaction. It.shouldbe noted, that these restrictions apply only to models with extremely large coefficients ofvariation.

Information suppliedDOEby industry

sources which has notbeen substantiatedindicates that only in a few cases is a coefficientofvariation of .05,everexceeded.

DOE solicits any additional data or comments on coefficient ofvariation related to energy efficiency standards and potentiaLtest sample sizes ofthe 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 estl\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 Ato

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 Zof Appendix Aof 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~,proce**  dures 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.

Asecond 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.

EEi 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:

ni I (EEi - 

## x l )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 Ato 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

testlng are as fo Ilows:

, 

### 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 n

### Z '

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.

.052 cv •

With the new cv of .052 and a toUI test $ImpIe size of 8 entering



# . tabIe A.3, the value is .958. Thh is

....1tipHed 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-<:

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

### 44021

LeL = .958 X 8.4 = 8.047

According to step 12 ifthe sample

mean (X2) we're less than the lower confidence limit, the basic model would be determined to be in noncompliance. Ifthe 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 lowerconfidence limit. after a second test sample, be lower than 90 percent ofthe.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 ofthe 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 ofTest Units. The following is the basic process for selecting individual production units for required certification or enforcement testing:

Abatch is defined as the collection of production units ofa basic model from which iRdividual testunits may eventually be selected. It shall include all production units produced during a two-day orlongerperiod, orproduced during a specific productionrun ifit is shorter than two days. A batch is normally defined in terms ofproduction

over a specified period oftime. For the purposes ofcertification testing. the manufacturermay define the batch over
an extendedperiod oftime. so as to include different production runs, manufacturing facilities, or other variables. Forthe purposes ofa DOE enforcement test audit. a batch may be defined to include all production units

on a manufacturer's premises at a specific period oftime.

.

Individual test units are selected from the batchin 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 ofunits are available to complete the testing without retaining the entire batch, a batch sample ofno fewer than 20 units is selected and retained. Assuming that the batch sample size is sufficient to assure completion ofthe testing, there is no need to retain the remainder ofthe batch.

Each selection. whether ofunits for the batch sample or ofindividual 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) Arandom numbers table is used to determine the numbers ofthe units in the collection to be selected.

The purpose ofthe random sample selection is to eliminate potentialbias in the test sample results caused by

. intentional orunintentional systematic selection ofunits with above orbelow average energy efficiencies. With a random selection. each unitis just as likely tobe selected as any other unit in

a given collection. i.e

.. batch or batch sample.

Recognizing that there may be alternative methods ofselecting 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 orusing components from a specific supplier are more likely to be in noncompliance than other.units ofthe same basic model. There may be situations where a manufacturer has changed component suppliers oris assembling some ofthe units with different configurations than otherunits within the basictriodel. To have an effective enforcement approach itis necessary forDOE to assure that all configurations ofthe basic model meet the applicable energy efficiency

.standards. Under these circumstances, a DOE inspectormay subdivide the batch utiliZing specific criteria (Le

.. date of manufacture. component supplier. location ofmanufacturing 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 ormore 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 ofskewed distributions. the frequencies ofenergy 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 ofskewness and its effects may bias the statistical tests. The assumption ofa symmetrical distribution becomes increasingly valid

as the sample size increases. Tests conducted on samoles ofvarious sizes lead to the conclusion that ifat least 4 units are tested. skewness is not unusually extreme. Thus. by using a
mean standard and sample sizes ofat least 4 units. the effect ofskewness 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 ofthe covered products. The method by which they will achieve this is by testing ofbasic models before their distribution by"the sampling methods discussed earlier and by the testprocedures prescribed by DOE regulations. The results ofsuch 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 ofcompliance rests. These requirements apply to currentmodels which are in production on the effective date ofthe final rule. and to any new. models produced after that date. 

### 6.4.1 Pre-Certification.Report

Apre-certificationreport for all covered products manufactured shall be submittedby certified mail within 60 calendar days afterthe promulgation date ofthis rule and shall include:

(1) Alist ofthe coveredproducts

. manufactured or sold: (2J A list ofthe models ofeach
,_ coveredproduct**~anufactured~grouped** according to basic model;

(3) Starting serial numbers or other numbers identifying-the date of manufacture ofcoveredproducts; 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 ofthe pre-certification report are given in Appendix C to the rule. 

### 6.4.2 CertificationReport

A certification report. based on the testing ofproduction 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 ofup to 10 percent ofall carry-over basic models each yearmay be requested. Considerations that may' affect the Secretary's decision to require recertification include: a change in the standard for the basic model in question; performance ofthe basic model based on certification and

### 44022 Federal Register / Vol. 45. 

### No. 12i / 

### Monday, June 30. 1980 

## I Proposed Rules

enforcementtest data; and. the number and type ofdesign or other changes incorporated into the basic model that may affectenergy usage. Le

.. changes in .productionprocesses or facilities. in 

### quality control practices, in 

### component suppliers.

Each certificationreport will include a "statement ofcompliance" executed in accordance with the requirements ofthe proposed rule. The "statementof compliance" includes a declarationby the manufacturer that all batches ofthe basic model including all models and all configurations within the basic model

are**repres~nted** 

### by the units reported in the certificationreport for thatbasic model and comply with-the applicable energy efficiency s!andards. The certificationreportwill 

### include: test data necessary for detennination of product compliance. a description ofthe basic model. a listofmanufacturer model numbers representedby the basic model being certified and information

on anticipated production and certification test schedules ofthe model. Copies (using standard size paper) ofalJ.;. pertinenttestdata must be retained on file by the manufacturer forpossible DOEreview.

Amanufacturer's certification of complianceof

### abasic model mustbe based on the testing ofproductionunits in accordance with the sampling plan set forth in 

### AppendixA ofthe proposed rule.
6.4.3 

### ConditionalCertification

DOEhas mitigatedpossible adverse effects ofthe above productionunit testing requirement on the introduction ofnew products. The proposed rule provides for amanufacturerto submita certificationreport. allowing distribution in commert:e for a prescribed limited

. pertod oftime. based on the testing of

one ofmore nonproduction units. A conditional certificationreport that includes a compliance statementbased

on nonproduction unit testing must be submittedby certified mail atleast 50 

### days prior to distribution in commerce ofthe basic model and mustinclude a schedule for"anticipated certification testing ofproductionunits. The nonproduction unit testing must conform with the following requirements:

. 1. 

### Units tested shall be representative ofproduction units withrespect to all energy efficiency and consumer discernible characteristics;

2. 

### One valid test shallbe conducted for each unit in accordance with applicable DOE testprocedures:

3. If

### a manufacturerhas tested prototype units to satisfy test requirements ofthe FederalTrade Commission Labeling Rule. and production ofthe first batch ofthat basic model has not begun. then the results ofall 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. 

### Ifanv unit tested has ameasured energy efficiency that is less than the applicable en,ergy efficiency standard. the basic model is determined to blJ in noncompliance. "

Continued distribution ofa "conditionally certified" basic model is contingenton the requiredproduction unit testing being conducted on test units drawn randomly from the first available production ofthe basic model. A 

### new statement ofcompliance and test results meeting the sampling requirements shall be submitted in a 

### certificationreport by certifiedmail within a specifiednumber ofa calendar days from the start ofproduction for thatmodel. as follows:

(1) 

### Furnace andboilers: 20 

### days. (2.) 

### Waterheaters: 20**~ays.** (3) 

### Refrigerator/freezers: 55 

### days. (4) 

### Kitchenranges and ovens: 20 

### days. (5) Central 

### airconditioners: 40 

### days. (6) 

### Clothes dryers: 20 

### days. (7) 

### Room airconditioners: 2.0 

### days. (a) 

### Freezers: 55 

### days. The above schedulefor_submitting the supplemental product certification reportreflects the differences in the time required to test differentproducts. The allotted numberofdays is based upon the estimated time required to sequentially test four units ofeach.. product. The time allotted to "refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers" and "freezers"is basedupon a proposed amendment to the testprocedures for these product categories that requires the use ofno more than two test points. DOE may grant an extension oftime to complete testing. upon a written request from the manufacturer. if

### supportedby evidence that additional time is necessary (e.g.• evidence that the testing ofmore-than fourunits is required).

6.4.4

. 

### QuarterlyPost-Certification Report

The proposed rule calls for the submission ofa quarterly postcertificationreportby certified mail for each basic model. beginning three months after the date ofthe certification report. which includes:

1. 

### Substantive revision required to update.the information contained in the productcertification report (e.g.• additions to or deletions from the model numbers being manufactured under a given basic model);

Z. 

### A description ofother major events that might affect the energy efficiency of 

### any covered product/model (e.g.• modifications in production processes);

3. 

### The number ofenergy efficiency tests performed according to DOE test procedures since the last quarterly report and the summary test data from each test: and

4. 

### Schedules ofanticipatedproduction and energy efficiency testing.
8.4.5 Private LabelerReporting Requirements Private labelers are required to submit pre-certification. certification. and postcertificationreports thatconform 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 oftheir products with DOE standards. In 

### lieu of such tests. they may submit:

(1] 

### A signed statementfrom the actual manufacturer that the required testing has been conducted and that the tests demonstrate compliance ofthe basic model.

(2) 

### The date ofthemanufacturer's certification submittal to DOE.

(3) 

### The location ofthe underlyUig test data.

Manufacturer andprivate labeler reporting requirements are summarized inTable 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 ofall other production test units for 30

### calendar days afterthe date offiling ofthe statement ofcompliance and certification reportunless 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 

### ofthe rule to verify a manufacturer's certification statement of compliance.

If

### the manufacturerelects to submit a statement ofcompliance with a conditional certificationreport based on the testing of!lonproductionunits. then"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 ofadditional test units required to make a compliance or noncompliance determination in accordance with the requirements ofAppendix A ofthe 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 oftwenty. If the calculated LCL is less than 90 percent of the applicable energy efficiency level. the determination ofcompliance 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 EnforcementProvisions

6.6.1 Rights ofEntryandInspection. Any inspection activities conducted by DOE inspectors will.-among otherthings. be for the purpose ofdetermining: (1) whether certification tests are being conducted pursuant to the requirements ofthis rule; (2) whether products manufactured for distributionin

commerce conform to applicable standards; and {3) whetherrequired

.records are being properlymaintained. The DOE inspector shall be given entry to any facility or site ofa manufacturer

orprivate labeler during normal operating hours: where required tests '-

. are conducted or activities connected

with such tests are orwereperformed: 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 ofa facility or site to·furnish such assistance without chargt to DOE.

The provision ofright ofentry shall apply whether the facility or site is owned orcontrolled by the manufacturer or private labeler. Ifa manufacturerenters into a contract with

a testing laboratory to conduct required certification testing. such contract should include notice ofDOE's right to observe such testing and to inspect the results thereof.



### 6.6.2 ManufacturerResponsibility forAlonitoring Compliance, A manufacturer will be required to monitor the production ofcovered products after certification in order to assure continued Reouwements tor aClOlUana/ submittals

reasonable number ofunits ofa specific basic model to any laboratory designated by the Secretary. The number ofunits ofa basic model specified in a test notice shall not exceed twenty. unless units that are supplied fail to complete the test. All test data conductedunder enforcement testing at a designated laboratory shall constitute official test data for thatbasic model. Such test data will be used by DOE for determination ofcompliance or noncompliance ofthe**ba~c** model being audited in accordance with applicable provisions ofthe rule ifsufficient number oftests have been conducted in accordance with AppendixA ofthis 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 extentprovided in appropriation Acts. Tes.ting at the independent laboratory may be witnessed by the manufacturer. orhis designated representative. 

### 6.5.2 Enforcement Testing

Unless otherwise specified. DOE will require a first test sample size offour units. Fewer than four units may be specified in the first test sample by DOE. but in those situations no compliance ornoncompliance 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 ofthe 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 ofalternative basic models where the selectedbasic model is unavailable for testing.

DOE may seek ajudicial orde: restraining a manufacturerfrom distributing in commerce any covered product with respect to which a manufacturerrefuses to comply with the provisions ofa test notice issued by DOE pursuant to the rule orrefuses to comply with any ofthe applicable provisions ofthe rule. 

### 6.5.1 SupplyofProductsfor 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 retestable44024 

### Federal Register / Va!. 45. 

### No. 

### 127 /**~fonday.** 

### June 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules

Table &-<i.-ManlJfacturer First Year C/cCosts
(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 certification testing.

Certification testing requires the testing offour or more production units by the manufacturer. The estimates given are based on an assumption that 75 percent ofall basic models will be certified with a sample size of4·and that the remaining 25 percent will require an average sample size of6. This gives an average sample size offive production units per basic model tested for certification. In addition. it is assumed that 20 percent ofall models are new, and that an average oftwo 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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. RefngeralorslRelrigerators-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 ofthe field test. the ownership arrangement of the units. and the final disposition of the units.**6.~.5** 

### ImportedandExported

_ Proaucts. Noncomplying products may not be Imported into United States

commerce. Under the Act. the compliance ofimported products with energy efficiency standards is LInder the jurisdiction ofthe Department of the Treasury. DOE and the Department of the Treasury are currently working on
an agreement concerning the implementation ofthis 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 EstimatedManufacturer Test Costs Under the ProposedApproach.

Additional costs incurred by manufacturers as a result ofcertification and enforcement requirements of the proposed rule relate primarily to the cost ofmanufacturer certification testing. The cost ofsupplying 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 ofthe product certification report) are considered relatively small. DOE solicits comments

on tM cost impacts to manufacturers and private labelers ofthese requirements. /

Two types oftesting are involved in the proposed rule: certification testing by the manufacturer and enforcement audit testing by DOE. Table 6-8 presents upper bound estimates oftest-related**cos~s** to be incurred by manufacturers durmg the first year of the proposed , compliance ofeach 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 ofthe 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 noncompliantunits. ifany. 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 ProhibitedActs. The prohibited acts which subject a manufacturer or private labeler to assessment ofa civil penalty in accordance with Section 333 ofthe Act. are:

.

(1) Failure to permit access to; or copying ofrecords 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 ofa mariufacturer to supply at his expense a reasonable number ofcovered products. to a test laboratory designated by the Secretary'

(3)-Failure ofa 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 ofany
new covered product which·is not in**co~~liance** with an applicable energy efficIency standard prescribed under the Act and this rule.

The assessment ofsuch civil penalties**s~131l** be for a knowing violation ofa prohibited act. Such a violation is defined in the Act as: (1) the having of actual knowledge. or (2) the presumed having ofknowledge deemed to be possessed by a reasonable man who acts in the circumstances. including knowledge obtainable upon tlieexercise ofdue care.



### 6.6.4 Field Test Exemption. A field test exemption may be granted by the Secretary to 

## amanufacturer or private labeler. upon request. for the following purposes: research. investigations. studies. demonstrations. or training. The request shall include the number ofunits

### 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 SmallManufacturer Concerns. DOErecognizes that the proposed rules will not impact all manufacturers in the

same way. and is particularly sensitive to potential adverse impacts on small manufacturers. Particularconcernhas been expressed by small manufacturers about (1) the possible need for large capital investments in new test facilities. and. (2) the extentto which manufacturer test facilities and technical staffwill 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.-UncertaintyofMeastires ofEfficiency Determined-UsingDOE TestProcIiIdUfes 

### 6.8 Additional CertIfication and. EnforcementIssues.

6.8.1 Relationship between DOE EnforcementofStandards andIndustry Trade Association Programs. The

. Department ofEnergy's proposed rules include no utilization ofexisting or potential trade association testing and certification programs. (The manufacturer, ofcourse, may utilize such programs in order to accomplish testing required for product certification.

as long as all requirements ofthe proposed r'ule are accomplished.) DOE realizes thatnot all manufacturers 

### are represented in the industry trade association prpgrams. DOEhas

. proposed a certification and enforcementplan for each ofthe covered products that will be applicable to all manufacturers and private labelers.

Considerationby DOE oftrade association programs as they may impact DOE's enforcement approach requires an investigation ofseveral issues to determine whether the public will be better servedthrough the utilization ofthese programs. DOE solicits comments on:

(1) The effectiveness ofliaison and advisory functions served to industry by trade associations and the extent to which these functions canbe utilizedby DOE;

(2) The potential benefits and.

. concerns ofutilizing trade aSSOCIations

. as an intermediary betweenDOE and

manufacturers;

.

(3) The criteria which shouldbe establishedfor initial acceptability of specific trade association programs and for monitoring the performance ofthese programs:

(4) How could the use oftrade association programs distribute costs
more equitably between large and small manufacturers;

(5) To the extentthatDOE enforcementinvolves the use of proprietary information. could the use of trade associations mitigate the concerns ofmanufacturers without decreasingthe usefulness ofenforcementinformation; and

(6) The ability ofDOE and the trade association to agree upon proceduresfor establishing the utility ofspecific trade association programs to assistDOE's program objectives.

DOE decision concerning possible utilization ofindustry trade association programs awaits further investigation of these issues. DOE requests comments on the applicability ofindustryprograms for incorporation into the DOE's certification and enforcementprogram. 

### 6.8.2 Test VariabilityAmong DIfferent TestFacilities. In**accord~nce** with today's proposedrule. the testmg conducted to enforce the energy efficiency standards for consumer products would be conducted attesting laboratories selected by DOE. Such test results would be compared to the prescribed energy efficiency standard for the class ofconsumerproduct 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 evaluatedprocedures ofexisting industrv certification programs for' using testingiaboratories to determine compliance. DOE notes that the approach ofthese industry certification

•programs is the same as that ofthe

proposed DOE enforcementprogram. I.e., the results ofthe tests conductedby the designated test laboratory are taken to be correct. regardless ofany difference between those results and the results obtainedby tests conducted at a manufacturer's test facility.

To enable participating consumer productmanufacturers to correlate test results obtained at theirown testfacility with those obtained at

### a certification testlaboratory, industry certification ' programs have sponsored "round-robin"· testprograms. (Round-robin testing involves testing units at more than one facility). After a sufficientnumberof round-robin tests havebeen conducted.

a manufactureris able to predict the test results thatwould be obtainedby a testing laboratory for a particularunit based on theresults oftests conducted at his own facility.

Toward quantifying the variability in testresults to be expectedbetween different testfacilities. DOErequested the National Bureau ofStandards to evaluate this factor for all ofthe DOE test procedures for consumerproducts.

. To make these determinations. NBS.

calculated the combined effect ofthe contribution ofallowable test conditions

or test measurement tolerances specified in the measures ofefficiencies ofeach ofthe testprocedures. 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. Forresults ofthe 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 estimatepotential 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. 0uaI**~lUnt** control wloanlillweal...- heater switch

_ 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 <20KBtu/'" 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

### 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 ofa Rule to Supersede a State Appliance Energy Use

or Efficiency Standard:' This subpart

was issued pursuant to section 327(bJ(l) ofEPCA which provided for the preemption ofState energy efficiency standards once Federal standards were prescribed. States and manufacturers hadthe 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 ofautomattc preemption ofState. standards prescribed after January 1. 1978. This automatic preemption ofstandards ends

on July 1. 1980. for the thirteen consumer products listed in section 322(a) ofthe 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 ofwhen 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 ofprooffor

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) ofthe 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 ofup to 24 months from the date such rule is prescribed for all or part ofthe energy efficiency standards. In establishing eligibility for the exemption. the annual gross revenues ofany 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 ofthis subpart is to enable manufacturers who could not comply with the standards to continue operations for a period ofup to two years.

Sechon 430.54 details the relevant information which mustbe 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 ofthe coveredproduct: estimates ofthe total costs and schedule necessary to comply with the applicable standard: a list ofproducts manufactured by applicant and dollarvolume ofsales for eachtype or class ofcovered product: a list ofprincipal manufacturers ofthe covered product and theirrespective 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 ofthe exemption period. applicant will be able to comply with the standard.

. .

Section430.55 outlines the steps applicant must take in filing the application. and the requirement that applicant is to notify all known manufacturers ofdomestically marketed units ofsimilarproduct type ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofcompetition. Such a finding is required for each exemption granted. The decisionreached 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. etseq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions ofNEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). DOE stated in the advance notice that it would prepare an Environmental Assessment on the impact ofsetting energy efficiency standards for the affected product types covered by this proposed rule. Subsequent to publication ofthe 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 ofall 13

consumerproducts.

The analyses indicated that air pollution and commitments ofland'and energy resources will decrease as a result ofreducing future energy demand through the proposed standards. For example. emissions ofsulfur oxides are projected to be reduced by up to 1.1. X 10 6tons peryear and oxides of nitrogen by up to 423.000 tons per year:

. commitments ofland 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 offly ash and .75 to 1.36 X 10 Btons per year ofbottom ash.

Indoor air/quality was found to be not significantly affected by implementation. ofstandards. The exact effect could not be measured because the design options that will be selected by manufactllrers for improving the efficiency ofgasburning 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% oftotal U.S. production. Projected increases in the use ofcopper. 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

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 45. 

### No. 127 

### IMonday. June 30. 1980 

## I Proposed Rules ·1,4027

pollution.whichwouldnothave occurred without the program. This amount was estimated to have no significant effect onfuture environmentalquality.

The Environmental Assessment also summarizes the socioeconomic impacts ofthe program in a number ofareas: diange in thelife cycle costs for

consumers: the differential impact ofthe programonvarious income groups: change in the profitability to manufacturers ofconsumerproducts: the value ofthe program to the Nation

as a whole and to various regions ofthe country: and secondary effects ofthe program on the national economy, including effeats on employment. inflation. gross national product. and balance oftrade. These socioeconomic impacts are more fully treatedin the "Economic Analysis Document." TSD No.4

Alternatives to the energy efficiency standards as proposed were assessed from the perspective ofenvironmental impact. None ofthe 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 greaterdegree dian the proposed action were not selected for economic reasons.

Based on its evaluation ofthe Environmental Assessment. DOE has reached a finding ofno significant impact regarding energy efficiency standards for consumerproducts, and therefore no environmental impact statementis required. The "Environmental Assessment." TSD No.2 is available upon request. as indicated at the beginning ofthis notice.

410. Regulatory Analysis

Executive Order 12044. "Improving Government Regulations" (43 FR 12661. March 14. 1978), directs that all Federal regulations·achieve theirintended 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 majorregulations. 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 ofconsumer products. Accordingly. a.DraftRegulatory Analysis has been.prepared.

The RegulatoryAnalysis is summarized below. This summary focuses on the major alternatives considered in arriving atthe proposed approach to improving the energy efficiencygfconsumerproducts. The readerisrefe1'red to the complete draft "Reguiatory Analysis." TSD No.1,

. which will be available f{)r public COmment as indicated at the beginning ofthis notice. It consists of: (1) a statement ofthe problemaddressed by this regulation. and the mandate for. government action: (2) a description and analysis ofthe feasible policy alternatives to this regulation: {3) a quantitative comparison ofthe impacts ofthe alternatives: (4) the economic impactofthe proposed standard; (5) an analysis ofurban and community impacts: and (6) other regulations and programs that might be affected by this regulation.


### 10.1

. MajorAlternatives

10.1.1 Alternatives for Achieving ConsumerProductEnergy 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 ofits ability to achieve**sig~ificant energy~**  savings at reasonable costs. and has been compared to the effectiveness ofthe proposed regulation.

If"no regulatory action" were taken, then no standards wouldbe implemented for any ofthe 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 ofenergy 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 ofthese alternatives are mandated by the Act. and are currently underway. Consumer product standards. labeling. and consumereducationwere designed by Congress to act together to promote energy conservation in the residential sector. DOE has determined thaJ neitherthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe thousands ofmodels of

consumerproducts produced. The time an.d costs involved with doing this would be prohibitive, and the results would tend to stifle comRetition in the industry.

Anothermethod ofprescribing standards would entail requiring that certain design options be used on each product. The effect ofthis alternative would be to lower energy savings while increasing the cost ofregulation and decreasing competition in theindustry.

Financial-incentives are anothergroup ofalternatives thathave been considered. They include tax credits, rebates. low interestfinancing and loan guarantees. Rebates for the purchase of

more efficient consumerproducts were found to have costs which could significantly outweighbenefits. This alternative. althoughpotentially beneficial to consumers, would provide limited incentives to manufacturers for the production ofmore efficient products. The length oftime overwhich the rebate would be extended was also

a factor in rejecting this alternative. A long-term program couldbe very costly. while a short-term programmay not achieve lasting benefits.

The alternative ofproviding tax

- incentives for purchasing or manufacturirrg energy efficient products

was also consideredby DOE. Many of the same problems that were anticipated in the rebate alternative were also pertinent to this alternative. In both programs. the majority ofthe 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

consumerbasis. 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 ofenergy efficient products

### 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 ofenergy 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 underthe 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 ofthe legislation to provide for immediate establishment ofmandatory 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) requiredjo be achieved by each product type. but will not prescribe the means by which that level is to 

### be reached. The levels are specifiedby energy factors which relate' 

### to the energy efficieney ofthe particular producttype. The MEELs vary from

. productto product. depending UpOD

, their design limitations.



### ExpectedImpacts of Program Alternatives 

### In Table 10.1-1, each ofthe program' alternatives are evaluated in terms of their expected energy savings. costs. feasibility and national net present value. M the comparison shows. the proposed approachresults in

.. appreciablyhigherenergy savings and a greaternational Det presentvalue than any ofthe alternatives:

10.1.2 Alternatives Available Within the Proposed Approach. Within the legal framework ofthe Act there are several alternatives available to DOE in setting performance standards. These include various national regulatory levels. regional regulatory levels for certain

consumerproduct 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 ofthe 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,tneEqulty 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

AIt

..

# natl~ 1--------.:::'>1-------,-----

--------- ---------+--

T<l

.. Cr",11 ts ICoustlm"rat 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'ur**chae~** of energy efficient product tIo Hone,. other Lhan legislative H.lY favor Jaeq" 1M1l'" aCJ:t\rers Could Loe

t

...**~le"'ly ---~--I------I-----t-------I----:------I---I-~------l--------'-**  

### --.-.-------

Mlnlm

.. 1

Ilftallunahle HJIllmal re(IO,Uu9 but ""lenslvo t"lltlu9

None

Not AIlt.1- (;oml.etltl Ve Hay reduce numher of lllO<IelB and cOl'l'etltlnn

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,lmlnlstratlon



## ------------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